"I have not heard of any scientific theory about a creator... God should be considered part of nature, not separate from it, and thus the subject of scientific inquiry"
If you have noticed the original video has been removed and replaced. The Original was titled: Bacterial Flagella: a Paradigm for Design please keep an eye out for it! We cannot be silenced.
Before it is written off so quickly or if anyone introduces Ken Miller, watch this rant.
Let's assume that life has a designer. How do we know the designer is God?
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteHow do we know the designer is God?
I suppose that is a valid question.
In his landmark Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:
1. It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
2. It would be preserved through time without corruption
3. It would be completely accurate historically.
4.It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
5.It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.
The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria. Plus, I think it would be helpful if you compare the Bible with some of the other ancient texts and see just how unique the Bible is.
I should post about this subject also.
Yes, but the Bible was not in existence until fairly recently. Humans would have had to wait tens of thousands of years before they could even hear about the Bible.
ReplyDeleteThat does not sound like people could attain it easily for quite a long time.
The Tanakh was around for a very long time but we must remember the people back then had the real people to do the teaching, like Moses, Jesus, and the apostles.
ReplyDeleteI will shamelessly rip this off but it stands true:
"The Bible is not a single, autonomous work. Rather, it is a collection of 66 different books written over a vast time span in three languages on three continents with authors from every station in life. These ancient works cover every major topic dealing with the human condition including: love, hate, death, sin, marriage, civil laws, and relationships with each other as well as with God. Although these works were written independently, they show an amazing congruency and they never contradict each other!"
1. It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
ReplyDeleteRight. You mean after the invention of the frigate? Hell, the bible wasn't even something people could read until Luther finally translated it into German...
If we grant the bible as reasonably historically accurate, then only the Jews had access to it for the first two-thirds of history (or more), so it wasn't "widely distributed" until a) the printing press and b) the ability to travel to the "New World."
Only the ruling class could read it, and thus for a substantial period of time your bible quite miserably failed this, your first criterion.
2. It would be preserved through time without corruption
That's rich. Considering Dan's own "hermeneutics," and the fact that so many have so differently interpreted the bible in so many ways, its preservation isn't nearly as important as its ambiguity. As it turns out, fossils have been preserved though time without corruption, also, yet you'd happily dismiss those...
Old text does not mean true text. We have old copies of lots of documents, but none receive the odd treatment afforded to your bible. There is truly no sense in it.
3. It would be completely accurate historically.
Oops! I guess the bible is right out, then, eh? Or did you have evidence of a 40-year trek through the desert by 20 million Jews? Perhaps you had some way to reconcile the slapstick brand of journalism employed by the synoptics in inventing a census, or by fudging dates here and there?
I suppose you're here to support the historical "accuracy" of floating axe-heads, of fire from the sky, of the sun standing still, of striped rods causing striped cattle, etc.
I suppose you're also going to support the notion that your magical god couldn't get to the business of creating things without a not-even-remotely-disguised anthropomorphic work-light? That the sun came after the earth, and the plants?
That Noah could manage a floating zoo without refrigeration or electricity, for over a year? That people lived into their 9th century of life?
Heh.
4.It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
Umm... Damn. I guess you have me there. The only reason anyone would suggest, with a straight face, that the bible wasn't prone to scientific error, or to false beliefs held by its authors, would be because they were a) not someone with whom you should play poker (what a bluff, eh?), or b) convinced that most of the stuff I tossed out in (3) was true despite its absurdity.
Iron/stone axe heads do not float. The sun does not simply "stop" "traveling" across the sky. Humans do not live to be 900+, eight people cannot manage a floating wooden zoo without refrigeration or electricity. The sun did not come after the earth, and certainly not after plants. Any "god" worth discussing would not need a work-light to create.
Shall I go on?
5.It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.
If by unified, you mean through the process of "hermeneutics," then I have to admit that the ability of Christians to twist the bible's text into meaning whatever they want it to mean is quite impressive. If by "true," you mean "false," or at least "true if you allow me to declare it so by fiat," then again, you have me.
As to the "difficult questions of life," I wonder if you mean the one of inherent human worth versus slavery? Or of just what fate might await a concubine? Or if it is absolutely morally wrong to slaughter women and children from a neighboring culture? Or if it is absolutely morally wrong to premeditate the killing of one's son because the voice(s) in your head told you to do it?
The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria. Plus, I think it would be helpful if you compare the Bible with some of the other ancient texts and see just how unique the Bible is.
Are you insane, or do you just play an insane person in the blogosphere? I mean, Sye is an outright liar -- we get that. You, though, seem to swing on some weird ethical pendulum from far-out whacko, as in this post, to quite reasonable and entertaining fellow, as in others. I ask because you cannot possibly believe that the bible has satisfied more than two of the above criteria, and even then I'm being extremely kind.
