Jump to content


Photo

Why Pick Evolution To Argue Against?

evolution science theory creation bible

  • Please log in to reply
352 replies to this topic

#341 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 12 October 2016 - 04:58 AM

If feels to me that there is a "hang up" here with the issue of God. Do you not see the unnecessary limitation put on to science and its interpretations?

 

I wasn't going to bring up Pasteur, but since you did, here is the question:

If Pasteur so convincingly demonstrated by observation and experimentation, that life does not come from non-life, what then are the experiments that give evidence to the contrary?

 

Remember, intelligence and information are real things. Science can tell us that. So why not look at living things from the perspective that the regular and predictable processes of nature work on these too? 

A priori limitations can indeed get a problem. And that's what e.g. the demarcation problem deals with. Take "Methodological Naturalism" and the intellectually dishonest way it is promoted by. They say that it's not "Ontological Materialism", but that's exactly what they're promoting with it, since it is de facto implied. Because, if only naturalistic/materialistic explanations are allowed, aren't you assuming that this is all that there is. 
 
Concerning the law of biogenesis and Pasteur's experiments, they'll probably claim that it isn't a natural law at all, we just need more time and more experiments until life comes from non-life. That their own religious prejudices won't allow them to accept that it just doesn't happen, they will not easily admit, too. 
 
There is a materialistic argument against the metaphysical character of information as well, but I don't think it holds a lot of water under philosophical scrutiny. Intelligence is a concept that has been under constant dispute in the last three decades. More in terms of a intelligence as a personality trait. People tend to be different in that trait. And I think here it's mainly the egalitarians that don't like it, especially because it seems to be a strongly inherited trait as well. 
I think someone that's just a Materialist, could still live with that. He'd view intelligent as some computing capacity of neurological machines (that's what humans are to them).


#342 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 12 October 2016 - 07:08 AM

If feels to me that there is a "hang up" here with the issue of God. Do you not see the unnecessary limitation put on to science and its interpretations?

It's a necessary limitation.

I wasn't going to bring up Pasteur, but since you did, here is the question:
If Pasteur so convincingly demonstrated by observation and experimentation, that life does not come from non-life, what then are the experiments that give evidence to the contrary?

It was demonstrated to people in the 19th century that their particular ideas about how life came from non-life were wrong. So far, nobody has been able to explain to me what bearing boiling broth and not finding bacteria in it later has on any modern theory of abiogenesis.

Remember, intelligence and information are real things. Science can tell us that. So why not look at living things from the perspective that the regular and predictable processes of nature work on these too?

Once again, we're talking specifically about Blitzking's assertion that excluding God (not regular or predictable) as an explanation is unscientific.

#343 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 12 October 2016 - 07:27 AM

It's a necessary limitation.
 

Why?

 


It was demonstrated to people in the 19th century that their particular ideas about how life came from non-life were wrong. So far, nobody has been able to explain to me what bearing boiling broth and not finding bacteria in it later has on any modern theory of abiogenesis.
 

Has there ever been ANY experiment where Pasteur has been proven wrong? It seems 150 years of scientific study have show the abiogenesis problem to be even greater than first imagined.

 



Once again, we're talking specifically about Blitzking's assertion that excluding God (not regular or predictable) as an explanation is unscientific.

But it is the product of an intelligence that can be studied and tested. That should NOT be excluded.



#344 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 October 2016 - 11:23 AM

 

 

Bonedigger: The constant condescending, pretentious, disparaging remarks about creationists and science in her posts just added extra tension to the spring in her ejection seat.

:rotfl3:

 

Can I just say as a member of ID-creation, that ID-evolution (intelligently designed by Darwin on behalf of atheism) is a whole lot less, "I" than ID-creationism.

 

Though strictly speaking, ID is not creationism it is just ID. That SOME of the group "ID" are ID-creation doesn't mean the whole of ID is creation, like some fruit are round, but bananas aren't.... for any bananas struggling to understand me. :D

 

RJ, as a member of the POPE group, --"propagation of propaganda evo" (of which no doubt the pope is a part of)  ;)--, has exited stage left, I hope she can one day find the humility to accept the creation under her nose and finally realise that giraffes just don't come from mud.

 

:P

 

I usually leave the last word to those who depend on it, knowing the only way to beat me is if I don't respond but I think just this once, I've earned it having posted many a rebuttal and spending a lot of time dealing with RJ's almost devious, fallacious rhetoric



#345 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 12 October 2016 - 03:42 PM

Why?

You can't make a prediction about something if it's no longer a given that its behavior has been consistent in the past and will continue to be in the future.
 

