Jump to content


Photo

Creation Is ...


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#81 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 September 2009 - 03:23 AM

To the best of my knowledge it means either: 1. There is an answer and we don't know it, or 2. There simply isn't an answer and a designer must be correct.

If this is what you mean then I understand, I was just hoping there might be a reason that abiogenesis is impossible, rather than simply not knowing the answer. Something that Kenyon could point to and say "abiogenesis will never work because of X".

Keep in mind the original reason we started down this path was due to this comment.
I was just assuming that 'revealed' meant we'd found something that went against abiogenesis. Not a lack of finding.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Maybe an intelligent being exists that created the first life forms. Is this an answer? Is science allowed to consider it? Is science allowed to reveal evidence that points in that direction and away from other possibilities regarding the origin of life?

Does science's revelations of some of what goes on inside even the simplest known life forms point towards or away from abiogenesis?

Is science allowed to test if abiogenesis is true or not rather than how abiogenesis happened?

What would be considered necessary to show abiogenesis is utterly implausible? Can science reveal this possibility to us?

If science had revealed that some cells were "simple lumps of albuminous combinations of carbon" would it be incorrect for me or anyone to claim that science had revealed abiogenesis is utterly implausible?

These are not rhetorical questions.

(my answer is yes to the last question btw)

#82 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 September 2009 - 03:43 AM

If a designer had decided to create life for survival, thwart all evolutionary explanations and convey a biotic message* what would that life look like?
The answer to this one is in the book.

*biotic message:
Life is the product of a single designer - life was intentionally designed to resist all other interpretations of origin.

#83 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 September 2009 - 04:22 AM

If a designer had decided to create life for survival, thwart all evolutionary explanations and convey a biotic message* what would that life look like?
The answer to this one is in the book.

View Post


Who can say what it would look like. There's every chance it could like exactly the same as it does now, or it might be very very different. What can we be pretty certain of though, is that it wouldn't change like it does.

Maybe an intelligent being exists that created the first life forms. Is this an answer? Is science allowed to consider it? Is science allowed to reveal evidence that points in that direction and away from other possibilities regarding the origin of life?

View Post


Absolutely! And if you can think of a way of testing it you'll earn a great deal of respect from me and a great deal of money, regardless of the answer you get.

Does science's revelations of some of what goes on inside even the simplest known life forms point towards or away from abiogenesis?

View Post


Judging by some of the latest reading I've done on RNA, towards. Not to say there isn't a great deal of evidence that says its still going to be terribly difficult, but certainly possible.

Is science allowed to test if abiogenesis is true or not rather than how abiogenesis happened?

View Post


Well you kind of need to start by testing the how to derrive whether or not it's true or not. But that would be the ultimate goal yes.

What would be considered necessary to show abiogenesis is utterly implausible? Can science reveal this possibility to us?

View Post


I certainly hope we can get an answer one way or the other. Personally my knowledge of the intricate details of abiogenesis is rather limited, so I'm relying on someone else to explain to me what would be needed to show it as implausible.

If science had revealed that some cells were "simple lumps of albuminous combinations of carbon" would it be incorrect for me or anyone to claim that science had revealed abiogenesis is utterly implausible?
...
(my answer is yes to the last question btw

View Post


You'll have to go into a little more detail on this one. I've no idea what albuminous carbon is, nor how that would impact abiogenesis.

Regards,

Arch.

#84 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 September 2009 - 04:37 AM

If this is what you mean then I understand, I was just hoping there might be a reason that abiogenesis is impossible, rather than simply not knowing the answer.

View Post

Yes there is a reason why abiogenesis is impossible. It's the nature of biotic information. Proteins aren't collections of molecules simply falling into neutral bonds. They are assembled and ordered based on information that directs manufacturing. You have 20 amino acids that aren't just falling together to make proteins but they are very special molecules that can be arranged in a limitless number of formations but living being can't have this. They must manufacture only certain types of proteins and only the proper handedness will do. Isn't it interesting how both left and right handed amino acids can be made but living tissue must exclude right handed amino acids? Only Left handed amino acids are involved in the process of life but they both exist naturally.... :P

Arch, if this doesn't interest you to question the core dogma of philosophical naturalism then you may have gone as far as you can here. If this merely invokes boredom rather than a curiousness about the nature of living systems in relation to the 'normalness' of unguided chemical reaction then you may as well quit here because you've gotten as much as you can out of this place.

#85 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 19 September 2009 - 04:46 AM

Who can say what it would look like. There's every chance it could like exactly the same as it does now, or it might be very very different. What can we be pretty certain of though, is that it wouldn't change like it does.