I should post about this subject also.
Only if you enjoy being ridiculed...
--
Stan
The Earth went for about 4.5 billion years without the bible, then a few thousand years ago it showed up? And even then, it was only made available to every continent a few hundred years ago.
ReplyDeleteYou would think God could do better.
The other issue is that everything designed by humans serves a purpose to humans. A mouse trap will catch mice, but catching mice does not benefit the mouse trap.
ReplyDeleteSo the question I would ask is, how does some bacteria having a flagellum help God or any designer?
Kaitlyn and Stan speak for me as well. I'll just comment on the first video.
ReplyDeleteThe bacterial flagellum is indeed a marvelous machine. When I was in high school, they still thought that it was a whip, not a propeller. The way it's put together is mind-boggling.
That said, the nice young geneticist didn't say anything that Behe hasn't said. "Intelligent design" is still basically the argument from incredulity, or god-of-the-gaps: we don't understand exactly how something works, or how it evolved, and the ID'ers pounce and say: it must be designed. The trouble is, this is not a positive finding, but a negative one: lack of knowledge is counted as evidence for ID, not anything present.
And we know what the track record of that approach is. Early versions of ID said that thunderbolts are evidence of Thor. The gaps are getting smaller now, and the ID'ers are forced to put their designer behind bits of cells. This does not bode well for the future of ID.
Lest someone say that "irreducible complexity" is evidence of design: it is just more gapwork. And there are known mechanisms in evolution that can produce "irreducibly complex" structures: the necessary components can evolve as parts of structures with different functions, and then be exapted to a new function. It happens all the time: arms become wings, hair becomes feathers, gill supports become jawbones, jawbones become ear bones.... In fact, since we all evolved from single cells, you can look at evolution as a continual process of exaptation.
The other problem I see with ID is that it doesn't explain anything in a way that enables us to make predictions. "Goddidit" does not tell us how goddidit, or what we should expect from structures that god did that is different from what we expect from evolved structures.
And of course, if explaining order is the problem, how do we explain God's order? We haven't gotten any further in explaining order in the Universe by just inventing God: if we can't explain Him, then He is just a big rug to sweep questions under.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteOnly the ruling class could read it, and thus for a substantial period of time your bible quite miserably failed this, your first criterion.
You are not claiming that the assembly of the early believers in Christ needed a book to believe are you? That the missions that the apostles went on were fruitless since they didn't present things in writings?
Stan, what does interpretation have to do with preservation?
Also, you are being utterly ridicules with the claim As it turns out, fossils have been preserved though time without corruption, also, yet you'd happily dismiss those...
When have I ever "dismissed" fossils? Mere assertions?
We have old copies of lots of documents, but none receive the odd treatment afforded to your bible.
It's treated as if the books were sacred huh? Hmm, imagine that? Why do you think that is? Are you claiming the Bible is some false story?
I suppose you're here to support the historical "accuracy" of floating axe-heads, of fire from the sky, of the sun standing still, of striped rods causing striped cattle, etc.
Speaking of hermeneutics, look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written as a historical narrative.
Why would they write the fact that a woman found the empty grave? Wouldn't it be a more credible scenario if Peter found the grave empty as the eye witness? They wrote Mary Magdalen found the grave empty because that was the truth. They wrote that Noah lived to 900+ years because that was the truth not to make it more credible or believable. Imagine that, you are looking at it the wrong way...go figure.
How do you know for sure that humans did not live to be 900+, or that eight people cannot manage a floating wooden zoo without refrigeration or electricity?
Or are these merely assertions again?
If by unified, you mean through the process of "hermeneutics," then I have to admit that the ability of Christians to twist the bible's text into meaning whatever they want it to mean is quite impressive.
Hermeneutics is a scientific process to understanding. If you are claiming that hermeneutics, like science, is to twist truth to fit the desired results then I can perfectly understand why evilution is the current paradigm. Is this your claim?
Are you insane?
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteSo the question I would ask is, how does some bacteria having a flagellum help God or any designer?
Um, do you understand that sperm has flagella also? If so then do you want to retract that question? Do you think sperm flagella help?
Zilch,
ReplyDelete"Goddidit" does not tell us how goddidit, or what we should expect from structures that god did that is different from what we expect from evolved structures.
So you just invoke evilutiondidit? I will just refer you back to the past post since you missed a great deal of it.
You frustrate me, but I still love you. Patience Dan, patience.
Dan: in the first place, the flagella of sperm are not like bacterial flagella: they really are little whips, not propellers, so God didn't do us sexually reproducing animals any favors by designing the bacterial flagellum.
