Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Whose theory?

Darwin's? Darwin's natural selection was never proved by any part of his own travels. (My dad says it might be Spencer who actually coined "survival of the fittest", and that Darwin never explained the mechanics)

Darwin did manage to prove catastrophism, the theory that the prime cause of evolution is to adapt to sudden changes of environment (an island got split apart, and one half had completely different nuts and berries, and they developed different beaks). He did not however prove that a species thrives on infighting which is at the core of natural selection. In fact, if a hive of bees were to compete among themselves for fitness, the hive would die. Neither is there "survival of the fittest" with regard to species. Predator and prey keep each other in check. They evolve together, in response to each other. Nor is it really the fittest, but rather evolution often branches different ways. The existence of pack behavior undermines the idea of natural selection (the group is not selecting the best, it is working together that all might survive) as are some forays into epigenetics and inherited environmental traits.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Quote:
Take, to begin with, the Swedish chickens. Three years ago, researchers led by a professor at the university of Linköping in Sweden created a henhouse that was specially designed to make its chicken occupants feel stressed. The lighting was manipulated to make the rhythms of night and day unpredictable, so the chickens lost track of when to eat or roost. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, they showed a significant decrease in their ability to learn how to find food hidden in a maze.

The surprising part is what happened next: the chickens were moved back to a non-stressful environment, where they conceived and hatched chicks who were raised without stress – and yet these chicks, too, demonstrated unexpectedly poor skills at finding food in a maze. They appeared to have inherited a problem that had been induced in their mothers through the environment. Further research established that the inherited change had altered the chicks' "gene expression" – the way certain genes are turned "on" or "off", bestowing any given animal with specific traits. The stress had affected the mother hens on a genetic level, and they had passed it on to their offspring.

That's a beautiful answer to a question no one asked. You have a real talent for evading direct questions. I said that I doubt you have the capability of even giving a correct statement of the theory of evolution.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What's simplistic is your conclusion.

Simpler than what? Simpler than Your nonexistent explanation for biological life emerging? Simpler than your 'maybe it was always here'?

Please, come back when you have a real argument.

Quote:
In regard to chance, your protein argument is a fallacy in that you've convinced yourself of its impossibility, whereas the truth is that, statistically, it is possible.

No dear boy, I didn’t say it was 'impossible', I said it is so mathematically and statistically unlikely that it is not possible for anyone who understands the magnitude of the problem to accept that it happened by chance. You clearly do not understand it.

But forget my conclusion, I challenged you to find any fault with the facts or logic in my protein argument. I don’t believe you can and so far you have not.

You take your conclusion as as fact in your protein argument, when it is merely an opinion, boomer.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I wonder.
since IB accepts that it is definitely possible that he will win the lottery if he spends all his money on tickets, is that the choice he would make?
It’s way more likely than biological life by chance.

Simplism, QED.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

The word "simple" only became associated with stupid in certain circles. But they are not universally synonymous.

A microscopic organism is extremely simple. It also is able to run a great number of processes, everything from getting you sick to working with the body to break down foods, to helping plants make oxygen. These are things that for all our size, we can't do. Hell, mold can rot a tree to the ground.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/42/128842-131-736C0E8F.jpg

The simple, the meek, is more powerful than all the money and authority in the world. McAuliffe was beaten soundly, despite having the support of the teacher's unions. They polled the voters afterward, tand the main issue. "Parents shouldn't be in charge of their children's education." That's right, all the money, the propaganda, all the big cities, and the electoral machines. It was concerned parents that defeated this.

In small towns, we have an expression. "We're rural not stupid." The point being, the big cities and their big agendas have been telling people in small towns how to live at least since the 1920s, when they tried to tell small farmers that they were needing better time management (my dad had a book on it, it was about the development from breakfast, dinner, supper to breakfast, lunch, dinner). A lady who owned her own farm basically broke down her entire day, sending it to the paper. Basically "Oh yeah? You show me where I have time that I'm wasting between milking cows, collecting eggs, crop stuff, etc etc etc." We've had everything from gaslighting and brainwashing crap , rigged elections, urbanization projects to try to pave us out of our land, to taxes to try to steal it out from under us. The railroads came to alot of towns back in the day, promised the prosperity, took the money and folded, leaving wrecked shells. Or near the Blue Ridge Mountains, they forced people who had family homes for generations off their land. After they were forced from rent-free homes to monthly leases, insult was added to injury, as much of media for hundreds of years was focused on "backwoods rural hicks who can't read and who inbreed with their cousins." Uhhh first of all, these so-called hicks may not have had the latest gadgets but they often had copies of the classics. They had books of philosophy or religion.

