Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

I don't think science deals with the matter at all so your statement is misleading.

My approach is that if one is going to discuss religion then perhaps it would be worthwhile reading "the word of god"... It is only by reading the bible that one can assess if the claims that it is the word of God are valid.

You don't say...I guess the existence of God needs to be proved without reference to evolution maybe.

Yes and it does..that is the point...religion is the opposite...dogma is determined and not to be questioned..

But that simply does not work...you can provide facts to Seti or Jan and it is the water off the ducks back as we say in the barnyard.

Humility simply does not work...you can point out a lie and you get no withdrawal...please explain why showing humility is in any way productive.

Now look at what we endure...unsupported arguement against evolution without any awareness of the subject and reliant upon the nonsense propaganda from creationist web sites offered in the mistaken belief that to discredit evolution somehow makes their case for a god plausible ...it becomes tiresome...if only they could put some effort into reading the history and accept that their god is a human invention, ...just learn some facts..not a big deal..read the bible....Seti is willfully ignorant and simply insists on pushing his wagon even after the wheels fall off.
I suggest that you also go read the bible so you can know what you are talking about and perhaps the relevant history.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No it doesn't. Here's why:

The God 'theory' makes no predictions about what we should or shouldn't see. Essentially, it predicts that we could see anything at all - anything God desires. Which means there is no way such a theory could ever be falsified by observation.


If fire-breathing dragons suddenly erupted out of the Earth, you could simply say "God did it."
If fire-breathing dragons did not erupt out the Earth, you could simply say "God didn't do it."
Thus, a God Theory predicts neither. A God theory is not dependent on what we actually observe.

A theory that cannot be falsified is, by definition, not a theory.

The same cannot be said about Darwinian Evolution. A sky full of fire-breathing dragons would definitely falsify Darwinian evolution.

But there are no fire-breathing dragons. Thus Darwinian Evolution has correctly predicted (i.e. it is dependent on) an event (or non-event) that we observe to be a non-event.



Likewise, String Theory is technically not a theory, because there is (currently) no experiment we can do that could falsify it.


Darwinian evolution could easily be disqualified by finding, say, a human living in the primordial ooze of 3 billion years ago. Or innumerable other observations that it can't explain (such as fully-formed dragons appearing today).

Since it can be falsified (in a billion possible ways), but isn't, that is strong evidence that it is an excellent predictor of what we see (not to mention the fact that there are no competing theories that do as well).

Falsifiability is a pillar of scientific analysis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course, scientists expect theories to be questioned, but by folks who understand the theory, the evidence supporting it and the obvious brains to be able to question it. That's not you or your online ministries, who only serve to insult everyone's intelligence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've been watching Primal, right? Fyi, that's an animation and isn't factual.

 

The God Theory in its entirety: God did it.

Of course, for the feeble minded person who wants a simple answer to hard questions, "God did it" absolutely provides such an answer, so simple, so elegant that one would expect it came right from the horses mouth; Ockham.

Why is the sky blue?
God did it.
How does gravity work?
God did it.
Why is the speed of light a constant?
God did it.
Where did all life on Earth originate?
God did it.

Marvelous!

 

Well, actually, no it's not.

The Bible describes a flat earth. Turns out it's not so flat.
The Bible says pi equals 3. Turns out it doesn't.
People thought that God caused eclipses. Turns out that's not how it works.
People thought lighting was a God hurling bolts. Turns out that lighting has a natural explanation.
People thought that the Red Sea ("Sea of Reeds" in the Bible) could not part without God doing it. Turns out it can; winds can (and have) accomplished that.

Thousands of times, science has proven that what was once thought to be the action of God actually has a natural explanation. The reverse has never happened. Not once.

Yep. And yet in the panoply of life we see that range of complexities, from prokaryotes to mammals. And we see the clear evidence that we evolved from the simpler forms, a step at a time.

Not when you actually do the math.

