Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 75 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
On 3/11/2021 at 10:24 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

If new species don't evolve from previous species, why do some species first occur in the fossil records far later than others? Were there multiple intelligent creation events over time, like sequels to a movie?

Bear in mind that we know much more about how genetics creates an organism than Darwin knew. If you don't understand genetics it's logical to assume that major change takes a long period of time. However, our genetic code doesn't necessarily work that way. To gain an extra pair of legs it isn't necessary to create the code for an entire new set of limbs from scratch; it just requires a modification in a small amount of code that determines how many sets of pre-coded limbs will be made.

Multiple creation events… the fossil record seems to indicate that.

Darwin pointed out that if he were correct then we would find millions of fossils showing the various development steps. There would literally be trillions upon trillions of false starts and dead ends in the fossil record. In his day it was reasonable to suspect we would find those fossils. The old man was on to something with the information he had at the time.

I think to date we have 8 what we call transition fossils and all are highly questionable. The transition fossils just don’t exist in the quantities he predicted or least we haven’t found them and we pretty much have filled in the historic record, time-wise, from finds covering the world. So, I think it is unlikely we will.

The Cambrian Explosion of species is shrinking to a shorter and shorter time frame adding more complexity to a hypothesis. Most organisms suddenly appear in the fossil record fully formed. Last I checked, it was down to <10,000,000 years.

It is more than logical to assume macro-evolution takes a long time. In the OP I think I pointed to the article: The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Aug 23, 2011. They took their data from the fossil for the basis of their conclusion.

If we say a major evolutionary change occurred not every million years but every second, it would still take 1.527 × 101,806,179,966 years to evolve just our DNA and that is a way way conservative number.

When you say gaining an extra pair of legs only takes a small genetic change how do you know that?

On 3/11/2021 at 11:00 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

"Odds" are meaningless in hindsight. If something occurs, it occurs regardless of how unlikely it was considered for it to happen.

You seem concerned about where "information" comes from when it's hard-coded into the deepest parts of existence.

A cluster of 11 positively charged particles (with a few neutral particles thrown in for stability) will attract 11 negatively charged particles, one of which will be alone in an outer valance and at high risk for straying. A collection of these agglomerations will form a metallic substance that will catch fire in water.

A cluster of 17 positive particles, on the other hand, will attract 17 negative particles, leaving an outer valance with a powerful desire to grab just one more electron and become full. A collection of these groups will be a greenish gas that will smell like a swimming pool.

If a group of the +11 things happens to encounter a group of +17 things, it's very likely that the outrigger electrons of the +11 will be grabbed by the outer shells of the +17 and form a collection of stable molecules made up of a single +11 and a single +17, resulting in a white crystal that will taste like salt.

These miraculous changes - and all other chemistry - will occur despite all of this just involving three types of miniscule particles, one of which is strictly along for the ride. They don't need information; they just do what they do.

Once again you are begging the question with the hindsight idea. The RS is struggling with new hypotheses because of the odds and time needed for random selection to work its magic.

Trying to say odds of an event happening don’t matter because the event has happened in some senses are true. The dam broke so it doesn't matter the odds. But for events that must reoccur it is silly. Talk to any gambler. Framed another way, sitting at a blackjack table the guy to the left wins. Odds don’t matter so bet your whole stack because the winning event happened so obviously you’ll win… silly.

With Darwin’s idea the evolving event must occur again and again and again… for each species. The odds and time needed determine the plausibility of the event happening.

Next, you’re mixing chemistry and information theory. Avoid the conflation. Information Science has a definition of what information is, if you want to look it up. Elements in the periodic table do NOT contain classic information. Read up. An easy-to-understand part of the definition is information is defined in part as being about something. An electron does not tell us about anything. A house address is information. A map for a protein string is information.Both tell us something.

