Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signature in the cell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    You are claiming it is arrogance because there might be other explanations. So you have the burden of proof of your claim, I can't prove a negative.

    This is really basic stuff, Lighthouse. Are you up to the conversation?

    Stuart
    I never asked you to prove a negative, idiot. You really are stupid.

    I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
      Your best example was formed by God (Jer 1:5) and dies (Ge 2:17; Eze 18:4).
      Makes no difference. I realize you are not a scientist. I wish Henry Morris, and Adrian were here to fend for themselves. All I can do is ask you the same direct questions I would put to them. I will keep them simple, yet technically correct.

      From the Henry Morris article that you linked to:
      no exception to the law of increasing entropy has ever been observed …
      and
      the entropy principle applies as much to open systems as to closed systems.

      Now the questions:

      1) Is a growing child is an open system? That means is energy and/or matter permitted to flow into or out of the system (the child)?

      2) Is a growing child a) increasing or b) decreasing in entropy? If decreasing, then the physical structure of the growing child is increasing in either a) useable energy content, or equivalently, b) overall organization of the molecules that comprise the body.

      If the entropy of the child is decreasing, and it is an open system, then according to Morris the Second Law is being violated. Nowhere does Morris exempt living things from the Second Law (nor does any secular physicist or biologist that I know of).

      But does that mean I think the Second Law is in fact being violated in the growth of a child? No, not at all. Henry Morris’ understanding of it is shallow enough that he constructed a parody of what it really says, especially as regards open systems.
      [ You cannot get molecules to man evolution.
      A modicum of honesty on your part would keep you from throwing in silly comments like that, when the subject is very pointedly whether or not Morris’ and Adrian’s claims about the Second Law are valid.
      "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." full text: Is There Really a God?
      Why are you trying to change the subject? Entropy, remember, not information. Stand up and defend what your apologists said about the Second Law, or admit you can’t do it.
      ** Enyart is impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are gravitationally bound.

      And ... Enyart is also impressed by Job saying the stars in the Belt of Orion are NOTgravitationally bound.

      Which shows Enyart doesn’t understand what Job was actually saying about Orion at all. **

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        I never asked you to prove a negative, idiot. You really are stupid.
        Charmed, I'm sure.
        I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.
        You are asking me to prove that no better explanation exists. That would be attempting to prove a negative.

        Not me that's stupid.

        Stuart

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by DavisBJ View Post
          I wish Henry Morris, and Adrian were here to fend for themselves.
          I don't think we really wish that, do we? Both were rank liars.

          Stuart

          Comment


          • #95
            Ad hominem. He was a fine servant of the Lord.
            Whose religion told him that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to others. That's not the lord you want to be serving.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              Charmed, I'm sure.

              You are asking me to prove that no better explanation exists. That would be attempting to prove a negative.

              Not me that's stupid.

              Stuart
              Actually I am only asking you to prove that Dawkin's explanation is better than all other available ones. But if you can't do that then you shouldn't make the claim that his is the best.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                Actually I am only asking you to prove that Dawkin's explanation is better than all other available ones. But if you can't do that then you shouldn't make the claim that his is the best.
                OK, since that trivial aspect of it appears to be causing you some cognitive problems, I'll retract the claim that he has the best explanation (which cannot be proved, only disproved as I explained) and propose that in fact he has the only statement that amounts to any kind of explanation.

                Disproving that would require an alternative statement that has at least as much explanatory power as Dawkins's one about the spontaneous nature of the chemical processes and incremental changes that led to cells, which is based on some good scientific modeling even if it is not based on actual evidence from the first cells, which is understandably going to be virtually impossible to find and distinguish.

                Do you have an alternative explanation that disproves my claim? Otherwise I stand by it and only have to demonstrate that it IS an explanatory claim, and state the obvious that no one else has put forward an equivalent alternative. That is how science works, you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove.

                Stuart

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                  OK, since that trivial aspect of it appears to be causing you some cognitive problems, I'll retract the claim that he has the best explanation (which cannot be proved, only disproved as I explained) and propose that in fact he has the only statement that amounts to any kind of explanation.

