PROOFS OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[KCfromNC]

It "flows naturally"? Wow. I´m impressed and almost convinced.
(Need to keep that one in mind in case I find myself in desperate need of bridging a logical gap.)

Add "we have it on good authority" and "is left as an exercise to the reader" for similarly useful phrases.

 

[Tinker Grey]

One wonders if we shall ever see the OP again.

 

[Speedwell]

You said that evolution could not have produced it. That's why I ask.

No, I was pointing out that a statement of the form "evolution could not possibly have produced the flagellum" nullifies the flagellum itself as evidence. What is necessary to support that statement is evidence that evolution could not possibly have produced the flagellum. The existence of the flagellum itself is not evidence of the "could not possibly" part.

If one asserts that evolution cannot produce the flagellum, then an alternate explanation is necessary.

 

[Radrook]

New traits have been observed to develop. Nylon-eating bacteria is a great example.

Mutations make random changes to the genome, there is a chance that any given change creates a increased statistical likelihood of survival. That and reproductive isolation is all evolution needs.

I've never seen a useful and measurable definition of the creationist version of "Information", but I'd be very interested if you have one.

All it needs?
Evolution also profits from a great dosage of extremely vivid imagination to fill in the many maws created by the gaping gaps.

 

[xianghua]

It might have been designed, but there are also possible evolutionary pathways based on random variation and selection which would work.

but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process? think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?

 

[Speedwell]

but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process?

Depends on the motor. Witrh regard to the flagellum rotor, there is a plausible evolution pathway to it, and no evidence it was designed.

think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE ABSENCE OF DESIGN. Go stand in the corner and repeat that to yourself 100 times.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There often seems to be some confusion or unintentional equivocation between the colloquial (teleological) meaning of information, e.g. data that has meaning, and the usage in science (information theory), where it is any arrangement or configuration of a system - which may be, but isn't necessarily, meaningful in any particular respect.

The information capacity of a system is the number of different ways its elements can be arranged. When the configuration of a system changes, its information changes; this can be considered to be new information if it's a novel configuration. For example, a binary system can have one of two states (a 'bit' of information). For a light switch, one state is associated with the information 'light on', and the other state is associated with 'light off'. The first time the switch goes from 'off' to 'on', it is in a new state - i.e. it has new information (typically associated with 'light on').

The information capacity of DNA is the number of ways its nucleotides can be ordered, and each ordering is unique information. In the case of a gene, a DNA sequence that codes for a protein, a change in the ordering or a substitution means the sequence represents different or new information. The relevant meaning of this new information depends on how the protein it codes for functions in the cell.

A single nucleotide change may slightly alter the way the protein folds into its 3D structure. It may make no difference to the protein's function, it may make it less effective, (occasionally) more effective, or completely ineffective. It may (rarely) make that protein have an effect on cell metabolism unrelated to the old version. If it no longer has any significant effect, the gene still has new information, it just means that new information is not meaningful in any relevant way to the cell.

Mutations in genes not only introduce new information by substitution or reordering, but they can insert or remove sequences of DNA. This can increase or decrease, respectively, the information content of the gene, but is still new information. A shorter sequence may produce a protein with a significant benefit to the cell, and a longer sequence may produce a protein that has no function for the cell. Functionality (utility) is not necessarily related to amount of information involved.

Mutations can significantly increase the effectiveness of protein function. In the early stages of cellular evolution, there was plenty of scope to improve on the crude functionality of early metabolism, particularly with enzymes. After 3.5 billion years of evolutionary progress, the scope for improvement is restricted, but changes in the environment mean that mutations can still provide an advantage even in sophisticated metabolisms.

Malarial resistance traits are classic examples of a mutation introducing new information which can be either beneficial or a disadvantage overall, depending on environmental conditions. With sickle-cell trait, having two mutated alleles can be a serious disadvantage, but is infrequent enough in a population to be far outweighed by the malaria resistance resulting from a single mutated allele - in populations where malaria is endemic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Things do not move from simple to complex. They move from complex to simple. That is what we observe...

This is just plain wrong. Things move from simple to complex and back again all the time - it's characteristic of the transition from low to high entropy in systems.

For example, a cup of coffee with cream floating on top, is a relative low entropy (highly ordered) system; it is also simple (e.g. easy to describe). The same cup of coffee, thoroughly mixed, is relatively high entropy (highly disordered), and also simple. The progressive stages of mixing produce a peak of complexity between the low and high entropy bounds. Complexity requires intermediate levels of entropy; it maximizes the dissipation of energy, increasing entropy and reducing the gradient between the current state and maximum entropy.

This is why we find ourselves where we are in the cosmological development of the universe - it takes a few billion years for the initial low-entropy state to increase sufficiently for structure and complexity to develop; this will continue, driven by the entropy gradient, until diminishing returns set in, and there is no longer sufficient entropy gradient to maintain the increase in complexity, and it will start to decrease. In the 'heat death' of the universe, entropy will be close to its maximum and complexity will once again be at a minimum.

