Faith

Hubert

Established
Joined
Jun 28, 2017
Messages
358
Lol - I wanted to prompt you to think about the difference between information and data but I suspect my point has eluded you.
Then say that. You aren't some sage, this isn't a college class. Don't be an obtuse jerk.

As to the rest of your idea. Nothing is telling proteins to do anything. It is something they simply do because of the shape of the molecule. Think of a needle on a record. Neither the needle nor the record are communicating or exchanging information in any way, they are simply interacting.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,966
Then say that. You aren't some sage, this isn't a college class. Don't be an obtuse jerk.

As to the rest of your idea. Nothing is telling proteins to do anything. It is something they simply do because of the shape of the molecule. Think of a needle on a record. Neither the needle nor the record are communicating or exchanging information in any way, they are simply interacting.
If you thought my approach was rude, I apologise.

I am not a sage or a Nobel prize winner, but my great Uncle, who was a lifelong atheist and regularly declared “religion is bunk” watched an old VHS tape covering the implications of language, encoding and decoding for the origins of life. At the age of 83 he changed his mind on God (and perhaps his eternity).

Synthetic organic chemist, Dr James Tour sets out the real challenges of life emerging from non-living molecules. If you want to carry on believing this to be a possibility, you MUST address the actual science that is so glibly glossed over by the “New Atheists”...

 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
You might want to do some research. Science is limited to what can be empirically verified or falsified. Both evolution and creation cannot be directly tested, observed or repeated. In that sense, they are both metaphysical.

A scientist faced with such divergent explanations must have the integrity to examine both possible explanations. Sadly most don’t.
Sorry, all you have is an ad hoc explanation that "proves" nothing. You should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. In the sciences there is a very clear definition of evidence. It was made partially because people tend to be irrational at times and deny evidence. Once you understand it you will see that there is only scientific evidence for evolution and none for a creator or creationism.

Would you care to learn?

Right now you have no clue as to what evolution is. But until you learn the basics your religious beliefs will get in the way of knowledge.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,579
Sorry, all you have is an ad hoc explanation that "proves" nothing. You should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. In the sciences there is a very clear definition of evidence. It was made partially because people tend to be irrational at times and deny evidence. Once you understand it you will see that there is only scientific evidence for evolution and none for a creator or creationism.

Would you care to learn?

Right now you have no clue as to what evolution is. But until you learn the basics your religious beliefs will get in the way of knowledge.
We understand the concept of evidence. Instead, could you explain why evolution theory and the existence of God are mutually exclusive?

I'm also still eagerly waiting for an example of something that comes from nothing.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Actually it does take faith to believe in certain sciences and various scientific claims. Unless your a scientist and have the means and brain to properly gauge and verify so called findings for yourself you are merely taking said findings as true in an act of faith. Fake sciences are a business and can serve anyone's agenda nowadays if one has the right money and influence. They rely on peoples ignorance and inability to validate such things...
Nope. Creationism is based on supernaturalism, though. I would not call that other foundation as much as fear of not having ready-made answers.

Evolution is another nature of beast entirely.

 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
We understand the concept of evidence. Instead, could you explain why evolution theory and the existence of God are mutually exclusive?

I'm also still eagerly waiting for an example of something that comes from nothing.

Start learning first https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-managed-to-manipulate-pure-nothingness

In Physics "nothing" is generally taken to be the lowest energy state of a theory. We wouldn't normally use the word "nothing" but instead describe the lowest energy state as the "vacuum". I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp.

Start with the classical description of an electric field (Maxwell's equations). It's not too hard to image an electric field as a field filling space.

You can even feel the field: for example if you put your hand near an old style TV screen you can feel the static electricity. You can imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears completely, in which case you are left with the vacuum i.e. nothing.
Now imagine the same field, but this time we're using the quantum description of the field (Quantum Electrodynamics instead of Maxell's equations).

At the classical level the field is approximately the same as the description Maxwell's equations give, but now we have fluctuations in the field due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. Just as before, imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears. Unlike the classical description, the (average) electric field may disappear but the fluctuations do not. This means the quantum vacuum is different from the classical vacuum because it contains the fluctuations even after you've turned the field down to zero.

The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them.

So, I am going to describe the *standard* Big Bang scenario. There are other variants that have been proposed, but this is the basic model most cosmologists use.

First, time is part of the universe. In fact, the BB model takes the universe to be *all* of space and *all* of time.

Second, time itself started at the Big Bang. So there was literally no 'before the Big Bang'.

This is different than saying there was 'nothing' before. There was no 'before' at all: time *began* at the BB. So, in the standard BB model, time is NOT 'eternal'.

Third, by considering the universe throughout *both* space and time, the notion of causality is eliminated: causes require time. So the notion of a cause only makes sense *within the universe*.

So, no the idea is NOT that there was 'nothing' in 'absolute nothingness' and that 'energy' did anything. That is a *complete* misunderstanding of what the model says.

Fourth, no 'push' is required. Once again, you have to consider all of space and all of time as a single geometric entity. And that entity simply exists. Causality and time only exist *inside* of it.

Just to let you know: there are a LOT of really, really bad popular treatments of the Big Bang scenario. Most simply don't help in understanding what the actual model says or discuss the evidence we have for that model. If you want to discuss evidence, I can do that as well.

Fifth: it is quite possible the model is wrong, even likely. But the solution isn't to assume some intelligence. The solution is to follow the evidence and see where it leads us.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,579
Start learning first https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-managed-to-manipulate-pure-nothingness

In Physics "nothing" is generally taken to be the lowest energy state of a theory. We wouldn't normally use the word "nothing" but instead describe the lowest energy state as the "vacuum". I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp.

Start with the classical description of an electric field (Maxwell's equations). It's not too hard to image an electric field as a field filling space.

You can even feel the field: for example if you put your hand near an old style TV screen you can feel the static electricity. You can imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears completely, in which case you are left with the vacuum i.e. nothing.
Now imagine the same field, but this time we're using the quantum description of the field (Quantum Electrodynamics instead of Maxell's equations).