ReplyDeleteIn the second place, as you must know by now, "evolutiondidit" is never the end of the story, but rather the beginning (if the science is done properly). Even just here on your blog, you've been exposed to a fair amount of explanation for how evolution works, from myself and others, and if you would take the time to check out a couple of rebuked sites, you could learn even more details about just how evolutiondidit.
Not so with "Goddidit": that is the beginning, the middle, and the end of the story. No one can explain how Goddidit, or how Goddoneits are different from evolutiondoneits. Thus, until such time as I see evidence for this elusive Designer, when someone says "evolutiondidit" I will say "probably, but how?" When someone says "Goddidit", I will say "show me how".
"Um, do you understand that sperm has flagella also? If so then do you want to retract that question? Do you think sperm flagella help?"
ReplyDeleteFlagella help me and they help bacteria. I want to know how it helps God that some bacteria has a flagellum.
Since we have not established God as the designer, maybe it's more fair to ask how does bacteria flagella benefit the designer?
ReplyDeleteYou are not claiming that the assembly of the early believers in Christ needed a book to believe are you? That the missions that the apostles went on were fruitless since they didn't present things in writings?
ReplyDelete1. The Hebrew bible counts as a book, that the earliest Christians would certainly have referenced.
2. The missions of the apostles, even if we grant their "fruitfulness," were not exhaustive, and did not penetrate even beyond the Roman empire.
So no, the bible was not "distributed so [hu]man could attain it easily." It was in Latin when it gained traction in greater Europe, and it was only centuries later that the printing press coupled with translation into the common language made it remotely accessible to laypersons.
Stan, what does interpretation have to do with preservation?
Pursuant to item (2) of your list, its preservation is pointless if it cannot be understood, or if it is ambiguous at best. Prior to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs were extremely well-preserved, also, but since there existed no mechanism by which they could be translated, or interpreted, they were valuable only as artwork.
When have I ever "dismissed" fossils? Mere assertions?
My dear Dan, the use of the ellipsis was meant to imply that you reject the scientific explanation for the existence of fossils -- specifically, the relation they have to the evolution of life, with respect to the layers in which they are found. You [obviously] accept the existence of fossils, but you most assuredly dismiss the implication of fossils.
You see, Dan, distant starlight is another form of preservation, which preserves the appearance of the universe at various ages -- up to, oh, about 13.7 billion years ago...
It's treated as if the books were sacred huh?
Yes, it is, and not just as though it were special for being that old. Other books we find which predate or are contemporaries of the bible are treated as venerable documents, true, but few people claim them to be literally true (including "plain reading")
Hmm, imagine that? Why do you think that is?
I think that is the case because the primitive and impressionable peoples who were initially exposed to it adopted it (absorbed them, more appropriately), and the culture in question was exceedingly influential in its era. Thus, religions which rely upon the bible are to be expected to be popular.
Are you claiming the Bible is some false story?
I do claim that much of the bible is patently false, yes. There are portions which describe true events, there are effectively factual accounts, and there is pure fiction. As an ancient piece of literature, it is fascinating and quite worth study, but as a premise upon which one should live one's life, it fails miserably.
Speaking of hermeneutics, look in Hosea 1:1... God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written as a historical narrative.
Blah, blah, blah.
1. You're assuming the bible is inspired and true before applying any criticism, which is question-begging.
2. You're ignoring the fact that the earliest manuscripts we have for any canonical text is c. 100 BCE, while Hosea describes events from c. 7-800 BCE. Additionally, the likeliest dates of authorship for Hosea lie in that same time frame. Sure, the date of authorship is hardly known to any explicit accuracy, but for you to assume it must have been prophetic is to nail down a specific date range which seems not to fit with the available data... unless you're question-begging...
[Dan mentions various incredible events, noting that to claim them as factually accurate is, itself, incredible]
Imagine that, you are looking at it the wrong way...go figure.
Yeah, imagine that. I'm skeptical as to the existence of 900-year-old humans. I'm skeptical of Young-Earth geology. I'm skeptical of a human being spontaneously reanimating. I'm skeptical of the historical and scientific accuracy of people who couldn't prevent an infection.
I suppose you accept all old books which make outrageous claims then, yes?
Oh, my bad. I forgot. You merely beg the question.
How do you know for sure that humans did not live to be 900+, or that eight people cannot manage a floating wooden zoo without refrigeration or electricity?
None of these feats has ever been observed in anything remotely approaching a controlled experiment. If you think you could manage a floating zoo with any three couples, with electricity and refrigeration, for over a year -- not in harbor -- and with representative pairs (or sevens, or pairs of sevens) of a mere hundred species (with equal representation amongst the different major taxonomic groups -- sorry, I'm no biologist/zoologist), then I'll offer a hundred dollars to fund the attempt.
In order for any such attempt to qualify, every embarking creature must be represented upon disembarking -- the original humans must survive, and the same number and genders of non-humans (at the least) must survive, and be of reproducing age or younger.
