AAA has some major cognitive dissonance going on.

(December 27, 2016 at 2:28 am)Astreja Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 2:06 am)Jesster Wrote: Yeah, that's kinda the feeling I got about him. That's why I stopped taking him seriously at all.

It's just one long, drawn-out argument from incredulity.

I have no respect left for creationists.  None at all.  I grok that there's something about evolution that really, really pisses the lot of them off, but I know just enough about biology to suspect that they aren't giving the evidence serious consideration.

Of course, if they did take a serious and unbiased look at evolution, two things would likely happen:

• They would see in short order that evolution is a robust theory supported by physical evidence, and that young-earth creationism in particular is a fucking crock of shit.
  
• They might start applying the same scientific rigor to their beliefs, and see their faith (and any hope of eternal bliss in Happy Fun Jesusland) go spiraling down the loo.
  

Nobody is arguing for young earth creationism. I just get frustrated by atheists who think that they are automatically highly versed in science and intellect just because they are atheists. And you guys are proving my point with these posts: when you don't want to address the argument you just start insulting me. I just want you guys to realize that the theory of evolution (at least the concept of common descent from one ancestor) is not as robust as you think it is.

---

(December 27, 2016 at 2:55 am)robvalue Wrote: This is at least the third time this guy has come in here and trotted out all this nonsense. I have no idea what he's possibly hoping to achieve. It is a shame his dogma means he has to begin with the assumption of design because it's obviously a barrier to his learning.

I mean, what the hell? Where is the design stage even meant to be? Except for the question of exactly how the first building blocks of life came together (which we are very close to), we have excellent models and understanding about how everything happened without any guidance whatsoever. So the designs must have been before this: either setting up the rules of our reality, or influencing which bits of gunk happen to slowly transition into life or something. Considering theists generally already make the first assumption, I don't know what else needs to be said.

You are so arrogant thinking that my worldview (which has changed significantly throughout my education) is a barrier to my learning. 

And we are not very close to figuring out how the first building blocks of life came together. Saying so just displays ignorance. I am surprised by your assumption that I make an assumption of design. It just supports the first post of the thread. Atheists believe that they are the position of science and that theists are in a world of delusion. Did somebody give you this idea, causing you to become an atheist so you would automatically be considered smarter?

Actually it's more robust that you are willing to accept. Sure as hell beats your position of "therefore magic".

(December 27, 2016 at 6:27 am)robvalue Wrote: That's seems to be a common theme.

I get the feeling some people come here so they can "beat" atheists, to validate their beliefs.

I think the OP subject here has been played out. I object just as much to attempts to attach atheism to other positions. It's a very simple stance on a single question, and nothing more.

I don't come here to beat atheists. I come in hopes that a few (not you, you're too proud) will realize that their lack of belief in a designer is not the scientific fact that they think it is. Moreover, if they spread their atheistic worldview in the name of science, then they spread ignorance and corrupt science by convincing others that empirical science has something to say about the presence of life.

---

(December 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Actually it's more robust that you are willing to accept. Sure as hell beats your position of "therefore magic".

Nobody said magic. Why is design magic in your mind? Did it take magic to design your car? Also it isn't that robust. What makes it robust in your eyes?

(December 27, 2016 at 12:59 pm)AAA Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 12:57 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Actually it's more robust that you are willing to accept. Sure as hell beats your position of "therefore magic".

Nobody said magic. Why is design magic in your mind? Did it take magic to design your car? Also it isn't that robust. What makes it robust in your eyes?

Then describe your "design" in detail that does not involve supernatural magic. Stop trying to poke holes in other theories and provide your theory. 

Or is your theory just "poof, god"? No further explanation needed.

(December 27, 2016 at 7:44 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

AAA:

It's clear that your approach to this discussion is driven by several concerns.

1.  denying science, primarily in the form of denying evolution.  It's clear that evolution provides a model for how complexity can arise from simple beginnings, so you resist it at every step.  If evolution can explain how single celled organisms can give rise to humans, the goo to you story becomes much more plausible.  Do you have a pre-existing belief that all life was created essentially as it now stands?  What is that belief based on?

2. god of the gaps, primarily in the form of concentrating on the weaknesses in abiogenesis.  It's true that the search for a solution has been proceeding for some time, but that doesn't mean we should consider the search "closed" to further enquiry.  When determining when to stop looking, one has to take into account the difficulty of the question and how long science has been researching it.  On both scores, it seems premature to close off enquiry at this stage.  One should always prefer to await rational explanations for things, and remain agnostic toward the subject in the meantime.  You don't appear agnostic to the question of abiogenesis.  What drives your desire to close off enquiry?

3. negative arguments, primarily of the form "Not X, therefore Y."  You most certainly realize that this undermines not only those arguments you share with us, but also the arguments you have adopted to support your pre-existing beliefs.  Doesn't the fallacious nature of your negative arguments bother you?

This is the strategy of a creationist.  Call yourself an intelligent design advocate all you want, the truth is you are no different from a creationist in the way you go about your argument.  Do you believe that your God created all the forms of life that exist?  Is that belief rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis in the bible?