At the classical level the field is approximately the same as the description Maxwell's equations give, but now we have fluctuations in the field due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. Just as before, imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears. Unlike the classical description, the (average) electric field may disappear but the fluctuations do not. This means the quantum vacuum is different from the classical vacuum because it contains the fluctuations even after you've turned the field down to zero.

The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them.

So, I am going to describe the *standard* Big Bang scenario. There are other variants that have been proposed, but this is the basic model most cosmologists use.

First, time is part of the universe. In fact, the BB model takes the universe to be *all* of space and *all* of time.

Second, time itself started at the Big Bang. So there was literally no 'before the Big Bang'.

This is different than saying there was 'nothing' before. There was no 'before' at all: time *began* at the BB. So, in the standard BB model, time is NOT 'eternal'.

Third, by considering the universe throughout *both* space and time, the notion of causality is eliminated: causes require time. So the notion of a cause only makes sense *within the universe*.

So, no the idea is NOT that there was 'nothing' in 'absolute nothingness' and that 'energy' did anything. That is a *complete* misunderstanding of what the model says.

Fourth, no 'push' is required. Once again, you have to consider all of space and all of time as a single geometric entity. And that entity simply exists. Causality and time only exist *inside* of it.

Just to let you know: there are a LOT of really, really bad popular treatments of the Big Bang scenario. Most simply don't help in understanding what the actual model says or discuss the evidence we have for that model. If you want to discuss evidence, I can do that as well.

Fifth: it is quite possible the model is wrong, even likely. But the solution isn't to assume some intelligence. The solution is to follow the evidence and see where it leads us.
As far as I can tell, this "nothing" you mentioned was still "something". Even your article affirms a vacuum is never completely empty. Therefore this example isn't really valid, is it?

Neither have you addressed what I specifically asked. You say that we shouldn't assume an intelligence behind creation. But my question was, do the evolution theory and the existence of God mutually exclude one another?
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Neither have you addressed what I specifically asked. You say that we shouldn't assume an intelligence behind creation. But my question was, do the evolution theory and the existence of God mutually exclude one another?
Intelligent design is disproven by any number of structures but perhaps the most telling is the giraffe's Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve.

I point to Casey Luskin's (a primary shill for the intelligent design advocacy group the Discovery Institute) Point I (1):

“ Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):"
the
(1) " Intelligent agents think with an "end goal" in mind, allowing them to solve complex problems by taking many parts and arranging them in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information)


No competent designer would design a structure like the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, which can be spotted in a wide variety of animals, from fish to mammals. In fish, exhibiting as they do the primitive condition, the nerve heads straight from the brain, down to the larynx. However, in mammals, the structure of the head and development of the neck from fish-like organisms causes the recurrent laryngeal nerve to become "trapped" under the aortic arch in the thorax and thus forces its path down and around the aortic arch.

The gradual change from the anatomy of a fish to that of a mammal means that there is no way for the nerve to magically jump from one side of the aortic arch to the other. So, in mammals, the nerve controlling the larynx by necessity drops deep into the chest cavity and then reverses up to the larynx.

This considerable detour is consistent with how embryological development entwines with evolution, but inconsistent with the ID wrongheaded idea that insists organisms were made as they appear to day, individually, by an intelligent designer.

In his book Why Evolution is True, Jerry Coyne claims that "Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it's precisely what we expect from evolution." (p. 81) He makes this prediction because "... we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features--like the kiwi wing--that don't work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers." (p. 81)

Even Luskin gets it right when he says, "Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all." But then Luskin drives off the road with typical IDer apologium: "This is not exactly a useful set of predictions, but when he couples the argument with the dubious assertion that intelligent design (ID) requires 'perfect design,' then Coyne places evolution in a unique position to explain such examples of allegedly 'imperfect design.' The fact remains that only the invocation of evolution provides a rational and reasonable explanation for the observed structure ... and that is at it's core the way science works and ID fails.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
If you can't use the scientific method it is not science. Tell me, what reasonable test could refute the existence of this designer? If you can't answer that question it is not science by definition.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,966
Sorry, all you have is an ad hoc explanation that "proves" nothing. You should try to learn what is and what is not evidence. In the sciences there is a very clear definition of evidence. It was made partially because people tend to be irrational at times and deny evidence. Once you understand it you will see that there is only scientific evidence for evolution and none for a creator or creationism.

Would you care to learn?

Right now you have no clue as to what evolution is. But until you learn the basics your religious beliefs will get in the way of knowledge.
That line of reasoning would work if I hadn’t studied the subject as my degree. I have read Darwin, Dawkins and more. I studied the subject because I knew that the argument above is the typical line taken by the “scientific community”.

As for scientific evidence, the best mental picture I can give you for it is crossing a motorway on the actual road. i wouldn’t recommend the actual exercise to anyone!

If a person were insane enough to try it, they would initially be very conscious of the traffic coming in one direction and their survival would depend on navigating past it. If they got to the middle, they would see both sides and at that point they would then be much more aware of two sets of traffic. My research led me to this point with creation and evolution. The assertions that “evolution is science” and “creation is religion” are just posturing. In fact the “traffic” of scientific evidence on the creation side Of the road was far greater than I had realised when I got right up to it.

Anyway, for anyone (perhaps one day including yourself) who might be interested, there are now more scientists than ever who reject evolution. Their findings, (some easy to understand, others in depth) can be reviewed on various sites online, e.g:-


And


P.s. neither of these may have all the answers but hopefully the list of topics addressed may help illustrate the point that there are scientific, empirically verifiable facts and then there are explanations offered for those facts. These explanatory frameworks are not the science itself as they sit apart from it and above it, simply provide overarching narratives for observed reality.

For those who enjoy a deeper dive into a book, I am presently reading this book which is fantastic so far...


