Answering Questions on Creation and Creationism

[Naraoia]

I'll bet you if you looked it up in a modern dictionary, it would even
give a reference to DNA.

As it happens, one of the examples of usage in the OED does contain the word DNA (in a quote from The Independent on Sunday). Now how is that relevant here?

I don't think I've ever disputed that DNA contains information. What I have done is ask you (repeatedly) to define it in an objective and quantitative way, which is necessary for us to debate whether information can arise naturally.

Not going to argue here right now. Maybe I will come back in a few
months and actually debate,

I hope you can actually debate, because this thread was majorly disappointing.

but based on what I am seeing here, I don't think it will matter what argument I put up, a living cell and our inability to even reassemble it is than enough proof for me.

"Oooh! People expect me to back up my assertions!"

What outrage.

 

[Naraoia]

Somethings appear random because of our lack of knowledge and ability to see pattern and order, but this does not necessarily make it so.

~Michael

And "does not necessarily make it so" =/= "ain't that way".

 

[Naraoia]

But the point is that "God did not deceive me." I was deceived because I
was fed universal common ancestry by others who believed and were
teaching it.

I asked why you decided that universal common descent is deception. You've said umpteen times that you think it is, but you never gave reasons. I'm interested in your reasons. (And don't even try those big rhetorical air bubbles of yours. I study evolutionary biology at university, and I think I'm far from being the most knowledgeable evolutionist here.)

Alternatively, if it's intruding too much upon your privacy then don't tell me - but if you refuse to support the point, you might as well drop it.

Scientists keep making the pseudo claim that the creation is deceptive.

What is a pseudoclaim? Something that looks like a claim but isn't? Does that make sense to anyone?

Bologna. If they would start from foundational assumptions then they
would know the need for divine revelation to interpret evidence.

Foundational assumptions? Such as (1) Goddidit, (2) if we can't find any evidence that Goddidit, he still did it?

(I could use some divine revelation in interpreting the results from my latest lab, though )

There are plenty of people studying science who are NOT deceived, and they are constantly mocked and ridiculed by those who claim that ...

Has it never occurred to you that they are ridiculed because they hold ridiculous views?

(By the way, if I may ask, what exactly is your level of science education?)

"if what they believe isn't true then the creation is deceptive."

Can you translate this half-sentence?

They are in for a very "eye opening" experience on judgement day.
And Romans 1:20 will be more than clear! (as it is to those who know
that God is factual now)
~Michael

Scaaaare tactics! Why are you suddenly using that, do you think your stance is a bit shaky?

 

[paug]

There are two kinds of people - those who accept evolution, and those who don't understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are two kinds of people - those who accept evolution, and those who don't understand it.

Put me down as one who doesn't understand it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Put me down as one who doesn't understand it.

Already done -- in fact, if you prefer, we can subclassify you as one who willfilly chooses not to understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Already done -- in fact, if you prefer, we can subclassify you as one who willfilly chooses not to understand.

Okay --- that's even better; but if it helps any, just put this down: HE WAS BORN IGNORANT, AND HE WILL DIE IGNORANT.

 

[Breckmin]

which is necessary for us to debate whether information can arise naturally.

I think this statement pretty much sums up what is going on here.

This is just about meaningless debate, and NOT about a search for truth
or a quest for true knowledge regarding complex schematic information
needing an Intelligent Informant or Author for the Information.

Deep down inside your hearts, I believe that you know what it is true.
That you know that there is an order and complexity to the universe
that points to a Supreme Being, it is just that you are more interested
in meaningless debate, than in the knowledge of the things of God.

There is only one remedy for this condition:

That is the Spirit of God, lifting the veil off of thousands of inductions.
My hopes and prayers go with you. I will continue to pray that love
will pierce the heart of a child of God.
~Michael

 

[Naraoia]

I think this statement pretty much sums up what is going on here.

This is just about meaningless debate, and NOT about a search for truth
or a quest for true knowledge regarding complex schematic information
needing an Intelligent Informant or Author for the Information.

Deep down inside your hearts, I believe that you know what it is true.
That you know that there is an order and complexity to the universe
that points to a Supreme Being, it is just that you are more interested
in meaningless debate, than in the knowledge of the things of God.

There is only one remedy for this condition:

That is the Spirit of God, lifting the veil off of thousands of inductions.
My hopes and prayers go with you. I will continue to pray that love
will pierce the heart of a child of God.
~Michael

Yes, and deep down in your heart you recognise the might of Russell's Teapot. </sarcasm>

Could you please stop presuming things about people (I can tell you you're way off the mark in my case...) and weaseling out of things and address the issue of information instead?

