Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

[heavycola]

Wow, nunz. This is clearly a useless effort on my part. There are countless books on embryology that deal with the development of eggs in various species (including the chicken). My arguments (which you say aren't arguments, but whatever) are based on years of work in studying the evolutionary development of reproduction. This forum is nowhere near long enough to fully address rebuttals to Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity (which I assume you have read as Gospel). For the sake of brevity, here is a link to one of hundreds of rebuttals to Behe that have been offered by the biochemical community.

http://www.btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm

Beyond that, I'm done trying to talk sense in here. It is clearly futile. Thanks for the compliment, Guiscard, but it is indescribably frustrating to try to convince someone like nunz that there are reasonable conclusions to be made and that the literal view of the Genesis creation story isn't reasonable. As I've stated before, I believe in the role of a creator in the origins of the universe and of life, but that belief is based on an understanding of the deepest explanations that science has to offer, not on the writings of a crusader masquerading as a scientist (Behe). Ultimately the irreducible complexity argument is just a fancy way of saying that evolution must be wrong because evolutionary theory cannot connect ALL of the dots.

As for your upcoming explanation regarding the 'impossibility' of viable DNA/protein formation (I can't wait!), since Behe has published his book, RNA molecules have been shown to self catalyze their own formation and to be independently capable of synthesizing and replicating DNA, as well as performing their known role in construction of proteins. All of the necessary evidence for RNA molecules being capable of making more RNA, DNA, and proteins now exists in the scientific literature. Obviously, all of the primitive forms of RNA haven't been isolated and demonstrated, so HOW it happened remains unknown, but the possibility of it happening is pretty well documented at this point.

The dismissal of an explanation for a phenomenon based on missing details is contrary to the logical drawing of conclusions that humans engage in every day. If you're standing in the jungle and see the trees and bushes in the distance moving, feel the ground trembling, and hear the sound of elephants trumpeting, and the motion, trembling and sound is rapidly growing louder and closer to you, you run away. You don't wait until you can see the elephant emerge from the forest right in front of you to draw the conclusion that you're about to get trampled. For people like you, nunz, who fail to realize that science is about disproving things, not proving them, evolution will never be an acceptable conclusion because you will always only see the holes. If that is what you choose to believe, I can respect that, but for you (or your ilk) to present 'scientific' evidence is an insult to the intelligence of everyone here. Furthermore, irreducible complexity gives no argument against the disagreements between geological timelines and the 6 days of creation of an earth that is supposedly only 4000 - 6000 years old.

[dnucci]

One has to wonder about this quote: "All thinking men are Atheists." First of all . . . All squares are rectangles. That does not mean that if you are a rectangle, you are necessarily a square. Hemmingway's words then do not mean that all Atheists are thinking men.

Secondly, I think most readers of this quote make the presumption that "thinking man" is a compliment or virtue. Consider . . . the mechanics of thought follow neurological systems. Thought is systematic. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem proved that no system can be complete. So thinking is by its very nature limited.

If you believe in an infinite God, then it cannot be contained by thought, nor by language. So, to be a Thinking Man, one whose life is bounded by thought is to be one who is incapable of relating to, in a real and present way, the Other Than (my name for God).

Thirdly, to be an Atheist, I think, is just as difficult if not more so than to be a Theist. If you are an Atheist, it does not mean that you don't believe in God. Rather, it means you believe there is no god. This second statement is much more pointed and dense.

Occam's Razor is a principle of science that basically says that given competing theories, the simplest theory is the best choice. (I am paraphrasing.) From that point of view, to attribute all the unknowns in the present and history of the World to One source and call it God is a much more simplistic theory than not to resolve those unknowns within one's own being. Even believing there is nothing outside of the Universe still requires belief . . . a personal stand.

[Backglass]

to be an Atheist, I think, is just as difficult if not more so than to be a Theist. If you are an Atheist, it does not mean that you don't believe in God. Rather, it means you believe there is no god.

Exactly. No crutches. No "its in gods hands". No "let god sort em out". No "the lord has a plan", etc, just personal responsibility.

Nobody said it was easy. I have said this before but to imagine being an Atheist:

• Imagine living in a world where 90% of the grownup people actually believe in Santa Claus.
• Imagine living in a world where 90% of the grownup people think the answer to every problem is to write a letter to Santa Claus.
• Imagine living in a world where 90% of the grownup people run around telling each other and everyone else that they should write letters to Santa Claus everyday.
• Imagine living in a world where 90% of the grownup people run around saying everyone should live their lives to please Santa Claus.
• Imagine living in a world where grownup people who believe in Santa Claus want to kill other people for believing in the Easter Bunny.

Thats what it's like. Not easy.

