No scientific proof of god

[TaraMaiden]

I don't see the point of you positing these arguments unless you yourself find them valid, justifiable or convincing.

I don't.

I think they introduce scientific data, which has been the result of meticulous research and laboratory investigation - and then say "Well, that must be God's doing!" because it suits them to think that way.

 

They don't provide any direct link or connection between the certifiable, verifiable analysed scientific data, and their presumption that 'a higher power' must be at work.

They literally simply make a 'leap of faith'.

 

Which obviously, is no proof at all.

[therhythm]

I'm sure of it, but when the claim is peer-reviewed, and demonstrable, then yes, I accept that claim i.e. I accept the claim that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees because it can be demonstrated, and has been proven.

 

Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).

[TaraMaiden]

Yes, but only chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Therein lies the difference....

[therhythm]

I don't see the point of you positing these arguments unless you yourself find them valid, justifiable or convincing.

I don't.

I think they introduce scientific data, which has been the result of meticulous research and laboratory investigation - and then say "Well, that must be God's doing!" because it suits them to think that way.

 

They don't provide any direct link or connection between the certifiable, verifiable analysed scientific data, and their presumption that 'a higher power' must be at work.

They literally simply make a 'leap of faith'.

 

Which obviously, is no proof at all.

 

I didn't know that I had to believe in something to want to have a discussion about one topic... I like the theme and I like to see the questions and the answer from different people regarding that topic...

I think there are valid points on the assertions that you can't just disproof by saying that they literally make a leap of faith...

 

We all agree there is no plausible explanation to the beginning of all and they are trying to argument their claim and their arguments are as good or as bad as the ones that atheist try to use to disproof them...

[therhythm]

Yes, but only chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Therein lies the difference....

 

That is if you believe in the evolutionary theory

[TaxAHCruel]

The FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

Again this is not exactly true for the same reasons I laid out in the Aquinas arguments. They are all laws of our universe NOW. All our laws as we think we know them break down at Planck time "before" the Big Bang. So we simply do not know the above to be true in terms of the universe itself.

 

Further we know that particles are actually popping in and out of existence all the time. Read "A universe from nothing" by Krauss or watch his 1 hour lecture if your attention span does not extend to a book if you want more details on this.

 

Further _again_ interestingly enough if you add up all the energies and mass and gravity of the universe the sum total of it appears to amount to - brace yourself - 0. That is essentially not that we have gotten "something from nothing" but that we have got "nothing from nothing".

 

An analogy to mess with your head on this. Imagine you have no money at all but two bank accounts. One has an over draft facility. So you transfer 200 from bank X to bank Y. You still have no money. Yet you are able to go to the ATM of bank Y, take some money out, walk into a pub, and buy beer.

 

Essentially we HAVE got nothing. The universe and everything in it adds up to nothing. Something did not come from nothing exactly. Nothing just split up into different types.

 

The analogies and text above is not exact - it takes years of science study to really understand it - but suffice to say that the text from you above is really only part of the picture.

 

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

 

No - that is not what "evolutionists" teach as "better" is a subjective interpretation entirely absent from anything that the Theory of Evolution claims. The above is crassly and entirely false.

 

But it is not as bad as what follows:

 

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other.

 

No they do not. Quite the opposite. The Theory of Evolution is perfectly in tune with the 2nd law and does not violate it in ANY way.

 

The 2nd law requires a closed system for it to be true. The Earth is not a closed system. It is constantly being pumped with energy from outside.

 

And what is worse is this fact is something that in my country students are taught at age 12. So one wonders if creationists somehow fail to understand it at all - which is clearly bad - or are lying and pretending not to understand it - which is an unjustifiable and monumentally dishonest canard.

[TaxAHCruel]

Yes, but only chimps and humans have a common ancestor. Therein lies the difference....

 

Well yes and no. I see what you are saying above but it is not entirely correct.

 

EVERYTHING alive on the planet has a common ancestor. Pick any two things - a lizard and a bird - yourself and a cucumber. It does not matter. Somewhere you have a common ancestor back in the chain.