Has there ever been ANY experiment where Pasteur has been proven wrong? It seems 150 years of scientific study have show the abiogenesis problem to be even greater than first imagined.

My question is whether Pasteur (or more to the point the claims people want to present Pasteur as supporting) was proven right in the first place. What does broth have to do with any modern theory of abiogenesis?

Disproving the theories of spontaneous generation that were around at that time doesn't mean he's disproven anything that even remotely looks like spontaneous generation.
 

But it is the product of an intelligence that can be studied and tested. That should NOT be excluded.

How do you propose to study and test a supernatural cause?

#346 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 12 October 2016 - 06:17 PM


 

I usually leave the last word to those who depend on it, knowing the only way to beat me is if I don't respond but I think just this once, I've earned it having posted many a rebuttal and spending a lot of time dealing with RJ's almost devious, fallacious rhetoric

Agreed. RJ had nothing but fallacious rhetoric. I admire your patience Mike. :)



#347 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 12 October 2016 - 06:41 PM

You can't make a prediction about something if it's no longer a given that its behavior has been consistent in the past and will continue to be in the future.
 

You can make predictions on the product. The product is expected to behave according to known natural laws of physics and chemistry.

 

 
My question is whether Pasteur (or more to the point the claims people want to present Pasteur as supporting) was proven right in the first place. What does broth have to do with any modern theory of abiogenesis?

Disproving the theories of spontaneous generation that were around at that time doesn't mean he's disproven anything that even remotely looks like spontaneous generation.
 

It is not the broth issue, it is that life does not arise from non-life. This seems to hold quite true so far, wouldn't you agree?

 

 
How do you propose to study and test a supernatural cause?

I do not propose to study and test the cause. As I said before, that is a matter of historical science. Neither evolution theory or ID Theory can test that unless one invents a time machine perhaps. What is tested is the product of that event or cause. In other words, we study and test life, much as it has been tested and studied by evolutionary theory. But with more attention to information theory and direction of evolution and without the limitation of a materialistic-only explanation.

 

Here are some questions that will be asked at the upcoming Cambridge Conference in Nov.- Beyond Materialism: Biology in the 21st Century.

 

  • What if information, and not physical or material causes, provides the key to understanding biology?
  • What are the principles governing the origin and transmission of biological information?
  • Does materialism restrict our intellectual freedom to explore the full landscape of causal possibilities?

  • mike the wiz likes this

#348 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 12 October 2016 - 07:45 PM

You can make predictions on the product. The product is expected to behave according to known natural laws of physics and chemistry.

Why would you expect that when the laws of physics and chemistry were broken (at least according to you) to create it?

If you know that the natural laws of chemistry and physics were broken at least once, are they truly laws?
 

It is not the broth issue, it is that life does not arise from non-life.

It absolutely is the broth issue if you want to claim Pasteur proved anything close to what you're claiming.
 

This seems to hold quite true so far, wouldn't you agree?

Must have happened at least once.
 

I do not propose to study and test the cause. As I said before, that is a matter of historical science. Neither evolution theory or ID Theory can test that unless one invents a time machine perhaps. What is tested is the product of that event or cause. In other words, we study and test life, much as it has been tested and studied by evolutionary theory. But with more attention to information theory and direction of evolution and without the limitation of a materialistic-only explanation.

Once you've shed the shackles of materialistic explanations, how do you propose to test those explanations?

#349 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 13 October 2016 - 06:02 AM

Why would you expect that when the laws of physics and chemistry were broken (at least according to you) to create it?
 

Who says that they were broken? All that is needed is the application of information. Humans do it all the time. Ask any one in the engineering field.

 

 
It absolutely is the broth issue if you want to claim Pasteur proved anything close to what you're claiming.
 

Forget Pasteur. Do you know any instance where abiogenesis occurs in the natural environment? If scientists are one day able to create life in the lab, it will be engineered. But don't expect this anytime soon.

 

Must have happened at least once.
 

Ok. We both agree that the abiogenesis problem was overcome at least once. So did it happen by a random process or a designed process?

 

 
Once you've shed the shackles of materialistic explanations, how do you propose to test those explanations?

I answered this already.


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#350 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 October 2016 - 11:41 PM

I saw your previous comments on it, and they are different from your initial statement in post nr 169.
Do you agree or disagree that the experiment by Yuuki Hayashi et al show your initial statement in post nr 169 wrong?
 
Do you agree or disagree that it shows that genes can form without any intelligent input?

 
 

It is not a matter of gene formation. It is a matter of generating functional information that is novel. We agree that small changes can and do occur. Your cited experiments demonstrates the point that organisms, in this case bacteriophages, basically remain what they are. The function that they are performing is still "infectivity." Microevolution confirmed. Macro-evolution is not.