While there are 20 or 22 amino acids they connect in long strings with the longest found containing just under 27,000. Since amino acids can connect in arbitrary sequences the space of possibles is approximately 2050,000 proteins (or in more recent literature 2250,000). Each arrangement creates a unique protein. The human body contains 2 million or so different ones. Inserting any of the other 2049,994 proteins into your body may kill you. So, no it is not the natural chemical reaction of things inherent in the elements that created life and species. Something more was required. That something more is what the Royal Society of London is trying to figure out.

Microbiologists in experimenting with proteins have proven this natural chemical progression you claim does not follow. Basic chemistry also proves that point. 

The proteins are made from 20 or 22 amino acids depending on the date of the book you read. But placing all the elements making up amino acids in a bottle and shaking will not cause amino acids to form, which would be the case if no mixing information were needed and it was a naturally occurring chemical reaction.

As one digs into microbiology and molecular biology the odds of naturally forming acids and proteins are shown via experiment to match the rates predicted by the math for naturally forming acids and proteins. The experiments also show the empirical values for the changes of self-replicating proteins forming. The chances are 1 in more than there are atoms in the universe (not counting dark matter) of a useful protein or amino acid forming.

On 3/11/2021 at 11:04 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

Seems that more than one person can beg a question...

Why does there need to be a creator separate from creation, and why does that "creator" have to be conscious (i.e. aware)?

Of course, anyone can beg a question. I don't think I did. I think I handled that earlier, but...

The reason an uncreated creator would be separate is a logical conclusion. If there is no space-time or matter and space-time and matter come into being, something that was not space-time or matter had to create them.

If the whatever were not space-time or matter then after the creation of space-time and matter the whatever would still not be space-time or matter. Thus, logically it is separate.

If whatever was not space-time or matter caused a creation and was not conscious then the question “why?” arises. Why did it create? And how did an unconscious whatever create a universe this complex? And the “information” load in the universe would have to be created, as we don’t have any hypothesis for how information can be created without an author. As best we can tell now all creation requires a conscious decision.

This information creation thing in particular is creating a major complication for the RSoL in developing a new hhypothesis.

 

Edited by Nalates Urriah
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It's a collection of stories by many authors passed down over the years.  What about ancient Egyptian text which are older than the bible?  Weren't those writers also divinely inspired?  Who's to say one is the truth and one isn't?  

Obviously inspiration is accepted by faith, I am not attempting to argue that the inspiration of any particular text can be proven, only that the circumstance of a text being written cannot prove that it isn't inspired. There is a big difference between proving something is and proving that it is not. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talligurl said:

Obviously inspiration is accepted by faith, I am not attempting to argue that the inspiration of any particular text can be proven, only that the circumstance of a text being written cannot prove that it isn't inspired. There is a big difference between proving something is and proving that it is not. 

True, rational thinking does.  40+ men over the course of 1600 years?  It sounds like folk lore rather than inspired by god writing.  

I'm a recovering Catholic.  I was taught about the bible.  Even at a young age, I'd question things.  Does anyone really think Noah built a boat and loaded all the animals onto it?  The parting of the Red Sea?  Stories, embellished stories.  Told to teach a lesson or inspire a following.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I am proof that curiosity and laziness can happily cohabitate.

The same can be said of anyone conceived due to forgotten birth control! But you got all that, and smart too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Obviously inspiration is accepted by faith, I am not attempting to argue that the inspiration of any particular text can be proven, only that the circumstance of a text being written cannot prove that it isn't inspired. There is a big difference between proving something is and proving that it is not.

Well what about thinking that perhaps parts of the Bible were inspired?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Does anyone really think Noah built a boat and loaded all the animals onto it?  The parting of the Red Sea?  Stories, embellished stories.  Told to teach a lesson or inspire a following.  

 

parting of red sea moses bath.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:
18 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Obviously inspiration is accepted by faith, I am not attempting to argue that the inspiration of any particular text can be proven, only that the circumstance of a text being written cannot prove that it isn't inspired. There is a big difference between proving something is and proving that it is not. 

