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.
Perhaps we're looking for two different things: you're looking for answers and I'm looking for conversation. Looking back at your last five posts, they contain nine questions but nothing else. I appreciate curiosity but I'm in the mood for more give-and-take.How am I supposed to understand what you mean if I don't ask questions?
Perhaps we're looking for two different things: you're looking for answers and I'm looking for conversation. Looking back at your last five posts, they contain nine questions but nothing else. I appreciate curiosity but I'm in the mood for more give-and-take.
Relax. I'm just bored and maybe a little cranky.Yes, I am asking a Christian about how God created the Universe, and asking them to witness about their faith and views. How horrible of me.
Relax. I'm just bored and maybe a little cranky.
This isn't hard at all.One of the more frustrating problems in these conversations is the quantity of double standards that creationists use. For example, we have post after post from creationists accusing science of improperly excluding God. However, when we ask how God is actively involved in things such as weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism they grow quite silent, and usually give a deity-free and completely natural explanation for how those things work.
So why the double standard for evolution? Why must God intervene in the process of producing species when you don't require the same thing for other parts of nature? Why can't abiogenesis and evolution be as much a part of the design of the universe as weather, volcanoes, and orbits? Why must God act against the process of nature when it comes to biodiversity?
Of course, these are rhetorical questions. They only illustrate the double standard that is being applied.
It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)
His nature is bound up creation and the laws of the universe which he set in motion. The wind blows cause God created it to be so. The seas provide water by the laws of evaporation because h3 created it to be so. The seas don't overwhelm us because God placed the moon in the heavens to be at the precise location to provide the perfect amount of gravity. There is so much that proves the existence of God in nature by natures design that it's sad you refuse to see it. So you are without excuse.
I told you; because chemistry. If you ask, why chemistry? the answer is physics; if you ask, 'why physics?' the answer is no-one knows. You can play the 'why' game as far back as you want.I want to know why life would happen. What is the scientific reason?
I told you; because chemistry. If you ask, why chemistry? the answer is physics; if you ask, 'why physics?' the answer is no-one knows. You can play the 'why' game as far back as you want.
Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since. Ditto with weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism: they are the result of his original creative work. But that creative work was completed a long time ago.One of the more frustrating problems in these conversations is the quantity of double standards that creationists use. For example, we have post after post from creationists accusing science of improperly excluding God. However, when we ask how God is actively involved in things such as weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism they grow quite silent, and usually give a deity-free and completely natural explanation for how those things work.
I'm not sure we're reading the same Bible. In the Bible I read, God is described as forming each person in the womb, as giving animals their food daily, as sending clouds and rain, as spreading the snow like wool and frost like ashes, and as making plants grow. As Psalm 104 puts it,Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since. Ditto with weather, planetary orbits, and volcanism: they are the result of his original creative work. But that creative work was completed a long time ago.
No, not really - unless you consider science & philosophy games.In your mind, yes, you love to play games.
It's a basically question of levels of abstraction and emergence. If you studied physics you'll know about Ken Wilson (Nobel Prize 1982) of renormalization group fame, who showed that physics operates at a hierarchy of scales, each higher scale abstracted from the one below. Properties of a lower level can give rise to novel emergent properties at the higher level. For example, a water molecule isn't wet, wetness is a novel emergent property of the interactions of many water molecules. The same principle applies in fields of science - chemistry is based on physics, but can be studied without a detailed knowledge of the underlying physics by applying the emergent rules, biology is built on chemistry, but has its own behaviours & properties emergent from and abstracted from it. You don't need to understand the details of the layer below to do useful work at the higher level - so you can study ocean waves & turbulent flow without knowing the physics of individual water molecules.In the real world, you didn't ask.
What property of chemicals leads to self replication and sexuality?
What chemical properties lead to useful self propulsion?
What chemical properties call for absorbing energy and metabolizing it to create work?
Which chemicals or properties of chemicals resist the slide to equilibrium and chaos?
Which chemicals are drawn toward a self sustaining system and what properties are causing that?