One of the reviews makes the point better than I can:-

A very balanced viewpoint
This is a deep and challenging book. It turns around conventional thinking about evolution with some proven facts and with considered alternative theories. It is fair and open in its approach to evolution. I'm no scientist, and although it is written for the lay person, I find that I need to digest it in small quantities. It stands very firmly for the authenticity of scripture and can give any Christian a strong foundation for trusting in the truths the bible teaches. I wish it were used in schools to give young people the opportunity to consider creationism from a scientific point of view, rather than their being presented with evolution as a proven fact, with no consideration of the many unexplained and unexplainable points which are raised in this book.”​
 






Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
I guess I have to respond to this. I have yet to see a creationist that debates this that does not sooner or later openly lie. For example one of the favorites is to claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. Now this is either a blatant lie or they have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. At this point I usually offer to go over the concept of evidence with them. Almost all of them run and hide at that point. To me this shows that they know that they are lying but re trying to keep themselves ignorant about evidence so they can at least fool themselves. So not only do they lie about evidence, they lie to themselves to convince them that they are not lying.

That line of reasoning would work if I hadn’t studied the subject as my degree. I have read Darwin, Dawkins and more. I studied the subject because I knew that the argument above is the typical line taken by the “scientific community”.

As for scientific evidence, the best mental picture I can give you for it is crossing a motorway on the actual road. i wouldn’t recommend the actual exercise to anyone!

If a person were insane enough to try it, they would initially be very conscious of the traffic coming in one direction and their survival would depend on navigating past it. If they got to the middle, they would see both sides and at that point they would then be much more aware of two sets of traffic. My research led me to this point with creation and evolution. The assertions that “evolution is science” and “creation is religion” are just posturing. In fact the “traffic” of scientific evidence on the creation side Of the road was far greater than I had realised when I got right up to it.

Anyway, for anyone (perhaps one day including yourself) who might be interested, there are now more scientists than ever who reject evolution. Their findings, (some easy to understand, others in depth) can be reviewed on various sites online, e.g:-


And


P.s. neither of these may have all the answers but hopefully the list of topics addressed may help illustrate the point that there are scientific, empirically verifiable facts and then there are explanations offered for those facts. These explanatory frameworks are not the science itself as they sit apart from it and above it, simply provide overarching narratives for observed reality.

For those who enjoy a deeper dive into a book, I am presently reading this book which is fantastic so far...


One of the reviews makes the point better than I can:-

A very balanced viewpoint
This is a deep and challenging book. It turns around conventional thinking about evolution with some proven facts and with considered alternative theories. It is fair and open in its approach to evolution. I'm no scientist, and although it is written for the lay person, I find that I need to digest it in small quantities. It stands very firmly for the authenticity of scripture and can give any Christian a strong foundation for trusting in the truths the bible teaches. I wish it were used in schools to give young people the opportunity to consider creationism from a scientific point of view, rather than their being presented with evolution as a proven fact, with no consideration of the many unexplained and unexplainable points which are raised in this book.”​

You're late to the party:

 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,833
At what point does the lack of evidence become sufficient to conclude non-existence?
Shouldn't a statistical probability model indicating a hypothesis is impossible suffice as evidence to conclude non-existence?

As Darwinism is statistically an impossibility, can we not dismiss it on that basis alone?

So, for example, we probably agree that pink unicorns do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence that they do. Is it possible we missed something? Of course! Maybe, just maybe, there is a distant planet on which pink unicorns play all day. But if I had to place a bet, my bet would be that there isn't.
Is there ANY fossil evidence of any intermediate forms of any species allegedly "evolving" into another?

And again, is this lack of belief in unicorns based on faith or on reason? I hope you will agree it is NOT faith based, but reason based. So, what is the reason?

Well, pink unicorns would be large animals and, even if rare, would be fairly easy to spot. We know that people like to tell stories about them, elaborating to make the story nicer for the kids. And we realize after a certain age that, along with Santa Claus, pink unicorns are a myth--a story we tell ourselves to make life more interesting.
Why would you begin your assessment with logical fallacies? Does that seem reasonable to you?

Now we turn to the issue of Gods. I'll stick to the Abrahamic God since that seems to be the only one you recognize. The only 'evidence' for this is based on a book that was clearly written for its propaganda value.
Is that really the only evidence for an all-powerful Creator/Master Intelligent Designer? Do we not have an entire planet, really an entre universe full of evidence that can be used to make a reasonable assessment, to go with the Book you've referenced, the contents of which have already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be of extraterrestrial origin?

We have many 'personal experiences', but all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions. The main value is in the stories that are used to give meaning to life. One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.

Truthfully, except that people don't tend to grow out of God belief because it is deep in our society, I don't see much difference. So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns. Either way, I could be wrong, but the evidence simply isn't enough to support belief.
Why would it be reasonable to liken God to your disbelief in unicorns?

You've already overlooked or discounted over 99% of the available evidence for the existence of God, and used logical fallacies to equate God to pink unicorns, which doesn't bode well for your grasp of what's reasonable and unreasonable.

Let's go through the KCA:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

2. The universe had a beginning.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

3. So, the universe had a cause.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

4. That cause must be God.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.
Is there any actual evidence for ANY of the assumptions you've made or repeated in the above list? Do we really know there are quantum events that are without a cause? Or is that a purportedly scientific guess based upon our own extremely limited understanding?

You've actually admitted you do not know that #2 is false, but have assumed it to be "probably false" based upon faulty logic and guesswork, which you refer to in #3 as "evidence".

Your entire argument appears to be based upon a bumper sticker: "sh*t happens". Would you have any interest in looking at actual evidence please?
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,966
I guess I have to respond to this. I have yet to see a creationist that debates this that does not sooner or later openly lie. For example one of the favorites is to claim that there is no evidence for the theory of evolution. Now this is either a blatant lie or they have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. At this point I usually offer to go over the concept of evidence with them. Almost all of them run and hide at that point. To me this shows that they know that they are lying but re trying to keep themselves ignorant about evidence so they can at least fool themselves. So not only do they lie about evidence, they lie to themselves to convince them that they are not lying.




