>> ^shinyblurry:

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..


So, by this argument, if we live in a deist universe, in which the universe was created but the creator pays it no mind, then abiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are completely plausible. That's an interesting position, it does not really help you here.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

You seem to not understand the meaning of apriori. A few hundred years ago everybody in the western world, at least claimed to, believe the creation myth of genesis. We got to here from there, don't pretend your ideology has not had a chance, you were in charge of the game, we called your bluff, you just had nothing in your hand, you still don't.

Evolving molecules exist, they came into being at some point after it was possible for them to exist in this universe. The only non-magic hypotheses we have are based on a naturalistic model where these molecules are generated by a series of non-evolving processes. The gaps in the chemical record are very much like the gaps in the fossil record used to be, we have not filled them all, but neither have we found one that can not be crossed, and no reason to think they will not be filled.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Here is the hypothesis


The ID position is stated there in four parts, the last three follow from common decent, and the first one is either false, like all Behe's examples, or undemonstrated. It is mathematically possible that there is irreducible complexity somewhere, just as with faeries and unicorns, absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.

All the Discovery Institute links were painful in their fail. DI is a propaganda organization, only one of their links discusses any scientific discovery, and it actually makes no ID claims. The rest of the articles either make no claim, or have been shown to be false. If Well's article is going to be your flagship falsifiable ID position, fine, but you should probably know it's already been falsified here .

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here.

This is your premise, and your conclusion, draw the line, and I will show you something on either side that confounds your "distinction". If you can't define the problem, I can't show it's flaws. Refusing to define your terms may get you by in theology, we are talking chemistry here, chemistry does not "work in mysterious ways".

>> ^shinyblurry:

if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not.

Ontology can't help you here, gods, since the can intervene, make it more difficult to make truth claims, not easier.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof.

There is no proof of anything. There is evidence of RNA/DNA metabolism, there is evidence of general chemical probability, there is no evidence for irreducible complexity, or anticipatory design in any non lab built genome. You can scream about nonexistent, and unneeded proof all day, science follows the evidence.

I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.

You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.

A mind created and designed it, therefore a mind is involved, therefore it is an invalid example..

Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.

Abiogenesis is unproven because there is no evidence, it is just metaphysics. It's your faith that it is true. It is not the only coherent explanation, it is just the explanation that you have to believe because you have ruled out an intelligent designer apriori.

There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.

Here is the hypothesis

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Here is a story about ID being published in a biology journal making predictions for cancer research

http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.

There is obviously a concrete difference since life doesn't come from non-life, and has never once been observed doing so. You have everything in the world to prove here. Everything in the Universe is made up of atoms, does that mean there is no difference between you and me? Is there no difference between a duck and a neutron star? You can't just say that because there are trivial similarities that they are the same thing.

And if you think like that, and you just believe we are all chemicals in motion, then you can't trust your own mind because if our mental processes are just chemical reactions, then there is no reason to believe anything is true. If our mental states have their origin in non-rational causes, rationality can't be trusted. You can't know if the rationality we have from evolutionary processes is discerning the truth of the world or not. Even Darwin realized this:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.

Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex
?
Well this is plainly false. RNA to DNA is far more probable than ROCKS to RNA. The reason it is labeled magic is because there is no proof. It doesn't mean that they are both equally likely. It is less likely by large orders of magnitude.

The magic is RNA self-replication:

http://www.lifesorigin.com/chap10/RNA-self-replication-3.php

And if you had bothered to do any real research, you would see that the leap from soup to these complex molecules is anything but trivial..here is a list of just of basic issues...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

Some quotes for you:

Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

Dr. Denton, Ph.D (Molecular Biology),
An evolutionist currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia

Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine in itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (it's complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.

A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain, one consisting of a 1,000 links could exist in 41000 different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 = 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives us the figure '1' followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."

Frank Salisbury,
Evolutionary biologist

Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.

