Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[pshun2404]

I'm a computer programmer, and I've used genetic algorithms to evolve solutions to complex problems. I've literally used functional examples of evolution to solve problems. I've also studied biology and evolution, so I can see how genetics could work in the same way.

Since you are a programmer you must realize that when programs like these is written there is a purpose...IMO you should thoroughly read Evolution 2.0 (honestly...objectively for its reasoning and content).

I know it is a doubtful "wish" but I challenge you to really read it and avoid going to anti-Evolution 2.0 websites first (much of which is propaganda).

 

[tas8831]

Cool.

Which theory, hypothesis or set of academic papers in physics would I look up if I wanted to verify that "a limitless, timeless, non-material source that brought forth the Universe"? What academic source would I go to to look up more information.

If what you say is true, then actual physicists are surely writing and researching these things and postulating about sources of the universe that are "non-material, without spacial location, and timeless".

Surely a proper reference or two isn't too much to ask.

Ah but see they are not actually doing any research on this, just 'pointing to' it, providing you interpret their opinions and speculation the 'right' way.

 

[tas8831]

"limitless, timeless, non-material" are my words, but when physics implies to physicists that there was a big bang moment and that consciousness is primary to matter this changes the padadigm. It is not si much specific experiments as their conclusions. No one can accuse these people of being creationists but here are some of those conclusions and references to explore for your edification in this matter and as TAS pointed out it rests on a big IF/THEN premise...

After Max Planck said “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” physicists started to think outside the box...so you may find the following interesting.

Physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” Cited by R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, in “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)


“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” Eugene Wigner

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences

“Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality “ (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality

If interested see also:

George Wald, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15

The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle

Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, 1984 N.Y. Astrophysicist Paul Davies

“Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984, Physiologist George Wald

The Symbiotic Universe, William Morrow & Co, 1989, astrophysicist George Greenstein

Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, 1990, Physicist John Archibald Wheeler

A new paradigm is on the scientific horizon, prepare to embrace it when it comes!

IOW, this is all just wishful dogma-inspired th8inking and is not premised on any real physicists 'pointing to' what you really really hope to be the case.


Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Without a doubt I believe in evolution as the process of change (whether an approach intended by a God or not)...I am NOT a Christian that does not believe in evolution just not everything all evolutionists accept as true (I also accept that there must be a creator, but do not believe everything all creationists accept as true).

Given your threads about natural selection and mutations, cell consciousness, your baseless rejection of molecular homology (bolstered by, at best, um, 'questionable' means), 'DNA protects' itself, etc., I find that claim rather difficult to accept at face value.

 

[tas8831]

Oh look, it's the typical threat of judgement again. How boring.

Yes - what the heck?

Do they really think this means anything other than it being an admission that they have nothing of merit to offer?

 

[tas8831]

"What evidence of evolution "at the real world level" would you find convincing? (Please make sure what you're asking for is something that the theory of evolution actually says we should find.?).?.?"

I see all sorts of examples of many evolutionary processes and principles at work but some are just hypothesis based interpretations of data that can be viewed in other ways. So in answer to your question, for starters, try fish transforming into amphibians, or amphibians transforming into reptiles, and we can move on from there. And please no "historical narratives" (which are imposed) as Mayr calls them, just actual "observable" data.

*parenthesis mine

And yet you recently wrote that you "believe in evolution."

'Believing in evolution" yet denying evolutionary transitions seems sort of strange.

 

[pshun2404]

And yet you recently wrote that you "believe in evolution."

'Believing in evolution" yet denying evolutionary transitions seems sort of strange.

I do not ascribe to throwing out the baby with the bath water. As I have said repeatedly I simply do not agree with or accept ALL things that evolutionists OR creationists assert. I realize YOU have a problem with this.

 

[Waggles]

It is not just about evolution is not true and still has no empirical evidence to
substantiate it - still much supposition and illustrations in books not observable and
provable evidence that is irrefutable.
Dogs becoming whales is pure fantasy of the fairytale sort.
Nor is there any real probability that the complexities of the human heart "evolved"
from simpler previous form.
200 years after Darwin and evolution is still lacking credible truth.