View Post


Someone has said, he wrote it all down in a book. It is available for anyone to read and evaluate. It is real testable science that can be falsified. Are you interested in doing this or would you rather just dismiss it with "who can say"?

A designer wouldn't give life the ability to change and adapt to its environment to increase its chance of surviving? Of course not! What a crazy idea. That would be like someone who writes computer viruses giving them the ability to change depending on the different OS and network environments they encountered. It's foolishness I tell ya!

#86 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 September 2009 - 09:58 PM

Close. I'm saying the three major predictions of Classical Darwinism have been falsified by the fossil record. There are many lines of evidence pointing to that conclusion.  One of them is the fall of Darwinian Systematics (replaced by the rise of cladistics). Another is the rise of punctuated equilibrium theory to replace Classical Darwinism.  These were attempts to save evolutionary theory from falsification, by making modern evolutionary theory unfalsifiable.

View Post


My understanding of cladistics and punctuated equilibrium is quite limited...actually I hadn't even heard of cladistics before B)

You're obviously dealing with a rookie here, so type slowly. (That'll make a difference right? :P )

Cladistics: is a form of biological systematics which classifies living organisms on the basis of shared ancestry.


By the sounds of it cladistics tries to classify ancestral history based on genetics, correct? I would have thought this would be easy to falsify. For example if the evidence pointed to hippos being the ancestors of frogs it's a pretty safe bet the method is a tad off. Also comparing the genetic evidence to the fossil record should yield results.

Punctuated Equilibrium: is the idea that animals will often endure a time of status (little evolution) only to step into overdrive when their environment changes. In a nutshell, is this correct?

Again, it seems this could be tested by comparing the geological record to sudden explosions in animal populations. Well, their fossils anyway :lol:

I didn't say "a changing theory is a bad thing".  Please be careful.  I said an untestable theory is not scientific, by the same criteria evolutionists used in all their court cases.  Modern evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape -- it no longer has structure; it no longer makes predictions; it is no longer testable.

View Post


I guess anything I write here is dependent on your answers to my above questions. I'd only add that evolution does make predictions. Someone made a huge post a while back explaining all the things evolution predicts. Naturally I can't find it again :lol:. If anyone could throw a link in it'd be much appreciated.

Astrology can adapt to "fit the data." You wouldn't call that scientific would you?

View Post


I really think this is a poor example. Astrology is no longer considered science because it failed its scientific testings. You see, it couldn't shift to fit the data. Astrologist made predictions and they didn't turn out right. Not that hard to disprove really.

False theories are no longer scientific. They are false. Duh.  Scientific theories are neither false nor unfalsifiable.

View Post


The point is at some stage they were. Or more to the point, the methods to test them were.

Astrology was a theory. It was proven false not because it was deemed untestable, but because it failed the tests. The theory is not science, but the methods to test it were.

Same deal with evolution. It's a theory. By the reading I've done it can definitely be proven false. It's not untestable. Which makes it a valid theory until such time as someone proves it wrong.

So, is there any reason we have to think evolution is wrong?

Regards,

Arch.

#87 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 September 2009 - 10:09 PM

Someone has said, he wrote it all down in a book. It is available for anyone to read and evaluate. It is real testable science that can be falsified.  Are you interested in doing this or would you rather just dismiss it with "who can say"?

View Post


This is the point Ryyker. How can you have real, testable science, based around a theory you think is unfalsifiable? If it can be tested then you can falsify it.
Seriously, if there is a book out there that claims it has found conclusive evidence evolution cannot be true, then they've falsified the theory. Making evolution falsifiable.

At the moment I really don't care whether the books info is correct or not. I need you to realise the logic being used is inconstant with itself. If we can find some common ground on this point I might just consider picking up this book.

A designer wouldn't give life the ability to change and adapt to its environment to increase its chance of surviving? Of course not! What a crazy idea.

View Post


"If a designer had decided to create life for survival, thwart all evolutionary explanations and..."

By your own definition the designer did not create changing life. That's all I meant when I said it wouldn't change the way we see it doing. Of course a designer could creating adaptable life...but then it would look just the way we see now. It just means the designer created life that could evolve. Not unrealistic, but an explanation that most on these forums don't accept.

Regards,

Arch.

#88 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 21 September 2009 - 10:14 PM

Yes there is a reason why abiogenesis is impossible. It's the nature of biotic information. Proteins aren't collections of molecules simply falling into neutral bonds. They are assembled and ordered based on information that directs manufacturing. You have 20 amino acids that aren't just falling together to make proteins but they are very special molecules that can be arranged in a limitless number of formations but living being can't have this. They must manufacture only certain types of proteins and only the proper handedness will do. Isn't it interesting how both left and right handed amino acids can be made but living tissue must exclude right handed amino acids? Only Left handed amino acids are involved in the process of life but they both exist naturally....  :P

View Post


Sorry Adam, most of that flies well above my head B) Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does sound like you're trying to apply modern life limitations on the original lifeforms which we know next to nothing about.