If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

I did, see above. Here is a bunch more: http://www.discovery.org/a/2640


>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do.
I have claimed that there are methods to synthesize information that do not require the interaction of a mind. I have provided an example of one such system.
You object, but without either asserting that the simulation is a mind, or that it does not synthesize information, but instead you make some vague assertion about how it's instead not an example.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.
Abiogenesis is, like all real knowledge, unproven. None the less it is, at present, the only coherent explanation for what can be demonstrated to exist.
There is no ID hypothesis, Behe came the closest to actually trying, and any competent high school biology student could pick his little charade to pieces in a few hours with a half decent encyclopedia.
Given two possibilities, one being unlikely, and the other being false, I'll go with unlikely.
>> ^shinyblurry:
So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?
No, see above.

You said, and I quote: "if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form."
Do you mean that DNA must already have the information required to do so? because lots of DNA does not, otherwise are you asserting that DNA is somehow "mind", which you claim would be required for that information to come into being?
>> ^shinyblurry:
The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)
Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

I am arguing not that there are no differences in the world, but that there is no concrete distinction between life and chemistry. You can assume there is, you can assert there is, but until you can demonstrate that there is I have nothing to disprove.
You can't disprove unicorns, I can't disprove the life boundary, and we have no reason to believe either exists.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.
Please consider this image: http://en.citizendium.org/images/thumb/f/f6/RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg/350px-RNA_base_vs_DNA_base.jpg
The bottom right hydroxyl group is the only difference between RNA and DNA, to suggest that molecules can't lose parts, is to argue that the universe is not as it observably is.
Since the step you clearly label (MAGIC) in the RNA-> DNA path is so obviously trivial, why should anybody believe that the other step you label (MAGIC) is any more complex?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.
Perhaps an "effort", but not a method, or a hypothesis. ID makes no predictions, it simply tries to find arguments to prop up a baseless assumption, that is the opposite of science.
If any ID proponent, or any theologian for that matter, can demonstrate even one example of anything true that their ideology can reliably tell us that we don't already know I will admit that it has predictive power, and that it could qualify as a hypothesis, and then eventually a theory. I'm betting you can't find one.

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Actually, I did. I pointed out that your simulation doesn't do what you said it does, even in a trivial way. I said information only comes from minds, so you provide a simulation programmed by a mind. I stated this only illustrates my point, but you insisted the output proved information doesn't have to come from minds. I just got finished pointing out that the whole thing is analogous to randomly piecing together letters of an existing language until you get a new word by chance. You still need the language for the word to mean anything, otherwise it is just nonsense. And you don't get the word without the language in the first place. If the boxcar simulation could produce helicopters, that might be something, but you're still dealing with the chicken and the egg problem. A system created by information which outputs information by design is not doing so without the involvement of a mind. A mind was behind the entire process and none of it could have happened without a mind so it doesn't count as an example. You can't use a design to prove there is no design needed. That's like saying you can prove you don't need a factory to build a car but you buy all of your parts to build the car from the factory.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

What I insist is that you substantiate your claims, which you have failed to do. Your overconfidence is amusing, but misplaced; the facts are not on your side. Abiogenesis is purely metaphysics and unproven.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by
non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a
retraction?

No, see above.

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time,
electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self
replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"?

Nope, see above.

You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false.

There most certainly is a barrier. Again, abiogenesis is pure metaphysics; it doesn't happen in the real world. Life doesn't come from non-life. Pasteurization, and the food supply in general, relies upon this fact.

The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

So there is no difference between you and a rock? I can admit I see similarities, heart wise..:)

Let's see some evidence for your claim that there is no difference between life and non-life.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest
is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which
the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely
plausible.

