Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Baseless claims are not very convincing.Christian belief is very well justified. And that nothing is random is a natural and necessary outcome of Christian faith. And even of natural theology (no special revelation needed, just reason).
Quantum mechanics is random to us, humans. Not to God. But quantum mechanics as such is quite a good proof that materialism and all its atheistic implications have been wrong from the beginning.
... I was hoping you might engage in a little thought experiment.
Trying to follow along...it appears what you are getting at is that complex organisms can emerge through horizontal gene transfer in no particular order. I.e. dinosaurs before fish, and without genetic inheritance, but more or less spontaneously out of a sufficiently complex existing gene pool. My apologies if this misses the mark, I've only had time to skim the conversation.
There have been some major problems with your biology that have been pointed out. Your computer program would not match reality. In other words you would have GIGO embedded in the code of the program itself.Generally speaking, yes. However, your examples would be more radical than anything I've proposed. Starting at the extreme end of the spectrum is a sure way to be ridiculed and rejected. I always knew that if I hoped to publish, the new content would need to be modest. That's my experience and observation with a number of different fields, not just biology.
As such, I planned a series of papers that gradually progressed toward my idea. However, I expected if I were to post the claims of my first paper here, people would be even more confused than they are now. It was far more technical and far less Internet-trolling-flame worthy than the typical dross posted at CF. I've already been asked several times, "How is this an alternative to evolution?", and what I've been talking about here is far more extreme than anything I ever actually put in my paper.
But, while I offered to post a claim and tests here, I've decided it's best if I pull back. So, I'll just post a brief summary (ha!) of my first paper and leave it at that. As to how that might apply to the further extrapolations you mention above, I'll leave to the imagination.
As I've been indicating, one of my exercises was to create axioms for biology. The reason for doing so was to establish a mathematical basis for certain biological concepts. As I said, when I first did this, I was not able to find such a mathematical basis. Biology does use mathematical models, but they vary widely in terms of fidelity and scope, and are rarely rooted in axioms of the type envied in physics. So, the intent of my first paper was to establish a mathematical basis for a few of these axioms.
My first attempt was to establish a formulation for the probabilities of the self-assembly of a chain of entities (the entities could be any biological unit - nucleotides, codons, proteins, cells, etc.). I derived a formula for a Markov chain where, given a set of rules for combination, one could calculate the probability of chains forming from those rules. Taking the G,C,A,T of DNA as an example, one can then calculate the probability of different codons forming from them. While this doesn't demonstrate any optimal state for 4 nucleotides, it does show that if a 5th nucleotide were available for creating codons, the likelihood of producing unique codons that differ from just using 4 is exponentially small.
The journal I was working with told me this derivation was not novel enough to warrant publication. I then turned to larger biological units and showed that, while you never achieve a probability of zero, the likelihood of such systems self-organizing is ridiculously tiny. What I further showed is that this difficulty could be overcome with nested hierarchies. I mathematically formulated a system that had the capability to self-organize via nested hierarchies, and showed the probability of this occurring was much higher than without nested hierarchies. The journal said that was an interesting result that had some merit, but that's where the conversation turned toward testing in a lab - something I related earlier.
I wish everyone well.
All is good. No problem.First, I apologise for my earlier snarkiness, something you said rubbed me up the wrong way but you have acted in a polite manner throughout the thread and it should be reciprocated.
In answer to your question, I would direct you to the fossil record. It may not be complete, but it certainly offers an overall view of the timescale and chronological order of the diversity of life.
View attachment 274519
I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....Nope that's not how scientific theories work; and what does Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with any of this?
I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.
And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.
By the same population I think you mean the one celled organism in the soup primordial.So we both accept that polar bears and grizzly bears while different are unique variations on what was originally one population.
The same evidence that demonstrates that can be applied to more and more divergent life forms.
Humans and apes are the easiest to demonstrate given how detailed the genetic studies have been and how many varieties of extinct "missing links" (to use an archaic term) we have found.
The pattern of genetic similarity and the pattern of found extinct species line up to demonstrate all live on Earth descending from the same population. "Proving" it if you will.
I wonder how old you are.The evidence indicated that we have billions of years of a relatively stable Earth, so plenty of time for evolution.
What if it's still unknowable hundreds of years from now? Will scientists still be unwilling to CONSIDER an intelligent designer?We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning... exactly how the circumstances and material that made that possible came about is a mystery and may in fact be unknowable.
I'm a believer in God and I do believe He created everything, somehow or other. I think we can't get beyond the BB because there was NOTHING before that.You seemed certain a moment ago about the beginning... now you acknowledge that our research can't go beyond the expansion of the Big Bang?
I accept that we should look for everything and then accept the answer, but if you find feathers, webbed foot prints and hear quacking... it's reasonable to accept that it's a duck before the X-Ray comes back to prove it isn't a robot.
Could you please explain this better?Science doesn't deal with absolute proof, though.
