The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  >rexilus,
  
  
  >this challenge applies to you as well:
  
  i would like one link from you that proves that we were created by god. i want full proof, not just circular logic. i want evidence that not only turns the theory of evolution on it's head, but also does a better job of explaining the data and answering where we come from, how we evolved, and what we can expect to find in the future.
  
  i await your evidence for creation.
  
  
  1) First Cause.
  
  2) Irreduciable complexity of DNA, organs, animal and plant reproduction in this ecosystem.
  
  (There is no macro-evolution but there is micro-evolution: adaptations can and do happen, no one has proved that the species make the jump into other species.)
  
  3) The Bible, with reservations:
  
  It is not a science book, nor is that its intended purpose. It is not a geology book. It addresses what 'science' or human reasoning and logic are overwhelmed by: The magnificence of the universe which speaks of the inconcievable wonder of a being that resides in eternity!
  
  4) I am here and I have in fact communicated (and still do) with the person of Jesus Christ. I know He lives and my faith is built on Him.

  ROFLMAO!!

  ...okay rex, thanks. he he.

  ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT IN! Science is in a constant state of change and in dispute. It is not the 'one, big happy family' of belief that you portray. The turnover and change is constant. Theories are routinely modified and discarded. All of the evidence is not in and it will never be in

  LOL. just because the evidence is not in, does not mean that future discoveries are going to throw the theory of evolution out. - yes, things in science change all the time, but somethings will simply never change. for example, it would be intellectual folly to await new light on the fact that DNA is a triple helix, and not a double helix. you really should stop being so hopeful that science will someday discover god, and prove his existence. LOL (shaking head)

  TS
• 

  ellderwho

  just because the evidence is not in, does not mean that future discoveries are going to throw the theory of evolution out.&

  Huh? edited to add: So whats up with the magic polymers?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Huh?

  ya, you heard me right the first time.

  so what about my challenge? can you do better than rex, or is your answer the same?

  here's a couple further questions you can answer for all the earnest people who want to know how creationism can help them understand their world better:

  Question #1: What evidence would falsify your chosen brand of creationism?

  Question #2: What evidence would you accept as provisional proof of evolution?

  edited to add: So whats up with the magic polymers?

  biochemists are working on the question of origins. it's the only parsimonious thing to do, considering the lack of evidence for the existence of god.

  here is an interesting paper originally submitted to nature, that shows how close we are to finding an explanation for the origin of life:

  http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

  and a tid bit to whet your appetite:

  SELF-REPLICATION: Even peptides do it
  
  
  By Stuart A. Kauffman

  This article originally appeared in Nature 382 August 8, 1996.
  
  Copyright 1996 by Nature.

  On page 525 of this issue [1], David Lee and colleagues describe what appears to be the first case of a self-replicating peptide, a result that may prove to be either a mere chemical curiosity, or seminal.

  The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).

  The design of this replicator was based on a protein found in nature, an alpha-helical coiled coil. Reasoning that a given alpha-helical subunit of the entire structure could be seen as a complementary binding surface, acting cooperatively to organize other participating peptide subunits in the coiling, the authors hoped that a similar 'template' function could be found in smaller fragments. The ligation, or joining, site was constructed so as to lie on the solvent-exposed surface of the alpha-helical structure of their 32-amino-acid sequence.

  Lee et al. established autocatalysis by showing that by increasing initial concentrations of the 32-amino-acid template, with constant concentrations of the 15- and 17-amino-acid substrates, a marked increase was produced in the initial rates of template production. The increase correlates with the square root of the initial template concentration, as seen in self-ligating polynucleotide systems [2,3]. The reaction is region- and chemically selective, yielding less that 15% side products, and proceeds through the major autocatalytic pathway open to the system.
• 

  doogie

  Theories are routinely modified and discarded.

  routinely, huh? please name a couple that have been discarded (don't say newtonian physics ). or was this just empty rhetoric?
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT IN! Science is in a constant state of change and in dispute. It is not the 'one, big happy family' of belief that you portray. The turnover and change is constant. Theories are routinely modified and discarded. All of the evidence is not in and it will never be in

  Well, that logic doesn't really hold up when comparing science to religion. I can't say if all of the "evidence" for religion is "in", but if it is, and has been for centuries, why is there still no agreement among religious scholars? In case you haven't noticed, religion is certainly not "one big happy family" of belief. In fact, a significant reason I trust science over religion is when the vast majority of scientists' findings agree with a theory, that new theory is eventually accepted by the scientific community as a whole. Not so at all with religion. It would be almost unimaginable to have all religious scholars agree on who their god is, much less anything else.

  As for theories routinely modified and discarded, the media plays an important role in making that impression. What people hear is "scientists have found xxx", but what they don't hear is that the results of this new finding have not been tested yet. The scientific community accepts or rejects this theory after testing it again and again, regardless of what the media has pronounced. Would you prefer they stick to an incorrect theory?

  "As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right. As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely." - (talkorigins).

