Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Foxfyre]

I have never and am not not advocating that it be taught as scientific theory.

Cool......ID isn't a bad idea it just isn't at all a scientific theory.

There are many things that exist that are not part of any scientific theory. That is a limitation of science and cannot be construed as proof that what we observe or perceive is not real.

 

[Parsifal]

There are many things that exist that are not part of any scientific theory.

That is true and important.

I've had the sensation of watching the sun rise out on big water in my kayak. It gave me a sense of truth and beauty that are beyond what I would have been able to imagine if I hadn't been there.

Science is great stuff. I've studied a bit of it. Life should be about more though.....much more.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are many things that exist that are not part of any scientific theory.

That is true and important.

I've had the sensation of watching the sun rise out on big water in my kayak. It gave me a sense of truth and beauty that are beyond what I would have been able to imagine if I hadn't been there.

Science is great stuff. I've studied a bit of it. Life should be about more though.....much more.

Science is what it is. Is isn't all that is. And that leaves room for a whole of stuff that doesn't fit into any scientific formula or principle. And though I suspect we currently have only a tiny fraction of all the science there is to know, I doubt that science will EVER be able to fit all that there is into a scientific formula or principle.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is correct anyone who promotes war is not listening to the words of Christ.

So Bush isn't a Christian?

Virtually all Republicans went along with Bush's wars.....You're saying that virtually no Republican Christians?

All governments are gonna be brought to ruin. Did Jesus play politics while he was here no.

Every war is wrong and Christians should have no part in war.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

So who created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn, created the creator who, in turn,..........?

The creator is, by definition, complex which means that something complex must have created it which means that something complex must have created IT..........

He has always existed no beginning and no end. You are comparing finite beings to an infinite being.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Quetzalcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, in various forms, the feathered serpent legend, not a dragon, was a common mythical figure among the peoples of that area and again can be explained by the interrelations of the people who included it in their lore. Humankind of all cultures has been blessed with imgination that appears to be evident in no other species, at least so far as we know.

And once a really good story is developed, it will become popular.

But so far as teaching intelligent design as sicience, I agree. It isn't science. But I have no problem with teaching that science is inadequate to support or deny intelligent design, but that there is a rational basis for intelligent design.

I am not against teaching ID Right next to Evolution.

I also have no problem with assigned reading including fiction and history.

The best way to expose the emptiness of ID is to teach it next to Evolution.

've said on this board before that ID offer a Doctoral program. The offensive line at all of the major schools would concentrate on this. The answer to every question is "God".

4.0, Baby!

If you put the evolution and ID side by side and the question of origins ID will win out. They won't just win that debate either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Something was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn, was created by an organized being who, in turn..........



What evidence? Do you mean complexity is evidence for a designer?

Complexity is only part of the answer,Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins which are the main substances of living cells. Amino acids couldn't link to form proteins in the beginning.

It would be like claiming that if bricks could form in nature they would get together to build houses.

Proteins are so hard to form that in all of nature they never form except in already existing cells. This scientific fact stands in direct contrast to what you students are taught.

Oh but it gets better. We know that proteins do not form outside of living cells,the amino acids from which proteins are built,there are two kinds. half are left handed and right handed, proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

See the problem.the things that make up a cell can only be produced in something alive meaning life had to be created,life had to exist before a cell could be produced again.

Is it possible that the conditions that exist inside cells to allow proteins to form could occur in nature under any circumstance at all.

No.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No we don't know that because there is no way to prove that or disprove that. But for sure you can't have a big bang without including the other probabilities into it.

The simple fact is, simple logic makes a far stronger case for intelligent design. It is a far stronger case than any logical conclusion that there is no intelligent design.

Let me explain this again. Life had to exist in order for the things that make up a cell to form another cell, Cells form from living organism's. Life produces life.

Non-living matter cannot produce living matter.

There are allot of things that can't happen until they do.

The fact is that life exists and that proves that life exists. It proves nothing else.

So the firrst cell had to be formed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't see why proteins could only be formed inside a cell. What prevents two amino acids from joining? Nothing I know of and it's something you'll have to explain.

First off let's read a quote from somone on your side of the argument.

The Nobel laureate Dr. Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book, Life Itself insists that the probability of life's chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick, an atheist, had this to say; What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.



