info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
From a Biblical Creationist perspective...
643 views
Skip to first unread message
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2014, 9:06:32 PM6/4/14
to
Hi group!
My first post here - don't be too harsh!
I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
And here's why again, regarding each point above:
a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
That's all for now.
My first post here - don't be too harsh!
I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
And here's why again, regarding each point above:
a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
That's all for now.
jillery
Jun 4, 2014, 9:48:27 PM6/4/14
to
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Hi group!
>
>My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>Hi group!
>
>My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
talking about would seriously say that.
>And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
>a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>That's all for now.
Richard Clayton
Jun 4, 2014, 11:05:00 PM6/4/14
to
On 04-Jun-14 21:06, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
Hello! Welcome to talk.origins.
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
Speaking of harshness... you'll probably get some fairly brusque
responses. Believe it or not, it's not because the people responding are
evil people who hate you -- it's because this newsgroup sees a lot of
people show up, drop a few anti-science sound bites, and then disappear
forever. A lot of folks will assume that's what you're here to do; the
best way to prove them wrong is to stick around, defend your assertions,
and discuss intelligently.
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, which is
solely about biology; you're talking about astrophysics. That said, the
origin (and fate) of the universe are areas in which a lot of
interesting research is ongoing. We have some exciting ideas, but we're
not sure, yet.
Also, keep in mind a religious viewpoint doesn't "win" by default if
science doesn't have the answer. "We don't know, yet" is an acceptable
answer in science; scientists push back the boundaries of the unknown
every day, and it's better to admit ignorance than feign knowledge.
It's also worth pointing out what we DO know about astrophysics utterly
falsifies the Young Earth Creationist narrative. The Earth is
demonstrably billions of years old; the universe is much older than
that. These are not new or controversial developments in the science
community.
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
The problem here is we have a sample size of exactly one: All life as we
know it is heavily dependent on the quirky chemistry of water, and needs
abundant liquid water to survive. There's only one place in our solar
system where we can observe large amounts of liquid water, and that's
here on Earth. But extrapolating from a sample size of one makes for
lousy statistics -- we don't know what we can reliably infer from our
single solitary sample. Some scientists hope we might find other life
living in sub-surface oceans on Europa (a moon of Jupiter) or even
exotic hydrocarbon-chemistry life on Titan (a moon of Saturn) but the
truth is we just don't know.
It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions of
years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of stars
we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using species... yet
the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where is everybody?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Still, remember that "we don't know" does not imply "YHWH did it six
thousand years ago by magic."
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
You have some fundamental misconceptions about evolution. There is no
"uphill" or "downhill"; there is no Great Chain of Being; organisms are
not "more evolved" or "less evolved" than other things. You aren't "more
evolved" than a modern-day gorilla -- you're equidistant in time from
your most recent common ancestor.
Evolution doesn't "predict it all," though; the theory of evolution
makes specific predictions, and one could theoretically find evidence
that falsifies it. But *nobody has managed to do that* in 150 years;
that increases our confidence that we're correct (or at least mostly
correct). Even more importantly, the theory of evolution has made
numerous specific predictions that turned out to be right, and that's
generally considered excellent evidence that a theory is correct (or at
least mostly correct).
Science is a process of iterative improvement, so scientists are always
open to tweaking or refining old theories... or even throwing them out
if they can be shown to be comprehensively wrong. And remember,
scientists /have every incentive to do that/. A good biologist would
love to prove our current understanding of evolution is dead wrong, and
replace it with a better theory -- there would be a Nobel Prize in it
for him, at the very least.
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
I'm not sure whence you got these ideas. God /could/ have created the
universe. God /could/ have created life on Earth. But if He did so, he
did it in a manner that is consistent with the history and forces of the
universe as we understand them -- and there's no shortage of religious
people, Christian and otherwise, who believe exactly that.
Anyway, again, welcome to talk.origins. Stick around. Ask questions.
There are some very smart and educated people here -- way more so than
I, who am just an interested amateur -- and would take a strenuous
effort to keep reading and posting here *without* learning something.
(Of course, some people are prepared to make the effort...)
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
> Hi group!
Hello! Welcome to talk.origins.
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
responses. Believe it or not, it's not because the people responding are
evil people who hate you -- it's because this newsgroup sees a lot of
people show up, drop a few anti-science sound bites, and then disappear
forever. A lot of folks will assume that's what you're here to do; the
best way to prove them wrong is to stick around, defend your assertions,
and discuss intelligently.
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
solely about biology; you're talking about astrophysics. That said, the
origin (and fate) of the universe are areas in which a lot of
interesting research is ongoing. We have some exciting ideas, but we're
not sure, yet.
Also, keep in mind a religious viewpoint doesn't "win" by default if
science doesn't have the answer. "We don't know, yet" is an acceptable
answer in science; scientists push back the boundaries of the unknown
every day, and it's better to admit ignorance than feign knowledge.
It's also worth pointing out what we DO know about astrophysics utterly
falsifies the Young Earth Creationist narrative. The Earth is
demonstrably billions of years old; the universe is much older than
that. These are not new or controversial developments in the science
community.
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
know it is heavily dependent on the quirky chemistry of water, and needs
abundant liquid water to survive. There's only one place in our solar
system where we can observe large amounts of liquid water, and that's
here on Earth. But extrapolating from a sample size of one makes for
lousy statistics -- we don't know what we can reliably infer from our
single solitary sample. Some scientists hope we might find other life
living in sub-surface oceans on Europa (a moon of Jupiter) or even
exotic hydrocarbon-chemistry life on Titan (a moon of Saturn) but the
truth is we just don't know.
It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions of
years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of stars
we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using species... yet
the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where is everybody?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Still, remember that "we don't know" does not imply "YHWH did it six
thousand years ago by magic."
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
"uphill" or "downhill"; there is no Great Chain of Being; organisms are
not "more evolved" or "less evolved" than other things. You aren't "more
evolved" than a modern-day gorilla -- you're equidistant in time from
your most recent common ancestor.
Evolution doesn't "predict it all," though; the theory of evolution
makes specific predictions, and one could theoretically find evidence
that falsifies it. But *nobody has managed to do that* in 150 years;
that increases our confidence that we're correct (or at least mostly
correct). Even more importantly, the theory of evolution has made
numerous specific predictions that turned out to be right, and that's
generally considered excellent evidence that a theory is correct (or at
least mostly correct).
Science is a process of iterative improvement, so scientists are always
open to tweaking or refining old theories... or even throwing them out
if they can be shown to be comprehensively wrong. And remember,
scientists /have every incentive to do that/. A good biologist would
love to prove our current understanding of evolution is dead wrong, and
replace it with a better theory -- there would be a Nobel Prize in it
for him, at the very least.
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
universe. God /could/ have created life on Earth. But if He did so, he
did it in a manner that is consistent with the history and forces of the
universe as we understand them -- and there's no shortage of religious
people, Christian and otherwise, who believe exactly that.
Anyway, again, welcome to talk.origins. Stick around. Ask questions.
There are some very smart and educated people here -- way more so than
I, who am just an interested amateur -- and would take a strenuous
effort to keep reading and posting here *without* learning something.
(Of course, some people are prepared to make the effort...)
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2014, 11:13:46 PM6/4/14
to
Hi Jillery!
Thanks for replying!
> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
> >b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
> talking about would seriously say that.
>
Are you sure about that? Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
> >And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> >
>
> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> >b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> >c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>
No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>
> >That's all for now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't be shy.
I didn't say I was!
Thanks for replying!
> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
> >b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
> talking about would seriously say that.
>
> >And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> >
>
> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> >b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> >c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>
>
> >That's all for now.
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't be shy.
Roger Shrubber
Jun 4, 2014, 11:23:26 PM6/4/14
to
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
I'm cutting you off. Your arguments, such as they are, include very
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
little science and not much in the way of objective reasoning.
Why are you here? Are you searching for the truth or are you here
to defend what you see as the truth? If the latter, we may just
take the time to refute every argument you want to present but
really, what's the point?
If it's the former, I'd say it's apparent you have a great deal
to learn about science before you can make any informed comments
about the age of the Earth, the origins of the Cosmos, Natural
History, or molecular evolution. If you want to take the route of
actually educating yourself about actual scientific observations
and models for these things there's a special phrase you will
have to learn to embrace before you can get anywhere. "I don't
know". That's where science begins. It's all about "I don't know"
followed by a journey to see if there's an objective way to
change the "I don't know" into a "the data supports this model,
to this extent, unless we're missing something important".
So think some about what it is you really want to accomplish.
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 12:06:18 AM6/5/14
to
On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:05:00 AM UTC+1, Richard Clayton wrote:
> On 04-Jun-14 21:06, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
Hi Richard! Sorry, I'm writing in the smallest possible box!
> On 04-Jun-14 21:06, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Speaking of harshness... you'll probably get some fairly brusque
> responses. Believe it or not, it's not because the people responding are
> evil people who hate you -- it's because this newsgroup sees a lot of
> people show up, drop a few anti-science sound bites, and then disappear
> forever. A lot of folks will assume that's what you're here to do; the
> best way to prove them wrong is to stick around, defend your assertions,
> and discuss intelligently.
> > I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, which is
> solely about biology; you're talking about astrophysics. That said, the
> origin (and fate) of the universe are areas in which a lot of
> interesting research is ongoing. We have some exciting ideas, but we're
> not sure, yet.
>
>
> Also, keep in mind a religious viewpoint doesn't "win" by default if
> science doesn't have the answer. "We don't know, yet" is an acceptable
> answer in science; scientists push back the boundaries of the unknown
> every day, and it's better to admit ignorance than feign knowledge.
>
> It's also worth pointing out what we DO know about astrophysics utterly
> falsifies the Young Earth Creationist narrative. The Earth is
> demonstrably billions of years old; the universe is much older than
> that. These are not new or controversial developments in the science
> community.
>
>
> > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
> The problem here is we have a sample size of exactly one: All life as we
> know it is heavily dependent on the quirky chemistry of water, and needs
> abundant liquid water to survive. There's only one place in our solar
> system where we can observe large amounts of liquid water, and that's
> here on Earth. But extrapolating from a sample size of one makes for
> lousy statistics -- we don't know what we can reliably infer from our
> single solitary sample. Some scientists hope we might find other life
> living in sub-surface oceans on Europa (a moon of Jupiter) or even
> exotic hydrocarbon-chemistry life on Titan (a moon of Saturn) but the
> truth is we just don't know.
>
>
> It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions of
> years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of stars
> we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using species... yet
> the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where is everybody?
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
>
>
> Still, remember that "we don't know" does not imply "YHWH did it six
> thousand years ago by magic."
>
Just because you don't know (and we may not ever know - but we can try to learn) the mechanisms, doesn't mean that it's an incorrect assumption. Let's not forget, we have no idea about the big bang mechanisms. In fact, we know they are 'probably wrong', so let's not pretend that it's impossible for Yahweh to do it in 6000 years.
>
> > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
> You have some fundamental misconceptions about evolution. There is no
> "uphill" or "downhill"; there is no Great Chain of Being; organisms are
> not "more evolved" or "less evolved" than other things. You aren't "more
> evolved" than a modern-day gorilla -- you're equidistant in time from
> your most recent common ancestor.
>
> Evolution doesn't "predict it all," though; the theory of evolution
> makes specific predictions, and one could theoretically find evidence
> that falsifies it. But *nobody has managed to do that* in 150 years;
> that increases our confidence that we're correct (or at least mostly
> correct). Even more importantly, the theory of evolution has made
> numerous specific predictions that turned out to be right, and that's
> generally considered excellent evidence that a theory is correct (or at
> least mostly correct).
> Science is a process of iterative improvement, so scientists are always
> open to tweaking or refining old theories... or even throwing them out
> if they can be shown to be comprehensively wrong. And remember,
> scientists /have every incentive to do that/. A good biologist would
> love to prove our current understanding of evolution is dead wrong, and
> replace it with a better theory -- there would be a Nobel Prize in it
> for him, at the very least.
>
> > And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> >
>
> > a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> > b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> >
>
> > c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> I'm not sure whence you got these ideas. God /could/ have created the
> universe. God /could/ have created life on Earth. But if He did so, he
> did it in a manner that is consistent with the history and forces of the
> universe as we understand them -- and there's no shortage of religious
> people, Christian and otherwise, who believe exactly that.
a) God created the universe in 6 days.
b) We see the universe as a result of Him 'spreading out the heavens' (gravitational time dilation accounting for billions of years since).
c) The Fall. The start of genetic mutation, which has acted on the enormous gene pool (of the created kind, which was designed to adapt) and it's gradually been reduced (by natural selection).
d) The Flood. Which accounts for 98-99% extinction rates, and the migration patterns seen today.
>
>
> Anyway, again, welcome to talk.origins. Stick around. Ask questions.
>
> There are some very smart and educated people here -- way more so than
> I, who am just an interested amateur -- and would take a strenuous
> effort to keep reading and posting here *without* learning something.
> (Of course, some people are prepared to make the effort...)
>
>
>
> --
>
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>
> Richard Clayton
>
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
>
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 12:17:25 AM6/5/14
to
On Thursday, June 5, 2014 4:23:26 AM UTC+1, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi group!
>
> > My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> > I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've bee
> itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Hi group!
>
> > My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> > I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've bee
> > reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> > Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> > (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> > after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
> >
> > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> > life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> > the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> > which it's abundant - but only one).
> >
> > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> > all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> > let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> > or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> I'm cutting you off. Your arguments, such as they are, include very
> little science and not much in the way of objective reasoning.
Well, I gave my reasons. More than you were prepared to do I guess. I certainly didn't pretend to know it all, so what are your reasons for the opposite of my conclusions?
> > Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> > (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> > after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
> >
> > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> > life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> > the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> > which it's abundant - but only one).
> >
> > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> > all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> > let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> > or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> I'm cutting you off. Your arguments, such as they are, include very
> little science and not much in the way of objective reasoning.
> Why are you here? Are you searching for the truth or are you here
> to defend what you see as the truth? If the latter, we may just
> take the time to refute every argument you want to present but
> really, what's the point?
> If it's the former, I'd say it's apparent you have a great deal
> to learn about science before you can make any informed comments
> about the age of the Earth, the origins of the Cosmos, Natural
> History, or molecular evolution. If you want to take the route of
> actually educating yourself about actual scientific observations
> and models for these things there's a special phrase you will
> have to learn to embrace before you can get anywhere. "I don't
> know". That's where science begins. It's all about "I don't know"
> followed by a journey to see if there's an objective way to
> change the "I don't know" into a "the data supports this model,
> to this extent, unless we're missing something important".
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 1:02:41 AM6/5/14
to
model is consistent with scientific observations. Such a claim
presupposes you are aware of the data and the alternative models
but your earlier post suggested to me that you really weren't.
But as you claim otherwise, sure ...
Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this
is best explained objectively by the YEC model?
jillery
Jun 5, 2014, 1:37:24 AM6/5/14
to
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:13:46 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Hi Jillery!
And hello to you, itbgcthate9.
>Thanks for replying!
Back atcha.
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
>Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
no beginning, and so still be infinite.
Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>> >b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
>Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
asking the questions.
>> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>
>Are you sure about that?
I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
specific prediction you have in mind?
>> >And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> >
>>
>> >b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> >
>>
>> >c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
"God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
expressing. Just sayin'.
>Hi Jillery!
And hello to you, itbgcthate9.
>Thanks for replying!
Back atcha.
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
>Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
no beginning, and so still be infinite.
Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>> >b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
>Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
asking the questions.
>> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>
>Are you sure about that?
you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
specific prediction you have in mind?
>> >And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> >
>>
>> >b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> >
>>
>> >c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
that principle.
>> >That's all for now.
>>
>> Don't be shy.
>
>I didn't say I was!
And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
>> >That's all for now.
>>
>> Don't be shy.
>
>I didn't say I was!
just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
expressing. Just sayin'.
Mike Dworetsky
Jun 5, 2014, 3:17:56 AM6/5/14
to
younger than 4.5 Billion years? Be very specific here, because science has
masses of evidence published in learned peer-reviewed journals and textbooks
that say you are wrong, so if you have something new and radical you need to
spell it our clearly.
"The stretching out of the heavens" is your very ambiguous piece of
interpretation of poetic wording in the original Hebrew of the OT. It is
not the same as cosmic inflation.
I doubt if you can explain what "gravitational time dilation" is, but I
congratulate you on spelling it correctly. What exactly are "they" that are
billions of light years away? Galaxies? And if they are so far away, and
their light is reaching us now, how could the Universe be young? Was the
light created en route to us from all directions, all timed to arrive now?
>
>>
>>> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
>>> life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
>>> the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
>>> which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> The problem here is we have a sample size of exactly one: All life
>> as we know it is heavily dependent on the quirky chemistry of water,
>> and needs abundant liquid water to survive. There's only one place
>> in our solar system where we can observe large amounts of liquid
>> water, and that's here on Earth. But extrapolating from a sample
>> size of one makes for lousy statistics -- we don't know what we can
>> reliably infer from our single solitary sample. Some scientists hope
>> we might find other life living in sub-surface oceans on Europa (a
>> moon of Jupiter) or even exotic hydrocarbon-chemistry life on Titan
>> (a moon of Saturn) but the truth is we just don't know.
>>
>>
>> It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions
>> of years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of
>> stars we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using
>> species... yet the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where
>> is everybody?
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
>>
>>
>> Still, remember that "we don't know" does not imply "YHWH did it six
>> thousand years ago by magic."
>>
> Yes, a sample size of exactly one. Does that not make you think?!
ingenuity (and money for spacecraft and telescopes). Only two decades ago
humans had not found a single planet outside our own solar system, but now
we have a catalogue of (not sure exactly how many) around 1,500 or more.
All the methods available now make it difficult to discover planets very
like the Earth, but a few have been found.
Rather than seeking life outside our solar system to verify abiogenesis
hypotheses, many scientist are engaged in studies of chemistry and
biochemistry so see how life might have arisen on Earth. Progress is being
made, far beyond the Miller-Urey experiment. I haven't met any who shouted
at me, "I give up! Goddidit!!"
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
alias Ernest Major
Jun 5, 2014, 3:33:24 AM6/5/14
to
On 05/06/2014 02:06, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
You haven't given a logical connection between this point and Young
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
Earth Creationism. Apart from committing the fallacy of argumentum ad
ignorantium, you ignoring all the evidence for the age of life on earth,
the earth and the universe. A lack of knowledge of the origin of the hot
dense state of the universe of 13.7 billion years ago is not a
justification for concluding the universe is 6,000 years (or whatever
your preferred number is) old.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
rare or otherwise. And you seem to neglect to take into account the fact
that life as we know it is dependent on a particular range of conditions.
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
I'm having difficulty discerning even the semblance of an argument in
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
this point. Are you trying to argue that evolution is unfalsifiable (and
therefore scientifically worthless). That is not true. The theory of
evolution is not compatible with any imaginable observation; it's
creationism which suffers from the problem.
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
> That's all for now.
>
alias Ernest Major
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 6:18:49 AM6/5/14
to
Thanks again Jillery!
> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite (what does the evidence say?). If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
> >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> >> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
> >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>
> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> asking the questions.
Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
>
> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>
> >Are you sure about that?
>
> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
> >Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>
> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> specific prediction you have in mind?
>
Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'. When a slow, gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the evidence?
> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>
>
> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>
> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> that principle.
