Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

Let us clarify eachother. End the hostility, okay? Let us understand eachother.

Science is a medium for explaining phenomena, testable for authenticity to any probable degree, therefore, one could verily say that something is 'true' because it is based on scientific evidence.
Agreed?

My perception of Intelligent Design: Theorists posit explainations for phenomena (creation of the universe, life) that could, but do not NECESSARILY require Intelligent Design.

My perception of Evolutionary Theory: A theory, imperfect as it is, that gives us a reasonable and probable [for those with a particular mindset] on the creation of our universe, Earth, and existence of life on said planet. Although I believe this theory is probable, it is not NECESSARILY true, if only because Intelligent Design is possible.

You comment that the basis from which Evolutionary theory has been posited is contrary to the 'observable and testable' world in which we live. I respectfully and categorically believe this assertion to be false. Without clarification, we cannot procede.

If you wish, let us begin from here.

 

Yes it is contrary to the observable and testable world around us.
[and if you can even find exceptions - they prove the rule]

An example that is also the centre of the debate - Genetic Information.

It is repeatedly observed that new generations DO NOT have ANY additional new genetic information.
This is Scientific Fact.

Further (Important) we DO observe occasional LOSS of genetic information.

So stop asking me to 'Cite Scientific Reason' - this IS clearly and repeatedly observed and understood.

NOBODY observes new additional genetic information. Its simply not seen.
[So far, nobody even knows how, why or if that is even possible.]

So then... its very simple:

IF you want to believe that new additional genetic information USED to appear, you are NOT BASING THIS ON SCIENCE.
That runs CONTRARY to what is seen, observed and repeatedly tested.

Honestly.. there is no argument about this. Its not confusing and its not 'Opinion'
This IS what we know.

How much more clearer can I be about this?

 

Brocktroon

A poor turnaround...

1. Evolution is a theory proposed by science...Based on existant phenomena.. From special differentiation. to species that exist now that did not once exist..And species that one existed that do not exist now...
And many more..
Occam never said it was fact...And it lives as a median possibillity
as an explanation...
There are MANY holes in it...but that is fine..For human understanding
of just about everthing is mostly holes...

This lack of understanding means evolution is possible only..not fact...

You say it is NOT POSSIBLE....no?
If you do not know all the variables involved..How can you say that a thing
IS or is NOT...? Is that logical? Nyet..

2. Christian creationism exists because genesis SAYS..god created everything..That is the only existant phenomena to support it...
And it in turn supports genesis...they work hand in hand to keep eachother alive as transient belief in human heads...
NOWHERE in reality..do we see EXISTANT phenomena created ex nihilo by the christian god.

Now...here is the pivot...

If you COULD show occam existant phenomena of such ex nihilo creation.
Then occam would, without predjudice place such phenomena besides
transition species such as reptile/bird in evolution....He would give creationism the possibily of 'truth' based on it's verifying phenomena
Occam cares NOT IF WE WERE CREATED OR EVOLVED..
Why should he? He is a rational being..what he wants has NOTHING to do with what WAS...and maybe..IS.

Why do you wish to know WHY occam asserts propositions?
Ideas are what we play with here...personal motivations are the LAST thing occam wants to hear about.
And he thinks you are one of the least qualified to comment on his personal motivations.

But occam will play along....
He makes propositions and offers opinions because
THAT IS HIS PURPOSE.

Occam

 

Thumontico

'How old are you' is not relevent.

Hikaru is less than one third occams age...And is an accute thinker and
a ballanced human being... Far more than occam was at his age.
And occam has met MANY humans of 30 to 80 that are functionally
irrational compared to many teenagers he knows.

Let us not turn conversation of IDEAS..into questions of the person...
The IDEAS/CONCEPTS are why we are here..[most of us]

Those that are here to gain personal power by atacking and overbearing
others through denigration and abuse.. Should be given the respect they deserve..
Occam does not think brocktoon is one of those.. He has far too little accumen in that field from what occam has read so far.

Occam

 

Relevent in the terms of maturity, absolutely. Necessarily? perhaps not, but likely nonetheless.

