(December 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: There is plenty of evidence that points to a designer. Information rich cells and the fine tuned universe are old but good arguments that give the appearance of design. When you first see it, the conclusion should be intelligent cause.

Begging the question isn't my cup of tea.

(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: Materialistic explanations fall short continuously, which ironically inadvertently ends up making it more likely that the design conclusion is correct.

Wait, you think it's more plausible that some undefined sky-being poofed this into existence than it is for 13 billion years of physical processes to have sculpted it? Why is that?

(December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm)AAA Wrote: I think there is plenty of evidence from biology that supports a designer.

I disagree. The numerous "design flaws" demonstrated throughout nature tell us that biology was a ground-up enterprise building on what came before it without the guiding hand of some invisible sky-being that you cannot even define in meaningful terms.

Saying an undefined sky-being is an oversimplification. I think it is likely that there are other spacial dimensions (Physicists think there could be up to 11) like a 4 dimensional being. Imagine our 3D interaction with a 2D creature, then you can see the parallels of how a 4D creature would interact with our 3D world. Yes it is more plausible that the universe was created in a top down fashion than a bottom up fashion. Think about entropy. The amount of usable energy is decreasing as time goes on. This means that at the beginning, the universe had much more usable energy. There is no natural way that the total amount of usable energy in a system can increase, yet it clearly happened.  

You choose to look at the "flaws" when there are so many examples that represent tremendous design. Every protein and enzyme works with chemical specificity and well. Historically, evolutionists jump to the conclusion that there is a flaw in the creature due to their presuppositions about us gradually changing. Typically, they will then find later that the structure in question does have a purpose and is well suited for its function.

(December 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 1:33 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: So you say, and because you say - facts need not apply!

Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.

Holy shit dude... tell NASA, now! They're wasting billions on research without the benefit of your insight!



"Researchers have also found all the chemicals needed for life in space, and many of the key building blocks in meteorites and even comets. Amino acids, for instance, were found in samples of the comet Wild 2 after NASA’s Stardust spacecraft passed through the comet’s dusty coma in 2004, and nucleotides have been discovered by NASA scientists in meteorites. These results from the field of “astrochemistry” have told scientists that the ingredients presumed to be needed for life are actually falling on planets, moons and asteroids everywhere.

How those and other organic compounds might organize into self-replicating forms, and ultimately organisms, has been among the most challenging fields in astrobiology. By both digging into the genetic infrastructure of life as well as trying to recreate it in the laboratory, scientists have pushed back the mystery of life’s origins to an early RNA world and even a pre-RNA world. But the process through which non-living substances took on the attributes of life remains elusive."

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about/hist...robiology/

There's also a documentary about it:

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/the-s...n-of-life/

But mainly, I recommend you read any of the Jet Propulsion Lab's articles on the subject, starting here:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

(December 23, 2015 at 5:00 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm)AAA Wrote: The human body is remarkable, and the Appendix does serve a purpose, which I think that pretty much all doctors would acknowledge. It serves immune functions, and cultivates bacteria that help digest our food. There are books about why the eye has an optimal structure for its function. We are not that vulnerable to many diseases if we take proper care of our body with natural nutrition and exercise. Plenty of herbivores have sharp teeth (panda), yet they eat plants. The universe is mostly unlivable, which shows just how privileged and rare our planet is. We share about as much DNA with mice as we do with chimpanzees, but nobody is saying that we share the most common ancestor with them.

The many people who have their appendix removed do not miss it.  We don't need it for digestion.

Sure if we take proper care of our body.  Too bad your Jesus told people that illness was caused by demons, rather than by germs.  Now there's something that would have been actually useful for a god to relay to his people.  Yet he never did.  Funny.

We still never regenerate, while other animals do.  Why did your god supposedly give this ability to other animals, but not to his beloved humans?

The universe is mostly unlivable.  That doesn't make our planet rare or privileged.  Why did god create such an enormous universe, with so many uninhabitable planets?  There are other planets out there that are inhabitable.  Many of which are beyond our reach.

No, we don't share as much DNA with mice as we do chimpanzees.  We share many of the same genes, as we do with most mammals.  DNA and genes however aren't the same thing.  And this just points to no creator, or an incredibly lazy and incompetent one.

Yeah we don't need the appendix, but it does serve a function. You can also live without your toes, but I think that you would want to keep yours. You can live without your tonsils, but they are still a site for immune cell production. 

If you look at the old testament, many of the instructions would have led to less diseases in the society. Obviously He didn't come right out and say that germs cause it, because this concept would have made no sense to them. There were instructions that would help them stay clean. 

Why don't we regenerate? Why don't we have lasers coming out of our eyes? Why don't we have wings? I don't know the thoughts of the creator, but picking at the design doesn't mean that the design isn't good. 