No, I'm clear on that. But the naturalistic explanations are lacking (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
> >I didn't say I was!
>
> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
> expressing. Just sayin'.
Gotcha, and agreed!
> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
> >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> >> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
> >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>
> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> asking the questions.
> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
>
> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>
> >Are you sure about that?
>
> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
> >Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>
> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> specific prediction you have in mind?
>
> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>
>
> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>
> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> that principle.
> >I didn't say I was!
>
> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
> expressing. Just sayin'.
Josko Daimonie
Jun 5, 2014, 6:24:38 AM6/5/14
to
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Jillery!
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
Stop. You confused something here. You were talking about [
> Hi Jillery!
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no
matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
which all axioms must also have been created.]
matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
In the latter, you say 'axioms'. You basically stated the laws need to
be placed. That the laws result in a 'heat death' does not mean they're
not there. The heath death is part of the laws.
As such, the laws are infinite, and thus, an infinite universe is
perfectly possible. A heat death doesn't mean it suddenly stops existing.
jonathan
Jun 5, 2014, 6:40:59 AM6/5/14
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:BaCdnQ_DNpQofxLO...@giganews.com...
> itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> .....there's a special phrase you will
> have to learn to embrace before you can get anywhere. "I don't
> know". That's where science begins. It's all about "I don't know"
> followed by a journey to see if there's an objective way to
> change the "I don't know" into a "the data supports this model,
> to this extent, unless we're missing something important".
>
Dear Emily long ago showed the folly of this kind
> know". That's where science begins. It's all about "I don't know"
> followed by a journey to see if there's an objective way to
> change the "I don't know" into a "the data supports this model,
> to this extent, unless we're missing something important".
>
of simple-minded (objective) approach to
comprehending nature and reality in the
following poem.
And the basic problem is a reductionist view
attempts to derive knowledge from the physical
construction or parts, to simplify (reduce) [factualize]
that which thrives off the emergent behavior of
the....WHOLE!
How much more backwards could science be?
THEIR height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I 'm finite, I can't see.
The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.
The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes
Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."
Is humanity really that stupid we can't see the
basic contradiction between our scientific methods
and the properties of nature?
It's those ethereal emergent [canalizing] system properties
such as market forces, natural selection, wisdom
or generically called God that provides the overall
direction of evolution and ultimate source of creation.
Emergence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
And in this following poem Dear Emily...solves
the great riddle in how to merge science and
religion and derive a true theory of everything.
Instead of the Uncertainty Principle being
an obstacle to knowledge, as in one can't
know both paired-properties at the same
time, bringing with it the objective mantra of
"I don't know". The Uncertainty Principle
really tells us that the simultaneous maximums
of the paired-properties of objective and subjective
views will provide the TOE.
Not one or the other.
PERCEPTION of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far.
There's only way around this objective/subjective
schism. Science and religion need to start over
from scratch, and fix their initial flaws.
Combine all the modern tools of science but
within the holistic or systems frame of reference.
Where our fundamental laws of the universe
and life are derived from the....output side
from the emergent behavior of the whole.
Not the part details.
Science and religion are separated by a
simple frame of reference error.
Jonathan
"I never saw a Moor
I never saw the Sea
Yet know I how the Heather looks
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God
Nor visited in Heaven
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the Chart were given"
s
alias Ernest Major
Jun 5, 2014, 6:46:34 AM6/5/14
to
On 05/06/2014 11:18, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
> Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
>
>
>> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite (what does the evidence say?). If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
>
>
>> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
>> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
>> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
> Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
> Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
>
>
>> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite (what does the evidence say?). If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
>
>
>> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
>> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
>> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
much smaller state.
>
>
>>>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>>>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>>
>>> Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>>
>> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
>> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
>> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
>> asking the questions.
>
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>
>
>>>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>>
>>
>>>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
>
>>>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>>>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>>
>>> Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>>
>> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
>> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
>> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
>> asking the questions.
>
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>
>
>>>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>>
>>
>>>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
>
>
>>> Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>>
>> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
>> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
>> specific prediction you have in mind?
>>
>
> Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'. When a slow, gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the evidence?
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
>
>>> Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>>
>> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
>> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
>> specific prediction you have in mind?
>>
>
> Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'. When a slow, gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the evidence?
long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
>
>
>>>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>>>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>>
>>> No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>>
>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> that principle.
>
> No, I'm clear on that. But the naturalistic explanations are lacking (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
>
>
>>> I didn't say I was!
>>
>> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
>> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
>> expressing. Just sayin'.
>
> Gotcha, and agreed!
>
--
>
>>>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>>>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>>
>>> No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>>
>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> that principle.
>
> No, I'm clear on that. But the naturalistic explanations are lacking (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
>
>
>>> I didn't say I was!
>>
>> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
>> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
>> expressing. Just sayin'.
>
> Gotcha, and agreed!
>
alias Ernest Major
RonO
Jun 5, 2014, 6:57:19 AM6/5/14
to
On 6/4/2014 8:06 PM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
biological life? Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes, more
related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys that to
prosimians etc.?
Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived and
died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of material
created in previous stars. How can the universe be as young as you claim?
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
for that star to mature and explode?
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
evolution short of extinction.
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
> That's all for now.
how science works? What have you learned by reading TO? Shouldn't you
get a basic understanding of science?
Ron Okimoto
>
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 7:34:59 AM6/5/14
to
Hi Mike!
Thanks for your reply.
> >> Speaking of harshness... you'll probably get some fairly brusque
> >> responses. Believe it or not, it's not because the people responding
> >> are evil people who hate you -- it's because this newsgroup sees a
> >> lot of people show up, drop a few anti-science sound bites, and then
> >> disappear forever. A lot of folks will assume that's what you're
> >> here to do; the best way to prove them wrong is to stick around,
> >> defend your assertions, and discuss intelligently.
I understand that. I didn't think that the people responding would be 'evil people', nor that they'd hate me. What I expected was for the people here to disagree, and that's fine (so long as there's no resort to the "you're stupid" comments).
> Let's call you on this. What evidence can you cite that the Earth is much
> younger than 4.5 Billion years? Be very specific here, because science has
> masses of evidence published in learned peer-reviewed journals and textbooks
> that say you are wrong, so if you have something new and radical you need to
> spell it our clearly.
Ok - I have the same evidence as you. We've not got a time machine to go back and measure the start, nor the progress. So we have to make assumptions that are based on the evidence. It really doesn't matter how careful or accurate the scientific method - if the initial assumptions are wrong, the end result is almost certainly wrong.
> "The stretching out of the heavens" is your very ambiguous piece of
> interpretation of poetic wording in the original Hebrew of the OT. It is
> not the same as cosmic inflation.
I do agree that it's not the same as cosmic inflation. Nobody wants cosmic inflation - it's a fudge factor for the big bang.
> I doubt if you can explain what "gravitational time dilation" is, but I
> congratulate you on spelling it correctly. What exactly are "they" that are
> billions of light years away? Galaxies? And if they are so far away, and
> their light is reaching us now, how could the Universe be young? Was the
> light created en route to us from all directions, all timed to arrive now?
One possible explanation is that the galaxies were moved away from us, faster than light. Of course, we can't say for certain because the mechanisms are not described in Genesis. It might be a good area to research - if you could get the funding!
> Rather than seeking life outside our solar system to verify abiogenesis
> hypotheses, many scientist are engaged in studies of chemistry and
> biochemistry so see how life might have arisen on Earth. Progress is being
> made, far beyond the Miller-Urey experiment. I haven't met any who shouted
> at me, "I give up! Goddidit!!"
Nor, I suspect, have you met anyone that said "Eureka - I did it!". Nevertheless, we're not told the mechanisms in Genesis so again, this could be valuable research.
Thanks for your reply.
> >> Speaking of harshness... you'll probably get some fairly brusque
> >> responses. Believe it or not, it's not because the people responding
> >> are evil people who hate you -- it's because this newsgroup sees a
> >> lot of people show up, drop a few anti-science sound bites, and then
> >> disappear forever. A lot of folks will assume that's what you're
> >> here to do; the best way to prove them wrong is to stick around,
> >> defend your assertions, and discuss intelligently.
> Let's call you on this. What evidence can you cite that the Earth is much
> younger than 4.5 Billion years? Be very specific here, because science has
> masses of evidence published in learned peer-reviewed journals and textbooks
> that say you are wrong, so if you have something new and radical you need to
> spell it our clearly.
> "The stretching out of the heavens" is your very ambiguous piece of
> interpretation of poetic wording in the original Hebrew of the OT. It is
> not the same as cosmic inflation.
> I doubt if you can explain what "gravitational time dilation" is, but I
> congratulate you on spelling it correctly. What exactly are "they" that are
> billions of light years away? Galaxies? And if they are so far away, and
> their light is reaching us now, how could the Universe be young? Was the
> light created en route to us from all directions, all timed to arrive now?
> Rather than seeking life outside our solar system to verify abiogenesis
> hypotheses, many scientist are engaged in studies of chemistry and
> biochemistry so see how life might have arisen on Earth. Progress is being
> made, far beyond the Miller-Urey experiment. I haven't met any who shouted
> at me, "I give up! Goddidit!!"
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 7:58:28 AM6/5/14
to
Hi Robert!
> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this
> is best explained objectively by the YEC model?
According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier ancestors.
What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think we need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about so called junk DNA.
> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this
> is best explained objectively by the YEC model?
What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think we need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about so called junk DNA.
jonathan
Jun 5, 2014, 7:58:44 AM6/5/14
to
<itbgc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a33c3371-851e-46ad...@googlegroups.com...
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading
> TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything
> (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no
> matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
> which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it
> seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets
> share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant -
> but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all
> their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say
> that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere?
> Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
Having a 'primordial soup' for the creation of life, or a vast
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading
> TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything
> (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no
> matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
> which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it
> seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets
> share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant -
> but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all
> their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say
> that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere?
> Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
interstellar cloud of gas and dust for the creation of
celestial bodies provides a huge clue as to the ultimate
source of creation, and especially why it's so vexing.
Just look at the common abstract properties of each.
Both define the highest levels of dynamic change,
complexity and randomness. Or in short, both display
a....distinct void....of observable order.
The ultimate source of creation is the point at which
objective definitions fail. Where total system complexity
(uncertainty) [mysteriousness] is at it's absolute maximum.
Yet all of science and religion is about ....finding
the ultimate sources.
Oops!
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot
> say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
our universe might evolve from a previous one. As in this view
singularities are not complete, information from the
earlier universe could effect the formation of ours.
And big bangs are local events. Picture a vast ocean
where here-and-there it 'boils over' and reorganizes.
Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics
http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/cycliccosmology.html
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far
> off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we
> know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have
> happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know
> that for sure (?).
>
it tends to rapidly fill available niches. Whether
a forest retaking a damaged area, or with
vacuum energy.causing the rapid expansion
of the universe. Even the Second Law screams
the natural 'order' is to fill or spread into voids.
And we also know that in evolving systems
the larger the base, the higher the ...peak.
Unguided? Just the opposite is true.
Jonathan
s
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 8:17:48 AM6/5/14
to
Hi alias Ernest Major!
> > I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>
> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
> much smaller state.
You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good explanation for the universe. And it certainly cannot explain origin of the universe, no matter how compressed you make it (see point a). But what else have you got?
> Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
> evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
What mischaracterisations? I was pointing out that the theory seems rather plastic (that is, adaptable to all evidence).
> "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
> long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
> the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
> of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
Probably short, possibly long, definitely plastic.
> > I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>
> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
> much smaller state.
> Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
> evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
> "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
> long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
> the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
> of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
alias Ernest Major
Jun 5, 2014, 8:30:45 AM6/5/14
to
On 05/06/2014 13:17, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>
>>> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>>
>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>> much smaller state.
>
> You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good explanation for the universe. And it certainly cannot explain origin of the universe, no matter how compressed you make it (see point a). But what else have you got?
>
>
>> Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
>> evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
>
> What mischaracterisations? I was pointing out that the theory seems rather plastic (that is, adaptable to all evidence).
As I wrote earlier the theory of evolution is not compatible with every
> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>
>>> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>>
>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>> much smaller state.
>
> You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good explanation for the universe. And it certainly cannot explain origin of the universe, no matter how compressed you make it (see point a). But what else have you got?
>
>
>> Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
>> evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
>
> What mischaracterisations? I was pointing out that the theory seems rather plastic (that is, adaptable to all evidence).
imaginable observation.
>
>> "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
>> long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
>> the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
>> of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
>
> Probably short, possibly long, definitely plastic.
>
You wrote of punctuated equilibrium, etc., "When a slow, gradual
>> "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
>> long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
>> the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
>> of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
>
> Probably short, possibly long, definitely plastic.
>
progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the
evidence?" Why did you remove that context?
--
alias Ernest Major
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 8:46:57 AM6/5/14
to
Hi Ron O!
> > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
> biological life?
Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need that before you can even talk about evolution.
> Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
> African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes, more
> related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys that to
> prosimians etc.?
There is a relationship between all life, which points to a single creator. But I would say that humans are more closely related to humans than any other creature.
> Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived and
> died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of material
> created in previous stars. How can the universe be as young as you claim?
Well, I already gave one possible explanation for this. I'm not claiming a young universe (although it was created at the same time as the earth), rather a relatively young earth.
> > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
> Do you have a better explanation? What is our sun and the planets of
> our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
> documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
> for that star to mature and explode?
So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
> > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
>
> Science doesn't know everything, and it doesn't have to. You have to
> explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
> we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
> evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
> explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
> evolution short of extinction.
That life was created by a single creator. Each created kind had a vast gene pool which has been reduced over time by natural selection and extinction.
> If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything about
> how science works? What have you learned by reading TO? Shouldn't you
> get a basic understanding of science?
It starts with observation. If you can't observe and repeat it in the present, you have to make some assumptions. Do you agree?
> > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
> What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
> biological life?
> Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
> African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes, more
> related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys that to
> prosimians etc.?
> Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived and
> died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of material
> created in previous stars. How can the universe be as young as you claim?
> > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
> Do you have a better explanation? What is our sun and the planets of
> our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
> documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
> for that star to mature and explode?
> > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
>
> Science doesn't know everything, and it doesn't have to. You have to
> explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
> we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
> evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
> explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
> evolution short of extinction.
> If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything about
> how science works? What have you learned by reading TO? Shouldn't you
> get a basic understanding of science?
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 9:09:34 AM6/5/14
to
Hi Jonathan!
> Having a 'primordial soup' for the creation of life, or a vast
> interstellar cloud of gas and dust for the creation of
> celestial bodies provides a huge clue as to the ultimate
> source of creation, and especially why it's so vexing.
If it's such a huge clue, shouldn't the answer be obvious?
> Just look at the common abstract properties of each.
> Both define the highest levels of dynamic change,
> complexity and randomness. Or in short, both display
> a....distinct void....of observable order.
Interesting. The Bible says He is a God of order, not chaos.
> But in the new cyclic cosmology of Cambridge and Princeton
> our universe might evolve from a previous one. As in this view
> singularities are not complete, information from the
> earlier universe could effect the formation of ours.
> And big bangs are local events. Picture a vast ocean
> where here-and-there it 'boils over' and reorganizes.
Adding universes doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it.
> But we know certain things about nature, we know
> it tends to rapidly fill available niches. Whether
> a forest retaking a damaged area, or with
> vacuum energy.causing the rapid expansion
> of the universe. Even the Second Law screams
> the natural 'order' is to fill or spread into voids.
We'd be utterly lost without order.
> And we also know that in evolving systems
> the larger the base, the higher the ...peak.
But the 'base' of all systems is nothing, except for sufficient cause.
> Unguided? Just the opposite is true.
Probably best not to open that can of worms.
> Having a 'primordial soup' for the creation of life, or a vast
> interstellar cloud of gas and dust for the creation of
> celestial bodies provides a huge clue as to the ultimate
> source of creation, and especially why it's so vexing.
> Just look at the common abstract properties of each.
> Both define the highest levels of dynamic change,
> complexity and randomness. Or in short, both display
> a....distinct void....of observable order.
> But in the new cyclic cosmology of Cambridge and Princeton
> our universe might evolve from a previous one. As in this view
> singularities are not complete, information from the
> earlier universe could effect the formation of ours.
> And big bangs are local events. Picture a vast ocean
> where here-and-there it 'boils over' and reorganizes.
> But we know certain things about nature, we know
> it tends to rapidly fill available niches. Whether
> a forest retaking a damaged area, or with
> vacuum energy.causing the rapid expansion
> of the universe. Even the Second Law screams
> the natural 'order' is to fill or spread into voids.
> And we also know that in evolving systems
> the larger the base, the higher the ...peak.
> Unguided? Just the opposite is true.
jillery
Jun 5, 2014, 9:26:43 AM6/5/14
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 03:18:49 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
>Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang. Similar to evolution, it
>Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
>Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
>> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
>Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
> (what does the evidence say?).
evidence with error bars, and make active efforts to express
conclusions within their range. To say that it's certain the Universe
will end at time X for reason Y is the ultimate weather forecast.
>If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
alternative for no good reason is a waste of time.
>> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
>> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
>> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
>I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
>But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
of reasoning to support it.
>I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
observable evidence of the present state of the Universe.
>> >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>> >> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>>
>> >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>>
>> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
>> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
>> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
>> asking the questions.
>
>Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
>> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>> >
>>
>> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>> >Are you sure about that?
>>
>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
>Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
Evolution?
>> >Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>>
>> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
>> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
>> specific prediction you have in mind?
>>
>
>Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
in support of your infinite Creator?
>When a slow, gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the evidence?
evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
>> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>>
>> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>>
>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> that principle.
>
>No, I'm clear on that.
scientific claim.
>But the naturalistic explanations are lacking (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
without question ignorance about your Creator. Why is that?
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 9:28:13 AM6/5/14
to
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Robert!
>
>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this is
>> best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>
> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> ancestors.
Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> Hi Robert!
>
>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this is
>> best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>
> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> ancestors.
in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
We have observed such pseudogenes to arise by well understood
mechanisms of mutation. That's a fact. No evolutionary theory yet.
Adding evolutionary theory, we expect that when this sort of
damage occurs to non-essential genes, they will be inherited
by subsequent generations but be subject to further mutation
at the rate of mutation with no selective pressure to not mutate.
Our observations of pseudogenes finds that in a way that is
consistent with our models of common descent previously
determined by the fossil record.
> What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated
> this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective
> pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
We know the cost of carrying extra DNA. The cost is so negligible
that there's no real selective pressure to eliminate extra DNA.
The pseudo genes do gain additional mutations through time but
are still recognizable as being verly like previously functional
genes that have been mutated.
I thought you claimed to understand what evolution claims? It
does not appear that you do. In fact, you are echoing some
common misunderstandings about evolution in your comments above.
> From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all
> created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think we
> need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about so
> called junk DNA.
Why would you expect all great apes to have stretches of DNA
that look like the final gene needed to make Vitamin C but
that don't work to make vitamin C?
And you've said designer instead of creator but also YEC.
Does this mean you think that something, not necessarily
the God of the bible, designed life recently? But apparently
you think they did not design each species independently
but had to reuse DNA from other created species, even
reusing parts that did not work?
