Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I guess you would rather talk theology & religion rather than the logical case for ID. That's fine if you'd like.

It is a waste of time to discus ID, it is nonsense. But there still needs to be a basis for ID which is a creator/god. You MUST first establish that an "intelligent agency" is behind ID before we can even begin to discus ID as being possibly valid. To just skip over establishing this base entity is dishonest.

Leadfoot wrote:

The statement you made is way off the mark about the bible and even religion for the most part (they are not synonymous).

Off YOUR mark you mean. I have heard believers speak and put forth those ideas. So it doesn't matter if you personally do not accept them. I am addressing nonsense I have heard. As I stated before.

Leadfoot wrote:

Don't know how familiar you are with the bible but here's the deal about 'the Law' in biblical context. The Law (I assume you mean the 10 commandments) was given to Moses at the request of the people who were following him, not God. People at that time were in the opposite state of mind as today; they were terrified with some of the events surrounding God's direct dealing with man (floods, plagues, fire from heaven destroying cities, etc.), they were afraid and told Moses to give them a simple list of rules and they would follow them (and they were given the chance).

They were given the chance twice but you are going to step up a contradiction in the following statement.

Leadfoot wrote:

That was man's idea, never God's.

If it was never God's idea, then why did he entertain Moses? Why didn't he suggest something else? Why didn't he inform Moses that it would fail? Why did he go through this whole thing twice? There wasn't just one set of "laws" or commandments, but it was done twice.

The first time Moses returns with the tablets and shatters them out of anger when he sees the people worshiping an idol. I have objections to this story but I won't go into it here, just establish that he first attempted to bring the laws back to the people and got pissed off and broke them. Then he goes back up the mountain and gets another set.

God entertains him twice.

Leadfoot wrote:

Your suggestion of empathy is more in line with the original plan that his Son came later to make clear to man. It's all in the book if it matters to you.

Yes but there is so much garbage in the bible it dilutes and covers this idea of human empathy. So it wastes and washes over the idea. The idea also falls on deaf ears when on one hand the bible suggests murdering is okay. This trumps the idea of human empathy. So you set up a state of confusion.

God kills every first born in Egypt.
God kills all beings except Noahs family.
God kills everyone living in sodom and gomorrah.
God commends the murdering of other people by his chosen people.

So it washes over this idea of human empathy. If god can't have empathy for humans then why should humans have empathy for other humans? Just because he is god, he is allowed to ignore this? NO he should be setting the example.

Don't even attempt to suggest that Jesus set the example, because even that is nonsense. Jesus curses the Roman who stabs him in the side with his spear to roam the Earth for ever. He will never die. He is plagued with torment that he will never die. That isn't empathy.

Leadfoot wrote:

PS: I was really hoping you would tell me if you were serious about life not being complex, etc. You kind of made my jaw drop on that one.

Because I think the statement is one of perspective. We like to suggest that life is complex but really its just a culmination of several different parts all working together. These parts work both independently and in support but without actually trying to or wanting to.

How much agency do you have over your body? You don't need to think about breathing or beating your heart. You don't need to be involved in digesting your food. You don't need to be involved in the production of bone or muscle replacement. You are not involved in any of this. You don;t even control the function of your muscles. Instead you just request the movement and the signals are sent out to your muscles to move and if the proper chemicals are there to allow movement then you move. You can't control it if these things are not in place. Sever the communication and you can no longer move a limb.

These are cells, communicating with other cells, and more cells, so on and so on and so on. A network of cells, nothing more than that. It's not complex.

If you build an object out of lego, it doesn't make it complex. They are still simple pieces, the only difference is they are attached to each other in certain ways giving the illusion of a complex object. No.

The same is true about the universe. Everything is made up of atoms. These atoms come together to form chemical bonds. These bonds can form chemical linked chains. Or they can clump together to form rocks, asteroids, comets, moons and planets or stars. But all they are, is a bunch of atoms all clumped together. This isn't complexity.

It's just simple parts that are combined. The same is true about the eye. It isn't a complex organ. It's just made up of simple parts working together. That isn't complexity. The lenses of the eye don't know about any other part of the eye, the cells are just a lens.

Like a brick building, you pile up bricks and they produce what we call a building. But really it's just a particular piling up of bricks that we call it a building. It's not complex. It's just a pile of bricks.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

(I can imagine how little things like facts and evidence would tend to shake your worldview, neh?)

I don't know about that... epigenetics/nutrigenomics has kinda shaken my world. Same goes for this new theory on the 4th phase of water. Still, putting it all together into some coherent bond is an issue for me so pardon my ignorance. However, I do think there is difference between inanimate behavior and animate. Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states (though not necessarily.)

6 Replies

@Krumple,

But WHY did God take the lives he took?