Even the correct sequence of the right amino acids is still not enough for the formation of a functional protein molecule. Each of the 20 different types of amino acids present in the composition of proteins must be left handed. Yet, while some amino acids are left handed, others are right handed. Should they be formed at random in a organic soup, it is most likely that they would occur in roughly equal proportions. The question of how a specifically required combination of left handed amino acids could unite by chance, while excluding right handed amino acids, constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis.

Miller and urey's experiment produced both left and right handed amino acids and right handed amino acids prove to be lethal to living organisms. One other reason they can't connect is right handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

What is the statement of the chance of something happening one time in an infinite series of chances?

Infinite chances ? the earth is 4.5 billion years old according to some,and life began 3.5 billion years ago that is not infinite chances.

Look at what you are up against.

Right-Handed (Dextro) Amino Acids

 

[Youwerecreated]

There was a pretty high percent of Democrats, too.

There were many Democrats who were stupid enough to vote to go into Iraq.

The international community supplied intel that helped.

Anybody that trusted the intel that Bush and company went in for was extremely dumb.

All war is dumb and pointless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible

There isn't any scientific evidence for it therefore teaching it as a scientific theory is lying about what science is.

When people continue to close their eyes to the evidence of design you are correct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have never and am not not advocating that it be taught as scientific theory.

Cool......ID isn't a bad idea it just isn't at all a scientific theory.

You are totally ignoring that life can't spontaneously generate itself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have never and am not not advocating that it be taught as scientific theory.

Cool......ID isn't a bad idea it just isn't at all a scientific theory.

Let's compare both and you tell me how your theory is anymore scientific.


Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.


This impact pamphlet was written by a scientist, and a science educator, and reviewed by an attorney, to provide a brief summary of the scientific evidence supporting creation. The text materials and references listed at the end together give a more thorough discussion of this scientific evidence.

Introduction

Public schools in many localities are teaching two scientific models - the creation model and the evolution model of the origin of the universe, of life, and of man. There is apparent scientific evidence for creation, which is summarized in this pamphlet, just as there is apparent scientific evidence for evolution. The purpose of this pamphlet is to summarize the evidence that shows that:





"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."



This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins.





"This scientific evidence both for creation and for evolution can and must be taught without any religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto."
"Creation-science proponents want public schools to teach all the scientific data, censoring none, but do not want any religious doctrine to be brought into science classrooms."



Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:





The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:

The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:



I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created.

I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.



II. Life was suddenly created.

II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.



III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits.

III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.



IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism.

IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.



V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry.

V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.



VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism).

VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).



VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent.

VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.



I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.





"One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve."



III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.6 None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.7 While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.8 Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.10

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,11 monkeys,12 apes,13 and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.14 The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.17 The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).18

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.19

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20 Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.26



"There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

 

[Cammmpbell]

That is correct anyone who promotes war is not listening to the words of Christ.

So Bush isn't a Christian?

Virtually all Republicans went along with Bush's wars.....You're saying that virtually no Republican Christians?

There was a pretty high percent of Democrats, too. The international community supplied intel that helped. This was not the work of one man.

To find that kind of a job, you need to go to the Failed Stimulus.

You're right about it not being one man:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZO8y-R9k]WMD Lies - (Bush Administration) George W. Bush and his Lying Friends - YouTube[/ame]

 

[editec]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

 

[Parsifal]

He has always existed no beginning and no end.

Based on your reasoning something had to have created Him. If you're asserting that organized beings had to have been created by something you are asserting that God was created by something.

Every war is wrong and Christians should have no part in war.

If you're saying that nobody who supports war is Christian you are saying that there are almost no Christians.

 

[Parsifal]

Then people continue to close their eyes to the evidence of design you are correct.

There isn't any scientific evidence for intelligent design.....None.....Not a shred.

Intelligent design may have occurred but there isn't any scientific evidence for it.

 

[Parsifal]

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

That statement is as stupid as any statement that has ever been made.

One would have to be unbelievably stupid to "think" that.

You're advocating having schools teach children to be complete idiots.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let's keep it civil please Parsifal. So far, with a few lapses here and there, we have been having a cordial debate with various opinions being expressed. Even though so far nobody agrees with me, I have been enjoying the excercise. It is not enjoyable when it dissolves into schoolyard insults or holding others in contempt because we don't like their opinions.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.