Really, I'm not in the least touched by your spiritual blather. Believe it or not, there was a time when I wished there was a god. I wished really hard but it wasn't there, so now I'd be very hard pressed to find that "knowledge" "deep down inside my heart".

So could we get back to your definition of information please? Assuming that you hope to convince me (or anyone), you'd better descend from the clouds and deal with the observable world. Thanks.

 

[paug]

This is what really gets to me. So many creationists boast this hubristic, holier-than-thou attitude (not explicit, I know, but I'm reading between the lines). Just today I was thinking about it when creationists say "there is so much beauty and order in the world, how could it arise by chance?". I'm gonna try to sum up what I think about this:

There does appear to be order and beauty in the world (let's ignore for a second all the suffering + entropy). The fact that we see something as orderly, or beautiful, doesn't, in my mind, attest to a creator. This is the way we see and perceive things in our world, and it will most definitely change with the observer. I'm not sure if anyone really understands at all what I'm trying to get at - i haven't had much time to refine this thought. Saying that Order and Beauty are the products of a Creator and/or Author is assuming that Order and Beauty are objective and absolute, or that there exists some benchmark for these.

Which of course is a complete lie.

OK crap, I just lost my train of throught. Oh well.


PS Atheists and followers of non-Christian religions also cherish the same beauty that you chalk up to your preferred deity. Saying it was magicked into existence doesn't make it any more impressive.

 

[Naraoia]

Paug, that's a very good point.

In fact, my experience is that understanding a natural system only increases the wonder. I mean, for years I was taught what enzymes do in vague terms like yeah, substrate sort of fits the active site, there are these and these kinds of chemical interactions, yadda yadda. Then in first year molecular biology someone actually came along and gave the details on one specific enzyme. And that was probably when I first realised enzymes were interesting.

So many times I get acquainted with a system and the understanding comes with that feeling of "wow, that's so neat!". I don't know if people who rarely even try to understand how things work can appreciate that.

 

[agentorange20]

I think this statement pretty much sums up what is going on here.

It sure does, she's asking for you to define in a quantifiable way, what 'information' means, so far, nada from you. Until you get to a mutual agreement on that by defining your stance on 'information', discussing issues of either natural processes as origins becomes pointless.

This is just about meaningless debate,

Wellll, it doesn't have to be meaningless, but retort on evidence like GULO, ERV"s, Chromosome 2 fusion, those hominid fossils I posted up, the evidence from SINES, LINES, transposons or retro elements. All we ever hear is a vauage 'goddidit' anway without really refering to the evidence directly, nor how they show common descent. The best is when you just scream 'common descent is wrong' and without batting an eye don't mention the evidence or reasoning.

quest for true knowledge regarding complex schematic information needing an Intelligent Informant or Author for the Information.

But hurricanes are awefully complex and indeed specified, but they don't require a designer poofing them into being, they exist as a matter of consequence with regrds to how natural processes work.

 

[paug]

Ahaa! Maybe what I mean with my last post was that when we look at things and see beauty in them, it's not that the object itself is beautiful. It's more that we just happen to perceive them as beautiful. This is why the "Stuff is beautiful - hence God" argument continues to humour me.

 

[Breckmin]

But hurricanes are awefully complex and indeed specified, but they don't require a designer poofing them into being, they exist as a matter of consequence with regrds to how natural processes work.

Hurricanes distroy order, they don't create order. Furthermore, if the
processes of wind or low and high pressures or any of the other factors
related to the weather are already in place because of a Creator, then
your whole argument is moot.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hurricanes distroy order, they don't create order.

But you aren't responding to a comment on what hurricanes do, rather what they are. A hurricane starts off as an atmospheric disturbance that grows to a massive, highly regular storm.

Furthermore, if the
processes of wind or low and high pressures or any of the other factors
related to the weather are already in place because of a Creator, then
your whole argument is moot.

The whole point of Intelligent Design is that it denies this possibility: it states that natural processes cannot explain certain specific physical events or structures. The possibility that a deity put those laws into motion in the first place wouldn't be creationism at all, but would rather be more akin to deism or theistic evolution. It's still wrong, but at least more rational than creationism.

 

[Sophophile]

Hurricanes distroy order, they don't create order. Furthermore, if the
processes of wind or low and high pressures or any of the other factors
related to the weather are already in place because of a Creator, then
your whole argument is moot.

Hi Breckmin.

What you have stated here is a theistic evolutionist argument. Theistic evolution and ID contradict each other on the crucial point of whether God works evolution through natural processes.

Cheers
S.

