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.
First, using magic (god(s)) in a science debate is an auto-loss as magic explains everything and therefore nothing.
Secondly, the ToE explains all the data, all of it.
It's not a Christian stance so much as it is the stance of a particular Christian, or of a subset of Christianity.I am not here for a science debate. I only debate doctrine. This may be the science board but this entire site is a Christian site that you choose to be on, so if my unapologetic Christian stance offends you... too bad.
Thank you for your reply. You have a peculiar and idiosyncratic definition of "assumption" that does not accord with my lexical experience. I shall reflect on your definition and respond accordingly.
I will simply note, if you insist upon analogies, that Picasso's work evolved from the work of earlier artists and we can study that evolution by examing the remaining and accessible works of those artists. No untestable assumptions are involved.
Im not offended.I am not here for a science debate. I only debate doctrine. This may be the science board but this entire site is a Christian site that you choose to be on, so if my unapologetic Christian stance offends you... too bad.
It's not a Christian stance so much as it is the stance of a particular Christian, or of a subset of Christianity.
Im not offended.
Most christians have no problem with physical reality.
All Christians believe that God is creator and author of our being. But only some Christians see a need to disagree with science about it.To believe that God is the creator is not a Christian stane? You must have met some strange Christians in that case.
Oh, deliberatly obtuse. How clever!To believe that God is the creator is not a Christian stane? You must have met some strange Christians in that case.
I don't either, this chair I am sitting on is quite handy.
Why post in the science forums if you're not prepared to debate on the forum topic? The forum rules require that you stay on-topic...I am not here for a science debate. I only debate doctrine. This may be the science board but this entire site is a Christian site that you choose to be on, so if my unapologetic Christian stance offends you... too bad.
Why post in the science forums if you're not prepared to debate on the forum topic? The forum rules require that you stay on-topic...
I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.That would be the point yes-
Newtonian/classical physics satisfied Occam's Razor- subatomic/ quantum mechanics- not so much.
Darwinian evolution was a perfectly logical extension of classical physics at the time- a handful of 'immutable laws' + lots of time & space was, likewise, all that was deemed needed to produce all the wonders we see around us.
I agree entirely and it's a very good point: So there is an entirely objective fingerprint for ID- which is NOT merely complexity, & it is not only 'human'. Consider the nest decorations of a bird of paradise. or the SETI 'WOW' signal for instance. (not conclusive obviously)
Can you present any of this weighty evidence... complexity on its own is insufficient.Which is what skeptics said about QM.. as I have always said- I don't think there are any 'slam dunk' arguments either way- life is an incredibly complex and interesting subject- I think the weight of evidence has turned to ID yes, but difficult to lay it all out in a forum post!
Can you actually support this?well it's a hierarchy- just like this computer software, and this is not a controversial observation- variation in the text size/color parameters in this forum can never be extrapolated into a new program- not simply because of the improbability of stumbling upon the viable code- but because this variation is not altering the necessary level of the hierarchy.
There are many examples of this in DNA- just one being Epigenetics, you can even alter the entire gene sequence all you like, it's still not enough to account for all biological forms- something beyond this is happening- i.e. simply extrapolating superficial natural variation observed in finch beaks or dogs- into accounting for the entire diversity of the biosphere- is fundamentally inadequate. Though ToE is still often taught and understood this way.
That doesn't demand throwing out ToE in one fell swoop- but it demands going beyond the classical Darwinian mechanism
Ah, a 'defender of the faith'. OK.I jump in when I see things said about the Bible, creation or God that are false and nothing in the rules says that posts here must be kept to science.
I don't think you understand Occam's Razor.
Newtonian/classical physics were discarded because further evidence indicated that they were insufficient to describe the universe.
And you haven't pointed out why evolution fails.
So, what is this entirely objective fingerprint for ID?
SETI is built on the premise that things with thoughts and technology like ours (but more advanced) would spend a large amount of effort to make themselves known to other intelligence. So they look for things that can't be explained by nature.
Can you present any of this weighty evidence... complexity on its own is insufficient.
Can you actually support this?
You keep implying that there is a barrier or limit to the variation possible in evolution, but aside from falling back on an analogy of self writing computer code I haven't seen evidence.
They are looking for a form of narrow-band microwave radiation which is used by humans for communication but which is not known to be produced by natural causes.I could not agree more- it's not about complexity- as above- the random noise SETI receives in radio waves from space is extremely 'complex' yes?- but they are looking for 'simplicity' 'clarity' within that complexity, as the sign of information and hence intelligence, are they not?