WHY did the chief/president order the Dropping of an Atom bomb, taking the lives of many? Was it murder? (It seems lives can be taken, and not be classified as murder)

All of these scenarios are sad, yes.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Your LEGO structure analogy is interesting.
But is it not reasonable to assume that the Lego piece was crafted by an intelligent being, and so was the Lego structure? Is it not like wise reasonable to assume that atoms and molecules, and all the visible Structures we observe were crafted by intelligence?

Is this why bacteria, which is considered a simple structure by many ppl, cannot be observed being built by Randomness?

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

epigenetics/nutrigenomics has kinda shaken my world

Weve been working with epigenes for a few decades , so if all you read is from web sites, remember thise things are mostly written by science writers and not scientists. They usually have enough knowledge to spread dumb mistakes and people pick it up.

nutrigenomics sounds like something that Kelloggs Cornflakes places on its eb site. Weve also known that genetic responses to TASTES and vitamins (like Vitamin C) are genetically controlled.
IT chemitry not religion.

Why cant human produce vitamin C like other animals??? Did some GOD do it?

How bout neural ganglia response to Vitamin B and Niacine? Did GOD teach us how to cook meat??

Apparently you 'd rather be more easily blown away than learning about what blows you away and how it works. Just dont be going around making up myths about biochem or youll be just like Dr Behe.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states

Actually that's very close to fact. Its just that "The Living State" , because its a temporary condition, expends many joules and while alive, acts counter to all of thermodynamic rules. the process of living and nutrient use defies chemical gradients. (Our bodies Create higher energy state molecules like ATP) and the moleculqr phse relationships among the phosphorus ions provides the "Storage" in the form of bond changes. The hell of it is that this may be fascinating but its no more complex then the creation of magnetite iron and the subsequent decay by rusting into iron oxyhydroxide (It rusts IN water, whereas ATP release energy for use IN a water media (cellular fluids in our mitochondria).

NOW, how did it all start is an argument that maybe Id have to listen to metaphysics or space exploration cause we dont really know, we have a bunch of cool ideas but relatively very little evidence.
The trouble with Creationists is that their arguments (out of total ignorance) tend to want to conflate "ex-nihilo" with cosmology, and even particle physics . I say that this isnt done to understand, its done to
1IMPRESS rookies

2 CONFLATE where nothing in common exists.

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states

Actually that's very close to fact. Its just that "The Living State" , because its a temporary condition, expends many joules and while alive, acts counter to all of thermodynamic rules. the process of living and nutrient use defies chemical gradients. (Our bodies Create higher energy state molecules like ATP) and the moleculqr phse relationships among the phosphorus ions provides the "Storage" in the form of bond changes. The hell of it is that this may be fascinating but its no more complex then the creation of magnetite iron and the subsequent decay by rusting into iron oxyhydroxide (It rusts IN water, whereas ATP release energy for use IN a water media (cellular fluids in our mitochondria).

NOW, how did it all start is an argument that maybe Id have to listen to metaphysics or space exploration cause we dont really know, we have a bunch of cool ideas but relatively very little evidence.
The trouble with Creationists is that their arguments (out of total ignorance) tend to want to conflate "ex-nihilo" with cosmology, and even particle physics . I say that this isnt done to understand, its done to
1IMPRESS rookies

2 CONFLATE where nothing in common exists.

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states

Actually that's very close to fact. Its just that "The Living State" , because its a temporary condition, expends many joules and while alive, acts counter to all of thermodynamic rules. the process of living and nutrient use defies chemical gradients. (Our bodies Create higher energy state molecules like ATP) and the moleculqr phse relationships among the phosphorus ions provides the "Storage" in the form of bond changes. The hell of it is that this may be fascinating but its no more complex then the creation of magnetite iron and the subsequent decay by rusting into iron oxyhydroxide (It rusts IN water, whereas ATP release energy for use IN a water media (cellular fluids in our mitochondria).

NOW, how did it all start is an argument that maybe Id have to listen to metaphysics or space exploration cause we dont really know, we have a bunch of cool ideas but relatively very little evidence.
The trouble with Creationists is that their arguments (out of total ignorance) tend to want to conflate "ex-nihilo" with cosmology, and even particle physics . I say that this isnt done to understand, its done to
1IMPRESS rookies

2 CONFLATE where nothing in common exists.

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

Quote:

Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states

Actually that's very close to fact. Its just that "The Living State" , because its a temporary condition, expends many joules and while alive, acts counter to all of thermodynamic rules. the process of living and nutrient use defies chemical gradients. (Our bodies Create higher energy state molecules like ATP) and the moleculqr phse relationships among the phosphorus ions provides the "Storage" in the form of bond changes. The hell of it is that this may be fascinating but its no more complex then the creation of magnetite iron and the subsequent decay by rusting into iron oxyhydroxide (It rusts IN water, whereas ATP release energy for use IN a water media (cellular fluids in our mitochondria).

