I can prove God exists

[numinus]

I agree with you there, except I prefer the word suspiciously to suprisingly.

Nothing suspicious about different people arriving at the same logical conclusion independent from one another.

 

[9sublime]

First of all, its not the exact same conclusion, otherwise we would have one religion...

Secondly, all the major religions have been mixed up in a big religious incest orgy for thousands of years.

Thirdly, humans have a primitive urge to satisfy the question, what happens when we die? Every society coming up with a solution to the question is about as suprising as every hungry person satisfying the urge of hunger by eating. And a nice, caring, loving God thats going to help the people who invented and believe in him over all others seems like quite a nice prospect, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Bunz]

First of all, its not the exact same conclusion, otherwise we would have one religion...

Ahhh duh its called Christianity. Remember 9Sublime, Jesus love you.

Secondly, all the major religions have been mixed up in a big religious incest orgy for thousands of years.

It is against God to have the words religious and incest in the same sentence.

Thirdly, humans have a primitive urge to satisfy the question, what happens when we die?

Well duh, Unless you have accepted Christ as your lord and savior, you burn in hell for all of eternity.
The good book says it, you mean to tell me, you dont have blind faith in a script written by mystic individuals 5,000 years ago is some sort of attempt to make a true fact of what happens to the human spirit after it leaves earth? Sheesh...I guess I will be seeing you down there buddy!

 

[r0beph]

Almost all religions have some sort of metaphysical basis, all of which are surprisingly similar.

Your statement says that they have a metaphysical basis; my reply was in regards to why they all seem similar in their manner. As for the metaphysical basis, the idea of a god itself requires a metaphysical belief, but it does not mean the actual BASIS is metaphysical, purely a semantic argument as to whether religion is a story or true and quibbling definitions, as if it is just a story, it is fiction and metaphysics plays no part.

Now, kindly show how hellenistic philosophy is somehow derived from any of the various eastern philosophies, then we can discuss this.

Well hellenistic philosphies (there are quite a few, not just a single orientation.) Had lots of influence from persian and indian philosophies, this is well noted in history. Now I'm sure you'll agree both Indian and Persian philosophies are eastern. The Hellenistic period included a lot of Grecian movement through the east, there was a lot of cultural transfer between greece and the east during the hellenistic period. Andrew the Great for example, spent a lot of time in India and Persia. The term "Hellenistic Period" refers to the period where there was a great expansion in the areas in which greek (or in greek, hellênízein) was spoken and greek culture spread. One of the biggest cultural revolutions during this period, were in fact the meeting of the West and East cultures. Why you asked such a question, that in its own right, answers itself, I don't know. Hellenization itself refers to the spread of greek culture and language, in this process it is bound to pick up ideas from the cultures it spreads through, this answers you question.

 

[invest07]

robeph
"Mathematically it is not slim. Chemistry works as it does due to the laws of chemistry/physics and fundamental atomic interactions. DNA formed AS it did, because it could. Asking the mathematics behind its plausibility is a silly thing to do as proof exists that the odds of it occurring are 1:1. "

What you are missing here is that the creation of DNA was not a chemical process. It was a physical process. This is the same mistake coyote is making. Mixing up chemical and physical processes. The initiating event for ALL alleged evolutionary events is a mutaion. A mutation is a physical mistake and not a chemical reaction.

So if I understand you right, then making life in my kitchen should be a piece of cake. Just need the right recipe and life will arise because a chemical reaction could happen. It's inevitable and easy, right? If it could happen it will. So why do we even need Macroevolution? Just change the recipe and the species changes and we can do all this crap in 2 days rather than waiting a few billion years. If DNA happened simply because it could, then I want some new DNA. I want a new body that is better looking and younger and stronger and doesn't have a weak back. And I want to be able to do calculus in my head and finally be able to balance my check register.

There are mathematical probabilities involved here, regardless of how you try to spin this. And those probabilities are billions and billions and trillions to one against Macroevolution.

Even if you assume chemical reactions created DNA, that does not change the physical structure of DNA. Somehow all the 6 billion amino acids have to be arranged in a specific order. Somehow you need both sides of the helix. Somehow pieces of DNA must function as chromosomes. Somehow each base pair must be part of a specific genetic trait or signal the production of a certain enzyme.

Robeph, specifically, how did all those 6 billion amino acids wind up in the right slot? Just sayin it happened cuz it could don't cut the mustard.

 

[Questerr]

...

BTW, I can't counter your logic on your beliefs. You don't hold biblical literalist beliefs, so I've got nothing there, but I can still argue your anti-evolutions argumentation:

You have said on 2 different occasions that there is a shortage of transitional fossils due to rarely occurring conditions necessary to form fossils.

This is correct fossilization is an incredibly rare process.