 

Draw a line on a paper and then split it in two and keep drawing. Then split them in two and keep drawing. Eventually you will have a LOT of lines continuing on. No matter what two points you pick you will be able to trace them back to a common point. The more divergent the points the further back you have to go to find the MRCA - but you always get one between any two points.

 

As such...

 

‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’

 

... this too is actually perfectly in line with evolution theory. We can find our most recent common ancestor for our species _as a whole_ but we can also pick one single feature and find a most recent common ancestor for it too. There is nothing challenging the Theory in this - it is exactly what we predict in science.

[therhythm]

Again this is not exactly true for the same reasons I laid out in the Aquinas arguments. They are all laws of our universe NOW. All our laws as we think we know them break down at Planck time "before" the Big Bang. So we simply do not know the above to be true in terms of the universe itself.

 

Further we know that particles are actually popping in and out of existence all the time. Read "A universe from nothing" by Krauss or watch his 1 hour lecture if your attention span does not extend to a book if you want more details on this.

 

Further _again_ interestingly enough if you add up all the energies and mass and gravity of the universe the sum total of it appears to amount to - brace yourself - 0. That is essentially not that we have gotten "something from nothing" but that we have got "nothing from nothing".

 

An analogy to mess with your head on this. Imagine you have no money at all but two bank accounts. One has an over draft facility. So you transfer 200 from bank X to bank Y. You still have no money. Yet you are able to go to the ATM of bank Y, take some money out, walk into a pub, and buy beer.

 

Essentially we HAVE got nothing. The universe and everything in it adds up to nothing. Something did not come from nothing exactly. Nothing just split up into different types.

 

The analogies and text above is not exact - it takes years of science study to really understand it - but suffice to say that the text from you above is really only part of the picture.

 

 

 

No - that is not what "evolutionists" teach as "better" is a subjective interpretation entirely absent from anything that the Theory of Evolution claims. The above is crassly and entirely false.

 

But it is not as bad as what follows:

 

 

 

No they do not. Quite the opposite. The Theory of Evolution is perfectly in tune with the 2nd law and does not violate it in ANY way.

 

The 2nd law requires a closed system for it to be true. The Earth is not a closed system. It is constantly being pumped with energy from outside.

 

And what is worse is this fact is something that in my country students are taught at age 12. So one wonders if creationists somehow fail to understand it at all - which is clearly bad - or are lying and pretending not to understand it - which is an unjustifiable and monumentally dishonest canard.

 

I honestly have to admit that this goes far and beyond my knowledge and understanding or capabilities (Never finished my high school so I won't pretend I have high knowledge of science) so I will take your word for it.

 

It does not change the fact that I won't pretend to know the unknowable... I don't know if God exists and I won't deny him either.. when plausible proof arise in one or other side I will (lack of evidence can be something that works for you but it does not work for me).

[TaxAHCruel]

I honestly have to admit that this goes far and beyond my knowledge and understanding or capabilities

 

I doubt that. While I have found some dishonest tactics in your posts on this thread - and disagree with some of your ideas - you are far from an idiot and the concept while complex is one we teach 12 year olds in my country.

 

If you take a minute or two I think you can comprehend it quite easily judging by your mental faculties thus far displayed. I may be being firm with you on this thread - but only because I recognise you as someone smart enough that you SHOULD know better. I generally do not waste my time on people who are wrong due to idiocy. Only on people who are wrong because they need a little updating of their data set / knowledge. You are the latter.

 

Let me make it really simple. Not to patronise you - but simply to help you. I will number the points. If one of them does not click with you tell me the number and I will break it down further. My time is your time.

 

1) The 2nd law says everything in the entire universe tends away from order and towards disorder. This is true. It is also true of any closed system you name - such as the ball rolling down the hill which was mentioned in the copy and paste you made.

 

2) What we mean by "closed system" here is that no energy or influence is being added from the outside.

 

3) What the creationists are doing is showing that evolution involves SOME things moving from disorder towards order. They declare this breaks the 2nd law. It does not:

 

4) Firstly the earth is not a closed system. The sun pumps energy into it every day. Energy which enters the chain of life at the bottom (through bacteria and plant life) and moves up the chain of life when consumed by "higher" forms of life.