 

[Breckmin]

But you aren't responding to a comment on what hurricanes do, rather what they are.

Actually the point in comparison is regarding useful information. I used
schematic information, but that is beside the point. The issue is complex
information that can be translated and communicated and recognized.
A hurricane is a poor example and incongruous to information that will
be used to encode polypeptides.

A hurricane starts off as an atmospheric disturbance that grows to a massive, highly regular storm.

And if these so called "natural" laws are the result of an Infinite God
who created them, then the whole point is clearly moot.

The whole point of Intelligent Design is that it denies this possibility:

Fiction postulates ridiculous possibility. Real science is based on what is observed.

it states that natural processes cannot explain certain specific physical events or structures.

What is "natural?" Please explain how you know that natural is the
place to start? How do you know you are testing so called "natural"
processes? What is natural? How is natural completely independent
of super natural? How do you know that you are not testing processes
which are sustained by supernatural force? Supernatural order? How
do you know that order can exist apart from the supernatural?
At what point do you know how to differentiate between natural, unnatural and supernatural?

The possibility that a deity put those laws into motion in the first place wouldn't be creationism at all, but would rather be more akin to deism or theistic evolution.

Since I used to be this and considered myself a creationist at the time, I
will not make an issue of it. There are far to many other problems here
to dissect rather than distinguishing between the different forms of
creationism.

It's still wrong, but at least more rational than creationism.

It is only rational when you are still stuck in 10's of thousands of inductions which point in the wrong direction. Deceptions make sense,
otherwise people wouldn't believe them. Sometimes the real truth is the
one that seems the most foolish on the surface, but when you get down
to basic assumptions you will see the superior logic of deduction vs.
inductions which lead to error.

 

[Breckmin]

Same band. Same faulty system of interpreting scientific data

Theistic evolution and ID contradict each other on the crucial point of whether God works evolution through natural processes.

Since so many IDers believe in universal common descent, I don't see the
contradiction. It seems to be this new proud wave for people claiming to
be Christians and TE'ist to reject ID and claim that it is faith based. This
ignores evidence. This ignoring of evidence is true ignorance until the
alleged evidence is considered honestly.

The only issue is what the Creator thinks, not what we are incorrect about.

It is the nature of truth, facts and reality to be in and of themselves
dogmatic. Our job is to discover what God already knows is reality.

 

[Breckmin]

dispute

There are two kinds of people - those who accept evolution, and those who don't understand it.

This simpleton view doesn't deal with all of the people who understood
it and believed it and bought into it hook line and sinker and then discovered
the foundational starting points of circular reasoning and 10's of
thousands of inductions which led to their aggregate deception.

It also doesn't differentiate between evolution that is observed and
universal common descent of all species. It is actually those who
never had enough foresight to question the circular reasoning going
on (with assumptions of natural requiring conclusions of natural) that
truly demonstrate they do not understand their own belief structure
which lead them down a slippery road with 10's of thousands of
inductions which crumble when dissected at their base.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually the point in comparison is regarding useful information. I used schematic information, but that is beside the point. The issue is complex information that can be translated and communicated and recognized. A hurricane is a poor example and incongruous to information that will be used to encode polypeptides.

I will grant that the information that specifies a hurricane is quite different in character from the information that specifies a genetic code. But the hurricane is a useful example to show how complex structures can form out of purely natural processes. Another useful example would be, say, a snowflake.

And if these so called "natural" laws are the result of an Infinite God who created them, then the whole point is clearly moot.

But the problem with that hypothesis still remains that there isn't anyway of determining whether or not it's true. So in the mean time science will continue to move forward using hypotheses that can be determined true or false.

What is "natural?"

There are multiple ways to describe "natural", but I will use a relatively simple one: anything that is "natural" can be explicitly described in such a manner that it is possible to empirically determine whether the description is true or false.

Basically by definition, then, science can only deal with the natural. Any claim that can never, even in principle, be determined true or false lies under the realm of the supernatural and does not belong in science.

It is only rational when you are still stuck in 10's of thousands of inductions which point in the wrong direction.

How do you know they point in the wrong direction? Because I can present evidence that disagrees.

Deceptions make sense, otherwise people wouldn't believe them. Sometimes the real truth is the one that seems the most foolish on the surface, but when you get down to basic assumptions you will see the superior logic of deduction vs. inductions which lead to error.

Except you can't use deductive logic to determine whether or not any claim about the natural world is true or false. Inductive logic is all we have for these sorts of claims. And if you think it doesn't work, then, well, obviously you must not believe computers work either, or that airplanes fly, or that buildings stay standing.