Because you did not simply say, "I don't know", you said you
expect the commonality. But that commonality extends far
beyond what is functional, and that is an observed fact,
not some theoretical result.
broger...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2014, 9:43:36 AM6/5/14
to
On Thursday, June 5, 2014 8:46:57 AM UTC-4, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Ron O!
> > What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
>
> > biological life?
>
>
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need that before you can even talk about evolution.
There's a general principle here which you are suggesting, but probably don't want to make explicit. You seem to imply that no scientific description of anything that has happened since the origin of the universe can be valid until we understand that origin. Is that really what you mean? If so, it would also be true that we could not talk about chemistry, geology, superconductors, computers, general relativity, orbital mechanics, fluid dynamics, or anything else, until we understood the origin of the universe.
Fortunately, this principle is not correct. The theory of evolution deals very well with the history and distribution of life on earth, even without being able to specify the origin of the first living cell, never mind the origin of the universe as a whole. It is possible to understand some things without understanding everything. One of the weaknesses (to my mind) of many religious views is that they insist on explaining everything all at once. It's better to work on puzzles one at a time, slowly linking solutions into bigger and better models and theories over time.
>
> Hi Ron O!
> > What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
>
> > biological life?
>
>
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need that before you can even talk about evolution.
Fortunately, this principle is not correct. The theory of evolution deals very well with the history and distribution of life on earth, even without being able to specify the origin of the first living cell, never mind the origin of the universe as a whole. It is possible to understand some things without understanding everything. One of the weaknesses (to my mind) of many religious views is that they insist on explaining everything all at once. It's better to work on puzzles one at a time, slowly linking solutions into bigger and better models and theories over time.
>
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 9:58:26 AM6/5/14
to
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
Would you kindly provide your explanation for the cat family
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
according to your model.
Were lions and tigers created separately? What about the
various types of leopards? And lynxes and bobcats, and
cougars and jaguars and servals and fishing cats and
ocelets and pampas cats? And what about the variant ancestors
of sabre-toothed tigers found in fossils and places
like the La Brea Tar Pits (smilodon)?
In what ways are the observed similarities and difference in
the cat family consistent with a creationist model of origins?
jonathan
Jun 5, 2014, 10:34:01 AM6/5/14
to
<itbgc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a141b0a0-fcee-4e37...@googlegroups.com...
> Hi Jonathan!
>
>> Having a 'primordial soup' for the creation of life, or a vast
>> interstellar cloud of gas and dust for the creation of
>> celestial bodies provides a huge clue as to the ultimate
>> source of creation, and especially why it's so vexing.
>
> If it's such a huge clue, shouldn't the answer be obvious?
>
From an...objective view the answer is invisible.
>
>> Having a 'primordial soup' for the creation of life, or a vast
>> interstellar cloud of gas and dust for the creation of
>> celestial bodies provides a huge clue as to the ultimate
>> source of creation, and especially why it's so vexing.
>
> If it's such a huge clue, shouldn't the answer be obvious?
>
>
>> Just look at the common abstract properties of each.
>> Both define the highest levels of dynamic change,
>> complexity and randomness. Or in short, both display
>> a....distinct void....of observable order.
>
> Interesting. The Bible says He is a God of order, not chaos.
>
The source of order is disorder, chaos (clouds) [water] etc.
An elegant cloud of system uncertainty, from which
spontaneous cyclic order emerges as if by magic.
A source of order that is forever mysterious from
an objective view. But don't mistake disorder
for being 'nothing at all', it's like the Mona-Lisa smile.
Real - beautiful - inspirational - creative!
But also where a definition can't be found.
As is the exact source of things like gravity or ideas
will always remain illusive. They are a property of
the ...whole, not of any of the parts.
And 'the whole' cannot be defined in objective terms.
As it's infinite in scope and emergent wisdom.
>
>> But in the new cyclic cosmology of Cambridge and Princeton
>> our universe might evolve from a previous one. As in this view
>> singularities are not complete, information from the
>> earlier universe could effect the formation of ours.
>> And big bangs are local events. Picture a vast ocean
>> where here-and-there it 'boils over' and reorganizes.
>
> Adding universes doesn't solve the problem - it just moves it.
>
The properties of the parts, and the tendencies
of the whole. As different from each other
as a rock is from a habit. As a fact is from
an emotion. The two coexist in the same space
yet can't directly 'see' each other.
Just as we can tell things like gravity, dark energy
and ideas must exist, but can't seem to point to their
exact sources. No matter how hard we try!
The intersection of what we 'know', but can't prove.
That happens to be the properties of the source
of creation. Not just a gap in our knowledge, but
it's true form.
An information rich region, so rich no discernible
order can be observed from outside.
Like a black hole, in terms of order.
>
>> But we know certain things about nature, we know
>> it tends to rapidly fill available niches. Whether
>> a forest retaking a damaged area, or with
>> vacuum energy.causing the rapid expansion
>> of the universe. Even the Second Law screams
>> the natural 'order' is to fill or spread into voids.
>
> We'd be utterly lost without order.
>
inherent tendency to immediately create order
the moment it's lost, to fill the voids.
Creation is merely waiting for disorder to occur.
How wonderful a universe would that be?
>
>> And we also know that in evolving systems
>> the larger the base, the higher the ...peak.
>
> But the 'base' of all systems is nothing, except for sufficient cause.
>
sufficient cause, inspiration, and to almost any observer.
Since the work elegantly fails to define itself, each
observer is left to define it for themselves, inspired
to fill the void.
>
>> Unguided? Just the opposite is true.
>
> Probably best not to open that can of worms.
>
granted anymore. The best discoveries are all
yet to come.
s
Kalkidas
Jun 5, 2014, 11:00:15 AM6/5/14
to
Guru! "Just ask your questions and accept our answers. and you will
know the truth, and the truth will make you one of us..."
Rolf
Jun 5, 2014, 11:02:15 AM6/5/14
to
<itbgc...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:a33c3371-851e-46ad...@googlegroups.com...
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading
> TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything
> (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no
> matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
> which all axioms must also have been created.
>
A: If youv'e ben reading t.o. for a while you should have noitced that wer
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading
> TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything
> (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no
> matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in
> which all axioms must also have been created.
>
are mostly concerned with questions regarding the "Origins of Species", and
I'd have expected that by now you'd know that we don't know what causewd the
origins of the universe, except that all evidence so far have led to the
conclusion that it seems to have startet somewhere around 13.6 billion years
ago with an event commonly know as a "big bang". What the future may say
about it, we don't know yet.
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it
> seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets
> share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant -
> but only one).
>
that needs to be satisfied for life to exist on a planet. Until now, we have
not been able to detect life anywhere else in our local solar system, nor
anywhere else.
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all
> their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say
> that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere?
> Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
'created' under conditions assumed to be within what might have been present
on the early Earth. Origins of Life OOL) - research has come a long way
since Miller-Urey and we can only wait for what science eventually may come
up with. Don't worry, they are woriking on it, and there is progress!
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot
> say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
they be sure?
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far
> know that for sure (?).
>
B1: No, we don't know, and while it is very possible that compounds;
>
building blocks of life - some of which we have found in meterorites are
possible sources useful for initiating life on our planet.
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have
> that for sure (?).
>
C!: No, all we know is that there is no evidence for the existence of God,
nor any evidence that God or any other magic force(s) did it. Since we find
no signs of divine or any other kind of exotic intervention in matters on
this planet, we stick to the principle of Ockhams Razor and assume that
evolution is the result of natural forces at work. Nobody has yet been able
to show eviidence, not to speak of proof, that anything out of his world
happened, so we stay with the forces of nature as long as no better
candidate than the curret Theory of Evolution (ToE) for explaining the
evidence has been identified.
Please note that I talk only about biological evolution of life, from the
first single celled life we know existed on this planet somewhere around 4
billion years ago - to the millions of species we now have. How that first
life came into existence - by natural forces or not, we aer not able to say
for certain, we can only say that se see no reason why it could not be the
result of natural processes.
You also might do well by acknolwedging the humility of science: All
scientific theories are tentative; there's always the possiblility that a
theory may be wrong and should be replaced by a theory better able to
explain the known facts and evidence, or at least in need of modification or
reworking.
Please also note that I am not a scientist, I just have tried to learn some
science during the past 70+ years on this planet.
>
> That's all for now.
>
meantime it might be a good idea to learn as much as you can about what
science says.
TomS
Jun 5, 2014, 11:07:08 AM6/5/14
to
"On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:58:26 -0400, in article
<Za2dnav3I5Qf6g3O...@giganews.com>, Roger Shrubber stated..."
I wonder what it was like for a social mammal like a feline to suddenly
appear.
Was there a whole family group, with mother and kittens? With all the
appearances of being related, with appearances of different ages, even
though none of them existed a day before? Did they have food in their
digestive tracts? Did the adults act as if they had the kind of
knowledge that mammals learn only by experience? Was there a social
order (an "alpha male" and so one)? Were they well-rested or looking
a place to nap? Were they chasing away flies? Did the kittens
suddenly appear in the middle of play with one another, or nursing,
or any of the things that kittens do?
When they suddenly appeared, how did they differ from a group with
a history?
--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.
<Za2dnav3I5Qf6g3O...@giganews.com>, Roger Shrubber stated..."
appear.
Was there a whole family group, with mother and kittens? With all the
appearances of being related, with appearances of different ages, even
though none of them existed a day before? Did they have food in their
digestive tracts? Did the adults act as if they had the kind of
knowledge that mammals learn only by experience? Was there a social
order (an "alpha male" and so one)? Were they well-rested or looking
a place to nap? Were they chasing away flies? Did the kittens
suddenly appear in the middle of play with one another, or nursing,
or any of the things that kittens do?
When they suddenly appeared, how did they differ from a group with
a history?
--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 11:09:27 AM6/5/14
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ZuCdnUVkCcfx7Q3O...@giganews.com...
> itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi Robert!
>>
>>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this is
>>> best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>>
>> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
>> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
>> look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
>> ancestors.
>
> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
"This is sort of a 'stop sign,'" Rubin said. "But what we saw in the study was that in certain organisms, the stop sign was not interpreted as stop, rather it signaled to continue adding amino acids and expand the protein."
>> Hi Robert!
>>
>>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this is
>>> best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>>
>> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
>> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
>> look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
>> ancestors.
>
> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140522141422.htm
snip more "facts"
jillery
Jun 5, 2014, 11:10:02 AM6/5/14
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 04:58:28 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Hi Robert!
>
>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this
>> is best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>
>According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier ancestors.
>
>What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
Why do you think it strange that NS hasn't eliminated pseudo-genes?
>Hi Robert!
>
>> Please explain the pattern of pseudogenes in species that are
>> related according to evolutionary models. Why do you think this
>> is best explained objectively by the YEC model?
>
>According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier ancestors.
>
>What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
You admit there is no selective pressure, so there's no way to for NS
to naturally select against it.
Why do you think psuedo-genes must have mutated beyond all
recognition? Their recognition necessarily depends on the size of the
gene, the amount of time since it became a pseudo-gene, and its rate
of mutation.
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 11:21:24 AM6/5/14
to
(perhaps) and others will take him on, issue after issue and correct
various misconceptions. On the other, he educates himself. That's
the long journey he has to complete but has to begin with "I
don't know". Nobody is going to get a complete education in science
by reading talk.origins. We can clear up a few misconceptions but
this is not a university.
Mike Dworetsky
Jun 5, 2014, 11:21:43 AM6/5/14
to
and why do you think each one that you cite is wrong, when all the real
scientists accept them as correct? Or is your model the one in which God
fakes the antiquity of Earth with lotions and potions (removing all the
relatively short life isotopes, etc) in order to test your faith?
You can't just wave your magic wand and claim that all the "assumptions" are
wrong, therefore creationism is correct.
Be specific.
>
>
>> "The stretching out of the heavens" is your very ambiguous piece of
>> interpretation of poetic wording in the original Hebrew of the OT.
>> It is not the same as cosmic inflation.
>
> I do agree that it's not the same as cosmic inflation. Nobody wants
> cosmic inflation - it's a fudge factor for the big bang.
Earth was created. (Sounds like a Creationist argument...) The
"stretching out" is the laying out of a surveyor's measure, or line,
something that would be familiar to people of the time when the OT was
written. The phrase specifically describes stretching out a line, or
measure, to construct the Earth, not "stretching the heavens".
"Stretched out" here does not seem to have the same meaning it
might have in modern usage ("elastic and rubbery; stretched") because the
ancient Jewish people did not have rubber. It seems from context
(mentioning Earth and Heaven in the same sentence) to mean something like
setting out or spreading out, as a meal on a table, or a cloth on a surface,
or stretching one's arms out. So I do not see that this can have anything
to do with red shifts. That would be terribly far-fetched. Putting it
mildly!
>
>
>> I doubt if you can explain what "gravitational time dilation" is,
>> but I congratulate you on spelling it correctly. What exactly are
>> "they" that are billions of light years away? Galaxies? And if
>> they are so far away, and their light is reaching us now, how could
>> the Universe be young? Was the light created en route to us from
>> all directions, all timed to arrive now?
>
> One possible explanation is that the galaxies were moved away from
> us, faster than light. Of course, we can't say for certain because
> the mechanisms are not described in Genesis. It might be a good area
> to research - if you could get the funding!
the most distant galaxies have z >> 1. Does that mean they are moving
faster than light, or does it mean you do not understand the General
Relativistic cosmological models?
>
>
>> Rather than seeking life outside our solar system to verify
>> abiogenesis hypotheses, many scientist are engaged in studies of
>> chemistry and biochemistry so see how life might have arisen on
>> Earth. Progress is being made, far beyond the Miller-Urey
>> experiment. I haven't met any who shouted at me, "I give up!
>> Goddidit!!"
>
> Nor, I suspect, have you met anyone that said "Eureka - I did it!".
> Nevertheless, we're not told the mechanisms in Genesis so again, this
> could be valuable research.
agree. So are you saying that you could accept abiogenesis (without the
magical intervention of God) as a discoverable fact or process?
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 11:28:42 AM6/5/14
to
ignorance Glenn. Read throughs are rare exceptions to a broad
truth. You and other apes do not synthesize vitamin C because
of a defective gene in the biosynthetic pathway of vitamin C.
The fact that there are rare cases where stop codons are read
through, and in fact there are multiple mechanisms know by
which that can happen, does not change the facts I related.
Readthrough is not an explanation of pseudogenes and the patterns
of their inheritance. You are an explanation of why parents
should be careful about how they potty-train their children.
Robert Carnegie
Jun 5, 2014, 11:43:57 AM6/5/14
to
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 02:06:32 UTC+1, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!).
> I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC -
> that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist.
> And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made'
> the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang,
> or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have
> been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation
> for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System
> where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know
> one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors,
> with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't
> I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!).
> I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC -
> that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist.
> And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made'
> the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang,
> or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have
> been created.
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation
> for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System
> where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know
> one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors,
> with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't
> I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant,
> we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant,
> we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in
> some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say.
> But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say.
> But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it
> must have happened. This is science don't you know!
> But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> must have happened. This is science don't you know!
> But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
> That's all for now.
Hello; I'm another Robert - but I hope you won't think that
I'm rude to suggest that, here, you don't need to say "hello"
again to everybody in turn.
I'll assume that by "Biblical Creationist" you mean like it
says at <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism?s=t>
that your creationism is "the doctrine that matter and all
things were created, substantially as they now exist, by
an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed",
and also "the doctrine that the true story of the creation of
the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially
in the first chapter of Genesis." There are some other
bible verses that refer to creation, and at least one
contradiction in Genesis 2 against Genesis 1.
But this isn't the only alternative point of view from
secular science. You can't justify a biblical belief
just by criticising what Neil deGrasse Tyson says.
You should have particular grounds for holding a
particular alternate belief. I think that you haven't
considered every other alternative - neither have I -
and that your preference is mainly not based on
physical evidence.
Now as for your particular points:
(a) There may be little or no evidence for precisely how
the Big Bang happened, but there isn't a description of
the origin and evolution of stars in Genesis 1 that is
superior to supposing that the Big Bang /did/ happen.
Note that in Genesis 1 there is no day and night, no
measurement of time, until verses 4-5. So the rest of
the universe, apart from the Earth (let's suppose that
Genesis "earth" refers to the planet Earth and particularly
to its dry land) - "the heaven" - may have taken much
long[r to create.
However, in Genesis 1, God doesn't make stars and the Sun
until verse 16. And before then, it is not clear where the
daylight is coming from.
He puts the Sun, Moon, and stars into the firmament,
which is the structure that he made to divide the waters
which were under the firmament from the waters which were
above the firmament. God called the firmament Heaven.
He called the water under the firmament Sea, and he made
dry land, called Earth.
Are you sure about this, as a description of the universe?
And where in the universe is above and below, anyway?
I suppose that God also may have created invisible microbes
earlier than verse 4, since the author of this story wouldn't
have noticed them. On the other hand, God apparently does
not create or design plants that live in water. I think
that's a significant omission - unless he did those earlier,
as well, before he made the light, and the firmament.
But you would expect that plants need light to live.
(b) Life may be rare amongst planets, but there are
very many planets. If life happens on only one planet in
a million, and if most of the stars in this galaxy have
some planets, that is very many planets with life -
and of course it is inevitable that ours is one of them,
because we are life.
(c) "Evolution" is the progression of forms of living
things. Forms develop for several reasons, including
but not limited to individual accidental genetic
variation,� and natural selection, an expression which
means, in simple terms, that some variant forms are
better able to survive and to reproduce themselves
than other forms are, and, therefore, the "better able"
forms become the majority. That is most of the
"guiding" of evolution that happens, without requiring
an intelligent designer.
Evolution seems to have taken a very long time to get
around to producing intelligent beings, namely ourselves.
It wasn't in any hurry to do so. If not for a famous
outer space disaster, the world today might be still ruled
by fairly dumb dinosaurs. (As we assume, since their
brains are very small.) They got on fine for many,
many years.
I hope that you will enjoy considering these points.
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 11:55:16 AM6/5/14
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:j6-dnSS5q4M3EQ3O...@giganews.com...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1755-8794/4/11
Dana Tweedy
Jun 5, 2014, 12:05:47 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/4/14, 9:13 PM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Jillery!
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
This was the bald assertion that Jillery mentioned.
>
>>> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
It's not known if life exists anywhere else but Earth, but it doesn't
really make sense to assume that no life can exist anywhere but here.
>
>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
a "direction" but complexity had nowhere to go but up.
> Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion',
The Cambrian explosion is a period of fairly rapid diversification that
happened approximately 500 million years ago. It's called an
"explosion" because it was rapid in geological terms. It's estimated to
have taken 10 to 20 million years. Why do you think it would not be
consistent with evolutionary theory?
> 'punctuated evolution'
The correct term is "punctuated equilibrium". What do you think it
means, and why would you imagine it would be relevant to your claim that
"evolution predicts it all".
PE proposes normal, gradualist evolutionary change over a relatively
short time, as in hundreds of generations. Again, it's not exactly
something that would be inconsistent with known evolutionary mechanisms.
> or 'living fossils'?
"Living fossils" are another term that's widely misunderstood. What do
you think it means, and why do you think they would be a problem?
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents populations in
stable environments from surviving largely unchanged in morphology.
Evolution is defined as genetic change over generations. Not all
genetic change is expressed in morphology.
> Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record?
