winsor 236
devildog 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteOh no wait, I just remembered it doesn't work like that, the first cause argument is still fucked.
So is your infinite regression argument.
Why? I don't have a problem with it. You're still the guy trying to say that everything must have a cause because everything must be caused, except for the thing that doesn't have to be caused. So... convenient.
That's not quite the argument. The philosophical argument is that everything with a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore, must have a first causer. God, in the argument, has no beginning (or end), and thus is exempt of our "must have a cause" rule. You don't have to agree with the argument, but its not logically invalid.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
DanG 1
QuoteThe universe has a beginning...
Says who?
There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.
- Dan G
maadmax 0
QuoteQuoteThe universe has a beginning...
Says who?
There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.
Says you, if you are a scientist. Entropy ensures a beginning and an end.
...
jaybird18c 25
Quote>A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin
>or inventor) . . .
Pulsars send complex radio pulses in a code. Extraterrestrials, or natural emissions from neutron stars?
>It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code.
Galaxies show a structure called a Fibonacci spiral, which can be calculated via a geometric expansion of the Fibonacci code. God messing with us, or the natural result of gravitational attraction within a disk of stars?
>There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information
Snowflakes are complex structures, often unique, each of which contains a wealth of coded information. Godflakes, or the result of crystallization of water within a chaotic environment?
Some religious types prefer to substitute religion for understanding. Such intentional ignorance is fine (we all choose to remain ignorant on some matters) but often gets people in trouble when they try to claim their ignorance is really just a "different kind of understanding." It isn't; it's just ignorance.
Fortunately most religious types understand the difference between religion and science, and do not allow one to replace the other.
Not the same thing Billvon. A beach full of sand is information rich but specifies nothing.
QuoteSnowflakes show beautiful design patterns, which appear highly ordered, and which arise by themselves under simple freezing conditions. Since this shows order arising from disorder, doesn't this mean that the ordered patterns of complex life could arise from simpler chemicals?
A: Chilling Facts
Snow covers about 23 per cent of the Earth's surface—permanently or temporarily.
The lowest air temperature ever recorded was at Vostok II in Antarctica, 3,420 metres (11,218 feet) above sea level. The temperature dropped to -88.3 degrees Celsius (-127 degrees Fahrenheit).
The size and shape of snow crystals depend mainly on the temperature of their formation and the amount of water vapour available at deposition. At temperatures between 0 and 3 degrees Celsius, thin hexagonal plates form. Between -3 and -5 degrees, needles form. At -25 to -30 degrees, the crystal shape is hollow prism.
In fact, there is no parallel between the two issues at all. To put it simply, water forming
snowflakes is 'doing what comes naturally', given the properties of the system. There is no need for any external information or programming to be added to the system—the existing properties of the water molecule and the atmospheric conditions are enough to give rise inevitably to snowflake-type patterns.
However, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the 'finished product' are not programmed in the components of the system. It takes the addition of some extra information—either by an intelligent mind at work or a programmed machine. What would be analogous is if you saw a doily crocheted into the pattern of a snowflake. There is no natural, spontaneous tendency for the components of the system (for example, wool or cotton fibres) to assume that shape. The pattern has to be imposed by external information—either by the operation of mind or a programmed machine.
So whenever you see a snowflake doily, you instinctively recognize this fact and see it as the result of creation, as you should when you contemplate a section of a chromosome—the raw ingredients are not sufficient without a source of information. In living things, that information has come from the parent organism (a programmed mechanism) which arose from its parent which arose.... You might find that the doily has been crocheted by a programmed machine in a factory, which might itself have been built by another machine—but eventually that information had to arise in a mind. A snowflake pattern as water freezes may appear beautiful, but it is not the same thing at all, because no external programming or information has to be applied.
A similar issue (sometimes raised by evolutionists who should know better) is that of salt crystal formation as a warm saturated solution cools down. Not only is the chemical tendency already present in the sodium and chloride ions (making the end result inevitable, unlike the imagined evolutionary process), but the type of 'order' which arises is quite unlike the complexity of living things in kind, not just degree. A simple example will show the two types of order in alphabet letters:
1. ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
2. A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Both are 'ordered', but only type 2 resembles the ordering in, say, a protein molecule. Chop the first sequence in half, and the two halves are essentially the same. Break a crystal of salt in two, and you see the same effect. Chop a protein (for example haemoglobin) molecule in half and you no longer have haemoglobin—the two halves don't resemble one another. That is because the ordering is like that in the type 2 example above—chop that sentence in half and it loses all its meaning.