We share many genes with organisms, but still that 96% similarity you hear about is a very large number of nucleotides. If you were to design multiple vehicles would you use the same basic type of engine on all of them, or would you design an entirely new system every time? It's not lazy or incompetence, it is just common sense and efficiency.

---

(December 23, 2015 at 5:14 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm)AAA Wrote: Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.

Holy shit dude... tell NASA, now! They're wasting billions on research without the benefit of your insight!



"Researchers have also found all the chemicals needed for life in space, and many of the key building blocks in meteorites and even comets. Amino acids, for instance, were found in samples of the comet Wild 2 after NASA’s Stardust spacecraft passed through the comet’s dusty coma in 2004, and nucleotides have been discovered by NASA scientists in meteorites. These results from the field of “astrochemistry” have told scientists that the ingredients presumed to be needed for life are actually falling on planets, moons and asteroids everywhere.

How those and other organic compounds might organize into self-replicating forms, and ultimately organisms, has been among the most challenging fields in astrobiology. By both digging into the genetic infrastructure of life as well as trying to recreate it in the laboratory, scientists have pushed back the mystery of life’s origins to an early RNA world and even a pre-RNA world. But the process through which non-living substances took on the attributes of life remains elusive."

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about/hist...robiology/

There's also a documentary about it:

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/the-s...n-of-life/

But mainly, I recommend you read any of the Jet Propulsion Lab's articles on the subject, starting here:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

I read the article, I haven't watched the video yet. The difference between your interpretation and mine is this. If we do see the building blocks of life so abundantly in the universe, then you seem to think this means that life must develop often. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if the building blocks of life are so common, then life also should be according to the materialist model. 

When I see the fact that there are building blocks of life out there, I then wonder why there is no other signs of life. It makes abiogenesis even rarer when it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else despite having what it needs. Also discovering acetate in outer space is a small step toward the building blocks of life. The amino acids are more complex than that, and some even require multiple enzymes (made out of the amino acid that needs to be produced by them) in order to synthesize them. Then you have the problem of getting the building blocks to come together, which also requires enzymes. Also I agree that NASA should continue researching, but they may be wasting their money if life really didn't form spontaneously. The more ways they find out life cannot form naturally, the more likely an intelligent causal agent becomes. Do we have to exhaust all possible natural mechanisms before a designer becomes reasonable?

You can live without your toes, but you can't function normally without them. You can function normally without your tonsils too. If god is so efficient, we would have far less organs than we do.

And what about all the genetic defects? What sort of designer makes it so that children get cancer, or go blind?

The theists favorite go to: "They wouldn't have understood it at the time!" I call bullshit. They'd have understood just fine, and it would have advanced science hundreds of years.

Again, other species on earth regenerate. Yet humans do not. Seems to be a fundamental flaw. No other creatures have laser eyes.

If we were designed, it'd be stupid design or it'd be evil design (with maximal suffering in mind).

(December 23, 2015 at 5:09 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 1:44 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Begging the question isn't my cup of tea.


Wait, you think it's more plausible that some undefined sky-being poofed this into existence than it is for 13 billion years of physical processes to have sculpted it? Why is that?


I disagree. The numerous "design flaws" demonstrated throughout nature tell us that biology was a ground-up enterprise building on what came before it without the guiding hand of some invisible sky-being that you cannot even define in meaningful terms.

Saying an undefined sky-being is an oversimplification. I think it is likely that there are other spacial dimensions (Physicists think there could be up to 11) like a 4 dimensional being. Imagine our 3D interaction with a 2D creature, then you can see the parallels of how a 4D creature would interact with our 3D world. Yes it is more plausible that the universe was created in a top down fashion than a bottom up fashion. Think about entropy. The amount of usable energy is decreasing as time goes on. This means that at the beginning, the universe had much more usable energy. There is no natural way that the total amount of usable energy in a system can increase, yet it clearly happened.  

You choose to look at the "flaws" when there are so many examples that represent tremendous design. Every protein and enzyme works with chemical specificity and well. Historically, evolutionists jump to the conclusion that there is a flaw in the creature due to their presuppositions about us gradually changing. Typically, they will then find later that the structure in question does have a purpose and is well suited for its function.

This discussion of a four-D entity, from the guy who dismisses multiverse as unevidenced?

By the way, scientists may have found evidence for a multiverse hypothesis. Is there any for your four-D critter?

I'm not obliged to pay any respect to any hypothetical entity simply because you choose to worship one.

You can bring evidence if you wish to change my mind; suppositions aren't evidence.

Also, there's a lot of argument from ignorance going on here.

(December 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You can live without your toes, but you can't function normally without them.  You can function normally without your tonsils too.  If god is so efficient, we would have far less organs than we do.

And what about all the genetic defects?  What sort of designer makes it so that children get cancer, or go blind?