 

5) Secondly the system still tends towards disorder as a whole. Individual parts of it get more complex and ordered - but at the expense of complexity and order elsewhere. When my eye was formed in the womb it added a certain amount of complexity to the system X - but the energy used to form it added disorder to the system Y. Y was > X.

 

6) Think of point 5 like going towards your destination by taking 10 steps forward but then always 9 steps back. You are moving forwards and backwards but as a whole ALWAYS forwards. Similarly on earth life moves towards order AND disorder but the NET TOTAL move is always towards disorder. Life exists because the sun pumps energy into the system and adds more order.

[therhythm]

I doubt that. While I have found some dishonest tactics in your posts on this thread - and disagree with some of your ideas - you are far from an idiot and the concept while complex is one we teach 12 year olds in my country.

 

If you take a minute or two I think you can comprehend it quite easily judging by your mental faculties thus far displayed. I may be being firm with you on this thread - but only because I recognise you as someone smart enough that you SHOULD know better. I generally do not waste my time on people who are wrong due to idiocy. Only on people who are wrong because they need a little updating of their data set / knowledge. You are the latter.

 

Let me make it really simple. Not to patronise you - but simply to help you. I will number the points. If one of them does not click with you tell me the number and I will break it down further. My time is your time.

 

1) The 2nd law says everything in the entire universe tends away from order and towards disorder. This is true. It is also true of any closed system you name - such as the ball rolling down the hill which was mentioned in the copy and paste you made.

 

2) What we mean by "closed system" here is that no energy or influence is being added from the outside.

 

3) What the creationists are doing is showing that evolution involves SOME things moving from disorder towards order. They declare this breaks the 2nd law. It does not:

 

4) Firstly the earth is not a closed system. The sun pumps energy into it every day. Energy which enters the chain of life at the bottom (through bacteria and plant life) and moves up the chain of life when consumed by "higher" forms of life.

 

5) Secondly the system still tends towards disorder as a whole. Individual parts of it get more complex and ordered - but at the expense of complexity and order elsewhere. When my eye was formed in the womb it added a certain amount of complexity to the system X - but the energy used to form it added disorder to the system Y. Y was > X.

 

6) Think of point 5 like going towards your destination by taking 10 steps forward but then always 9 steps back. You are moving forwards and backwards but as a whole ALWAYS forwards. Similarly on earth life moves towards order AND disorder but the NET TOTAL move is always towards disorder. Life exists because the sun pumps energy into the system and adds more order.

 

Thank you! That was indeed much more clear and understandable, thank you for taking the time to explain it!

I have a question for you, could you look to the theory of the DNA and see how that can be explain? I honestly would like to understand your view on it.

 

Other question, is the acceptance that before the Big Bang there were other laws not a leap of faith as big as saying that there was no Big Bang?

[TaxAHCruel]

It does not change the fact that I won't pretend to know the unknowable... I don't know if God exists and I won't deny him either.. when plausible proof arise in one or other side I will (lack of evidence can be something that works for you but it does not work for me).

 

But it does work for you. You have just been conditions by years of theists saying "You can not disprove god" to think it does not.

 

It takes a ridiculous example to bring it home but a little application of your mind makes it clear.

 

I used the example of me telling you that next time you go out of the house a VW microbus will materialise over your head - fall on you - and you will die.

 

Right now sitting there you have no evidence my claim is true. You also have no evidence my claim is false. Do you therefore maintain a 50:50 mental disconnect on the issue and refuse to deny the truth of my claim either way until such time as plausible proof arises on one or other side?

 

Clearly not.

 

Instead you recognize my claim to be baseless nonsense - devoid of any credibility or substantiation - and you dismiss it as such. While you have not 100% proved my claim false you _functionally_ have decided it to be and you act and live accordingly. You will reach and react and act by the most logical conclusion based on available evidence: That my claim was poppycock nonsense.

 

Further if I suddenly started asking for a tax from you for "Falling VW microbus protection / insurance" you would be in uproar. As you would be if I suggested we teach your children in school to act this way or that - and if they do not do so then the VW microbus will get them.