No, they aren't "predicted" in the fossil record. The fossil record is
an observation, not a theory which makes predictions.
Evolutionary theory does predict that populations subject to
stabilizing selection would not undergo large changes in morphology.
Thus explaining 'living fossils'.
Evolution does predict that isolated populations under high sectional
pressure will show greater change than larger, stable populations,
causing faster morphology changes, and leaving fewer intermediates to be
found in the fossil record.
> If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
Yes, the above are some of the facts, but not all of them. Any
scientific theory is required to explain, and coordinate factual
findings. Evolution explains the above findings. It also is
falsifiable, by other potential findings. Once more, I have to ask
what you think is the problem here?
>
>
>>> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
events with natural causes with refusing to consider the supernatural.
Scientists don't automatically reject God because they reflexively
oppose the idea of God. Supernatural explanations are not followed by
science (ALL science, not just evolution) for the simple reason appeals
to the supernatural are not able to be tested, or falsified.
Science is a means of investigation, a tool, as you will. It can
only work if one makes use of methodological naturalism. This is the
provisional limitation to only consider causes and forces that can be
objectively established. If a supernatural being can do anything, and
is not bound by natural laws and processes, than it can explain any
finding. That makes it intellectually sterile, and is useless for
reaching an objective answer.
Science is useful by all people, not just those who hold one
particular religious position.
> Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
I don't think you know what being scientific means. What does it mean
to you?
DJT
> Hi Jillery!
>
> Thanks for replying!
>
>> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was". If
>> you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
>> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
>
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
This was the bald assertion that Jillery mentioned.
>
>>> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
> Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait?
How long do you want?
>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>
> Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait?
> Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
really make sense to assume that no life can exist anywhere but here.
>
>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that?
Yes, very sure. Evolution doesn't predict that. Evolution doesn't have
>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>
> Are you sure about that?
a "direction" but complexity had nowhere to go but up.
> Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion',
happened approximately 500 million years ago. It's called an
"explosion" because it was rapid in geological terms. It's estimated to
have taken 10 to 20 million years. Why do you think it would not be
consistent with evolutionary theory?
> 'punctuated evolution'
The correct term is "punctuated equilibrium". What do you think it
means, and why would you imagine it would be relevant to your claim that
"evolution predicts it all".
PE proposes normal, gradualist evolutionary change over a relatively
short time, as in hundreds of generations. Again, it's not exactly
something that would be inconsistent with known evolutionary mechanisms.
> or 'living fossils'?
"Living fossils" are another term that's widely misunderstood. What do
you think it means, and why do you think they would be a problem?
There's nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents populations in
stable environments from surviving largely unchanged in morphology.
Evolution is defined as genetic change over generations. Not all
genetic change is expressed in morphology.
> Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record?
an observation, not a theory which makes predictions.
Evolutionary theory does predict that populations subject to
stabilizing selection would not undergo large changes in morphology.
Thus explaining 'living fossils'.
Evolution does predict that isolated populations under high sectional
pressure will show greater change than larger, stable populations,
causing faster morphology changes, and leaving fewer intermediates to be
found in the fossil record.
> If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
scientific theory is required to explain, and coordinate factual
findings. Evolution explains the above findings. It also is
falsifiable, by other potential findings. Once more, I have to ask
what you think is the problem here?
>
>
>>> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>>>
>>
>>> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>>
>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
> No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'.
Actually, you are. You have conflated the idea of explaining natural
>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
> No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'.
events with natural causes with refusing to consider the supernatural.
Scientists don't automatically reject God because they reflexively
oppose the idea of God. Supernatural explanations are not followed by
science (ALL science, not just evolution) for the simple reason appeals
to the supernatural are not able to be tested, or falsified.
Science is a means of investigation, a tool, as you will. It can
only work if one makes use of methodological naturalism. This is the
provisional limitation to only consider causes and forces that can be
objectively established. If a supernatural being can do anything, and
is not bound by natural laws and processes, than it can explain any
finding. That makes it intellectually sterile, and is useless for
reaching an objective answer.
Science is useful by all people, not just those who hold one
particular religious position.
> Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
to you?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Jun 5, 2014, 12:23:21 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/5/14, 4:18 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
> Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
What do you know about the Big Bang? On what do you base your
> Thanks again Jillery!
>
>> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
>> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
>> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
>> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
>> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
> Well you got that right - I'm sceptic about the big bang. It's clear from the above that you're in the same boat.
skepticism? Also, are you aware the "Big Bang" is not evolution, and
doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution?
>
>
>> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
Wondering is good. Having only one answer you will accept is not so good.
>
>
>> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
>> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
>> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it.
science. It can't be proven, or disproven, so it's beyond the ability
of science to study.
> In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
If you have a better explanation, that is consistent with the evidence,
and offers testable predictions, go ahead and present it. Who knows,
your idea might displace the current scientific theory.
> I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
evidence supports the latest incarnation of the theory in place.
Scientific ideas don't start out with a pre-selected conclusion.
>
>
>>>> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
>>>> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
>>
>>> Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what - give it time? :)
>>
>> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
>> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
>> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
>> asking the questions.
>
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth).
Who has made this "jump"? Scientists haven't.
>>
>> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
>> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
>> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
>> asking the questions.
>
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth).
> But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too).
it's not just time that's the issue.
> See (b) from my initial post.
>
>
>>>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>>
>>
>>>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> talking about would seriously say that.
>>
>>> Are you sure about that?
>>
>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
Are you willing to consider that you might be wrong?
>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
>
>
>>> Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>>
>> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
>> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
>> specific prediction you have in mind?
>>
>
> Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms.
"evolutionists". BTW, it's punctuated equilibrium, not "punctuated
evolution".
> I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
by evolution quite well.
> When a slow, gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented to explain the evidence?
Evolution is incremental change, but it doesn't have to be slow, or
progressive. The terms above are used to explain findings. Any good
theory encompasses all current findings, and changes when new findings
dictate.
The Cambrian explosion was rapid, in geological terms, but to the
populations involved, it was rapid. Punctuated equilibrium was
introduced to explain a specific pattern found in the fossil record, not
a challenge to evolutionary theory itself. Stephen Jay Gould, one of
the founders of PE (who is often misquoted by creationists) stated that
transitional fossils are abundant in the fossil record, but are fairly
rare between individual species. PE was proposed to explain this.
"Living Fossils" are simply the result of populations in stable
environments not showing large morphological changes.
>
>
>>>> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>>>> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>
>>
>>> No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>>
>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> that principle.
>
> No, I'm clear on that.
The evidence indicates otherwise.
>>
>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> that principle.
>
> No, I'm clear on that.
> But the naturalistic explanations are lacking (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
supernatural forces explains nothing.
>
>
>>> I didn't say I was!
>>
>> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
>> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
>> expressing. Just sayin'.
>
> Gotcha, and agreed!
>
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 12:20:36 PM6/5/14
to
Readthrough fusions have nothing to do with pseudogenes. Just
as your previous reference to microbial suppressor tRNAs have
nothing to do with mammalian pseudogenes.
We saw in your cutting and pasting from wiki that you have
no practical comprehension of the things you cut and paste
so playing the vandal is really your only role, isn't it?
But the fact that you do nothing but cut and paste shows that
you still have some small sense of shame and so want to be able
to avoid the direct embarassment of having your own words be
thrown in your face. Cutting and pasting nonsense gives you
some sense of deniability. So I guess the problem is that
your sense of shame is rather dull and you don't understand
how transparent your behavior is. I hope I've helped you
with that.
Dana Tweedy
Jun 5, 2014, 12:36:33 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/5/14, 6:17 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>
>>> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>>
>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>> much smaller state.
>
> You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good explanation for the universe.
Please explain why you feel that way. What do you think the big bang
> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>
>>> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is regarding that point.
>>
>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>> much smaller state.
>
> You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good explanation for the universe.
is, and why do think it's an inadequate explanation for the present
evidence. Please be specific on what you find unsatisfactory.
> And it certainly cannot explain origin of the universe, no matter how compressed you make it (see point a).
> But what else have you got?
evidence indicates the universe began in a very small, hot, and dense
state, and has been expanding for about 13 billion years.
What explanation do you have, and how can this explanation be tested, or
falsified?
>
>
>> Creationist mischaracterisations of the theory of evolution are not
>> evidence against the validity of the theory of evolution.
>
> What mischaracterisations?
> I was pointing out that the theory seems rather plastic (that is, adaptable to all evidence).
explain all available evidence. Nothing you have presented is difficult
for evolution to explain, and there are specific findings that would
falsify evolution, if they were to be discovered.
For example: If it were discovered that organisms did not reproduce,
that would falsify evolution. If it were discovered that organisms
reproduced perfectly, that too would falsify evolution. Another
finding would be if organisms did not inherit any of their genetic
material from their parents. That would be impossible for evolution to
explain.
Finding episodes of possible rapid evolution, (the Cambiran) and
finding populations that don't display large outward changes over a
large period of time (living fossils) does not falsify the general
theory of evolution.
>
>> "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though
>> long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with
>> the periods during which they retain the same form." (Darwin, The Origin
>> of Species, 4th edn., 1866)
>
> Probably short, possibly long, definitely plastic.
morphological change. Evolution is defined as genetic change in
populations over time. Looking at morphology alone isn't a good
measure of how much evolution has taken place. There can be large
changes in morphology, with little genetic change, and large genetic
changes, without corresponding changes in morphology.
The idea that evolution always happens at a slow, steady rate, and
that it is progression toward some preset goal is simply wrong, and are
some of the most common misconceptions about evolution.
DJT
Mark Isaak
Jun 5, 2014, 12:39:45 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/4/14 9:06 PM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> [big snip]
> NO. The earth is not 'demonstrably' billions of year old.
Yes, in fact it is. See Brent Dalrymple's _The Age of the Earth_ for an
account of the major demonstrations. (This is not the place to teach a
college-level course in geochronology.)
> This is based on your assumptions.
Careful with that word "assumption". It does not mean "conclusion that
I do not understand." I have seen lots of people (not just
creationists) try to disparage a conclusion which was reached by solid
reasoning based on good, hard evidence by dismissing the conclusion as
an "assumption." That is, to my mind, highly dishonest. Please be
extremely specific about just what you are calling an assumption.
> Actually, there are evidences for the earth being much younger.
I have seen many that do not stand up to scrutiny. Do you have any that
are not already covered at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html ?
> In any case, the 'stretching out of the heavens' is akin to what
> big bang theory might describe as 'inflation' (although there is
> no means to 'stop' and 'start' inflation).
Not according to the Bible, which describes that happening while the
earth already existed.
> [much snippage; neither of us have time to cover everything at once]
>
> What evidence would falsify evolution? Would you need a living
> dinosaur? I'd think that would do it, but it really wouldn't!
True; there are living dinosaurs singing outside my window right now.
(Birds are descended from dinosaurs.)
To know what evidence would falsify evolution, you should first
understand what the evidence *for* evolution is. The strongest evidence
is the pattern of similarities in genetic material which shows all of
life fitting in one well-resolved nested hierarchy; and similarities in
morphology show the same nested hierarchy. (That's an
oversimplification, but it covers the last two billion years
adequately.) Evidence against evolution, thus, would be several
organisms which break this pattern in a big way -- for example, animals
with the head and torso of humans and the body of horses, and DNA
equally mixed.
But then there are other -- completely independent -- types of evidence
for evolution, too. You would need to find contradictions to all of
them. And not just one or two, but enough to make a pattern more
convincing than the evidence for.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
> [big snip]
> NO. The earth is not 'demonstrably' billions of year old.
Yes, in fact it is. See Brent Dalrymple's _The Age of the Earth_ for an
account of the major demonstrations. (This is not the place to teach a
college-level course in geochronology.)
> This is based on your assumptions.
Careful with that word "assumption". It does not mean "conclusion that
I do not understand." I have seen lots of people (not just
creationists) try to disparage a conclusion which was reached by solid
reasoning based on good, hard evidence by dismissing the conclusion as
an "assumption." That is, to my mind, highly dishonest. Please be
extremely specific about just what you are calling an assumption.
> Actually, there are evidences for the earth being much younger.
I have seen many that do not stand up to scrutiny. Do you have any that
are not already covered at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html ?
> In any case, the 'stretching out of the heavens' is akin to what
> big bang theory might describe as 'inflation' (although there is
> no means to 'stop' and 'start' inflation).
Not according to the Bible, which describes that happening while the
earth already existed.
> [much snippage; neither of us have time to cover everything at once]
>
> What evidence would falsify evolution? Would you need a living
> dinosaur? I'd think that would do it, but it really wouldn't!
True; there are living dinosaurs singing outside my window right now.
(Birds are descended from dinosaurs.)
To know what evidence would falsify evolution, you should first
understand what the evidence *for* evolution is. The strongest evidence
is the pattern of similarities in genetic material which shows all of
life fitting in one well-resolved nested hierarchy; and similarities in
morphology show the same nested hierarchy. (That's an
oversimplification, but it covers the last two billion years
adequately.) Evidence against evolution, thus, would be several
organisms which break this pattern in a big way -- for example, animals
with the head and torso of humans and the body of horses, and DNA
equally mixed.
But then there are other -- completely independent -- types of evidence
for evolution, too. You would need to find contradictions to all of
them. And not just one or two, but enough to make a pattern more
convincing than the evidence for.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 12:47:20 PM6/5/14
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:kvKdnaNWYKpJBQ3O...@giganews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competing_endogenous_RNA_%28CeRNA%29
"Providing a list of methods useful both to those who wish to study pseudogenes and to those who actually want to avoid their inadvertent detection, Pseudogenes: Functions and Protocols explores techniques involving pseudogenic DNA, RNA, and peptides/proteins, once believed to lack any functionality, but now known to be involved in complex regulatory circuits. After a few introductory chapters that overview the functions so far attributed to pseudogenes, this thorough volume delves into methods for pseudogene identification, for the detection of pseudogene transcription and translation, and for the study of the functions of pseudogenic RNA and proteins, as well as methods to avoid pseudogene detection when the focus of the research is their highly homologous parental counterparts. As part of the highly successful Methods in Molecular Biology series, chapters feature the kind of detailed descriptions and implementation advice that ensures successful results in the lab."
http://www.springer.com/biomed/human+genetics/book/978-1-4939-0834-9
Dana Tweedy
Jun 5, 2014, 1:18:31 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/5/14, 6:46 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Ron O!
>
>>> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>>
>> What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
>> biological life?
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here?
Exactly how the universe began is not yet known, but it is fairly well
> Hi Ron O!
>
>>> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>>
>> What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
>> biological life?
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here?
understood what happened in the few nanoseconds after it's beginning.
The way the Earth formed is much better understood.
> You need that before you can even talk about evolution.
know how it got there. It's nice to know how the universe and the Earth
formed, but they are not necessary to discuss the process of evolution.
>
>
>> Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
>> African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes, more
>> related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys that to
>> prosimians etc.?
>
> There is a relationship between all life, which points to a single creator.
unsupported assumptions.
> But I would say that humans are more closely related to humans than any other creature.
other canine species. But that's not really the point here. The
closest living genetic match to humans is Bonobos, followed by Chimps.
This continues, with humans closest relatives being anthropoid apes,
then monkeys, then primates, then mammals, then ammonites, etc, etc. A
"common designer" doesn't explain this form of nested hierarchy that's
found in all living things.
>
>
>> Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived and
>> died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of material
>> created in previous stars. How can the universe be as young as you claim?
>
> Well, I already gave one possible explanation for this.
this supposedly works? Also, why would God produce a universe, and
then make it look like it's billions of years old, when it's not? Why
would be be deceptive?
> I'm not claiming a young universe (although it was created at the same time as the earth), rather a relatively young earth.
although the Earth is about 9 billion years younger than the universe
itself.
>
>
>>> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> Do you have a better explanation? What is our sun and the planets of
>> our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
>> documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
>> for that star to mature and explode?
>
> So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
"Big Bang" theory?
What explanation do you have, that can be tested, and falsified?
>
>
>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Science doesn't know everything, and it doesn't have to. You have to
>> explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
>> we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
>> evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
>> explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
>> evolution short of extinction.
>
> That life was created by a single creator.
> Each created kind had a vast gene pool which has been reduced over time by natural selection and extinction.
from genetics shows that mutations add variations to gene pools, and
there's no evidence to suggest gene pools in any particular population
are shrinking.
Extinction, by the way does nothing to reduce the gene pool of species
that have not become extinct.
>
>
>> If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything about
>> how science works? What have you learned by reading TO? Shouldn't you
>> get a basic understanding of science?
>
> It starts with observation. If you can't observe and repeat it in the present, you have to make some assumptions. Do you agree?
important to scientific investigation, but one does not have to observe
events as they happen to know something about those events. Much of
science is based on modeling past events from current observations.
The only assumptions one needs is to assume that the evidence means
something, and that there isn't a trickster supernatural being changing
conditions on us. You may argue that we can't know that physical laws
and properties have changed in the past, but in that case, nothing can
be known at all.
By making the assumption that natural laws are constant, one can find
out a great deal, and so far it's been very successful. What you are
proposing is that we abandon this very successful means of learning
about the universe, simply because it contradicts your religious belief.
How is that fair?
DJT
Roger Shrubber
Jun 5, 2014, 1:26:33 PM6/5/14
to
exactly? The rare potential role of a duplication that has been
inactived, in providing a regulatory role for its twin is an
interesting possibility, but it has nothing to do with the original
point of pseudogenes like L-gulonolactone oxidase. Why do you need
to regulate an inactive gene?
We know you can cut and paste. We also know, from your repeated
demonstrations, that you don't understand what you cut and paste
or how to put it in context.
Steven L.
Jun 5, 2014, 2:18:15 PM6/5/14
to
On 6/4/2014 9:06 PM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
You really believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old?
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
How do you account for the fact that the light from the Andromeda Galaxy
that has just reached our telescopes left that galaxy 2 million years ago?
(We know that because we have measured the distance to that galaxy as 2
million light-years)
--
Steven L.
alias Ernest Major
Jun 5, 2014, 2:35:36 PM6/5/14
to
On 05/06/2014 04:13, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
Actually "heat death" refers to the final state of an infinite (in the
> Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end (therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat death' end (no infinity there).
future) universe. So your claim of "no infinity there" is wrong.
And apparently there is some doubt as to whether heat death is to be
expected in an open or flat universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
--
alias Ernest Major
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 2:50:56 PM6/5/14
to
"Roger Shrubber" <rog.sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:maGdnXXttsPVNQ3O...@giganews.com...
http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v8/n6/full/nmeth0611-448b.html
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contribute
s to normal cellular regulation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078729/
hersheyh
Jun 5, 2014, 3:01:45 PM6/5/14
to
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 9:06:32 PM UTC-4, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
>
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>
>
> Hi group!
>
>
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
The explanation of what has happened to the universe since the "big bang" is unrelated to biological
>
evolution. It has to do with cosmology. If what you want to claim is that the evidence from our
physical universe supports the idea that the universe is a few thousand rather than about 14 billion years old, you will have to tell us what material evidence supports this.
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
and is occurring even now. If you want to claim that all organisms were created at one time a few
thousand years back (rather than in a branched pattern over 3.8 billion years), then, again, you
have to present material evidence that that is the best explanation.