I studied Physics.
Which physical properties..... (repeat all of above.)
What there isn't, though, is semantics. There is no meaning, no interpreter. Just chemical reactions taking place.
It's not invalid to call it a chain reaction: it is, in fact, a complicated chemical reaction.
Both of those code for insulin for human readers. Neither codes for insulin in a cell. Only a DNA molecule can do that. That's why it's not really a code: the information is not independent of the substrate. It's the physical string of bases that matters.
No, humans are known to produce code.
We see new biological information being produced all the time, without any input from intelligence. On the other hand, we never seen intelligence designing genes (except for human scientists).
Well quite; this is the core of the debate - evolution is the theory that all living things we know of are modifications of a single ancestral form of life, supported by a great deal of evidence, including common chemistry, common structures, common mechanisms, and compelling evidence of the tree-like ancestral hierarchy of relationships we would expect if this were the case.
In your mind, yes, you love to play games.
In the real world, you didn't ask.
What property of chemicals leads to self replication and sexuality?
Yes, because the Bible distinguishes creation week from the rest of history. He's not Apollo, who personally escorted the sun across the sky each day. Rather, He created the sun once, during creation week, and it's been running on it's own ever since.
When referring to code, meaning, semantics or syntax these are not metaphors:
"Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-013-1394-1
It's like taking off the cover of a computer and saying 'it operates with electricity'. It's not wrong, it's just not accurate. Cells send signals and communicate with each other. Information is exchanged and translated, even though they are just chemical reactions. I agree it's complicated, but there are contingencies. Where there are contingencies there aren't chain reactions.
That it's a code and independent of the DNA molecude is what makes some nano-technology possible. They don't extract a DNA molecule and manipulate that. They work with the code, independent of 'the substrate'. They sequence the bases with a machine (Oligonucleotide synthesizer). A random string of bases doesn't work. It's the sequence of the string that matters.
"Never....", and "except..." makes the point for me, it's an intelligent cause.
The problem isn't do we see ANY new information being generated the problem is is it enough?
They calculated it takes 162 million years for a coordinated pair of mutations to occur and fix in humans, 27 times longer than humans have supposedly lived.
Nope. The Dover Trial thoroughly examined the claims of ID and found it was just the lastest disguise for YE creationism, which is no older than the 20th century.
That's false too. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were already talking about the functions of non-coding DNA, long before creationists invented "intelligent design."
It probably wasn't a good idea for you to bring up "information", then. As you see, it isn't very good for "intelligent design."
His "point" is that natural objects are signs of God. But as you see, he had to use a human-made object to make the point, because natural objects don't show design.
He might have, if he was unaware of other biological stops of less-evolved nature in arthropods. But since simpler versions exist, it seems rather foolish to argue that they couldn't.
I, too, have been told that. But is it all that true? These are the issues raised in peer-reviewed literature:
"A formal demonstration of the universal common ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle"
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-5-64.pdfDomains
"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis
(often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved"
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/pdf
"Rooting the 'tree of life' represents a major challenge for evolutionists."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14700546
"One of the most pervasive challenges in molecular phylogenetics is the incongruence between phylogenies obtained using different data sets, such as individual genes."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6960/abs/nature02053.html
It's not the rosy picture they like say it is on TV and in schools.
I don't doubt it, but that was the exception not the rule:
"Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early 1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements as a genomic treasure." Not Junk After All," Science, Vol. 300(5623):1246-1247 (May 23, 2003).)
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/junk_dna_roundup_and_rebuttal020941.html
"Yockey [7] and Wickens [5] develop the same distinction [as Orgel], explaining that “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future. [TMLO, (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley reprint), 1992, erratum insert, p. 130. Emphases added.]"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#fsci_rts
More and more people are seeing that they do. The principle he identified is still relevent, why should the answer for the stone not serve for the watch? The problem I have is when I see functional gears and rotary motors and tell myself, these are just illusions, I'm sacrificing intellectual honesty to embrace the absurd.
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?