The theists favorite go to: "They wouldn't have understood it at the time!"  I call bullshit.  They'd have understood just fine, and it would have advanced science hundreds of years.

Again, other species on earth regenerate.  Yet humans do not.  Seems to be a fundamental flaw.  No other creatures have laser eyes.  

If we were designed, it'd be stupid design or it'd be evil design (with maximal suffering in mind).

It depends on what you mean by normal function. If you want to decrease your immune function go ahead. Genetic defects are caused largely by humans exposing ourselves to mutagens. We create harmful chemicals and ingest them. Then irresponsible people who smoke and drink have children and pass on the mutations from their germline cells. It is the ancestors' faults generally. There are actually amazing mechanisms to repair DNA, like photolyase enzymes. 

You can call BS on that, but the fact is that the appendix was thought to be vestigial, but now functions are coming to light and are well known. So it is true. 

Yes other species regenerate limbs. But other species also have wings, and some have six legs, some have bio-luminescence. Why don't we have every possible quality? I don't know, but that is a pretty silly reason to disbelieve in God. If we evolved, then why do we not keep the advantageous qualities such as the ability to breathe under water? 

It isn't evil design, it has many regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent the genes from becoming corrupt, but our society seems to be doing everything possible to mutate ourselves. Maximal suffering is not in mind, I think you don't know how good we have it.

---

(December 23, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 5:09 pm)AAA Wrote: Saying an undefined sky-being is an oversimplification. I think it is likely that there are other spacial dimensions (Physicists think there could be up to 11) like a 4 dimensional being. Imagine our 3D interaction with a 2D creature, then you can see the parallels of how a 4D creature would interact with our 3D world. Yes it is more plausible that the universe was created in a top down fashion than a bottom up fashion. Think about entropy. The amount of usable energy is decreasing as time goes on. This means that at the beginning, the universe had much more usable energy. There is no natural way that the total amount of usable energy in a system can increase, yet it clearly happened.  

You choose to look at the "flaws" when there are so many examples that represent tremendous design. Every protein and enzyme works with chemical specificity and well. Historically, evolutionists jump to the conclusion that there is a flaw in the creature due to their presuppositions about us gradually changing. Typically, they will then find later that the structure in question does have a purpose and is well suited for its function.

This discussion of a four-D entity, from the guy who dismisses multiverse as unevidenced?

By the way, scientists may have found evidence for a multiverse hypothesis. Is there any for your four-D critter?

I'm not obliged to pay any respect to any hypothetical entity simply because you choose to worship one.

You can bring evidence if you wish to change my mind; suppositions aren't evidence.

I don't have proof of a four D entity, but it makes sense of some things such as UFO activity with things disappearing without a trace and paranormal activity. If you are a materialist, you just have to say these things aren't real. Obviously most of these are fake, but you shouldn't just dismiss the claims because of your ideology. Again, I'm not talking about you specifically, but more about materialists in general. 

I don't really have evidence of the four D critter other than that it seems to fit some of the more unusual data that is observed. Let's hear the evidence of the multiverse...

Evidence of Design: information in cells and fine tuned universe coupled with the absence of a plausible explanation for their natural origin. Also the data being consistent with the design model, while not always being consistent with the evolutionary model.

---

(December 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, there's a lot of argument from ignorance going on here.

I'm not arguing from lack of evidence for naturalism, I'm arguing from positive indicators of intelligent design that we observe. Information comes from intelligence based on our repeated experience, there is no reason to think that biological information is different.

(December 23, 2015 at 6:31 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You can live without your toes, but you can't function normally without them.  You can function normally without your tonsils too.  If god is so efficient, we would have far less organs than we do.

And what about all the genetic defects?  What sort of designer makes it so that children get cancer, or go blind?

The theists favorite go to: "They wouldn't have understood it at the time!"  I call bullshit.  They'd have understood just fine, and it would have advanced science hundreds of years.

Again, other species on earth regenerate.  Yet humans do not.  Seems to be a fundamental flaw.  No other creatures have laser eyes.  

If we were designed, it'd be stupid design or it'd be evil design (with maximal suffering in mind).

It depends on what you mean by normal function. If you want to decrease your immune function go ahead. Genetic defects are caused largely by humans exposing ourselves to mutagens. We create harmful chemicals and ingest them. Then irresponsible people who smoke and drink have children and pass on the mutations from their germline cells. It is the ancestors' faults generally. There are actually amazing mechanisms to repair DNA, like photolyase enzymes. 

You can call BS on that, but the fact is that the appendix was thought to be vestigial, but now functions are coming to light and are well known. So it is true. 

Yes other species regenerate limbs. But other species also have wings, and some have six legs, some have bio-luminescence. Why don't we have every possible quality? I don't know, but that is a pretty silly reason to disbelieve in God. If we evolved, then why do we not keep the advantageous qualities such as the ability to breathe under water? 