True, rational thinking does.  40+ men over the course of 1600 years?  It sounds like folk lore rather than inspired by god writing.  

I'm a recovering Catholic.  I was taught about the bible.  Even at a young age, I'd question things.  Does anyone really think Noah built a boat and loaded all the animals onto it?  The parting of the Red Sea?  Stories, embellished stories.  Told to teach a lesson or inspire a following.  

I am reminded of this...

Substitute "inspired texts" for "flying saucers".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 6:16 AM, Luna Bliss said:

Nalatas, just cut the cra*p. You are not arguing in good faith the way a reputable Scientist would, seeking to draw conclusions from the observations presented -- you begin with an agenda to disprove evolution so that your world view (creationism, Biblical literalism, your conception of 'God') can then be validated in your mind. I really wouldn't care so much as I do respect all views -- the problem is that your views (an alt-right/fundamentalist mindset that believes they have this SEKRIT alternate reality truth which supersedes reputable science) has caused a good majority of the 525,000 deaths from Covid in the U.S.). It's time to tamp you and your kind down a bit before anymore damage is done to society.

Ooooouuuw… Right to an Alinsky attack. The nails come out. That sort of signals you lost out trying to deal with the merit of my arguments or to provide yours. The shift to opinions of me certainly signals that.

In the OP I didn’t set out to disprove evolution. You seemed to have missed the nuance that I was backing up my claim in an earlier thread the Royal Society of London was giving up on Darwin’s hypothesis. Thus, the included quotes taken from that thread. I never said they gave up on ALL hypotheses of evolution.

If reputable scientists talk about their observations and then come to conclusions about them, why do you think I am not doing that? Consider.

I pointed out I saw the RSoL talking about the problems they were having with the hypothesis and two scientists called 16 experts in evolutionary theory together to come up with a better idea. That is not putting down evolution. It is facing the fact the hypothesis has problems and the RSoL is having problems working through them. This is the scientific method at work.

I continued on to point out the facts and the magnitude of the problems they face. I also point out what some of the pro-macro-evolution people have said. They do NOT want to allow god a toe in the door. (Ref) So, they have to find a workable solution that eliminates any supernatural factor. That’s OK. I just have serious doubts they can do it.

All the Bible, creationism, intelligent design… that was all brought in by others and you mis-attribute it to me. I have responded to those. That is a nuance…

And you have inferred my world view. I have yet to say what I believe or what my world view is beyond it including the idea the RS has problems with Darwin’s hypothesis and coming up with a better hypothesis is going to be hard. One can observe I include a lot of hard facts, scientific and historical, from solid sources. So, concluding I am a skeptic and require good profs in a Euclidian style of thought is also part of my world view is reasonable. You are far off the mark you are funny.

Your last couple of sentences pretty much fall off the end of the pier. I think you totally trigger yourself from inferences that aren’t implied.

Alt-right… I think you are just trying to be insulting.

Creationism is a definite possibility. But you assume/infer I must believe it. I haven’t told you what I think of it.

Where did I talk about my view of biblical literalism? Oh yeah, I pointed out that first century people took the beliefs literally. Ah, missing those nuances keeps you triggering yourself. Maybe some good anti-anxiety drugs…

Where did you come up with what my concept of god is? I have answered questions that whatever created space-time and matter could not be space-time or matter. But where did I use gender pronouns, describe personality – other than conscious, talk about personality, rules a god might have made… 

I have secret knowledge? Neat! What is it? I seem to have forgotten were I talked about those secrets… can you point me back to them?

And which points did I write about that ‘supersede science’? I’ve mostly been quoting science and history.

Where did you get the idea the idea that 525,000 deaths were caused by my views? Can you really place all those numbers on me when Cuomo’s health order placing people known to have tested positive for covid in nursing homes killed thousands unnecessarily?  And where do you get any idea of which policies killed how many?

