Natural selection v Intelligent design

[paulm50]

Trouble is, that this line of reasoning means that every religion is true, which all state that every other religion other than itself is false. Since that can't be, there must be another explanation as to why religious adherents believe they experience the things that their religion tells them that they will.

The power of the brain is something we are only beginning to understand.

People believe they have seen Aliens, even been abducted by them. If it's only reliant on eye witness statements, Aliens have to exist.

People have believed in many false things, people swearing they were cured by a false preacher, or a false relic. Until it's proven by science, it's only eye witness.

I survived cancer, that was meant to kill me. My will to live or a god I don't believe in. Or a doctor being too pessimistic?

 

[pshun2404]

That's the same argument the Catholics used when burning people for campaigning for the bible to be in people's native language.

Science can prove your kettle is boiling, it's called a whistle. Science can't prove of disprove there being a god, it can prove the people who wrote Genesis, were making it up. And have done time and time again.

He has already said he can't. It's a situation of believing something with no tangible evidence, or something with tangible evidence.

Science cannot prove why...

And no I said no one can one way or the other so "prove God or you are wrong" is not a matter for such a discussion. God is not falsifiable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No! Not at all! I believe 99% follow laws and obey unavoidable principles necessitated by the multitude of forces in play!

So you acknowledge that accident vs design is a false dichotomy and that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems.

What? That's not accurate at all. Populations evolve, not individual cells.

Cells did not evolve? Wow! I was speaking of how cells came to be...functional human DNA could not have preceded the cell, and the cell could not have preceded functional human DNA...not to speak of the subsystems that also must be functional and inplace for the DNA to serve and perform its function...the cells proteins are all formed by the DNA but the DNA can only form them INSIDE a functional cell...

This is just gibberish. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And no I said no one can one way or the other so "prove God or you are wrong" is not a matter for such a discussion. God is not falsifiable.

Neither is the invisible dragon in my garage.

 

[pshun2404]

1 Already being done in a lab

2 Still it proves there was no design element

3 So you don't support the bible myth.

1) Really? Show me...

2) Even your side admits there is design

3) Not your twisted version...

 

[pshun2404]

1 So you acknowledge that accident vs design is a false dichotomy and that natural processes are capable of producing complex systems.

2 This is just gibberish. I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

1 No it is the Darwinians (not necessarily you) that espouse slow gradual evolution by random chemical coincidence...I realize many scientists who believe in Natural Selection no longer adhere to this

2 No it is not gibberish it is rock solid verifiable reality reach what ever conclusions you wish but the FACT of what I said cannot be denied only argued away by unfounded speculation...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

1 No it is the Darwinians (not necessarily you) that espouse slow gradual evolution by random chemical coincidence...I realize many scientists who believe in Natural Selection no longer adhere to this

2 No it is not gibberish it is rock solid verifiable reality reach what ever conclusions you wish but the FACT of what I said cannot be denied only argued away by unfounded speculation...

I'm not sure what "fact" you are referring to. What you wrote was unintelligible to me. I couldn't discern any "facts" among the gibberish.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm not sure what "fact" you are referring to.

That human cells cannot exist without functional DNA by which they are formed, and the DNA is only functional in the context of an extant living cell, and finally that one does not (in fact cannot) precede the other...

I am sorry if your mind cannot wrap around this (unintelligible to you) or the implications the above mentioned fact holds. I realize it is counter to the program (I was there once).

 

[pshun2404]

The power of the brain is something we are only beginning to understand.

People believe they have seen Aliens, even been abducted by them. If it's only reliant on eye witness statements, Aliens have to exist.

People have believed in many false things, people swearing they were cured by a false preacher, or a false relic. Until it's proven by science, it's only eye witness.

I survived cancer, that was meant to kill me. My will to live or a god I don't believe in. Or a doctor being too pessimistic?

Probably a bit of all these but good to hear you made it....

 

[pshun2404]

Human cells cannot exist without functional DNA by which they are formed, and the DNA is only functional in the context of an extant living cell, and finally that one does not (in fact cannot) precede the other...

I think this is the case for all cells but maybe not...What are implications for the first cells?

 

[paulm50]

Science cannot prove why...

And no I said no one can one way or the other so "prove God or you are wrong" is not a matter for such a discussion. God is not falsifiable.

As you or I can't prove or disprove there's a god. We are left with what people claim he says, wants, demands, or tell us stories about him.

1) Really? Show me...

2) Even your side admits there is design

3) Not your twisted version...

1. Google it.
2. Links please.
3. As there and your version is twisted. I'm sticking to it being fictional.

 

[paulm50]

1 No it is the Darwinians (not necessarily you) that espouse slow gradual evolution by random chemical coincidence...I realize many scientists who believe in Natural Selection no longer adhere to this

2 No it is not gibberish it is rock solid verifiable reality reach what ever conclusions you wish but the FACT of what I said cannot be denied only argued away by unfounded speculation...