To be simple is to be content. To not spend all of one's energy jetting around the country in an electric car, kidding oneself that it saves the environment. To value family, friendship, and community. The big city fucked up my small town with its asshole hysteria, and I will never forgive these jackasses. We used to have a strawberry festival, small town parades and such, farmer's markets, and now everyone is cut off. They accuse people with good sense of "spreading Trunp's COVID lies". Let's set the record straight. I am NOT acting on anyone's behalf. The same cannot be said of the media stooges who managed to close down local schools, churches, and other public places in the name of science. I enjoy a quiet life, but people who cannot be content if they had several times their creature comforts, have ruined the simple boring life I had.

Oh sure, I have a Switch, Netflix, Hulu, and such. I also don't emotionally and spiritually exhaust myself working as some barista and constantly checking my cellphone for likes on Facebook. Black Mirror's "Nosedive" episode is a pretty good cross-section of exactly how skewed the priorities of urban people are.

So when people throw around "simple" in a pejorative way, it kinda ******* pisses me off. Year after year of this ****! I lost my best friend over this hysteria. We were kinda rocky a few weeks before and that was the final straw, but still...

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Yet this is exactly what many atheistic "scientists" propose.

What is it that many atheistic scientists propose?

Are you an imbecile? Do you not yet know how to write coherently? Quote what you are referencing so we can know what you are talking about.

Quote:

Big Bang really only works for monotheism, pantheism, and polytheism.

If the Big Bang occurred (and there is a lot more evidence that it occurred than there is that your god exists)...then it works for everyone.

Quote:

This is why I despise ppl in the media talking about Hawking like he's some super-genius. Maybe in terms of science, but for religion and philosophy, he's just some joker in a wheelchair. He tried to propose this and proved he doesn't understand.

Oh, so now you suppose you understand more about cosmology and physics than did Stephen Hawking!

You are pathetic. I only wish you were intelligent enough to realize just how pathetic you are, but obviously you are not.

Quote:

If the universe had a beginning, then it has to have someone to create it. If it does not have a beginning, then the discussion of whether someone caused it is an apples-and-oranges discussion.

Then stop arbitrarily calling it a "creation" and talking about that "creator" of yours.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

You take your conclusion as as fact in your protein argument, when it is merely an opinion, boomer.

I did not say my conclusion was 'fact'.

If you want a definition, based on the facts in my argument it would be my bet, that biological life was designed rather than accidental or driven by the known forces of physics.

There is nothing 'simplistic' in my protein argument. That is evidenced by your inability to even see what the argument is. You see it as merely a claim of life being too complex to be by chance.

You can invalidate it any time by refuting any of the facts or logic in the ARGUMENT, not my bet on what is most likely. You have yet to do this. If I’m being simplistic, this ought to be easy for you.

Boomers rule!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am responding directly to your paragraph. I have a feeling even if I quoted, though, you would still be unable to keep up.

Big Bang is a logical paradox without a creator. Some website drew out a chart of how Big Bang works without a creator. It was basically cycled on on itself. Something like... The Big Bang happened because of natural forces. But natural forces need natural laws (gravity, momentum, weak and strong attraction, etc). Natural laws need time to exist in order to produce a cause-effect relationship. Time neeeds a universe in order for events to happen (there has to be something THERE in order to do things, and possibly to have natural laws). Which means we need a universe, which means you need a Big Bang. But that in turn needs natural laws to come into being.
While the universe is there for everyone, only people with a sense of a creator can use it as a theory. The rest should stick to an eternal universe model and stay out of the way.

No. Cosmology is a religious study not a scientific one. Every religion has myths and legends about how the universe came from an egg, or fire guants were involved, or a man and woman were using some giant phallic pillar to make babies (islands).
I know more about religion than Mr Hawking. He should stick to quantum physics and stop trying to make myths about creation.

