|
Post by Ed on Dec 6, 2019 16:29:29 GMT -5
1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. I wonder where you learned this. Sounds like a creationist point of view. In general the concept is the big bang started as a singularity, a point of infinite density and gravity. This does not imply the absence of energy-matter. The universe is continuing to expand due to the initial acceleration. No god needed. One theory is that it will continue to expand. And the expantion will result in cooling. There are several theories that follow this. One, the Big Bounce, proposes that the universe has gravity pulling all the bits back together resulting in a singularity (Big Crunch) and then a following Big Bang. It could vibrate forever - No God Required (NGR). Reference supporting this idea? A complete stop reletive to whom? Does time stop or does it become infinite? Also, where are you getting these 'predictions'? This is like claiming that a container is 'fine tuned' to the the shape that water will take when it is filled. This fails to take into account organisms that generate energy from sulfer. Of course the universe seems fine-tuned to us - it’s the only one we know! First of all, unique is an absolute. Something is or is not unique. It cannot be almost unique nor extreemly unique. The earth is part of the solar system around one of the billions and billions of stars just in in our galaxy. And it is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies that can be observed in the universe. Our planet is simply a mediocre member of a mediocre solar system in a mediocre galaxy. And towards the end of the life of the sun the earth will be engulfed and all will come to an end. So much for the finly tuned habitat of mankind. Not quite right unless you want to consider stromatolites complex. They were around for more than a billion years before multicell red algea appeared. Basalt rocks in Quebec, Canada, show evidence of water about 4 billion years ago. The stromatolites appeared about 3.4 billion years ago. I guess in the big picture 0.6 billion years could be considered abruptly - especially if you are trying to support your belief. I wish I had scrolled down earlier and learned that this was just a cut and paste from the Discovery Institute. Intelligent design creationism - a pseudoscience that maintains that the physical world show signs of having been designed by an intelligent being most often the christian god. Evolution - a pseudoscience that maintains that the physical world show signs of having formed life out of mindless matter. You have a few good questions Rational. Too bad you automatically exclude some answers.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 6, 2019 16:34:02 GMT -5
Here is a video that recently came out which refutes the lizard cecal valve as proof of macroevolution: Phenotypic Plasticity – Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEtgOApmnTA“When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.” -Phillip Johnson comment in the Wall Street Journal
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 6, 2019 16:35:29 GMT -5
I’m still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 6, 2019 17:46:52 GMT -5
Evolution - a pseudoscience that maintains that the physical world show signs of having formed life out of mindless matter. You have a few good questions Rational. Too bad you automatically exclude some answers. You need to note the difference between evolution and abiogenesis rather tyhan lumping them together. I don't automatically exclude answers. I heavily discount those that are not supported by either material or logical proof.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 3:43:08 GMT -5
Well your first sentence either shows that you have never read Krauss' book or you are being dishonest. I would say you never read the book and you don't know better. I do think you believe what you post. But the fact is this. A Universe from Nothing (I imagine this is the book you are referring to) isn't about nothing as you are interpreting it. Read the book. It's really a good read. If you have read it already, could you please explain to me what Krauss meant by 'nothing'. Quantum waves. Which are something to which he attributes creative qualities, yet calls his book, "A Universe from Nothing". Deceptive. Desperate. A wave is nothing, but an analysis of a system on the smallest conceivable scale. A wave is not matter, so it cannot be said to be a thing. A particle is a thing, but when observed as a particle the ability to describe its angular momentum and conceptualize it as a system ceases. Thus, a particle is a thing (a something). For reasons I cannot explain (the phenomenon is easy to grasp - the essence/agent/contextual framework impossible for my little brain), small particles exhibit wave/matter duality. But only one can be measured at a time. The revelation that an electron had a particle nature could only be obtained after interrupting the system and observing that electrons could collide at very precise and measurable points. So, a system of pure energy in pulsing momentum must "simply" be observed at one instance for matter to emerge. Once a quantum particle of matter has emerged, it creates a frame of reference by which other particles may be realized. This sets off a chain reaction by which matter emerges in proportionate rate to the amount of energy left (of which it formerly was), and can still become... somehow..... I actually have no idea what I'm talking about, but it seems reasonable to me at 2:40 am. It's probably way way off, but then again, who could really say? Safe enough anyway - once the work of theoretical physicists is supported strongly enough to be generally accepted as reality, the physicists who pioneered the ideas are too dead to win a Nobel. In other words, my great grandchildren may find this post, and get a chuckle out of how ignorant we were back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 3:52:25 GMT -5