You're late to the party:

Rather than get into the emotive “lying” game, where each side seeks to “expose“ and “debunk”, I suggest a cooler headed approach.

Many people go at this question as though a particular collection of facts will prove that science supports their framework “beyond reasonable doubt“. Civil trials take “balance of probability” as the test instead. Imagine yourself as a juror listening to both sides of a civil trial and judge each witness carefully.

Make a habit when a new piece of “evidence” appears to read an evolutionary perspective and a creationist perspective on it. Science is purportedly interested in truth. As such, for a long time I have mentally had three in-trays, marked “evidence best explained by creation”, “evidence best explained by evolution” and “equally well explained by both”.

As you investigate the evidence, apply your own common sense and scientific training, and honestly come to your own reasoned conclusions. Good jurors hold their minds open till both sides have made their case.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Rather than get into the emotive “lying” game, where each side seeks to “expose“ and “debunk”, I suggest a cooler headed approach.

Many people go at this question as though a particular collection of facts will prove that science supports their framework “beyond reasonable doubt“. Civil trials take “balance of probability” as the test instead. Imagine yourself as a juror listening to both sides of a civil trial and judge each witness carefully.

Make a habit when a new piece of “evidence” appears to read an evolutionary perspective and a creationist perspective on it. Science is purportedly interested in truth. As such, for a long time I have mentally had three in-trays, marked “evidence best explained by creation”, “evidence best explained by evolution” and “equally well explained by both”.

As you investigate the evidence, apply your own common sense and scientific training, and honestly come to your own reasoned conclusions. Good jurors hold their minds open till both sides have made their case.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Shouldn't a statistical probability model indicating a hypothesis is impossible suffice as evidence to conclude non-existence?

As Darwinism is statistically an impossibility, can we not dismiss it on that basis alone?


Is there ANY fossil evidence of any intermediate forms of any species allegedly "evolving" into another?


Why would you begin your assessment with logical fallacies? Does that seem reasonable to you?


Is that really the only evidence for an all-powerful Creator/Master Intelligent Designer? Do we not have an entire planet, really an entre universe full of evidence that can be used to make a reasonable assessment, to go with the Book you've referenced, the contents of which have already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be of extraterrestrial origin?


Why would it be reasonable to liken God to your disbelief in unicorns?

You've already overlooked or discounted over 99% of the available evidence for the existence of God, and used logical fallacies to equate God to pink unicorns, which doesn't bode well for your grasp of what's reasonable and unreasonable.


Is there any actual evidence for ANY of the assumptions you've made or repeated in the above list? Do we really know there are quantum events that are without a cause? Or is that a purportedly scientific guess based upon our own extremely limited understanding?

You've actually admitted you do not know that #2 is false, but have assumed it to be "probably false" based upon faulty logic and guesswork, which you refer to in #3 as "evidence".

Your entire argument appears to be based upon a bumper sticker: "sh*t happens". Would you have any interest in looking at actual evidence please?
Try these



 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,833
On the subject of information and data...


Nature is No Random Number Generator

If we take an honest and objective look at the world around us, does it really appear to be the result of random occurrences that simply had enough time to sort themselves out? Is there not a difference between patterns and designs? Do causal mechanisms adequately explain what we physically observe in nature?

Science defines a causal mechanism as a sequence of events or conditions, governed by lawlike regularities, leading from the explanans to the explanandum.

So who or what made up the laws that govern these causal mechanisms? How can there be laws without a lawmaker?

One of the most widespread and readily observable designs in nature is Fibonacci numbers. They appear everywhere in nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pine-cone, the scales of a pineapple, even in hurricanes. They are nature's numbering system. Fibonacci numbers are found in honey bee family trees, shell spirals, petals on flowers, seed heads and in leaf and limb arrangements, to name a few.

Fibonacci numbers are actually a mathematical series. The first twelve numbers in the series are as follows:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144,

where every number in the series is the sum of the two numbers that precede it.

Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer, observed that the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers converges. He wrote that "as 5 is to 8 so is 8 to 13, practically, and as 8 is to 13, so is 13 to 21 almost", and concluded that the limit approaches the golden ratio 1594111698002.png , where

1594111698330.png

which has the unique property among positive numbers of its inverse being exactly one less than itself, so that

1594111698675.png

Interestingly, it was the very same Johannes Kepler, the Astronomer Royal in Prague, who in 1603 computed that in the year 7 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter (the king of the planets) and Saturn (thought to be the protector of Israel) in the Constellation of Pisces (the Sign of the Messiah), that was first visible at daybreak on the 12th of April 7 B.C. The Passover in 7 B.C. was on Monday April 13th which commenced at sunset on the 12th.

The earth-shattering significance of this conjunction – Messiah; King; Protector of Israel; Passover – was the cosmic event described in the second chapter of the book of Matthew, in the Bible, that marked the actual birth-date of Jesus and the promise of the golden age to come.

Golden Rule Reminders Everywhere

If we look to the stars we find that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way, also conform to Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio.

We are literally surrounded with evidence that life on this planet and out in the universe is extremely ordered and strictly adheres to a meticulous set of laws. In fact the more we observe and study our natural surroundings, the clearer it becomes that NOTHING is random. If we revisit Pascal's Triangle we will notice that even it contains Fibonacci numbers.


1594111699042.jpeg
Fibonacci numbers in the diagonals of Pascal's Triangle

And the Fibonacci numbers don't stop with the macroscopic world; they are part of the microscopic world as well.

The DNA molecule, the program for all life, is also based on the golden ratio, represented as 1594111699413.png (phi). It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. DNA in the cell appears as a double-stranded helix referred to as B-DNA. This form of DNA has two grooves in its spirals, with a ratio of phi in the proportion of the major groove to the minor groove, or roughly 21 angstroms to 13 angstroms. The DNA cross-section is likewise based on phi, as the cross-section of the DNA double helix forms a decagon5.