Arch, if this doesn't interest you to question the core dogma of philosophical naturalism then you may have gone as far as you can here. If this merely invokes boredom rather than a curiousness about the nature of living systems in relation to the 'normalness' of unguided chemical reaction then you may as well quit here because you've gotten as much as you can out of this place.

View Post


I'm always interested in questioning :lol: But there's not much point if the other party isn't interested in questioning also. So how about it Adam? Are you willing to question the teachings of the church? Or the existence of a designer? Or are you already unwaveringly certain that He exists?

Regards,

Arch.

#89 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 22 September 2009 - 03:16 AM

This is the point Ryyker. How can you have real, testable science, based around a theory you think is unfalsifiable? If it can be tested then you can falsify it.
Seriously, if there is a book out there that claims it has found conclusive evidence evolution cannot be true, then they've falsified the theory. Making evolution falsifiable.

At the moment I really don't care whether the books info is correct or not. I need you to realise the logic being used is inconstant with itself. If we can find some common ground on this point I might just consider picking up this book.

View Post


Message Theory requires A and !B and C and !D and E and F and G and !H etc.
Current evolutionary theory is structureless enough to allow A or !A or B or !B or C or !C or D or !D or E or !E or F or !F or G or !G or H or !H etc.

This is one of the main points of the book and ReMine's exposure of this is thorough and compelling.

(! = false)

"If a designer had decided to create life for survival, thwart all evolutionary explanations and..."

By your own definition the designer did not create changing life. That's all I meant when I said it wouldn't change the way we see it doing. Of course a designer could creating adaptable life...but then it would look just the way we see now. It just means the designer created life that could evolve. Not unrealistic, but an explanation that most on these forums don't accept.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


You just lost all credibility* with me Arch, trying the old canards of change=evolution and adaptability=evolution. How many on this forum do you think fall for it?
Computer viruses exit that have been given the information necessary to change themselves, as they reproduce, by their designer. This ability is limited to specific parts of the virus and is an attempt by the designer to increase the viruses survival, (avoid anti-virus software). This ability could in no way explain a computer virus ever becoming a spreadsheet application or explain away the original designer.

My body changes and adapts to its environment. Woohoo, guess that means I could be Mr. Olympia one day. That is all there is to it, right? Why has everyone gone quiet all of a sudden?

* credibility has nothing to do with agreement/disagreement

#90 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 September 2009 - 03:56 AM

(! = false)
You just lost all credibility* with me Arch, trying the old canards of change=evolution and adaptability=evolution. How many on this forum do you think fall for it?
Computer viruses exit that have been given the information necessary to change themselves, as they reproduce, by their designer. This ability is limited to specific parts of the virus and is an attempt by the designer to increase the viruses survival, (avoid anti-virus software). This ability could in no way explain a computer virus ever becoming a spreadsheet application or explain away the original designer.

My body changes and adapts to its environment. Woohoo, guess that means I could be Mr. Olympia one day. That is all there is to it, right? Why has everyone gone quiet all of a sudden?

* credibility has nothing to do with agreement/disagreement

View Post


Excellent observation Ryyker. The points you bring up here have been explained on numerous occasions at this forum, but the obstinate at heart argue against all such truths. I suppose if the obstinate repented (had a change of heart) on this subject they could extend it out-and-out and say they “evolved” their mind about it.

#91 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 September 2009 - 05:31 PM

Message Theory requires A and !B and C and !D and E and F and G and !H etc.
Current evolutionary theory is structureless enough to allow A or !A or B or !B or C or !C or D or !D  or E or !E or F or !F or G or !G or H or !H etc.

This is one of the main points of the book and ReMine's exposure of this is thorough and compelling.

View Post


In which case you think it can't be falsified because it allows everything. It cannot be properly tested. But that also says that you can't prove it true or false. It hangs in limbo.

You just lost all credibility* with me Arch, trying the old canards of change=evolution and adaptability=evolution.

View Post


Darn it. I re-read that part numerous times because I knew this would come up. I thought I'd chosen my wording better. Let me try again.

By your own definition the designer did not create changing life ("thwart all evolutionary explanations").

Of course a designer could creating changing life...but then it would look just the way we see now. However that's not the scenario you were painting. You seem to be painting one where animals can adapt, but not evolve.