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
>
>
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
>
>
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
>
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
But, of course, time (as in space-time) did exist after the formation of the universe and time still exists
>
>
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
today. If one wants to have a religious belief that God is somehow responsible for the existence of
our universe, one can do that without believing that the universe is only a few thousand years old
and that there never was the processes of star and galaxy formation that led to the population I metallicity of our sun.
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
Again, you can certainly *believe* that the chemistry that led to modern living chemistry cannot possibly
happen by any mechanism. People also believed that there was a dome of the sky and had every
reason to think so -- until the evidence showed that they were wrong. But, to remind you, abiogenesis
mechanism is irrelevant to whether or not evolution occurred in the past, is occurring now, and will occur in the future as long as there are living organisms.
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
Well, we are here. So certainly it did happen. But the theory of evolution by "natural selection" has that
specific word that means, at least figuratively, "guided". Namely "selection". Selection is guided by
the local environment, which produces differential survival of some traits over others. It is not
"guided", AFAWCT, by some intelligent agency, just by the local environmental conditions. But those
conditions do indeed differentiate between at leas some traits and favor some (on the metric of
mean reproductive success) traits over others. There is a lot of experimental evidence that this
happens.
If you think that there is some pre-ordained reason for our existence; some material evidence that
supports us as an end goal of some process, please present the material evidence for that. Saying
that we are here, therefore we are ordained to be here is not evidence.
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 4:05:55 PM6/5/14
to
"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9042b054-4eb2-47e8...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 9:06:32 PM UTC-4, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi group!
>>
>>
>>
>> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>>
>>
>>
>> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>>
> The explanation of what has happened to the universe since the "big bang" is unrelated to biological
> evolution.
Only if the universe has no relationship to biological evolution.
>> Hi group!
>>
>>
>>
>> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>>
>>
>>
>> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>>
> The explanation of what has happened to the universe since the "big bang" is unrelated to biological
> evolution.
news
Jun 5, 2014, 4:06:35 PM6/5/14
to
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:13:46 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>Are you sure about that? Are you saying that there's
>Are you sure about that? Are you saying that there's
>no such thing as: 'the Cambrian explosion', 'punctuated
>evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record?
I'm curious as to what definition of "predicted" you're using here.
>evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not 'predicted' in the fossil record?
eridanus
Jun 5, 2014, 5:07:45 PM6/5/14
to
El jueves, 5 de junio de 2014 11:18:49 UTC+1, itbgc...@gmail.com escribi�:
is too far off from our experience or even our knowledge.
Then, any argument about this point is worthless.
> > Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
> > infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> > bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
What is them the reason for some people to insist so much in defending
something that is not evident? There is any economic reason behind
this business of god? Is anyone profiting from the myth of god's
existence? Why some people are so insistently selling god?
> > >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> > >> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
> > >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own
> > >solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer
> > >do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what -
> > >give it time? :)
> > In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> > it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> > started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> > asking the questions.
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already
> jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our
> solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out,
> post.
How distant are the planets from our eyes to find any life? By life
do you mean elephants, and rhinos in Mars? How much time had
passed in human civilization before they got a notion about the
existence of microscopic life?
> could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'. When a slow,
Pope. Science starts from some starting point of our relative
ignorance, and we began to reason from this forward. There is then
a clear probability that some our reasoning could be weak or
wrong. You would not expect that ToE would had been born
fully developed as an adult, clothed in a white tunic, and wearing
a magic helmet on her head, and a shield in the left hand, like the
goddess Athena. By the way, Athena was the goddess of wisdom.
So, his brain was full of wisdom from the day she get out from
the head of Zeus.
Are you seriously blaming science for knowing everything or
for not having ready a beautiful reply for all questions?
> > >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> > >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> > >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
> > > No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come
> > > what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly
> > > based around that principle.
> > "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> > that principle.
> No, I'm clear on that. But the naturalistic explanations are lacking
the first lump of life started... it would pass well many decades
before everybody would be happy and accept it as a fact.
Naturalism has not any magical key to solve all mysteries or
to explain all puzzles. Then, do not look so frustrated with this
limitation of science.
I will present you a little puzzle related to the NT. Can you
explain, with a formal argument, why Jesus has two genealogies
incompatible, not only in the names of his ancestors, but also
in the number of them, to the extreme that one genealogy has
30 generations more than the other? I mean can you explain
that this is not a case of fraud?
I will not present any more puzzles to you, so as not tire
your brain with problems. What exactly means this rare
phenomenon? That gods can have two certain and incompatible
genealogies? Of course, I can accept that a god is almighty
then, like goddess Athena, can had been born is several places
of the planet without any problem.
I want to prove your faith. Then I need you show me, that an
elemental sense of logic is compatible with a believe in god
and an inerrant bible.
Gotcha!
Eri
> Thanks again Jillery!
> > First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> > you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> > based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> > you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> > limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
> Well you got that right - I'm skeptic about the big bang. It's clear
> > First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> > you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> > based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> > you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> > limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
> from the above that you're in the same boat.
We have not any obligation to believe or disbelieve in the big bang;
is too far off from our experience or even our knowledge.
> > Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> > no beginning, and so still be infinite.
> Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite (what does the evidence
> say?). If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder
> why it's not already ended.
We have not any evidence to say the universe is finite or infinite.
> > no beginning, and so still be infinite.
> Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite (what does the evidence
> say?). If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder
> why it's not already ended.
Then, any argument about this point is worthless.
> > Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
> > infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> > bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect
> we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good
> explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what
> your conclusion is regarding that point.
Ok, we are at a stalemate about something we have not any evidence.
> we're at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good
> explanation for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what
> your conclusion is regarding that point.
What is them the reason for some people to insist so much in defending
something that is not evident? There is any economic reason behind
this business of god? Is anyone profiting from the myth of god's
existence? Why some people are so insistently selling god?
> > >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's not
> > >> reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
> > >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own
> > >solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer
> > >do you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what -
> > >give it time? :)
> > In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> > it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> > started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> > asking the questions.
> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already
> jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our
> here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange
> then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other
> planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial
> then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other
> post.
How distant are the planets from our eyes to find any life? By life
do you mean elephants, and rhinos in Mars? How much time had
passed in human civilization before they got a notion about the
existence of microscopic life?
> > >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey +
> > >> >predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that
> > >> >they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution
> > >> >going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> > >> >predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that
> > >> >they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution
> > >> >going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> > >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows
> > >> what he's talking about would seriously say that.
> > >> what he's talking about would seriously say that.
> > >Are you sure about that?
> > I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
> > you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with
> > innuendo?
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
> > you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with
> > innuendo?
> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
> > > Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian
> > > explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not
> > > explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not
> > > 'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much point -
> > > they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
> > Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> > things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> > specific prediction you have in mind?
> Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it
> > > they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
> > Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> > things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> > specific prediction you have in mind?
> could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'. When a slow,
> gradual progression was not enough, were these terms not invented
> to explain the evidence?
You are forgetting that science is not infallible like the bible or the
> to explain the evidence?
Pope. Science starts from some starting point of our relative
ignorance, and we began to reason from this forward. There is then
a clear probability that some our reasoning could be weak or
wrong. You would not expect that ToE would had been born
fully developed as an adult, clothed in a white tunic, and wearing
a magic helmet on her head, and a shield in the left hand, like the
goddess Athena. By the way, Athena was the goddess of wisdom.
So, his brain was full of wisdom from the day she get out from
the head of Zeus.
Are you seriously blaming science for knowing everything or
for not having ready a beautiful reply for all questions?
> > >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
> > >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
> > >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
> > > No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come
> > > what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly
> > > based around that principle.
> > "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> > that principle.
> (see points a-c in my original post, plus your own comments).
Even if some mad scientist would find a way to decipher the way
the first lump of life started... it would pass well many decades
before everybody would be happy and accept it as a fact.
Naturalism has not any magical key to solve all mysteries or
to explain all puzzles. Then, do not look so frustrated with this
limitation of science.
I will present you a little puzzle related to the NT. Can you
explain, with a formal argument, why Jesus has two genealogies
incompatible, not only in the names of his ancestors, but also
in the number of them, to the extreme that one genealogy has
30 generations more than the other? I mean can you explain
that this is not a case of fraud?
I will not present any more puzzles to you, so as not tire
your brain with problems. What exactly means this rare
phenomenon? That gods can have two certain and incompatible
genealogies? Of course, I can accept that a god is almighty
then, like goddess Athena, can had been born is several places
of the planet without any problem.
I want to prove your faith. Then I need you show me, that an
elemental sense of logic is compatible with a believe in god
and an inerrant bible.
Gotcha!
Eri
Robert Carnegie
Jun 5, 2014, 6:47:12 PM6/5/14
to
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 21:05:55 UTC+1, Glenn wrote:
> "hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9042b054-4eb2-47e8...@googlegroups.com...
> "hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9042b054-4eb2-47e8...@googlegroups.com...
> > The explanation of what has happened to the universe since
> > the "big bang" is unrelated to biological evolution.
>
> Only if the universe has no relationship to biological evolution.
If I had the power to create another universe similar
> > the "big bang" is unrelated to biological evolution.
>
> Only if the universe has no relationship to biological evolution.
to this one, I'd expect to see biological evolution
take place spontaneously in it.
On the other hand, the development of the universe
from its earlier state also can be called "evolution" -
not the same kind of evolution, of course, but
convenient to have all of the scientific facts
that contradict your religion in one category.
RonO
Jun 5, 2014, 6:56:49 PM6/5/14
to
>>> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>>
>>
>> What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the evolution of
>> biological life?
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need that before you can even talk about evolution.
>> biological life?
>
Actually quite little isn't it? What makes you believe what you wrote?
Why would you need to know the origin of a rock to know that if you
picked it up and dropped it, it would fall to the ground instead of
falling up? You are simply wrong in your approach. Science deals with
what it can at the time. It doesn't matter that we don't know
everything. It is what we do know that you should have a problem with.
The earth is very old by any number of measurements. What makes you
think that it is only a few thousand years old? The super nova that was
observed to blow up in 1987 actually blew up around 300,000 years ago
because it would take light from the explosion that long to get here.
Why do you have to deny all the radio isotope dating methods? Do you
have any good reason? The earth is just very old. Life has existed on
this earth for a very long time. You don't have to know how the
universe or the earth was made to make those conclusions.
>
>
>> Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
>> African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes, more
>> related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys that to
>> prosimians etc.?
>
Demonstrate that this could be true. Can you demonstrate that there is
a single creator responsible? No you cannot. You can't even
demonstrate that there ever was even one. If it was a single creator
how did this creator create mammals, prosimians, simians, apes, and
humans so that everything looks like it evolved from a common ancestor?
Just having a single creator will not do that. There has to be
something else doesn't there? What is that something else?
>
>
>> Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived and
>> died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of material
>> created in previous stars. How can the universe be as young as you claim?
>
How can the universe be older if it was created at the same time as the
earth? You have to rethink this one again. What does the evidence tell
you? How long would it take for light to get from the furthest
distances that we can observe with our telescopes like the Hubble? We
observe galaxies billions of light years away. Not only that, but there
are so many stars in these galaxies that we can routinely observe
supernova exploding in them. So how long did it take for the light of
those explosions to just get here for us to observe since the stars were
obviously created before they exploded? Did your creator just create
the light from exploding stars that never existed on the way here when
he created the universe so that light is just showing up now?
>
>
>>> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>> Do you have a better explanation? What is our sun and the planets of
>> our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
>> documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
>> for that star to mature and explode?
>
> So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
It is the best explanation that we have at this time and stellar
>> our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
>> documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it take
>> for that star to mature and explode?
>
> So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
evolution is consistent with it. The creation of heavy elements has
been observed as expected in the supernova. The elemental content of
the universe is consistent with the big bang and stellar formation and
evolution resulting in the creation of the heavier elements from the
mostly hydrogen and helium created in the big bang.
What is your explanation? What is the evidence for it? There is a lot
more evidence for the Big Bang but you probably can't even equal what I
have presented in a few lines.
>
>
>>> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>
>>
>>
>> Science doesn't know everything, and it doesn't have to. You have to
>> explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
>> we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
>> evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
>> explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
>> evolution short of extinction.
>
> That life was created by a single creator. Each created kind had a vast gene pool which has been reduced over time by natural selection and extinction.
>> explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it because
>> we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation for the
>> evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is your
>> explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop biological
>> evolution short of extinction.
>
It isn't just each created kind that shows evidence of evolution. How
many cat kinds are there? How many ape kinds? How do you know? Is
there just one mammal kind or a bunch of mammal kinds? How many kinds
of ants are there where ants have been evolving on this planet for over
a hundred million years. Many ant kinds are so divergent from each
other at this time that they more different genetically than humans are
to fido.
Your model just doesn't cut it does it? You don't even have an
equivalent explanation. How were all the genetic relationships created
by your model?
The AIG (Answers in Genesis) YECs claim that all cat kinds including the
saber toothed monsters that evolved during the ice age after the flood
came from two cats on the ark, but we can get DNA from those saber
toothed cats and they are 3 times the genetic distance from each other
as chimps are to humans. How does your model explain that? The AIG
also claims that all dog kind evolved from one pair on the ark and they
include foxes in dog kind and foxes are more that twice the genetic
distance from fido as chimps are to humans. So how does that happen in
your model?
>
>
>> If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything about
>> how science works? What have you learned by reading TO? Shouldn't you
>> get a basic understanding of science?
>
> It starts with observation. If you can't observe and repeat it in the present, you have to make some assumptions. Do you agree?
>
not continue in ignorance. Science does rely on testable hypotheses,
but just like crime scene investigation, you don't have to be there to
collect the existing evidence left from previous lifeforms. Even if
your parents are dead, I can still take a DNA sample from you and tell
you something about their genetics. It has to do with the simple fact
of descent with modification. You have evidence of your ancestors in
you. So does the rest of the species in the biosphere.
Ron Okimoto
Glenn
Jun 5, 2014, 7:28:37 PM6/5/14
to
"Robert Carnegie" <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message news:c07a07cf-0692-411f...@googlegroups.com...
And what facts contradict my religion?
TomS
Jun 5, 2014, 8:44:02 PM6/5/14
to
"On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:56:49 -0500, in article <lmqsjj$4d2$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO stated..."
[...snip...]
Actually, more like 168,000 years ago. See the Wikipedia article
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A>
By the Anthropic Principle, if any of the basic parameters of
physics were more than (being generous) 1% different from its here
and now value, human life would not be possible. (This argued to
show that the universe is "fine tuned" to support our presence.)
Thus we can feel confident that the physical parameters making
the universe appear more than 10 times (in the case of the speed
of light traveling from SN1987A) to millions of times (in the
cases of radioactive decay rates for radioactive isotope dating}
what fits in only 10,000 years.
Moreover, the consilience of several different lines of evidence
to a value of several billion years represents complex specified
information which could not happen by chance.
--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.
RonO stated..."
[...snip...]
>The earth is very old by any number of measurements. What makes you
>think that it is only a few thousand years old? The super nova that was
>observed to blow up in 1987 actually blew up around 300,000 years ago
>because it would take light from the explosion that long to get here.
>Why do you have to deny all the radio isotope dating methods? Do you
>have any good reason? The earth is just very old. Life has existed on
>this earth for a very long time. You don't have to know how the
>universe or the earth was made to make those conclusions.
[...snip...]
>think that it is only a few thousand years old? The super nova that was
>observed to blow up in 1987 actually blew up around 300,000 years ago
>because it would take light from the explosion that long to get here.
>Why do you have to deny all the radio isotope dating methods? Do you
>have any good reason? The earth is just very old. Life has existed on
>this earth for a very long time. You don't have to know how the
>universe or the earth was made to make those conclusions.
Actually, more like 168,000 years ago. See the Wikipedia article
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A>
By the Anthropic Principle, if any of the basic parameters of
physics were more than (being generous) 1% different from its here
and now value, human life would not be possible. (This argued to
show that the universe is "fine tuned" to support our presence.)
Thus we can feel confident that the physical parameters making
the universe appear more than 10 times (in the case of the speed
of light traveling from SN1987A) to millions of times (in the
cases of radioactive decay rates for radioactive isotope dating}
what fits in only 10,000 years.
Moreover, the consilience of several different lines of evidence
to a value of several billion years represents complex specified
information which could not happen by chance.
--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.
TomS
Jun 5, 2014, 8:44:03 PM6/5/14
to
"On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 17:56:49 -0500, in article <lmqsjj$4d2$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO stated..."
[...snip...]
RonO stated..."
[...snip...]
>The earth is very old by any number of measurements. What makes you
>think that it is only a few thousand years old? The super nova that was
>observed to blow up in 1987 actually blew up around 300,000 years ago
>because it would take light from the explosion that long to get here.
>Why do you have to deny all the radio isotope dating methods? Do you
>have any good reason? The earth is just very old. Life has existed on
>this earth for a very long time. You don't have to know how the
>universe or the earth was made to make those conclusions.
>think that it is only a few thousand years old? The super nova that was
>observed to blow up in 1987 actually blew up around 300,000 years ago
>because it would take light from the explosion that long to get here.
>Why do you have to deny all the radio isotope dating methods? Do you
>have any good reason? The earth is just very old. Life has existed on
>this earth for a very long time. You don't have to know how the
>universe or the earth was made to make those conclusions.
TomS
Jun 6, 2014, 4:02:37 AM6/6/14
to
"On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:36:33 -0600, in article
<ltSdndtAMfkPAQ3O...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy stated..."
Give an example of a good explanation for the universe.
Does this good explanation account for some feature of the universe?
What parameters in this explanation mean that there are helium atoms?
<ltSdndtAMfkPAQ3O...@giganews.com>, Dana Tweedy stated..."
>
>On 6/5/14, 6:17 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>>
>>>>I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're
>>>>at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation
>>>>for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is
>>>>regarding that point.
>>>
>>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>>> much smaller state.
>>
>>You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good
>>explanation for the universe.
>
>Please explain why you feel that way. What do you think the big bang
>is, and why do think it's an inadequate explanation for the present
>evidence. Please be specific on what you find unsatisfactory.
[...snip...]
>On 6/5/14, 6:17 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi alias Ernest Major!
>>
>>>>I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're
>>>>at a stalemate. But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation
>>>>for the existence of the universe. I'm not really sure what your conclusion is
>>>>regarding that point.
>>>
>>> Your problem is in your false assumption that consensus cosmology is an
>>> explanation of the origin of the universe. It isn't. It's an explanation
>>> of the changes in structure and composition of the observable parts of
>>> the universe from an earlier very much hotter, very much denser, very
>>> much smaller state.
>>
>>You are quite right. Nevertheless, I would still say the big bang is not a good
>>explanation for the universe.
>
>Please explain why you feel that way. What do you think the big bang
>is, and why do think it's an inadequate explanation for the present
>evidence. Please be specific on what you find unsatisfactory.
Give an example of a good explanation for the universe.
Does this good explanation account for some feature of the universe?
What parameters in this explanation mean that there are helium atoms?
RonO
Jun 6, 2014, 6:56:39 AM6/6/14
to
I am 1 fold off when we are talking about over an order of magnitude
difference, and it is millions of light years to the nearest galaxies
and billions of years to the furthest ones.
Anthropic principle only means that we would not be here if things were
different. If your grandfather had died as a child you would not be
here, so what? The problem with the anthropic principle is things are
just the way they are, so what?
Has anyone figured out if things could have been different?