 

[JDD_III]

That is complexity not specified complexity. A snowflake is highly complex but low to no specification (complexity allowing functional specified role). That is the coffee cup cream / entropy you describe.

What we see in cellular life is vastly different. Highly complex and highly specified. Nature's laws have not and cannot account for it describe this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.

I have a lot of experience talking to creationists about these things.

And yes, by calling such things "motors", that is exactly what they mean by it.
The second an "evolutionists" agrees to call it a motor, that's when those creationists jump up in arms screaming "motors are designed!!!!!".

It's a silly dishonest trap.

 

[Radrook]

I have a lot of experience talking to creationists about these things.

And yes, by calling such things "motors", that is exactly what they mean by it.
The second an "evolutionists" agrees to call it a motor, that's when those creationists jump up in arms screaming "motors are designed!!!!!".

It's a silly dishonest trap.

Then don't agree to call it a motor.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is implicit in your statement.

It's not. I was responding to YOUR assertion. I wasn't making an assertion of my own.
Try to understand the difference between responding to a claim and making a claim - they are not the same thing.

If there was no time extrinsic of the universe then there is not one known thing which could have caused the universe. Nothingdidit

I'm saying that the very idea of causation is not applicable.
I don't know what the origins of the universe are nore have I claimed any possible origin.
YOU are the one pretending to know the unknown and the untestable - not me.

I'm just saying: "cause" is a problematic term to use, as the ingredients that are REQUIRED for the phenomena to even be possible aren't present when the universe doesn't exist.

Once more: I'm not pretending to know nore am I claiming to know. I'm fine saying that I don't know. YOU here are the only one claiming to know. I'm merely responding to YOUR claim, by pointing out that your argument invokes phenomena that by definition can't exist in that state.

Don't blame me for the shortcommings of your very own claims please.

That is called ad hoc exception and would also point out you are using cause and effect to deny cause and effect. If you wish to deny cause and effect, then don't use cause and effect and good luck with that.

Please read with more attention. I didn't deny causality. I merely brought to your attention that causality is a phenomena of physics as it applies in the universe.

Causality requires time to exist. Because causes happen before effects.
You try to invoke this phenomena without space-time existing.

There is no "before" time. Just like there is no "north of the north pole".

There is no reason to dismiss an extrinsic cause for the start of the universe based on cause and effect since the alternative leads to absurdities or appeals to ignorance.

There is a reason and I already gave it to you multiple times now: causality requires time to exist. No universe = no time = no causality.

And fyi: you do not know what is absurd in advance. Before Einstein, the idea that time was relative to the observer, was also absurd.

You have not made a case it is invalid. Nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes I did. You just ignored it.
Causality is necessarily temporal. No time = no causality.

No reason not to.

Actually, many reasons not to.

And nothingdidit or appeals to ignorance has exactly what explanatory power?

No. "nothingdidit" is actually just a strawman, since I never said that and even explicitly denied that that is my position on the matter.

As said multiple times: my position is that I don't know.

Yawn, like dungeons and dragons has a huge body of knowledge and has explain power.

No, dungeons and dragons has no explanatory power concerning anything in reality.

The belief of scientists do not equate to fact and the so-called science is far from exact. Its not like anyone is out there claiming the laws of physics is just as valid as the origin of life theories or naturalistic evolution.

Actually, the theory of evolution is a lot more in evidence and with a lot more explanatory power then any theory in physics.

They are inferior counter explanations riddled with assumptions and problems, including math.

Yes, yes.... the entire scientific community is wrong and you, along with a handfull of fundamentalists, are correct. Uhu.

If we find the starship Enterprise on the moon, it is designed, not natural and intrinsic of the moon.

We aren't talking about spacecraft that are manufactured by definition.

My preconceived beliefs do not have anything to do with Theism.

lol

You can't have the one without the other.

The theory of evolution proves otherwise.
Life exists and we can study it. We can see and unravel the processes it is subject to, without knowing where it came from.

How it originated, does not matter to evolution theory.
At best, it predicts that however it began, that beginning resulted in a primitive life which then started to evolve.

But HOW exactly that first life came to be, does not matter to evolution.
Purely in context of evolution, it's actually fine to assume that some god created that first life. It would be an assumption not in evidence, off course... But the point is that it wouldn't change one iota for evolution theory.

Besides, it is all taught in the same biology textbooks. They have chapters on the origin of life.

Because they are subjects of biology.
Biology is a field, not a theory.
This is a really silly argument.

It is a distinction without much of a difference.

Errrr.... what?
The origins of a thing on the one hand and the processes the thing is subject to once it exists, seems like a pretty clear distinction.