Darwin had no idea about "slow gradual evolution by random chemical coincidence". His theory is based on reproduction producing the best suited to the environment and has been proven to be right over and over again. Further proof is in the food we eat and pats we keep, as well as so much more.

That's it I'm done discussing this with you.

 

[stevevw]

Evidence?

What sort of evidence would you like. If its a picture of God planting that evidence then I'm afraid I cant give you that at the moment. But if its the indirect evidences that we see then there are many. Its a bit the same for scientists using the indirect evidence they use to prove their theories.

Then you don't care enough about the question.

You are assuming I dont care and dont inquire into the other questions. said they are not as important not irrelevant. But when you talk about something like how did life begin then thats something science will never answer empirically. It doesn't mean we should not investigate what life is. But when we cant find the answers in science we have to consider something beyond that.

When science is no longer the answer and the possibility that there is more to life than we see around us then things begin to change. Then the consideration that there is something like a creator behind things it becomes more than materialism. That is when the why becomes more important. Even scientists turn to explanations that are very speculative and at times out of this world. So the why becomes an important question as well. To Christians it is the most important.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What sort of evidence would you like. If its a picture of God planting that evidence then I'm afraid I cant give you that at the moment. But if its the indirect evidences that we see then there are many. Its a bit the same for scientists using the indirect evidence they use to prove their theories.

Show us this evidence.

You are assuming I dont care and dont inquire into the other questions. said they are not as important not irrelevant. But when you talk about something like how did life begin then thats something science will never answer empirically.

On what do you base this conclusion?

It doesn't mean we should not investigate what life is. But when we cant find the answers in science we have to consider something beyond that.

No, if we don't know then we don't know. That doesn't justify making things up and pretending to know the answer.

When science is no longer the answer and the possibility that there is more to life than we see around us then things begin to change. Then the consideration that there is something like a creator behind things it becomes more than materialism.

Argument from ignorance appears to be your favourite fallacy.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not sure what "fact" you are referring to.

That human cells cannot exist without functional DNA by which they are formed, and the DNA is only functional in the context of an extant living cell, and finally that one does not (in fact cannot) precede the other...

I am sorry if your mind cannot wrap around this (unintelligible to you) or the implications the above mentioned fact holds. I realize it is counter to the program (I was there once).

Nope, sorry, can't make anything of this gibberish.

 

[stevevw]

Trouble is, that this line of reasoning means that every religion is true, which all state that every other religion other than itself is false. Since that can't be, there must be another explanation as to why religious adherents believe they experience the things that their religion tells them that they will.

When you just take belief into consideration as a human trait that is sort then yes many people are seeking something beyond themselves. But just because some come to different conclusions doesn't mean there may be only one God. If the natural inclination to seek God is in us then its easy to see how some can then substitute this for other gods and forms of belief. You could even say that beliefs in all the other things like astrology, crystals, money and all the schemes that promote a better life, health regimes that require a life commitment ect are all part of people seeking a meaning and a thing to worship in their lives that will give them meaning and the answers.

If the knowledge of God is in our hearts then people can easily find other ways to fill that void. Some will choose anything but God and create different philosophies. Some will seek material gains to fill that void. Some will worship money, people or organizations that give that promise. It can be easier to follow something that gives instant gratification. But the fact that so many are seeking may be a sign that there is something to there being a God out there somewhere. If not then evolution is creating this and causing the majority of people to look to these things.

 

[paulm50]

What sort of evidence would you like. If its a picture of God planting that evidence then I'm afraid I cant give you that at the moment. But if its the indirect evidences that we see then there are many. Its a bit the same for scientists using the indirect evidence they use to prove their theories.

Every religion has their bible and their god. What Christians can do is prove the bible is right and it wasn't written by Men. Genesis is correct, evidence of the Flood, Exodus, Jericho, etc. As written in the bible that Christians claim as the word of god.

You are assuming I dont care and dont inquire into the other questions. said they are not as important not irrelevant. But when you talk about something like how did life begin then thats something science will never answer empirically. It doesn't mean we should not investigate what life is. But when we cant find the answers in science we have to consider something beyond that.

Sciense has answered the question about creationism as the bible presents it. Creationists just move their argument beck to areas we are still discovering and learning about or use falsehoods to make outrageous claims.
[/QUOTE]
When science is no longer the answer and the possibility that there is more to life than we see around us then things begin to change. Then the consideration that there is something like a creator behind things it becomes more than materialism. That is when the why becomes more important. Even scientists turn to explanations that are very speculative and at times out of this world. So the why becomes an important question as well. To Christians it is the most important.[/QUOTE]Yes when science stops learning, we can rely on myth. Now you need to establish your myth is the right one.

Creationist. intelligent design has been discredited so many time it's amazing some still believe in it. The only part we're unsure about is the Big Bang, from there with some small variations in a few theories, the evidence is in and coming in all the time.

Watch the program "Our Inner Fish" and see the links see the evidence some claim isn't there.