So let me see if I understand your belief in MacroEvolution:

1. You say there are few fossils.
2. The fossils are your evidence of Macroevolution.
3. So doesn’t this mean there is little fossil evidence of MacroEvolution?

No, this is incorrect.

Fossils are NOT the only evidence of macroevolution.
Saying that fossils are the only evidence for evolution is like saying that metal detecters are the only way to find iron deposits; it discounts loads more techniques, many of which are better suited for the role.

Comparison of fossil and modern anatomy, plate techtonics and geological striation, carbon dating, chemistry testing, and most importantly DNA and genetic testing between species are the main methods used for evidence of macroE.

Fossils are just the tip of the iceberg and are the only the most cited because they are the technique most understood by laymen.

The Smithsonian Museum of Natural History has over 40 million cataloged fossils.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/collections/paleocollections.html
Hardly sounds like a scarcity of fossils to me.

If one museum has over 40 million, my guess is that the total number of fossils cataloged worldwide must be way over 100 million and may be as high as 500 million. MacroEvolutionary theory requires every species to be in virtually continuous transition. So the Smithsonian should be bustin' at the seams with transition fossils. At least 25% of fossils should clearly exhibit transition and the actual count is a small fraction. Very, very small.

Wow, what a strawman! Let's see what the Smithsonian article actually said:

"About Our Collections: Our collections contain over 40 million fossil plants, animals, unicellular organisms and geologic specimens. These fossils record the history of life on our planet over the last 2.5 billion years. Included in our collections are over 1500 catalogued specimens of dinosaurs. Of these, about 30 are on display, and of these, 6 are the actual, original specimens that were used to name new species of dinosaurs. One of our biggest and most popular projects has been the digitizing and remounting of our Triceratops skeleton, a specimen that had been on display in our exhibit halls since 1905. It became the world's first anatomically accurate Digital Dinosaur, rendered from real fossils."

and:

"Besides the dinosaur collections, other notable collections include the world-famous Burgess Shale, hundreds of thousands of specimens from the Permian Reef complex in Texas, insects from the Green River formation, a large and important collection of echinoderms, as well as local marine vertebrate fossils. One of our dinosaurs, Ceratosaurus, was featured in the Hollywood movie "1 Million Years B.C."

So they have 40 million fossils which include "plants, animals, unicellular organisms and geologic specimens". Nothing specific about any species, nothing about the amount of different species, and nothing about transitional fossils.

They mention that many of their fossils come from the same locations. How many of this do you think are the same species?

If large numbers of fossils are from the same species, how many transitional fossils do you think there would be?

Not to mention, large numbers of their fossils are plant and single cell organisms. Would you even believe it if they presented transitional fossils for them? Or would you just discount them because they aren't one animal changing into another?

To specifically cite the two bolded portions in your text:

MacroEvolutionary theory requires every species to be in virtually continuous transition.

You've never heard of punctuated equilibrium? And just because species are in transition, those transitions may not be obvious.

At least 25% of fossils should clearly exhibit transition and the actual count is a small fraction.

Source for that number, please.

We should be rolling in transition fossils worldwide. There should be so many transition fossils that MacroEvolution should be undisputed. Instead you Darwinistas are still making excuses for “gaps in knowledge”.

Yet, you think it's perfectly okay to fill those gaps with an equally unproven God?

We shouldn't be rolling in transitional fossils, the process that creates fossils would make it tend towards large groups of the same species being fossilized, not a lot of different species.

And as point out before, if you would check talkorigins articles on transitional fossils, there is enough evidence. Even the evidence of a single transitional fossil would be enough to prove that God didn't "poof" every species into existence.

I already did. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim. And even if DNA is hypothesized to have evolved from simpler forms, all 6 billion of those amino acids got into the right space by some method. No way it happened naturally, as the probability clearly demonstrates.

You are correct when you say that a slim probability does not mean impossible. I could win the FL lottery this weekend. The odds are 47 million to one that I won't but that does not make my winning impossible. The odds of DNA evolving are billions and billions of times smaller than this.

And I already explained that the mathematical chances don't matter, how it is an a priori vs. a posteriori arguement, and you said you didn't understand, yet you have continued to use this arguement.

Breaking it down Barney-style: It doesn't matter what the chances are of something happening if you are looking at it after the fact. Simply looking at mathematics doesn't analyse any other machanics involved in something, like the properties of chemistry that would require certain proteins and nucleiteids act in a certain way, not "randomly".

It only matters that the sequence occurs and that we try to understand the sequence, it doesn't matter what the chances were of the sequence occuring when it has already occured.

Believe MacroE if you chose but I refuse to accept any science that requires one to suspend one's brain and accept as reality an unproven hypothesis that has virtually zero probability of occurring.