But if life could only adapt, and not evolve, it would not look the way it does. There are many examples where an animals makeup has changed into something different. This is more than just adapting.

Sorry for the confusion. It was my fault and I'm happy to wear that one.

Regards,

Arch.

#92 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 22 September 2009 - 06:35 PM

In which case you think it can't be falsified because it allows everything. It cannot be properly tested. But that also says that you can't prove it true or false. It hangs in limbo.
Darn it. I re-read that part numerous times because I knew this would come up. I thought I'd chosen my wording better. Let me try again.

By your own definition the designer did not create changing life ("thwart all evolutionary explanations").

Of course a designer could creating changing life...but then it would look just the way we see now. However that's not the scenario you were painting. You seem to be painting one where animals can adapt, but not evolve.

But if life could only adapt, and not evolve, it would not look the way it does. There are many examples where an animals makeup has changed into something different. This is more than just adapting.

Sorry for the confusion. It was my fault and I'm happy to wear that one.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Sorry, I didn't read the book guys, though I will get to it I hope.

But to answer you Arch. I personally as a creationist do believe things evolve--evolve means change. Look at the thousands of new bacteria that they are discovering in the ocean. With horizontal gene transfer and newly discovered inherent recombination abilities bacteria have probably evolved and speciated.

However they evolved horizontally--they are still bacteria. They are not protist or fungi which are totally different genetically than bacteria. That is there are limits--and when you can show me something crossing the line--not speciating but changing from one type or kind of organism to another--then I'll consider becoming a theistic evolutionist. But I'm sure I'll never see that.

#93 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 September 2009 - 09:02 PM

when you can show me something crossing the line--not speciating but changing from one type or kind of organism to another--then I'll consider becoming a theistic evolutionist.  But I'm sure I'll never see that.

View Post


Well no, odds are you'll never see it. It's unlikely any single person will :(

Now, I'm a tad confused. Speaking with others on this board recently I was told they believed specie and kind to mean the same thing. But by the sounds of it you don't. Could you clarify this with an example of what would convince you? I'll see if I can dig something up ;)

Regards,

Arch.

#94 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:17 AM

In which case you think it can't be falsified because it allows everything. It cannot be properly tested. But that also says that you can't prove it true or false. It hangs in limbo.

View Post


Current evolution theory is structureless enough to allow virtually everything and is therefor not an explanation of anything and is unfalsifiable. Regardless of whether you agree with that or not, it is one of the main points of the book. No one has said that evolution is now or ever has been both unfalsifiable and falsified (the book certainly does not claim this). What has been claimed is that evolution theory was falsifiable, was falsified and has now changed in such away that it is now unfalsifiable.

Regarding the particular phrase "thwart all evolutionary explanations", when evolution theory did offer explanations they were thwarted which required evolution theory to become unexplanatory or remain thwarted. Theory that just says "evolution happened" but offers no falsifiable structure of explanation is not an explanation, certainly not a scientific one.

The very thing that you keep questioning is all explained in the book but you use it as a reason not to read the book.

Darn it. I re-read that part numerous times because I knew this would come up. I thought I'd chosen my wording better. Let me try again.

By your own definition the designer did not create changing life ("thwart all evolutionary explanations").

Of course a designer could creating changing life...but then it would look just the way we see now. However that's not the scenario you were painting. You seem to be painting one where animals can adapt, but not evolve.

But if life could only adapt, and not evolve, it would not look the way it does. There are many examples where an animals makeup has changed into something different. This is more than just adapting.

Sorry for the confusion. It was my fault and I'm happy to wear that one.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Please stop with the changing=evolution, adapting=evolution. I don't know who's intelligence it insults more; yours or the readers. You will be hard pressed to find any evolution opponent who does not believe life changes and adapts to the environment.

Simply saying that life looks the way it does because it evolved is hand waiving and begging the question.
Simply saying that "there are are many examples where an animals makeup has changed into something different" without providing example(s) and defining "makeup" and "different" is more hand waiving.

What I and I am sure most other evolution opponents require is scientific explanation; a structured, falsifiable, unfalsified theory. There is a thread ready for it here: How Does One Falsify Vaporware?, Theory? What theory?

#95 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 25 September 2009 - 07:26 AM

Excellent observation Ryyker. The points you bring up here have been explained on numerous occasions at this forum, but the obstinate at heart argue against all such truths. I suppose if the obstinate repented (had a change of heart) on this subject they could extend it out-and-out and say they “evolved” their mind about it.

View Post


Don't you know evolution explains everything? :) It is a wonderful thing to believe, it removes the possibility of accountability and a being greater than us who might hold us accountable.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users