[dnucci]

Well, Backglass, I do believe in God, but I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe in the power of the life of Jesus, but I don't believe that the point of that power is some illusory "salvation" or personal resurrection. Instead, I believe that the teachings of Jesus lead to a life of peace and an ability to live in the Infinite Now. I believe in the unseen, but not in the Church. These beliefs have evolved over time, and coming from a Catholic background, but with a personal faith inconsistent with the church, I can definitely relate to what you are saying about the feeling of being far different from what seems like the prevailing culture.

[Colossus]

Yeah, so can I. Members of the scientific community generally view belief in God as the refuge of the weak-minded, and religious adherents (for the most part) instantly look at scientists as dangerous, heretical non-believers. Good stuff for folks like me! If it ever comes down to real battle between the religious and the scientists, I'll get lynched by both sides.

Sadly, though I disagree with the comparison of God to Santa or the Easter bunny, your last point about the wanting to kill each other is all too spot-on.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem proved that no system can be complete. So thinking is by its very nature limited.

Godel's theorem proved that no formal system can be both complete AND consistent. It may be complete and inconstitent, it may also be incomplete and consistent. In fact what he actually said was in German but to paraphrase in English:

'All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions.'

This is beside the point anyway as human minds are inconsistent. Perhaps you would like to expand?

Thirdly, to be an Atheist, I think, is just as difficult if not more so than to be a Theist. If you are an Atheist, it does not mean that you don't believe in God. Rather, it means you believe there is no god. This second statement is much more pointed and dense.

Occam's Razor is a principle of science that basically says that given competing theories, the simplest theory is the best choice. (I am paraphrasing.) From that point of view, to attribute all the unknowns in the present and history of the World to One source and call it God is a much more simplistic theory than not to resolve those unknowns within one's own being. Even believing there is nothing outside of the Universe still requires belief . . . a personal stand.

Occam's Razor I won't even bother explaining this to you as it has already been refuted earlier in the thread - I suggest that you read up on it.

[Backglass]

Instead, I believe that the teachings of Jesus lead to a life of peace and an ability to live in the Infinite Now. I believe in the unseen, but not in the Church. These beliefs have evolved over time, and coming from a Catholic background, but with a personal faith inconsistent with the church, I can definitely relate to what you are saying about the feeling of being far different from what seems like the prevailing culture.

Interesting. I have never doubted that Jesus existed and was probably quite the public speaker and teacher. The basic tenets of christianity are sound (no need to review with this crowd ) but it's the god/demons/supernatural/magical stories that most (it seems) take as being true that make me shake my head.

Why people believe that a storybook written 2000+ years ago is 100% accurate and without question, I will never know.

[dnucci]

Well, I agree with you there. Fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible is untenable and laughable. Literally interpreted, the Bible contradicts itself, science, and common sense. The bottom line is that if there is a Universal, Infinite God, then it certainly cannot be contained within the limited system of language. Thus, when Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven he could only speak in parables. He couldn't say what it was, he could only say what it was like. "It is like a mustard seed." "It is like a man plowing a field". AND he spoke through his deeds.

So, to me, to be a Christian is to act like Christ. I hesitate to call myself a Christian, because to say that I act like Christ would be quite arrogant.

I also have a hard time with the angels and the harps and the fair-tale depiction of this weird place called "heaven". However . . . I will say that religions throughout the world have similar fantastic and phantasmal components, and that the super-natural story-telling of it is not without value. After all, facts and truth are not the same thing, and the metaphors inherent in religious and folk tales contain a universal power even if we don't understand it with our minds.

[nunz]

what i don't get is that there very plainly IS proof of evolution, just look at all the animals humans have created

e.g some stone age people decided to tame wolves, and a couple of thousand years down the line we have a completely new species-dogs!

ditto collosus' red junglefowl -> chicken thing.

Thats not evolution. A wolf and a dog ae the same species but with differing characteristics. The easiest anology is that negros and caucasians are of the same species but differing characteristics. Humans are humans are humans. Dogs are wolves or at least dogs are a member of the sub group of the species c lupus - of which the wolf is a member. End of story. See below. (cite = wikipaedia)

Wolf:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus

Domestic dog:
Domain: Eukaryota
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiari

[nunz]

Wow, nunz. This is clearly a useless effort on my part. There are countless books on embryology that deal with the development of eggs in various species (including the chicken). My arguments (which you say aren't arguments, but whatever) are based on years of work in studying the evolutionary development of reproduction.

I'll be quite blunt here. Your tone is arrogant. Your main methods of proof have thus far been assumption (which is the mother of all ...), derision and contempt. So far, not one item of proof or a single fact as rebuttal. If this kind of ridicule is the best proof you can offer as rebuttal against my post then thank goodness I have not spent years studying evolution like you.
Would you care to cite even one previous instance of proof or logical rebuttal against my chicken and egg argument you have made so far? Just one!! Stating I am wrong and derision doesn't count as either proof or logical rebuttal.