I do not deny science, evolution is not empirical. Just because we see mutations and natural selection is no reason to suggest that we are the product of a common ancestor undergoing this process. We don't know how much information it produces, how much information it is said to have produced, or how many generations it has had to produce it. Yet you have no problem calling the acceptance of this as scientific. And yes it provides a model, but it's so largely speculative that it is sad that people like you don't understand the difference between speculation and empiricism. Also the model has not had very good predictive power. And my belief that life was designed is largely based on the fact that intelligence is the only known cause of the type of information found in cells.

I hate it when people say that an argument is a god of the gaps. It's like you people think that because God is not involved in everything, it is illogical to think He was involved in anything. In other words "because we have seen in the past that weather is not caused by God, all things seeming to be the product of intention and mind are illusory. Therefore appealing to the mind as a causal force is automatically wrong." Why is this logical? Moreover, it is not because we do not understand any forces capable of producing information, it is because intelligence is exactly what fits the bill. And you can wait for a "rational" answer to abiogenesis if you want to, but don't conflate rational with undirected. Intelligence is the rational explanation for some observations.

Once again, negative arguments (alongside positive arguments) are necessary to vilify the claim that I'm making. If I claim that A is the only known good idea, then I have to show that ideas B, C, and D are bad ideas. I also have to show that A is a good idea. There may be a good idea F, but nobody's found it yet. Do you see the analogy to the claim that I'm making? Intelligence is the only known cause capable. Chance and necessity and a combination of the two are not capable (read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer). Intelligence is capable. There are no other known explanations. Therefore the claim has been supported. And why does everyone here think I have some pre-existing belief that I can't get rid of? So do all of you. So does every scientist who ever lived. My beliefs have changed dynamically since I've been in college, and I think it is unfair for you guys to assert that I have some sort of mental barrier because of them.

No, I do not take Genesis literally. The difference between creationism and ID is that creationists state that the Bible is scientifically accurate. They must shove all facts into this narrow bubble. Similarly, the evolutionist has a (slightly more flexible) bubble where the facts must conform to the previously described materialistic worldview. The ID community has not drawn a bubble. They have simply stated and argued that some features of the universe are best explained as a product of intelligence. Do you take Aleister Crowley's book of the law literally? Quit stereotyping and making assumptions about what I believe.

So I'm seriously late to the game here... was busy celebrating a hallmark holiday. I only read the first and last page (cause I'm seriously lazy) but it seems to morph into a bigger battle than the OP was meant for. On one hand I noticed right off the bat that indeed some people were being a little harsh. I know that every time a religious person comes in here making threads its the same thing and we keep doing these battles until we are frustrated and mean to the new Xian but that really was a little harsh.

On the other hand I did roll my eyes and sigh after reading the post... can we just get a disclaimer banner that tells xians that we have been there argued that already?

Also just because I came here to comment on the actual subject I will say that the reason atheists make it seem like what we believe goes hand in hand with science is because thus far science agrees with us. You don't really see scientists that are religious because it breaks all common sense so they wouldn't be a very good scientist if they are just believing in things with no proof. And no sweetie the proof you have mentioned is not real scientific proof to any real scientists. Just because something is old doesn't mean it wasn't fake to begin with. (sorry if all this was discussed in the pages I didn't read... I reckon I should stop being lazy and go read them)

(December 27, 2016 at 1:06 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 12:59 pm)AAA Wrote: Nobody said magic. Why is design magic in your mind? Did it take magic to design your car? Also it isn't that robust. What makes it robust in your eyes?

Then describe your "design" in detail that does not involve supernatural magic. Stop trying to poke holes in other theories and provide your theory. 

Or is your theory just "poof, god"? No further explanation needed.

How about He used various organic chemical reactions to develop amino acids and nucleotides. He then added them to a solution in sequence and ligated them together by heating them as they were added. Once He created the sequence of nucleotides, He created the enzymes necessary to maintain it. He then created the phospholipid bilayer, the golgi, the ER, the RER, the nucleus, and all these other things using chemical techniques and a plan. 

Obviously this is speculation, but the point is that intelligence directing the specific organization of the cell is more likely to me than it slowly forming over billions of years of reproduction.

---

(December 27, 2016 at 1:25 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: So I'm seriously late to the game here... was busy celebrating a hallmark holiday. I only read the first and last page (cause I'm seriously lazy) but it seems to morph into a bigger battle than the OP was meant for. On one hand I noticed right off the bat that indeed some people were being a little harsh. I know that every time a religious person comes in here making threads its the same thing and we keep doing these battles until we are frustrated and mean to the new Xian but that really was a little harsh.

On the other hand I did roll my eyes and sigh after reading the post... can we just get a disclaimer banner that tells xians that we have been there argued that already?

Also just because I came here to comment on the actual subject I will say that the reason atheists make it seem like what we believe goes hand in hand with science is because thus far science agrees with us. You don't really see scientists that are religious because it breaks all common sense so they wouldn't be a very good scientist if they are just believing in things with no proof. And no sweetie the proof you have mentioned is not real scientific proof to any real scientists. Just because something is old doesn't mean it wasn't fake to begin with. (sorry if all this was discussed in the pages I didn't read... I reckon I should stop being lazy and go read them)

I know that these things have been argued before, but I think that they typically end in name calling, circular arguments, and loss of interest.