No, I admit that if you don't have to do the work to get wheels and bodies, and you have a design that churns them out, boxcars are inevitable. If you already have the materials, and the blueprints, of course you're able to build the house. Without any of those things, it is an impossible proposition.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no
proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably
likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

It's not false. This is your pathway to DNA: RNA - (MAGIC) - DNA This is your pathway to RNA: ROCKS - (MAGIC) - RNA Just because you can get RNA to self-replicate doesn't automatically mean it is either likely or plausible this could happen.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

The best science has been able to do is create some amino acids which is worlds away from a complex molecule like RNA. The difficulties are legion and many are just intractable. There is no proof that RNA could even survive in that kind of environment, because it is extremely fragile.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless
.

It most certainly is a theory and it is not theology; intelligent design only needs an intelligent designer, not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. It is a theory which states that certain elements and features of the Universe are better explained by intelligent causation than an undirected process like natural selection. It is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent" design in nature, which biologists acknowledge, is actual design. It is only useless to you because you have ruled out design apriori, which is just simply ignorant.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.
Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.
>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.

So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?
So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.
You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.

This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.

You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Let's start over because you're just going all over the place


No, lets not. I provided counter evidence to one absurd baseless assertion of yours , that "information" only comes from "minds", you have not provided any basis on which to defend your original position.

Your "this is going badly, let's start over" tactic is cute, don't get me wrong, but you insist that your ideological position be taken seriously, and I intend to do so, until it lies in tattered shreds on the floor.

>> ^shinyblurry:


This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point.


So you acknowledge that information is trivially synthesized, by non-minds? That's the opposite of your original claim. Is that a retraction?

So now you accept that once you have atoms, gravity, time, electromagnetism, you inevitably have the possibility of self replicating molecular systems, and therefor "life"? You seem to have decided that life is a magical barrier, but this distinction is false. The distinction between "life" and "non-life" does not exist.

You acknowledge that once a mechanism for inheritance exists the rest is inevitable, I agree, you simply lack the sense of scale on which the universe operates, which makes the preceding step entirely plausible.

>> ^shinyblurry:
You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins.


This is simply false. RNA codes for proteins, but RNA requires no proteins for it's own replication, it is entirely plausible, arguably likely, that once you have RNA, DNA would get a chance to compete.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it.


You assume that the argument is Random -> RNA -> DNA, but it is not. There are many simpler organic self replicators that, in the absence of an RNA ecosystem, would be able to prime the pump, by converting simple molecules into those more likely to contribute to spontaneous RNA synthesis, very much in the same way that cells work by creating conditions where the high concentration of particular ingredients allows proteins to replicate DNA, which proteins would not be able to do in the wild.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.


ID is not even a postulation, much less a hypothesis, it provides no information, illuminates nothing, it is theology dressed up in the garb of science. It's only science if it reliably predicts things, ID fails at this basic task, because, like all theology, it is useless.

Let's start over because you're just going all over the place

This is the point: Your entire example is irrelevent. Yeah, you can generate all sorts of stuff when a system is already in place, when you have a preprogrammed design that itself generates designs. If you already have wheels and a chassis, you can build a boxcar pretty easily. Boxcars are inevitable at this point. All these things are possible because the information is already present. You can invent new words because you already have a language. Likewise, if you already have DNA, you can certainly expect a cell to form. What you're still dealing with is the chicken and the egg problem. You have to have proteins to create DNA and you have to have DNA to create proteins. Science has attempted to solve this problem by saying that RNA molecules evolved from the soup, yet there is no logical pathway for this to happen, because natural selection and mutation cannot account for it. The problems are far too vast to overcome, and experiment has yieled no conclusive results. So, my point stands, that intelligent design is a better explanation for the complex coded information in DNA, which naturalistic processes cannot account for.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I haven't conflated anything. You've simply misconstrued everything I've said because of your belief that RNA is simple, or could spontaneously evolve.

Really? You thought that putting those two words together like that would convince me that you are taking anybody else seriously?
>> ^shinyblurry:
You think your simulation demonstrates the creation of information which could lead to a system that creates cellular life.

No, Please re-read your claim, and my response. You claimed that Information comes Only from minds, I provide counter evidence, you assert that I was claiming something else. I claim that you are not listening, you provide evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:
such a system could never generate RNA of cellular life.