A decagon is basically two concentric pentagons, with one rotated by 36 degrees from the other, so each spiral of the double helix must trace out the shape of a pentagon. The ratio of the diagonal of a pentagon to its side is phi to 1. So, no matter which way you look at it, the fundamental building blocks of life are constructed using the golden ratio!

Could it be with so many reminders of the golden ratio and golden numbers in our surroundings and in every cell of every living organism on the planet that someone is trying to send us a message to follow the golden rule? The golden rule, which is a restatement of the Second Great Commandment (Mark 12:31), says we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Strict adherence to this simple rule would end all oppression, injustice and war on this planet.


DNA – Design NOT Accident

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is likely the single largest international science project in the history of mankind. It formally began in 1989 and initially sought to identify and map the 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA and the sequences of the 3 billion chemical pairs that make up human DNA. The project goals were reportedly met in 2003, although additional sequences in areas like the central regions and ends of each chromosome, where the DNA sequences are highly repetitive, are still being mapped as the technology becomes available to do so.

But even with just what is presently known, the results of this project are astonishing. We have already discovered that DNA is by far the most efficient means of storing data known to man. In just one gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, it would be possible to store approximately one trillion CDs worth of information6 (or the equivalent of 250 billion DVDs).

To help put this into perspective, consider that a stack of 250 billion DVDs would stretch more than 3/4 of the way to the moon. And all of that information could be stored in a single gram of DNA the size of a sugar cube.

Put another way, the DNA information is so densely organized that a single teaspoonful could carry the instructions for building the entire population of planet Earth...hundreds of times over. We may think we have done well packing information densely onto chips, computer hard drives and DVDs, etc. but all of these devices store information on the surface only. DNA stores information in three dimensions and is by far the densest information storage mechanism known to man. And DNA also has the ability to self-replicate, fix errors, read and copy itself through a process known as transcription.

If we were to travel inside the cell to witness the transcription process, what we would see is a molecular machine first unwinding a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. That step would be followed by another machine making copies of these encoding instructions to form the single strand molecule we refer to as messenger RNA.

Once the transcription process has been completed, the slender RNA strand carries the genetic information through the nuclear pore complex, which is the gatekeeper for traffic in and out of the cell nucleus, and is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. After attaching itself securely, the decoding process of translation begins.

Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids. These amino acids are transported from other parts of the cell and then linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured.

When the chain is finished, it is relocated from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function. After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded to the exact location where it is needed. And all of this is going on inside every living cell, of every living creature, all of the time.

In every respect this is an absolutely amazing design and process and it is going on at a cellular level with molecular machines that we haven't even begun to understand. Thinking that causal mechanisms could explain this process in the absence of any observable or testable evidence isn't reasonable or scientific at all. Logically speaking this could only be a super-intelligent design and manufacturing process.


The Super-Intelligently Designed Language of Life

In addition to being the densest and by far the most efficient means of information storage in the known universe, the genetic code in DNA is also a language.

Perry Marshall, an electrical engineer and specialist in communication systems, has made some important connections between information theory and DNA, which itself is a digital communication system7. In fact many digital communication methods that are commonplace in the information technology field have been adapted and applied to genetics research and the Human Genome Project.

The first step in understanding the significance of DNA being a language is to define the difference between a pattern and a design.

Patterns are created from matter and energy only. While patterns frequently occur in nature, not all patterns have designs. Also, with patterns there is never an exact copy. Snowflakes are an example of a naturally occurring pattern.

Conversely, all designs do have patterns and all designs require a language. Music would be an example of a design, where the notes on paper symbolically represent the music that is heard by actually playing the notes.

A language symbolically represents something other than itself. The DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents the design information and assembly instructions for an entire living organism. Every language has 4 things: alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Information CANNOT be created without intent and there are no examples of this ever happening.

All languages also have error correction and redundancy, just as DNA does. In fact, the functions of DNA Nucleotide, Codons, Genes, Operons and Regulons have very recognizable counterparts in the English language.

DNA -- Language

Nucleotide (A, T, C, G) -- Characters

Codons -- Letters

Genes -- Words

Operons -- Sentences

Regulons -- Paragraphs

So is DNA just a naturally occurring pattern, or is it a design? An essential distinction between patterns and designs is language, and DNA meets all of the criteria for being a language. There are no examples of patterns ever turning into designs so any argument that DNA began as a pattern and then later organized itself into a design is baseless no matter how much time is involved. The following conditions establish that DNA is not just a pattern but is indeed a language:
  • DNA is an encoding/decoding mechanism/system that stores and transmits the messages of the living organism.
  • the DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents an entire living organism
  • DNA has alphabet, syntax, semantics, pragmatics (or more simply stated alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent)
  • DNA can be copied and even stored in other media with no loss of information

ALL information BEGINS with language (please see John 1:1) and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Since we know that information CANNOT be created without intent, and that intention/will is the property of a conscious mind, there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn:-

The very sophisticated language of DNA was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind.
 






Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
On the subject of information and data...


Nature is No Random Number Generator

If we take an honest and objective look at the world around us, does it really appear to be the result of random occurrences that simply had enough time to sort themselves out? Is there not a difference between patterns and designs? Do causal mechanisms adequately explain what we physically observe in nature?

Science defines a causal mechanism as a sequence of events or conditions, governed by lawlike regularities, leading from the explanans to the explanandum.

So who or what made up the laws that govern these causal mechanisms? How can there be laws without a lawmaker?

One of the most widespread and readily observable designs in nature is Fibonacci numbers. They appear everywhere in nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pine-cone, the scales of a pineapple, even in hurricanes. They are nature's numbering system. Fibonacci numbers are found in honey bee family trees, shell spirals, petals on flowers, seed heads and in leaf and limb arrangements, to name a few.

Fibonacci numbers are actually a mathematical series. The first twelve numbers in the series are as follows:

0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144,

where every number in the series is the sum of the two numbers that precede it.