Do I sound pissed off? Sure I am. At least I have had the consideration to lay out a logical line of thought as requested by people in the other forum. All you have done is mock and ridicule. How about using that brain of yours to actually use logic, scientific proof or something similar to discuss the issue at hand. Your tone and ridicule does you no favours.

This forum is nowhere near long enough to fully address rebuttals to Behe's arguments of irreducible complexity (which I assume you have read as Gospel).

As for your assumption about behe ... never read him so please be careful what you assume. Does not reading behe make me ignorant? No. Not unless you are also ignorant for not reading all the science books I have read.

For the sake of brevity, here is a link to one of hundreds of rebuttals to Behe that have been offered by the biochemical community.

http://www.btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm

Thanks looking forward to reading it.

Beyond that, I'm done trying to talk sense in here. It is clearly futile. Thanks for the compliment, Guiscard, but it is indescribably frustrating to try to convince someone like nunz that there are reasonable conclusions to be made and that the literal view of the Genesis creation story isn't reasonable.

Another assumption - In fact in previous posts I have stated I am not sure about six day literalism or ID either ... but I do know enough to figure out what is flawed logic.
I am neither a fundamentalist (most anglicans aren't) nor a died in the wool six day literalist. Be careful what you assume. I have already stated some of my preconceptions, doubts and beliefs. none of them said I believe in a literal six days. [url] http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ht=#371281
[/url]

Assumption leads to all sorts of mistakes. Unfortunately much evolutionary theory seems to be based on assumptions made without any form of empirical evidence or a clear chain of evidence.

However, you have a clear case of not reading things correctly or reading into things. You are working on assumptions which are patently false. The assumptions about my beliefs are clouding your answers to me. That kind of mistake might also be permeating your thoughts about evolution versus creation. Here are some places and posts you are ignoring regarding my beliefs. Be careful of your assumptions:!!
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ght=371270
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ht=#371281
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ght=371331

Ultimately the irreducible complexity argument is just a fancy way of saying that evolution must be wrong because evolutionary theory cannot connect ALL of the dots.

If there was a creator, then irreducible complexity is easily answered. There is no rebuttal to that argument or logic.
However, there is nothing in evolutionary theory, based on sound facts or logic or evidence, that can explain the chicken and egg (and many other cases or irreducible complexity). There is also no clear chain of evidence of any logical progression in the fossil records, ongoing evolution happening now or any other reason, other than some ones thought up theory, to explain the egg, or the eye, or many other items used as examples of irreducible complexity. All we have are ideas, but they are not based on evidence that could be considered slightly solid.

As for your upcoming explanation regarding the 'impossibility' of viable DNA/protein formation (I can't wait!), since Behe has published his book, RNA molecules have been shown to self catalyze their own formation and to be independently capable of synthesizing and replicating DNA, as well as performing their known role in construction of proteins. All of the necessary evidence for RNA molecules being capable of making more RNA, DNA, and proteins now exists in the scientific literature. Obviously, all of the primitive forms of RNA haven't been isolated and demonstrated, so HOW it happened remains unknown, but the possibility of it happening is pretty well documented at this point.

The impossibility is also documented. - Ref Parker.

The dismissal of an explanation for a phenomenon based on missing details is contrary to the logical drawing of conclusions that humans engage in every day. If you're standing in the jungle and see the trees and bushes in the distance ......

That logic also goes towards proof for a creator. It cuts both ways. ID is based on the assumption or type of thinking. Sorry - that argument is null and void as it can be used for creation and evolution. It is also FUD - A generic idea used to widely cast a doubt on my logic process without a specific application. Colossus - it is the equivalent of a smoke screen. Noise and froth and no substance. I could use the same logic to dispel arguments about santa claws (Kelvin), the tooth fairy or your existence.

For people like you, nunz,

You don't know me colossus and as your post shows, the evidence about me given by myself to explain what I think has been ignored by you....

who fail to realize that science is about disproving things, not proving them,

Err WRONG!!!!!
Newton proved gravity via the apple, copernicus, galeleo and other proved planets and orbits via maths and science, Newton proved laws of physiscs via experiments, the curries proved the propertiesof radioactivty via experimentation, .......
Science experiments are about proving or disproving a theory. What school did you go to that says you cannot find proof for an idea in science?

evolution will never be an acceptable conclusion because you will always only see the holes.

Holes I am prepared to live with ... complete absence of proof I am not. Theories based on flawed logic I am not prepared to live with. Many of the basic tenants of evolution are based on ideas based on other ideas based on a speculation. The foundations are not well laid out for evolution. There is too little evidence anywhere to start believing.