I’m still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 I think around the 9:30 mark, you'll find exactly what you are requesting. www.ted.com/talks/david_r_liu_can_we_cure_genetic_diseases_by_rewriting_dna?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare"We realized that we could borrow, once again, the targeting mechanism of CRISPR scissors to bring the new base editor to the right site in a genome. But we quickly encountered an incredible problem; namely, there is no protein that's known to convert A into G or T into C in DNA. Faced with such a serious stumbling block, most students would probably look for another project, if not another research advisor. (Laughter) But Nicole agreed to proceed with a plan that seemed wildly ambitious at the time. Given the absence of a naturally occurring protein that performs the necessary chemistry, we decided we would evolve our own protein in the laboratory to convert A into a base that behaves like G, starting from a protein that performs related chemistry on RNA. We set up a Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest selection system that explored tens of millions of protein variants and only allowed those rare variants that could perform the necessary chemistry to survive. We ended up with a protein shown here, the first that can convert A in DNA into a base that resembles G. And when we attached that protein to the disabled CRISPR scissors, shown in blue, we produced the second base editor, which converts As into Gs, and then uses the same strand-nicking strategy that we used in the first base editor to trick the cell into replacing the nonedited T with a C as it remakes that nicked strand, thereby completing the conversion of an A-T base pair to a G-C base pair."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 7, 2019 4:18:43 GMT -5
I’m still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 And some of us are still waiting on YOU OR ANY creationist, -to produce evidence that they can show their ideas to be valid without bringing an ancient document called the "bible" into the mix .
Here is just one of many of those that you have used:
Sean McDowell Sean McDowell On Defending the Bible, Momentum Youth Conference 2019
Sean McDowell talks at Momentum 2019 on evidence for the Bible's New Testament. Summary: We can count on God’s Word for truth/transformation.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2019 13:16:59 GMT -5
Well your first sentence either shows that you have never read Krauss' book or you are being dishonest. I would say you never read the book and you don't know better. I do think you believe what you post. But the fact is this. A Universe from Nothing (I imagine this is the book you are referring to) isn't about nothing as you are interpreting it. Read the book. It's really a good read. If you have read it already, could you please explain to me what Krauss meant by 'nothing'. Quantum waves. Which are something to which he attributes creative qualities, yet calls his book, "A Universe from Nothing". Deceptive. Desperate. Did you or did you not read his book? You explain to me why you think he's talking about 'nothing' in the same sense as there being nothing in existence. That's not what he's talking about. In Quantum physics waves are only waves if unobserved (nothing). If observed they become particles (something).
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 7, 2019 16:14:15 GMT -5
I’m still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681Chances are the information will not come from Stephen C. Meyer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 16:15:30 GMT -5
I’m still waiting on you, or ANY Darwinists, to produce evidence that purely material neo-Darwinian processes can produce JUST ONE Novel functional protein: Stephen Meyer – Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans – video www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681Chances are the information will not come from Stephen C. Meyer. 😂😂 But if not him, then who?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 7, 2019 16:18:01 GMT -5
Chances are the information will not come from Stephen C. Meyer. 😂😂 But if not him, then who? A dance instructor at some small town dance studio, the elevator operator in the 1950s themed hotel, an air traffic controller, a tail docker in the Swiss Alps... just about anyone else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 16:25:31 GMT -5
Just food for thought as well - the field of applied evolutionary biology is advancing so very quickly and is producing such robust data that by the time a Creation "Scientist" gets around to processing the latest data and spends the exhausting amounts of time and brainpower to somehow make a case for every new advance supporting creationism rather than evolution, the field has progressed to the point where the refutation seems so obvious to those in the field that it's little wonder that creation "scientists" aren't taken seriously.