 

I just realised this thread degenerated into a 'write-off' between two Star-Wars geeks in a battle for faux-jedi-sounding-philosophy-wisdom.

by default I become the mature one.

Any ideas how new genetic information creates itself?
No.

Maybe 'The Force' caused it?
?

 

Brocktroon

Any ideas how EVERYTHING exists..?
No.

Maybe 'The Force' caused it

[woops!!!!..forgot that in creationism..'the force' DID cause it.]

You see..to an agnostic..the 'force' from starwars and the 'holy father'
from the bible.
Have equivalent validity.

Occam

 

The Same thing happens in Agnostic Evolutionism as in Theistic Creationism:
The Universe comes into existance.

The difference being - The 'Force' A Naturalist 'has faith in' is a blind force which accidently 'happens'.

The Theist has a less amazing parallel - Everything still comes into existence but at the hands of an Intelligent 'Author'.

BTW.. 'The Force' in Star Wars is an authors adaptation of what Christians call 'The Holy Spirit' (God).

So your comparison does have validity.

btw p2:
You See.. To a Creation/ID Scientist The movie Starwars being created 'By Chance' from pools of plastic and ink has 'Equal Validity' as believing that the complex DNA of all living creatures came about 'by Chance'.

Sorry sorry... its not 'equally Valid' comparison because DNA is A MILLION TIMES MORE COMPLEX Than the ink combinations on a roll of Star Wars film.

 

Brocktroon

Not at all...To occam there is no 'agnostic evolution'
Evolution theory is a product of science..not agnosticism.
Agnosticism..Is, to occam, a position on the existance or non
existance of a god...
Evolution theory is about physical processes in life.
And it is by no means a fact...it is an open theory...way open...
As an agnostic, occam holds evolution theory as a possible.
And no more...
But it seems he believes it much more possible than you do..

When did occam ever state he believed that reality is an accident?
To occam the incredible complexity and ballance of what we observe of reality.. Indicates 'direction'. But not through gross and apparently acausal events like creation ex nihilo.
Reality is a product of the 'objective laws' ..gravity, electromagnetism..
exct exct. Mater/energy is but the stuff that follows those laws.
Now.
All 'direction' has to do is be able to set the laws....

Occam holds as most probable...at this time [?]
That observable reality is the result of ~14 billion years durational process.
And that process..happened the way it has because 'direction' set the 'objective laws' up to result in maximum complexity...that which is needed to result in self aware conscious life...
Why? we have no idea...The above position , occam finds, holds the least contradiction to his understanding of reality.

The question of when the 'first laws' and the first matter/energy came to be is totally pointless.
Many seem to think Observable Reality is all the reality there is..
What an absurd assumption.. It may be just a small facet of a titanic edifice. And there is no evidence ANYWHERE that it is not exactlty that.
And there is also NO evidence to support the ASSUMPTION that any reality,totallity or facet, has to have had a beginning.
It may always have existed,, and always will. That is,,infinite duration.

He gives little possibillity to the likelyhood that the gods described by any human religion.
Are that 'direction'
They are far to contradictory and simplistic.

So you are saying your god made us...[snap of the fingers so to speak]
An occam suggests. A 'direction' maniplated the laws of reality to result in self aware life,,us.

Occam

 

For Starters.. The less you use the term 'Ex Nihilo' the better.

Next - you do not believe this planet evolved towards more complexity and order based on Laws.
You base that on Faith that the Laws were not only different but the 'Opposite' of what you know now.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics?

The longer you leave all these chemicals, phenominon and matter to be there (billions of years) - the MORE LIKELY they move towards disorder.

Matter assembling itself into more efficient working complexity is NOT based on Laws you are aware of.

You base it on Faith.

 

(L)aughing (M)y (A)** (O)ff

This reminds me of one of those post hypnotic suggestion ordeals where you are not convincing someone of the truth, but planting the suggestion that they actually believe the way you do ... as if !!!

Only thing is, you forgot ... You're getting sllleeeeppppyyyyy ...

lmao ...

Darrell

 

Brooktroon

Occam will use the term as often as he sees fit to do so.