NOW, how did it all start is an argument that maybe Id have to listen to metaphysics or space exploration cause we dont really know, we have a bunch of cool ideas but relatively very little evidence.
The trouble with Creationists is that their arguments (out of total ignorance) tend to want to conflate "ex-nihilo" with cosmology, and even particle physics . I say that this isnt done to understand, its done to
1IMPRESS rookies

2 CONFLATE where nothing in common exists.

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

Seems higher energy levels in inanimate tend to represent less ordered states while in animate indicate more ordered states

Actually that's very close to fact. Its just that "The Living State" , because its a temporary condition, expends many joules and while alive, acts counter to all of thermodynamic rules. the process of living and nutrient use defies chemical gradients. (Our bodies Create higher energy state molecules like ATP) and the moleculqr phse relationships among the phosphorus ions provides the "Storage" in the form of bond changes. The hell of it is that this may be fascinating but its no more complex then the creation of magnetite iron and the subsequent decay by rusting into iron oxyhydroxide (It rusts IN water, whereas ATP release energy for use IN a water media (cellular fluids in our mitochondria).

NOW, how did it all start is an argument that maybe Id have to listen to metaphysics or space exploration cause we dont really know, we have a bunch of cool ideas but relatively very little evidence.
The trouble with Creationists is that their arguments (out of total ignorance) tend to want to conflate "ex-nihilo" with cosmology, and even particle physics . I say that this isnt done to understand, its done to
1IMPRESS rookies

2 CONFLATE where nothing in common exists.

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Quote:
Leadfoot wrote:

PS: I was really hoping you would tell me if you were serious about life not being complex, etc. You kind of made my jaw drop on that one.

Because I think the statement is one of perspective. We like to suggest that life is complex but really its just a culmination of several different parts all working together. These parts work both independently and in support but without actually trying to or wanting to.

These are cells, communicating with other cells, and more cells, so on and so on and so on. A network of cells, nothing more than that. It's not complex.

Thanks for the clarification, I'd like to go further with this.

I asked the question because I'm currently looking at the subject of differing human perspectives. As you correctly pointed out, the radically differing conclusions drawn in this and similar threads is just that - perspective.

I'm positively gobsmacked at how very intelligent people can arrive at opposite views when looking at the same data. If you are willing to help out I'd like to ask you (and anyone else willing to jump in) a couple of questions.

1. How familiar are you with the subject of cellular biology.
2. What is your MBPT (Myers Briggs Personality Type).
If not known, there are plenty of online questionnaires/tests that will give a rough estimate. Here is one example:
http://similarminds.com/jung.html

The first is to give me an idea of how comparable our data sets are.
The second to see if there is any link to personality type.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

brianjakub wrote:
Matter is order and every time I see order being created today intelligence created it. Therefore I am going to assume that pattern held true in the distant past. That doesn't take faith, it is logical.

Quote:

You have failed at logic.

It is silly to suggest that there was a highly ordered being that exists based on nothing. That this highly complex being has always existed and has no creation of itself.

You are starting from a basis of HIGHLY complex order to give rise to something with less order. Which is fine in of itself but it doesn't explain how something so complex can just exist without any explanation.

If you suggest that a highly complex (high order) being can simply exist without a cause. Then by all means you MUST logically grant the same thing to everything and anything else.

If a god can exist or has always existed.

Then by all means highly complex systems can as well.

You can't have your cake in your left hand and then reject your same theory by suggesting it CANT occur in your right hand.

You call it logic, but you haven't expressed any logic here. All you are doing is making a claim and then saying it must be this way because I want it to be that way.

Before God created the universe there was no matter, no laws , no other ideas at all but God existed as a mind and spirit that thought in His imagination using words. Nobody new his thoughts but him. There was no one to reveal his thoughts to except himself.

When there is only one thing with no form and nothing to compare it to, you can't get any simpler. All the universe does is reveal how complex intelligence can be if it wants to. You and I reveal that when we create new ideas in this forum. These complex ideas we are discussing were created in our minds.

Henry Ford created the model T and the assembly line. He only offered The model T in the color black. That fact tells you something about Henry and what kind of man he was. He believed in keeping things sytematic and simple. If he had never built a single factory or model T he still would have been a simple and systematic person. His creative power and who he was as a person was revealed by his ability to manipulate the universe.

That pattern follows as far back as we can go in recorded history. The pattern being, "the universe seems to exist to allow intelligence to reveal itself. Matter is recording history in atoms. Man only manipulates matter to make his history. Somebody (maybe God) made matter to record a history that reveals His intelligence and allows us to reveal ours.