I suppose as long as they are taken seriously enough by the general population to sell some books for God and Church's sake, that's what is really important. But I cannot stress how much of a non-factor "Creation Science" is when it comes to making predictions and solving real problems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 16:27:35 GMT -5
😂😂 But if not him, then who? A dance instructor at some small town dance studio, the elevator operator in the 1950s themed hotel, an air traffic controller, a tail docker in the Swiss Alps... just about anyone else. Unless he is blinded on a journey by scientific reason, you're actually probably right! I was nearly blinded by science once. Chemical burn to the left cornea. Lucky those grow back!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 7, 2019 16:43:44 GMT -5
A dance instructor at some small town dance studio, the elevator operator in the 1950s themed hotel, an air traffic controller, a tail docker in the Swiss Alps... just about anyone else. Unless he is blinded on a journey by scientific reason, you're actually probably right! I was nearly blinded by science once. Chemical burn to the left cornea. Lucky those grow back! Always locate the eyewash station first. I always liked those nalgine sqeeze bottles near me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 21:22:54 GMT -5
"...the field of applied evolutionary biology is advancing so very quickly and is producing such robust data..." Awww I nowwww - the pseudoscience of evolution, applied or otherwise manipulated, is 'advancing' so fast that its proponants have failed to notice that its peddle to the meddle is in reverse gear, but that is todays version of advance - just add on 'data' such as "applied" and ignore the fact that after over 150 years evolution continues to fail to provide one logical answer as to how life came into existence by chance even given the existence of inanimate matter that supposedly came out of nothing that just exploded. Its tale does sound like it would come from the town drunk, not the elevator man. Their best attempt came from a top evolutionist whose name I can't now reall because it was given decades ago - "We don't know how it happened. It just sort of happened." In a discussion regarding evolution with one of the wisest 2x2s I have met, he replied "I think they they (evolution scientists) don't think too good. I think they just wanna keep their job." That statement was from one of the wisest 2x2s you've ever met? We need to get you out more! The statement itself is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. One of these most intelligent 2x2s I've ever met (a university president and Professor Emeritus in physics) told me privately "I've studied evolution and no doubt it's true. I don't talk about it around the friends because it can make them mad." Which also makes him one of the wisest I've met. It's easy to "keep your job" if you use Darwinian evolution to make entirely new proteins. I'm guessing folks of that caliber aren't anxious to waste their brains working for Answers in Genesis either! 😂
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2019 10:22:08 GMT -5
Quantum waves. Which are something to which he attributes creative qualities, yet calls his book, "A Universe from Nothing". Deceptive. Desperate. Did you or did you not read his book? You explain to me why you think he's talking about 'nothing' in the same sense as there being nothing in existence. That's not what he's talking about. In Quantum physics waves are only waves if unobserved (nothing). If observed they become particles (something). Where did the quantum waves come from? Mr. Krauss is presuming the fields and the laws that govern their existence, which is a far cry from nothing. I really don't make it a habit of reading propaganda, no matter how well it might be disguised. I can't recommend the book, but I can recommend several of the book reviews. New York Times Book Review
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2019 10:23:39 GMT -5
“The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics states that quantum fluctuations in the universe’s space-time fabric will generate particles, provided those particles revert to quantum space-time fluctuations before any human observer can detect their appearance. Typically, the particles so produced must disappear in less than a quintillionth of a second. Since these particles cannot be detected directly, physicists refer to them as "virtual particles." Krauss's book suggests that the entire universe may have just popped into existence by the same means. But again, this theory presupposes the existence of a "space-time fabric" that operates according to certain principles. Even if we can discover that particles are produced because of this-and-that law operating in this-and-that space-time fabric or field, we are left with the question of where the principles came from and why there is a space-time fabric with quantum fields acting in it. The question is not resolved in the least, only pushed back another step. It reminds me of an old joke I once heard: An atheist tells God, "Look God, we scientists have gotten the universe all figured out. We have mastered the secrets of nature and could even recreate the whole universe from a speck of dust." God says, "I'd like to see that. Please show me." The atheist gets out a speck of dust, but before he can begin, God stops him and says, "Hey, you're gonna have to get your own dust." Like the atheist in the joke, today's atheist scientists claim to be able to explain the secrets of the universe, but grudgingly demand that we grant them the one particle of dust. What Krauss has done in his book is to simply appropriate the one piece of dust for science, rename it "nothing" and claim that creation ex nihilo in a naturalistic sense is possible. But the ancient maxim holds true, ex nihilo nihil fit - "from nothing, nothing comes."” Krauss Nothing is not nothing