                  Disproving that would require an alternative statement that has at least as much explanatory power as Dawkins's one about the spontaneous nature of the chemical processes and incremental changes that led to cells, which is based on some good scientific modeling even if it is not based on actual evidence from the first cells, which is understandably going to be virtually impossible to find and distinguish.

                  Do you have an alternative explanation that disproves my claim? Otherwise I stand by it and only have to demonstrate that it IS an explanatory claim, and state the obvious that no one else has put forward an equivalent alternative. That is how science works, you cannot prove anything, you can only disprove.

                  Stuart
                  Actually the only claim you can make that can be substantiated about this is that no one else has given an explanation that you find as equally satisfactory.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    It's really mind boggling to imagine that this is going on right now inside our bodies.
                    Signature in the cell
                    Meyers claims that the "information" involved in the genetic code and directed protein synthesis was directly manufactured by God. He is mistaken.

                    The "information" comes from chemistry and natural selection. Ironically, it is Meyers' ID colleague William Dembski that irrefutably shows that natural selection creates information.
                    If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                      I asked you to prove that Dawkins has the best explanation.
                      Dawkins has nothing to do with this, so let's leave him out as a boogeyman.

                      Information arises from chemistry in that not all chemical reactions are equally possible. Nor is the formation of all proteins equally possible. There is internal ordering in proteins made by abiogenic processes (chemistry): http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

                      Life arises fron non-living chemicals by chemistry. It has been done. The reactions are so easy and common that you can make living cells in your own kitchen or backyard.

                      Now, once the first cells exist, then comes the "genetic code", which is actually shorthand for "directed protein synthesis". This, in turn, is shorthand for having the sequence of bases in RNA/DNA specify the sequence of amino acids in proteins. This comes about thru a combination of chemistry and natural selection. Once you have RNA, then Darwinian evolution is the process to get to directed protein synthesis. Some articles dealing with the subject in detail (and explaining how Meyers is wrong) are:

                      1. Alberti, S The origin of the genetic code and protein synthesis. J. Mol. Evol. 45: 352-358, 1997.
                      1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf
                      2. P S Schimmel and R Alexander, All you need is RNA. Science 281:658-659, Jul. 31, 1998. Describes research showing that RNA in ribosomes sufficient to make proteins. Intermediate step in going from abiogenesis to genetic code.
                      3. http://compbiol.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030139 Paper showing evolution of stable proteins.
                      4. Margaret E. Saks, Jeffrey R. Sampson, John Abelson Evolution of a transfer RNA gene through a point mutation in the anticodon. Science, 279, Number 5357 Issue of 13 March 1998, pp. 1665 - 1670
                      5. David H. Ardell and Guy Sella No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic codePhil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002 357, 1625-1642
                      http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/357/1427/1625.long
                      If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                        Who is this guy named Science? Does he have a last name? Why are you interested in this fellow anyway? Scientists do have things to say about the bible all the time. Do you deny that?
                        Science is a discipline of study. It is a set of ideas.

                        Now, scientists are people. They can make statements as people, or they can make statements about science. Sometimes, individual scientists confuse those roles. For instance, on a personal level, Richard Dawkins is an atheist. That's his personal belief and its fine. However, what Dawkins does sometimes is state his personal belief as a conclusion of science. That he cannot do. Dawkins can say "I don't believe in God." That's fine. Dawkins can also say "Science shows a literal reading of Genesis 1-3 to be erroneous." What Dawkins cannot do is say "Science shows God does not exist." Do you see the differences in those statements?

                        Sometimes, like Dawkins, scientists deliberately try to portray their faith as a conclusion from science. More often, scientists are just careless about how they use language and accidentally say things that are anti-theist. What you need to do is learn whatthe stance of science is regarding the existence of God, God creating, and why science has this stance.