Ron Okimoto
Steady Eddie
Jun 6, 2014, 8:25:42 AM6/6/14
to
On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 19:06:32 UTC-6, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
>
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>
>
> Hi group!
>
>
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
>
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
>
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
>
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
>
>
>
>
>
> That's all for now.
Just for the record, to my knowledge the Bible does not support the Young Earth concept.
>
>
>
>
> That's all for now.
"The heavens and the Earth" were created BEFORE the creative 'days' on Earth began. The Bible
does not specify how long ago the "heavens and the Earth" were created, so there's no scriptural reason
to disagree with the 4.5billion year age of the earth.
TomS
Jun 6, 2014, 10:32:54 AM6/6/14
to
"On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 05:56:39 -0500, in article <lms6p9$93j$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO stated..."
I think that the universe is fine-tuned to produce the Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics.
I recall that there is a suggestion that, while a variation in *one*
of the constants makes it difficult for life as we know it, there
might some *combination* of values which could work.
"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of
solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh
heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small." -
Galileo
Surely, an agency powerful enough to fix the number of dimensions in
the universe or the fine-structure constant could make life out of
neutrinos and photons.
RonO stated..."
Chemistry and Physics.
I recall that there is a suggestion that, while a variation in *one*
of the constants makes it difficult for life as we know it, there
might some *combination* of values which could work.
"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of
solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh
heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small." -
Galileo
Surely, an agency powerful enough to fix the number of dimensions in
the universe or the fine-structure constant could make life out of
neutrinos and photons.
Walter Bushell
Jun 6, 2014, 10:56:17 AM6/6/14
to
In article <lmompd$e75$1...@dont-email.me>,
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions of
> years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of stars
> we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using species... yet
> the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where is everybody?
Those that reached technological levels similar to our own only lasted
as such for one or two hundred years before reverting to hunter
gatherers or subsistence level farmers?
We have no reason to think a technological society can last for even
thousands of years, much less millions which would I estimate give any
chance of overlap. Considering that life on this planet is billions of
years old what is a thousand years? Easily there could have be a
civilization nearby that lasted for a million years and died a million
years before we got to radio.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Richard Clayton <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's worse than that, even. The galaxy is a HUGE place, and billions of
> years old -- it seems unlikely that among hundreds of billions of stars
> we'd be the first or only intelligent, technology-using species... yet
> the stars are, as far as we can tell, silent. Where is everybody?
Those that reached technological levels similar to our own only lasted
as such for one or two hundred years before reverting to hunter
gatherers or subsistence level farmers?
We have no reason to think a technological society can last for even
thousands of years, much less millions which would I estimate give any
chance of overlap. Considering that life on this planet is billions of
years old what is a thousand years? Easily there could have be a
civilization nearby that lasted for a million years and died a million
years before we got to radio.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
Paul J Gans
Jun 6, 2014, 1:02:44 PM6/6/14
to
But that notion didn't last long. So then we thought that TV would
clearly be the way. But that notion didn't last long. So now we thing
it is via laser beams.
Meanwhile the Xordaxians are sitting around large campfires chanting
prayers in our direction while wondering why it is so quiet out there.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2014, 2:09:26 PM6/6/14
to
> > According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
> > relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> > look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> > ancestors.
>
> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
Well it was a bit more verbose, but essentially what I said.
> > relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> > look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> > ancestors.
>
> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
> We have observed such pseudogenes to arise by well understood
> mechanisms of mutation. That's a fact. No evolutionary theory yet.
Mutation is a fact, we agree on that.
> Adding evolutionary theory, we expect that when this sort of
> damage occurs to non-essential genes, they will be inherited
> by subsequent generations but be subject to further mutation
> at the rate of mutation with no selective pressure to not mutate.
How do you know they are 'non-essential'? I used the term 'junk DNA' but you didn't and perhaps it isn't. I said I think we need to learn a lot more about exactly whether this is junk. It may turn out to be no friend of evolution.
> Our observations of pseudogenes finds that in a way that is
> consistent with our models of common descent previously
> determined by the fossil record.
This is an interpretation. Another is that God used the same 'blueprint' in His creation.
> > What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated
> > this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective
> > pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
>
> Why do you think this is strange? We know the rate of mutation.
> We know the cost of carrying extra DNA. The cost is so negligible
> that there's no real selective pressure to eliminate extra DNA.
The cost is substantial, and mechanisms for removal are known.
> The pseudo genes do gain additional mutations through time but
> are still recognizable as being verly like previously functional
> genes that have been mutated.
Another interpretation. There are a lot of places to look. It's not surprising that similarities can be found.
> I thought you claimed to understand what evolution claims? It
> does not appear that you do. In fact, you are echoing some
> common misunderstandings about evolution in your comments above.
Sorry, but your clarifications haven't help me.
> > From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all
> > created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think we
> > need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about so
> > called junk DNA.
>
> You do realize that does not make any sense, right?
No, sorry.
> Why would you expect all great apes to have stretches of DNA
> that look like the final gene needed to make Vitamin C but
> that don't work to make vitamin C?
Mutation.
> And you've said designer instead of creator but also YEC.
> Does this mean you think that something, not necessarily
> the God of the bible, designed life recently? But apparently
> you think they did not design each species independently
> but had to reuse DNA from other created species, even
> reusing parts that did not work?
I meant the God of the Bible was the designer.
> Because you did not simply say, "I don't know", you said you
> expect the commonality. But that commonality extends far
> beyond what is functional, and that is an observed fact,
> not some theoretical result.
No, it's an interpretation. There's still the possibility that pseudogenes turn out to be no friend of evolution.
itbgc...@gmail.com
Jun 6, 2014, 12:21:42 PM6/6/14
to
> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
> Similar to evolution, it
> is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
> Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
> ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
> into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
> it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
> likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
Sorry if it came across like that. I was not intending to play silly word games of conflate different concepts.
At the moment the Big Bang seems to be predicting 'heat death', which is not ideal from a naturalistic perspective. A never-ending cycle of some sort would have been preferred. From something incredibly dense and hot, to the universe we see now and ending in the biggest waste of space imaginable. I don't think I said the theory couldn't change, but that's pretty much where it is right now. However, it makes no attempt to explain how the material that it started with came about - my point (a).
> >> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> >> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> >Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
>
> Wrong again. Did you not learn about infinities?
I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
> > (what does the evidence say?).
>
> All evidence have limited scope. Scientists quantify the limits of
> evidence with error bars, and make active efforts to express
> conclusions within their range.
I agree.
> To say that it's certain the Universe
> will end at time X for reason Y is the ultimate weather forecast.
Perhaps, but if it's infinite you should probably define 'end' first.
> >If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
> To wonder of alternatives broadens the mind. To doubt any particular
> alternative for no good reason is a waste of time.
I agree.
> >I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
>
> That's not it. You continue to conflate different concepts. I make
> no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
> your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
> axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
Except my God is supernatural and your Uber-Universe is natural. If the natural can do supernatural things (like spontaneously create itself) then there are no constrains.
> >But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
>
> More accurately, you assert skepticism, but you don't identify a chain
> of reasoning to support it.
I said this in point (a). To expand: the natural does not do supernatural things. It can't spontaneously create matter or the laws that govern itself. In particular, it has no reason to do anything conducive to life on earth. But here we are.
> >Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>
> Why do you think it strange that we have yet to find evidence for life
> elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
> about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
I don't think it's strange. You said that life can exist in unexpected places. And we have several candidates in our own solar system that share the same sun, and presumably the same early conditions. And we have looked at some of these candidates - but nothing so far. Now we can hypothesize about that but if you only rely on evidence to date, there's only one conclusion.
> >Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
>
> On what basis do you claim to know what your talking about on
> Evolution?
I have no qualifications if that's what you're getting at. I am simply pointing out that there are some problems with purely naturalistic explanations for origins (of the universe and life).
> >Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
>
> Why do you seek absolute explanations from science when you offer none
> in support of your infinite Creator?
The Creator has revealed Himself through the Bible. We live in a natural universe and we're supposed to find out how it works, but we're also told we can expect to be confounded. In other words, absolute explanations for some things are beyond us. That's doesn't mean we can't try.
> Question begging is another noisome habit. Will you specify an
> evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
Ok. Let's take transitional fossils. First it was predicted they should have been abundant, but the evidence provided just a few debatable examples. No problem for evolution - just make every fossil translational (except, of course, when they aren't).
> >> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> >> that principle.
>
> >
>
> >No, I'm clear on that.
>
> You are not clear on that when you represent "God didn't do it" as a
> scientific claim.
Not a claim, a presupposition.
You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
> Similar to evolution, it
> is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
> Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
> ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
> into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
> it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
> likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
Sorry if it came across like that. I was not intending to play silly word games of conflate different concepts.
At the moment the Big Bang seems to be predicting 'heat death', which is not ideal from a naturalistic perspective. A never-ending cycle of some sort would have been preferred. From something incredibly dense and hot, to the universe we see now and ending in the biggest waste of space imaginable. I don't think I said the theory couldn't change, but that's pretty much where it is right now. However, it makes no attempt to explain how the material that it started with came about - my point (a).
> >> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> >> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> >Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
>
I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
> > (what does the evidence say?).
>
> evidence with error bars, and make active efforts to express
> conclusions within their range.
I agree.
> To say that it's certain the Universe
> will end at time X for reason Y is the ultimate weather forecast.
Perhaps, but if it's infinite you should probably define 'end' first.
> >If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
> alternative for no good reason is a waste of time.
I agree.
> >I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
>
> no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
> your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
> axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
Except my God is supernatural and your Uber-Universe is natural. If the natural can do supernatural things (like spontaneously create itself) then there are no constrains.
> >But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
>
> of reasoning to support it.
I said this in point (a). To expand: the natural does not do supernatural things. It can't spontaneously create matter or the laws that govern itself. In particular, it has no reason to do anything conducive to life on earth. But here we are.
> >Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>
> elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
> about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
I don't think it's strange. You said that life can exist in unexpected places. And we have several candidates in our own solar system that share the same sun, and presumably the same early conditions. And we have looked at some of these candidates - but nothing so far. Now we can hypothesize about that but if you only rely on evidence to date, there's only one conclusion.
> >Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
>
> Evolution?
I have no qualifications if that's what you're getting at. I am simply pointing out that there are some problems with purely naturalistic explanations for origins (of the universe and life).
> >Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
>
> in support of your infinite Creator?
The Creator has revealed Himself through the Bible. We live in a natural universe and we're supposed to find out how it works, but we're also told we can expect to be confounded. In other words, absolute explanations for some things are beyond us. That's doesn't mean we can't try.
> Question begging is another noisome habit. Will you specify an
> evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
Ok. Let's take transitional fossils. First it was predicted they should have been abundant, but the evidence provided just a few debatable examples. No problem for evolution - just make every fossil translational (except, of course, when they aren't).
> >> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> >> that principle.
>
> >
>
> >No, I'm clear on that.
>
> scientific claim.
Not a claim, a presupposition.
Nick Roberts
Jun 6, 2014, 2:25:48 PM6/6/14
to
In message <lmss7k$9o6$1...@reader1.panix.com>
"...and to anyone else that's out there, the secret is /to bang the
rocks together, guys/".
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
rocks together, guys/".
--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Roger Shrubber
Jun 6, 2014, 2:55:14 PM6/6/14
to
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
>>> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'.
>>> Evolutionists look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed
>>> relationship to earlier ancestors.
>>
>> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes in
>> sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples of
>> these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
>> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
>> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
>> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is not
>> a theoretical result, that is a fact.
>
> Well it was a bit more verbose, but essentially what I said.
Your wording included the factual observation under the
>>> According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
>>> relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'.
>>> Evolutionists look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed
>>> relationship to earlier ancestors.
>>
>> Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes in
>> sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples of
>> these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
>> sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
>> often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
>> cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is not
>> a theoretical result, that is a fact.
>
> Well it was a bit more verbose, but essentially what I said.
"according to evolution" clause. The fact is not "according
to evolution". Something else that science requires is
a precision of thought and expression.
>> We have observed such pseudogenes to arise by well understood
>> mechanisms of mutation. That's a fact. No evolutionary theory yet.
>
> Mutation is a fact, we agree on that.
>> Adding evolutionary theory, we expect that when this sort of damage
>> occurs to non-essential genes, they will be inherited by subsequent
>> generations but be subject to further mutation at the rate of
>> mutation with no selective pressure to not mutate.
>
> How do you know they are 'non-essential'? I used the term 'junk DNA'
> but you didn't and perhaps it isn't. I said I think we need to learn
> a lot more about exactly whether this is junk. It may turn out to be
> no friend of evolution.
found in ready supply in food stuffs, those routes are non-essential.
That's pretty obvious. There are organisms that can synthesize
all 20 genetically encoded amino acids but many that do not. Those
that do not get those amino acids from their diet. Vitamins
work the same way. This is a familiar concept to those who have
studied biology, or at least it should be. It also forms part
of evidences for evolution.
>> Our observations of pseudogenes finds that in a way that is
>> consistent with our models of common descent previously determined
>> by the fossil record.
> This is an interpretation. Another is that God used the same
> 'blueprint' in His creation.
difference between a scientific inference from data and a
rationalization to support a preformed conclusion?
>>> What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't
>>> eliminated this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of
>>> selective pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all
>>> recognition?
>> Why do you think this is strange? We know the rate of mutation. We
>> know the cost of carrying extra DNA. The cost is so negligible that
>> there's no real selective pressure to eliminate extra DNA.
> The cost is substantial, and mechanisms for removal are known.
entire human genome is less than 0.02% of the energy of a cell.
That's the whole genome. The cost of a single gene will be more
than 100,000 fold less than that. So less than 2 parts per million
of the energy cost of maintaining a cell. If one made the crude
approximation of this being a survival advantage, the selection
coefficient would be too small to be eliminated within 40 million
generations.
I'm thinking you don't actually understand the the theory of
evolution that you want to reject.
>> The pseudo genes do gain additional mutations through time but are
>> that have been mutated.
> Another interpretation. There are a lot of places to look. It's not
> surprising that similarities can be found.
That's your worst excuse yet. If it was random sequence matches you
> Another interpretation. There are a lot of places to look. It's not
> surprising that similarities can be found.
would expect many such random matches to one or two exons scattered
across the genome rather than all 6 exons and all 5 introns in series.
You don't. Instead you see an accumulation of mutations consistent
with there being no selection for sequence and an evolutionary
separation consistent with the mutations rates we observe to be
acting today.
>> I thought you claimed to understand what evolution claims? It does
>> not appear that you do. In fact, you are echoing some common
>> misunderstandings about evolution in your comments above.
> Sorry, but your clarifications haven't help me.
observe today and how we observe it? Do you know the rate at
which differences between various apes have been apparently
accumulating according to evolutionary models? Do you know
what the correspondence is between these two rates?
>>> From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all
>>> created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think
>>> we need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about
>>> so called junk DNA.
>> You do realize that does not make any sense, right?
> No, sorry.
>> Why would you expect all great apes to have stretches of DNA that
>> look like the final gene needed to make Vitamin C but that don't
>> work to make vitamin C?
> Mutation.
>> And you've said designer instead of creator but also YEC. Does this
>> mean you think that something, not necessarily the God of the
>> bible, designed life recently? But apparently you think they did
>> not design each species independently but had to reuse DNA from
>> other created species, even reusing parts that did not work?
> I meant the God of the Bible was the designer.
de novo created genomes?
Apparently you are suggesting something about a "common blueprint".
But then apparently the blueprint kept changing as well. And that
changing blueprint keeps changing in ways that create the pattern
that evolutionary theory deduces to arise from common descent.
It's certainly possible to just say "because God did it
that way" but that is a rationalization, not a conclusion
based on a simple model. If the same rationalization can
be used to "explain" anything, then in fact it explains
nothing because it does not serve to distinguish between
why this and not that or the other things.
>> Because you did not simply say, "I don't know", you said you expect
>> the commonality. But that commonality extends far beyond what is
>> functional, and that is an observed fact, not some theoretical
>> result.
> No, it's an interpretation. There's still the possibility that
> pseudogenes turn out to be no friend of evolution.
found that certain pseudogenes may have the ability to bind,
as transcribed RNA, to similar sequence DNA genes that are
not pseudogenes. However, a few cases that were studied in
depth found that the effects were artifacts of poorly designed
experiments. It is only even postulated that a minority of
pseudogenes might have this effect. So biochemically, it
does not look like pseudogenes have phenotypic impacts on
cells. This is consistent with the current theory of evolution.
alias Ernest Major
Jun 6, 2014, 4:10:14 PM6/6/14
to
On 06/06/2014 17:21, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
>
To reiterate, heat death is not a finite end. Heat death is a possible
> I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
>
state for the later stages of an temporarally infinite (in the future
direction) universe.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
Jun 6, 2014, 4:21:03 PM6/6/14
to
"On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 11:09:26 -0700 (PDT), in article
<11e63a38-08af-4724...@googlegroups.com>, itbgc...@gmail.com
stated..."
[...snip...]
You have introduced a term which is not part of Intelligent Design. You
have no description of what it is, what it can do or not, etc. etc. etc.
In brief, "blueprint" is an _ad_hoc_ explanation.
But let's just pretend that it means something.
Is it the case that a blueprint presents a limit on what God can do
(or did do, or will do, ...)?
Why would God be constrained to using blueprints when He can do
whatever He wants?
What determines whether God uses the same blueprint for designing
different things?
Why would there be the same blueprint for humans as for chimps and
other apes? Why would the use of blueprints be used in a pattern
of a tree of descent (in other words, the use of blueprints follows
the same pattern as does common descent with modification)?
If humans, chimps, and other apes are designed using the same
blueprint, does that mean that God had the same ends in sight for
designing all of those? Does God mean for us like apes?
<11e63a38-08af-4724...@googlegroups.com>, itbgc...@gmail.com
stated..."
[...snip...]
>This is an interpretation. Another is that God used the same 'blueprint' in His
>creation.
[...snip...]
>creation.
You have introduced a term which is not part of Intelligent Design. You
have no description of what it is, what it can do or not, etc. etc. etc.
In brief, "blueprint" is an _ad_hoc_ explanation.
But let's just pretend that it means something.
Is it the case that a blueprint presents a limit on what God can do
(or did do, or will do, ...)?
Why would God be constrained to using blueprints when He can do
whatever He wants?
What determines whether God uses the same blueprint for designing
different things?
Why would there be the same blueprint for humans as for chimps and
other apes? Why would the use of blueprints be used in a pattern
of a tree of descent (in other words, the use of blueprints follows
the same pattern as does common descent with modification)?
If humans, chimps, and other apes are designed using the same
blueprint, does that mean that God had the same ends in sight for
designing all of those? Does God mean for us like apes?
hersheyh
Jun 6, 2014, 4:44:29 PM6/6/14
to
empirical evidence that life does exist in this universe, although "intelligent life" may not. It is
unclear how extensive or frequent life is in this universe. Moreover, the evidence on the one
planet on which life in this universe is known to exist supports the likelihood that the described
mechanisms of biological evolution were used to change the forms of life over quite long time
frames (much longer than a few thousand years).
Dana Tweedy
Jun 6, 2014, 5:16:51 PM6/6/14
to
On 6/6/14, 10:21 AM, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
>
> You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
In science nothing is known for certain. One holds ideas provisionally,
>> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
>
> You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
as long as the evidence supports the idea.