I believe in patterns. The patterns seem to reveal a God to me. Do you believe in patterns?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

pretty, very pretty, but of what use?
If you dont accept that variety "overload" perhaps has been natures way of evolving to fit all these separate niches all over the world. From individual caves to the many seas, from unconnected mountains to deserts separated by thousands of miles.

Each unique niche develops unique species that may only hqave a home range of a few miles (or in some cases like the pupfish, tens of feet.

The only way that can happen, as I see it, is by micro adaptation.

Ive seen cave insects from Mammoth cave totally different and speciated separately from those in Lechagilla Caves. Or, Ive seen photos of perch and catfish,foundation populations of which were separated in the Connecticut River by dams that were constructed during the Revolution. These two local parent species evolved, over the last 300 years into 4 or 5 separate species having new forms an feeding habits and even mating times into separate species above and below

All you are describing is randomly guided selective breeding. I doubt in any of your examples any new genetic material was created, it was just sorted like when we breed animals today. Wolves and dogs came from the same parents too.

Besides if evolution is running along creating higher complexity in living organisms, then it is an example of artificial intelligence. It is a computer program somebody wrote running in a machine somebody built.

That is a pattern we can replicate today. Do you believe in logically following the patterns, or in having faith that the pattern was inexplicably broken in the ancient past?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

PS, whats the 4th phase of water a liquid crystal? I saw the guy that was posted is one of those "electric universe" folks, I omitted any "must read" this now. Ill wait till it comes to a youtube.

just google it.

Here's the thing... philosophy is everything... at least in regards to pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Philosophy doesn't 'require' proof but it does recognize proof. If your demand is proof in a philosophical debate then I think you're missing the point.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Weve been working with epigenes for a few decades

genetic dark matter is now only on the fringe of being understood

farmerman wrote:

nutrigenomics sounds like something that Kelloggs Cornflakes places on its eb site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrigenomics

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

genetic dark matter is now only on the fringe of being understood

The guys who rec'd a Nobel prize for developing "knock out " genes, did their work in the late 1970's. Epigenetics was a hot topic in the 90's and youve been reading it in pop science since the early 2000's. Weve been discussing it in several other threads for almost a decade.
Rosborne started the thread about the "Cracks in Creation" (the discussion about CRSPR technology last year I believe).

1 Reply

@jerlands,

"Electric Universe " is not on my reading list. If you can discuss something simply, Ill pay attention, (It means you understand it).If you just "google it" and require others to do likewise, that tells me that someones head is up their ass and it aint me.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Besides if evolution is running along creating higher complexity in living organisms

Honestly, many of you guys have GOT to do some more reading for understnding biology. There are similar amounts of examples of evolution where an organism goes to more simple streamlined phenotypes, like males that become parasite attachments to females and live out a lifestyle that evolved from a more complex free-living form to the simpler.

Examples of fossils in time shows us examples of many species that evolve into forms that are similarly developed.

Since most evolution is merely selection , we can see that, once a genomic expression occurs that effects a phenotypic change, this change MUST be able to live and reproduce in the environment of the moment. Sometimes the environment changes in a cataclysmic fashion, and life MUST or CANT evolve. Pure luck , we see no evidence of "Intelligent planning" despite what you wish to "Believe". We see that evolution (neo Darwinian thought process), is simple, the genotype is expressed with a chqnge in the genic complement. This fosters a change in the phenotype (There can be myrids of different forms). The most successful, the survivor, is SELECTED within the environment of the moment.

AS Mayr said
"An organism, finely adapted to thrive within a specific environment, is also trapped within it"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"Electric Universe " is not on my reading list. If you can discuss something simply, Ill pay attention, (It means you understand it).If you just "google it" and require others to do likewise, that tells me that someones head is up their ass and it aint me.

The 4th phase of water is simply a state water enters into when in contact with a hydrophilic substance. What Pollack describes as "Exclusion Zones" form (layers of -H, +HO) creating H3O2. The implications essentially change our perception of biology. Example is blood circulation.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I'm positively gobsmacked at how very intelligent people can arrive at opposite views when looking at the same data.

All you guys, sold on a concept, always fail to look at all the data in order to understand the complete story. I think you give yourselves too much credit for reading aWikipedia entry which covers one piece of data(sometimes even correctly) .

You should pick some subject that you feel confident that the only base of disagreement is a "different view of the same data". I actually challenge you to do that and lets see,

Remember how BEHE said sorta the same when he proposed "Irreducible complexity" . Ken Millers nd McCarty;s students ere able to trace the "IC" back to where its actual use was found out to be a misnomer

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know