 

THIS is what atheism is. It is simply the functional conclusion there is no god based on available evidence and the refusal to live by any world view that makes the assumption there is one. Also the resistance of any application of that world view in our taxes - politics - education of our children - morality - how we do science - and so on.

 

Your sitting on the fence solution is not as rational as you think. It create a false equivalence between belief and non-belief as if it is 50:50 and you just need more data. It is no more 50:50 than my VW microbus assertion. In. Any. Way.

[TaxAHCruel]

I have a question for you, could you look to the theory of the DNA and see how that can be explain? I honestly would like to understand your view on it.

 

I am not sure i understand the question. Exactly what are you asking me to explain? I am not being obtuse here - I really do not get your meaning.

 

For my ear it sounds like asking "Can you explain cars to me?".

 

What about cars? How they work? How they came to be? How to drive one? The question is too vague and general.

 

Other question, is the acceptance that before the Big Bang there were other laws not a leap of faith as big as saying that there was no Big Bang?

 

Nope. It comes directly out of the maths. If you take the mathematical equations that come from the "laws" as we know them you find that most of them have a "time" function. And most of them have time as a divisor.

 

So then time = 0 the equations have you divide by zero. Which you can not do. Therefore we know - not guess or feel or want - but know - that the laws as we understand them simply do not work at the big bang.

 

So whatever the "laws" were at the time of the Big Bang (if there were any even) - they simply were not the ones we know today.

[therhythm]

But it does work for you. You have just been conditions by years of theists saying "You can not disprove god" to think it does not.

 

It takes a ridiculous example to bring it home but a little application of your mind makes it clear.

 

I used the example of me telling you that next time you go out of the house a VW microbus will materialise over your head - fall on you - and you will die.

 

Right now sitting there you have no evidence my claim is true. You also have no evidence my claim is false. Do you therefore maintain a 50:50 mental disconnect on the issue and refuse to deny the truth of my claim either way until such time as plausible proof arises on one or other side?

 

Clearly not.

 

Instead you recognize my claim to be baseless nonsense - devoid of any credibility or substantiation - and you dismiss it as such. While you have not 100% proved my claim false you _functionally_ have decided it to be and you act and live accordingly. You will reach and react and act by the most logical conclusion based on available evidence: That my claim was poppycock nonsense.

 

Further if I suddenly started asking for a tax from you for "Falling VW microbus protection / insurance" you would be in uproar. As you would be if I suggested we teach your children in school to act this way or that - and if they do not do so then the VW microbus will get them.

 

THIS is what atheism is. It is simply the functional conclusion there is no god based on available evidence and the refusal to live by any world view that makes the assumption there is one. Also the resistance of any application of that world view in our taxes - politics - education of our children - morality - how we do science - and so on.

 

Your sitting on the fence solution is not as rational as you think. It create a false equivalence between belief and non-belief as if it is 50:50 and you just need more data. It is no more 50:50 than my VW microbus assertion. In. Any. Way.

 

Yes I understand the concept but the difference between your assertion and the existence of God is bigger than what you are saying.

The existence of God has been claimed by billions of persons during thousands of years of History while your claim that I will be killed by a pink WV is unique yours. While both claims have no scientifically support the credibility check accepts the theory of God existing by the Lifegiver theory for example... all life has been created by another life and by that fact there should have been a life who created the first life and also the fact that many through history have claimed they have seen God.

 

Claiming that God doesn't exist because there is no proof of HIM is like claiming that other people have not minds, given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds? Please see this link to understand what I am trying to say Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[therhythm]

I am not sure i understand the question. Exactly what are you asking me to explain? I am not being obtuse here - I really do not get your meaning.

 

For my ear it sounds like asking "Can you explain cars to me?".

 

What about cars? How they work? How they came to be? How to drive one? The question is too vague and general.

 

.

 

Sorry I obviously needed to be more clear. What I was asking is if you could look to the bellow theories and give me your point of view about them, I find the theories really interesting and I find your point of view over all those theories so far very interesting as well... This is being a very good leaning for me

 

Lets take other three theories to study, I am very curious (honestly curious) about what you guys would say about these expositions.

Please note that this is copied and pasted from Does God Exist? not my own words.