Johannes Kepler, the German mathematician and astronomer, observed that the ratio of consecutive Fibonacci numbers converges. He wrote that "as 5 is to 8 so is 8 to 13, practically, and as 8 is to 13, so is 13 to 21 almost", and concluded that the limit approaches the golden ratio View attachment 38929 , where

View attachment 38930

which has the unique property among positive numbers of its inverse being exactly one less than itself, so that

View attachment 38928

Interestingly, it was the very same Johannes Kepler, the Astronomer Royal in Prague, who in 1603 computed that in the year 7 B.C. there was a conjunction of Jupiter (the king of the planets) and Saturn (thought to be the protector of Israel) in the Constellation of Pisces (the Sign of the Messiah), that was first visible at daybreak on the 12th of April 7 B.C. The Passover in 7 B.C. was on Monday April 13th which commenced at sunset on the 12th.

The earth-shattering significance of this conjunction – Messiah; King; Protector of Israel; Passover – was the cosmic event described in the second chapter of the book of Matthew, in the Bible, that marked the actual birth-date of Jesus and the promise of the golden age to come.

Golden Rule Reminders Everywhere

If we look to the stars we find that spiral galaxies, including our own Milky Way, also conform to Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio.

We are literally surrounded with evidence that life on this planet and out in the universe is extremely ordered and strictly adheres to a meticulous set of laws. In fact the more we observe and study our natural surroundings, the clearer it becomes that NOTHING is random. If we revisit Pascal's Triangle we will notice that even it contains Fibonacci numbers.


View attachment 38931
Fibonacci numbers in the diagonals of Pascal's Triangle

And the Fibonacci numbers don't stop with the macroscopic world; they are part of the microscopic world as well.

The DNA molecule, the program for all life, is also based on the golden ratio, represented as View attachment 38927 (phi). It measures 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral. DNA in the cell appears as a double-stranded helix referred to as B-DNA. This form of DNA has two grooves in its spirals, with a ratio of phi in the proportion of the major groove to the minor groove, or roughly 21 angstroms to 13 angstroms. The DNA cross-section is likewise based on phi, as the cross-section of the DNA double helix forms a decagon5.

A decagon is basically two concentric pentagons, with one rotated by 36 degrees from the other, so each spiral of the double helix must trace out the shape of a pentagon. The ratio of the diagonal of a pentagon to its side is phi to 1. So, no matter which way you look at it, the fundamental building blocks of life are constructed using the golden ratio!

Could it be with so many reminders of the golden ratio and golden numbers in our surroundings and in every cell of every living organism on the planet that someone is trying to send us a message to follow the golden rule? The golden rule, which is a restatement of the Second Great Commandment (Mark 12:31), says we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Strict adherence to this simple rule would end all oppression, injustice and war on this planet.

DNA – Design NOT Accident

The Human Genome Project (HGP) is likely the single largest international science project in the history of mankind. It formally began in 1989 and initially sought to identify and map the 20,000-25,000 genes in human DNA and the sequences of the 3 billion chemical pairs that make up human DNA. The project goals were reportedly met in 2003, although additional sequences in areas like the central regions and ends of each chromosome, where the DNA sequences are highly repetitive, are still being mapped as the technology becomes available to do so.

But even with just what is presently known, the results of this project are astonishing. We have already discovered that DNA is by far the most efficient means of storing data known to man. In just one gram of DNA, which when dry would occupy a volume of approximately one cubic centimeter, it would be possible to store approximately one trillion CDs worth of information6 (or the equivalent of 250 billion DVDs).

To help put this into perspective, consider that a stack of 250 billion DVDs would stretch more than 3/4 of the way to the moon. And all of that information could be stored in a single gram of DNA the size of a sugar cube.

Put another way, the DNA information is so densely organized that a single teaspoonful could carry the instructions for building the entire population of planet Earth...hundreds of times over. We may think we have done well packing information densely onto chips, computer hard drives and DVDs, etc. but all of these devices store information on the surface only. DNA stores information in three dimensions and is by far the densest information storage mechanism known to man. And DNA also has the ability to self-replicate, fix errors, read and copy itself through a process known as transcription.

If we were to travel inside the cell to witness the transcription process, what we would see is a molecular machine first unwinding a section of the DNA helix to expose the genetic instructions needed to assemble a specific protein molecule. That step would be followed by another machine making copies of these encoding instructions to form the single strand molecule we refer to as messenger RNA.

Once the transcription process has been completed, the slender RNA strand carries the genetic information through the nuclear pore complex, which is the gatekeeper for traffic in and out of the cell nucleus, and is directed to a two-part molecular factory called a ribosome. After attaching itself securely, the decoding process of translation begins.

Inside the ribosome, a molecular assembly line builds a specifically sequenced chain of amino acids. These amino acids are transported from other parts of the cell and then linked into chains often hundreds of units long. Their sequential arrangement determines the type of protein manufactured.

When the chain is finished, it is relocated from the ribosome to a barrel-shaped machine that helps fold it into the precise shape critical to its function. After the chain is folded into a protein, it is then released and shepherded to the exact location where it is needed. And all of this is going on inside every living cell, of every living creature, all of the time.

In every respect this is an absolutely amazing design and process and it is going on at a cellular level with molecular machines that we haven't even begun to understand. Thinking that causal mechanisms could explain this process in the absence of any observable or testable evidence isn't reasonable or scientific at all. Logically speaking this could only be a super-intelligent design and manufacturing process.


The Super-Intelligently Designed Language of Life

In addition to being the densest and by far the most efficient means of information storage in the known universe, the genetic code in DNA is also a language.

Perry Marshall, an electrical engineer and specialist in communication systems, has made some important connections between information theory and DNA, which itself is a digital communication system7. In fact many digital communication methods that are commonplace in the information technology field have been adapted and applied to genetics research and the Human Genome Project.

The first step in understanding the significance of DNA being a language is to define the difference between a pattern and a design.

Patterns are created from matter and energy only. While patterns frequently occur in nature, not all patterns have designs. Also, with patterns there is never an exact copy. Snowflakes are an example of a naturally occurring pattern.