We have such a system, it's called the universe, and in it we find RNA. The universe does generate RNA, you and I are not in dispute on this point, only on the mechanism of that generation.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell. Even if it could generate RNA, to evolve the correct sequences of RNA nucleotides to form even one protein would be impossible to achieve even over billions of years, let alone enough proteins to create a cell.

That claim makes no sense.
To assert that something takes a particular amount of time requires a context of how wide spread the attempt is.
As an example I can not build a rocket to put people on the moon, this is impossible, I will not live long enough... None the less a large number of people, working in concert, with worse technology that we have access to did accomplish this task, it's possibility is a matter of scale.
In order to make an anthropic argument, I only need life to have happened once in all the space and time of the entire universe. Now I realize that you are just talking out your ass, that you have no numbers to back up your claims of probability, that your are simply making an argument from incredulity, but if you decide to try and cover your ass with some numbers realize we have about 100B years and 10⁸⁰ atoms to work with.
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is no experiment which has demonstrated that RNA can spontaneously evolve and be capable of creating life, now or ever. There is also no experiment which shows life evolving from non-living matter.

There again with the nonsense phrase, trying to really hit it home that you really have no clue what you are arguing against?
RNA is a molecule, it's not magic, it does nothing but what chemistry would expect of it, and still, it generates information through mutation/selection. This is, again, evidence against your absurd initial position which your argument from incredulity can not address. Even if you question the source of the molecule, the mechanism is the same, RNA is not a god antenna, it's a molecule, that synthesizes information through a simple, well understood, physical process.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The information is what designed and built the simulation, and its structure generates different arrangements of that information based on certain preprogrammed variables which do not change. You are not making anything truly new, rather you are just shuffling things around.

And neither has anybody, and you never have, and I never will. We are all bounded by our universe, we can not create or destroy, only move and arrange. There is, as far as we can tell, never anything new, and to say that that is true of the simulation provides no information about how it may be different from the physical universe in which we live, it is only one more way in which it is similar.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Such a simulation could never evolve on its own outside of programming.

Do you not get the concept of simulation? Nobody has claimed that the simulation is "real" only that it mimics, in a predictive way, certain aspects of the physical universe. Specifically it illustrates the compounding result of mutation/combination/selection, which is to synthesize information about the environment in a manner coded to best deal with that environment, a process, which you assert can not happen.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Just as DNA could never evolve on its own. The digital information it contains transcends its medium, just as a story transcends the paper and ink it is written on. Information only comes from minds, and that is what DNA code points to.

Your comparison is poor, paper and ink don't create words, DNA does. Understanding the information may require a "mind", whatever that means, but the information effecting and shaped by the physical world only requires mutation/selection, and we had that on this planet for billions of years before anybody realized there was any information in the system at all.

The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science.

I'll have to disagree with you here. To say the evidence for a creator is just filling in the gaps isn't true when it is a better explanation for the evidence. Take DNA, for instance. DNA is a complex coded language which contains grammar, syntax, phoenetics, etc There is no naturalistic explanation that can account for it; DNA is information, and information only comes from minds. The medium doesn't matter. Just as a message transcends the paper and ink it is written in, and just as you can write that message in the sand and has no loss of data, DNA is transcendent of its medium. A designer is a better explanation for the existence of DNA. Check out this article:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3040594/The-Linguistics-of-DNA-Words-Sentences-Grammar-Phonetics-and-Semantics

What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.

That is just a fallacy, though. Just because people used "God did it" as an explanation for things we know understand in more detail is not evidence against the existence of God. It is just evidence for the ignorance of people. Christians aren't against science. I am against things which aren't science, like things which have never been observed and are untestable, like macro evolution.

Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.

Science does a lot of guessing. This is why theories have changed so many times in the last few centuries. Not too long ago, science was certain the Universe was static and eternal. It was one of the evidences that atheists would use against Creationists. Now, we know the Universe had a definitive beginning. The scientist who discovered said that there is no other theory which lends itself so well to the creation account in Genesis.