Furthermore, there is a distinction between the process of evolution as it occurs in nature and the scientific explanation for our understanding of that process (e.g. the theory of evolution). So we have to be doubly careful that we don't confuse a natural process with the scientific explanation of that process.
Come on SZ....I don't think so. In fact I challenge you to support that with a valid source. In other words, citation needed.
You can't expect a scientist that states he is atheist to believe that God created everything.History is full of examples where the understanding of humanity was found to be faulty.
Humans tend to try to prove what they believe as truth. Few truly test what they believe for truth.
But it is easier for humans to alter the truth to conform to their current beliefs, then it is to alter their current understanding to conform to truth.
The people that believed the world was flat were not ignorant people, their stumbling block was a lack of accurate information. But until that information was available, and for some, even after the information was available, a four wheel drive truck and a log chain could not pull that false understanding based upon a lack of information out of them.
My zeal was based upon growing spiritually tired of speculation and assumptions and theories.
THEORIES are for those that do not have all the facts. The man/woman staring down a rifle barrel that pulled the trigger and watched USA President J.F.K.'s head explode like a watermelon had no need of theory.
I tired of milk, and desired meat. I had hoped to find a similar individual with a similar appetite, but guess I have found myself in the wrong classroom. My apologies.
There have been some major problems with your biology that have been pointed out. Your computer program would not match reality. In other words you would have GIGO embedded in the code of the program itself.
Interesting post.That's the ID movement's marketing at work. ID proponents have positioned themselves as by challenging the status quo, they are the open-minded ones fighting against the close-minded mainstream.
In reality, when you examine their individual works and in particular their responses to criticisms of their own ideas, they seem anything but open-minded.
You need to understand that the ID movement carries a lot of political baggage with it, primarily from historical creationist activities in the U.S.
For a long time, creationists have sought to usurp the teaching of evolution in science classrooms, either removing it from the classroom and/or teaching Biblical creationism in its place. In 1987, there was a landmark ruling by the U.S. supreme court that declared that creationism was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in public schools as per the U.S. Constitution (Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia).
When Intelligent Design came along, creationists started pushing for it an alternative to evolution in the classroom, while at the same time avoiding references to creationism. This in turn led to more contentious issues within both the ID movement (not all of whom are traditional creationists) and of course between science and ID.
One of the largest ID organizations, the Discovery Institute, was revealed to be pushing for things far beyond just ID as a science; they have been pushing for cultural change in favor of Christian theocracy. This came out in the Dover trial of 2005 and the infamous "wedge document". You can read it here: The Wedge Document | National Center for Science Education
Just this line, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" suggests their motivation is about far more than mere science.
Insofar as ID just as a science, they haven't really done anything worthwhile. There have been a couple proposed methods for detecting design in biological organisms that have been received, examined and ultimately rejected because they don't pass scientific muster.
So it's not so much a case of scientists rejecting ID for ID's sake. ID has been rejected because there is no real science to support it. If ID proponents want to change that, the onus is on them to bring something real to the table.
Which again goes back to the original premise in this thread.
Come on SZ....
That's like asking me to prove water is wet.
BEFORE the 60's it was thought that the universe ALWAYS existed...
Then it was found that it began, due to the expanding universe.
I'm SURE you must know about this.
I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.
And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.
(just a thought)
Exactly.Baseless claims are not very convincing.
You complain about someone bringing up the word theory that they abused and then you abuse the word "proof". In an absolute sense proof only occur in mathematics. But if your standard is the more common legal sense of "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then evolution definitely meets that criteria. By the legal definition it is more than proven. It is a cold hard fact. As you admitted you are not very science minded and that is probably why you do not understand how evolution has been proven.I DO wish science had thought up a different word instead of THEORY. But I wouldn't know what....
Concept?
The concept of evolution.
And then when it's REALLY proven.....
Just EVOLUTION.
(just a thought)
Then please don't make any such claims in the future. You may have convinced yourself, but that is about as far as it goes. Also it helps to understand the difference between knowledge and belief. If one cannot support one's claims one only has beliefs. If one can support them properly then that person can claim to "know".Exactly.
But a correct one. If one's model is not based upon reality it is not of much use in the science that one is trying to apply it to. You tried to sound "sciency" in your approach to the problem but many of your basic assumptions for your model were incorrect. That is why you would have GIGO (actually there should be a better acronym in this case, the important part if the GO) into your model. No matter what data you put in a bad model will only tend to generate garbage.That's a curious interpretation of our conversation.
No, you are only reinterpreting Genesis 1:1 in light of our current knowledge. That does not mean that particular verse has been confirmed.You can't expect a scientist that states he is atheist to believe that God created everything.
Do you realize how silly the O.T. sounds to those that do not believe?
Science will never know how the universe began because everything in it is too complicated --- but they will keep looking and this is only right...that's what science is all about anyway.
So far Genesis 1:1 has been confirmed even though they don't believe so...what comes next will be interesting --- and maybe nothing will come next...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?