Yet you are willing to believe in Christianity that requires you to suspend your brain and believe in an unproven God, a man living inside a whale, the sun stopping in the sky and moving backwards (actually requiring the world to stop spinning and move backwards, which would kill everyone), a trumpet tearing down a wall, a worldwide flood that would be unnoticed by every other culture in the world, and a man creating fish from bread and water from wine.

Which is more unlikely, macroE or Christianity? At least MacroE has scientific evidence and doesn't violate the laws of physics.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote

"All codes spring from one source: DNA (can you prove otherwise?)" I already did. The mathematical probability of DNA evolving are astronomically slim.

Probability is probability. It is not scientific proof.

And even if DNA is hypothesized to have evolved from simpler forms, all 6 billion of those amino acids got into the right space by some method. No way it happened naturally, as the probability clearly demonstrates.

No. You continue to totally misunderstand what evolution involves from population genetics to the progression from simple to complex. You are basing your probability on 6 billion coming together correctly. In reality: only two of them need to to start with. Then those two together with a third.

You are correct when you say that a slim probability does not mean impossible. I could win the FL lottery this weekend. The odds are 47 million to one that I won't but that does not make my winning impossible. The odds of DNA evolving are billions and billions of times smaller than this.

According to: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

...consider the calculation by astronomer Fred Hoyle, often referred to by creationists, that the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one (Hoyle, 1981). This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics.

Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.
​

Believe MacroE if you chose but I refuse to accept any science that requires one to suspend one's brain and accept as reality an unproven hypothesis that has virtually zero probability of occurring.

And a supernatural diety is a proven hypothesis????

I'm afraid you've already suspended your brain.

 

[Coyote]

BTW, I can't counter your logic on your beliefs. You don't hold biblical literalist beliefs, so I've got nothing there, but I can still argue your anti-evolutions argumentation:



This is correct fossilization is an incredibly rare process.



No, this is incorrect.

Fossils are NOT the only evidence of macroevolution.
Saying that fossils are the only evidence for evolution is like saying that metal detecters are the only way to find iron deposits; it discounts loads more techniques, many of which are better suited for the role.

Comparison of fossil and modern anatomy, plate techtonics and geological striation, carbon dating, chemistry testing, and most importantly DNA and genetic testing between species are the main methods used for evidence of macroE.

Fossils are just the tip of the iceberg and are the only the most cited because they are the technique most understood by laymen.



Wow, what a strawman! Let's see what the Smithsonian article actually said:

Good response!

 

[invest07]

coyote
I guess I missed your point.
Are all fossils scarse?
Or are fossils plentiful and only transitional fossils scarse?
Either way, Gould and Eldrege agree with me there are no where near enough of those pesky transitions.
There is no shortage of spin from Darwinistas telling us all how this is natural and to be expected.
So why is there a shortgage in the eyes of Gould and Eldredge?

 

[9sublime]

Great, you've cited two people agree with you. All our arguments are shot down.

 

[invest07]

Qesterr

"Breaking it down Barney-style: It doesn't matter what the chances are of something happening if you are looking at it after the fact. Simply looking at mathematics doesn't analyse any other machanics involved in something, like the properties of chemistry that would require certain proteins and nucleiteids act in a certain way, not "randomly".

Analyzing the math allows one to see how large the task is (6 billion amino acids) and how much time is available to assemble those 6 billion (maybe 1-2 billon years. The initiating event for every alleged evolutionary event is a genetic mutation. Mutations are physical mistakes. Some how, the entire physical structure of the DNA molecule had to be assembled. While chemical reactions may have played a role, the end result must be a functioning physical structure.

So is DNA the end result of a chemical or physical process? Or maybe a little of both. It doesn't change the probability because somehow, by some method, all 6 billion amino acids have to get into the right slot.

The size of the task is known and the time allowed for the work is estimated. What is there about this math that Darwinistas are incapable of grasping?

"And I already explained that the mathematical chances don't matter, how it is an a priori vs. a posteriori arguement, and you said you didn't understand, yet you have continued to use this arguement." Looking at it in arrears or concurrently does not change the overall probability. I am not calculating the probability that DNA exists. I am calculating the probability that it came into existence through a certain process (macroEvolution). And those odds are incredibly slim. Billions and billions and trillions to one against.

"You've never heard of punctuated equilibrium? And just because species are in transition, those transitions may not be obvious." Punctuated Equlibrium, which is unproven, is not supported by the fossil record. According to your beliefs, fossils are more likely to be found in concentrated areas. Isn't this a requirement of PE? Isolated populations under stress. Shouldn't there be finds of PE population fossil fields that clearly exhibit transitions? And doesn't Macroevolution require massive changes over time? According to the MacroE hypothesis, one species can and does change into another. One Darwinista even claims a coyote in Pakistan turned into a whale. While each step may be small, over time the changes MUST be huge. Why so little evidence?

"Source for that number, please." This is a reasonable estimate on my part. No other source. What is your estimate?

 

[r0beph]

What you are missing here is that the creation of DNA was not a chemical process. It was a physical process. This is the same mistake coyote is making. Mixing up chemical and physical processes. The initiating event for ALL alleged evolutionary events is a mutaion. A mutation is a physical mistake and not a chemical reaction.

Do you understand how DNA works? A mutation is not physical, how the hell do you figure that? Mutations occur in dna, DUE to chemical reactions. Gene inversion and gene transcription, both chemical processes, the outcome of a mutation is physical through chemical reaction. The dna is a chemical template for folding proteins (which of course is a physical process through chemistry) your assertion is completely ridiculous....

So if I understand you right, then making life in my kitchen should be a piece of cake. Just need the right recipe and life will arise because a chemical reaction could happen. It's inevitable and easy, right? If it could happen it will. So why do we even need Macroevolution? Just change the recipe and the species changes and we can do all this crap in 2 days rather than waiting a few billion years. If DNA happened simply because it could, then I want some new DNA. I want a new body that is better looking and younger and stronger and doesn't have a weak back. And I want to be able to do calculus in my head and finally be able to balance my check register.

A piece of cake? Not exactly, but recently it's been shown that adenine can be abiotically (nonenzymatically) synthesized http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0708434104v1 While this is far from what you're requesting. You're dropping too much on the table, biogenesis is the actual response to this you'll get. Is it possible, and explainible by current chemistry knowledge? Partially. Does our lack of complete explaination warrant Deus ex Machina? no. However showing that the nucleotide basis can form abiotically shows that the first step in a hypothesized evolutionary model is plausible and thus the follwoing steps of dna/rna formation could just as well follow in nature if all the components can form abiotically, it's not magic anymore than flying and gravity is.

There are mathematical probabilities involved here, regardless of how you try to spin this. And those probabilities are billions and billions and trillions to one against Macroevolution.

Please show me the algorithm you've used to determine these arbitrary 10^10000000000:1 probabilities. You're grasping numbers out of the air. Let me try here. You say god created life, proof of a god outside anecdotal and faith based "evidence" (not really evidence) is 0, so the chance ie probability being a fractional based division percentile, is 0:X regardless of evidence you show for anything that does not define god as a static and existant being will always be 0:X Regardless, the probability with current evidence will be 0.... stop circular logic, it's fallacious, plain and simple. It is quite ridiculous to try and prove your point by inserting something that has no basis, due to the lack of evidence to the contrary. MacroE has plenty of evidence, of course being theoreitcal, does not have ALL the evidence to prove it as a law, however, thats the idea behind theory, using the partial evidence to make a valid assumption and then as evidence incereases, support your theory or revamp it. Your "theory" of intelligent design has no basis beyond assuming that by lack of evidence and you cannot go inserting a metaphysical evidenciary fill in the blanks,

Even if you assume chemical reactions created DNA, that does not change the physical structure of DNA. Somehow all the 6 billion amino acids have to be arranged in a specific order. Somehow you need both sides of the helix. Somehow pieces of DNA must function as chromosomes. Somehow each base pair must be part of a specific genetic trait or signal the production of a certain enzyme.

uhm, physical structure is defined by chemistry, the reason they're in the order they are is because they, over time evolved as such. There are very very small bacterium, nanobacteria, and probably even smaller such life that consist of very very minute amounts of nucleotides in their creation, once this is recognized you must realize that the begining of life as we know it evolving from such is a lot easier than biogenesis of supercomplex organisms.

Robeph, specifically, how did all those 6 billion amino acids wind up in the right slot? Just sayin it happened cuz it could don't cut the mustard.

uhm isn't that what YOU'RE saying, because in supporting macroevolution, that is NOT what I'm saying, it's trial and error, natural selection.... not "Just happening" that's all you.

 

[r0beph]

for the sake of all of us.
invest;

A) stop using arbitrary math/numbers, it is NOT allowed, end of story, any further use of such will be considered invalidation of your argument at point.

B) stop using circular logic, again invalidates your argument

C) define "Physical not chemical" because you're very wrong on this assertion in your arguments.

 

[Coyote]

Ok, here's the Readers Digest version for Fundies:

coyote
I guess I missed your point.
Are all fossils scarse?

Yes

Or are fossils plentiful and only transitional fossils scarse?

No

Either way, Gould and Eldrege agree with me there are no where near enough of those pesky transitions.

So? A whopping two experts. That's conclusive proof for a deity.

There is no shortage of spin from Darwinistas telling us all how this is natural and to be expected.

hmm...avoiding the issues I see.

So why is there a shortgage in the eyes of Gould and Eldredge?

I have no idea. But I do know they aren't the only experts.

 

[Coyote]

And invest: all codes derive from DNA.

DNA is a natural code.