Oh, one last requirement -- you must be no younger than 60 years of age at the onset.
I don't know for sure that humans couldn't live for 900+ years, or that Noah and company couldn't manage a floating zoo sans electricity/refrigeration, but I'm reasonably certain of each. You know, like I'm reasonably certain that no human had ever set foot on the moon until July of 1969.
But what the hell? If it was written in your bible, you'd claim that, too, now wouldn't you?
Hermeneutics is a scientific process to understanding. If you are claiming that hermeneutics, like science, is to twist truth to fit the desired results then I can perfectly understand why evilution is the current paradigm. Is this your claim?
Yep, that's my... Oh, wait a minute... You slipped "like science" into there.
That's funny.
No, really, that's damned hilarious. Here's why:
Hermeneutics is a scientific process...
So when you say "hermeneutics, like science," you are hoist with your own petard.
No. Hermeneutics is not science, which point has been made abundantly clear in this post.
Science seeks only to understand natural phenomenon -- to describe processes and interactions, and most certainly does not seek to "twist truth." I daresay that in that last statement -- regarding "twisting truth" -- hermeneutics and science are on similar footing. In order for hermeneutics to twist the truth, it must first be applied to the truth. In that sense, your interpretation of various phenomena which point to an old earth quite clearly counts as "truth-twisting" hermeneutics.
What you do to the bible is merely asserting the existence of truth into a document which is more appropriately categorized as fiction.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteMy dearest Stan, you made a mistake in discussing my dismissal of the fossils. I only dismiss the interpretation of fossils. Are you saying the current fossil record shows evidence for evolution,? The data for that lofty extrapolation is highly questionable.
Dan, distant starlight is another form of preservation, which preserves the appearance of the universe at various ages -- up to, oh, about 13.7 billion years ago...
You are discounting a great deal of data and wildly assuming many things. I would expect something more critical from a man of your caliber. Let me throw some things out there.
First, do you understand that a light year is a measure of distance not time?
Second, you had to assume that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. Einstein’s theories say, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances. Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time. Yet, you seem to have ignored this important principle of physics.
Third, Special Relativity shows that the motion affects the measurement of time.
Forth, I bring this up just to show you some pause that you might not have all the data. A wrench into the fan of the Big Bang is a young galaxy called Francis Filament was discovered. Even NASA is scratching it's head. Keep in mind the key to the testing process is falsifiability. A positive test result means a hypothesis is plausible, but a negative test result proves it false.
If you're wrong ...Blah, blah, blah. On and on, nanny nanny boo boo. Presups, presups.
I still am frustrated from your bias. I care more for you then you. God can only help you but I will be here to help if I can. Just remember, I will be crying the most at your funeral because I know where you will end up. I know Appeal To Force fallacy, but I just can't help it.
Are you saying the current fossil record shows evidence for evolution?
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. While I support this interpretation, what I am instead saying is that the fossil record does not mix the various species represented in a random manner, as one would expect if all species were present on the earth at the same time (e.g. if a global flood event was the cause for the fossils). Rather, the fossil record quite nicely conforms to the chronology predicted by the Theory of Evolution. So while the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record is an interpretation, it is the only one I've heard promoted here that is supported by the record itself... unless you want to say that god, Satan, or the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man made sure to put the fossils in such a neat order.
The data for that lofty extrapolation is highly questionable.
It's plausible, which is far beyond anything you've promoted, and that extrapolation is not "highly questionable." Even if that were the case, however, the data is not highly questionable, as you erroneously stated. Question the model if you must, but the data is available for anyone, and there aren't any rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian. If humans, goats, cows, pigs, dinosaurs, birds, trilobites, and every other sort of living thing was represented at the same time on this planet, then the fossil record should include at least some amount of mixing -- everywhere. It doesn't.
You are discounting a great deal of data...
Which I'm sure you'll be happy to provide...
...and wildly assuming many things.
Such as the speed of light? The assumption that the laws of physics don't spontaneously change from one locale to another in our universe? The assumption that any stone or metal suitable for crafting an axehead is far too dense -- even in the presence of a bagful of sand -- to float? That certain modern readers of a two thousand-year-old document are so dense that they don't recognize that a fully grown human body, in its upright position, would break the surface tension of liquid water? Enlighten me.
I would expect something more critical from a man of your caliber.
Criticism is one thing, incredulity is another thing entirely. I recall in my youth being skeptical of heliocentrism; not because it didn't seem plausible, but because it was jammed down my throat. When the mechanics were explained to me, and especially when I was able to comprehend Newton's [incorrect] Theory of Universal Gravitation, I had no further reason to doubt. Granted, I had long since accepted heliocentrism, but I finally found myself able to understand why heliocentrism was the reigning paradigm, even if Newton's gravity was quite understood to be false.