If that is what you choose to believe, I can respect that, but for you (or your ilk) to present 'scientific' evidence is an insult to the intelligence of everyone here.

You arrogant bastard. How dare you presume to put yourself as some kind of superior being just because you believe something I (or my ilk - based on your faulty assumptions) don't believe. To say you respect is sheer bollocks. You have no respect in your attitude, arguments or tone of your replies. You insult my intelliegence ( and that of my ilk based on your faulty understanding of my ilk - whatever the hell that is ) . To put yourself above us is an insult. To make believe you have offered scientific proof is an insult. I am happy to trade ideas, discuss theories, debate possibilities but so far you have derided, insulted and abused me (and my ilk). Like the title says, assumption is the mother of ... and as I wrote later, abuse and insults do not equate to any form of proof.
My suggestion to you is get off your high horse, stop hiding behind big fancy words and what ever reputation you think you have and debate in logical, sensible terms your beliefs about evolution. So far you haven't offered one rebuttal to the chicken and egg except to now in this post suggest I read some other source.

Furthermore, irreducible complexity gives no argument against the disagreements between geological timelines and the 6 days of creation of an earth that is supposedly only 4000 - 6000 years old.

Again my subject line. I never said it did. This FUD again goes no where near offering any rebuttal or proof to the post. Come on Colossus - use that brain of yours and debate. Show us your powers of deductive reasoning, your ability to take complex ideas and explain them simply and succinctly.
Stop assuming - both about me, what I think, what others may think and also assuming your beliefs about evolution are correct. Prove it. Debate, think logically, discuss. Use facts. Refute what I have said using evidence.
I dare you!!.


[/quote]

[bob3603]

This thread is useless, you can only prove things in mathematics. You can't even prove things in science.

A mathematical proof and a scientific proof are very different things.

A mathematical proof is deductive, while all scientific proofs are inductive.
When you say that there is no proof in science, I think what you mean is that there is no doubt whatsoever that it is false; whereas in mathematics 2+2 (always and never any other)= 4 where as a "proof" in science means that it is the best possible explanation for a thing that has not been proven wrong. so yes I would agree with you... Deductively, proof belongs to mathematics and Logic.. Inductively however, Science is perfectly legitimized in making a proof (the way someone is proven to be guilty).

Yeah, what I was trying to say is that 'proofs' in science aren't absolute as in math proofs and therefore one could usually make up some crazy explanation for why things happen (outside of scientific theory) that can't be proven wrong. If people believe that this is the way things happen it is fairly useless to argue with them, since you can't prove them wrong.

[ClessAlvein]

(Re: Colossus' arrogance)

There are entire biochemical and evolution biology courses devoted to explaining, among other things, why a concept you have firmly in your mind as an "egg" is, in fact, continuous. Colossus may not have used the best of tones in explaining why you are wrong, but he is correct about your misunderstanding of evolutionary biology - there is an entire world of knowledge in this area. Simply your statement that an egg is an "all-or-none" event shows that you have really no background in this; not that it's your fault - not everyone can be a biochemist, after all - but no one is about to explain several year's worth of biochemistry and evolutionary biology to you in order to press a philosophical point here. He will never explain all of biochemistry to you in order to refute your "chicken and egg" point, not because he's an arrogant bastard, but because he can't, as asking for such a refutation demonstrates a misunderstanding of the processes behind the "chicken and egg" point in the first place.

(irreducible complexity)

I will explain the fundamental flaw in your "scientific" argument here as clearly as I can - first of all, an abstract concept like origin of the universe (or life, if you like) cannot be tested, thus making it absolutely not a scientific question. Second, you have only presented two hypotheses to a very broad and vague question. Just what amounts to the "beginning"? Thirdly, you have attempted to reject your null hypothesis of "scientific explanation" by saying that it cannot possibly explain something - well, for one, that is a subjective statement based on your own chain of reasoning and a thought experiment and cannot be considered as evidence by any account, and second, saying that a null hypothesis cannot explain something is never sufficient ground to reject it. You must have physical evidence that directly contradicts the null hypothesis, and not just any old imagined scenario, no matter how many whimsical links it may have to the aforementioned theories.

Science experiments are about proving or disproving a theory.

If you believe this, then I'm afraid you don't quite understand the fundamental concept of science. Scientific experiments are always conducted with the objective of disproving a null hypothesis or supporting an original hypothesis, never in an attempt to prove the original hypothesis. Such an attempt would be futile. If you observe a million white swans, then you may say with some certainty that it's likely that all swans are white, but you may never say that you have proven that all swans are white, because one black swan will disprove your theory.