No, you stop. I am perfectly fine with you believing some non-creation-based idea of how the universe got here. But you cross into my boundaries, my turf, so to speak, when you start telling me what I can and cannot believe or talk about.

https://i0.wp.com/www.greaterwacoed.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Line-in-sand-1.jpg?fit=951%2C630

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

bulmabriefs144 wrote:

I am responding directly to your paragraph. I have a feeling even if I quoted, though, you would still be unable to keep up.

Big Bang is a logical paradox without a creator. Some website drew out a chart of how Big Bang works without a creator. It was basically cycled on on itself. Something like... The Big Bang happened because of natural forces. But natural forces need natural laws (gravity, momentum, weak and strong attraction, etc). Natural laws need time to exist in order to produce a cause-effect relationship. Time neeeds a universe in order for events to happen (there has to be something THERE in order to do things, and possibly to have natural laws). Which means we need a universe, which means you need a Big Bang. But that in turn needs natural laws to come into being.
While the universe is there for everyone, only people with a sense of a creator can use it as a theory. The rest should stick to an eternal universe model and stay out of the way.

No. Cosmology is a religious study not a scientific one.

At times it amazes me just how clueless you are about the things you suppose you are expert about.

At other times, it does not amaze me, because the Internet is filled with people like you...big mouths saying damn near nothing.

Cosmology is not a religious study. It is a scientific one. Religious cosmology is a fraud...a pretense. Religious cosmology is just pretending blind guesses about gods explains existence.

Only a first-class asshole would pretend to be more learned than Stephen Hawking the way you are doing.

Quote:

Every religion has myths and legends about how the universe came from an egg, or fire guants were involved, or a man and woman were using some giant phallic pillar to make babies (islands).
I know more about religion than Mr Hawking. He should stick to quantum physics and stop trying to make myths about creation.

You do not know ****.

Quote:

No, you stop. I am perfectly fine with you believing some non-creation-based idea of how the universe got here. But you cross into my boundaries, my turf, so to speak, when you start telling me what I can and cannot believe or talk about.

I do not "believe" non-creation based ideas of how the universe got here. I say, quite frankly, THAT I DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY.

You ought to give that a try...rather than peddling that third-class religious nonsense you tout.

Draw all the lines you want. But if you continue to beg to be put on IGNORE...I will accommodate you.

0 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

I didn't say "simple," I said "simplism."

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
You take your conclusion as as fact in your protein argument, when it is merely an opinion, boomer.

I did not say my conclusion was 'fact'.

Now if you could only internalize that statment and truly understand what you're saying.

Leadfoot wrote:

If you want a definition, based on the facts in my argument it would be my bet, that biological life was designed rather than accidental or driven by the known forces of physics.

Right. That's what your argument boils down to. Understood.

I think that a designer is unnecessary in an infinite, necessarily ordered world.

Leadfoot wrote:

There is nothing 'simplistic' in my protein argument. That is evidenced by your inability to even see what the argument is. You see it as merely a claim of life being too complex to be by chance.

So, there's something else beyond your bet that biological life was designed rather than accidental or driven by the known forces of physics?

Can you even try to elaborate on that, other than your assertions within your otherwise factual explanation of protein synthesis thab, "we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed," and "It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design," and "the odds are not what I would call possible," and "what cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins" and "it is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'"?

Leadfoot wrote:

You can invalidate it any time by refuting any of the facts or logic in the ARGUMENT, not my bet on what is most likely. You have yet to do this. If I’m being simplistic, this ought to be easy for you.

Your error is that you're conflating your facts with your assertions.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I spoke to Leadfoot waaay back last winter about swlf assmbly of prebiotic moecules ans how, at Stony brook theyve developed a moerl on "EVERYTHING life related begans with two pre protenaceous chemical groups called purines and pyrimidines. All preins, nucleisc acids and ribonucleic acids are based upon these two chem groups. The model, like many models we generate in inorganic crystallography are based on these two groups derived from hydrogen cyanide that led to the growth pf self assembling trains of imidazole 3D di-substituted congeners. At the time he dismissed me as being too snotty with him. Here it is , a yr later , and hes sying the same stuff I told him about last yr

Chemistry cares not for "design", especially since but a very few ays that chemicals can connect and form non living compounds. Thats why the ISers have totally dismissed the re run of th Urey-Miller experiments. Proteins first has been part of the model arguments for years now. The point though, have to include "We got em , now what"?

purines and pyrimidines existed well before the great oxygenation event. and science is trying to locate nucleus free and mitochondria free hadean protists. science is waay ahead of our discussions. I think its right to discuss but ith open mindedness. I dont think that science would give a rat's ass that life was created rather than "reacted". so far scinces data and evidence is far closer to something w can understand and test and model an look for precursor chemicals.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Simplism is the idea that religious people are boiling down ideas to the simplest explanation.