There has been life on this planet for 3.7 billion years. That's hundreds of billions of life cycles. Making even one change per every ten generations gets us the complexity we see.

 

I don’t think this estimate is even in the ballpark,

Not really even close to the Complexity and total number of components involved.

The Complexity of the human body alone makes this unbelievable and impossible.

There are literally trillions of components just in the human body alone.

If we are really generous, beyond anything reasonable, and close our eyes to reality, and grant the absurd notion that one new component is developed every year without a single failure rate in doing this ever, we are already at trillions of years. Just for us.

We obviously do not have enough time even to pull this one miracle off. Because we only have 3.7 billion years.

Now add in the trillions more upon trillions upon trillions of Specified Complexity Components that exist in the entire plant and animal kingdoms combined.

And I am sorry but, that is not going to happen in only a few billion years!

Even simple math blows the theory to bits.

And we did not even approach considering everything involved in pulling this off.

There is a real reason so many books have been written on this subject.

Absolutely, do not trust me on this, look it up and decide for yourself.

It would take more faith than I have, to believe this is even remotely possible.

Anyway...
Praise our Ancestors the Great Rocks???
Not a Chance!

 

That's the argument from incredulity. "I cannot imagine how this can be, so it must not be."

?? There are ~40 trillion cells in the human body. Where are you getting 1 trillion components?

Uh - surely you do not believe we added one cell at a time? And also surely you do not believe that we evolved "without a single failure?" Most mutations are failures. That's how it works.

Nope. We have about 24,000 coding genes. Each gene has about 12 exons of about 200 base pairs each. That's about 58 million base pairs. That's what those 3.7 billion years had to develop. That means that, from a VERY simplistic point of view, each base pair had 600 years to evolve. That means, back when we were prokaryotes, you could get 16 million generations for each one of those changes to a base pair.

Once we were more complex animals that slowed way down. Now you could only get 60 generations - enough time to change (for example) a wolf into a chihuahua. Which required a LOT more than one base pair change.

Again, go with the math. The math doesn't lie - even if you do not understand it.

There are indeed. "Climbing Mount Improbable" is an excellent one, as is "The Ancestor's Tale." The first explains how evolution achieves improbable (to some people) results. The second explains where we came from. I have no doubt that you will never, ever read them; they would cause you very serious cognitive dissonance.

 

I recently acquired a microscope and as a result finding interest in biology and I find it extrodinary just how much we know and I must say the more I read the more stupid the casual observations folk like Seti make become particularly from their position of entire ignorance.
Think about it Seti and ask yourself if a supreme being making a clay model of a human and " breathing" life into it really sounds in anyway plausible....again I ask why your need to question the established science nothing you can say in any way at all helps you prove there is a god...I thought you had accepted such earlier,...well you had..you said so..but now its back to rejecting the enemy science..you just dont learn...even if you can overturn science you still have not proved that God was not invented...go study the Sumerians and tell me that I am not correct.
Alex

 

Here is the mirror...

Why question established Religion Alex? Nothing you say in any way at all helps you prove there is no God. Even if you can overturn Religion you still have not proved that God was invented.

(Personal Note: I think it is critical, prudent, and wise to question established Religion, and I do so all the time.)

And also...

Where is your proof for the Claim you made earlier?

Or is it possible that the Claim was false and the proof non-existant?

Please simply just provide the Empirical Evidence for your Claim. That would be the thing that would work in your favor the best.

And please do not get upset just from my request, because that would be unscientific of you. And would be evidence for the Claims I have made previously.

...

Your Claim is that...
1. “motor proteins prove there can be no god”

Please prove your Claim using Empirical Science.

...

Here are the Claims I made previously. Let’s all see where your Claim above fits in?

...

Here are a few things that we unfortunately know to be true in the field of Human Anthropology Research.