I know that evolution and Darwinism and atheism are false 'religions' or philosophies
if you prefer, because I know that God the creator is true.
God tells me and you that HE created all living things, not necessarily at once at one
time but from trilobites to dinosaurs to our pet cats HE created them from his own
design and with the power to do so.

If you don't get this you just don't get it. Bad luck for the wilfully ignorant.
But truth is truth and your hope in an alternative truth against God and the Bible
is wasted effort.
In the end you will go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Waggles]

I remember watching a doco on TV about the "creation" of the Moon and how
the solar system came into being.
Lots of CGI showing how an asteroid hit the Earth and material flew up and coalesced
to form the moon, and so on.
What struck me as cheeky was the narration and doco were from the point of real time
observation. It was done as if the camera team were there and so it all happen.
No admission that this was hypothetical and one of several possible explanations.
No it happened this way because "scientists" declared that it happened by these means.

I see in various programs on astronomy and the Cosmos in which we are told that life could
possibly exist on other planets because:
statistically it must be so - millions of planets for this to happen on;
so many other planets and IF they have water or ammonia and are in the Goldilocks zone
would then be ripe for the evolution of life forms.

And this nonsense is just so indicative of the self serving tautology that evolution is the only
means for the existence of life in the universe.
You haven't even proved that evolution is true on this one planet and already you lot are
declaring life on other planets and moons with glee.

 

[Speedwell]

It is not just about evolution is not true and still has no empirical evidence to
substantiate it - still much supposition and illustrations in books not observable and
provable evidence that is irrefutable.
Dogs becoming whales is pure fantasy of the fairytale sort.
Nor is there any real probability that the complexities of the human heart "evolved"
from simpler previous form.
200 years after Darwin and evolution is still lacking credible truth.

I know that evolution and Darwinism and atheism are false 'religions' or philosophies
if you prefer, because I know that God the creator is true.
God tells me and you that HE created all living things, not necessarily at once at one
time but from trilobites to dinosaurs to our pet cats HE created them from his own
design and with the power to do so.

If you don't get this you just don't get it. Bad luck for the wilfully ignorant.
But truth is truth and your hope in an alternative truth against God and the Bible
is wasted effort.
In the end you will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Dogs evolving into whales would set the theory of evolution on its ear. But what is really "wasted effort" is trying to conflate the theory of evolution with atheism.

 

[Speedwell]

I remember watching a doco on TV about the "creation" of the Moon and how
the solar system came into being.
Lots of CGI showing how an asteroid hit the Earth and material flew up and coalesced
to form the moon, and so on.
What struck me as cheeky was the narration and doco were from the point of real time
observation. It was done as if the camera team were there and so it all happen.
No admission that this was hypothetical and one of several possible explanations.
No it happened this way because "scientists" declared that it happened by these means.

I see in various programs on astronomy and the Cosmos in which we are told that life could
possibly exist on other planets because:
statistically it must be so - millions of planets for this to happen on;
so many other planets and IF they have water or ammonia and are in the Goldilocks zone
would then be ripe for the evolution of life forms.

And this nonsense is just so indicative of the self serving tautology that evolution is the only
means for the existence of life in the universe.
You haven't even proved that evolution is true on this one planet and already you lot are
declaring life on other planets and moons with glee.

One problem which creationists have with popular presentations like that is that they seem to miss the assumption of provisionality which underlies all scientific theories. I don't know what is the cause--maybe the poor way in which science is generally taught. A person who really understood how science works would not miss it, nor that the explanation presented of how the Moon had formed was actualy only a hypothesis, not even risen to the status of a theory.

 

[tas8831]

I do not ascribe to throwing out the baby with the bath water. As I have said repeatedly I simply do not agree with or accept ALL things that evolutionists OR creationists assert. I realize YOU have a problem with this.

I 'have a problem' with arbitrary levels of acceptance.

 

[Divide]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.