Likewise, I was skeptical of an old universe in my youth, and even had debates not dissimilar to these with those who promoted evolution (I'm not sure of their religious affiliation at the time). Eventually, I was exposed to the many, many converging lines of evidence, all of which point to a universe far older than a scant ten thousand years or so. In fact, I am now quite familiar with many of these lines, including the demonstrated ability to conduct experiments based on the same principles. Yeah, I accept an old universe.
Let me throw some things out there.
Knock yourself out.
First, do you understand that a light year is a measure of distance not time?
O RLY?
You remind me of Einstein. You know, Doc Brown's dog in the Back to the Future series...
Sit.
Good boy.
Roll over.
Good boy.
Demonstrate for anyone who will listen your complete lack of understanding of all things modern physics.
Second, you had to assume that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. Einstein’s theories say, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances.
Good boy.
Since you're so well-versed in physics, Einstein, please identify for me what gamma would be for Doc Brown's Delorian, if it were traveling at half the speed of light (with zero acceleration). Don't forget to include the units of gamma.
Before you get too into the math, though, I'm particularly fascinated by this gem:
Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time.
You mean, if the galaxies weren't distant? Or do you mean they might have been moving at, say, 9x10^10 m/s? I guess in either case the light could've gotten here more quickly than previously theorized...
Yet, you seem to have ignored this important principle of physics.
Yes, something does tell me I've ignored an important principle somewhere... Damn. I forget. It must not have been important.
Third, Special Relativity shows that the motion affects the measurement of time.
Yep, you're absolutely right with that one. Tell me, Einstein, if two observers moving at different velocities relative to a [stationary] point, with at least one having a velocity which represents a significant percentage of c, time an event, and the two clocks in question report different spans, which one is correct?
Regarding the Francis Filament, there's an interesting discussion on the topic here, which is hardly conclusive either way. Unfortunately, the debate waned four years ago, but from what I could gather, a particular [fairly ostracized] astrophysicist has hypothesized an explanation for the filament, which may or may not prove at all useful.
I guess you've proven it, then. The earth was the first thing created, followed by the rest of the known universe, some 6,000 years ago. All because of the Francis Filament, the light from which took ~2.7 GY to get here, if the measurements were correct.
Oops! I suppose that measurement may have been off by six orders of magnitude, or that General Relativity can explain how the light may have gotten here faster, or that Special Relativity can explain that the time measurement could be off due to the motion(s) involved...
----------
I appreciate the sentiment, but if you cry at my funeral, you don't get any beer (those who cry get Cosmopolitans or some other panty-dropper). In the event that you pass first, I'll happily attend your wake. I'll race you!
Also, if I die first, and it is at all possible, I promise to haunt you -- err -- to come back and tell you which of us, if any, was right. Please go easy with the proton pack or I'll slime you.
Love and hugs,
--
Stan
[Edit: bagful of "sand" = bagful of salt]
ReplyDeleteStan: nice riff. Indeed.
ReplyDeleteBut, if the "bagful of sand" is mixed with enough water to not pack, then your analogy still holds: any such mixture of sand and water will have a lower specific weight than any stone, not to mention metal, suitable for an ax head. If the sand were to pack, then all bets are off- but you wouldn't call "stuck in the sand" floating anyway, would you?
Dan: your only possible defense is "it happened just as the Bible said, because God can do miracles." But in that case, there's no point in talking about the real world, now, is there? It's all faith.
Stan and Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI just see a great deal of assumptions going on.
Like I said to Kaitlyn, I perfectly understand your position since I held that same one myself for years. But these new Bible Goggles (not to be confused with beer goggles) help me see things differently. One of us is just wrong and I hope it's me.
I am feeling spiritually weak today for some reason. The fight in me has softened.
Who's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteWho's the microbial geneticist in the U-Tube?
Dr. Scott Minnich
Dan: you say the fight in you has softened? I hope you don't mean the fight to make the world a better place for our kids. All other fights are unimportant in comparison to that.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking forward to meeting you this summer.
cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteCan you confess that such a high degree of design points away from Darwin's theory?
And faith is not required to know and understand that "God did it".
It does take open eyes, the spiritual vision and discernment that comes by GRACE.
I'm not going on faith that God designed that flagella, I KNOW He did. How? By Grace He revealed it, both generally to all, and more specifically through the bible.
The revelation of God in His creation is plain for all to see.
It's just your stubborn nature to reject the truth that blinds you. Since that truth means conviction, and the rejection of your false autonomy, you reject it.
Like Dan said, I remember well my blind years, and I feel so foolish having believed all those lies.
My head was so full of them that no light could get in.
For sure it is difficult as we are taught nothing but falsehoods from our births esp in these last days.