Conversely, all designs do have patterns and all designs require a language. Music would be an example of a design, where the notes on paper symbolically represent the music that is heard by actually playing the notes.

A language symbolically represents something other than itself. The DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents the design information and assembly instructions for an entire living organism. Every language has 4 things: alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Information CANNOT be created without intent and there are no examples of this ever happening.

All languages also have error correction and redundancy, just as DNA does. In fact, the functions of DNA Nucleotide, Codons, Genes, Operons and Regulons have very recognizable counterparts in the English language.

DNA Language

Nucleotide (A, T, C, G) Characters

Codons Letters

Genes Words

Operons Sentences

Regulons Paragraphs

So is DNA just a naturally occurring pattern, or is it a design? An essential distinction between patterns and designs is language, and DNA meets all of the criteria for being a language. There are no examples of patterns ever turning into designs so any argument that DNA began as a pattern and then later organized itself into a design is baseless no matter how much time is involved. The following conditions establish that DNA is not just a pattern but is indeed a language:
  • DNA is an encoding/decoding mechanism/system that stores and transmits the messages of the living organism.
  • the DNA molecule represents more than itself; it represents an entire living organism
  • DNA has alphabet, syntax, semantics, pragmatics (or more simply stated alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent)
  • DNA can be copied and even stored in other media with no loss of information

ALL information BEGINS with language (please see John 1:1) and does NOT occur naturally. Information is neither matter nor energy and neither matter nor energy can produce information. Since we know that information CANNOT be created without intent, and that intention/will is the property of a conscious mind, there is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn:-

The very sophisticated language of DNA was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind.
Not accidental; just basic physics.

Look at all the examples you gave: crowded structures, with each element exerting force on its neighbours. If the packing arrangement produces a void, an element will get pushed into it. Of course it's going to result in close packing.

It's like shaking a jar of marbles: give the marbles (or seeds, or whatever) the chance to shift around and they'll generally - and naturally - fall to their lowest achievable level of potential energy. This results in a closely packed structure instead of one where the marbles form big, unstable arches over big voids.

If you think this is amazing, watching a concrete vibrator must be a religious experience for you.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,833
Evolution needs to Evolve

So we now have undeniable proof that life on this planet was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind and that if life did evolve, the capacity to evolve had to be designed and programmed into the DNA. An example of this is the telomeric structure that determines life-span.

On the tips of each chromosome there is a structure called a telomere. The simplest way to think of this structure is that it is a timing device, with a series of beads attached to the end. Every time the cell divides the telomere is shortened by a bead. Once the beads are all gone, cell division is no longer possible, eventually resulting in cell death.

The machinery by which cells divide is controlled by the instruction code programmed into the DNA. So a big part of aging is a pre-programmed genetic limit rather than the result of any random mutation or genetic drift.

It is interesting to note that in the English language, the word "evolution", with a single exception, always refers to an intelligent process, whether it is applied to personal or social development, business, manufacturing or technology, etc. That single exception is of course materialistic Darwinian evolution.

Darwinism is actually the belief in random mutation with no intention, no purpose, and no planning, coupled with natural selection and enough time. This hypothesis of evolution by random process has now been scientifically disproven by information theory.

Natural selection on the other hand is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: in communication systems, random mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal; it NEVER enhances it.

In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as it is for thermodynamic entropy. To keep things simple, entropy is a scientific term describing an irreversible process of degradation. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be absolutely certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.


Building a Better Watch

About 200 years ago, William Paley advanced a teleological argument for the existence of God that goes something like this: if I found a watch in the woods I would know it was designed, and since life also has a purpose, it too must have been designed.

David Hume's attempted refutation of this argument was that we can't prove life has a purpose, so we can't prove design. He posited that for the design argument to be feasible, order and purpose are only observed when they result from design. Hume went on to claim that order is regularly observed in nature, in presumably mindless processes such as the formation of a snowflake.

But we already know that a snowflake is a pattern, NOT a design. It is the result of the correct conditions being met to form a snowflake. The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language. You cannot present a design idea without language and the idea ALWAYS precedes the implementation of the idea.

If we reexamine Paley's watch argument we find that the common element to both the watch and to life is language, and language requires intent. The watch is preceded by a design idea that becomes a plan or blueprint for building the watch. Life is preceded by DNA, the language created to carry out the plan and assembly instructions for life.

Therefore Hume's attempted refutation fails against the better watch argument.


The Missing Link

As previously mentioned, materialistic Darwinian evolution stands alone in its application of the word "evolution". In all other uses of the word, evolution describes a process of learning based on the scientific evaluation method of observing a cause and effect along with testing and validating prior to implementation. It is of critical importance to note there is a "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words a means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.

Darwinism would have us believe that blind, random mutations can and supposedly do occur with no intention, purpose or planning. All that is needed is to throw in natural selection and enough time and everything will magically sort itself out. But has this process EVER been observed? No. If you introduce noise into communication it never helps. If you introduce chaos into order, the information doesn't organize or improve itself no matter how much time there is.

Random mutations follow the exact same principle. The very idea of random mutation violates the whole nature of how information is created. Assuming for a moment that mutations would improve rather than degrade features, how would the mutations target a specific area in need of improvement? It's of critical importance to note there is no "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words there's no means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.

This is the critical missing link in the entire Darwinian mindset and the reason LaMarckian evolutionary theory was dismissed decades ago. There simply isn't a physical means for the information gathered by the organism to be communicated and programmed into the DNA code, in the exact location required to make specific and meaningful changes to the transitional area.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Evolution needs to Evolve

So we now have undeniable proof that life on this planet was designed by a Super-Intelligent Mind and that if life did evolve, the capacity to evolve had to be designed and programmed into the DNA. An example of this is the telomeric structure that determines life-span.

On the tips of each chromosome there is a structure called a telomere. The simplest way to think of this structure is that it is a timing device, with a series of beads attached to the end. Every time the cell divides the telomere is shortened by a bead. Once the beads are all gone, cell division is no longer possible, eventually resulting in cell death.