That's not true at all. There's plenty of evidence of ID. Here's just a few off the top of my head.

Earth is more than in a Goldilocks zone. The totality of everything needed for life to exist here is so complex, that it defies anything other than ID. If the carbon dioxide levels were even slightly higher or lower, no life. If the earth's tilt was less or more, no seasons. If the gravitational effects we're slightly more/less, no life.

There is so many fragile levels of things needed that to throw off any one of them would mean no life possible here.

The physical constants aren't even constant now they say. (Scientific America-Constants Changing? June 1995 (2005?)

The odds of any one thing coming together randomly is high. The odds of all of them coming together into such a fragile balance, randomly at once enters into what they probability absurdity, or something like that.

Even the big bang is absurd. We do know, the first law of physics (I think lol) is everything flows from order to chaos. Big bang is, explosion...to chaos, not order. Big bang would put smaller planets/ debris out further, and bigger ones in closer...the Solar system is not laid out like that..

I could go on and on, but I gotta get going soon, and don't have my notes with me

 

[Audacious]

That's not true at all. There's plenty of evidence of ID. Here's just a few off the top of my head.

Earth is more than in a Goldilocks zone. The totality of everything needed for life to exist here is so complex, that it defies anything other than ID. If the carbon dioxide levels were even slightly higher or lower, no life. If the earth's tilt was less or more, no seasons. If the gravitational effects we're slightly more/less, no life.

It's a big universe. With billions or trillions (perhaps more) of planets, some of them are bound to have all the "right stuff" for life (including the whole goldilocks zone deal). We just got lucky with Earth, I guess.

At the very least, it isn't an argument for ID.

My view is that God constructed the universe to work in a certain way, with part of the goal of universe creation involving the creation of humanity; the God who can create universes from dust can definitely plan stuff down to the smallest detail if he wants. /shrug

The physical constants aren't even constant now they say. (Scientific America-Constants Changing? June 1995 (2005?)

You do realize that, on a stellar or geological perspective of time, the changes you're talking about take ages in the way we think about time... right? We're talking dozens of lifetimes just for minor changes.

The odds of any one thing coming together randomly is high. The odds of all of them coming together into such a fragile balance, randomly at once enters into what they probability absurdity, or something like that.

Even the big bang is absurd. We do know, the first law of physics (I think lol) is everything flows from order to chaos. Big bang is, explosion...to chaos, not order. Big bang would put smaller planets/ debris out further, and bigger ones in closer...the Solar system is not laid out like that..

The Big Bang is a complicated scenario that isn't fully understood. But we can be pretty sure it's there, at least according to physicists, who seem to know what they're doing much more than I do.

The universe is pretty absurd. I don't see why the Big Bang can't be absurd along with it. : )

I could go on and on, but I gotta get going soon, and don't have my notes with me

Just a note: arguing fallacies to try to prove your religious views really doesn't work. Even if you do convince people of something, the chance that they'll realize your (and their) reasoning sucks is pretty high.

It's kinda like the people who think they have to lie to prove the truth (see: all of the perjury in the Dover trial), except you also get to lie to yourself as an added benefit.

 

[pshun2404]

'Believing in evolution" yet denying evolutionary transitions seems sort of strange.

Not at all! It is based on observable testable fact...

For example,

a) all the present varieties of cats, through speciation (hence transitions) and other factors came from a far less few varieties of early cat (hence evolution), and
b) maturation (from embryo to adult) and adaptation (to niche and via epigenetics) brought about changes in populations over time (again evolution), hence the baby...but
c) cats are still cats even after millions of years

Now toss out the dirty bath water that claims by desire without evidence, that some other creature (older then 4 or 5 million years ago) eventually became cats which logically should eventually become something other (who knows yet)...according to the terms YOU required, desire based evidenceless beliefs should be dismissed!

So know be a adult, and objective intellectually honest man, and keep the baby throwing out the dirty bath water.

 

[Divide]

It's a big universe. With billions or trillions (perhaps more) of planets, some of them are bound to have all the "right stuff" for life (including the whole goldilocks zone deal). We just got lucky with Earth, I guess.