In fact, simply by naming this thread "Proofs for Creationism" and then touting the scientific method as your method of getting these proofs in the first post, you have created an irreconcilable conflict - science will never "prove" anything, so you will never "prove" creationism.

(Re: "complete absence of proof" for evolution)

There is considerable literature delving into the support of evolution. If you are talking about evolution in terms of the origin of life, then sure, things are a little hazy on that front, and no one would be ashamed to admit it. If you're talking about everyday microevolution, however, you can be almost certain that it exists. Countless articles support the evolutionary model, and it has become a basic founding pillar for many of the modern sciences we have today, such as microbiology, molecular genetics, or pathobiology. It is as central to biology as the concept of interactions is to physics. Many scientists have proposed theories based on tracing, retroactively, the process of evolution. I believe this is where you have the most problems with, but again, it is a gradient - the further back you go in time, the less evidence we are able to gather.

[Iliad]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

[Neutrino]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

But the Universe isnt endless. It is 16 (or whatever the accepted number is now) Billion years old and has roughly the same number of lightyears in radius (unless you happen to be a Steady Stater, in which case, it is infinite in space and time). It has a definite begining and end, or at least, thats what the commonly accepted theory tells us. Many people consider Steady State theory (the one you seem to be advocating) to be more logical as you dont have to think about what may be outside this ever-expanding universe of ours.

[Iliad]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

But the Universe isnt endless. It is 16 (or whatever the accepted number is now) Billion years old and has roughly the same number of lightyears in radius (unless you happen to be a Steady Stater, in which case, it is infinite in space and time). It has a definite begining and end, or at least, thats what the commonly accepted theory tells us. Many people consider Steady State theory (the one you seem to be advocating) to be more logical as you dont have to think about what may be outside this ever-expanding universe of ours.

I think you missed my point. My point is scientists think flexibly. We can think about having a universe without a beginning or end. I'm not saying it's true and I don't believe in that particular theory but scientists can imagine that.Creationists on the other hand they have to believe that god created the universe. I think I may have expressed my point wrong in that post, causing the misunderstanding.

[heavycola]

Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem proved that no system can be complete. So thinking is by its very nature limited.

Godel's theorem proved that no formal system can be both complete AND consistent. It may be complete and inconstitent, it may also be incomplete and consistent. In fact what he actually said was in German but to paraphrase in English:

'All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions.'

This is beside the point anyway as human minds are inconsistent. Perhaps you would like to expand?

I just read a jawdropping book - of which I understood only about 75% - called The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose. One of his sugestions is that Godel's theorem can help show how consciousness is non-algorithmic - by using insight to understand why systems are incomplete where pure mathematics cannot. Then he bangs on about consciousness depending on quantum-level effects that we don;t fuly understand yet. Then I lost consciousness.


Dnucci my sig is only a wind-up.

[Neutrino]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

But the Universe isnt endless. It is 16 (or whatever the accepted number is now) Billion years old and has roughly the same number of lightyears in radius (unless you happen to be a Steady Stater, in which case, it is infinite in space and time). It has a definite begining and end, or at least, thats what the commonly accepted theory tells us. Many people consider Steady State theory (the one you seem to be advocating) to be more logical as you dont have to think about what may be outside this ever-expanding universe of ours.

I think you missed my point. My point is scientists think flexibly. We can think about having a universe without a beginning or end. I'm not saying it's true and I don't believe in that particular theory but scientists can imagine that.Creationists on the other hand they have to believe that god created the universe. I think I may have expressed my point wrong in that post, causing the misunderstanding.

Ahh, I see, I thought you were arguing for the Steady State theory, with the 'scientists are more flexible' thing as an Addendum.

Though, I would have to point out that scientists are more flexable only in general. Scientists are humans just like any other person and are equally capable of clinging to a cherished idea in the face of evidence.

[heavycola]

One point creationists make is that someone must have started it all. There must have been a beginning. But why?
Can you imagine the universe? Inifnite, as in there is no end, no start no end, just endless space. If you could imagine that why can't you imagine infinite time. No start no end? I'm not saying there was no end but I'm just saying that creationists sometimes do not think flexible enough. Logic and reasoning tells us everything must have a start and a beginning. Yet Einstein's Theory of relativity defies logic and reason. Creationists do not think flexible enough compared to scientists.

But the Universe isnt endless. It is 16 (or whatever the accepted number is now) Billion years old and has roughly the same number of lightyears in radius (unless you happen to be a Steady Stater, in which case, it is infinite in space and time). It has a definite begining and end, or at least, thats what the commonly accepted theory tells us. Many people consider Steady State theory (the one you seem to be advocating) to be more logical as you dont have to think about what may be outside this ever-expanding universe of ours.

