Discipler...
- Started
- Last post
- 248 Responses
- bk_shankz0
I think the system by which we spread our code DNA and the idea of evolution pretty remarkable and they might point to an intelligent designer. I'm no scientist but I studied physics for four years and hung out with many PHDs.
- discipler0
normal,
Your limited internet analogy only demonstrates that an intelligent designer was at work. It was intelligent beings who produced the slow, successive modifications. The point that has to be driven home is that slow, successive modifications + random chance cannot produce irreducibly complex systems... not even with all the time in the world. Natural selection would prevent this from happening. All the components of these biological machines must be present all at once, or the machine fails. There's no way to get around this. And the implications are clear... a cognizant designer.
As for us being "animals"... I've argued this issue here many times. Just because there is homology does not necessitate a common ancestry. It more accurately demonstrates an efficient designer who uses the same fundamental materials. Additionally, our ability to reason, have a first-person perspective, express selfless love, and other metaphysical realities, demonstrate that we are categorically superior to "animals".
- bk_shankz0
One of the reasons we now have two sexes for many animals is that increases the variety in the DNA code and speeds up the process by which we can adapt.
- ********0
Should it be:
Discipler †
- lowimpakt0
sorry discipler, quick question.
I was talking to a colleague about young earth creationism earlier and couldn't remember how you set the date for the beginning of the earth whether it be 6000 or 10000 years ago. can you remind me?
cheers.
carry on......
- discipler0
shankz, ID does not deny microevolution; adaptation within a given genome. This is what science actually observes. What it does not observe is evolution from species to species, the jump from one genome to another, goo-to-you-via-the-zoo.
You mention DNA, which is more complex than a supercomputer and is, at it's core, information. Code, similar to computer program. Natural processes + random chance cannot produce information. Every example of information you can find, requires an intelligent entity.
- discipler0
lowimpakt, it essentially has to do with the interpretation of the word for "day" in the book of Genesis. The hebrew word allows for a great expanse of time (and I believe that God did this on purpose so we wouldn't get caught up with the "when" of it all). Again, there are young earth and old earth creationists. It's an in-house debate and a secondary issue.
- lowimpakt0
thanks.
we were talking about cultural interpretations of words, censorship and modifications to political/religious texts and the issue of young earth creationists came up.....
- normal0
Discipler: "It is a cruel and wasteful system."
Humans are cruel and wasteful, what other evidence would you need that we are a product of evolution if that's what you surmise it's function is?
In regards to macro-evolution, I observe micro-evolution socially, politically, artistically, technologically and biologically on a daily basis. One can only say that because that exists so does the other. Macro-evolution takes millions of years of starts, fits, and random mutations and is not directly observable but based on the micro it's justifiable in the macro. To me it is certainly potentially more viable a theory than saying that 'God did it' as all the elements are apparent in day to day life but God certainly is not.
- discipler0
cool. here's a book on the issue, that takes the old earth position:
- discipler0
normal, sure humans can be cruel and wasteful, but this is not an evidence that their origins share those traits. On the contrary, DNA, the cell and molecular machines display an amazing and efficient system.
Again, the issue is not "enough time" with macroevolution. There are no mutations where information is added. Information is only lost. Millions of years cannot produce an irreducibly complex machine - all components must be present at once. Furthermore, hard-coded information does not spawn itself from non-information... no matter how many millions of years you give it.
- Mimio0
Why argue the slippery'days' of Genesis account, when you can argue the ridiculous order of creation according to the bible. For Instance according to Genesis plants were created before the sun, the very thing that runs their photosynthetic processes. Imagine a world where an eon goes by without a sun, and you'll see how stupid an idea that is.
- ********0
And woman was created from a dudes rib? I have eaten ribs. I love ribs.
You would think that women would taste better ...
* insert comedic drumroll of bad tatste
- bk_shankz0
Do you believe in Physics? Because the earth is a very complex system that is based on only four forces. And at one time it was very simple. So a complext Earth became more complex by the interaction of four forces. First the mass has to aggregate and we know we came from more simple times because we have heavier metals that can only be produced in a star. Complex systems can arise from simple ones and it happens all the time and not just biology.
- discipler0
Mimio, the Genesis account is not rediculous. If you take a literal interpretation of "day" in genesis the sun would have been created the next day and would support the plant life created the day prior. Since the process was supernatural in origin, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that God could have sustained the plant life without use of the sun, anyway.
- normal0
Discipler: "The point that has to be driven home is that slow, successive modifications + random chance cannot produce irreducibly complex systems... not even with all the time in the world."
You have not unproven my point that slow + successive modifications + random chance cannot produce irreducibly complex systems. My point is that it has, hence the internet. You say that my analogy is limited. But yours is even more so because it requires something that you cannot observe or prove.
Discipler: "Additionally, our ability to reason, have a first-person perspective, express selfless love, and other metaphysical realities, demonstrate that we are categorically superior to "animals"."
It's only the metaphysical aspect that differs and confuses us even more. A rat can reason that if it touches a button food will come out. Even if there is pain applied. If the pain outweighs the need then it will no longer do it. Reason. Selfless love is an unproven concept as I believe that all love is to a certain extent selfish be it selfish for the good of the species, the parent, or the lover. Love is a complex web of symbiotic motivations that all animals have demonstrated. Even love for Jesus Christ is selfishly motivated as there is a supposed reward for that love and that is eternal life in heaven. If there was no promised reward there would be no point. I would not learn the things I have learned if there wasn't a reward of some sort be it financial or social.. leading to sex, procreation and ultimately creating a scenario where my genes are carried forth and prosper.
- bk_shankz0
The total entropy for the total system always increases but that says nothing of forms becoming more complex. The general trend is towards the most system with the most states. But entropy can only be applied to systems and you must clearly define it. Is is hard to measure the entropy of a system like the Earth or the Universe.
- Mimio0
Right D,
I forgot to factor supernatural magiccal powers into our scientific discussion.
- discipler0
shankz, I do believe in physics. And I believe the laws of physics are fine-tuned to such a degree that they demonstrate an intelligent designer. We observe that there is homology of materials like hydrogen, etc... in living systems. But this does not suggest that nothing can produce a complex system.
- discipler0
Mimio, when it gets back to origins, you have no choice to factor in the supernatural. Or should I conclude that the complexity of a single cell just "magically" went poof! into existance.