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2019 13:45:48 GMT -5
"After a bone marrow transplant, a man with leukemia found that his donor’s DNA traveled to unexpected parts of his body. A crime lab is now studying the case. Three months after his bone marrow transplant, Chris Long of Reno, Nev., learned that the DNA in his blood had changed. It had all been replaced by the DNA of his donor, a German man he had exchanged just a handful of messages with. He’d been encouraged to test his blood by a colleague at the Sheriff’s Office, where he worked. She had an inkling this might happen. It’s the goal of the procedure, after all: Weak blood is replaced by healthy blood, and with it, the DNA it contains. But four years after his lifesaving procedure, it was not only Mr. Long’s blood that was affected. Swabs of his lips and cheeks contained his DNA — but also that of his donor. Even more surprising to Mr. Long and other colleagues at the crime lab, all of the DNA in his semen belonged to his donor. “I thought that it was pretty incredible that I can disappear and someone else can appear,” he said. " Heather Murphy, “When a DNA Test Says You’re a Younger Man, Who Lives 5,000 Miles Away” at New York Times "Remember when DNA was Certain? When people were executed or spent life in prison on account of DNA evidence? “Your DNA is on it” was like Holy Writ. DNA was the guarantor of the Darwinian selfish gene. And now… The worst thing that ever happened to Darwinism was DNA mapping. Of all the people we would not want to be, how about the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby? They better polish up their Darwinblather really fine and smooth." Man with two fingerprintsHe is still the same “person.” His DNA has changed but he’s still the same person. Another blow to materialism…think about it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 10, 2019 14:01:50 GMT -5
Did you or did you not read his book? You explain to me why you think he's talking about 'nothing' in the same sense as there being nothing in existence. That's not what he's talking about. In Quantum physics waves are only waves if unobserved (nothing). If observed they become particles (something). Where did the quantum waves come from? Mr. Krauss is presuming the fields and the laws that govern their existence, which is a far cry from nothing. I really don't make it a habit of reading propaganda, no matter how well it might be disguised. I can't recommend the book, but I can recommend several of the book reviews. New York Times Book ReviewThat's exactly what I was pointing out and you would know if you actually read the book. When he talks of 'nothing' it's not nothing as you interpret it. Try and read something other than creationist book reviews and you just might learn something important.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2019 16:38:17 GMT -5
Where did the quantum waves come from? Mr. Krauss is presuming the fields and the laws that govern their existence, which is a far cry from nothing. I really don't make it a habit of reading propaganda, no matter how well it might be disguised. I can't recommend the book, but I can recommend several of the book reviews. New York Times Book ReviewThat's exactly what I was pointing out and you would know if you actually read the book. When he talks of 'nothing' it's not nothing as you interpret it. Try and read something other than creationist book reviews and you just might learn something important. Dear Snow, if you think you and I are saying the same thing then you are clearly missing my point. Where did the quantum waves (Mr Krauss's "nothing") and the laws governing their existence come from? Do you believe in magic? You won't even read the New York Times book review I linked; you pretend it's "creationist" so that you can feel comfortable with your bias.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 10, 2019 16:54:25 GMT -5
That's exactly what I was pointing out and you would know if you actually read the book. When he talks of 'nothing' it's not nothing as you interpret it. Try and read something other than creationist book reviews and you just might learn something important. Dear Snow, if you think you and I are saying the same thing then you are clearly missing my point. Where did the quantum waves (Mr Krauss's "nothing") and the laws governing their existence come from? Do you believe in magic? You won't even read the New York Times book review I linked; you pretend it's "creationist" so that you can feel comfortable with your bias. No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2019 17:06:26 GMT -5
Dear Snow, if you think you and I are saying the same thing then you are clearly missing my point. Where did the quantum waves (Mr Krauss's "nothing") and the laws governing their existence come from? Do you believe in magic? You won't even read the New York Times book review I linked; you pretend it's "creationist" so that you can feel comfortable with your bias. No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism. Common canards of evolutionary zealots are that ‘you can’t be real scientist if you are not an evolutionist’ and that ‘science is impossible without evolution’. That there were people who were by definite choice creationists (not just by reason of their social milieu) and who were the founders of significant fields of science, gives the lie to these propaganda claims. [..] If [Sam] Harris had actually bothered to read any of Newton’s work he would find ample evidence that Newton’s science was intrinsically informed by and absolutely fired by his deep religious convictions. In fact, Newton saw his science as working to increase his own faith in God and helping others in their belief. Writing