I think you missed my point. My point is scientists think flexibly. We can think about having a universe without a beginning or end. I'm not saying it's true and I don't believe in that particular theory but scientists can imagine that.Creationists on the other hand they have to believe that god created the universe. I think I may have expressed my point wrong in that post, causing the misunderstanding.

Ahh, I see, I thought you were arguing for the Steady State theory, with the 'scientists are more flexible' thing as an Addendum.

Though, I would have to point out that scientists are more flexable only in general. Scientists are humans just like any other person and are equally capable of clinging to a cherished idea in the face of evidence.

Well Darwin came in for a LOAD of bother. But his theory survived and persisted despite overturning etsablished - ie judao-christian - thought entirely.

[Guilty_Biscuit]

I just read a jawdropping book - of which I understood only about 75% - called The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger Penrose. One of his sugestions is that Godel's theorem can help show how consciousness is non-algorithmic - by using insight to understand why systems are incomplete where pure mathematics cannot.

I shall have to read that book heavycola - it sounds like it touches on one of the subjects in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hoffstadter, if you enjoyed The Emperor's new mind I'd strongly reccommend that you get your hands on a copy of GEB. I can't sing it's praises enough!

[dnucci]

Yah I have read GEB. I used to be a math teacher and used to teach my kids about Penrose tiling. Penrose tiling is a system of tesselation that produces an infinite, yet aperdiodic tiling. very cool. I haven't read the book you cite Heavycola, but it sounds good. The idea that consciousness is non-algorithmic I think is a theme in GEB as well. GEB spends a lot of time talking about whether or not artificial intelligence is possible. I think Hofstadter is pretty solid on his take on why it is not and it is because consciousness is non-algorithmic.

In fact, one of the themes of GEB is that meaning cannot be held within a system but must come from outside a system. If you start with the premise that the best system would have the most breadth and the most depth (in other words the widest coverage to the deepest detail) then the ultimate system would be an exact replica of the Universe. yet, if that system is to have meaning, then it must come from outside the Universe. So, my take on that is . . . if you believe that there is a cosmic meaning to the Universe, then it must come from outside the Universe, and that which is outside the Universe, we would call God.

[Guiscard]

Nunz, your post on the previous page came out as more arrogant and closed-minded than any post yet in this nthread. Colossus HAS posted a rebuttal, or a link to one, for every argument you've made. They have been posted in an intelligent and readable way without resorting to science-babble, which I'm sure would have been easier as he is a biochemist.

The reason he declares that his efforts are useless is precisely because you have not posted a single rebuttal of the proofs he has been given other than, in essence, to shout 'irreducible complexity' and 'your examples are wrong because it doesn't exist!'

Of course a creator answers your questions about irreducible complexity, but you have to remember Colossus is a theist to. He too believes in a creator, and in Jesus Christ, but he has the confidence to investigate evolution for himself (and indeed, make science his profession) and I'm sure there have been points where his scientific learning has overturned previous beliefs.

He has every right to feel insulted by your constant flouting of 'scientific evidence' when, in reality, all you have presented is the theory of irreducible complexity to which several successful rebuttals have been posted.

Edit: And Nunz, you do realise that the theory of irreducible complexity was originally proposed and developed by the biochemist Michael Behe, and that to make these arguments without having read his work seems entirely ignorant. Colossus gave you the grace to assume you had read widely in the field, and posted a lengthy rebuttal, yet you declared you didn't know who Behe was! Who's being arrogant and presumptive again? This is the reason why Colossus feels your 'scientific method is insulting.

[alex_white101]

people still believe in creationism?!?!? but but but but all the scientific evidence and common sense clearly states otherwise. i mean i dont know a lot about it, but enough, so that i would realise its pointless to argue against people that know what they are talking about. they tend to make creationists just look a bit thick........

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Yah I have read GEB. I used to be a math teacher and used to teach my kids about Penrose tiling. Penrose tiling is a system of tesselation that produces an infinite, yet aperdiodic tiling. very cool..

That's how I want my drive paved!

In fact, one of the themes of GEB is that meaning cannot be held within a system but must come from outside a system. If you start with the premise that the best system would have the most breadth and the most depth (in other words the widest coverage to the deepest detail) then the ultimate system would be an exact replica of the Universe. yet, if that system is to have meaning, then it must come from outside the Universe. So, my take on that is . . . if you believe that there is a cosmic meaning to the Universe, then it must come from outside the Universe, and that which is outside the Universe, we would call God.

That is a pretty deep statement. Definateley one to mull over. The ultimate system would inevitably be wrought with potential paradoxes and 'stange loops'. Yes, meaning comes from outside of the system but I dispute that the ultimate system would be an exact replica of the Universe.