The NYT is writing about how Cuomo is being investigated for his covering up the real numbers. People hide things when they know they screwed up. (additional references)

And that last sentence of yours reveals the bigotry, intolerance, anti-diversity attitude, and suppression philosophy you are promoting. Free speech is obviously not a thing for you.

Seems you are trying to bully me into silence and call for violence against me and any who think like me (tamp me down – that is a call to violent action?). I suppose you have to go that way since you can’t argue the merits of these subjects.  And surprisingly you write all that while seemingly trying to virtue signal… remarkable.

======= On Another Note =======

Earlier in the thread Arduenn Schwartzman (Ref – 3rd paragraph) rejected the idea there is any effort to cancel scientists that reject the idea of evolution. Then Luna provides an example (click ‘expand’ or follow the forum quote-link back to see it) of the societal mindset that demands anyone questioning the establishment’s orthodoxy or departing from it be silenced. I think Luna shows it is present here and how triggering these people brings out a vile response. I contend it is present in even greater strength in the Royal Society and other scientific and academic circles.

That this goes on academic circles in all areas is shown by Medical Journal Forces Out Doctor For Questioning ‘Structural Racism’

So, it isn’t surprising to me that the RSoL locks it doors and refuses to print meeting minutes when trying to develop a new theory on evolution. The culture of silencing people is obviously chilling scientific and philosophical investigation.

@Arduenn Schwartzmanin another post claims my references to cancel culture in the scientific fields are “…those sources of yours are all BS, lies and misinformation.” He uses the appeal to authority tactic. He is in the field for decades so he ‘knows’. He knows so well he doesn’t need to look at the link I provided. So, without noticing the COURT CASES listed as sources in the results he classes them “all BS, lies and misinformation”. He is unaware major news organizations carry the stories… but he may have a point, they often lie…

Try this search. Just read the headlines in the results to see how right Arduenn isn't.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

And you have inferred my world view. I have yet to say what I believe or what my world view is beyond it including the idea the RS has problems with Darwin’s hypothesis and coming up with a better hypothesis is going to be hard.

Apparently you have forgotten the fact that you've made many posts, over many years, and that we have debated various issues as well.  Why would you think only this thread should matter in my assessment of your behavior?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Does anyone really think Noah built a boat and loaded all the animals onto it?

Often fiction brings us closer to the truth than non fiction. Classic liturature gives us tremendous insight into the truth of the human condition. The Bible does not have to be an account of literal facts in order to be true. If man can teach us profound things through fiction, why couldn't God? Again the fact that some Biblical events are extremely unlikely to have actually occured, does not in any way prove that he writing were not inspired. The intent is not to teach us history, but to teach us about ourselves and about God.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Talligurl said:
27 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Does anyone really think Noah built a boat and loaded all the animals onto it?

Often fiction brings us closer to the truth than non fiction. Classic liturature gives us tremendous insight into the truth of the human condition. The Bible does not have to be an account of literal facts in order to be true. If man can teach us profound things through fiction, why couldn't God? Again the fact that some Biblical events are extremely unlikely to have actually occured, does not in any way prove that he writing were not inspired. The intent is not to teach us history, but to teach us about ourselves and about God.

Because some of the Bible is illogical and unlikely to have occurred this means all of it is false (the position of a more logical, scientific thinker who engages in 'all or nothing' thinking).

Because there are some valid truths in the Bible beneficial to humans, perhaps even divinely inspired, this must mean all of the Bible is true  (the position of a Bible literalist who engages in 'all or nothing' thinking).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If whatever was not space-time or matter caused a creation and was not conscious then the question “why?” arises. Why did it create? And how did an unconscious whatever create a universe this complex? And the “information” load in the universe would have to be created, as we don’t have any hypothesis for how information can be created without an author. As best we can tell now all creation requires a conscious decision

 

1) Isn't the question of "why" even more of an issue for a conscious creator? If someone is lying unconscious but breathing, you don't wonder "why" they "decided" to breathe. Most tales of conscious creators make Creation like some cross between a child playing with Lego and a narcissist seeking admirers. Is that what you believe?