>
>> Similar to evolution, it
>> is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
>> Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
>> ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
>> into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
>> it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
>> likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
>
> Sorry if it came across like that. I was not intending to play silly word games of conflate different concepts.
>
> At the moment the Big Bang seems to be predicting 'heat death', which is not ideal from a naturalistic perspective.
end. It's not known if there will be a "big crunch" when expansion
stops, and everything comes back together, or if matter will keep
expanding forever.
> A never-ending cycle of some sort would have been preferred.
> From something incredibly dense and hot, to the universe we see now and ending in the biggest waste of space imaginable.
> I don't think I said the theory couldn't change, but that's pretty much where it is right now.
> However, it makes no attempt to explain how the material that it started with came about - my point (a).
current understanding. Where the energy came from to start the Big
Bang is currently unknown. But that doesn't mean it will always be so.
>
>
>>>> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>>>> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>>
>>> Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
>>
>> Wrong again. Did you not learn about infinities?
>
> I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
snipping
>
>
>>> I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
>>
>> That's not it. You continue to conflate different concepts. I make
>> no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
>> your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
>> axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
>
> Except my God is supernatural and your Uber-Universe is natural.
> If the natural can do supernatural things (like spontaneously create itself) then there are no constrains.
supernatural? No supernatural activity has ever been observed under
controlled conditions. As long as it hasn't the constraints of natural
laws hold.
>
>
>>> But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
>>
>> More accurately, you assert skepticism, but you don't identify a chain
>> of reasoning to support it.
>
> I said this in point (a). To expand: the natural does not do supernatural things.
is natural, by definition.
> It can't spontaneously create matter or the laws that govern itself.
> In particular, it has no reason to do anything conducive to life on earth. But here we are.
conductive to life. We are here because we developed here. The
conditions elsewhere don't really matter.
>
>
>>> Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>>
>> Why do you think it strange that we have yet to find evidence for life
>> elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
>> about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
>
> I don't think it's strange. You said that life can exist in unexpected places. And we have several candidates in our own solar system that share the same sun, and presumably the same early conditions.
different.
> And we have looked at some of these candidates - but nothing so far. Now we can hypothesize about that but if you only rely on evidence to date, there's only one conclusion.
>
>
>>> Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
>>
>> On what basis do you claim to know what your talking about on
>> Evolution?
>
> I have no qualifications if that's what you're getting at.
come from creationist sources?
> I am simply pointing out that there are some problems with purely naturalistic explanations for origins (of the universe and life).
explanations for life, or the universe. You've just presented some
often refuted claims made by creationists.
>
>
>>> Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
>>
>> Why do you seek absolute explanations from science when you offer none
>> in support of your infinite Creator?
>
> The Creator has revealed Himself through the Bible.
correctly?
> We live in a natural universe and we're supposed to find out how it works, but we're also told we can expect to be confounded.
researchers gave up when they were "confounded" by disease processes?
No Penicillin, no surgery, no medicines, etc.
> In other words, absolute explanations for some things are beyond us. That's doesn't mean we can't try.
for provisional working explanations, that are always under examination.
When new evidence arrives, the explanations are re evaluated.
Saying the world is 6000 years old, and was created instantly goes
against every physical finding that geology, chemistry, and physics have
discovered. It is an "absolute explanation" that can't be questioned by
creationists. That is why creationism is not science.
>
>
>> Question begging is another noisome habit. Will you specify an
>> evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
>
> Ok. Let's take transitional fossils. First it was predicted they should have been abundant, but the evidence provided just a few debatable examples.
thousands of examples within the fossil record, and they are hardly
debatable.
> No problem for evolution - just make every fossil translational (except, of course, when they aren't).
many known transitional fossils. For example see:
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
>
>
>>>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>>>> that principle.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> No, I'm clear on that.
>>
>> You are not clear on that when you represent "God didn't do it" as a
>> scientific claim.
>
> Not a claim, a presupposition.
has no way to determine what a supernatural being has, or has not done.
It can only evaluate testable claims. What God did, or didn't do is
not testable, or falsifiable. Science instead looks for explanations
that can be tested, and either confirmed, or rejected by objective
evidence.
DJT
jillery
Jun 6, 2014, 7:04:12 PM6/6/14
to
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:21:42 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
>
>You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
My "it" above refers not to the Big Bang, but to Universal Heat Death,
>> I expressed no skepticism of the Big Bang.
>
>You said 'you did *not* know it was certain', so there is some doubt.
which was the topic you were discussing at the time. You seem to
think the two are related. To the best of my understanding, there's
nothing about BBT that predicts or makes necessary Universal Heat
Death. More about that below.
>> Similar to evolution, it
>> is a reasonable explanation of observed and observable aspects of the
>> Universe. The Big Bang doesn't say with any precision what is the
>> ultimate outcome of the Universe. You conflate different concepts
>> into an incoherent glob, which may be the source of your confusion. Or
>> it may be just part of some silly word game. I can't say which is more
>> likely, due to insufficient evidence at this time.
>
>Sorry if it came across like that. I was not intending to play silly word games of conflate different concepts.
>
>At the moment the Big Bang seems to be predicting 'heat death', which is not ideal from a naturalistic perspective. A never-ending cycle of some sort would have been preferred. From something incredibly dense and hot, to the universe we see now and ending in the biggest waste of space imaginable. I don't think I said the theory couldn't change, but that's pretty much where it is right now. However, it makes no attempt to explain how the material that it started with came about - my point (a).
Universal Heat Death and The Big Rip.
Universal Heat Death is a prediction based on a principle of
thermodynamics, that the entropy of a closed system always increases.
So the Universe eventually will reach a point where there is no
thermal difference between any two points. All matter will decay into
fundamental subatomic particles and energy, and everything will simply
stop doing anything. And since time is a measure of change, it can be
said that time also will stop.
Universal Heat Death is backed by our understanding of thermodynamics,
which is pretty good but not perfect. For example, it isn't obvious
how thermodynamics and quantum effects interact when all points are
theoretically identical.
The Big Rip is a prediction from a possible characteristic of Dark
Energy, that it's strength increases by distance *and* time. If so,
the Universe eventually will reach a point where Dark Energy
overwhelms all other fundamental forces. All matter will be torn
apart down to its subatomic particles, with a net result similar to
Heat Death.
The Big Rip is entirely speculative. Nobody knows what Dark Energy
is. It's repulsive properties are only recently discovered. The best
evidence suggests that Dark Energy is strictly a function of distance.
If so, it can't separate objects that are gravitationally bound. If
so, our galactic supercluster will eventually merge into one
super-galaxy, while the rest of the Universe simply receded pas our
light horizon.
None of the above are necessary consequences of BBT.
>> >> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
>> >> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>>
>> >Well either there's a finite end or it's infinite
>>
>> Wrong again. Did you not learn about infinities?
>
>I know that finite is not infinite. If the finite end is heat death then that implies a beginning and a cause.
may have a beginning and no end, or it may have an end but no
beginning. In all these cases, time is infinite.
Time may have a beginning *and* an end, in which case time is finite.
HTH
>> > (what does the evidence say?).
>>
>> All evidence have limited scope. Scientists quantify the limits of
>> evidence with error bars, and make active efforts to express
>> conclusions within their range.
>
>I agree.
>
>> To say that it's certain the Universe
>> will end at time X for reason Y is the ultimate weather forecast.
>
>Perhaps, but if it's infinite you should probably define 'end' first.
confusion about it.
You introduced "end of the Universe" to this thread, so I leave its
definition to you.
>> >If there's a finite end but there was no beginning, I wonder why it's not already ended.
>
>> To wonder of alternatives broadens the mind. To doubt any particular
>> alternative for no good reason is a waste of time.
>
>I agree.
ended?
>> >I can't prove there is a God, and you can't disprove it. In that respect we're at a stalemate.
>>
>> That's not it. You continue to conflate different concepts. I make
>> no effort to disprove your God, nor is there any need for you to prove
>> your God. My stalemate is a reflection of the futility of presuming
>> axioms that don't constrain the next link in a chain of reasoning.
>
>Except my God is supernatural and your Uber-Universe is natural. If the natural can do supernatural things (like spontaneously create itself) then there are no constrains.
within your definition.
More to the point, you just described the basic problem with the
concept of supernatural; there are no constraints. That problem
applies as much to your God as my Uber-Universe, and is why such
axioms aren't useful for developing a valid chain of reasoning.
>> >But I'm questioning whether the big bang is a good explanation for the existence of the universe.
>>
>> More accurately, you assert skepticism, but you don't identify a chain
>> of reasoning to support it.
>
>I said this in point (a). To expand: the natural does not do supernatural things. It can't spontaneously create matter or the laws that govern itself. In particular, it has no reason to do anything conducive to life on earth. But here we are.
In its original incarnation, Georges Lema�tre only went as far as the
point where the concentration of matter and energy created
mathematical infinities. Gamow pushed beyond that to work out Big
Bang nucleosynthesis. Later, Guth added Cosmic Inflation, to explain
the large-scale structure of the Universe.
To question BBT up to that point obliges you to challenge a host of
solid observational evidence and theory. I admit that none of the
above addresses where the energy, or the physical laws, came from, but
that lack doesn't alter the BBT's veracity of what it does address.
>> >Yes, the search has only just started - and seems to have already jumped to the conclusion that it's very unlikely there's life in our solar system (except on earth). But as you quite rightly pointed out, here 'life is found in places everyone said it couldn't exist'. Strange then, that we're yet to see the slightest indication of life on other planets (they've had 3+ billion years too). See (b) from my initial post.
>>
>> Why do you think it strange that we have yet to find evidence for life
>> elsewhere when we have only just begun looking for it? Please learn
>> about these things before you jump to conclusions about them.
>
>I don't think it's strange. You said that life can exist in unexpected places. And we have several candidates in our own solar system that share the same sun, and presumably the same early conditions. And we have looked at some of these candidates - but nothing so far. Now we can hypothesize about that but if you only rely on evidence to date, there's only one conclusion.
they think the followup to be strange. Perhaps it's just me, but it
could also be another word game.
You are incorrect that anybody presumes the current conditions on any
planet in the Solar System is anything like what the primordial Earth
was like.
More to the point, to rely on the evidence to date implies there is
sufficient evidence to date to rely on it. When it comes to
extraterrestrial life, that is simply not the case.
You deleted a large amount of text without attribution, and then
replied to it out of context. I'll assume it was an honest mistake
this time, and restore the context, but don't do it again:
*****************************************
>>>> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what he's
>>>> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>>>>
>>>> >Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>>>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>>>
>>>> >> talking about would seriously say that.
>>>>
>>>> >Are you sure about that?
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
>>>> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>>>
>>>Well I said it for one, and I doubt I'm the first.
************************************
>>On what basis do you claim to know what your talking about on
>>Evolution?
>
>I have no qualifications if that's what you're getting at. I am simply pointing out that there are some problems with purely naturalistic explanations for origins (of the universe and life).
knows what he's talking about on Evolution. I have seen nothing that
suggests that you do, which is why I asked. And even if you are,
citing yourself is circular logic.
So, I missed what you think are problems with purely naturalistic
explanations for origins of the Universe and life. Will you specify
them here?
>> >Hmmm, these are all evolutionary terms. I would have thought it could do better than explain them 'to a fair degree'.
>>
>> Why do you seek absolute explanations from science when you offer none
>> in support of your infinite Creator?
>
>The Creator has revealed Himself through the Bible. We live in a natural universe and we're supposed to find out how it works, but we're also told we can expect to be confounded. In other words, absolute explanations for some things are beyond us. That's doesn't mean we can't try.
the Bible is a good source for same. At the very least, it's
insufficient to give you the absolute explanations you demand from
science.
>> Question begging is another noisome habit. Will you specify an
>> evolutionary prediction about which you have doubts?
>
>Ok. Let's take transitional fossils. First it was predicted they should have been abundant, but the evidence provided just a few debatable examples. No problem for evolution - just make every fossil translational (except, of course, when they aren't).
fossils ever predicted that transitional fossils would be abundant.
Fossils themselves are rare compared to the abundance of life that
created them.
Second, what qualifies as transitional definitely depends on which
transition. For example, mesohippus is a good transitional form in
the evolution of modern horses, but not in the evolution of modern
humans. So yes, it's reasonable to say that any unspecified fossil is
a transitional from for some unspecified evolutionary history.
Third, you don't say how this is supposed to be a problem for
Evolution. Please specify.
So, once again, do you have someone specific in mind? Or are you
content with innuendo? (and please don't suggest yourself again).
You again deleted a large amount of text without attribution, and then
replied to it out of context. Since it seems you can't figure out
what to delete, perhaps you shouldn't delete anything.
Restoring:
*****************************************
>>>> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that God
>>>> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
******************************************
>>>> >> didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain our
>>>> >> level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based around that principle.
>>>>
>>>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>>>> that principle.
>>>
>>>No, I'm clear on that.
>>
>>You are not clear on that when you represent "God didn't do it" as a
>>scientific claim.
>
>Not a claim, a presupposition.
Another word game. Fine, it's not a scientific presupposition,
>>>> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>>>> that principle.
>>>
>>>No, I'm clear on that.
>>
>>You are not clear on that when you represent "God didn't do it" as a
>>scientific claim.
>
>Not a claim, a presupposition.
either. Science doesn't make presuppositions about what God does or
doesn't do. To argue as if it does, shows that you fundamentally
misunderstand how science works.
jillery
Jun 6, 2014, 7:20:38 PM6/6/14
to
hersheyh
Jun 6, 2014, 7:34:26 PM6/6/14
to
On Friday, June 6, 2014 2:09:26 PM UTC-4, itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
> > > relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> > > look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> > > ancestors.
>
>
> > Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> > in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> > of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> > sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> > often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> > cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> > not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
> Well it was a bit more verbose, but essentially what I said.
> > We have observed such pseudogenes to arise by well understood
> > mechanisms of mutation. That's a fact. No evolutionary theory yet.
> Mutation is a fact, we agree on that.
And a single mutation in a single individual now has to spread throughout the population
> > > According to evolutionary theory, pseudogenes are non-functional
> > > relatives of genes, often referred to as 'junk DNA'. Evolutionists
> > > look to this junk DNA to describe a supposed relationship to earlier
> > > ancestors.
>
>
> > Pseudogenes are stretches of DNA that resemble functional genes
> > in sequence but no longer function as genes. The simpler examples
> > of these have DNA sequence that, when you translate it to protein
> > sequence, almost matches to known functional proteins. Except they
> > often have a few stop codons in the middle so that you know they
> > cannot be translated into complete functional proteins. That is
> > not a theoretical result, that is a fact.
> Well it was a bit more verbose, but essentially what I said.
> > We have observed such pseudogenes to arise by well understood
> > mechanisms of mutation. That's a fact. No evolutionary theory yet.
> Mutation is a fact, we agree on that.
The mechanisms for this spread throughout the population include "neutral drift"
and/or selection. In the case of the loss of L-gulonolactone oxidase activity, the enzyme
that is lost in the great apes, the likely cause of spread is by neutral or near-neutral drift in
a fruit-eating primate ancestral to all the great apes (including humans), although there is
a more remote possibility that the loss is collateral damage due to selection of some nearby
change.
The loss of the GLO gene activity is due to deletion in both primates and in guinea pigs,
but the deletion in all anthropoid primates (great apes, including humans) is the same mutation
(and deletions that are independent are unlikely to be identical) with a different deletion
in guinea pigs. In bats, the genes are less expressed by 4-6 fold, implying mutation in
regulatory regions, a situation in which mutation can restore activity (whereas deletions
cannot be reverted).
In fact, the loss of the enzyme activity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3145266/.
Of the 5 primates whose GLO pseudogene has been sequenced (that would include humans,
chimps, gorillas) all also have a second single nucleotide deletion at the same site. [the
mechanism of single nucleotide or small deletion and insertion is different from that of larger
mutations, but a single nucleotide deletion changes the reading frame and also would
keep any functional oxidase protein from being made.]
What this implies, quite clearly, is that for this to be an example of "design", the designer
would have to have produced the very same large deletion (rather than the deletion being
'created' by a normal undesigned deletion event, aka, by mutation, which you claim does
happen) and then add an unnecessary second single
nucleotide deletion at the same site. Plus, no doubt other mutations (mostly point).
> > Adding evolutionary theory, we expect that when this sort of
> > damage occurs to non-essential genes, they will be inherited
> > by subsequent generations but be subject to further mutation
> > at the rate of mutation with no selective pressure to not mutate.
> How do you know they are 'non-essential'? I used the term 'junk DNA' but you didn't
> and perhaps it isn't. I said I think we need to learn a lot more about exactly whether
> this is junk. It may turn out to be no friend of evolution.
is dispensable without any observable harm to the organism. We know that
certain nucleotides can be changed to other nucleotides with no observable
or theoretical reason to think that change should have any effect (because the
genetic code is degenerate, with several codons specifying the same amino
acid, those changes should be, in general, selectively neutral).
> > Our observations of pseudogenes finds that in a way that is
> > consistent with our models of common descent previously
> > determined by the fossil record.
> This is an interpretation. Another is that God used the same 'blueprint' in His creation.
gene in primates, and a different one in guinea pigs, and yet a different one in bats, and
eliminating the gene entirely in teleost, but not cartilaginous or non-teleost bony fishes.
Why include a non-working copy of a gene at all?
> > > What is strange, however, is that natural selection hasn't eliminated
> > > this so called junk. Further, because of the lack of selective
"junk" DNA can still perform non-sequence-specific functions (the reason
many plant breeders like polyploids is that there seems to be a feedback
mechanism relating bulk amount of DNA and cell size, which in turn
affects flower size. Moreover, given the longer reproductive times, the
'need for speed' by reducing the amount of DNA being carried may have
little selective value in multicellular eucaryotes. It may simply be less
efficient to get rid of excess DNA by some mechanism that specifically recognizes
and excises it than to just carry a certain amount around.
That said, there are species of pufferfish (smooth pufferfish) that have
haploid genomes of about 40 million nts (about 1/8th the size of the
human genome, and with many fewer non-coding sequences, but about
the same number of genes) and other species (spiny pufferfish) that
have haploid genomes twice that size. The difference is primarily
due to a greater abundance of defunct non-LTR retrotransposon
sequences. [Much of the non-coding sequences in humans are also
retrotransposon like.]
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/5/821.short
Again, your hypothetical creator seems to have a sense of humor by
designing genomes with retrotransposon-like elements that, usually, no longer
function, but make up substantial portions of those genomes. While there
are ways for these elements to occur and spread naturally without design.
> > > pressure, why has this junk not mutated beyond all recognition?
the population. In general it takes about 100 million years for amino
acid sequences to become randomized to the point where it is not
possible to see similarity. This can be seen in the case of the fibrinogen
peptide (a sequence that is cleaved off pre-fibrinogen and allows the
cleaved protein to cause clotting. The sequence of the fibrinogen peptide
is essentially irrelevant. There may be some constraint on sequence,
but not much. The longer a pseudo sequence exists, the further it deviates
from the functional sequence...and that rate of change is fairly constant
and based on time since divergence (fossil record) rather than morphological
or functional similarity.
> > Why do you think this is strange? We know the rate of mutation.
> > We know the cost of carrying extra DNA. The cost is so negligible
> > that there's no real selective pressure to eliminate extra DNA.