I can only say, knowing the truth is a wonderful change, and far from the dumbing down or ignorance that we are accused of.
I know when one is in unbelief, the truth about God seems a fantasy, but think about it.
Look at that microscopic motor, and tell me it "just happened".
Talk about fantasy!
Too funny!
ReplyDeleteAlmost every post this happens.
Zilch and Stan take the time to explain sound science and physics to Dan, totally destroying his lame arguments and he responds with:
"Stan and Zilch,
I just see a great deal of assumptions going on."
Dan- Busted again.
Froggie- too right.
ReplyDeleteDani'el: well, I'm still waiting for grace to happen. Until then, I'll stick with explanations that work, and where they don't work, I'll cheerfully admit "I don't know".
And sorry, I cannot confess that such a high degree of design points away from Darwin's theory. The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers. Sure, we don't know all the details, and perhaps we never will. But as I, and Stan, and many others have pointed out ad nauseum, if you posit a Creator to explain this order, then unless you can account for His order, you've explained nothing at all.
Darwin's explanation for order may not explain everything, but it has already explained a great deal, and made many predictions that have proven true. I have not yet heard any explanations for God's order, nor any predictions based on God's existence that have proven true. Do you have any explanation, other than just "He was here forever"? That's no better than "life was here forever", or "the Universe was here forever", and is more complicated and not observable.
Zilch- The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers.
ReplyDeleteHow is mutation and selection a "powerful force?"
You speak like M&S have consciousness, a mind that "generates" order.
How can you see something like a highly complex designed computer and lab, and still call it a naturalist cause?
Or for that matter a highly complex and finely tuned/balanced "natural" world, and still insist it is purely materialist?
Even without grace, it seems to be pure stubbornness, and rejection of evidence plainly seen.
As to evidence of God. You've read some of my testimony.
I can only say, when all is revealed, your mind will simply boggle.
To say you will be shocked and pleasantly surprised will be the understatement of all time.
Danny said...
ReplyDelete"How is mutation and selection a "powerful force?"
You speak like M&S have consciousness, a mind that "generates" order."
It's actually you who's adding the concept of an active agent into the equation.
Someone once commented on this with a modified popular idiom: "It's the pot calling the kettle black, but only because black is the only color it knows".
Wind can cause different kinds of patterns on a desert floor. By your standards you'd do as well to say that wind is sentient.
henwli- Wind can cause different kinds of patterns on a desert floor. By your standards you'd do as well to say that wind is sentient.
ReplyDeleteBut what if the wind caused the blueprints for a harrier jet to appear on the desert floor?
That's what you believe in if you hold to the ToE.
It's evolutionists who repeatedly say things like-
Natural selection was able to create....
Selection, able, and create all imply intelligence.
An unintelligent intelligence according to the atheist worldview.
It's a silly fairy tale.
You're playing pointless semantic games there, pot.
ReplyDelete"Here we see the path of the rock as it rolled down the hill."
Path? It made a path, people make paths!
The stone rolled down the hill, it didn't just fall! On its way down it thought "I'm tired of gathering moss!"
Hey kettle,
ReplyDeleteDid you see the rock that rolled down the hill and accidentally designed and built a wheelbarrow on the way down to get down the hill easier?
Zilch- The combination of mutation and selection has been shown to be a powerful force for generating order, in the natural world, the lab, and nowadays also in computers.
ReplyDeleteThis is all irrelevant to the question of common ancestry of the hominid tree. The requirement is to begin with a living unit and show how the genome of mankind can be generated using undirected mechanisms.
The lab and computer programming use direction in their mechanisms.
The natural world doesn't increase order, but entropy, as SLOT makes clear. To prove this, take a soluble crystal which has been fashioned into a particular shape. Dissolve it in water. Cause it to recrystallize. You will find that it doesn't take the original shape. SLOT cannot be denied.
TomH- you say:
ReplyDeleteThe requirement is to begin with a living unit and show how the genome of mankind can be generated using undirected mechanisms.
I'm not sure what you mean here, Tom. Are you saying that in order to prove that humans evolved, we would have to be able to start with some random earlier organism, and evolve humans from it again? If so, I'll agree that would be next to impossible. As S.J.Gould said, run the tape of life again, and the chances are astronomically low that you would end up with humans again: there are simply too many other ways life could have branched off at any point.
But that doesn't disprove evolution.
The lab and computer programming use direction in their mechanisms.
Depends on what you mean by "direction". If you call any kind of selection "direction", then you're right, in the sense that what is selected is not random, and the fact that the selection is not random is what makes things evolve in some direction and not just stay the same or fall apart.
But the direction need not come from a Director: in the case of the computer programs that evolve, one can set the parameters to look for, say, an efficient design for an antenna, and select those random changes that improve efficiency. As I said, such programs have now surpassed human designers, so it's stretching it to say that their products are "designed" by the programmer, when the programmer, in some cases, can't even understand how they work.