To put it another way, as a salt crystal grows and grows, it is like continuing the type 1 sequence above. The sequence gets longer, the crystal gets bigger (simply more of the same), but not more complex. For simple organisms to become more complex (or simple chemicals to become a living thing) would be like the type 2 sentence becoming a whole story about cats, for example.
CONCLUSION
To compare snowflake or salt crystal formation to any assumed evolutionary growth in complexity is like comparing chalk with cheese. Examining the two simply highlights the need for external information before biological order will arise—which is a strong argument for creation.
Snowflakes
jakee 1,594
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOh no wait, I just remembered it doesn't work like that, the first cause argument is still fucked.
So is your infinite regression argument.
Why? I don't have a problem with it. You're still the guy trying to say that everything must have a cause because everything must be caused, except for the thing that doesn't have to be caused. So... convenient.
That's not quite the argument. The philosophical argument is that everything with a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore, must have a first causer. God, in the argument, has no beginning (or end), and thus is exempt of our "must have a cause" rule. You don't have to agree with the argument, but its not logically invalid.
Hey, now that's really clever - in one simple step you've managed to define away all of your logical problems.
Oh no wait, I just remembered it doesn't work like that, the first cause argument is still fucked.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
DanG 1
QuoteSays you, if you are a scientist. Entropy ensures a beginning and an end.
Well, not really. Entropy is going in one direction in the currently visible universe, but that doesn't mean that the universe had a beginning when entropy = 0, and will end when entropy = 1. For example, making the simple assumption that the universe is not a closed system negates your entropy argument.
- Dan G
jakee 1,594
QuoteHowever, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems.
Oh hey, here's a thought... what if that's bollocks?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jaybird18c 25
QuoteQuoteHowever, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems.
Oh hey, here's a thought... what if that's bollocks?
Here's another one. What if it's not?
RonD1120 62
Quote
+1
PTL
I look at it this way. You have victory, I have victory. He does not sense victory. Who becomes the logical target for his anger?
It is a normal and expected function of the ego. It is difficult to overcome. Personal surrender is tough. That is why we need Jesus the Christ.
Clues. $0.05.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
jakee 1,594
QuoteQuoteQuoteHowever, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems.
Oh hey, here's a thought... what if that's bollocks?
Here's another one. What if it's not?
That's odd, since you just stated it as fact I thought you might have a better defence than "what if".
Actually that's unfair - of course I didn't think you'd have anything better.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jaybird18c 25
QuoteThat's odd, since you just stated it as fact I thought you might have a better defence than "what if".
Actually that's unfair - of course I didn't think you'd have anything better.
Really? You posit a "what if" and criticize mine in response? Silly...
jakee 1,594
QuoteQuoteThat's odd, since you just stated it as fact I thought you might have a better defence than "what if".
Actually that's unfair - of course I didn't think you'd have anything better.
Really?
Yes, really.
But how about this - it is bollocks. You wouldn't last very long if your long chain molecules weren't being replenished.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
beowulf 1
Since you are such a big fan of the Answers in Genesis website. Check out this one.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
wolfriverjoe 1,523
Quote...However, there is no tendency for simple organic molecules to form themselves into the precise sequences needed to form the long-chain information-bearing molecules found in living systems. That is because the properties of the 'finished product' are not programmed in the components of the system. It takes the addition of some extra information—either by an intelligent mind at work or a programmed machine...
Just because you aren't capable of ujnderstanding how order can come from nothing doesn't mean it can't happen. (I don't know how it happens either)
We don't know what happened at or before the Big Bang. The facts are unavailable to us, and our understanding of the processes involved isn't sufficient to understand it.
So the choices are:
"We don't understand right now, but may in the future."
Or:
"We don't understand, so it must be God's work."
It's the same with life forming/DNA forming. Just because we don't understand how it happened doesn't mean that there must be intelligence behind it.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
devildog 0
QuoteQuoteThe universe has a beginning...
Says who?
There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.
There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing. There is at best, total guess work and imagination, all of which are no better (and I'd argue, are worse) than believing in the concept of some sort of Divine.
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
jaybird18c 25
QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's odd, since you just stated it as fact I thought you might have a better defence than "what if".
Actually that's unfair - of course I didn't think you'd have anything better.
Really?
Yes, really.
But how about this - it is bollocks. You wouldn't last very long if your long chain molecules weren't being replenished.
Duplication can't account for the kind of change you're looking for as a NDT Evolutionist. If you copy a report on your printer, all you've got is more of what you had. More information...but not new information.
jakee 1,594
QuoteDuplication can't account for the kind of change you're looking for as a NDT Evolutionist. If you copy a report on your printer, all you've got is more of what you had. More information...but not new information.