My main point is that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. It is not anything it can prove or disprove. God is a spirit, and a spirit is an immaterial being. There is no empirical evidence for something immaterial.

However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.

Again, intelligent design is a better explanation than natural selection by random mutation for a number of things. When darwinian theory was created, the cell was thought to be a simple ball of protoplasm. We now know the cell is more complex than the space shuttle, by an order of magnitude. There is no naturalistic process which can account for the existence of this complex and intricate nano-machinery. Just because you consider it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. The Universe has the appearance of design. There are 30 or so factors in physics which have to be precisely calibrated for the Universe to even form correct, let alone for life to develop. The odds of this happeneing by chance are beyond calculation. Instead of admitting that and changing the theory, scientists then postulate multiple Universes to make the design features in this one seem plausible as happenstance.

Here is a nice video on the complexity of the cell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM&feature=related

If you want to talk about radiocarbon dating, this again is something which is an interpretation of evidence based on a number of unprovable assumptions. It presumes that radioactive decay rates have remained constant in the past and that there was no contamination over periods of millions or billions of years. Check out this article:

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/fatal-flaw-radioactive-dating/

I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?

I am relying on my own experience, and in my experience I have observed that the material reality is a veil, and behind that veil is a spiritual reality which encompasses it. I have seen the evidence of a higher power working in the world, who relates to us on a personal level. I believe the bible because my experience confirms it, not because I just assume it is true.

Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

When you have faith in metaphysical claims, and that faith informs your entire worldview, that is indeed like a religion. What you are seeing is through the lens of that worldview..

>> ^Quboid:
I haven't seen any good evidence for Christianity. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of God. The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.
Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.
However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.
I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?
Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

I haven't seen any good evidence for Christianity. I haven't seen any good evidence for the existence of God. The best evidence is just filling in the gaps in science. What happened before the Big Bang? I don't know. "God did it" isn't evidence, it isn't rational or logical. "God did it" used to be the explanation for the shape of the Earth and the movement of the stars, when that was questioned, the questioner was threatened with death. However, by continuing to question, we now know a lot about the solar system, enough to put satellites into orbit and photograph distance planets.

Scientific theories are indeed interpretation of facts and in many cases, it involves jumps because we can't explain everything. This is what the word "theory" means in this context, rather than the meaning the Fox News's of the world use when they pretend it means that science is guessing. That's why there is always doubt, always questions to be asked and answers to be listened to. The important thing is that it is interpretation and extrapolating data, i.e. it is based on what we can prove.

However, some answers have been listened to and fallen short. For example, Intelligent Design. This has been discussed and no rational, logical or empirical evidence have been put forward. This is why it has been rejected, by me and by the scientific community: not because we don't want to hear but because it's been talked to death, causes distracting controversy and frankly, it's clearly bullshit. I wouldn't want my child taught it in school because if you teach one unsubstantiated load of nonsense, where does it end? I want rational and logical things taught to my children. If I want my children to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will teach them myself and when I struggle to explain the dinosaurs and radiocarbon dating that they learnt about in school, I should take a long hard look at myself.

I do rely on empirical evidence, we all do. You are relying on what you see too, what you see written on the pages of the Bible. Short of Descartes' "I think therefore I am" philosophy, everything we think exists is empirical. If we can't believe what we see or what we consider to be self evident, how can you believe what you think you are reading from what you think is a Bible?

Is believing my own eyes and my own mind what you want to call my religion? That seems to be to be very different to religion as I know the word.

I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.

There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.

Well, this is only half the story. There is a certain amount of faith in science as a whole. This is because science doesn't actually prove anything:

http://www.digipac.ca/chemical/proof/index.htm

To believe in science you must have faith in empiricism, which says that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Yet there are many truths empiricism cannot account for. Science itself is predicated on a series of unprovable assumptions called "brute givens" which presume the operations of the Universe have remained constant in the past and will continue to do so. Here is a good dialog on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Please ignore the title, it was just the best clip I could find. Also, check out this conversation between a physics major and a bunch of physicists and mathematicians about him losing faith in empiricism:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.