 

[paulm50]

When you just take belief into consideration as a human trait that is sort then yes many people are seeking something beyond themselves. But just because some come to different conclusions doesn't mean there may be only one God. If the natural inclination to seek God is in us then its easy to see how some can then substitute this for other gods and forms of belief. You could even say that beliefs in all the other things like astrology, crystals, money and all the schemes that promote a better life, health regimes that require a life commitment ect are all part of people seeking a meaning and a thing to worship in their lives that will give them meaning and the answers.

There may be a god. The reason for different religions has nothing to do with god. It's about power. OT and NT were created to increase power. They have been used ever since then to maintain and increase power.

If the knowledge of God is in our hearts then people can easily find other ways to fill that void. Some will choose anything but God and create different philosophies. Some will seek material gains to fill that void. Some will worship money, people or organizations that give that promise. It can be easier to follow something that gives instant gratification. But the fact that so many are seeking may be a sign that there is something to there being a God out there somewhere. If not then evolution is creating this and causing the majority of people to look to these things.

If believing makes you happy, then fine. I find happiness in my family, and life. I see a lot of religious people filling their lives with material things. Christians very much wrap their lives around it.

Yes as you say many want to believe in something, the promise of an afterlife was enough to make many Romans convert. Is it true? No one has come back to give a real account. Some may give accounts of a light, which is very vague and only oral testimony.

Where as, Evolution isn't a belief that can't be proven. It's backed up over and over again with physical evidence.

The number of people seeking an answer, in educated countries, is getting lower all the time. Some American Christians want evolution to be banned from schools, to shore up their support. Like Muslims, who don't want women taught, and nothing that strays outside their tight beliefs, they understand the power behind brainwashing people young. Jews also use this technique.

The continual debate of Creationism, Intelligent Design, Genesis Myth against overwhelming evidence, makes the Christians look foolish. And misses the chance to concentrate on the good things in the bible.

 

[pshun2404]

Nope, sorry, can't make anything of this gibberish.

Then sadly there is a problem in your ability to process logical reasoning if it disagrees with your programming (similar to someone who is inundated with a cult's propaganda loop). Either that or you are ignorant of human biology. An objective person must be able to think outside the box.

The reasoning is scientifically sound (I gave examples)....

1. For DNA to function it must do so in the context of a living cell...

a) Functional DNA (in fact just DNA itself) does not exist outside of a living system.

b) It is the DNA that encodes for ALL proteins that make up the cell (including those in the cell membrane that make it functional)

2. For a cell to exist (even the membrane must have their essential proteins present to function as a cell membrane...its semi-permeability depends on this) it has to have been "made" according to the instructions encoded in the DNA. This means

a) the transcription/translation processes MUST be working

b) this precludes the interactive existence of RNA

Therefore the Cell CANNOT exist without the genetic material's instructions and the genetic material that encodes for these proteins CANNOT encode for them (or produce them) outside of a living system. Since these two things are entirely INTERDEPENDENT (in symbiosis), this means that one cannot have been partially evolved before the other formed at any time.

Only partial evolvement of DNA would not produce the correct sequence and structure of the necessary proteins and an only evolving cell wall CANNOT happen without the direction of genetic materials already being inplace and functioning properly in relation to one another.

If you think that is "gibberish" then either you are simply denying the obvious or else you need to get an education in this area before you speak to it (however you should not need this to understand what I have said).

Paul

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then sadly there is a problem in your ability to process logical reasoning if it disagrees with your programming (similar to someone who is inundated with a cult's propaganda loop).

No, I think it's your ability to communicate your ideas.

The reasoning is scientifically sound (I gave examples)....

1. For DNA to function it must do so in the context of a living cell...

a) Functional DNA (in fact just DNA itself) does not exist outside of a living system.

b) It is the DNA that encodes for ALL proteins that make up the cell (including those in the cell membrane that make it functional)

2. For a cell to exist (even the membrane must have their essential proteins present to function as a cell membrane...its semi-permeability depends on this) it has to have been "made" according to the instructions encoded in the DNA. This means

a) the transcription/translation processes MUST be working

b) this precludes the interactive existence of RNA

Therefore the Cell CANNOT exist without the genetic material's instructions and the genetic material that encodes for these proteins CANNOT encode for them (or produce them) outside of a living system. Sine these two things are entirely INTERDEPENDANT (in symbiosis), this means that one cannot have been partially evolved before the other formed at any time.

Cool story bro. But what is the larger point you are trying to make? Who said that DNA and the cell must have evolved independently?

Only partial evolvement of DNA would not produce the correct sequence and structure of the necessary proteins and an only evolving cell wall CANNOT happen without the direction of genetic materials already being inplace and functioning properly in relation to one another.

Is this more "irreducible complexity" nonsense? "Oh, but if you take one part away - just one - the whole thing falls apart!" Nope. See the example of the bacterial flagellum.

If you think that is "gibberish" then either you are simply denying the obvious or else you need to get an education in this area before you speak to it (however you should not need this to understand what I have said).

No, I really do think it's your communication that is at fault here. I have some background in biology and can barely decipher what point you think you are making.