Perhaps the comprehension problem here, is on your end.

Consider germ theory of desease....
You can study existing germs and what their effect is on humans.
Does it really matter to that study, where the germs come from?
Wheter it has origin a or b.... the effect the existing germs have on humans, remain the exact same, don't they?

Some for evolution...
Doesn't matter how first life came to be. Life exists and it is subject to certain processes. Nothing stops us to unravel those processes without knowing where life itself comes from.

Seems incredibly obvious. So obvious that I wonder every time how people can't comprehend it.

Obsessions with classifications. Dogmatism.

No. Instead, mere scope of explanation.

Quibbling. You know what i meant.

I know what you meant. Which is why I had to point out that I could only agree with that statement if it read "life as we know it" instead of "all life".

 

[dmmesdale]

The bacteria/cell is by itself just evidence of the existence thereof.

Yeah like a dead body with multiple stab sounds and a knife sticking out of her chest is the only evidence of a dead body. If you know what you are looking at then it is evidence of murder. Assuming we are reasoning from effect to cause. An ash layer in only evidence of an ash layer if you don't know what you are looking at. If you do know what you are lookiing at then an ash layer is evidence of a volcano eruption in the past.

By themselves, they are not evidence of any particular point of origin.

Garbage. If they wish to equate bacteria (simplest life) with the complexity of a jumbo jet then it is reasonable to ask why assume a jumbo jet self-assembles? It is their metaphors. Any assumption absents an intelligent cause is blind faith, not science. That does not even address the encyclopedic amounts of complex specified information or the fact they can duplicate.
A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution | Uncommon Descent

Jack W. Szostak, geneticist, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American (August 19, 2009), 54:

Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages the list goes on and on...it is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell's machines, which are mostly protein based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter.....

Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291: We have always underestimated cells.... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.... Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

150 yrs and counting and they still have no clue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so the flagellum is a spinning motor. even according to scientists. great. why we should believe that a motor can evolve without a designer?

Because of the evidence that it did.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but what is the besy possibility: that a motor is the product of design or natural process? think about finding a self repliciating ufo on another planet. do you think it will not be evidence for aliens?

See, this is exactly why I said that the flagellum is a "moter" only in the sense of function.

Because people like you insist on adding all kinds of baggage which is not a part of that comparision.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is complexity not specified complexity. A snowflake is highly complex but low to no specification (complexity allowing functional specified role). That is the coffee cup cream / entropy you describe.

What we see in cellular life is vastly different. Highly complex and highly specified. Nature's laws have not and cannot account for it describe this.

"specified complexity" is exactly the inevitable end-result of the evolutionary process.
That is what it does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then don't agree to call it a motor.

I think I have been quite clear in my responses as in what sense it can be called a motor and in what sense it can't be.

But you objected to it.
Perhaps now you understand why I felt the need for that nuancing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah like a dead body with multiple stab sounds and a knife sticking out of her chest is the only evidence of a dead body. If you know what you are looking at then it is evidence of murder.

Nope. Not from these facts alone.
The person could have died from a heart attack and stabbed a couple of hours later.
You need additional investigation to infer the actual cause of death.

ps: the additional investigation of the genomes of species, show that they align in a hierarchical tree. A family tree.

Skipping the rest of your nonsense as you are just building on top of false premises.

 

[xianghua]

Depends on the motor. Witrh regard to the flagellum rotor, there is a plausible evolution pathway to it, and no evidence it was designed.IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE ABSENCE OF DESIGN. Go stand in the corner and repeat that to yourself 100 times.

so a ufo isnt evidence for aliens. i think that most scientists will disagree with this.

 

[dmmesdale]

Nope. Not from these facts alone.
The person could have died from a heart attack and stabbed a couple of hours later.
You need additional investigation to infer the actual cause of death.

We live in a reasonable world and yours is not reasonable even if it is possible. It is also possible the stabber of the dead corpse was martians. If your scenario is possible, why is my addition impossible? If you find a dead body with multiple stab wounds and a knife sticking out of her chest then the most reasonable is a murder. Not some unknown stabbiing a dead corpse. Besides either scenario refutes your original assertion.

The bacteria/cell is by itself just evidence of the existence thereof.

The bacteria is an effect and we are looking for the cause.

ps: the additional investigation of the genomes of species, show that they align in a hierarchical tree. A family tree.

Skipping the rest of your nonsense as you are just building on top of false premises.

Well really what can you say since you all would have us believe an organism as complicated as a jumbo jet can self assemble under magical circumstances along with imaginary precursors. It is blind faith.

'to go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to that bacterium.' Lynn Margulis.

That means it is easier to go from bacteria to people or even elephants then to go from goo to bacteria.

There are no known ancestors to bacteria and when they try to break bacteria down they get death, not simpler life.