This isn't always true. For instance, the scientific community at large consider evolution to be "proven" and won't tolerate any dissent on the issue. A scientist who even breathes the words "intelligent design" will be totally ostracized, have their reputations ruined, be unable to publish scientific papers and lose their ability to get grants. It is nearly impossible to do any work on intelligent design for that reason. Evolutionary theories are the sacred cow of science, and they religiously defend it, even to the point of suppressing any debate on it, and also by propagating this view into our political and education system. They also file lawsuits to keep intelligent design from being mentioned in classrooms. This has clearly gone beyond the bounds of mere scientific inquiry. If scientists had taken this same attitude on classical mechanics, quantum mechanics may never have been discovered.

The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all* just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.

Well, you have to realize that some of things you seem to consider facts, aren't. The Big Bang theory is not a fact, it is totally unprovable. Not only that, but the theory itself doesn't even really work..it has a number of problems, from how stars and planets form, to the lack of observable matter and energy to make it work, to what they call the smoothness problem:

"These structures must have arisen from tiny variations in the energy density in the early universe. Where the densities were greatest is, presumably, where gravity caused matter to collapse into the structures we see today.

The problem is that to explain these structures seems to require a universe that was created in an incredibly smooth non-chaotic manner. This seems extremely unlikely."''

I like the last bit. It isn't unlikely if you consider the Universe was created by an omniopotent being. The basic problem with big bang cosmology and evoltuion is that they are not real science. You can't observe and test them, they are speculation and assumption about things that happened in the past. It is mere interpretation of data, and there are many ways to interpret it. We are both looking at the same facts, but interpreting them in different ways.

Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)

I don't preumse I can prove to you that Christianity is true. I can show you that there are good reasons to believe there is a God, and that there is good evidence for Christianity, but I cannot prove my experience. I can however tell you this is something you can prove to yourself. If you ask God for the evidence, He will provide it to you. You can do this by praying something like this: "Jesus, if you're real, I want to know about it. If you're God please come into my life and I will give it over to you" If you can pray those words and mean them, you will get an answer. He promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him dilligently.

As far as the crutch thing goes, what I am speaking about is sin. Those who don't know God are in a servitude to their passions and desires. Meaning, the first priority is a fulfillment of these desires, which the intellect first assents to, and then seeks out a worldview that justifies this fulfillment. Meaning, the atheist naturally doesn't want to believe that which contradicts the fulfillment of his natural desires, and will resist believing it. Admitting that God exists also means that you have a responsibility to obey Him, which further means that you can no longer live according to fleshly desires. So, an atheist will resist the knowledge of God so they can continue to live as they please, doing that which they know by their conscience is wrong, but being unable to resist these things. It has virtually nothing to do with evidence; our sinful nature is just naturally inclined to be in rebellion against Gods authority and will continue to operate this way on any pretense that seems even remotely plausible.