And in the case of natural selection, the whole world is the Designer, in the sense of providing an environment where organisms are constantly tested for efficiency, speed, intelligence, and many other and different qualities. No God required.
The natural world doesn't increase order, but entropy, as SLOT makes clear. To prove this, take a soluble crystal which has been fashioned into a particular shape. Dissolve it in water. Cause it to recrystallize. You will find that it doesn't take the original shape. SLOT cannot be denied.
I would be the last one to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But it applies only to closed systems with no source of energy. The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere. In fact, in your example, crystallization is an example of order increasing locally, at the expense of a decrease in available chemical energy.
A crystal has more order than the solution from which it precipitated, just as life has more order than the raw materials from which it is made. This does not violate the SLOT, because this order is paid for.
Hi zilch.
ReplyDelete"As S.J.Gould said, run the tape of life again, and the chances are astronomically low that you would end up with humans again: there are simply too many other ways life could have branched off at any point."
I have no way to evaluate Gould's statement. It doesn't even seem to be wrong.
***Non-direction and selection rules***
Programmers create selection rules.
In the case of natural selection, it is unclear what its degree of importance is as far as evolution goes. Certainly the modern synthesis model is obsolescent.
SLOT
"I would be the last one to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. But it applies only to closed systems with no source of energy."
Your last statement is wrong. SLOT is not restricted in application to closed systems. Closed systems merely make entropy easier to measure.
"The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere."
Do you have a reference to a study that does the mathematical analysis? (This is rhetorical.) Obviously, your answer is merely a "Just-So" story. The question is serious, however.
Crystal entropy issue
You have failed to answer my question. You have a right to maintain your tenacity, though not by pretending to answer the question adequately. Tenacity is good for science, but transparency is essential, and you have failed to maintain transparency.
Hi Tom! You say:
ReplyDeleteIn the case of natural selection, it is unclear what its degree of importance is as far as evolution goes. Certainly the modern synthesis model is obsolescent.
This is true: it is not certain exactly how important natural selection is in evolution, as opposed to genetic drift, acquired characteristics, and various non-genetic factors, such as pure luck. But most biologists would rate it somewhere between "extremely important" and "the only factor of importance". If you have evidence showing otherwise, or for your contention that the modern synthesis is "obsolescent", I'd like to see it.
SLOT is not restricted in application to closed systems. Closed systems merely make entropy easier to measure.
Pardon, I did not express myself clearly. You are right: the SLOT applies everywhere. But closed systems do not "merely make entropy easier to measure"; a crucial consequence of the law depends upon the difference between open and closed systems. In a closed system, for instance the entire Universe, the entropy of the system as a whole will increase with time. In an open system, entropy may decrease. That's what makes crystals, sand dunes, clouds, and life possible: they are local decreases in entropy, balanced by increases in entropy elsewhere.
I said:
The Earth is not a closed system, and energy from the Sun can and does reverse entropy, creating order paid for by an increase in entropy elsewhere.
You replied:
Do you have a reference to a study that does the mathematical analysis? (This is rhetorical.) Obviously, your answer is merely a "Just-So" story. The question is serious, however.
No, my answer is not just a "Just-So" story, it is the result of having paid attention in junior high science classes. Sorry for the sarcasm, but even AnswersInGenesis has dropped the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument. You don't need to know the math to see order forming all the time: didn't you ever make rock candy? Do you think God is personally battling the SLOT every time the wind makes a sand dune? But if you want the math, start out here.
And about your crystal analogy: just because a crystal does not reform in exactly the same way after having been dissolved says nothing about the possibility of order increasing. As I said, crystallization is a change from a less ordered (solution) state to a more ordered (crystalline) state.
But if you want more information about how order can increase in living things, you will have to do some research yourself, because I am lazy, and after having typed this stuff out more times than I can say, I need a break. A good place to start is here. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have after reading this link, though.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch.
Whoa, there, Tom...
ReplyDeleteThe Second Law quite unequivocally provides for local increases in order, and no matter your statements to the contrary, this is precisely what happens on the earth. The order apparent on the earth increases, while the entropy present in the sun -- and in the solar system in general -- increases. Your comments suggest that you are wholly unfamiliar with the actual applications of this law, but feel free to show otherwise...
RE: Crystals; Zilch is spot-on. The formation of a crystal -- even if it is not in a "perfect" geometric shape -- is an example of an increase in order.
So the Second Law is not being denied, yet order is able to increase locally. Hell, if you really believed what you're saying, you'd have to admit that galaxy/star/planet formation is all in violation of the Second Law as well, yet this is just not the case. If you're still uncertain in this regard, then as Zilch recommends, revisit your junior high or high school science classes. It's rather basic stuff, and if the likes of Ken Ham no longer deny the irrelevancy of the Second Law, I'd guess that you can, too. I tend to assume that everyone is more intellectually capable than that guy.