[Colossus]

Okay, first of all nunz, I apologize if my tone is one of arrogance. My difficulty in directly refuting your chicken and egg argument is that the premise is simply wrong. I stated this in my original reply but apparently did not do a good enough job. The problem with your chicken and egg argument is that the all-or-nothing proposal is incorrect. This is evidenced by countless examples of eggs from varying species that have varying degrees of egg shell, varying degrees of yolk, etc. Enumeration of these examples is very, very far beyond the possible scope of this forum, as ClessAlvein said so well. I will attempt, however, to sum up the ideas as best I can. References for any of this are countless, but if you want references on specific points, I'll be happy to offer them.

One of the central tenets of the theory of natural selection is that small advantageous mutations are preserved in a population by making those individuals who have them very slightly better able to produce viable offspring able to survive. This is commonly referred to as competitive advantage. Mutations occur all the time; this has been clearly demonstrated. The genetic compliment of the simplest multicellular organisms is on the order of billions of nucleotides, thus the cellular machinery must be incredibly precise and accurate in replicating the genome during development and life. Let's say that the replicating machinery only makes one error in one hundred thousand. That's still 10 errors in a 1 billion nucleotide genome. The true numbers are much worse than that, but are dependent on the organism, so this is a decent lower limit.

The vast majority of mutations are silent, meaning that they do not result in a change in the structure of the protein to which a gene gives rise. This is the result of redundancy and flexibility inherent in the genetic code, a property of the genetic code that is maintained in every organism ever studied. Every now and then, though, a mutation will cause the change of one amino acid in a protein.

Protein structure is a delicate thing. Most protein structures are only stable to the tune of 5-10 kilocalories per mole of protein. The amount of energy available simply at human body temperature is 0.6 kilocalories per mole, so proteins are only stable by 10-20x the energy of ambient temperature. The energy released by spontaneous chemical reactions is often on the order of a few kilocalories per mole. Protein structure is stabilized by a delicate balance of strong interactions with water and weak water-repellance as well as strong interactions between amino acids (which are the individual components of a protein). Disruption or addition of a single interaction within a protein can destabilize or stabilize, respectively, a protein by 0.5-3 kilocalories per mole, thus a single mutation can have a large effect on the stability of a protein's structure, and therefore also on its function. Through this effect, mutations give rise to phenotype, which is a change in the measurable function of the gene product.

In the vast majority of cases, the effect of mutation is negative, disrupting the function of the protein produced by the mutated gene. Rarely, the mutation produces a protein that performs its function in a better fashion. In these cases, if the effect is large enough to result in advantage on the organismal level, competitive advantage is conferred to the mutant organism and its offspring.

Within the context of an egg, we can consider one the factors you mentioned. I will simplify by just addressing the issue of the eggshell here, but the argument applies to each of the egg components you mentioned. According to evolutionary theory, the earliest egglayers would have been aquatic since egg-laying behavior clearly predates land-going animals. Eggs in water require only a jelly-like consistency to stay together; they do not require a shell. It is easily demonstrable in the lab that just about any high concentration mixture of glycoproteins (proteins with carbohydrates attached to them) will maintain a gel-like state. It is also known that the majority of the cell contents are composed of a tight packing of glycoproteins. The ratio of protein to carbohydrate modulates the degree of gel-ness (a bit like adding more or less water to jell-o gives you a mushier or harder result). So, let us suppose that the first egg-layer (which was likely very similar to the hydra, which I mentioned before) simply fertilized an egg cell and released it into the water. Surely, the chances of survival for that egg might not have been great. This is where the odds are in nature's favor, however.

Everything in nature is based on probability, and, as I alluded to in my first response to the chicken and egg post, when you are talking about millions of organisms reproducing at once with each of them undergoing at least 10 mutations, the odds are good that an advantageous mutation will result. If one examines the egg-laying organisms, it is almost universally seen that the more poorly protected the egg of an organism is, the more eggs it lays. Thus we see fish and amphibians and aquatic invertebrates that lay thousands of eggs at a time skewing the odds in their favor. This idea is one of the central points of population genetics, which is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Furthermore, the earliest sexual reproducers were probably like the hydra in that they were able to reproduce both sexually and asexually, so survival of the species was not dependent on fertilized egg survival.

So, all it takes is one aquatic invertebrate having a mutation to an egg structural glycoprotein that causes it to form a matrix (which is what glycoproteins do simply because of the physics of their composition) that hardens slightly when exposed to dilute water such as exists at the periphery of the cell. As we know, cells are bounded by a membrane, so this glycoprotein must be exuded into or through the membrane, but our understanding of glycoproteins shows that this is a very common thing for cells to do with glycoproteins. The interactions between glycoproteins are very sensitive to the protein structure and the degree of carbohydrate substitution, so a single mutation causing stronger matrix formation when exposed to the dilute solution outside the cell is not unreasonable. This statement comes from our knowledge of polymer chemistry and physics, which is also beyond the scope of this discussion.