to a young clergyman, Richard Bentley, on this theme, Newton said: “When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had my eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (10th December, 1692) Newton goes on in the same letter to note elements in his cosmology which he feels are a “contrivance of a voluntary Agent” and “arguments for a Deity”. For Newton, his science was not incidental to his religion, rather it is an essential and motivating part of it. And even the most cursory reading of the leading lights of the Scientific Revolution shows this understanding was commonplace. Kepler was not just devoutly religious, but also devoutly scientific. He pursued the mathematics that lie behind his Three Laws of Planetary Motion out of his conviction that God must have put a more elegant and coherent system in place than the mathematical tangles of both the Ptolemaic system and Copernicius’ equally contrived alternative (Galileo ignored Kepler and clung to the erroneous Copernican model). -Australian atheist history writer Tim O’Neill, on his excellent website “History for Atheists — New Atheists Getting History Wrong!”, replying to one of the original ‘New Atheists’, Sam Harris (Sam Harris’ horrible histories, 19 August 2018, historyforatheists.com)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 10, 2019 21:09:12 GMT -5
No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism. Common canards of evolutionary zealots are that ‘you can’t be real scientist if you are not an evolutionist’ and that ‘science is impossible without evolution’. That there were people who were by definite choice creationists (not just by reason of their social milieu) and who were the founders of significant fields of science, gives the lie to these propaganda claims. [..] If [Sam] Harris had actually bothered to read any of Newton’s work he would find ample evidence that Newton’s science was intrinsically informed by and absolutely fired by his deep religious convictions. In fact, Newton saw his science as working to increase his own faith in God and helping others in their belief. Writing to a young clergyman, Richard Bentley, on this theme, Newton said: “When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had my eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (10th December, 1692) Newton goes on in the same letter to note elements in his cosmology which he feels are a “contrivance of a voluntary Agent” and “arguments for a Deity”. For Newton, his science was not incidental to his religion, rather it is an essential and motivating part of it. And even the most cursory reading of the leading lights of the Scientific Revolution shows this understanding was commonplace. Kepler was not just devoutly religious, but also devoutly scientific. He pursued the mathematics that lie behind his Three Laws of Planetary Motion out of his conviction that God must have put a more elegant and coherent system in place than the mathematical tangles of both the Ptolemaic system and Copernicius’ equally contrived alternative (Galileo ignored Kepler and clung to the erroneous Copernican model). -Australian atheist history writer Tim O’Neill, on his excellent website “History for Atheists — New Atheists Getting History Wrong!”, replying to one of the original ‘New Atheists’, Sam Harris (Sam Harris’ horrible histories, 19 August 2018, historyforatheists.com) Show me just one scientific discovery that is based on what creationism proclaims. It has no substance with which to form scientific discoveries when you claim that everything that is was made at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 11, 2019 8:33:01 GMT -5
"In his 2011 book The Myth of Junk DNA, Jonathan Wells called the notion of junk DNA a science-stopper. Noting discoveries already made by 2011, he said these are “exciting times,” predicting that ongoing research would continue to discover functions that were not yet imagined. As the following papers show, he was right. [click on the link below to see the full article] Let the evolutionists relegate their selfish/junk terminology to the dustbin of history. Anything with an important role is not junk. ID advocates predicted that the vast non-coding portions of DNA would prove to be functional, and they were right." evolutionnews.org/2019/12/jonathan-wells-was-right-noncoding-dna-continues-to-show-function/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2019 10:40:51 GMT -5
Dear Snow, if you think you and I are saying the same thing then you are clearly missing my point. Where did the quantum waves (Mr Krauss's "nothing") and the laws governing their existence come from? Do you believe in magic? You won't even read the New York Times book review I linked; you pretend it's "creationist" so that you can feel comfortable with your bias. No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism. the scientist arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says "We understand how some things work, we don't know other things". That's scientific honesty. The religious arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says, "We know how God did some things, we don't know how God did the rest". That's religious faith. There's no dishonor in either approach, in my opinion. The dishonor comes when the scientists use faith (particularly in a specific God, the belief in which ties them to a host of disproven natural claims) in their science. Likewise, dishonor comes when the religious use their book as a conclusion, and observational science is only allowed to be viewed from that lens. As much as the new atheists would suggest otherwise, I still agree with Gould that faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria. They use different methods to answer fundamentally different questions: Reason to answer "What, when, where, how?" and Faith to answer "Why?"