>> ^Quboid:
I believe the Big Bang Theory because I have faith in the scientific community.
There is a faith aspect to "science". I have faith that E=MC^2. I've never checked, but I have faith that the scientific community have checked. However, this is not blind faith. I could, if I was sufficiently motivated, read up on the science and prove this to myself.
Another reason why "science" isn't a religion is that if something is shown to wrong, it gets corrected. If those neutrinos sent from CERN disprove E=MC^2, then my mind is open to change. If something is shown to be wrong in religion, the people who show it up get in trouble.
The key is that I don't "believe this nonsense without question". I believe this with question and with the readiness to believe something else if something else is proven. I believe in facts because they are self-evident, and I believe in doubt because I believe we don't know everything and that we should strive to know more and to prove more. Denying proven without offering an alternative which can be backed up at all just isn't reality. Do I feel I have a claim to rationality and logic? Well, that is what my beliefs are based on. There is proof for Earth being 4.5 billion years old, rational and logical proof.
Of course, you presumably do believe that Christianity can be backed up, which is where we've even less chance of agreeing on anything. Every argument I've heard for religion is ultimately circular or illogical.
(I don't understand the crutches thing, from either side.)
>> ^shinyblurry:
The problem with Bill Maher and his cackling hyenas, and most atheists in general, is that they seem to think that they have some sort of claim to rationality and logic above theists. Yet, as you pointed out, they are no less dogmatic about their faith than anyone else. Though you seem to think that they are in the superior position. I would say that you shouldn't forget about the religion of scientism which teaches that nothing exploded, and that this explosion magically produced order and complexity, and from this rocks became alive and turned into soup which turned into monkeys and then into you. These are metaphysical beliefs taken on faith. I find it amusing that people actually believe this nonsense without question and then have the nerve to call me irrational.
The fact is, everyone worships something. Every person has something which they bow down and kiss. Whether it is money, or celebrity, or power, or nature, or themselves, atheists are no different than anyone else. I also find it funny that you talk about crutches, as if atheists don't have crutches? What about drugs, alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, food, sex, etc? How many atheists do you know who use those crutches to get through life? Knowing Christ removes crutches from people, and being a Christian is freedom from crutches, not enslavement to one. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin, but anyone who knows Christ has been set free from that bondage.
So, I appreciate your attempted voice of reason, though you couldn't seem to manage it without condescension towards me, and Christians in general. Perhaps you feel you have to denigrate us in order to be socially accepted here. I think though that you see the futility of anti-theism, and the blind ignorance and hatred it produces in people. You know a tree by its fruit, and that fruit is rotten to its core.

>> ^Kofi:

I did some googling. It is probably a misleading youtoobs title. Maybe first video of this acoustic location thingy. I saw a paper from 2002 so def known. Anyway, way cool video. Nature totally blows me away. Shame this kind of stuff fuels intelligent design arguments


Nice, thanks for looking into it. How about an upvote

I did some googling. It is probably a misleading youtoobs title. Maybe first video of this acoustic location thingy. I saw a paper from 2002 so def known. Anyway, way cool video. Nature totally blows me away. Shame this kind of stuff fuels intelligent design arguments

>> ^jmzero:

my favorite part was the idea that there existed giraffes with their long necks, who then later had to evolve a solution to having a long neck

I like that they chose the giraffe as evidence of intelligent design because of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Demonstrates-Laryngeal-Nerve-of-the-Giraffe

It's not about the downvote, it is simply about the dishonesty in saying that he is somehow being impartial with me. What further test do I need beyond the public displays of affection? As far as what I should or shouldn't be doing here, you have plenty of people providing the duck baby videos you intelligent and well educated people are clamouring for. If I ever get a star I am sure it will be by accident, and that is just fine with me.

>> ^shuac:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're on record for saying you don't like me, anything I have to say, and you think everything I submit is garbage..you've said it again in this video..or the fact that 95 percent of videos I've submitted here have an HPQP downvote, or that you've openly stated that I should be publically ridiculed and ignored. I think that's evidence for a bias. Are you this openly hostile and unsupportive to any other member? I very much doubt it. If you want to tag along, I really don't care..I just think your behavior is extremely petty and juvenile.
>> ^hpqp:
So I say you're right and this is how you thank me?
I've told @marinara and I'll tell you: I downvote videos whose content and/or form I do not like, and the religion channel is my favourite haunt (i.e. I watch all the vids posted therein). It just so happens that your posts are always in that channel, and practically always atrocious.
But if it rubs your ego the right why to think I stalk you, feel free, (but beware or my VS sweetheart @Yogi -bear might become jealous).
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sniping at me from the peanut gallery yet again, are you? Please come down from the balcony, Waldorf. Instead of stalking me and downvoting all of my videos, perhaps you could actually contribute something for once.
>> ^hpqp:
You're wasting your time @Skeeve, you'll get more out of arguing with a pile of sun-bleached dog poo than with the poster of this video... but you probably know that already.
@enoch I'm afraid shiny's right about original sin: Jeebs' whole skit is completely meaningless without it.