And I disagree that science agrees with you so far. There have been a number of recent discoveries (mainly the fine tuning of biological systems and the physical constants of the universe) that seem to have theistic implications. And every scientist believes things with no proof. In fact, the word proof is only allowable in mathematics or topics that use mathematics. Other than that, we deal with probabilities. There is virtually no such thing as proof in biology. This is another example of how the general public has a narrow schema of science. I have described no "proof" anywhere. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence (not the one in parenthases).

And it is ironic that you want to put a disclaimer to tell people not to use previously used arguments when you come here, read the first and last page, then admittedly make an argument that has already been argued.

---

(December 27, 2016 at 9:53 am)Tonus Wrote:

(December 27, 2016 at 1:24 am)AAA Wrote: When I say degrading genetic code, I mean mutations slowly accumulating to the point where the sequences no longer produce fuctionality. In other words, an enzyme may no longer work if there is a certain mutation. If the enzyme is responsible for an immune response, then losing this enzyme would prevent the organism from being healthy. The virus removes the individuals who have suffered a mutation that cripples the immune enzyme. In this way, only the individuals with the less degraded (mutated) code will survive. It would preserve the more original code.

Mutations can be positive or negative or neutral (in that they don't have an immediate impact and may never have one at all).  Some mutations that are bad can also aid in survival, such as the sickle cell disease in African people which is believed to have helped them survive against the onslaught of malaria.  Other mutations may provide a benefit in one environment (say, a forest) and wind up being detrimental if the environment changes enough over time (to a grassland or desert).  DNA seems to change in every individual over time and is different with each new individual, so I don't think it preserves points in time very well for a population.  The fact that so many species have gone extinct indicates that neither the original code nor the mutated variations guarantee more than temporary success with very few exceptions (sharks and crocodiles come to mind).

Ok, I think there are a few things wrong with that. Mutations are almost always considered neutral (although I would argue that because virtually all the code is functional, that most of the "neutral" mutations are actually negative). The ones that are not considered neutral are almost always negative. The "positive" mutations are often those in which losing a function is advantageous to a novel environment. For example, if a population of pink fish moves to a kelp forest, then it would be beneficial for the gene that produces the pink pigment to be mutated to the point where it no longer functions. The fish would then turn a darker color and would blend in more with its surroundings. In addition, the epigenetic revolution has taught us that variations in phenotype need not be the result of variations in DNA sequence.

(December 27, 2016 at 1:27 pm)AAA Wrote: I know that these things have been argued before, but I think that they typically end in name calling, circular arguments, and loss of interest.

And I disagree that science agrees with you so far. There have been a number of recent discoveries (mainly the fine tuning of biological systems and the physical constants of the universe) that seem to have theistic implications. And every scientist believes things with no proof. In fact, the word proof is only allowable in mathematics or topics that use mathematics. Other than that, we deal with probabilities. There is virtually no such thing as proof in biology. This is another example of how the general public has a narrow schema of science. I have described no "proof" anywhere. And I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence (not the one in parenthases).

And it is ironic that you want to put a disclaimer to tell people not to use previously used arguments when you come here, read the first and last page, then admittedly make an argument that has already been argued.

The arguments can go either way but I've noticed that on this site the atheists usually don't get hostile unless the Xian does first. Facebook and that sort of thing is just horrible but here we have some pretty good civil debates which is why I was surprised they started in on you right away with the cursing and hostile attitude. We have also been harassed by some pretty mean xians lately so the reaction from them might have rubbed off on you. I know we have a few xians on the site that everyone gets along with and we have pretty good discussions.

The last sentence I was referencing the bible. Xians kinda lug that around and I saw a few mentions of it on this thread. I do like that this is about science though. I was saying my comments despite reading the rest because what I was saying didn't pertain to the convo that had evolved from the main subject so I was making it known that it wouldn't factor in the new conversation. I have read a few more pages since my first post but I got realllly really bored because like someone mentioned being atheist doesn't mean we are into science. I mean I put science first but I have no interest in reading about cells and biology being something that isn't 'proof'. I'm sorry but while I know that our understanding of science evolves with our discoveries I can't agree that biology is not proof. There are still a lot of things humans don't know but the science is still out there. We are limited by our own minds and will eventually find it all. I'm pretty sure the whole point of science is to NOT believe something without evidence. We have had so much 'evidence' come up over the last 100 years it's not even funny and we aren't done yet. We didn't develop math we just worked out a way for us to understand it. That is what science is doing. Yet still I see no reason to think any theist claims are real.

(December 27, 2016 at 1:27 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, I think there are a few things wrong with that. Mutations are almost always considered neutral (although I would argue that because virtually all the code is functional, that most of the "neutral" mutations are actually negative).

What do you mean by "functional"? We know that almost every organism has at least some junk DNA, and in some cases quite a lot of it. Neutral changes can accumulate because they have no immediate effect on the organism, which is why most changes are considered neutral.