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 11, 2019 11:38:02 GMT -5
Suzan Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology "It is not enough that British biologist Richard Dawkins‘ foreign interference promoting Darwinian natural selection in America’s schools via TIES and NGSS has infected school systems in 26 US states. Running out of places to spread scientifically discredited natural selection and selfish gene dogma—on January 6-18, 2020, Dawkins will attempt to further introduce the malaise to traditional villages along Southeast Asia’s Mekong River." Suzan Mazur, “The New Southeast Asia Invasion: Dawkins, Krauss & Uncle Sam” at Oscillations Not only that, but—of all people—Larry Krauss (who “doesn’t feel tarnished” by his relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein) is part of the organizing committee. Krauss organized science conferences for Epstein on Epstein’s “Isle of Babes.” Epstein supported Krauss’ work during his time at Arizona State University. No wonder he's been recently fired from so many roles. But you really must read the rest for yourself at Oscillations.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 11, 2019 12:00:35 GMT -5
No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism. the scientist arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says "We understand how some things work, we don't know other things". That's scientific honesty. The religious arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says, "We know how God did some things, we don't know how God did the rest". That's religious faith. There's no dishonor in either approach, in my opinion. The dishonor comes when the scientists use faith (particularly in a specific God, the belief in which ties them to a host of disproven natural claims) in their science. Likewise, dishonor comes when the religious use their book as a conclusion, and observational science is only allowed to be viewed from that lens. As much as the new atheists would suggest otherwise, I still agree with Gould that faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria. They use different methods to answer fundamentally different questions: Reason to answer "What, when, where, how?" and Faith to answer "Why?" I’m sure you understand there are few, if any, totally unbiased “scientists”. The religion of materialism is thousands of years old and has a long list of zealots.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 11, 2019 14:28:47 GMT -5
No I don't believe in magic. I don't believe in gods either. There is lots we don't know and admit that. You seem to need to believe in something/anything just so you think you have an answer. But by saying God did it, you'd have to believe in magic and also by saying God did it you run into a whole other series of questions that can't be answered. I prefer to know what we know and not fill in the spaces of what we don't know with beings we have no proof of. That's how we differ I guess. You are fine with unsubstantiated beliefs in Gods and I am not. Creationists have nothing to contribute to the world of science. Creationism doesn't explain how our observable world works, it doesn't help with scientific studies and advances in all areas in discovering new scientific cures and many other things. All they can offer is God did it, we don't know how or why, and that's how it is. It explains nothing of what we actually observe and most of the time it outright contradicts what we do observe in the real world. That's how I see it so we likely should just agree to disagree because I see absolutely no value to creationism. the scientist arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says "We understand how some things work, we don't know other things". That's scientific honesty. The religious arrives at the limits of human knowledge and says, "We know how God did some things, we don't know how God did the rest". That's religious faith. There's no dishonor in either approach, in my opinion. The dishonor comes when the scientists use faith (particularly in a specific God, the belief in which ties them to a host of disproven natural claims) in their science. Likewise, dishonor comes when the religious use their book as a conclusion, and observational science is only allowed to be viewed from that lens. As much as the new atheists would suggest otherwise, I still agree with Gould that faith and reason are non-overlapping magisteria. They use different methods to answer fundamentally different questions: Reason to answer "What, when, where, how?" and Faith to answer "Why?" Creationism isn't science. It's a religious/philosophical approach to understanding their world. Many religions have books that come up with their beliefs about how they think their God of choice created the world. Lots of different stories out there. But none of them are conducive to answering science questions. If they were Hindu they would believe that the world is supported on a giant turtle and on it goes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle
|
|