Now, now shiny-hiney: hpqp never said he didn't like you (in this thread) so please be accurate. Do not claim things that are demonstrably false. That's what got the intelligent design folks in such a pickle.
I also think your videos are garbage but I don't downvote them, usually. I don't downvote hardly anything except those horrid Hitler Downfall parody videos: I have a strong bias against them (much to the dismay of my fellow sifters) because I think they are bereft of wit and humor.
People are free to downvote anything they like, so long as they have a bronze star or higher. Now if you ever deigned to take my advice and post a baby ducks video or the odd sleepy puppy video now and again, you'll eventually get a bronze star too and gain the ability to downvote...which I encourage you to do. But you'll never get there insisting on taking the role of Reverend Shiny preaching some bronze-age, self-righteous piddle to a group as intelligent and well-educated as us. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
I'll bet if you made an attempt to sift baby ducks or sleepy puppies, we could test whether hpqp was genuinely biased but the way you're going...how can we? See the dilemma?
In short: Mix it up, son.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're on record for saying you don't like me, anything I have to say, and you think everything I submit is garbage..you've said it again in this video..or the fact that 95 percent of videos I've submitted here have an HPQP downvote, or that you've openly stated that I should be publically ridiculed and ignored. I think that's evidence for a bias. Are you this openly hostile and unsupportive to any other member? I very much doubt it. If you want to tag along, I really don't care..I just think your behavior is extremely petty and juvenile.
>> ^hpqp:
So I say you're right and this is how you thank me?
I've told @marinara and I'll tell you: I downvote videos whose content and/or form I do not like, and the religion channel is my favourite haunt (i.e. I watch all the vids posted therein). It just so happens that your posts are always in that channel, and practically always atrocious.
But if it rubs your ego the right why to think I stalk you, feel free, (but beware or my VS sweetheart @Yogi -bear might become jealous).
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sniping at me from the peanut gallery yet again, are you? Please come down from the balcony, Waldorf. Instead of stalking me and downvoting all of my videos, perhaps you could actually contribute something for once.
>> ^hpqp:
You're wasting your time @Skeeve, you'll get more out of arguing with a pile of sun-bleached dog poo than with the poster of this video... but you probably know that already.
@enoch I'm afraid shiny's right about original sin: Jeebs' whole skit is completely meaningless without it.





Now, now shiny-hiney: hpqp never said he didn't like you (in this thread) so please be accurate. Do not claim things that are demonstrably false. That's what got the intelligent design folks in such a pickle.

I also think your videos are garbage but I don't downvote them, usually. I don't downvote hardly anything except those horrid Hitler Downfall parody videos: I have a strong bias against them (much to the dismay of my fellow sifters) because I think they are bereft of wit and humor.

People are free to downvote anything they like, so long as they have a bronze star or higher. Now if you ever deigned to take my advice and post a baby ducks video or the odd sleepy puppy video now and again, you'll eventually get a bronze star too and gain the ability to downvote...which I encourage you to do. But you'll never get there insisting on taking the role of Reverend Shiny preaching some bronze-age, self-righteous piddle to a group as intelligent and well-educated as us.

I'll bet if you made an attempt to sift baby ducks or sleepy puppies, we could test whether hpqp was genuinely biased but the way you're going...how can we? See the dilemma?

In short: Mix it up, son.

You know the current pope said that intelligent design doesn't belong in the classroom.

Oh wait, he's the wrong kind of Christian... my bad. I thought skydaddy would have some consistency in those delivering his message.

>> ^Skeeve:

I'm all for religious parody and ridicule, but this actually makes less sense than the book he is ridiculing.
Parody only works if you understand the object of the parody first and it seems like this guy just heard about a burning bush and ran with it instead of actually reading the story.


Like how Intelligent Design proponents just heard about science and ran with it?