Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Transcriptional Noise: “We Once Thought it Was So Simple …”

Don’t Bet Against the House

Everyone has heard of the famous DNA macromolecule where our genes reside, but less well known is its cousin, the RNA macromolecule. Two different molecular machines produce copies of DNA for two different reasons. One machine copies the entire double helix for the purpose of duplicating the genome before the cell divides into two daughter cells. The other machine merely transcribes one of the two strands in the double helix, and only for a relatively short segment. This copy, or transcript, is an RNA, not DNA, molecule. If you remember only one thing about RNA it probably is that the RNA transcript is passed to the ribosome machine which translates RNA’s string of nucleotides into a string of amino acids which will become a new protein. For many years that was thought to be the main function of RNA—to carry information like a messenger from the DNA gene to the ribosome. Now, in spite of evolutionary theory, that has all changed.

One of the first hints of a problem came when it was discovered that, in higher organisms, those all-important genes (according to evolutionary theory) comprised only a few percent of the genome. That didn’t fit very well with evolution’s gene-centric view, so consequently much of that huge non genic portion of the genome was often taken as functionless—the so-called “junk” DNA.

The next hint of a problem came when it was discovered that much of this non genic DNA was transcribed. This, it seemed, conferred to the non genic DNA a status on par with that of the genes. For if it was useless DNA, then why would it be transcribed? Again, that didn’t fit very well with evolution’s gene-centric view, so much of that massive transcription effort was “dismissed as transcriptional noise,” as a report out this week explains.

Now, the next problem is that not only is the vast majority of the genome not made up of genes, and not only is most of those non genic portions transcribed, but those non genic portions, which come in a variety of forms, inevitably seem to turn out to be functional. In fact, the whole operation is “enormously complex.”

Darwin viewed much of biology as inefficient or useless and evolutionists ever since have followed his lead. But it’s dangerous to bet against nature. From rudimentary and “vestigial” organs to “junk” DNA and transcriptional “noise,” evolutionist’s interpretations continue to need, well, reinterpretation.

74 comments:

  1. I like how the transcription of the genetic "words" takes place within the inner chamber of the nucleus, and then the information leaves the inner chamber and is translated and applied in the outer chamber but all within the cell. A similitude for this design might be God's design of the tabernacle where His word was to reside in the inmost place and be applied in the outer chamber, which Paul points out that's how we are to think of God's word and our mind if we are in Christ. Of course this is just an observation of a coincidence and not to be taken seriously -- unlike the observation of the coincidence of similar body parts among animal fossils which proves we all came from a common ancestor and there is no God who cares.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happens inside the cell nucleus when you say Hallelujah?

      Delete
    2. Have you noticed how paired chromosomes during mitosis form a cross? Uncanny.

      Delete
    3. "What happens inside the cell nucleus when you say Hallelujah?"

      HMMM, interesting question considering the following:

      A little known fact, a fact that is very antagonistic to the genetic reductionism model of neo-Darwinism, is that, besides environmental factors, even our thoughts (mental states/feelings) can 'epigenetically' control the gene expression of our bodies:

      Genie In Your Genes - video
      http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/ggtrailer.html

      Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life - July 12, 2012
      Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
      If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.
      http://crev.info/2012/07/anxiety-may-shorten-your-cell-life/

      Upgrade Your Brain
      Excerpt: The Research; In his book The Genie in Your Genes (Elite Books, 2009), researcher Dawson Church, PhD, explains the relationship between thought and belief patterns and the expression of healing- or disease-related genes. “Your body reads your mind,” Church says. “Science is discovering that while we may have a fixed set of genes in our chromosomes, which of those genes is active has a great deal to do with our subjective experiences, and how we process them.”
      One recent study conducted at Ohio University demonstrates vividly the effect of mental stress on healing. Researchers gave married couples small suction blisters on their skin, after which they were instructed to discuss either a neutral topic or a topic of dispute for half an hour. Researchers then monitored the production of three wound-repair proteins in the subjects’ bodies for the next several weeks, and found that the blisters healed 40 percent slower in those who’d had especially sarcastic, argumentative conversations than those who’d had neutral ones.
      http://experiencelife.com/article/upgrade-your-brain/

      Delete
    4. Those newly discovered particles that hold all life together:

      Jebons!

      Delete
    5. reductive materialism Thorton? Is that your ultimate universal reality Thorton?

      "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -
      Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'

      Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness - January 18, 2012
      Excerpt: (Proof # 2) If you believe in the theory of Quantum Mechanics, then you believe that conscious observation must be present to collapse a wave function. If consciousness did not exist prior to matter coming into existence, then it is impossible that matter could ever come into existence. Additionally, this rules out the possibility that consciousness is the result of quantum mechanical processes. Either consciousness existed before matter or QM is wrong, one or the other is indisputably true.
      http://www.libertariannews.org/2012/01/18/logical-proofs-of-infinite-external-consciousness/

      “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
      (Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

      “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
      (Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.)





      Delete
    6. Bornagain, I belong to christian faith but I have never seen somebody mix process inside the cell nucleus with tabernacle!

      Delete
    7. BA77, along that line, could it be that thoughts can influence epigenetic express of homosexuality? Recent studies show even with identical twins, one can have homosexual behavior and the other does not.

      Delete
    8. Ritchie: “We simply do not have any impartial eyewitness accounts at all.”

      Me: Why do you discount the writers of the gospel as being “partial”? True. Mark was written first and especially Matthew and Luke partially relied on Mark for their accounts, but not totally. Luke was a doctor and he tells us right up front the he meticulously researched his account. He certainly talked to many eye witnesses, although he himself may not have been an eye witness. He was however, an eye witness of the miracles of some of the apostles and accompanied Paul on some of his missionary journeys. He wanted people to be able to trust what he had written. Matthew was saved through Jesus’ ministry. He was an ex-tax collector and his life was changed by meeting Jesus. John was perhaps the closest of all the disciples to Jesus. He suffered much for his faith.

      ++++

      Me 1: Their lives were changed by it and they lived it out. Many were even killed for their faith. Many others suffered for their faith.

      Ritchie: That shows only that they believed. Not that their beliefs were well founded. They are completely different assertions. It is perfectly possible to be mistaken in even your most sincere belief. Consider, every religion has its martyrs. And they cannot all be right.

      Me 2: If these men who were closest to Jesus were mistaken, then Jesus was some charlatan! If Jesus had not risen from the dead, the disciples would have known that. Sure, if they had been deceived, they could have endured suffering believing their faith to be right, but it would have been impossible for them not to know if Jesus was a fake. And No One lives their life for a lie. No one suffers for a lie. If it were a lie, they could not possibly have kept that a secret! This is what makes their testimony so credible!

      ++++

      Me: I suggest doing a search for flood evidences on creation.com or some other creationist website... It is good to read both sides.

      Ritchie: I wonder if you have ever taken your own advice. Have you ever looked into the COUNTER evidence for the worldwide flood? Have you ever help up all this supposed evidence up to scrutiny? Or you do just soak up the Creation sites unquestioningly? I do not mean to be rude - I mean that with in the most civilised and constructive way possible.

      Me 2: No offense taken. Yes, I have read the other side, although not extensively. There are some difficult problems, but some of them disappear when you ignore the supposed ages of the rocks that are claimed. Still there are difficulties. I freely admit that, but the other side has difficulties as well. The problem with the flood is that we didn’t see it. We don’t know exactly how it happened. Our knowledge is lacking, so assumptions and ideas are not necessarily reliable.

      I missed your answer though. Have you read more than one side of the issue?

      Delete
    9. Me: Creationists interpret the evidence through their worldview just like evolutionists interpret it through their evolutionary worldview. Both are explanations for the same phenomenon.

      Ritchie: I'm afraid not all worldviews are equally valid. Methodological naturalism is a perfectly rational (and necessary, besides) assumption. A god, or any specific supernatural being is not.

      Me: True. Not all worldviews are equal. That would be impossible. Only one can really be right and maybe none are. You assume yours is. I take mine as true. Methodological naturalism is helpful for doing every day science, but when we are dealing with historical science, the kind that deals with the unobservable, unrepeatable past, and when dealing with the origins of the universe, then it is not helpful.

      For me, it is not rational when you have to believe in literal miracles without a sufficient cause to explain what we see simply because of a prior commitment to methodological naturalism.

      “A god is not rational.” you say. That is where we will have to agree to disagree because I believe the existence of codes, software, mind, personality, free will, morality, information, design, purpose, meaning, a finely tuned universe, natural laws, life, etc. etc. points unmistakably to the existence of God. I do not believe that your ad hoc untestable explanations for the existence of these things are trustworthy or true. I think reality is on my side and again, you are free to believe in whatever explanations you want to account for these things. We will not agree on this. We are going around in circles. You will always feel my faith is irrational and unnecessary and I will always feel your faith in your methodological naturalistic assumptions and ad hoc explanations for these things is irrational.

      ++++

      Me: You have to admit that billions of fossils all over the world, even on mountaintops, would be one expected outcome of a worldwide flood.

      Ritchie: “But is it also evidence of plate tectonics - the what is now a mountain was once the ocean floor that has been thrust up over thousands of years by the movement of the Earth's crust. In fact this is a better explanation since it also explains why we find layering patterns in the sediment - something a sudden catastrophic flood would not produce.”

      Me 2: There are some creationists who accept plate tectonics and others who, along w/other secular experts are questioning it. But either way, that has no bearing on the flood. Creationists too believe the continents broke up in the past but that doesn't explain the fossils. Erosion would be a problem for plate tectonics as an explanation for fossils on mountaintops.

      Here is a positive article on plate tectonics by a creationist: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/plate-tectonics and here is a negative article on it by another one: http://creation.com/is-catastrophic-plate-tectonics-part-of-earth-history

      ++++

      Me: A thriving area of study? So what! What does that prove? Call it what you want, but that simply shows that they still have no clue!

      Ritchie: “It proves that abiogenesis is a solid scientific theory since it is fertile for future study.”

      Me 2: “fertile for future study” That’s the understatement of the year! That’s scientific speak for “We have absolutely no idea!” But one thing you do know is that any answer that might include the supernatural is off limits! Why? Because of your worldview and a prior commitment to methodological naturalism. So no matter how fantastic it might sound, no matter how impossible it may look, you have no option but to hope that someday you might find the answer. Will you? I highly doubt it. The evidence against it keeps piling up. But you are stuck with that since it is your only option.

      Evolutionary reasoning goes like this: Human existence is proof of evolution! Why? Since we exist, evolution had to have happened – since that is the only possible explanation allowed by Big Science. Anyway, you have your faith and we have ours.

      Delete
    10. Me: At what point will the faith of the Materialist have to face reality. Never? Will you just keep believing no matter how difficult a scenario you are forced to believe? Can the materialist faith ever be falsified in this area? It doesn’t seem so.

      Ritchie: If you are asking if science will ever give up looking for natural explanations for things and just assume supernatural ones, then no. That will never happen. That is simply not the way science works. If it did, then we would never have gotten as far as we have. We would have written off all the mysteries of the world as the work of God and we would never have achieved all the discoveries and advancements of the modern age.

      Me: Fear mongering!

      Methodological naturalism is fine for every day science. Don’t confuse the two.

      The great Christian scientists of the past were full blown creationists and yet we are still in their debt. They believed in a Creator & yet did wonderful science, so there’s no reason to fear!

      These creationist scientists of the past were not hindered one bit. In fact, their worldview was one reason science flourished in the West.

      These scientists sought to explore the universe to discover & understand the Creator’s design. (biomimetics)

      I’m asking here if materialism can ever be falsified? It seems that no matter how difficult the problem, materialists cling with a passion to their faith citing future discoveries they hope might bail them out.

      It seems there’s no amount of physical evidence that will ever convince them that Intelligence is necessary to explain life.

      +++

      Me: Studying it productively? Sure, in the sense that we are learning more about the complexity and design of life, but not productively in the sense of solving the problem.

      Ritchie: You are wrong. The more we learn about exactly what a cell is, the more we know what we need to account for existing.

      Me: Sure, but that doesn’t get us one step closer to the answer, does it? Clarifying the problem is one thing. That alone is proving to be a challenge. Solving it is a totally different thing. Don't confuse the two!

      ++++

      Ritchie: Again, note that, in ToE's place, Creationism would do nothing. It would assume God's hand in every mystery and we would simply discover no more. Easy answers such as Creationism, kill proper investigation.

      Me: More fear-mongering proven false by the past. Creationism spurred on science rather than killing it.

      Even if we say “God did it,” there is still plenty to learn. We can study the design(biomimetics) to see how it works and apply it to society.

      Science can continue on just fine without evolution. It is not necessary for our lives at all. It is totally irrelevant and doesn’t benefit us one bit. It has lots of negative implications for life and lots of downsides as well. We can get along just fine without it.

      Delete
  2. It's nice to see how science has come full circle. Not long ago science was used to argue against belief in God. Religious people used the Bible and the story of Genesis and were at odds with scientific findings. Now the reverse is true. Atheists are arguing that everything came from nothing and you should not believe in God because a couple of odd-ball scientists believe in evolution. Religious people are now arguing using cosmology, fine tuning, and complexity discovered in the latest biological research. The weight of scientific knowledge supports faith, and atheists are seeming more and more ludicrous, and ludite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not long ago science was used to argue against belief in God." - And not long before that science, at its founding, was an argument for God. Like you said, full circle.

      Delete
    2. Peter -

      Not long ago science was used to argue against belief in God.

      Science does not have the ability to examine supernatural claims. Never has.

      Religious people used the Bible and the story of Genesis and were at odds with scientific findings.

      The ones who took their Bibles seriously, certainly. Still are.

      Atheists are arguing that everything came from nothing and you should not believe in God

      'Scientist = atheist' is a false equivocation.

      because a couple of odd-ball scientists believe in evolution.

      By 'a couple of odd-ball scientists', I take it you really mean 'the overwhelming majority of scientific academia'?

      http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/05/cfac-steve-statistics.html

      Religious people are now arguing using cosmology, fine tuning, and complexity discovered in the latest biological research.

      And not doing a very good job of it, as they still do not support the theistic premise.

      The weight of scientific knowledge supports faith,

      No it does not. If it did, you would not require 'faith', would you?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. "The weight of scientific knowledge supports faith"

      Ritchie said: "No it does not. If it did you would not require faith would you."

      I beg to differ with you here. Neither evolutionists, IDers, or creationists can prove their theory. They all require faith. You seem to think that faith has to be totally blind. That if there is evidence for your beliefs, it is not faith. That is not the way the Bible uses the word. God doesn't require blind faith, but He does and always will require faith. No wonder you are so critical of IDers and creationists.

      "And without faith it is impossible to please Him;"

      "For by grace you have been saved through faith..."

      There are times in the Bible when faith is almost blind meaning there is not much evidence to back it up, but even when God told Noah to build an ark, Noah at least heard God's voice and believed and obeyed based on that concrete fact. So faith is not blind. If God created the world we should see evidence of that in nature. I think we do.

      Codes don't emerge on their own.
      Software doesn't write itself.
      Information needs a Mind and a sender and never arises on its own.
      Life always comes from life.
      Fine tuning requires a Tuner.
      Laws require a Lawgiver.
      Purposeful design requires a Designer.
      Machines require an inventor and an assembler.
      Personhood and Conciousness point to a Personal cause rather than a material cause.
      Something never comes from nothing.
      Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

      Yes, materialists claim they have explanations for these things, but they are just claims. They cannot be proven. You believe you have evidence to support your faith as well and that is fine. We believe your ad hoc explanations do not hold water. We believe our known experience strongly points to a Creator. No, we cannot prove our faith either, but we too have evidence to support our beliefs. You may dispute the evidence as we do your ad hoc explanations, but you cannot prove them wrong. We both have our own beliefs and interpret the same evidence through our respective worldviews(which we cannot prove but take by faith)

      I agree with Peter that the more we learn about our world, the more that fits a theist view of the world. You are welcome to make your own conclusions of the evidence, but millions of people think the evidence for a Creator is clear as day like the Bible says.

      If your view of the world, your view of humanity and the mind is true - does your view have any value if you only believe it because the chemicals in your brain lead you to that conclusion. In other words do you or i really have a choice about what we believe or are we just slaves of the chemical processes in our brains?

      Delete
    5. Strange that this alleged "overwhelming majority of scientific academia" cannot provide a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for unguided, ie blind watchmaker, evolution.

      Delete
    6. tokyojim -

      I beg to differ with you here. Neither evolutionists, IDers, or creationists can prove their theory.

      Not absolutely. But no theory can ever be proved. Scientific theories never are. They are always provisional on the available data. That doesn't mean all theories are equally probable.

      God doesn't require blind faith, but He does and always will require faith.

      Religion (specifically the Christian one) does make a positive virtue out of blind faith. Notions of heresy, forbidden ideas and premises which must not be questioned or put to the test are all absolute anathema to scientists, but they are all identifiably religious (specifically Christian).

      If God created the world we should see evidence of that in nature. I think we do.

      And I say you are seeing all this through the assumption that it was created. Remove that assumption and objective evidence for creation is utterly lacking.

      Codes don't emerge on their own.
      Software doesn't write itself.
      Information needs a Mind and a sender and never arises on its own.
      Life always comes from life...


      None of this is evidence. Life is, in many ways, unique. Therefore it is silly to infer how it works from inanimate objects which form no comparison.

      Yes, materialists claim they have explanations for these things, but they are just claims. They cannot be proven.

      But they CAN be supported scientifically. Something Creationists cannot claim.

      We both have our own beliefs and interpret the same evidence through our respective worldviews(which we cannot prove but take by faith)

      You make it sound as though our beliefs are on a par. I assure you they are not. The only reliable process for learning about the world which humans have ever devised is the scientific method. It is quite simply unsurpassed. And under it's terms, ToE is quite simply the foundational theory of biology. Creation doesn't even count as scientific.

      That is not (necessarily) to say that it is wrong, of course. Just that it is not scientific. It is theology - possibly philosophy. But the masquerade that it is science at all, much less that it is scientifically supported, is nonsense.

      but millions of people think the evidence for a Creator is clear as day like the Bible says.

      Truth is not determined by popular vote.

      In other words do you or i really have a choice about what we believe or are we just slaves of the chemical processes in our brains?

      I really don't know. But that is not a scientific question. That is philosophy. The question you are asking is that of determinism. Again, it has no place masquerading as science.

      Delete
    7. Joe -

      Strange that this alleged "overwhelming majority of scientific academia" cannot provide a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for unguided, ie blind watchmaker, evolution.

      For the umpteenth time, you can never, ever scientifically show that natural forces are unguided. How many times do I have to repeat myself before this point actually sink in?

      Delete
    8. Ritchie:
      For the umpteenth time, you can never, ever scientifically show that natural forces are unguided.

      Yes, we can. Ya see forensic scientists don't think that every death is a murder. Fire investigators don't think that every fire is an arson. SETI doesn't think that every signal received is from ET.

      How many times do I have to repeat myself before this point actually sink in?

      You are a nobody so what you say means nothing. So until you can actually support what you say it should sink to the bottom of the stink, where it belongs.

      Delete
    9. Chubby Joe G

      EVOLUTION HAS NO EVIDENCE!!!!


      What's your chin collection up to now Chubs, about 25 or so?

      Delete
    10. thorton the closet YEC- what's your bathroom rendezvous picture collection up to now, about 25 additions per day?

      Delete
    11. For Ritchie:
      "I beg to differ with you here. Neither evolutionists, IDers, or creationists can prove their theory."

      Ritchie: Not absolutely. But no theory can ever be proved. Scientific theories never are. They are always provisional on the available data. That doesn't mean all theories are equally probable.

       Agreed.


      "God doesn't require blind faith, but He does and always will require faith."

      Ritchie: Religion (specifically the Christian one) does make a positive virtue out of blind faith. Notions of heresy, forbidden ideas and premises which must not be questioned or put to the test are all absolute anathema to scientists, but they are all identifiably religious (specifically Christian).

       Yes, there are some things that we must take totally on faith – like the existence of heaven, substitionary power of the cross, etc. But we can have confidence that these things are true because what we can test in the Bible is true. The creation story makes sense and nature clearly points to a Creator. We have eye witnesses for miracles recorded. We have teaching from Jesus Himself who was sent from God. We have eyewitnesses of the resurrection. This is the evidence upon which we base our faith. If you came and told me to believe in a flying spaghetti monster and told me he loves me and wants me to be in heaven with him when I die, I’d say you are a crackpot, but the Bible is clearly integrated with history that people have lived, experienced, and recorded for future generations. Proof? No. Evidence? Yes.


      "If God created the world we should see evidence of that in nature. I think we do."

      Ritchie: And I say you are seeing all this through the assumption that it was created. Remove that assumption and objective evidence for creation is utterly lacking.

       And I can say the exact same thing about your beliefs. You see them through evolutionary glasses – your own worldview. We all have our biases, our own unprovable worldview through which we interpret the universe in which we live. If you remove your assumption that there is no God and we have to explain everything by natural forces, then objective evidence for codes writing themselves and all that other stuff is lacking.

      "Codes don't emerge on their own.
      Software doesn't write itself.
      Information needs a Mind and a sender and never arises on its own.
      Life always comes from life..."

      Ritchie: None of this is evidence. Life is, in many ways, unique. Therefore it is silly to infer how it works from inanimate objects which form no comparison.

       Right, to a materialist who has restricted himself to totally natural explanations for the universe, it wouldn’t be seen as evidence. I’ll agree with you though that life is unique! But it is not silly to argue from what we experience. Besides to get animate objects, you have to first show that it is possible to get life from inanimate objects and there is no evidence for this tenet of the atheist faith at all. What we see is that life always comes from life – Always. To violate this law of nature, you need evidence or examples of it happening and you have none. You have no evidence that codes can create themselves. None! You just take it by faith that it happened in the magical world of Darwinland. You have NO evidence that the software that controls so much of the body can write itself. None! Experience and common sense tell us this is impossible. And information, it is an immaterial thing encoded in chemicals. The existence of information invalidates materialism. Complex specified information will not arise by chance. These things just don’t happen – at least no one has ever seen them happen. So the evidence weighs heavily on our side. Not even intelligent scientists using their knowledge and skills have been able to cause these things to happen in the lab and yet you want us to believe that it did happen. That sir, is faith! You too are a man of faith – great faith I might add.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. For Ritchie continued:

      "Yes, materialists claim they have explanations for these things, but they are just claims. They cannot be proven."

      Ritchie: But they CAN be supported scientifically. Something Creationists cannot claim.

       Do you consider ad hoc explanations to be sufficient scientific support? I don’t. You cannot validate it or test it since it happened in the distant unobservable unrepeatable past. Scientific support does not exactly trump reason, especially when the only thing science is allowed to investigate are empirical things. SETI and archeology validate the principle of science finding evidence of design and pointing to a designer.



      "We both have our own beliefs and interpret the same evidence through our respective worldviews(which we cannot prove but take by faith)"

      Ritchie: You make it sound as though our beliefs are on a par. I assure you they are not. The only reliable process for learning about the world which humans have ever devised is the scientific method. It is quite simply unsurpassed. And under it's terms, ToE is quite simply the foundational theory of biology. Creation doesn't even count as scientific. That is not (necessarily) to say that it is wrong, of course. Just that it is not scientific. It is theology - possibly philosophy. But the masquerade that it is science at all, much less that it is scientifically supported, is nonsense.

       You hit the nail on the head. We can learn ABOUT the world through science, but that doesn’t necessarily tell us where it came from. You can learn about a computer and how it works, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the same processes we see at work in the computer created the computer.
       Ah yes, the highly touted scientific method. Please tell me how you can use the scientific method to show that life came from non-life, or even that codes created themselves and then encoded and stored information with the code. Do you have an experiment that can show this? No! So the ToE does NOT use the scientific method. It cannot because it is dealing with the unrepeatable/unobservable past. When it comes to evolution, much guessing is involved. It’s nowhere near as accurate/trustworthy as or other branches of science that actually use the scientific method(physics, mathematics, chemistry) Evaluating the past requires interpreting the observations that we make and that is where the problem comes in. You use the evolutionary framework to make those evaluations and we don’t. We use the creation framework to make those interpretations.


      "but millions of people think the evidence for a Creator is clear as day like the Bible says."

      Ritchie: Truth is not determined by popular vote.

       Nor can it be determined by scientists who rule out God from the equation before they even begin to evaluate the evidence. Changed lives and the testimonies of millions of people would seem like it should hold some weight though. I was glad to see that you realize that just because you cannot prove God through science, it doesn't mean that creation is not true. At lease you don't seem to be a part of the religion of scientism that views science as the only arbiter of truth.



      "In other words do you or i really have a choice about what we believe or are we just slaves of the chemical processes in our brains?"

      Ritchie: I really don't know. But that is not a scientific question. That is philosophy. The question you are asking is that of determinism. Again, it has no place masquerading as science.

       Scientific or not, it could be a show stopper for evolutionists. So obviously, it is a very important question. It is interesting that the atheistic/evolutionary view of life could actually rule out any hope of actually ever knowing anything. Yet atheists think they are superior to everyone intellectually because they think they are relying totally on empirical science for their beliefs.

      So below the whole issue of evolution, you have this problem to deal with as well.

      Delete
    14. Joe G -

      Yes, we can. Ya see forensic scientists don't think that every death is a murder. Fire investigators don't think that every fire is an arson. SETI doesn't think that every signal received is from ET.

      They can infer design because they have a great deal of data for a comparative study about what they should or should not expect to find either way. Forensic scientists know the signs of murder because they can compare them to natural/accidental deaths and draw relevant distinctions. Fire fighters know the signs of arson because they know the signs of accidental fires. SETI look for signals, but they know the sorts of background noises natural astro-physics produces.

      We cannot apply this to life because we are dealing with a case study of one. We have no data about what 4 billion years of evolution can produce against which to compare what we see in nature.

      You are a nobody so what you say means nothing.

      Your problem is that you do not listen to anyone except your mad ID books and websites. You listen to them misrepresent science and just soak it all up as a matter of religious faith without so much as bothering to check it with ACTUAL SCIENTISTS and then think you know everything there is to know about science.

      Delete
    15. They can infer design because they have a great deal of data for a comparative study about what they should or should not expect to find either way.

      Very good- knowledge of cause and effect relationships.

      We cannot apply this to life because we are dealing with a case study of one.

      Bullshit. We can apply tried and true techniques to living organisms too.

      Your problem is that you do not listen to anyone except your mad ID books and websites.

      Liar.

      You listen to them misrepresent science

      Liar.

      Does it make you feel big when you lie?

      Delete
    16. BTW Ritchie the ignorant:

      38 Nobel Laureates say:


      Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.


      Then there is the fact that darwin invented natural selection as a designer mimic, meaning we can get design without a designer.

      IOW Ritchoe, your ignorance runs deep.

      Delete
    17. tokyojim -

      But we can have confidence that these things are true because what we can test in the Bible is true.

      That sounds like a good sciencey idea.

      The creation story makes sense and nature clearly points to a Creator.

      That is not putting the Creation story to the test. 'Making sense' is not indicator that a story is true, and 'nature points to a Creator' is just begging the question.

      We have eye witnesses for miracles recorded.

      Do we? Were? I am not aware of any. And I hope you are not going to point to the Bible for these witnesses, because that is circular logic. The Bible cannot be evidence for itself. You need external, independent sources.

      We have teaching from Jesus

      Which is evidence for what?

      who was sent from God

      Assumption. Begging the question.

      We have eyewitnesses of the resurrection.

      Errr, don't think we do. Remember, these need to be independent, verifiable testimonies.

      This is the evidence upon which we base our faith.

      And I'm afraid that's pretty poor fare.

      the Bible is clearly integrated with history

      Is it? I don't think it is. It tells of a worldwide flood for which there is no evidence whatsoever. It tells of the utter destruction of Egypt during what was actually the hight of it's imperial power...

      If you remove your assumption that there is no God and we have to explain everything by natural forces,

      Remove those assumptions and science is impossible. Postulating a God is theology or philosophy, but not, in any way, science.

      to get animate objects, you have to first show that it is possible to get life from inanimate objects and there is no evidence for this tenet of the atheist faith at all. What we see is that life always comes from life – Always. To violate this law of nature, you need evidence or examples of it happening and you have none.

      Which is precisely why abiogenesis is a thriving area of study. It is entirely wrong of you to say there is 'no evidence' when scientists have been studying this very question productively for decades. True we have no definitive answers, but to take this as evidence for divine creation is simply God of the Gaps logic.

      You just take it by faith that it happened in the magical world of Darwinland.

      It is not faith. We exclude supernatural explanations for natural phenomena because science is impossible without it. That leaves us with exclusively natural explanations. That is not a matter of faith.

      The existence of information invalidates materialism.

      It does not. When it comes to life, when it comes to considering what 4 billion years of evolution can achieve, we have a case study of only one. That leaves us entirely unequipped to say what it might or might not be able to achieve with/without intervention.

      Do you consider ad hoc explanations to be sufficient scientific support? I don’t.

      It seems you do not properly understand scientific explanations if you dismiss them all as ad hoc.

      SETI and archeology validate the principle of science finding evidence of design and pointing to a designer.

      Not really sure the point you are trying to make here. There is no scientific principle that discounts design, per se.

      But the reason SETI and archaeology can distinguish design from non-design is because they have a large cache of evidence for both. The know what type of evidence non-design would throw up. When it comes to life, we simply don't. Again, we are working with a case study of one.

      Delete
    18. tokyojim -

      You hit the nail on the head. We can learn ABOUT the world through science, but that doesn’t necessarily tell us where it came from. You can learn about a computer and how it works, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the same processes we see at work in the computer created the computer.

      Okay, yes, that is true. But what it seems you are missing is the limitations of science itself. Maybe there IS a God controlling everything. Maybe there are supernatural forces interacting in the material world each and every day. Maybe there was a divine origin for the universe and life. But if there were, then science would simply be unable to ever find that out.

      Science is the study of the natural world. It cannot speak to the supernatural. So while science cannot disprove a God, Godly matters (should one exist) simply lie outside the ability of science to speak to. In other words, believe if you like. But that faith is not science.

      Please tell me how you can use the scientific method to show that life came from non-life, or even that codes created themselves and then encoded and stored information with the code. Do you have an experiment that can show this? No!

      If you are asking for experiments which PROVE that there was no supernatural intervention, then no. Because science cannot test for that. That is simply impossible. It is assumed - as a matter of absolute necessity - that these things occurred naturally. And yes, that is an assumption, and yes it could potentially be wrong. But it is an assumption that is the bedrock of science. Science is simply impossible without it. And the sheer productivity of science would appear to bare it out.

      Nor can it be determined by scientists who rule out God from the equation before they even begin to evaluate the evidence.

      All scientists must do this in order to perform science.

      Changed lives and the testimonies of millions of people would seem like it should hold some weight though.

      You can get such evidence for every religion on Earth. And they cannot all be right.

      Changed lives and the testimonies of millions of people would seem like it should hold some weight though.

      True. But it is not science.

      Scientific or not, it could be a show stopper for evolutionists.

      I don't see how. ToE is not undermined no matter what the answer.

      So below the whole issue of evolution, you have this problem to deal with as well.

      Why do I have to deal with it at all? It is not a scientific question. Therefore my interest in it is trivial.

      Delete
    19. There isn't anything tat prevents tried and true design detection techniques from being used on biological organisms. Knowledge of cause and effect relationships are all we require.

      IOW we know what blind and undirected processes can produce- not much of anything.

      Delete
    20. Science is the study of the natural world.

      More basically science is our quest for knowledge.

      It cannot speak to the supernatural.

      Dawkins says it can. You are a nobody.

      Delete
    21. Joe -

      Bullshit. We can apply tried and true techniques to living organisms too.

      But we do not have the data to do so, Einstein. We do not have a planet with a 4-billion-year natural history against which to compare our own Earth and say "See, Earthly life doesn't look like THAT".

      Liar.

      Deny it all you like, Joe, we both know it's true. The only people who come out with the toxic drivel you recite are the ID-Creationists. You would see the flaws in an instant if you actually bothered to learn biology from biologists.

      Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

      Yup! Which is completely true! And more evidence for my position, I believe. Your point was...?

      Then there is the fact that darwin invented natural selection as a designer mimic,

      What do you mean 'designer mimic' and what is the point you are trying to make here?

      Delete
    22. Joe -

      There isn't anything tat prevents tried and true design detection techniques from being used on biological organisms. Knowledge of cause and effect relationships are all we require.

      No, we also require DATA.

      More basically science is our quest for knowledge.

      Only via application of the scientific method though. Some things are beyond the realm of science to say.

      Dawkins says it can.

      Where?

      Delete
    23. No, we also require DATA.

      LoL! Where do you think our knowledge of cause and effect relationships come from? And then there is the thing we are investigationg, more data.

      Only via application of the scientific method though.

      Except there isn;t any scientific method- that is a myth- see that uberkley site on evolution

      Dawkins says it can.

      Where?

      He was probably in Great Britain when he said it.

      Delete
    24. Bullshit. We can apply tried and true techniques to living organisms too.

      But we do not have the data to do so, Einstein.

      Of course we do.

      We do not have a planet with a 4-billion-year natural history against which to compare our own Earth and say "See, Earthly life doesn't look like THAT".


      Why is that even necessary?

      Liar.

      Deny it all you like, Joe, we both know it's true.

      Liar- make your case, punk.

      You would see the flaws in an instant if you actually bothered to learn biology from biologists.

      LoL! I have been pointing out your flaws, asswipe.


      Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

      Yup! Which is completely true! And more evidence for my position, I believe. Your point was...?

      LoL! You are a complete asshole-

      1- YOU SAID WE COULDN'T SAY EVOLUTION WAS UNGUIDED

      2- THEY DIDN'T PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE

      Then there is the fact that darwin invented natural selection as a designer mimic, meaning we can get design without a designer.


      What do you mean 'designer mimic' and what is the point you are trying to make here?

      Design without a designer, just as I said, dumbass. and teh point is darwin proposed unguided evolution you ignorant SoB

      Delete
    25. Joe -

      LoL! Where do you think our knowledge of cause and effect relationships come from?

      What? SETI, archaeologists, forensic scientists, etc, have all seen many examples of design and many example of non-design, and can thus identify the differences.

      We cannot do that with biology. We have a case study of one.

      And then there is the thing we are investigationg, more data.

      Well until we discover a planet with a 4 billion year natural history which we can be SURE was/was not designed, then that is unlikely change anytime soon.

      He was probably in Great Britain when he said it.

      Cute.

      Now cite him.

      Why is that even necessary?

      To make comparisons. That's what SETI does, that's what archaeologists do, that's what forensic scientists do...

      LoL! I have been pointing out your flaws, asswipe.

      No, you think you have. But that only speaks you your staggering sense of self-delusion.

      1- YOU SAID WE COULDN'T SAY EVOLUTION WAS UNGUIDED

      AS OPPOSED TO GUIDED... WE CAN'T!

      2- THEY DIDN'T PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE

      THEY DO THAT IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS! HAVE YOU EVER READ ONE?!

      Design without a designer, just as I said, dumbass.

      How is there design without a designer, you utter fool?

      and teh point is darwin proposed unguided evolution you ignorant SoB

      He proposed a MECHANISM for evolution, you ignorant troglodyte. Yes, an unguided one - just like the other theories of evolution! So what?

      Delete
    26. He proposed a MECHANISM for evolution, you ignorant troglodyte. Yes, an unguided one - just like the other theories of evolution! So what?

      LoL! Intelligent Design EVOLUTION posits the mechanism of directed mutations- directed towards a goal- just like the variations in genetic algorithms.

      1- YOU SAID WE COULDN'T SAY EVOLUTION WAS UNGUIDED

      AS OPPOSED TO GUIDED... WE CAN'T!

      Why can't we? If we can't then that proves the theory is useless.

      SETI, archaeologists, forensic scientists, etc, have all seen many examples of design and many example of non-design, and can thus identify the differences.

      And nothing prevents us from applying our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to biology.

      We cannot do that with biology. We have a case study of one.

      YOU aren't in any position to make such an ignorant declaration.

      The whole of biology depends on us being able to determine if living organisms are designed and evolved by design, or not. Every investigation hinges on that determinitation. Biology is no different.

      Well until we discover a planet with a 4 billion year natural history which we can be SURE was/was not designed, then that is unlikely change anytime soon.

      1- we do NOT know if this planet had 4 billion years of natural history as teh age of the planet depends on how, and from what, it was formed

      2- That isn't even necessary

      And BTW there isn't anything in scientific journals about blind and undirected processes constructing biological systems. You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

      Dawkins:

      The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.


      http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/search?q=dawkins

      First blog entry has the link to the video


      Delete
    27. Joe -

      LoL! Intelligent Design EVOLUTION posits the mechanism of directed mutations- directed towards a goal-

      ID EVOLUTION is not a scientific theory, you yogurt! Every SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution posits natural mechanisms - because science MUST posit natural mechanisms.

      Why can't we?

      How would you possibly test for a supernatural force, or a supernatural 'guiding hand' on a natural force?

      Think about it, how could you possibly tell the difference between gravity as a natural, brute fact force, and a supernatural force acting through gravity? The distinction is simply impossible to draw. And in the end, if the force delivers regular, reliable results, what is the difference? The end results for both are the same. But the scientific natural assumption is a more parsimonious explanation.

      If we can't then that proves the theory is useless.

      Quite the opposite. The very fact that we assume the natural world is predictable (ie, not affected by whimsical miracles or magic) is exactly what gives science its predictive power.

      And nothing prevents us from applying our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to biology.

      You are just parroting these words without understanding them, aren't you?

      HOW do you 'apply your knowledge of cause and effect' when you have a case study of one?

      YOU aren't in any position to make such an ignorant declaration.

      I am not in any position to 'arrogantly' declare that we have never found life outside of Earth?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      The whole of biology depends on us being able to determine if living organisms are designed and evolved by design, or not.

      No, Joe it does not. Biology simply assumes methodological naturalism, like absolutely every theory in absolutely every field of science.

      The only thing that 'hangs' on whether organisms evolved by design or not is your religious belief. And frankly, science owes that no lip service.

      1- we do NOT know if this planet had 4 billion years of natural history as teh age of the planet depends on how, and from what, it was formed

      Oh really? Are you telling me you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old now?

      That isn't even necessary

      It is if we want to apply the methods of SETI and forensic scientists as you suggested above.

      And BTW there isn't anything in scientific journals about blind and undirected processes constructing biological systems.

      That is because in science it is ALWAYS ASSUMED that all forces are 'unguided'. There are no experiments to test for it, there are no studies which question it. Because we can't.

      You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

      *gently weeps* Dear God, not again...

      Dawkins:

      Nowhere in that quote did Dawkins say science could infer supernatural forces.

      Delete
    28. For Ritchie:

      About the Bible: Why do you automatically question the eyewitness accounts?

      When we are dealing with history, that is the best we can hope for.

      The authors are credible and clearly state their purpose, what they saw & experienced.

      Their lives were changed by it and they lived it out. Many were even killed for their faith. Many others suffered for their faith. There was no personal gain, only suffering as a reward for telling lies.

      They claim they are telling the truth.
      They present both the good and the bad including their own faults which normally one would not do if you are making up a story.

      But none the less, I'm sure you will always prefer what the liberal scholars say about the Bible. God DOES demand faith like I showed in a previous post, but you want clear proof which will never happen. So since I’m sure you will never accept the Bible, I will just drop that subject.

      However, I will say that I fully believe in a worldwide flood and I actually think there is some very good evidence for that if you look at the world through biblical glasses. True, it destroys everything you claim is evidence for evolution, but that doesn’t bother me.

      The flood is a very difficult thing to study. It is like evolution. It happened once in the distant past and is not observable or repeatable so we are limited in what we can learn about it.

      Creationists are working on some ideas, but whether we will ever be able to concretely say “this is how it happened.” or not is hard to say.

      There are still disagreements and ongoing debates about various details, but some of the evidences for a global catastrophe are as follows:
      - evidence for catastrophism in the strata
      - evidence for rapid deposition of the Grand Canyon
      - widespread deposition by water-laid deposits elsewhere in the rock record
      - the lack of time demonstrated between strata(meaning lack of evidence of erosion between strata)
      - soft sediment deformation features that indicate rapid deposition of huge layers of rocks that evolutionists assume to be millions of years in the making
      - evidence of rapid fossilization
      - fossil graveyards with thousands of animals all washed up together
      - polystrate trees which undeniably show that those rock layers could not be millions of years old
      - evidence from coal seems that don’t fit long age ideas
      - catastrophic formations of canyons after the Mt. St. Helens eruption that show millions or years are not necessary to explain such formations

      There are still unanswered questions to be sure, but it is not an open and shut case for evolutionists. I suggest doing a search for flood evidences on creation.com or some other creationist website to take a look at the actual arguments used and the evidence they have to support their ideas rather than just looking at critiques of it by Materialists or just writing it off as ancient myth. It is good to read both sides.

      Creationists interpret the evidence through their worldview just like evolutionists interpret it through their evolutionary worldview. Both are explanations for the same phenomenon. You have to admit that billions of fossils all over the world, even on mountaintops, would be one expected outcome of a worldwide flood.

      Delete
    29. For Ritchie:

      “to get animate objects, you have to first show that it is possible to get life from inanimate objects and there is no evidence for this tenet of the atheist faith at all. What we see is that life always comes from life – Always. To violate this law of nature, you need evidence or examples of it happening and you have none. “



      Ritchie: Which is precisely why abiogenesis is a thriving area of study. It is entirely wrong of you to say there is 'no evidence' when scientists have been studying this very question productively for decades. True we have no definitive answers, but to take this as evidence for divine creation is simply God of the Gaps logic.


      ・A thriving area of study? So what! What does that prove? Call it what you want, but that simply shows that they still have no clue! You take it by faith that one day hopefully you will be able to create life and understand this process. There is no guarantee, but this is what you believe in & hope for. But reality is that in the last 70 years, due to scientific progress and understanding of the cell, the task of explaining it all has become progressively more difficult and challenging.

      At what point will the faith of the Materialist have to face reality. Never? Will you just keep believing no matter how difficult a scenario you are forced to believe? Can the materialist faith ever be falsified in this area? It doesn’t seem so.

      ・Sure scientists have been studying this question for decades(& gone completely gray in the process), but what does that show? Studying it productively? Sure, in the sense that we are learning more about the complexity and design of life, but not productively in the sense of solving the problem.

      - OK, you claim there is evidence for this?
      What is the evidence that we have? Lay it on me. I’m all ears!

      You might not take the lack of evidence for abiogenesis and the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell as evidence for an intelligent Creator, but that idea sure fits well with what we have found and you will have a hard time convincing people otherwise unless they have committed themselves to the Materialist worldview.




      “You just take it by faith that it happened in the magical world of Darwinland.”



      Ritchie: It is not faith. We exclude supernatural explanations for natural phenomena because science is impossible without it. That leaves us with exclusively natural explanations. That is not a matter of faith.



      ・Regardless of whether it is outside of the modern definition of science or not, simply assuming a completely natural cause when you can't prove it is similar to faith. Plus, you simply believe that it happened in spite of the all evidence that challenges that assumption.

      ・Science is not possible without the assumption of exclusively natural explanations?

      Really? Isn’t that modern assertion completely falsified by the great Christian scientific heroes of the past who we still look up to and in whose debt we remain? They seem to have been quite successful at science in spite of their creationist worldview, but you would have us believe that they were not true scientists? That's a bit arrogant wouldn't you say?

      Scientists like Newton
      Maxwell
      Bacon
      Steno
      Linaus
      Mendel
      Boyle
      Faraday
      Joule
      Pasteur
      Kepler
      Pascal ad infinitum.

      ・Perhaps what you mean to say is that science as it has recently been redefined is impossible if you don't restrict yourself to natural explanations. Evolutionary science that interprets the unobservable unrepeatable past through that lens? True. That type of "science" is not possible.

      Delete
    30. For Ritchie:

      “The existence of information invalidates materialism.”



      Ritchie: It does not. When it comes to life, when it comes to considering what 4 billion years of evolution can achieve, we have a case study of only one.

      ・So wait, you are claiming that material chemicals can actually produce immaterial things?

      That is what you believe?!

      And you wonder why everyone is not a Materialist?!

      First of all, I don’t think you have 4 billion years to create information. The claim is that the earth is 4.6 byo, right? And life is thought to be about 3.6 byo give or take a little? So you only have 1 billion years to work with because information is a necessary part of life. The first couple of hundred millions of years, life wouldn’t even have had a chance to evolve because the earth is said to have been one big molten ball, right? So now we’re down to what, 6-7 hundred million years? Where and when did the water come from? How long did it take for meteorites to deliver that much water? (perhaps you believe in a different fairy tale when it comes to the water problem, I don’t know.)

      So don’t give me this 4 billion years thing. That’s cheating! At the most 700 million years for life to evolve? Ouch! That's gotta put a bit of a crunch on your beliefs!


      Ritchie: we have a case study of only one. That leaves us entirely unequipped to say what it might or might not be able to achieve with/without intervention.

      ・I don’t know. It looks to me like you are bending over backwards here to try and save your worldview! This is just an excuse you use to hide your faith.

      Again, what we do know from experience, what we can verify with our own eyes over and over again is that life only comes from life, codes, software, complex design, information, purposeful design, machines, etc. these things all point to intelligence, just like archeological finds point to intelligence.


      “Do you consider ad hoc explanations to be sufficient scientific support? I don’t.”



      Ritchie: It seems you do not properly understand scientific explanations if you dismiss them all as ad hoc.

      ・ You are evading the question. Please answer it. If you have an explanation for life that is not ad hoc, I’m all ears.

      Unsubstantiated hypotheses are ad hoc explanations until there is evidence to back them up.

      If you have an explanation for the Big Bang that doesn’t include ad hoc explanations like dark energy, dark matter, inflation, etc to prop up the theory, I’m all ears.

      I consider convergent evolution and homoplasy both on the bodily and molecular level to be an ad hoc explanation.

      How the giraffe got it’s neck, the zebra it’s stripes, how language evolved, etc etc. These are all ad hoc explanations because there is no experimental support for them at all.

      
”SETI and archeology validate the principle of science finding evidence of design and pointing to a designer.” 



      Ritchie: Not really sure the point you are trying to make here.(Yes you are!) There is no scientific principle that discounts design, per se.

But the reason SETI and archaeology can distinguish design from non-design is because they have a large cache of evidence for both. The know what type of evidence non-design would throw up. When it comes to life, we simply don't. Again, we are working with a case study of one.

      ・Ritchie, this is all fluff.

      Which is more complex?

      Life, radio signals, or stone tools?

      If design principles hold true for these simple things, that is all the more reason to assume they hold true for life, the most complex thing that exists in the universe!

      Non-design fails miserably to explain life!

      Materialists accuse creationists of believing in miracles, but they themselves believe in the most fantastic miracle of all – Life without a cause. At least the creationist has a sufficient cause to explain his faith. The Materialist is left hoping for some future unknown discovery that goes against everything we know today to rescue their faith.

      Delete
    31. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    32. Ritchie,

      This is the kind of stuff you are up against on a weekly basis. The story just keeps getting harder and harder to believe.

      http://crev.info/2012/12/news-from-epigenetics/

      Quote from the article:

      "Epigenetics is proving to be a fruitful field for research, possibly as fruitful (or more so) than the discovery of the genetic code itself.

      As stated earlier (8/21/2012, 9/06/2012), it involves “codes upon codes” explaining how a human being can develop from a small set of genes through regulation, alternative splicing and post-transcriptional modifications.

      The proliferation of codes is inversely proportional to the credibility of Darwinism."

      So true!

      Delete
    33. ID EVOLUTION is not a scientific theory, you yogurt! Every SCIENTIFIC theory of evolution posits natural mechanisms - because science MUST posit natural mechanisms.

      Design is a natural mechanism- and science is not limited to natural mecahnsims. Natural mechanisms cannot be responsible for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature. And science says nature had an origin.

      How would you possibly test for a supernatural force, or a supernatural 'guiding hand' on a natural force?

      ID doesn't require the supernatural. And we can check for signs of design.

      Dawkins:


      Nowhere in that quote did Dawkins say science could infer supernatural forces.

      LoL!:

      I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue.

      Loser.

      Delete
    34. And BTW there isn't anything in scientific journals about blind and undirected processes constructing biological systems.

      That is because in science it is ALWAYS ASSUMED that all forces are 'unguided'.

      Liar. SETI doesn't assume that. Forensics doesn't assume that and archaeology doesn't assume that.

      Also, moron, you cannot assume that which you need to demonstrate.

      You can't even provide a testable hypothesis for unguided evolution.

      *gently weeps* Dear God, not again...

      I really hope that you testify at the next ID trial. We will win for sure...

      Delete
    35. The whole of biology depends on us being able to determine if living organisms are designed and evolved by design, or not.

      No, Joe it does not.

      According to Dawkins, it does. He is someone and you are a nobody.


      Biology simply assumes methodological naturalism, like absolutely every theory in absolutely every field of science.

      LoL! So fields of science assume a failed philosophy?

      Delete
    36. tokyojim -

      Why do you automatically question the eyewitness accounts?

      We do not have eyewitness accounts. That is the point. We have absolutely no accounts of Jesus written by anyone who was even alive during his alleged lifetime outside of the gospels, and even the gospels are anonymously written, and, as demonstrated by the Synoptic problem, not independent accounts. They borrow from each other.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

      We simply do not have any impartial eyewitness accounts at all.

      Their lives were changed by it and they lived it out. Many were even killed for their faith. Many others suffered for their faith.

      That shows only that they believed. Not that their beliefs were well founded. They are completely different assertions. It is perfectly possible to be mistaken in even your most sincere belief. Consider, every religion has its martyrs. And they cannot all be right.

      I suggest doing a search for flood evidences on creation.com or some other creationist website... It is good to read both sides.

      I wonder if you have ever taken your own advice. Have you ever looked into the COUNTER evidence for the worldwide flood? Have you ever help up all this supposed evidence up to scrutiny? Or you do just soak up the Creation sites unquestioningly? I do not mean to be rude - I mean that with in the most civilised and constructive way possible.

      Creationists interpret the evidence through their worldview just like evolutionists interpret it through their evolutionary worldview. Both are explanations for the same phenomenon.

      I'm afraid not all worldviews are equally valid. Methodological naturalism is a perfectly rational (and necessary, besides) assumption. A god, or any specific supernatural being is not.

      You have to admit that billions of fossils all over the world, even on mountaintops, would be one expected outcome of a worldwide flood.

      But is it also evidence of plate tectonics - the what is now a mountain was once the ocean floor that has been thrust up over thousands of years by the movement of the Earth's crust. In fact this is a better explanation since it also explains why we find layering patterns in the sediment - something a sudden catastrophic flood would not produce.

      A thriving area of study? So what! What does that prove? Call it what you want, but that simply shows that they still have no clue!

      It proves that abiogenesis is a solid scientific theory since it is fertile for future study. Creationism, conspicuously, is not. It relies utterly on God of the Gaps inference - which is demonstrably a logical fallacy.

      At what point will the faith of the Materialist have to face reality. Never? Will you just keep believing no matter how difficult a scenario you are forced to believe? Can the materialist faith ever be falsified in this area? It doesn’t seem so.

      If you are asking if science will ever give up looking for natural explanations for things and just assume supernatural ones, then no. That will never happen. That is simply not the way science works. If it did, then we would never have gotten as far as we have. We would have written off all the mysteries of the world as the work of God and we would never have achieved all the discoveries and advancements of the modern age.

      Studying it productively? Sure, in the sense that we are learning more about the complexity and design of life, but not productively in the sense of solving the problem.

      You are wrong. The more we learn about exactly what a cell is, the more we know what we need to account for existing. Again, note that, in ToE's place, Creationism would do nothing. It would assume God's hand in every mystery and we would simply discover no more. Easy answers such as Creationism, kill proper investigation.

      Delete
    37. tokyojim -

      Studying it productively? Sure, in the sense that we are learning more about the complexity and design of life, but not productively in the sense of solving the problem.

      You are wrong. The more we learn about exactly what a cell is, the more we know what we need to account for existing. Again, note that, in ToE's place, Creationism would do nothing. It would assume God's hand in every mystery and we would simply discover no more. Easy answers such as Creationism, kill proper investigation.

      You might not take the lack of evidence for abiogenesis and the growing understanding of the complexity of the cell as evidence for an intelligent Creator, but that idea sure fits well with what we have found

      It is not better fit for a designer than the alternative. Simple things can be designed. Complex things can be designed. So if something is discovered to be more complex than previously thoughtr, that is no better evidence that it was designed, is it?

      Regardless of whether it is outside of the modern definition of science or not, simply assuming a completely natural cause when you can't prove it is similar to faith.

      You are only saying that to make your own religious faith sound scientifically admissable. It is not.

      Really? Isn’t that modern assertion completely falsified by the great Christian scientific heroes of the past who we still look up to and in whose debt we remain?

      Nope. Because at no point did any of them include "Then, a miracle happens" as part of their scientific explanations. Science does not mandate atheism, but it does mandate explaining the natural world with exclusively natural mechanisms. It is possible for Christians to do this - though how they marry this with their Christian faith strikes me as a little odd, but that is a personal matter for them.

      So wait, you are claiming that material chemicals can actually produce immaterial things?

      What? Living creatures are not immaterial.

      First of all, I don’t think you have 4 billion years to create information. The claim is that the earth is 4.6 byo, right? And life is thought to be about 3.6 byo give or take a little? So you only have 1 billion years to work with because information is a necessary part of life.

      Life did not suddenly spring up AS IT IS NOW. It has been constantly evolving and developing the entire time. Even the simplest cell in this day and age has been subject to all 4 billion years of evolution.

      Again, what we do know from experience, what we can verify with our own eyes over and over again is that life only comes from life,

      Dalmations only come from dalmation, but there was a time before dalmations, wasn't there? What we observe is speciation. This is exactly the pattern evolution requires and explains.

      codes, software, complex design, information, purposeful design, machines, etc. these things all point to intelligence,

      Not in the natural world. Again, life is unique. The products of human civilisation reflects nothnig at all on the products of the natural world.

      just like archeological finds point to intelligence.

      Again, that is a false parallel. Archaeologists have vast troves of 'designed' objects and 'non-designed' objects to compare and contrast. Biologists have no such thing.

      You are evading the question. Please answer it.

      I had assumed the question was rhetorical. No, ad hoc explanations are not sufficient.

      Unsubstantiated hypotheses are ad hoc explanations until there is evidence to back them up.

      That is a very curious way of looking at it.

      How the giraffe got it’s neck, the zebra it’s stripes, how language evolved, etc etc. These are all ad hoc explanations because there is no experimental support for them at all.

      Which is incorrect. Evolution is based upon a huge trove of evidence. It is a scientific fact. Inferring it is not ad hoc - it is surely the opposite since its mechanisms are in fact used to infer so much evidence?

      Delete
    38. tokyojim -

      How the giraffe got it’s neck, the zebra it’s stripes, how language evolved, etc etc. These are all ad hoc explanations because there is no experimental support for them at all.

      Which is incorrect. Evolution is based upon a huge trove of evidence. It is a scientific fact. Inferring it is not ad hoc - it is surely the opposite since its mechanisms are in fact used to infer so much evidence?

      Which is more complex?

      Life, radio signals, or stone tools?

      If design principles hold true for these simple things, that is all the more reason to assume they hold true for life, the most complex thing that exists in the universe!


      You have totally missed how SETI works.

      Please read this brief essay explained what SETI does and why ID-ers misinterpret it.

      http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html

      They do not simply look for complexity. That would be silly. What they look for is artificiality, not complexity. They are looking fdor tones which are simply not created by background noises of the cosmos, which are characterised by inefficiency - something we DO find in biological organisms.

      Non-design fails miserably to explain life!

      Design is far worse! It explains nothing at all. Effectively it says 'It was magic'.


      Materialists accuse creationists of believing in miracles,


      Quite so.

      but they themselves believe in the most fantastic miracle of all – Life without a cause.

      'Without conscious intervention from a supernatural force' does not equate to 'without cause'. We just seek natural causes for natural phenomena - which is what science is all about.

      At least the creationist has a sufficient cause to explain his faith.

      Not objectively he doesn't. He must INVOKE his faith. That is entirely circular.

      The Materialist is left hoping for some future unknown discovery that goes against everything we know today to rescue their faith.

      The materialist is left working productively in the 'hope' that the world indeed can be understood via rational inference. A hope which is the very driving force of science, and has been pretty well supported by their sheer productivity of science itself.

      To quote Tim Minchin, every mystery ever solved has always turned out to be not magic.

      Delete
    39. tokyojim -

      This is the kind of stuff you are up against on a weekly basis. The story just keeps getting harder and harder to believe.

      No, this is not what we are 'up against'. This is an example of why it is utterly fallacious to get your science news from ID/Creationist site. It is called propaganda.

      Just like Cornelius' very site here, this site is spinning a new discovery to make it sound like it challenges ToE in the some obscure way, because it was not directly predicted. It is quite a devious move.

      Epigenetics is absolutely no problem at all for evolution. These are not counter-theories. Like HGT, it is a newly discovered mechanism which complicates the picture a lot. But that's okay. Because science allows for new discoveries. We may have to tweak theories here and there as new evidence comes to life, but every time we do, we can be confident that our theories have become CLOSER to reflecting the real world. It is not 'yet more evidence that they are fundamentally flawed'.

      You really should get your scientific news from a scientific source. The Creationists will always put their religious bias all over everything.

      Delete
    40. Joe G -

      Design is a natural mechanism-

      Only if you posit an entirely natural designer. You tell us: are you?

      and science is not limited to natural mecahnsims.

      Yes it is.

      Natural mechanisms cannot be responsible for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature. And science says nature had an origin.

      What? An embarrassing little puddle of logical incontinence there. What on Earth is the origin of nature?

      ID doesn't require the supernatural.

      Again, only if the designer you are positing is entirely natural. And we both know it isn't whether you want to admit it or not.

      And we can check for signs of design.

      Such as...?

      Nowhere in that quote did Dawkins say science could infer supernatural forces.

      LoL!:

      I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue.

      Loser.


      Really is a very tiny little brain you're housing in your head, isn't it? I bet when you shake your head it rattles around like a marble in a shoebox.

      Your claim was that Dawkins said science can directly infer the supernatural. Your quote doesn't show that, you utter donkey.

      Try listening to this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns

      "That is because in science it is ALWAYS ASSUMED that all forces are 'unguided'."

      Liar. SETI doesn't assume that. Forensics doesn't assume that and archaeology doesn't assume that.


      They are not biological fields, you total turnip.

      I have already explained the difference. Doubtless it bounced harmless off your skull which is totally impervious to any form of logic at all, but SETI, archaeology and forensics infer design because they all know what to expect without it. They all know what 'deign' and 'non-design' looks like in their respective fields. Biology, meanwhile, has a case study of one.

      Here, perhaps you will understand it from an employee of SETI (though of course my hopes aren't high):

      http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html

      Also, moron, you cannot assume that which you need to demonstrate.

      We don't need to demonstrate it, troglodyte. If it isn't natural, it isn't science.

      I really hope that you testify at the next ID trial. We will win for sure...

      You didn't at Kitzmiller v. Dover, did you? Obviously the biased judge was part of the Big Atheist Conspiracy because everyone's out to get you, right?

      Loser.

      According to Dawkins, it does.

      Not in any quote you've referenced. (Or at all, really because it's blatantly rubbish.)

      He is someone and you are a nobody.

      And yet you still won't listen to him at all, will you? He is an atheist so you automatically think you know more about science than he does, despite the fact that he is one of the most prominent biologists of our age, while you are a sad armchair Creationist with an ego the size of Texas.

      Delete
    41. Design is a natural mechanism-

      Only if you posit an entirely natural designer. You tell us: are you?

      How can you tell from just looking at the design? And what happens if we say design and find out it was by a supernatural designer? It's too late to turn back.

      and science is not limited to natural mecahnsims.

      Yes it is.

      You don't get to say that, Ritchie. Science only cares about reality. And if reality says something supernatural didit then science has to accept it.

      Natural mechanisms cannot be responsible for the origin of nature because they only exist in nature. And science says nature had an origin.

      What? An embarrassing little puddle of logical incontinence there. What on Earth is the origin of nature?

      Any embarrassment is all yours and it's due to your ignorance. The universe = nature. Science says the universe had a beginning. Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for that origin.

      ID doesn't require the supernatural.

      Again, only if the designer you are positing is entirely natural. And we both know it isn't whether you want to admit it or not.

      Nope. Not everything non-natural has to be supernatural.

      And we can check for signs of design.

      Such as...?

      I have already been over that with you and you choked on it.

      They all know what 'deign' and 'non-design' looks like in their respective fields. Biology, meanwhile, has a case study of one.

      Again, moron, there isn't anything that prevents us from using tried and true design detection techniques on biological organisms. Nothing.

      Only a dumbass ignorant coward would put up the "defense" you are trying to use.

      Here, perhaps you will understand it from an employee of SETI (though of course my hopes aren't high):

      http://www.space.com/1826-seti-intelligent-design.html


      Already answered

      Also, moron, you cannot assume that which you need to demonstrate.

      We don't need to demonstrate it, troglodyte.

      Yes, you do, moron. If you cannot then you don't have any science.

      If it isn't natural, it isn't science.

      The DESIGN is natural you moron. The DESIGN can be studied you dolt.

      And as for dawkins- YOU said:

      It cannot speak to the supernatural.

      Dawkins says it can.


      Notice nothing about what you tried to twist it into:

      Nowhere in that quote did Dawkins say science could infer supernatural forces.

      You are a punk coward tat doesn't know a thing about science. That Dawkins quote supported everything I have said- that determining design makes all the difference in the world- and all you can do is choke on it.

      So science can speak of the supernatural and it matters if intelligence was involved in our existence.

      Delete
    42. ME: So wait, you are claiming that material chemicals can actually produce immaterial things?

      Ritchie: What? Living creatures are not immaterial.

      ME: No, we were talking about information. Information storage, retrieval and processing is a unique characteristic of life. It requires a symbolic association between items in a code (ie - a DNA-amino acid ‘dictionary’) together w/a language processing system that can interpret the code via the symbolic associations and carry out work as a result. Information can never be meaningfully studied in isolation; it must always be seen in the context of its language processing system and the task that this in turn is connected with.

      +++

      ME: First of all, I don’t think you have 4 billion years to create information. The claim is that the earth is 4.6 byo, right? And life is thought to be about 3.6 byo give or take a little? So you only have 1 billion years to work with because information is a necessary part of life.”

      Ritchie: Life did not suddenly spring up AS IT IS NOW. It has been constantly evolving and developing the entire time. Even the simplest cell in this day and age has been subject to all 4 billion years of evolution.

      ME: No kidding. I know that is what you believe, but for that first living cell to evolve, you didn’t have very long to work with.

      Plus you have the problem of a faint sun to deal with. This means that the earth back then would have been too cold for life to have evolved.

      +++

      ME: Again, what we do know from experience, what we can verify with our own eyes over and over again is that life only comes from life,

      Ritchie: Dalmations only come from dalmation, but there was a time before dalmations, wasn't there? What we observe is speciation. This is exactly the pattern evolution requires and explains.

      ME: The problems with this reply are numerous! False equivocation.

      Explaining how a Dalmation came from a different species of dog is FAR DIFFERENT than explaining how life came from non-life!

      Are you really trying to imply they are similar?

      If what you mean by evolution is simply a different species of dog evolving, then hey bro, we’re on the same page. Even creationists believe that dogs devolved from the wolves and then all the species of dogs also evolved or were created by breeders.

      The difference is that this is simply a shuffling out of the original genomic information in wolves. You can go down the ladder and specialize, but not up the ladder from dogs to wolves because the genes necessary for the wolf kind are not all present in dogs. But the genes necessary for dogs were all originally a part of the wolf genome.(That is the creationist position)

      So getting dogs from wolves is no problem, but getting wolves from dogs is impossible without interbreeding with wolves.

      Getting dogs from wolves is not the type of evolution you need to explain molecules to man evolution. Totally different.

      And again, nice try, but your explanation has nothing to do with how life itself evolved!


      Besides you can’t have natural selection acting until life itself exists so you are comparing apples and oranges.

      Delete
    43. For Ritchie:

      ME: codes, software, complex design, information, purposeful design, machines, etc. these things all point to intelligence,

      Ritchie: Not in the natural world. Again, life is unique. The products of human civilisation reflects nothnig at all on the products of the natural world.

      ME: I see. And your evidence for this opinion is….?

      Why would you think that an information processing system that exists in our own bodies did not require intelligence when all the information processing systems that we see in society that are far less sophisticated than what we see in our bodies, DID require intelligence, planning, and purpose? That does not make sense to me, but if that is how evolution wired your brain to think, so be it.


      ME: just like archeological finds point to intelligence.

      Ritchie: Again, that is a false parallel. Archaeologists have vast troves of 'designed' objects and 'non-designed' objects to compare and contrast. Biologists have no such thing.

      ME: I see. So again, even though information storage, retrieval and processing systems in society require intelligent designers who act with purpose, that has nothing to do with the superior information storage, retrieval and processing system that we see in life. That is your assertion?

      Hmm. I need a bit more convincing on that one. I would think a good place to start would be our personal experience, but I guess the results with that approach are not so satisfying for the materialist.

      +++

      ME: How the giraffe got it’s neck, the zebra it’s stripes, how language evolved, etc etc. These are all ad hoc explanations because there is no experimental support for them at all.

      Ritchie: Which is incorrect. Evolution is based upon a huge trove of evidence. It is a scientific fact. Inferring it is not ad hoc - it is surely the opposite since its mechanisms are in fact used to infer so much evidence?

      ME: Ritchie, it is easy to make claims like you just did, but harder to back them up. However, I’ll give you a chance to back them up. Please tell me how the giraffe got it’s neck or how language evolved. The challenge though will be to do it without ad hoc explanations. I want real evidence.

      Delete
    44. Ritchie, I'm still waiting.

      What evidence do you have, concrete scientific evidence derived from the scientific method that tells us how the giraffe got it's long neck?

      What experiments have been done to demonstrate how language could have evolved?

      What is the hard scientific evidence upon which you base your belief on for these things?

      Surely, if there is such a huge trove of evidence available, then you can explain this to us.

      You claim that "inferring is not ad hoc" Thank you for this admission that historical science is different than normal every day science. In normal everyday science, we may make inferences, but we can test them and validate or invalidate them. But in historical science, they remain inferences and thus remain unverifiable. This is why it is so much less dependable than real science that uses the scientific method.

      Any story that sounds good gets accepted. There might even be more than one story possible to explain a certain thing.

      We are back to our worldviews again. You make inferences based on your worldview and we make inferences based on our worldview. In some ways, we use circular reasoning, but this is out of necessity because we have to choose a worldview through which we interpret evidence.

      Delete
  3. Eugen said: "What happens inside the cell nucleus when you say Hallelujah?"

    I don't know yet. What do you say inside your mind when you take your last breath?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or
      " "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. My last confession was 480 weeks ago."

      Delete
    2. " we have time for one more hole before the storm hits"

      Delete
    3. "I wonder what this button does"

      Delete
    4. "This wall isn't load bearing"

      Delete
    5. ""Made it, Ma! Top of the world"

      Delete
    6. "Doctor, do you think it could have been the sausage?"

      Delete
    7. "Either this wallpaper goes, or I do!"

      Delete
    8. “What are you dodging for? They couldn’t hit an elephant at this distance!”

      Delete
    9. "Time to trade in this body for another."

      Delete
    10. "Switching it over to AM
      Searching for a truer sound
      Can't recall the call letters
      Steel guitar and settle down
      Catching an all-night station somewhere in Louisiana
      It sounds like 1963, but for now it sounds like heaven"

      Delete
    11. "
      "Oh all the comrades that e'er I've had
      Are sorry for my going away
      And all the sweethearts that e'er I've had
      Would wish me one more day to stay
      But since it falls unto my lot
      That I should rise and you should not
      I'll gently rise and I'll softly call
      Good night and joy be with you all"

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. tokyojim said:

    "Codes don't emerge on their own.
    Software doesn't write itself.
    Information needs a Mind and a sender and never arises on its own.
    Life always comes from life.
    Fine tuning requires a Tuner.
    Laws require a Lawgiver.
    Purposeful design requires a Designer.
    Machines require an inventor and an assembler.
    Personhood and Conciousness point to a Personal cause rather than a material cause.
    Something never comes from nothing.
    Everything that has a beginning has a cause."


    It seems the evolutionist is saying that the theory of evolution falsifies each of these observed facts.

    The rest of us say that each of these observed facts falsifies the theory of evolution.

    Who stands on more firm ground?
    Which position is supported by both scientific observation and the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  6. For Ritchie,

    My original post: This is the kind of stuff you are up against on a weekly basis. The story just keeps getting harder and harder to believe.

    Ritchie: No, this is not what we are 'up against'. This is an example of why it is utterly fallacious to get your science news from ID/Creationist site. It is called propaganda.

    .... Epigenetics is absolutely no problem at all for evolution. These are not counter-theories. Like HGT, it is a newly discovered mechanism which complicates the picture a lot. But that's okay. Because science allows for new discoveries. We may have to tweak theories here and there as new evidence comes to life, but every time we do, we can be confident that our theories have become CLOSER to reflecting the real world.


    Ritchie, you claim that “epigenetics is absolutely no problem at all for evolution.” And that "it complicates the picture a bit, but that's OK."

    Wow! That’s a bold statement! What evidence do you have to back up this claim outside of your unwavering commitment to naturalism?

    This shows that evolution is impossible to falsify. No matter what new unexpected thing is discovered, you just prop up your dying theories with more and more ad hoc explanations and claim victory! You even claim that you are confident in your explanations taht cannot be tested. That is a bit more than tweaking I think.


    Ritchie: “It is not 'yet more evidence that they are fundamentally flawed'.”

    Me: How do you know? It certainly COULD mean that your materialistic assumptions are fundamentally flawed! You don’t see it that way because you take your worldview as fundamentally true which gives you the faith to believe whatever is necessary in order to make your theory work.


    Ritchie: “You really should get your scientific news from a scientific source. The Creationists will always put their religious bias all over everything.is trivial.”


    Me: Another way to put it is this: “The materialists will always put their atheistic bias all over everything.”

    ReplyDelete