1. Frauds are Historically Commonplace.
2. Peer Pressure is Commonplace and is Extreme.
3. Both Fame and Fortune are Core Motivations.
4. Interpretations of Data are Carefully Controlled and Manipulated.
5. Interpretations are Forced to fit inside Previous Assumptions that were also Previously Forced to fit inside the Previous Assumptions before them.
6. The interpretations of All Data must be Manipulated to never Counter Neo-Darwinism or Naturalism.
7. All Opposition to Neo-Darwinism and Naturalism must be Ridiculed and Silenced.
8. It is a kind of Anti-Science within Science itself.

This is exactly how a Dangerous Religion within Theism as a Whole operates!

 

Well, for one thing there are twelve major established religions, with literally hundreds of sects, schisms and creeds. Most of them contradict each other. Even the Bible contradicts _itself._ So you can't take any of it literally.

If you are in religion for comfort and community, that's great. If it helps you find peace, or it gives you your moral code (and it's a good one) then great; religion is working for you.

But to try to replace science with it? That's like having a used car salesman perform your open heart surgery because he's a really nice guy and sells more cars than anyone else so he must be great. Selling cars has nothing to do with surgery; religion has nothing to do with science. And if you try to force religion into a science role you are going to break one or the other.

 

That explains your posts here.

 

Funny how you just keep repeating those same lies over and over, especially considering you have never supported any of them with evidence.

No, religions teach you to believe, then lie rather than think and speak the truth. YOU are an excellent example of the dangers of religion.

 

As you know, Science was developed within Theism.
Those are the deep roots of Science.

Theism gave birth to Science.

Science is based on and in Theism. It always has been so, and still is today.

There is no actual war between the two.

 

Of course, considering the enormous content of fabrications, misrepresentations and outright lies from Seti, his religion has failed miserably in providing him a good moral code.

 

Complete horsepucky. Science is the evolution of the mind from ignorance and believing (Religions) to knowledge and understanding. It's like the evolution from barbaric to civilized.

"Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described" Einstein - 1941

 

Nope. Theism was around when science was developed. That's it. In a great many cases, theism stifled science, and jailed and even killed early scientists for their "heresy."

Again, no. That's like saying prostitution gave birth to theism, because prostitution predated theism, and was common when theism first came to be.

That I agree with - for most people. Most rational people see them as completely different.
Religion? A collection of oral traditions, codified into a system of worship, and used to create a community of like minded people.
Science? The best way we've found to explain the world around us.

Most people can keep these separate. A few very confused people (like yourself) can't separate them. Your Flintstones nonsense is just the latest example of your inability to understand science and religion.

 

You can see it happen in a couple of weeks if you have chickens and a rooster. Just let one of the eggs develop and hatch.

You seem to have confused geological scale time intervals with anthropological scale ones - there are three orders of magnitude between them.

You have no idea what a "Specified Complexity Component" is.

I can help you there - its how the grifters who run your religion have decided to label a component of their traditional (since 1802) and useful fallacy of the Watch implying a Watchmaker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy . They were calling it "Irreducible Complexity" for a while, right after they discovered the hypnotic effects of words like "complexity" on people like you who had no idea what it was, and about the time they noticed people in general have a hard time comprehending probability - that it's comparatively easy to dump a load of horseshit into many people's brains if it's packaged in the language of statistics and probabilities.

Meanwhile, you have left this central matter - what you yourself presented as a central issue and question - unaddressed.
Any time you wish to discuss what you say is a very important and central issue here, feel free:

 

Jan, Vociferous, help me out here!
Where the Science Tube are you two anyway!!!

(Q) has an excellent point!!!

Seems like I have heard a “Three in One” theory someplace else. Now where was that again?

(BooWaHaHa... Rolls hands together in a tumbling sort of way, and grins with squinted beady eyes)

(Q) is borrowing ideas from God again.

Any chance that (Q) and God are the same person?

Note to Self:
No, current research data on the subject indicates that, while possible, this is highly unlikely!!!

 

Thank You!

We may not agree on everything but I appreciate your comments!