2) Where did the creator get the information necessary to make the creation? If the creator either didn't need the information or created it spontaneously, then why can't you say the same about the Universe?

This whole "information" thing has me scratching my head, to be honest. People can interpret "information" from the patterns that tea leaves form in the bottom of a cup; the Chinese writing system developed from the cracks that turtle shells formed when thrown in a fire. Is that "information"?

Most people can't get away from the idea of God as being "a bloke, however large." Personally if I was to argue that there is a God, it would be a pantheistic view similar to that of Baruch Spinoza, where "Creation" is an integral part of God.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:
39 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well what about thinking that perhaps parts of the Bible were inspired?

What about thinking that every third letter was inspired?

;-).

Well, I'm sure you know the answer to that....what is 'inspired' is relative to the person or culture.

So this leads us to define clearly just what 'inspired' actually means..

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

And you have inferred my world view. I have yet to say what I believe or what my world view is beyond it including the idea the RS has problems with Darwin’s hypothesis and coming up with a better hypothesis is going to be hard.

 

On 3/11/2021 at 1:40 PM, Nalates Urriah said:

Since it seems there has to be an conscious uncreated creator it would follow there has always been information. However, it seems reasonable that this initial being created the information. We still have no example of spontaneous information nor independently evolving information.

That a life form could develop a connection to a larger consciousness doesn't address how the life form came into being.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love

by Joni Mitchell

Although I speak in tongues
Of men and angels
I'm just sounding brass
And tinkling cymbals without love

Love suffers long
Love is kind!
Enduring all things
Love has no evil in mind

If I had the gift of prophecy
And all the knowledge
And the faith to move the mountains
Even if I understood all of the mysteries
If I didn't have love
I'd be nothing

Love never looks for love
Love's not puffed up
Or envious
Or touchy
Because it rejoices in the truth
Not in iniquity
Love sees like a child sees

As a child I spoke as a child
I thought and I understood as a child
But when I became a woman
I put away childish things
And began to see through a glass darkly

Where as a child I saw it face to face
Now I only know it in part
Fractions in me
Of faith and hope and love
And of these great three
Love's the greatest beauty
Love
Love
Love

Corinthians 13:1-13 from the King James Bible

Edited by Luna Bliss
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

Often fiction brings us closer to the truth than non fiction. Classic liturature gives us tremendous insight into the truth of the human condition. The Bible does not have to be an account of literal facts in order to be true. If man can teach us profound things through fiction, why couldn't God? Again the fact that some Biblical events are extremely unlikely to have actually occured, does not in any way prove that he writing were not inspired. The intent is not to teach us history, but to teach us about ourselves and about God.

Yeah, actually. Totally this.

And like any work of literature -- like pretty much any communication of any type -- it is susceptible (within limits defined by the text itself) to differing interpretations based on any number of factors.

I think that very little of the Bible is literally or historically true. But it is full of insight and interest, even if only as insight into how a people and a culture viewed itself.

I don't in any way personally buy that Christ was divine, or that there is a bearded gentleman in the clouds overseeing us all, but there are parts of the New Testament that positively shine with insight and humanity and understanding and love.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well, I'm sure you know the answer to that....what is 'inspired' is relative to the person or culture.

So this leads us to define clearly just what 'inspired' actually means..

I don't think you're going to get a clear definition of "inspired".

My "every third letter" example isn't as absurd as it might seem. How many people have been inspired by hidden messages in albums played backwards, or first words taken from lines of poems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Universe explodes in the joy of creation, an orgasmic bliss, a heartfelt YES.
Is there any greater purpose than this?
Be Here Now

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 75 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...