> The cost is substantial, and mechanisms for removal are known.
remove unnecessary sequences? And what evidence do you have
that the cost of having a larger genome is substantial and the only
way to deal with what cost there is is to remove the extra DNA?
> > The pseudo genes do gain additional mutations through time but
> > are still recognizable as being verly like previously functional
> > genes that have been mutated.
> Another interpretation. There are a lot of places to look. It's not surprising
> that similarities can be found.
occurs at the rate expected for neutral drift (a function of time rather
than morphology). Two nearly identical (morphologic) closely=related
species of frog separated by the Atlantic Ocean have sequence divergence
expected for the 43 million years they have been separated; two morphologically
dramatically different organisms (like human and chimpanzee, which differ
in almost every bone) yet have only the amount of sequence difference
expected for organisms that diverged 5-7 million years ago. There are
many such examples.
> > I thought you claimed to understand what evolution claims? It
> > does not appear that you do. In fact, you are echoing some
> > common misunderstandings about evolution in your comments above.
> Sorry, but your clarifications haven't help me.
> > > From a YEC perspective, we'd expect some commonality between all
> > > created forms (pointing to a single designer). However, I think we
> > > need to learn a lot more before jumping to conclusions about so
> > > called junk DNA.
>
difference in that DNA is roughly the same as the rate of change
in the third nt of codons that produce no change in the amino
acid encoded.
>
> > You do realize that does not make any sense, right?
> No, sorry.
Well, it is an attempt, but one by someone who is unfamiliar with the enormous
> > You do realize that does not make any sense, right?
> No, sorry.
amount of contrary evidence.
> > Why would you expect all great apes to have stretches of DNA
> > that look like the final gene needed to make Vitamin C but
> > that don't work to make vitamin C?
> Mutation.
difference beyond that of the large deletion? Not really familiar
with the way that mutation (deletion) works, are you?
> > And you've said designer instead of creator but also YEC.
> > Does this mean you think that something, not necessarily
> > the God of the bible, designed life recently? But apparently
> > you think they did not design each species independently
> > but had to reuse DNA from other created species, even
> > reusing parts that did not work?
> I meant the God of the Bible was the designer.
> > Because you did not simply say, "I don't know", you said you
> > expect the commonality. But that commonality extends far
> > beyond what is functional, and that is an observed fact,
> > not some theoretical result.
> No, it's an interpretation. There's still the possibility that pseudogenes
> turn out to be no friend of evolution.
mere existence of pseudogenes, but that they change over time
by a process that you admit (mutation) and, because non-functional
mutations become fixed in species at a relatively constant rate, they
do show the time relationships between living organisms wrt when
they diverged. That pattern of relationships is largely in agreement with
the pattern of relationships seen in the fossil record (even though there
are gaps in that record). Same pattern seen in protein and DNA sequences.
And there is massive evidence that the earth is not a few thousand
years old, both qualitative and quantitative evidence (no, it isn't based
on carbon dating).
There is precisely no evidence supporting the idea that T. rex, hagfish,
trilobites, starfish, and humans were created all at the same time. None.
Please present this evidence that I know nothing about.
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 9:05:08 PM6/6/14
to
On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
to do anything with reality. Same as before Earth is flat Earth
is center of universe and such...
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> which it's abundant - but only one).
Life is here. Explanation for life is not known.
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
Evolution is only logical explanation for diversity of species.
>
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we
> cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
What if there was time before Big Bang? Again conclusion is
based on observation, same as before...
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far
> off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God didn't do it
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have
> happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do it - we
>
>
> That's all for now.
>
--
Click OK to continue...
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
Current explanation is made on observation. That doesn't have
> Hi group!
>
> My first post here - don't be too harsh!
>
> I'm a Biblical Creationist (hiss-boo I hear you say!). I've been
> reading TO for a while now but I'm still a YEC - that is, a Young
> Everything (Material/Natural) Creationist. And here's why:
>
> a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the universe
> (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in the moment
> after - in which all axioms must also have been created.
to do anything with reality. Same as before Earth is flat Earth
is center of universe and such...
>
> b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where all
> the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place in
> which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors, with
> all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I might add)
> let's say that life happened. Is evolution going up-hill, down-hill
> or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
>
>
> And here's why again, regarding each point above:
>
> a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we
> cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
based on observation, same as before...
>
> b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some far
> - we know that for sure (?).
Sure. Biblical God is myth. 100% sure.
>
> c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must have
> know that for sure (?).
Biblical God didn't do it, 100% sure.
>
>
> That's all for now.
>
Click OK to continue...
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 9:12:58 PM6/6/14
to
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 01:37:24 -0400
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:13:46 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Hi Jillery!
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 20:13:46 -0700 (PDT), itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> And hello to you, itbgcthate9.
>
>
> >Thanks for replying!
>
>
> Back atcha.
>
>
> >> What made God? And no fair cheating by saying "God always was".
> >> If you can assume an infinite deity, then I can assume an infinite
> >> material Universe. Any bald assertion is as easily refuted.
> >
> >Nothing 'made' God - he was the creator, no beginning and no end
> >(therefore no causality conflict). You can't assume an 'infinite
> >material universe' so easily - because you know it has a 'heat
> >death' end (no infinity there).
>
>
> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
>
> First, for someone who expresses skepticism about things scientific,
> you pack a lot of certainty into what is, at best, a likely hypothesis
> based on current knowledge. I do *not* know it's certain. Neither do
> you. Neither does anybody else. Our knowledge of the Universe is
> limited. Lots of thing could happen between then and now.
>
> Second, even if there is a finite end to the Universe, it may have had
> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> no beginning, and so still be infinite.
>
> Finally, you did exactly what I warned against, and declared a
> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
>
> infinite Creator. And so I refute your bald assertion with my own
> bald assertion of an infinite Uber-Universe. Stalemate. Now what?
>
>
> >> >b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> >> >life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where
> >> >all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place
> >> >in which it's abundant - but only one).
> >
> >> >life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where
> >> >all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place
> >> >in which it's abundant - but only one).
> >
> >> So far, this Solar System is the only place we've looked. It's
> >> not reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
> >
> >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own
> >solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do
> >you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what -
> >give it time? :)
>
>
> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> asking the questions.
>
>
> >> not reasonable to call time before the game has even started.
> >
> >Well, let's face it. It's been an extremely long time for our own
> >solar system (about 1/3 since 'the beginning'). How much longer do
> >you want to wait? Another 4.5 billion years for Martians, or what -
> >give it time? :)
>
>
> In my lifetime, life on Earth has been found in places "everyone" said
> it couldn't exist. The search for life on other planets has only just
> started. You are very quick to jump to conclusions without even
> asking the questions.
>
>
> >> >c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors,
> >> >with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I
> >> >might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> >> >up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
> >> >with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I
> >> >might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> >> >up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
> >> Who said evolution predicts it all? Nobody I know who knows what
> >> he's talking about would seriously say that.
> >>
> >
> >Are you sure about that?
>
>
> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
>
> >> he's talking about would seriously say that.
> >>
> >
> >Are you sure about that?
>
>
> I wouldn't have written it if I didn't believe it to be correct. Do
> you have someone specific in mind? Or are you content with innuendo?
>
>
> >Are you saying that there's no such thing as: 'the Cambrian
> >explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not
> >'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much
> >point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>
>
> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> specific prediction you have in mind?
>
>
> >explosion', 'punctuated evolution' or 'living fossils'? Are they not
> >'predicted' in the fossil record? If not, there's not really much
> >point - they are 'the facts' (correctly, the evidence) after all.
>
>
> Evolution explains to a fair degree these things you mention. These
> things are not "all" things, or even most things. Is there some
> specific prediction you have in mind?
>
>
> >> >And here's why again, regarding each point above:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we
> >> >cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >a) There was no time before the Big Bang so it's irrelevant, we
> >> >cannot say. But God didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >b) Chemistry happens everywhere, maybe it even happened in some
> >> >far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God
> >> >didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >far off-galaxy that seeded our world, we cannot say. But God
> >> >didn't do it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >c) Evolution is unguided, however, we are here now so it must
> >> >have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do
> >> >it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> >have happened. This is science don't you know! But God didn't do
> >> >it - we know that for sure (?).
> >>
> >> You're confusing science with anti-god. Science does not say that
> >> God didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain
> >> our level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
> >>
> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what
> >may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based
> >around that principle.
>
>
> >> God didn't do it. Science says that God is unnecessary to explain
> >> our level of understanding. It's an important distinction.
> >>
> >No. I'm definitely not confusing science with 'anti-god'. Come what
> >may, we need to be scientific. All my points were exactly based
> >around that principle.
>
>
> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
> that principle.
It is scientific to conclude that God couldn't possibly create day and
> that principle.
night than stars and Sun. Actually you can scientifically conclude
that Bible writers didn't have a clue about nature of stars and
planets.
>
>
> >> >That's all for now.
> >>
> >
> >I didn't say I was!
>
>
> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
> expressing. Just sayin'.
>
> >I didn't say I was!
>
>
> And I didn't say you said you were. Posting truisms not in dispute is
> just noise, and distracts from any actual point you might be
> expressing. Just sayin'.
>
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 9:26:52 PM6/6/14
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 06:40:59 -0400
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Science and religion are separated by a
> simple frame of reference error.
>
Science and religion are separated in same
was as reality is separated of myths...
Actually, religion was not necessary any more.
It is stupidity of human kind and strive for
earning money with fraud that drives
religion.
"jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Science and religion are separated by a
> simple frame of reference error.
>
Science and religion are separated in same
was as reality is separated of myths...
Actually, religion was not necessary any more.
It is stupidity of human kind and strive for
earning money with fraud that drives
religion.
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 9:34:46 PM6/6/14
to
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Ron O!
Each created kind had a
> vast gene pool which has been reduced over time by natural selection
> and extinction.
Problem is that Bible does not describe anything about that.
I can bet that Bible writer could not name all living species.
>
>
> > If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything
> > about how science works? What have you learned by reading TO?
> > Shouldn't you get a basic understanding of science?
>
> It starts with observation. If you can't observe and repeat it in the
> present, you have to make some assumptions. Do you agree?
Observations are always limited. Science can predict some things
that are not observable. Eg black holes are predicted than observed.
itbgc...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Ron O!
>
> > > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the
> > > universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in
> > > the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been
> > > created.
> >
> > > a) There is no naturalistic explanation for what 'made' the
> > > universe (no matter how compressed) before the big bang, or in
> > > the moment after - in which all axioms must also have been
> > > created.
> >
> > What does this have to do with the age of the earth or the
> > evolution of biological life?
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need
> that before you can even talk about evolution.
>
>
> > evolution of biological life?
>
> Quite a lot. How did the universe, then the earth get here? You need
> that before you can even talk about evolution.
>
>
> > Do you deny that humans are most closely related to
> > African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes,
> > more related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys
> > that to prosimians etc.?
>
> There is a relationship between all life, which points to a single
> creator. But I would say that humans are more closely related to
> humans than any other creature.
>
>
> > African Apes, more related to African apes than the Asian apes,
> > more related to all apes than to monkeys, more related to monkeys
> > that to prosimians etc.?
>
> There is a relationship between all life, which points to a single
> creator. But I would say that humans are more closely related to
> humans than any other creature.
>
>
> > Really, our star is an Nth generation star. Billion of stars lived
> > and died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of
> > material created in previous stars. How can the universe be as
> > young as you claim?
>
> Well, I already gave one possible explanation for this. I'm not
> claiming a young universe (although it was created at the same time
> as the earth), rather a relatively young earth.
>
>
> > and died before our sun formed. Our sun and planet are made of
> > material created in previous stars. How can the universe be as
> > young as you claim?
>
> Well, I already gave one possible explanation for this. I'm not
> claiming a young universe (although it was created at the same time
> as the earth), rather a relatively young earth.
>
>
> > > b) Even supposing a big bang, if chemistry is the explanation for
> > > life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where
> > > all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place
> > > in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> > > life it seems rare - particularly in our own Solar System where
> > > all the planets share the same star (of course, we know one place
> > > in which it's abundant - but only one).
>
> > Do you have a better explanation? What is our sun and the planets
> > of our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
> > documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it
> > take for that star to mature and explode?
>
> So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
>
>
> > of our solar system made of? In the last super nova observed they
> > documented the creation of the heavier elements. How long did it
> > take for that star to mature and explode?
>
> So do you agree the big bang explanation is not so good?
>
>
> > > c) Giving chemistry a chance (where Miller-Urey + predecessors,
> > > with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I
> > > might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> > > up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
> >
> >
> > > with all their intellect didn't manage - not that they won't I
> > > might add) let's say that life happened. Is evolution going
> > > up-hill, down-hill or nowhere? Evolution 'predicts' it all.
> >
> >
> >
> > Science doesn't know everything, and it doesn't have to. You have
> > to explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it
> > because we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation
> > for the evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is
> > your explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop
> > biological evolution short of extinction.
>
> That life was created by a single creator.
If creator is alive than he didn't created life.
> > to explain why evolution of life is a scientific fact, not deny it
> > because we don't have all the answers. What is your explanation
> > for the evolutionary relationships of all life on earth? What is
> > your explanation for the fact that we do not know how to stop
> > biological evolution short of extinction.
>
> That life was created by a single creator.
Each created kind had a
> vast gene pool which has been reduced over time by natural selection
> and extinction.
I can bet that Bible writer could not name all living species.
>
>
> > If you believe that you are lost already. Don't you know anything
> > about how science works? What have you learned by reading TO?
> > Shouldn't you get a basic understanding of science?
>
> It starts with observation. If you can't observe and repeat it in the
> present, you have to make some assumptions. Do you agree?
that are not observable. Eg black holes are predicted than observed.
jillery
Jun 6, 2014, 9:57:46 PM6/6/14
to
Steady Eddie
Jun 6, 2014, 10:05:24 PM6/6/14
to
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 10:12:32 PM6/6/14
to
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
Absolutely!
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
TomS
Jun 6, 2014, 10:15:46 PM6/6/14
to
"On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 03:34:46 +0200, in article <lmtq7m$2nr$5...@news.albasani.net>,
Melzzzzz stated..."
[...snip...]
The concept 'species' is anachronism to the Ancient Near East.
The writers of the Bible would not have the language in which to
talk about distinguishing species.
Melzzzzz stated..."
[...snip...]
>I can bet that Bible writer could not name all living species.
[...snip...]
The concept 'species' is anachronism to the Ancient Near East.
The writers of the Bible would not have the language in which to
talk about distinguishing species.
jillery
Jun 6, 2014, 10:55:05 PM6/6/14
to
On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 19:05:24 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> >> that principle.
>>
>> >It is scientific to conclude that God couldn't possibly create day and
>> >night than stars and Sun. Actually you can scientifically conclude
>> >that Bible writers didn't have a clue about nature of stars and
>> >planets.
>>
>> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>Why do you say that?
Because it's an untestable hypothesis.
Do you think it *is* scientific to conclude that the Bible was written
by God? If so, how would you go about proving or disproving it?
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> "God didn't do it" is not scientific. You fundamentally misunderstand
>> >> that principle.
>>
>> >It is scientific to conclude that God couldn't possibly create day and
>> >night than stars and Sun. Actually you can scientifically conclude
>> >that Bible writers didn't have a clue about nature of stars and
>> >planets.
>>
>> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>Why do you say that?
Do you think it *is* scientific to conclude that the Bible was written
by God? If so, how would you go about proving or disproving it?
Steady Eddie
Jun 6, 2014, 10:57:42 PM6/6/14
to
On Friday, 6 June 2014 20:12:32 UTC-6, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>
>
> Absolutely!
Why are you so sure?
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>
>
> Absolutely!
jillery
Jun 6, 2014, 10:58:04 PM6/6/14
to
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:12:32 +0200, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>Absolutely!
So continuing that line of reasoning, it's not scientific to conclude
>On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
>Absolutely!
that anything written in the Bible is a measure of what God can or
can't do. Do you agree?
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 11:07:04 PM6/6/14
to
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 11:12:14 PM6/6/14
to
year daughter does not have slightest idea about God. Without Bible
she would not know about it till rest of her life....
Steady Eddie
Jun 6, 2014, 11:17:56 PM6/6/14
to
Steady Eddie
Jun 6, 2014, 11:20:17 PM6/6/14
to
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 11:36:10 PM6/6/14
to
Melzzzzz
Jun 6, 2014, 11:38:29 PM6/6/14
to
jillery
Jun 7, 2014, 12:54:51 AM6/7/14
to
jillery
Jun 7, 2014, 12:54:43 AM6/7/14
to
Bible. That concept exists, whether or not it has any relation to
reality.
As for your daughter, I'm almost certain that other people and society
in general will expose her to that concept before she reaches
adulthood, no matter how hard you try to keep her from them and it.
Walter Bushell
Jun 7, 2014, 8:32:28 AM6/7/14
to
In article <lo65p9hpi63dc4ok6...@4ax.com>,
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> GIYF
That should be GIU. Google is a business, not a friend, but still
useful. And I saved a letter.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> GIYF
That should be GIU. Google is a business, not a friend, but still
useful. And I saved a letter.
--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.
jillery
Jun 7, 2014, 12:06:08 PM6/7/14
to
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:32:28 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:
>In article <lo65p9hpi63dc4ok6...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GIYF
>
>That should be GIU. Google is a business, not a friend, but still
>useful. And I saved a letter.
Sort of like how my mother saved money when she bought bling on sale.
wrote:
>In article <lo65p9hpi63dc4ok6...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> GIYF
>
>That should be GIU. Google is a business, not a friend, but still
>useful. And I saved a letter.
Steady Eddie
Jun 7, 2014, 4:32:23 PM6/7/14
to
On Friday, 6 June 2014 22:54:51 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2014 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>
>
>
>
> >On Friday, 6 June 2014 20:58:04 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:12:32 +0200, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>
> >>
>
> >> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Absolutely!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So continuing that line of reasoning, it's not scientific to conclude
>
> >>
>
> >> that anything written in the Bible is a measure of what God can or
>
> >>
>
> >> can't do. Do you agree?
>
> >
>
> >Define scientific.
>
>
>
>
>
> GIYF
What does that mean?
>
> >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:12:32 +0200, Melzzzzz <m...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>
> >>
>
> >> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> >> It is not scientific to conclude that the Bible was written by God.
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >Absolutely!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> So continuing that line of reasoning, it's not scientific to conclude
>
> >>
>
> >> that anything written in the Bible is a measure of what God can or
>
> >>
>
> >> can't do. Do you agree?
>
> >
>
> >Define scientific.
>
>
>
>
>
> GIYF
deadrat
Jun 7, 2014, 5:08:28 PM6/7/14
to
You could have googled it.
jillery
Jun 7, 2014, 6:20:28 PM6/7/14
to
On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What does that mean?
In paraphrase, it means look it up for yourself.
<1914o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What does that mean?
In paraphrase, it means look it up for yourself.
Steady Eddie
Jun 7, 2014, 7:51:45 PM6/7/14
to
On Saturday, 7 June 2014 16:20:28 UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2014 13:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Steady Eddie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >What does that mean?
>
>
>
>
>
> In paraphrase, it means look it up for yourself.
You have to define your term if you want to discuss the topic
>
>
>
>
>
> In paraphrase, it means look it up for yourself.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages