22 Nov 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonVishvahetu's silence here can only be interpreted as meaning he lied about the existence of such a “mathematical proof” -and he accuses all of us of being “dishonest”! 😛
Irrelevant.
You STILL haven’t shown the mathematical proof that “...It is demonstrated mathematically that is not posibble for systems of lower levels of organization to spontaneously tansform themselves to states of higher organization, without the introduction of additional specific information. ...”
You told me to find the link for it mysel ...[text shortened]... ces a new gene can be described as giving an “ introduction of additional specific information”?
His claim wouldn't make any logical sense even if such a “mathematical proof” existed -and he calls all of us “dumb asses” 😛
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by jaywillHe is just a journalist and a layer and NOT a creditable scientist.
Lee Strobel's Search from Atheism to Theism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=related
Also, the video just simply repeats all the usual flawed creationist arguments against the scientific evidence that I have heard on these forums again and again. For example, why must the firsts life have the same complexity of molecular machinery that exists today? What exactly is stopping the first protocell consisting of nothing more than a microsphere enclosing a few very simple RNA molecules (acting as enzymes called “RNA enzymes” ) with no amino acids or DNA etc?
Once such a microsphere with an inheritable advantage forms, evolution has a chance to take over and gradually add one tiny bit of complexity at a time over countless generations until cells similar to modern bacteria evolve. So the complexity of modem life does not pose a problem here.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyThe Lord is omnipesent, meaning God is in every atom, so if there are patterns apearing in nature, its because there is intelligence within.
Organisation of simple structures to more complex structures with well defined patterns happen all the time (e.g. snowflakes).
Also bubbles form into specific shapes (small ones form a sphere, larger ones tend to be unstable and burst) from simple physical laws.
On a molecular level, there are arrangements made consistently. All it takes is a particular ...[text shortened]... e basic building blocks of structures which can "improve", as less stable ones destroy itself.
Everything is happening under the Supreme authority of God.....everything!
24 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo you are also saying that there is "God" within the simple equations that generate the Mandelbrot Set?
The Lord is omnipesent, meaning God is in every atom, so if there are patterns apearing in nature, its because there is intelligence within.
Everything is happening under the Supreme authority of God.....everything!
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Mandelbrot_set.jpg
What about the elaborate patterns that is generated from simple rules like "Conway's Game of Life" mentioned in another thread?
http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/
If you analyse snowflakes, you can calculate exactly how those patterns are generated and can even simulate it on a computer. No need for a god there.
http://jufaintermedia.com/snowflake/
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat is interesting about that claim is that it completely destroys your argument against the claim that it is not so.
Everything is happening under the Supreme authority of God.....everything!
Here is how it goes:
1. You argue that by observation we can see the influence of God.
2. This observation is based on:
a. observing that some fundamental laws are being violated - hence it must be God.
or
b. observing that in specific instances, life does not behave the same way that the rest of the universe does - hence it must be God.
3. But since Gods influence is everywhere, a. and b. fail.
a. fails because the fundamental laws cannot be violated everywhere by definition - or they aren't fundamental laws and it is our science that is in error - not necessarily some as yet unidentified influence.
b. fails because if God is everywhere then we would not distinguish his influence on life with his lack of influence on other things.
From a different angle:
You have claimed in the past that it is mathematically impossible for life to grow more complex. But this either leads to the conclusion that God is impossible (since you claimed that under the influence of God life grows more complex), or it leads to the interpretation of your claim as : it is mathematically impossible for life to grow more complex via the rules of science known to man, but this only leads to the conclusion that we are wrong about the rules of science - not that there is a God.
24 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am missing something........Quote "observing that some fundamental laws are being violated" ( have I said this somewhere, and in what context?)
What is interesting about that claim is that it completely destroys your argument against the claim that it is not so.
Here is how it goes:
1. You argue that by observation we can see the influence of God.
2. This observation is based on:
a. observing that some fundamental laws are being violated - hence it must be God.
or
b. observing that in speci leads to the conclusion that we are wrong about the rules of science - not that there is a God.
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyMan can do many things, because we have been gifted with creative potency, but one thing we cant do, is create out of thin air.....thats Gods department.
So you are also saying that there is "God" within the simple equations that generate the Mandelbrot Set?
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Mandelbrot_set.jpg
What about the elaborate patterns that is generated from simple rules like "Conway's Game of Life" mentioned in another thread?
http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/
If you analyse snowflak ...[text shortened]... simulate it on a computer. No need for a god there.
http://jufaintermedia.com/snowflake/
And we can play with the material energy, and copy snowflakes, but to do this we need our conscious mind, and our hands and eyes etc......and these things are given to us by the Lord.
When the day comes and you can create out of thin air, then you will be God. (good luck with that)
24 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat I have linked to specifically shows more complexity generating itself. All that was provided was very simple rules, and the complex patterns generated itself. We can even understand why that happens.
Man can do many things, because we have been gifted with creative potency, but one thing we cant do, is create out of thin air.....thats Gods department.
And we can play with the material energy, and copy snowflakes, but to do this we need our conscious mind, and our hands and eyes etc......and these things are given to us by the Lord.
When the day comes and you can create out of thin air, then you will be God. (good luck with that)
Even know why snowflakes form on a molecular level, and understand those molecules and the atoms within. They are very simple, yet form complex patterns when working together. No consciousness is required in these mechanisms.
I have specifically shown where more complexity comes from simpler forms mathematically, which refutes what you said before. It does not require a higher intelligence.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by lauseyBut I keep saying, that God is omnipresent, so God is in every atom, and where there is God, there is intelligence and consciousness.
What I have linked to specifically shows more complexity generating itself. All that was provided was very simple rules, and the complex patterns generated itself. We can even understand why that happens.
Even know why snowflakes form on a molecular level, and understand those molecules and the atoms within. They are very simple, yet form complex patterns ...[text shortened]... s mathematically, which refutes what you said before. It does not require a higher intelligence.
If there are patterns appearing in your experiments, then they can,t manifest without the God factor........and there are laws of creation, on the atomic level, that science is not even aware of.
Science cannot see or observe everything, because they have not the means to see, and witness what the God factor is capable.
25 Nov 10
2 edits
Chaos theory challenges the timing of evolution to such an extent that revisions of the timeline are band aids over the inadequacies torn from the mental construct by reality. And in those gaps of unexplained eons, too much can happen for whoopsie-daisy to explain the very miniscule amount of that which we do detect.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat you are suggesting is that you are *certain* about something which is impossible to prove. You gain this information from very ancient scripts, or from people who also gained it from ancient scripts. There isn't any proof of the source, therefore it is meaningless.
But I keep saying, that God is omnipresent, so God is in every atom, and where there is God, there is intelligence and consciousness.
If there are patterns appearing in your experiments, then they can,t manifest without the God factor........and there are laws of creation, on the atomic level, that science is not even aware of.
Science cannot see or ...[text shortened]... everything, because they have not the means to see, and witness what the God factor is capable.
I could read about an obscure species on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. It is impossible to prove there isn't, therefore I claim it is fact. The reality in this scenario is that we do not know that there is a particular species on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and depending on how specific you get, the probability is negligible.
Science has does a much better job at determining quite accurately the mechanisms of nature than what you speculate.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by BayouMichael Bebe subscribes to the notion of irreducible complexity (i.e. there are stages in evolution which couldn't possibly exist because there isn't any evolutionary advantage to them). For example, what is the use of half an eye or half a wing?
Why not just engage Mr. Behe's thinking rather than play the fallacy to the person on "what to think of Mr. Behe."
This is a fallacy because there are species which do have "partially" developed eyes which have an advantage of no eyes at all. Even photosensitive cells which have an advantage is still early stages of an eye.
Early stages of a wing wouldn't be something that allow animals to fly, but at least glide.