                        What you will find is that science is agnostic. Science cannot comment on whether God exists, whether God created the universe, or whether God supervises nature. Stephen Jay Gould stated science's position:
                        " To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists." SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/revie...-on-trial.html

                        Now that you know that, you can compare statements by individual scientists and know whether they are speaking for themselves as people or speaking about science.
                        If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lucaspa View Post
                          Dawkins has nothing to do with this, so let's leave him out as a boogeyman.
                          Stuu brought him up. Maybe you should read the discourse before you spout off.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                            Stuu brought him up. Maybe you should read the discourse before you spout off.
                            It doesn't matter who brought Dawkins up. He still has no part in the discussion.
                            If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by serpentdove View Post
                              God created (Ge 1:1).

                              See:

                              Genesis 1:1 by Henry Morris
                              But the question is HOW did God create? Did God create by the method proposed by creationism? Or did God create by the processes discovered by science.

                              Science is reading God's other book -- Creation -- and that books is the one where God tells us how He created. Genesis 1-3 are there for theological messages, not to tell how God created.

                              What you have done is misread the Bible and fail to listen to God.
                              If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by voltaire View Post
                                That doesn't stop the majority of the scientific community from making declarative statements regarding what is a fact.



                                I don't know who this science fellow is, but the philosophy of science states that nothing is ever certain.
                                That is not quite the case. The situation is that it is impossible, strictly speaking, to "prove" by either inductive or deductive logic. However, it is possible to disprove by deductive logic.

                                So the certain statements in science are the negative ones:
                                The earth is not flat.
                                The earth is not the center of the solar system.
                                Proteins are not the hereditary material.
                                Species are not fixed.
                                The earth is not less than 4 billion years old.
                                Etc.

                                What happens in science is that, after repeated attempts to falsify a hypothesis/theory (and in the process gaining supporting evidence), we accept a hypothesis/theory as provisionally true. We then use that hypothesis/theory as the basis of more complex explanations and new hypotheses/theories. Testing those new hypotheses/theories also are continuuing tests of the original hypothesis/theory.

                                Let's take an example from physics. We have the theory of heliocentrism: the planets (including earth) orbit the sun. We also have Kepler's theories of planetary motion (orbits are ellipses, etc.) and Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravity. We accept all of them as true. With those we plot the trajectories of spacecraft launched from earth to rendevous with other planets. Those trajectories are new hypotheses. When the spacecraft arrive when and where the hypotheses say they will, that becomes new supporting evidence for heliocentrism, Kepler's theories of planetary motion, and the theory of gravity.

                                Facts are, technically, repeated observations. However, notice that, in the example above, since theories predict repeated observations, those observations also intimately tied with the theory. That is why scientists often speak of some theories as "fact". Lay people do too. Nearly everyone speaks of "the earth is round" as a fact. I bet you do, too. Yet it is a theory.

                                Niles Eldredge does an excellent job of discussing how hypotheses/theories become "fact" in his book The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. I urge you to read it.



                                They place their trust in a doctor, not this fellow called science whose last name you guys never mention. There is no such thing as scripture based treatment, so you are talking about a nonexistent situation.




                                I've never done such a thing, so you must be talking to a figment of your imagination.



                                What does have to do with anything being discussed?





                                Did I say this science fellow was unreliable? Never met him, and still don't know his last name. Statements of fact coming from the mouths of scientists, however, have been wrong before. Does that make them unreliable? For ultimate truth, yes. As a means of getting to ultimate truth. no. I am not using science as an ultimate yardstick to judge scripture. All I am saying is that the pronouncements of scientists in the past regarding scripture have had to be retracted when further scientific knowledge is gained. The point is that pronouncements of scientists regarding the truthfulness of scripture are not final. They show scripture to wrong and then a hundred years later, they show scripture to be right.



                                And it could be that scripture is completely right about everything. Scientists have no business making truth claims about scripture period.



                                Serpent dove gave you a quote of adrian rogers. I referred you to her quote. If she or him were mistaken, oh well. I don't research every thing a poster says on this forum and neither do you punk. Go suck on a rotten egg while waiting on your list of 51.[/quote]
                                If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X