  Yeah, I know. Religion doesn't operate that way. Religionists think they are always right without question, and scientific discoveries need to be either ignored by the religionist or made to come into line with existing religious belief (beliefs which couldn't be agreed on by the religious community as a whole or even a majority, in the first place). Another way religion operates is by misquoting or misrepresenting scientists. They routinely attack scientific findings long rejected by scientists, hoping their believers are ignorant and trusting enough not to check their sources. Likely, they justify employing this obviously dishonest tactic for the "greater good". This patronizing attitude is just part of the reason I am certain religion is merely a well organized scam.

  After considering how religion works compared to science, I have a great deal more confidence in science, thank you very much.
• 

  Shining One

  Hi Itsallgoodnow, I appreciate what you are saying and so much of it is true. However, you are living in a fantasy if you think that science is above the inherent weaknesses in human nature. You seem to have replaced one belief system with another but do not realize it. It is not any more honest than the one you replaced it with. God is above creation, He is 'first cause' in physics, He is of the metaphysical realm and indeed all thought emanates from His continuous existence. Classic Christianity has provided the best answer for the problem of evil. Christianity is not the religious institutions, it is the life led by Christ and we do well to try and become like Him. I do well buy trying to let Him live through me! Rex
• 

  AlanF

  : I do well buy trying to let Him live through me!

  So Jesus wants to live vicariously through Rex. LOL!

  AlanF
• 

  funkyderek

  Shiny Thing:

  You seem determined to confuse evolution and abiogenesis, but I don't mind discussing either. Just keep in mind that they are separate issues

  1) First Cause.

  Please provide proof that a first cause is necessary, and explain you think how it could be an intelligent entity when you won't even allow for the possibility that a self-replicating molecule can form spontaneously.

  2) Irreduciable complexity of DNA, organs, animal and plant reproduction in this ecosystem.

  The argument from irreducible complexity is really an argument from personal incredulity. You can't believe something could be formed by gradual steps, so you declare that it can't possibly be.

  Please provide specific examples of organs or entities that you believe to be irreducibly complex, and explain why you believe there are flaws in the standard evolutionary explanations for them. Please don't bother with the old standards - the eye (way too easy) or bacterial flagellum (a little more difficult but it's been done to death).

  (There is no macro-evolution but there is micro-evolution: adaptations can and do happen, no one has proved that the species make the jump into other species.)

  Nonsense. The artificial distinction between micro- and macro-evolution that creationists make is meaningless. It's absurd to claim that small adaptive genetic changes can be made, but that these cannot accumulate over time. Examples of speciation have already been provided in this thread

  3) The Bible, with reservations:
  
  It is not a science book,

  You've got that right!

  nor is that its intended purpose.

  Perhaps not, but it does describe in detail an account of the creation of the earth, which I'm assuming you believe is meant to be taken literally. The account is of course simplistic and grossly inaccurate - exactly what one would expect if it was made up by a nomadic Bronze Age tribe.

  It is not a geology book.

  Clearly not. It's obvious the ancient Hebrews had no idea of the shape or nature of our planet.

  It addresses what 'science' or human reasoning and logic are overwhelmed by: The magnificence of the universe which speaks of the inconcievable wonder of a being that resides in eternity!

  It addresses such things, as does most mythology. It doesn't provide any convincing answers to important questions, though. If the Bible was our only source of information about the "magnificence of the universe" we would be poor indeed.

  4) I am here and I have in fact communicated (and still do) with the person of Jesus Christ. I know He lives and my faith is built on Him.

  An argument from personal subjective experience. It's not something I can argue against, although I hope you understand why I can never accept your interpretation of your alleged private experiences as any sort of evidence. In any case, the existence of such a being would not in any way preclude the possibility of evolution.
• 

  itsallgoodnow

  Hi Itsallgoodnow, I appreciate what you are saying and so much of it is true. However, you are living in a fantasy if you think that science is above the inherent weaknesses in human nature. You seem to have replaced one belief system with another but do not realize it. It is not any more honest than the one you replaced it with. God is above creation, He is 'first cause' in physics, He is of the metaphysical realm and indeed all thought emanates from His continuous existence. Classic Christianity has provided the best answer for the problem of evil. Christianity is not the religious institutions, it is the life led by Christ and we do well to try and become like Him. I do well buy trying to let Him live through me! Rex

  You said I "seem to have replaced one belief system with another but do not realize it". Oh, I realize it. It's the bigger picture I'm looking at here. I trust the scientific method much more than any mystical beliefs, Christianity included, and I'm happy to do it. The best answer for the problem of evil? So if Christianity's "explanations", which btw involve lots of unanswered promises, make you FEEL good, that's enough?

  Trying to distance yourself from "religious institutions"... that's been done before. Remember the placards "religion is a snare and a racket"? Who was doing that? Oh, yeah. One of the biggest rackets I've ever had the pleasure of becoming ensared by. You can do nothing more than make big claims about a personal relationship with Christ, and you believe this is something no person can argue with. That's also been done before. Something about Jesus picking his faithful and discreet slave in 1918... does that ring a bell for you?.

  Resorting to arrogant dogmatism here clearly reveals your weakness. Nothing you have ever said is worthy of causing a skeptic any pain. And you promised to bring us our worst nightmare! What a let down!
• 

  Deputy Dog

  EW There's no magical thinking required for abiogenesis in the article on self-replication is there? Like how did the peptide get there? or How these reactions could occur spontaneously (on their own) in water? D Dog