So, we now have an egg in solution that has a little bit of a shell that helps protect it from the harsh conditions of floating around. It has a better chance of surviving than its counterparts that lack this mutation, it survives and passes on the slight shellish coating to its progeny. This happens repeatedly over millenia. The aquatic invertebrate evolves into an aquatic vertebrate which evolves into a fish which evolves into an amphibian because the ability to exist in the shallows gives an advantage because there are fewer predators in the shallows. Eventually, it is advantageous to lay eggs in the extreme shallows, shallows that are exposed to air. Here again, we can see an example of where another single mutation that causes the slight shell to become slightly stronger and more water impermeable gives important competitive advantage. The amphibian becomes able to lay its eggs completely out of the water with their leathery shell, it protects them by burying them in the sand, as we see with many turtles and lizards for example. And so on and so on.

So basically my argument against the chicken and egg irreducible complexity is that the premise of the all-or-nothing mutation is flawed because it ignores the benefits of time, the changing environment through the course of organismal evolution, and the power of statistical advantage described by the theories of population genetics. The irreducible complexity argument with respect to the egg as you stated it makes the assumption that the first organism to lay an egg was a chicken. The problem with this assumption is that it is wrong. There is strong evidence from the fossil record and from molecular genetics that egg-laying practices date to long before the chicken, back when all of the components that are required for a chicken egg to survive were not necessary because the 'first' egg-laying organism likely lived in an aquatic environment where dessication, oxygen-exchange, and a sequestered energy source were not necessary for survival.

I hope that argument (crazy-long as it is) provides some clearer reasons why the all-or-nothing chicken and egg scenario is a flawed means of demonstrating supposed irreducible complexity. I could make a similar argument for the eye citing known organisms that have primitive eye structures reminiscent of the likely evolutionary steps of eye development, but I won't get into that for the sake of my sanity and the sanity of everyone else, too.

Also, nunz, I supported your first point in this argument and argued strenuously for it. In that argument you said that science had not disproven God, therefore we must start with the premise that God is a possible explanation for the unexplained. I supported this premise and argued quite extensively with Guilty Biscuit, heavycola, and others over it. So I'm not all bad guy here.

Secondly, your statement that science proves things is wrong. I'm sorry if that sounds arrogant or demeaning or elitist, but the central point of scientific investigation is in the disproving of testable hypotheses. Again, ClessAlvein described this better than I could. Newton didn't prove gravity by dropping the apple, he merely demonstrated it. You're correct that some physical principles can be mathematically proven, but general scientific theories are not provable, only disprovable. Efforts to 'prove' scientific theories are at the center of much of the worst, most irresponsible science being done today (hence my visceral response), and the idea that scientists prove things is one of the central reasons that the general public has an overinflated faith in science for answers. Belief in the ability of science to prove anything is exactly the kind of thinking that keeps scientists married to ideas, so it is important for scientists and non-scientists to recognize that science does not prove, it disproves only. Thus the development of well-tested, reliable theories and 'laws' is a huge long process of eliminating the other possible explanations for phenomena.

I agree that science has not eliminated God as an explanation. But irreducible complexity is demonstrably wrong through an examination of the wondrous variety that nature has to offer. We can see virtually every macroscopic biological feature at a wide variety of stages of development if we examine many organisms that live in different environments. Thus the assumption of all-or-nothing change as a requirement is not a reasonable one.

Would you please offer more of a reference for the disproving of RNA catalytic function than just 'Parker'? The scientific literature is full of parkers. I'm interested to read this evidence. Thanks.

[redtide]

The first question in any proof giving for creationism (other than defining what creationism is) has to be:
Has God been disproved
or Is it possible there might be a God or Gods (supreme sentient power able to create all we know).

If solid evidence for there being no god ever can be given then the argument about creationism is null and void. Without a creator there can be no creation.

For this discussion to make any sense a first premise must be agreed on by atheists, agnostics and theists alike. That premise is as follows:

There is no empirical proof that god does not exist. Until we have all knowledge about all things and that knowledge covers all time then there is the possibility a god or creator might exist or have existed. This premise makes no claims about a creator(s) other than the creator might have had enough power to create all we currently know. Whether that creator be god, mortal or alien species matters not.

All that matters for this discussion is that there is no emperical evidence that there never was a creator.

Can we agree on this as a first premise? If not then the scientific discussion which might follow would be null, void and a total waste of time.

I'm just jumping into this thread, but to answer the question above:

NO

We can not agree on that as a premise. If you make something up and then say there is no proof against it, how does that make any sense? Until there is at least a shred of evidence that something exists, the only possible conclusion is that it in fact does not exist.