The machinery by which cells divide is controlled by the instruction code programmed into the DNA. So a big part of aging is a pre-programmed genetic limit rather than the result of any random mutation or genetic drift.

It is interesting to note that in the English language, the word "evolution", with a single exception, always refers to an intelligent process, whether it is applied to personal or social development, business, manufacturing or technology, etc. That single exception is of course materialistic Darwinian evolution.

Darwinism is actually the belief in random mutation with no intention, no purpose, and no planning, coupled with natural selection and enough time. This hypothesis of evolution by random process has now been scientifically disproven by information theory.

Natural selection on the other hand is perfectly valid and has been proven time and time again. But no one has ever actually demonstrated that random mutation can create new information. Information theory shows us why this is so: in communication systems, random mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal; it NEVER enhances it.

In communication systems this is called information entropy, and the formula for information entropy is exactly the same as it is for thermodynamic entropy. To keep things simple, entropy is a scientific term describing an irreversible process of degradation. Once lost, the information can never be recovered, much less enhanced. Thus we can be absolutely certain that random mutation is not the source of biodiversity.


Building a Better Watch

About 200 years ago, William Paley advanced a teleological argument for the existence of God that goes something like this: if I found a watch in the woods I would know it was designed, and since life also has a purpose, it too must have been designed.

David Hume's attempted refutation of this argument was that we can't prove life has a purpose, so we can't prove design. He posited that for the design argument to be feasible, order and purpose are only observed when they result from design. Hume went on to claim that order is regularly observed in nature, in presumably mindless processes such as the formation of a snowflake.

But we already know that a snowflake is a pattern, NOT a design. It is the result of the correct conditions being met to form a snowflake. The essential distinction between patterns and designs is language. You cannot present a design idea without language and the idea ALWAYS precedes the implementation of the idea.

If we reexamine Paley's watch argument we find that the common element to both the watch and to life is language, and language requires intent. The watch is preceded by a design idea that becomes a plan or blueprint for building the watch. Life is preceded by DNA, the language created to carry out the plan and assembly instructions for life.

Therefore Hume's attempted refutation fails against the better watch argument.


The Missing Link

As previously mentioned, materialistic Darwinian evolution stands alone in its application of the word "evolution". In all other uses of the word, evolution describes a process of learning based on the scientific evaluation method of observing a cause and effect along with testing and validating prior to implementation. It is of critical importance to note there is a "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words a means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.

Darwinism would have us believe that blind, random mutations can and supposedly do occur with no intention, purpose or planning. All that is needed is to throw in natural selection and enough time and everything will magically sort itself out. But has this process EVER been observed? No. If you introduce noise into communication it never helps. If you introduce chaos into order, the information doesn't organize or improve itself no matter how much time there is.

Random mutations follow the exact same principle. The very idea of random mutation violates the whole nature of how information is created. Assuming for a moment that mutations would improve rather than degrade features, how would the mutations target a specific area in need of improvement? It's of critical importance to note there is no "feedback loop" in this process, or in other words there's no means for the information gathered to be incorporated and put into use.

This is the critical missing link in the entire Darwinian mindset and the reason LaMarckian evolutionary theory was dismissed decades ago. There simply isn't a physical means for the information gathered by the organism to be communicated and programmed into the DNA code, in the exact location required to make specific and meaningful changes to the transitional area.
One of the challenges by fundamentalist Creationists is that there are 'missing links' which disprove the possibility of the evolution of life. Over the recent history the discoveries of many missing links, and weekly more fossils are being found that build a more complete record of the evilution of life on earth.

The first important discovery was an important link in the evolution of whales. The new discovery was a species of ancient whale that showed the beginnings of the development of a tail fine to propel through water. There are already many species found in the fossil record for the evolution of a land mammal that over recent geologic history to modern whales. Most of these fossils are found in sequence over time in the sediments of the Ancient Indian ocean.

From: New Eocene-Period Whale Unearthed in Egypt | Paleontology | Sci-News.com

New Eocene-Period Whale Unearthed in Egypt

Paleontologists have announced the discovery of a new genus and species of extinct protocetid whale, based on the fossilized remains found in the Western Desert of Egypt. Named Aegicetus gehennae, the ancient animal represents an important step in the evolution of whale locomotion.

[IMG]
An artist’s impression of Basilosaurus isis. Image credit: Pavel Riha / CC BY-SA 3.0.

Protocetidae (protocetids) are a group of semi-aquatic whales known from the middle Eocene epoch of Africa, Asia, North America, and South America.

While living whales use their tails to propel themselves through the water, most protocetids were foot-powered swimmers.

The newly-discovered protocetid, Aegicetus gehennae, was more fully aquatic and less specialized as a foot-powered swimmer than earlier protocetids.

It represents a transitional stage between the foot-powered swimming of early whales and the tail-powered swimming of living whales.

“It is the youngest-known protocetid, dating to around 35 million years ago, and is known from one exceptionally complete skeleton and a partial second specimen, making it among the best-preserved ancient whales,” explained University of Michigan’s Professor Philip Gingerich and colleagues.

Aegicetus gehennae had an estimated body mass of about 900 kg, according to the team.

“Compared with earlier whales, it has a more elongated body and tail, smaller back legs, and lacks a firm connection between the hind legs and the spinal column,” the researchers said.

“These adaptations indicate an animal that was more fully aquatic and less of a foot-powered swimmer than its ancestors.”

Type locality of Aegicetus gehennae in the Wadi Al Hitan World Heritage Site, Egypt. Image credit: Gingerich et al, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225391.

The fossilized bones of two Aegicetus gehennae individuals were collected in 2007 from the Gehannam Formation of Wadi Al Hitan (Valley of Whales), a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the Western Desert of Egypt.

“The body shape of Aegicetus gehennae is similar to that of other ancient whales of its time, such as the famous Basilosaurus,” Professor Gingerich and co-authors said.

“These animals appear to be well-adapted for swimming through undulation of the mid-body and the tail, somewhat as crocodiles swim today.”
 






Top