Hello Gneiss Girl.
I'm sorry for my long time between your posting and this answer, but I had a very busy time at work.
 
I still don't have a clear answer to my question. I want to remind you of the statement in post nr 169 that started my postings.

Tsk, Tsk. And the same could be said about the Neo-Darwinian crowd who "dumbly accept" that random natural processes and mutation can "write" the code of life without the insertion of information from an intelligent source.

Do you agree, yes or no that the DNA of the phage in the Yuuki Hayashi experiment has changed without any intelligent interference?

Do you agree that this shows your statement in posting nr 169 as debunked?

 

In your answer you don't need to repeat that "the phage is still a phage". You have done so multiple times, and that is not what I ask, nor is this what you claimed initially.

I will comment on your following posts once this has been cleared.

 

kind regards,

driewerf.



#351 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 17 October 2016 - 09:17 AM

 
 

Hello Gneiss Girl.
I'm sorry for my long time between your posting and this answer, but I had a very busy time at work.

No problem. I get busy too.

 

 
 
I still don't have a clear answer to my question. I want to remind you of the statement in post nr 169 that started my postings.

Do you agree, yes or no that the DNA of the phage in the Yuuki Hayashi experiment has changed without any intelligent interference?

Do you agree that this shows your statement in posting nr 169 as debunked?

 

Here is my statement from comment #169.

 

"And the same could be said about the Neo-Darwinian crowd who "dumbly accept" that random natural processes and mutation can "write" the code of life without the insertion of information from an intelligent source."

 

This comment was intended to refer to the "code of life" as the development of DNA which contained enough information to form life. In other words, enough DNA information to overcome the abiogenesis problem. Did the formation of the "code of life" (DNA) occur by random natural process or by a designed process?

 

 

 
 

 

Do you agree, yes or no that the DNA of the phage in the Yuuki Hayashi experiment has changed without any intelligent interference?

Do you agree that this shows your statement in posting nr 169 as debunked?

I agree that the DNA of the phage in the Yuuki Hayashi experiment did change through BOTH intelligent interference and by random processes. If you read the paper, you will find that they "knocked out" much of the bacteriophage's infectivity by design. The phage regained some of its infectivity through mutation. The paper does not claim that the experiment produced a "new" gene. This is an example of microevolution and is not evidence that macro-evolution is possible.

 

One gene would not contain enough information to produce life. That takes the coordination of many genes. Mutations (evolution with no intelligent interference) can affect the information that is contained in the genes....in the DNA. BUT this will almost always be in a direction that degrades the DNA information. And the process of mutation is not capable of "writing" the "code of life".....functional DNA sufficient to produce life. Nor are mutations sufficient to produce a macro-evolutionary change as this would have to overcome the specificity problem. Mutations cannot "write" that amount of new genetic code to produce a macro-evolution.

 

My comment #169 is true.

 

Kinds regards to you as well, driewerf.

 

Gneissgirl



#352 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 865 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 19 November 2016 - 07:13 AM

You keep repeating that line. You do realize that it means that the question about the diversity of life has been answered in an intelligent way. And the intelligent way requires critical thinking. Something flat earthers for example obviously can't do. You no longer have to dumbly accept that "God did it" for one of the most profound questions about life.

 

"And the intelligent way requires critical thinking. Something flat earthers for example obviously can't do."

 

I Agree 100% ..One would have to use the EXACTLY THE SAME kind of "critical thinking" to believe that the Earth is flat as to believe in the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis / Darwinian Common Ancestor..

 

Considering that the president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, You make a good point!

 

https://www.theguard...t-earth-society

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12379



#353 Dogen

Dogen

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 56
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indiana

Posted 24 November 2016 - 10:23 AM

"And the intelligent way requires critical thinking. Something flat earthers for example obviously can't do."

 

I Agree 100% ..One would have to use the EXACTLY THE SAME kind of "critical thinking" to believe that the Earth is flat as to believe in the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of Abiogenesis / Darwinian Common Ancestor..

 

Considering that the president of the Flat Earth Society is a Darwinist, You make a good point!

 

https://www.theguard...t-earth-society

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12379

The Flat Earth Society is a sarcastic name.  They do not actually advocate that the Earth is flat.  

 

As far as evolution goes, you may have to supply more than an argument from personal incredulity to stop a theory that is the cornerstone of modern biology and is used in medical technology.  Critical thinking requires information.  What evidence do you have that evolutions has not been at work on our planet for 3.8 billion years at the least (earliest fossilized microorganism)?  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: evolution, science, theory, creation, bible

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users