 

 

Amino Acids, Proteins and DNA

Let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before.

Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture.

Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry. In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver.

This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed.

“It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.” (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29).

Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]).

Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

In conclusion, regarding DNA, nothing works unless EVERYTHING works at the same time. It could not have gradually come into existence. Special creation is required for DNA to exist!

 

“Tiny Engines” Inside Cells

We need to look at one more example of molecular machines to better appreciate the complexity of cells.

Japanese and German scientists have now discovered the smallest of nature’s machines, called “tiny engines.” Consider this advanced research on these remarkable little engines.

As you read this quote, ask yourself where they came from: “A group of Japanese scientists exploring the crystal structure of the F1-ATPase enzyme discovered nature’s own rotary engine—no bigger than ten billionths by ten billionths by eight billionths of a meter. The tiny motor includes the equivalent of an engine block, a drive shaft, and three pistons. It runs at speeds between 0.5 and 4.0 revolutions per second. This motor not only ranks as the smallest ever seen, it also represents the smallest motor that the laws of physics and chemistry will allow.

“In Germany, a research team used the new instruments to examine an enormous molecule, the yeast 26S proteasome. Though not the largest molecule in existence, the yeast 26S proteasome contains over two million protons and neutrons and is the largest non-symmetrical molecule mapped to date. This molecule can only be described as a ‘wonder.’ It serves as an intracellular waste-disposal and recycling system” (Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Small-scale Evidence of Grand Scale Design).

These organisms could never have evolved gradually. No wonder God says of those who do not believe in His existence, “The fool has said…There is no God.”

 

Life Requires a LIFEGIVER

What about the presence of all life on earth today? Where did it come from? How did it get here? The Bible states that God created all life during the first six days of the creation week of Genesis 1. Is this true, or did life come into existence by itself?

As with Uranium 238, and its provable moment of beginning, the great pattern of all life is that it can only come from other pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. All first-year biology students know it.

When examining tiny organisms, such as protozoa and bacteria, it can be demonstrated that life only comes from life. There are many kinds of life, but each continues to reproduce the same kind over and over. This is indisputable.

Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. This presents enormous problems for anyone familiar with the nature and complexity of simple cells.

Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. Here is why. Cells, even in their simplest and most rudimentary form, are extremely complex. Consider: “The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech” (Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p. 102). The next source is equally powerful in explaining both the complexity of the cell and its origin: “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” (Origins?, Ranganathan, B.G., p. 15).

Will skeptics ignore the truth that it is impossible to have life without a LIFEGIVER? Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. But is this God merely some kind of blind power, some kind of dumb “first force?” Let’s reason together.

[TaxAHCruel]

Yes I understand the concept but the difference between your assertion and the existence of God is bigger than what you are saying.

 

The idea is bigger but that does not change what I am saying about it. At the end of the day neither idea has any more substantiation or credibility than the other.

 

Yes - exploring our origins and explaining them is the biggest question humanity has second only to "Are we alone in the universe".

 

But the loftyness of the context does not make the rigor required in evaluating hypotheses any less important.

 

My VW microbus theory seems crass nonsense - and deliberately so - but it is sufficient to highlight the fact that sitting on the fence on any baseless claim is not the same as claiming 50:50 status or acting like the claim is even remotely credible.

 

The context of the god claim blinds you - but it is at its core no less ridiculous or unsubstantiated than my VW-MB claim.

 

The existence of God has been claimed by billions of persons during thousands of years of History while your claim that I will be killed by a pink WV is unique yours.

 

So? Many many claims we know as "true" today were at some point only claimed by one person.

 

If you measure the speed of a train with a radar you get a result. If you take the same measure while running towards the train you get a faster result. The train seems to be moving faster relative to you.

 

However if you do the same thing with light - you get the SAME result. This is called "Relativity" and at one point only one person ever claimed it.

 

I urged you before to look up "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy and I repeat that recommendation. The number of people making a claim has _nothing_ to do with evaluating how true the claim is.

[TaxAHCruel]

I find the theories really interesting and I find your point of view over all those theories so far very interesting as well

 

Oh right you were referring to that post. An answer to that post would require a LONG post. So I will give a preliminary response and if you need any point expanded just ask.