It isn't evil design, it has many regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent the genes from becoming corrupt, but our society seems to be doing everything possible to mutate ourselves. Maximal suffering is not in mind, I think you don't know how good we have it.

---

(December 23, 2015 at 6:12 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: This discussion of a four-D entity, from the guy who dismisses multiverse as unevidenced?

By the way, scientists may have found evidence for a multiverse hypothesis. Is there any for your four-D critter?

I'm not obliged to pay any respect to any hypothetical entity simply because you choose to worship one.

You can bring evidence if you wish to change my mind; suppositions aren't evidence.

I don't have proof of a four D entity, but it makes sense of some things such as UFO activity with things disappearing without a trace and paranormal activity. If you are a materialist, you just have to say these things aren't real. Obviously most of these are fake, but you shouldn't just dismiss the claims because of your ideology. Again, I'm not talking about you specifically, but more about materialists in general. 

I don't really have evidence of the four D critter other than that it seems to fit some of the more unusual data that is observed. Let's hear the evidence of the multiverse...

Evidence of Design: information in cells and fine tuned universe coupled with the absence of a plausible explanation for their natural origin. Also the data being consistent with the design model, while not always being consistent with the evolutionary model.

---

(December 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Also, there's a lot of argument from ignorance going on here.

I'm not arguing from lack of evidence for naturalism, I'm arguing from positive indicators of intelligent design that we observe. Information comes from intelligence based on our repeated experience, there is no reason to think that biological information is different.

I just wanted to say I worry for your eternal soul, you will boil, You have chosen wrong.

(December 23, 2015 at 6:31 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Cecelia Wrote: You can live without your toes, but you can't function normally without them.  You can function normally without your tonsils too.  If god is so efficient, we would have far less organs than we do.

And what about all the genetic defects?  What sort of designer makes it so that children get cancer, or go blind?

The theists favorite go to: "They wouldn't have understood it at the time!"  I call bullshit.  They'd have understood just fine, and it would have advanced science hundreds of years.

Again, other species on earth regenerate.  Yet humans do not.  Seems to be a fundamental flaw.  No other creatures have laser eyes.  

If we were designed, it'd be stupid design or it'd be evil design (with maximal suffering in mind).

It depends on what you mean by normal function. If you want to decrease your immune function go ahead. Genetic defects are caused largely by humans exposing ourselves to mutagens. We create harmful chemicals and ingest them. Then irresponsible people who smoke and drink have children and pass on the mutations from their germline cells. It is the ancestors' faults generally. There are actually amazing mechanisms to repair DNA, like photolyase enzymes. 

You can call BS on that, but the fact is that the appendix was thought to be vestigial, but now functions are coming to light and are well known. So it is true. 

Yes other species regenerate limbs. But other species also have wings, and some have six legs, some have bio-luminescence. Why don't we have every possible quality? I don't know, but that is a pretty silly reason to disbelieve in God. If we evolved, then why do we not keep the advantageous qualities such as the ability to breathe under water? 

It isn't evil design, it has many regulatory mechanisms in place to prevent the genes from becoming corrupt, but our society seems to be doing everything possible to mutate ourselves. Maximal suffering is not in mind, I think you don't know how good we have it.

The appendix is vestigial and likely adapted in its function as humans evolved.  Yes, it likely may serve a minor function in that it stores healthy bacteria and plays a part in the immune system.  That is still being debated by medical researchers.

We likely shed our ability to breathe underwater because such a function was no longer needed as we spent more and more time out of the water and became a fully land based mammal.  Why keep a function we would barely use?

And, I won't say that if we *were* designed then that design was evil.  But it was certainly incompetent.

(December 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 23, 2015 at 1:31 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You may think that, but you would be wrong.

Quote:Even atheistic biologists would not disagree with the fact that cells contain information. The information itself is useless without proteins to interact with it. The proteins by themselves are useless without the DNA to code for their structure.

Ok so you have a poor understanding of evolutionary theory.

Quote:Fine tuned universe is not a silly argument, you change the strength of gravity or the rate of expansion of the universe by the slightest bit and planets don't form.

Firstly if the universe was unable to support life you would not be able to comment on it. So theres that. But also your argument depends on all forces acting independently. This would happen one force would affect the others and I have seen the odds of a universe being able to support some form of life as being 50/50. This was in one of the science of the disc world books but I can't remember which one off the top of my head.

Quote: Of course planet formation is poorly explained by natural means. You just say that these arguments are wrong without offering a reason why.

Planet formation is quite well explained by natural means but is an emerging field and will be refined. Science ain't finished, but the idea that there was a god involved at any level rather is. 

By the way I am not an atheist because of evolution or cosmology I am an atheist because the idea of a god seems stupid. I have never found the idea to be anything other than people anthropomorphising abstract concepts and wish projection. Time to grow up sonny.