But let me stop you there. There is a philosophical ideal known as Occam's Razor. That is, if you have to employ an overcomplicated explanation to something or if it's too exotic given the circumstances ( "I heard hoofbeats. Zebras!" ) then it's probably not right. Occam's Razor does say that if it's between avoiding the exotic and simplicity, choose simplicity. Also, while something like zebras is exotic in one area, if you get to an area where horses are rare, the conventional assumptions are flipped.

One of the running jokes of X-Files is that it is never Scully's long and convoluted explanations, but Mulder's simple (but very insane ) explanations that it was aliens or whatever.

1 Reply

@bulmabriefs144,

...to every problem in mechanics is a solution that is simple, easily understood and is dead wrong

1 Reply

@farmerman,

( shrugs) You mean all lost time can't just be explained by "Alien abduction" ?

Today we put together a bed frame. To save space we put the old mattress outside. It occurred to me that the project could could have gone south in a number of ways. Rain could have come and the guys didn't come. Or the bars could have been uneven and the thing not able to fit together. Or the inner beams not sturdy enough to hold the mattress or their bodies.

So it also is on a complicated math problem. The more steps, the more potential errors. I've done repetitive game code, and gliched on a line, and the whole sthing screws up.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I spoke to Leadfoot waaay back last winter about swlf assmbly of prebiotic moecules ans how, at Stony brook theyve developed a moerl on "EVERYTHING life related begans with two pre protenaceous chemical groups called purines and pyrimidines. All preins, nucleisc acids and ribonucleic acids are based upon these two chem groups. The model, like many models we generate in inorganic crystallography are based on these two groups derived from hydrogen cyanide that led to the growth pf self assembling trains of imidazole 3D di-substituted congeners. At the time he dismissed me as being too snotty with him. Here it is , a yr later , and hes sying the same stuff I told him about last yr

And this year I responded to this pathetic argument over in the 'ID, Science or Religion?' thread. I assumed you were too embarrassed to come back.

Do you want to continue or not?

To refresh your memory, here is my response.

Quote:

farmerman Quote:
your argument has changed markedly then..

Leadfoot:
No it hasn’t.

Farmer :Quote:
Ive said all along that the hem bonds were an easily understood series based on two simple styles, one a H bond (ionic). The other covalent.

Unique "Syntax" youve spoken of is not unique at all, It is a well understood process that form th basis of pwptie linkag (two series of a molecule, twO COMMON BONDS.

tHE Structur and bonding of Alpha -helices are nothing that, (To most of science ) neither INDICATES NOR SUPPORTS , an Intelligent Designer.

Leadfoot reply:
I can’t tell whether you are really that obtuse or just spouting chemistry jargon to convince others of your expertise.

But in any case, these statements of yours should prove to anyone knowledgeable about DNA and genomes that it is one of those two. But I will indulge you anyway.

The chemical bonds between the four different types of DNA nucleotides are indeed the same, I never disagreed with that. But just to make sure you don’t think I’m changing my story, I’ll repeat it here:

It is not the chemical bonds between the four DNA nucleotides that contains the design information. IT''S THE ORDER THEY ARE IN, STUPID!

Here is the proof of that from 'your' POV.

If the order of DNA sequence made no difference, there would be no possibility of 'evolution'. The only reason there is any difference between biological organisms is the difference in the order/sequence/syntax of their DNA nucleotides. (The chemical bonds between them are irrelevant in this discussion.)

If nucleotide order didn’t make any difference, the theory of evolution would be totally unsupportable after the discovery of DNA.. What you call 'Evolution' are changes in the ORDER OF DNA NUCLEOTIDES. No change in order, no 'Evolution'.