Are you saying you or science or any other human KNOWS all the objectives laws? That YOU KNOW that said objective laws will
NOT result in greater complexity?
If humanity doesnt even know what SPACE is. And the objective laws that form it. OR HOW mass warps space to result is GRAVITY.
And science freely admits it has no concrete theory of TIME.
Objective laws apply in the above that we do not know of.

You say matter does not gain complexity according to objective laws..
Then stellar formation and planetary system formation..all from less complex detrius and all work of objective laws are a lie..

That the complexity of the human race as a system of life [including society] is now.. NO MORE COMPLEX THAN IN 3000 BC. ?

Matter assembling itself into more greater working complexity IS
based on laws we are aware of..
The System/structure OF LIFE gaining greater working complexity
is based on laws/processes we are not aware of. Or only partially.

Do you suggest that because we are not aware of something..
Then it does not exist?

Occam

 

Sorry ... my post (#279) sure was not very Buddhist of me ... but it sure made me laugh, though ... and laugh ... and laugh ... and laugh ...

It was the funniest thing I read because it reminded me so much of the way a stage hypnotist plants suggestions in their [willing] participants subsconscious.

Sorry if it appeared to be a bit on the rude side ...

lmao ...

Darrell

 

Its actually funny because YOU are the one planting a suggestion Darrel LOL!

You are suggesting that somewhere in my post was a 'suggestion'.
lol!

I stated a fact of the matter (Which Occam conciously agreed with)
which is:
He bases his belief on the Universe assembling itself into ordered complexity on Faith.
He simple reasons "Just because we dont know it happened - doesnt mean it couldnt'

Yes.. I agree with you Occam.
And credit where its due - your one of the ONLY Evolutionists here who readily admits that Evolutionism 'Might' or 'Might not' have happened.
Its not a 'Fact' but a 'Theory'.

I dont mind saying that none of us can go back in time and 'Prove' God created the world in six days.
All I ask is that Evoluitionists admit the same limitations.

So far, you are the only one who actually agree's.

... mind you... in about two posts later you probably would state that is DID happen because it DID?

 

I think we all know that evolution is a theory, and what a theory is. Us "evolutionists" here just think it is the most likely theory, and worth defending to any creationist that dare call evolution unscientific.

We all know we can't go back billions of years to observe the process, and no one was trying to hide that from you. Why is it you have such a hard time accepting that we believe that we were created by evolution? We don't have to think it is a fact to do so. You think you would understand that, considering what you believe.

 

i'm proud to be "descended from soup"

 

"Ascended from Soup"

Don't forget, each generation of your soup ancestors was adding new genetic complexity along the way.

 

"one man gathers
what another man spills"

 

the second law applies to "closed systems"


and while the universe as a whole may or may not be "closed"
the earth most certainly is not (not only is it raining radiant energy from the sun; it is (and even more in the past was) "raining soup" (or at least soup fixins... in the form of ummmm "cosmic infall" - lotta rocks, but a lotta "dirty ice" as well...)

(& as some of us know - whenever the H2) can be liquid state, intersting chemistry starts happening... heyheyhey, SOUP'S ON!)

and here we are...

~

 

Yep.
So that goes to show that Soup can become a lifeform and grow itself into a Stegosaurus and a Chicken as well as Billions of Bats, Humans and a Trillion Bombadier Beetles.

I think some other soup was hit by lightening and turned into Bananas, A billion Oak Trees and Coral Reefs.

So ya.. the soup was created by outerspace chemicals falling on the earth .. 'And here we are'

Wow.

Well your perfectly entitled to believe that happened Grnm.
What is truly fascinating about your Creation Myth is that it happened BILLIONS OF TIMES IN ROW!


=============================
Update:

OK I found out the specs on the fundamental beliefs of Evolutionists.


Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population

Awesome Morphing Self Growing Space Soup!!

There are just a few little problems with this (not the least of which explaining why a half formed life-form would live long enough to 'learn' how to reproduce itself with more abilities and why it would 'know' to do that)

Probability not being the least dilema:

This guy Coppedge came up with a formula (and frankly - he is being VERY conservative and granting a lot of things to get this far):

1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10[size=-1]119,879[/size] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10[size=-1]119,831[/size] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10[size=-1]119,831[/size] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.

Crazy world!