--
Stan
Zilch:
ReplyDeleteThe Modern Synthesis is dead and the importance of natural selection is unknown. The opinion of most biologists who are out of field is irrelevant. What matters is the state of the science. Currently, evolutionary biologists are trying to put together a research program to investigate the degree of importance of various factors. There is not unanimity on the question among evolutionary biologists--some say it is merely genetic drift + NS + rapid mutation, while other say that epigenetics (Jablonka's work) plays a major role and there are some other positions, too.
SLOT
There is no difference in the operation of SLOT in closed systems vs. open systems. With any flow of energy, entropy either increases or remains the same. Closed systems are typically studied more often because entropy changes are easier to measure. There have been some studies of open systems as well; they are considerably more complicated to study.
"No, my answer is not just a "Just-So" story, it is the result of having paid attention in junior high science classes. Sorry for the sarcasm, but even AnswersInGenesis has dropped the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument."
I'm not making the "life is impossible without God because of the SLOT" argument. And I suggest that you study and obtain an advanced degree in physics like I did. Sorry to pull rank, but your foolishness made it necessary.
The part that you and Stan miss is that entropy must be accounted for in any explanation of energy flows, including the mechanism of supposed common ancestry. I anticipate an appeal to changes in the propagation vector of thermal radiation from the earth vs. the solar radiation vector. That approach will require mathematical substantiation. It currently is beyond the state of our science.
Sorry, Tom, but your claim of having an "advanced degree in physics" seems quite dubious under the circumstances. Just what do you consider an "advanced" degree, anyway? What degree(s) do you claim to hold?
ReplyDeleteIf you're actually claiming that order cannot increase on earth because it violates the Second Law, then you're certifiable. If you're not, please articulate better your actual position, because that's precisely what I hear. Also, your claim that "closed systems are studied more often" is sans citation. Rather than cite a particular study, however, I'm curious to hear your definition of a truly closed system...
I suppose I'll await your reply before venturing further.
--
Stan
Stan: What is a closed system in physics?
ReplyDeleteA closed system is one which is insulated from the transmission of matter and energy across the boundary to the outside (where everything else is) and from the outside into the system.
Now answer my questions and quit dodging them. If you don't know the answer, just say so. (What are you, an engineer? You obviously don't understand physics beyond an introductory level.)
Tom, you say (to Stan):
ReplyDeleteWhat are you, an engineer? You obviously don't understand physics beyond an introductory level.
Stan, he called you an engineer! I do believe you've been insulted!
Tom: my father was an engineer. My uncle was an engineer. While engineers are a standing joke among a certain class of people, I am not one of them. And I think I can safely say that most engineers understand the SLOT better than you do. Hell, even I understand it better than you do, and I'm not a physicist or even an engineer!
But that's just an aside. Let's clear this up: do you claim that the SLOT says that order can never increase anywhere? Then you are simply mistaken, the same way countless fundies are. I must admit, I don't understand how people can be mistaken in this regard, because it is pretty obvious that order can be created if energy flows into a system- it can be observed every day.
Perhaps your misconception is based on construing the SLOT as a command from on high, something like Nature saying: "Thou shalt not increase thy order", and that God is necessary to countermand this command. No, the SLOT is based on observations of what happens in the real world, and as we see that order does increase under certain conditions such as crystallization, those are taken into account and explained also.
Pray tell, as I already asked, what is your explanation for, say, sand dunes? If entropy always increases everywhere, then sand dunes could not form, unless God is there making them. But if that's the case, I would say that what you call "God" is what I would call the "Laws of Nature", including the SLOT.
I'm also curious what your advanced degree in physics is, and where you got it. Merely pulling rank is not impressive, unless you can back it up with knowledge.
Oh, and that stuff you said about biology:
ReplyDeleteThe Modern Synthesis is dead and the importance of natural selection is unknown. The opinion of most biologists who are out of field is irrelevant. What matters is the state of the science. Currently, evolutionary biologists are trying to put together a research program to investigate the degree of importance of various factors.
So, the Modern Synthesis is dead? Do I have to take your word for it? That would be news to biologists and indeed any halfway informed person. And there's no need to "put together" a research program: there are thousands of research programs going on worldwide, as always- where are the research programs for those who doubt evolution? Show me some Creationist or ID research.
And sure, there are disagreements about the weight of various factors. But there is no disagreement within the scientific community about the big picture: evolution happened, and it's happening.
Love it or ignore it; but if you want to deny it, you'd better come up with some pretty good evidence. And here's a hint: the Bible does not count as "evidence".