After thinking about it, this is too simple for you to NOT understand. You are definitely just putting me on or pandering to you fan club.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

to state with another assrtion that the "chem bonds" have no baring is really kinda dim Pb.
The fact that we can geochemically trace (by no special order of occurence) the non-bioticappearance of the entire structure of life's "bricks an mortar" is reaaallllyy an important understanding that you like to ignore. The fact that everything living starts with polymerizing chains (COOHs', PO4', and Py/Pu' an less than three types of sugar ) that makes all th diff.

Quote:

I can’t tell whether you are really that obtuse or just spouting chemistry jargon to convince others of your expertise

Its not jargon if youd know what it meant. Its every day conversation that students would have, nothing outstanding. Ive told you many times to keep reading some organic chem and Microbiology texts. Im not dismissing you,You seem to be incapable of understanding or is it merely your stubbornness to acquiesce to stuff I told you over a yr or more ago without you claiming credit for its discovery
The argument about the origin of life has been a research question since Miller Urey who came up with the basic chemistry for reactions that, in nature, produced purines and pyrimidines (hence the formation "BAses", aminoacids, nucleosides and tides, Protein and all the structures containing these groups incluing ugars and Phophorus polymers)

Your argument about "Intelligent Planning" is mostly just in your mind because you really have little interest , training or both, in the relevant organicchemistry.

In case you just like to ignor all th work thats been done since Miller and Urey. It been confirmed that cyanide and acetylcyanide are the primary precursors of purine and pyrimidines in Prebiotic ynthesis of the Hadean World (Weve got Haean chemical "fossils". The only differences are the chemical pathwys for their reactions.e know that cyanide forms abi substituted imidazole which closed it ring 3_D by adding a C1 compound with a covalent bond.Pyrimiins have formed from methane,NH4-, in water within a radiant or hydrotherma nergy source within a fine grained media (Salt clays and silts). NOW , the acetylcyanide have been found in the spectra of bodies within our own solar system.Millr re-confirmed these from stuff included within the Murchisom Meteorite. this finding concluded that pre BIOTIC amounts of these key building blocks were in large amounts to support prebiotic rections on the Hadeaan aged earth.

Also we kno from "fossil chemicals and zircons within the racted masses, that kick starting life at least three times in the very middle to late times of moderate bombardment.

Chemistry is chemistry, and is not a second place occurence to some Bozjie act of Creation.

Find some stuff by Kn Dill re: the transfer of chemistry to Biology in the early earth and you may see that. although your conclusions, while sorta correct as far as it goes are rather naive, and dont recognize the complexity of where the first biochem reactions transcende a test tube to became life.
Indeed, you guys argue that its something living from nothing and all you are doing is ignoring perhaps the key step.

As far as evolution, your failed attempts at argument here are that you really havent looked at the edphic factors that controlled mot of the rie of life. Youre arguing two points that have little in common .

I guess thats why you guy cannot drop (or prove) anything to do ith IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. In my mind, THATS the pseudoscientific con-job that "supports" ID.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

It is not the chemical bonds between the four DNA nucleotides that contains the design information. IT''S THE ORDER THEY ARE IN, STUPID!

so you dispel anything to do with gene expression?? You do recognize that am genes (lik GULO) do omething to fire up a ribo to do something or not. And that in some galapagos finches, the "mutations" are merely off and on which were merely epigenes .

ps, I try to rspect my elders but your being rude without any valid reason. Kinda like when Michale Jackson wore one glove

0 Replies

Does anyone here think anything farmerman said in the previous posts addressed the very simple point in this statement? :

Quote:

It is not the chemical bonds between the four DNA nucleotides that contains the design information. IT''S THE ORDER THEY ARE IN, STUPID!

If so, explain why.
If not I will consider the matter decided.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Im not the one who attaches his worldviews to some dingus outfit in Seattle, that tries to suspend facts and evidence in the name of a pseudoscience called ID

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

worldviews attaches facts not outfit the and one in the ID Im in suspend Seattle, a to dingus of that to pseudoscience evidence tries called some name his who

It’s still all about the order they are in.

And all systems naturally go from order to disorder.

Quote:

fo otn eveecnid fittuo Im wvodweilsr eth in fscat adn a in cdlela DI eon tisre aenm nespdsu tlea,Set dngisu nsseccidpouee semo owh shi thtsacae to htat eht to

2 Replies

Is There Any Reason to Believe the Biblical Story of Creation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know