The "resistance" being based on the understanding that ID was created to advance a religious agenda and is based on unsound math.So the real determining factor here is not so much the evidence for - but the resistance against- it is in the perceived 'profundity' of the implication in this case- and that's fraught with massively subjective perceptions- understandably
In general, your promotion of ID seems to be based on long outdated apologetics. What have you read lately?well it's a vast topic, and I always prefer to try to give a good quick definite example where possible, rather than defer- but you could look at epigenetics for a start- it's a whole separate layer of info from DNA- but you also have the gene regulatory network- somewhat analogous to the operating system or mother board in the computer- regulating what information goes where- i.e. systems beyond those governing mere natural variation.
Beyond that you also get into the necessity of creating whole new protein string types - required new genes- to ceate a vast array of new body plans during the Cambrian-
you can argue natural mechanisms of course, but the point, which is not really so controversial anymore- is that we cannot simply extrapolate superficial natural variation in traits to account for the entire biosphere by the same mechanisms. There clearly ARE barriers- not to say jumping them is impossible- but whole new difficulties arise in doing so, which is borne out in the observed stasis/lack of evolution appearing in the fossil record.
I admire your restraint. That was quite a Gish-gallop...They are looking for a form of narrow-band microwave radiation which is used by humans for communication but which is not known to be produced by natural causes.
...
The "resistance" being based on the understanding that ID was created to advance a religious agenda and is based on unsound math.
...
In general, your promotion of ID seems to be based on long outdated apologetics. What have you read lately?
You are missing the point.(sorry for the long post- hard to condense some stuff!)
right, Newton started with the simplest explanation first - that's understandable- it appeals to us.
I understand the principle- I just think nature has proven it to be a fallacious one: a more useful amendment might be:
The simplest explanation is usually the most tempting one?
For pretty much the same reason I would say
Darwinian evolution was born directly out of classical physics, it was the Victorian age reductionist model of reality at the time- it made perfect sense- that we might expect life to have developed by the same general mechanism as physics and chemistry before it, by a handful of simple immutable laws + lots of time and space..
So I agree with the first part- life does develop by a similar mechanism to physics & chemistry-
only today that means by volumes of information, guiding, pre-determining how, where and when development occurs
Can you define specified information, its metric and an objective method of measuring it?same as SETI uses- specified information, because specified information denotes the capacity for anticipation- a phenomena unique to creative intelligence- nothing supernatural in this observation (unless you consider intelligence itself supernatural as some do)
Agreed- because we do not observe specified information originating by natural means-
it is anomalous
I could not agree more- it's not about complexity- as above- the random noise SETI receives in radio waves from space is extremely 'complex' yes?- but they are looking for 'simplicity' 'clarity' within that complexity, as the sign of information and hence intelligence, are they not?
DNA is not merely a vast quantity of information, it is an information system. A hierarchical digital one no less.
Someone at SETI wrote 'WOW' in the margin beside a mere handful (6?) of anomalous amplitudes.
if they received the digital instructions (and system to decode it) which described how to build even the simplest living organism- the evidence for ID would be irrefutable.
in ANY other context- the quality and quantity of specified information in even the universal constants, far less life, would be conclusive.
So the real determining factor here is not so much the evidence for - but the resistance against- it is in the perceived 'profundity' of the implication in this case- and that's fraught with massively subjective perceptions- understandably
well it's a vast topic, and I always prefer to try to give a good quick definite example where possible, rather than defer- but you could look at epigenetics for a start- it's a whole separate layer of info from DNA- but you also have the gene regulatory network- somewhat analogous to the operating system or mother board in the computer- regulating what information goes where- i.e. systems beyond those governing mere natural variation.
Beyond that you also get into the necessity of creating whole new protein string types - required new genes- to ceate a vast array of new body plans during the Cambrian-
you can argue natural mechanisms of course, but the point, which is not really so controversial anymore- is that we cannot simply extrapolate superficial natural variation in traits to account for the entire biosphere by the same mechanisms. There clearly ARE barriers- not to say jumping them is impossible- but whole new difficulties arise in doing so, which is borne out in the observed stasis/lack of evolution appearing in the fossil record.
Why?
Denying physical reality because of religion is a futile battleBecause he is the same creator, the same potter who used the same clay and design features to create the animals, birds and man, why wouldn't they reflect this?
What would you expect?
The Bible calls God a potter and us the clay.
Jeremiah 18
3 So I went down to the potter’s house and saw him working with clay at the wheel. 4 He was making a pot from clay. But there was something wrong with the pot. So the potter used that clay to make another pot. With his hands he shaped the pot the way he wanted it to be.
5 Then this message from the Lord came to me: 6 “Family of Israel, you know that I can do the same thing with you. You are like the clay in the potter’s hands, and I am the potter.”
If I order a piece of Bennett Bean pottery I do not expect it to look like a Rose Cabat, but like a Bennett Bean.
Now if the world had a host of different gods all in charge of their own area like Greek mythology, then I would expect each area to look different.
Denying physical reality because of religion is a futile battle
There are quite a lot of things that are not in the bible.We don't like it because it's not in the Bible.
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?