At the very least, it isn't an argument for ID.

My view is that God constructed the universe to work in a certain way, with part of the goal of universe creation involving the creation of humanity; the God who can create universes from dust can definitely plan stuff down to the smallest detail if he wants. /shrug


You do realize that, on a stellar or geological perspective of time, the changes you're talking about take ages in the way we think about time... right? We're talking dozens of lifetimes just for minor changes.


The Big Bang is a complicated scenario that isn't fully understood. But we can be pretty sure it's there, at least according to physicists, who seem to know what they're doing much more than I do.

The universe is pretty absurd. I don't see why the Big Bang can't be absurd along with it. : )


Just a note: arguing fallacies to try to prove your religious views really doesn't work. Even if you do convince people of something, the chance that they'll realize your (and their) reasoning sucks is pretty high.

It's kinda like the people who think they have to lie to prove the truth (see: all of the perjury in the Dover trial), except you also get to lie to yourself as an added benefit.

Uh huh.

And you know what travels faster than light? (Nothing?). Wrong. Darkness!
Test it. Flick on a light in a dark room...darkness runs faster than light brother! Lol.

 

[tas8831]

Not at all! It is based on observable testable fact...

Observable fact... this will be interesting.

For example,

a) all the present varieties of cats, through speciation (hence transitions) and other factors came from a far less few varieties of early cat (hence evolution), and

So in order to bolster your contradictory position, you are claiming that extant cats arose via speciation, which you consider "transitional" -

So surely, since this is observable fact, you can present the fossils of the transition between the genera Neofelis and Panthera? Leopardus and Felis?

b) maturation (from embryo to adult) and adaptation (to niche and via epigenetics) brought about changes in populations over time (again evolution), hence the baby...but
c) cats are still cats even after millions of years

They are also Carnivores. Closely related to creatures like Mongoose. Besides your perhaps purposely-naive rejection of molecular phylogenetics, what prevents Felids from sharing an ancestry with mongoose, or civets?

Now toss out the dirty bath water that claims by desire without evidence, that some other creature (older then 4 or 5 million years ago) eventually became cats which logically should eventually become something other (who knows yet)...according to the terms YOU required, desire based evidenceless beliefs should be dismissed!

Yes, your desire-based assertions can be dismissed, especially since you apparently purposely refuse to learn about DNA analyses in order to keep you dogma-based beliefs alive.

There IS evidence for these things you claim are opinions - and it is so precious how you simply come up with naive excuses to reject that evidence. Pity that so many reputable scientists seem to understand, accept and apply these data and analytical methods much to your chagrin, I suppose.

Dogs, cats, and kin: A molecular species-level phylogeny of Carnivora


Since you are so enamored with fossils (but can not present any in support of your opinions):

Fossil History of the Terrestrial Carnivora

Abstract
Carnivores, because of their position on the ecological pyramid, are considerably rarer than their prey. They are also often intelligent and solitary animals, so that their chances of dying in a fossilizing environment are not very good. Exceptions occur when herbivores are trapped in a situation that can also entrap carnivores. The La Brea Tar Pits in California, the most famous example of such a baited trap, have produced one of the highest numbers of fossil carnivorans found in any single locality. Cave sites are also important concentrating localities, as many carnivores use caves and fissures as lairs. Mixnitz Cave in Austria may have contained the remains of nearly 50,000 cave bears (Kurtén 1976a). Outside of such sites fossil carnivorans are rare, and many taxa are known only from dentitions. In spite of these problems, the fossil record of carnivorans is good and provides answers to questions concerning the evolution of adaptation and diversity in carnivores.​

I guess you just never got around to reading such articles in your 3 decades of study on the subject.

So know be a adult, and objective intellectually honest man, and keep the baby throwing out the dirty bath water.

Or, I could be an actual intellectually honest adult man, and call you out - once again - for your straw-grasping and lack of genuine, legitimate knowledge on a subject that you are, nevertheless, content to pontificate on.