 

I would also recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" as further reading on the subject as well as "Only A theory" by catholic biologist Kenneth Miller - both of which will help you understand the following:

 

Yes I have read that text before. LONG before you pasted it here. I am well aware of the web site you took it from.

 

You paste them saying it is three different theories. It is actually not. It is one claim being repeated three times.

 

The claim is known in the field as "The argument from Complexity" or more recently "The argument from irreducible complexity".

 

The "The argument from Complexity" claim goes like this: If you look at something like DNA - the machinery of the cell - the blood clotting system in humans - the human eye - whatever - it all seems too complex to have just arisen by chance. Therefore it must be designed.

 

The "The argument from irreducible complexity" claim goes a little deeper. It says that the thing you are looking at could not have been built in tiny minute iterations - stages - like Evolution claims - because some part of it had to come together all at once in an improbably fashion.

 

Evolution says that everything happened in tiny tiny changes. Not in big leaps. So if you need a "big leap" to make something we observe then it is called "irreducibly complex" and could not have been formed by Evolution.

 

Meyer and a guy called Micheal Behe are known for using this as an argument for Creationism.

 

They are 100% right. If you can show something is irreducibly complex then you would indeed falsify evolution. Right there. On the spot.

 

The problem is they have failed to do so. They asserted a few things were - DNA, our blood clotting system, the human eye, and a couple of things in bacteria - and hoped that would be enough. But each and every time biologists have come in and built credible and workable evolutionary pathways to explain it.

 

Look at this bridge. Would you believe me if I said I built that bridge one brick at a time?

 

Most people would not. Clearly I could not have started in the middle as how could I suspend the brick in mid air?

 

How could I start on the left or the right? The bricks would fall before I reached the middle.

 

What if however - I built a wall first one brick at a time and then at the end took one brick at a time AWAY - leaving an arch bridge? Ta-Da. I have left you with something that appears irreducibly complex - yet I actually did build it one brick at a time.

[therhythm]

The idea is bigger but that does not change what I am saying about it. At the end of the day neither idea has any more substantiation or credibility than the other.

 

Yes - exploring our origins and explaining them is the biggest question humanity has second only to "Are we alone in the universe".

 

But the loftyness of the context does not make the rigor required in evaluating hypotheses any less important.

 

My VW microbus theory seems crass nonsense - and deliberately so - but it is sufficient to highlight the fact that sitting on the fence on any baseless claim is not the same as claiming 50:50 status or acting like the claim is even remotely credible.

 

The context of the god claim blinds you - but it is at its core no less ridiculous or unsubstantiated than my VW-MB claim.

 

 

 

So? Many many claims we know as "true" today were at some point only claimed by one person.

 

If you measure the speed of a train with a radar you get a result. If you take the same measure while running towards the train you get a faster result. The train seems to be moving faster relative to you.

 

However if you do the same thing with light - you get the SAME result. This is called "Relativity" and at one point only one person ever claimed it.

 

I urged you before to look up "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy and I repeat that recommendation. The number of people making a claim has _nothing_ to do with evaluating how true the claim is.

 

Ok, lets say I agree with the above ( I understand Argumentum ad populum fallacy, still the vox populi proverbs (word of mouth wisdom) has been proven right by science multiple times!).

 

What do you think about the argumentation bellow?

 

 

Claiming that God doesn't exist because there is no proof of HIM is like claiming that other people have not minds, given that I can only observe the behavior of others, how can I know that others have minds? Please see this link to understand what I am trying to say Other Minds (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[therhythm]

Oh right you were referring to that post. An answer to that post would require a LONG post. So I will give a preliminary response and if you need any point expanded just ask.

 

I would also recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" as further reading on the subject as well as "Only A theory" by catholic biologist Kenneth Miller - both of which will help you understand the following:

 

Yes I have read that text before. LONG before you pasted it here. I am well aware of the web site you took it from.

 

You paste them saying it is three different theories. It is actually not. It is one claim being repeated three times.

 

The claim is known in the field as "The argument from Complexity" or more recently "The argument from irreducible complexity".

 

The "The argument from Complexity" claim goes like this: If you look at something like DNA - the machinery of the cell - the blood clotting system in humans - the human eye - whatever - it all seems too complex to have just arisen by chance. Therefore it must be designed.

 

The "The argument from irreducible complexity" claim goes a little deeper. It says that the thing you are looking at could not have been built in tiny minute iterations - stages - like Evolution claims - because some part of it had to come together all at once in an improbably fashion.

 

Evolution says that everything happened in tiny tiny changes. Not in big leaps. So if you need a "big leap" to make something we observe then it is called "irreducibly complex" and could not have been formed by Evolution.

 

Meyer and a guy called Micheal Behe are known for using this as an argument for Creationism.

 

They are 100% right. If you can show something is irreducibly complex then you would indeed falsify evolution. Right there. On the spot.

 

The problem is they have failed to do so. They asserted a few things were - DNA, our blood clotting system, the human eye, and a couple of things in bacteria - and hoped that would be enough. But each and every time biologists have come in and built credible and workable evolutionary pathways to explain it.

 

Look at this bridge. Would you believe me if I said I built that bridge one brick at a time?

 

Most people would not. Clearly I could not have started in the middle as how could I suspend the brick in mid air?

 

How could I start on the left or the right? The bricks would fall before I reached the middle.

 

What if however - I built a wall first one brick at a time and then at the end took one brick at a time AWAY - leaving an arch bridge? Ta-Da. I have left you with something that appears irreducibly complex - yet I actually did build it one brick at a time.

 

I agree only partially with your comments (from my already exposed ignorance).

 

I don't think the three theories are exactly the same.

 

The DNA theory is not even based on the irreducibly of anything but rather to the fact that one thing could not work without the other, so they all had to be created at the same time.

 

The lifegiver has nothing to do with that theory as it is based totally in the fact that every life has always been created by another life.

 

The third theory is indeed what you have explained and thank you for clarify where it fails!

[TaxAHCruel]

still the vox populi proverbs (word of mouth wisdom) has been proven right by science multiple times

 

Of course! No doubt! Also some insane and out there conspiracy theories have also turned out to be actually entirely true.

 

I would urge utmost caution here however - just because one (or even many) word of mouth claims - science claims - conspiracy claims - or medical quackery claims - turned out to be true - this does not give license to carry the credibility claims to any OTHER claim.

 

What do you think about the argumentation bellow?

 

The same thing I think about ANY argument. We do not and can not prove anything 100% - but we can strongly substantiate a claim. I can not prove to you there are other minds out there. But the evidence is strong that there is. The fact my mind can give you knowledge you did not previously have for example strongly supports the existence of a mind outside yours.

 

Is it 100% proof? No. Can you come up with a list of assertions that are compatible with the idea that yours is the only mind in existence? Of course.

 

Such is human existence. We can never claim 100% knowledge of almost anything. But this does not - as I keep pointing out - lend any credibility to the notion of treating entirely unsubstantiated claims in a way that implies their truth or falsehood is some 50:50 equivalence.

 

There may very well be a god. I never claimed otherwise. There is however quite literally nothing on offer to lend the idea any credence at this time.

[TaxAHCruel]

I don't think the three theories are exactly the same.

 

At their core they are. They are all basically saying "X is complex - complexity of this nature is not explained by evolution - therefore god".

 

The words and target of each of the three sections are different - but the core claim being made is identical.

 

The DNA theory is not even based on the irreducibly of anything but rather to the fact that one thing could not work without the other, so they all had to be created at the same time.

 

But "one thing can not work without the other so they all had to be created together" is the very definition of "Irreducible complexity".

 

That is Exactly 100% what irreducible complexity means.

 

So yes the DNA one is "based on the irreducibly of anything" as you put it. Exactly 100% so.

 

The lifegiver has nothing to do with that theory as it is based totally in the fact that every life has always been created by another life.

 

That is baseless assertion however. We simply do not know it to be true. We know that all life we observe today comes from other life. That does not in any way license one to say that therefore all life anywhere at any time was so.

 

In fact we understand many possible routes for life to come from non-life. Our problem is not with coming up with ideas for it - but with deciding which one actually happened.

 

Read up on the "RNA as the origin of life" hypothesis for example.

 

That life from non-life CAN happen is in very little scientific doubt. THAT it happened that way is what requires substantiation at this time.

[therhythm]

 

There may very well be a god. I never claimed otherwise. There is however quite literally nothing on offer to lend the idea any credence at this time.

 

 

That was my claim from the beginning... the lack of proof of something doesn't proof it doesn't exist.

 

I understand there are many logical arguments leading to a non God existence but while the only evidence is the lack of evidence of its existence I prefer to not believe on him nor disbelieve...

[TaraMaiden]

Originally Posted by AtheistScholar

I just can't handle this thread anymore, the ignorance is appalling...

 

Meh....I just come back to it now and then... frankly, I've probably read about 5 pages in all.

Truth is, I really could care less one way or the other.... I'm just bored right now.

[therhythm]

This thread is filled with so many false claims its making me sick. It's entire premise in and if itself is redundant. To watch believers pretend that there is evidence by pretending there is evidence for no historical person is mind blowing. It's as if religionists need to pretend we all operate on faith so they feel better about their own doing so.

 

Look, part of being religious is believing on faith. Especially Christians, your Jesus called faith a holy and necessary crucible your religion rests on, so WHY must you attempt to paint atheists as faithful? Why must you pretend believing in Jesus is just as plausible as believing Einstein existed? You are mocking faith when you try to make it everyone's condition and most of all: you are showing you have VERY LITTLE faith by even arguing the topic.

 

The NT is filled with verses that say to not engage in debate with the divider. Jesus said if you had even a grain of faith you would do even greater than his works. Yet here you are taking up with dividers and wasting away arguing on a forum instead of doing great works with your faith. Such things make it utterly clear how obsessed one are to conform everyone to your belief system. But even if that could happen, it still wouldn't produce evidence. All the Greeks believed Zeus was on mount Olympus, that didn't make it so, they were all still morons believing primitive horse crap instead of utilizing science... The few who bothered to question got murdered...

 

Is that the root of this conformity? Is it SO essential to ones tiny little faith that others must believe that our history is full of "good religious" believers mass murdering the faithless?!?!

 

I just can't handle this thread anymore, the ignorance is appalling...

 

I don't know if you have realized that non of the people who is writing in this thread for the last say 20 pages are believers of God, nor we have been talking about any religion in particular.

 

Getting into a thread and just make an angry statement of how ignorant the participants are without adding any other value or substance is pointless not to say rude...

[TaxAHCruel]

That was my claim from the beginning... the lack of proof of something doesn't proof it doesn't exist.

 

Indeed it does not and I have said that very thing myself many times since. I am not addressing the claim per se - but the errors and false equivalencies that the claim itself can lead one to such as the "neither disbelieve nor believe" mantra that has essentially permeates all your posts.

 

Getting into a thread and just make an angry statement of how ignorant the participants are without adding any other value or substance is pointless not to say rude...

 

Funny. That is nearly exactly how I felt about your very first post on the thread. I saw you coming into the thread complaining about people who need to espouse their beliefs to others - without you adding anything of value or substance to the actual topic of the thread.

 

I wonder if it is worth you turning a mirror on your advice to the user above therefore?

[therhythm]

Indeed it does not and I have said that very thing myself many times since. I am not addressing the claim per se - but the errors and false equivalencies that the claim itself can lead one to such as the "neither disbelieve nor believe" mantra that has essentially permeates all your posts.

 

And I am sorry to say you have not been able to change. But I have to admit that I have learned a lot thanks to your posts.

 

 

Funny. That is nearly exactly how I felt about your very first post on the thread. I saw you coming into the thread complaining about people who need to espouse their beliefs to others - without you adding anything of value or substance to the actual topic of the thread.

 

I wonder if it is worth you turning a mirror on your advice to the user above therefore?

 

I am really sorry if you felt the same way... but if you reread my post it was not angry, nor I claimed ignorance of anyone, my posts was just stating my believe who was the status quo. I still believe it will happen for many centuries but maybe I am wrong.