Wouldn't it be awesome if it was discovered that the duplication of genes wasn't always perfect - if there was some mechanism by which changes could occur. Oh wait, that actually does happen, you're just ignoring it because you're a lying propagandist.
It really is funny the way you guys are allergic to looking at the big picture - or just more than one factor at a time. "Natural selection alone can't create diversity!" "Right, but when you've got mutations..." "Mutations alone can't lead to an improved organism!" "Right, but when you include other factors like natural selection and genetic drift..." "Genetic drift alone can't create diversity!"
(And in case you were wondering, yes, everyone has noticed how you've been oh so cunningly changing the subject every time you've been challenged on an assertion.)
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
billvon 3,114
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Not the same thing Billvon. A beach full of sand is information rich but specifies nothing.
Correct. It is an excellent example of how information, and codes, only have meaning to people who are interested in the information.
Snowflakes, pulsars and galaxies are chock full of highly organized information, coded into radio signals, physical structures and gravitational patterns. For an astronomer or a meteorologist, that is an incredible motherload of information, full of meaning and created by basic physical processes. Indeed, by the study of that information they can glean more understanding of those underlying physical processes. To a theologian or an English major that information may be meaningless, just as the pattern of our DNA might be meaningless to a meteorologist.
In neither case does "lack of interest" equate to "specifying nothing."
>ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
>A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Another good example. I'll remove the spaces and rephrase the above to make them equivalent (since the first did not have spaces) -
ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
ACATSATONTHEMAT
If we received the above two text strings from outer space in a modulated EM transmission, the first one would be much more likely to have come from an intelligent mind; the odds of the second one being random noise are much higher. Thus, in your example, the first string (to anyone other than an English speaker) is much more likely to be the product of intelligence. A simpler example would be "ABCABC" and "JESUS" - the second has meaning to you, but the first one is less likely to happen randomly.
Which demonstrates once again that nonrandom information and coding is NOT equivalent to information and coding that means something to someone.
Correct. It is an excellent example of how information, and codes, only have meaning to people who are interested in the information.
Snowflakes, pulsars and galaxies are chock full of highly organized information, coded into radio signals, physical structures and gravitational patterns. For an astronomer or a meteorologist, that is an incredible motherload of information, full of meaning and created by basic physical processes. Indeed, by the study of that information they can glean more understanding of those underlying physical processes. To a theologian or an English major that information may be meaningless, just as the pattern of our DNA might be meaningless to a meteorologist.
In neither case does "lack of interest" equate to "specifying nothing."
>ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
>A CAT SAT ON THE MAT
Another good example. I'll remove the spaces and rephrase the above to make them equivalent (since the first did not have spaces) -
ABCABCABCABCABCABCABC
ACATSATONTHEMAT
If we received the above two text strings from outer space in a modulated EM transmission, the first one would be much more likely to have come from an intelligent mind; the odds of the second one being random noise are much higher. Thus, in your example, the first string (to anyone other than an English speaker) is much more likely to be the product of intelligence. A simpler example would be "ABCABC" and "JESUS" - the second has meaning to you, but the first one is less likely to happen randomly.
Which demonstrates once again that nonrandom information and coding is NOT equivalent to information and coding that means something to someone.
jakee 1,594
QuoteSnowflakes, pulsars and galaxies are chock full of highly organized information, coded into radio signals, physical structures and gravitational patterns. For an astronomer or a meteorologist, that is an incredible motherload of information, full of meaning and created by basic physical processes. Indeed, by the study of that information they can glean more understanding of those underlying physical processes.
I thought it was particularly ironic that Jay would claim a beach full of sand specifies nothing, only a page or two after posting a link claiming that the conconino sandstone formations contained enough information to prove the great deluge actually happened. Made I chuckle, anyway.
QuoteWhich demonstrates once again that nonrandom information and coding is NOT equivalent to information and coding that means something to someone.
Seems to go hand in hand with another problem that often pops up in these threads - understanding that being at the end of a string of probabilities and saying "What are the chances of that happening!" is not the same as predicting that specific result in advance and then seeing it happen.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
kallend 2,147
QuoteThe universe has a beginning, therefore, must have a first causer. God, in the argument, has no beginning (or en.
False premise, and therefore incorrect conclusion. You should learn some physics before pretending to know any physics.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe universe has a beginning...
Says who?
There are lots of theories, consistent with the Big Bang, that postulate the existance of matter and energy prior to the Big Bang.
There is not a single scientific theory that says such a thing.
Not correct.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
+1
PTL
I look at it this way. You have victory, I have victory. He does not sense victory. Who becomes the logical target for his anger?
It is a normal and expected function of the ego. It is difficult to overcome. Personal surrender is tough. That is why we need Jesus the Christ.
Clues. $0.05.