But you can pat yourself on the back for not plagiarizing anything (so far) or doctoring quotes to prop up your evidence-free opinions.

 

[tas8831]

That's not true at all. There's plenty of evidence of ID. Here's just a few off the top of my head.

Earth is more than in a Goldilocks zone. The totality of everything needed for life to exist here is so complex, that it defies anything other than ID.[/]

Argument from awe - rejected.

If the carbon dioxide levels were even slightly higher or lower, no life. If the earth's tilt was less or more, no seasons. If the gravitational effects we're slightly more/less, no life.

If the hole in the ground were a different shape, the mud puddle in it right now could not exist.

There is so many fragile levels of things needed that to throw off any one of them would mean no life possible here.

And this is evidence for ID how?

The physical constants aren't even constant now they say. (Scientific America-Constants Changing? June 1995 (2005?)

There goes ID!

LOL!

The odds of any one thing coming together randomly is high. The odds of all of them coming together into such a fragile balance, randomly at once enters into what they probability absurdity, or something like that.

Show your math.

Then explain how that is applicable.

Even the big bang is absurd. We do know, the first law of physics (I think lol) is everything flows from order to chaos. Big bang is, explosion...to chaos, not order. Big bang would put smaller planets/ debris out further, and bigger ones in closer...the Solar system is not laid out like that..

Argument via assertion.

Nice.

I could go on and on, but I gotta get going soon, and don't have my notes with me

Clearly.

 

[Waggles]

One problem which creationists have with popular presentations like that is that they seem to miss the assumption of provisionality which underlies all scientific theories.

Why should I rely on the provisionality of evolution when I can build my knowledge of
the world on the certainty and truth of creation.

 

[Gene2memE]

That's not true at all. There's plenty of evidence of ID. Here's just a few off the top of my head.

Earth is more than in a Goldilocks zone.

That Goldilocks zone is (drumroll please) about .6 of an AU - which is about 90 million km across.

The totality of everything needed for life to exist here is so complex, that it defies anything other than ID.

Actually, there's one other very well evidenced explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and a whole heap of really poorly evidenced ones.

If the carbon dioxide levels were even slightly higher or lower, no life.

Funny - concentrations of CO2 literally an order of magnitude higher than we have not have existed in the past 40 million years, and life didn't have any problems dealing with it. Similarly, CO2 concentrations less that half of what it is now have occurred in the past 2 million years, and ligfe had no problems there.

If the earth's tilt was less or more, no seasons.

No seasons would mean that life was different (probably), but no axial tilt and no seasons really doesn't matter that much to most lifeforms. Certainly it wouldn't affect most sea life, all archea and bacteria, all lithtropes and most other micro-organsiams, which make up the vast preponderance of life on the planet.

We MIGHT not be around, but then again, humans have only been around for a very, very, very short time in the history of life.

If the gravitational effects we're slightly more/less, no life.

If gravity were different, no universe and ergo not life. Or possibly not. There are some models that suggest a the gravitational constant could swing upwards/downwards by 4% and things would still be much as they are.

The physical constants aren't even constant now they say. (Scientific America-Constants Changing? June 1995 (2005?)

You might want to go back and check the tape on that one. To the best of my knowledge, they physical constants have been pretty much "constant" since the very early universe. Any changes in them have been in the order of parts per million or parts per billion.

The odds of any one thing coming together randomly is high. The odds of all of them coming together into such a fragile balance, randomly at once enters into what they probability absurdity, or something like that.

Gonna need to see your maths on that one chief. Care to outline how you made your probability calculations?

Even the big bang is absurd. We do know, the first law of physics (I think lol) is everything flows from order to chaos. Big bang is, explosion...to chaos, not order. Big bang would put smaller planets/ debris out further, and bigger ones in closer...the Solar system is not laid out like that..

You really don't know much about early universe cosmology do you? I don't either (really), but I do know enough to shake my head at just how awful your description of the Big Bang is.

Wiki has a nice write up on the timeline of the early universe, which provides a nice springboard to dive into the longer/deeper descriptions of the formation of our universe.