Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Foxfyre]

Foxy sorry but I do believe that and I am gonna let my friend see foreknowledge the bible presents that was not known til modern day science.

Believing that and arguing it as a basis for Intelligent Design are two different things.

In the world of formal debate, you have to set a basis for something before you can extrapolate that into something else. Once you have established a reasonable case for intelligent design outside of the Bible, THEN the debate can move into the next phase such as whether the Bible narrative is supported by the other evidence.

In my opinion, we really do spin our wheels when we use the Bible as evidence for whatever is claimed in the Bible. That is not much different than our writing whatever we want on our resume and then expect others to use that to assume we are qualified to do something.

Foxy where would one get the foreknowledge from things in the bible that was not known until modern day science ?

One wouldn't. But again those who wrote the Bible were writing from their own culture, their own experience, their own perceptions, and their own understandings. And none were men of science and therefore were not thinking or writing from a scientific perspective.

I have done decades of study comparing the anthropological, geological, and historical record with accounts of the Bible and it is a fascinating topic of discussion and debate.

But again, for those who are not believers, the Bible is hardly an authoritative source for scientific or imperical evidence. You have to be able to make a case for the science and/or other imperical evidence outside of the Bible in order to have any credible chance of supporting an argument for Intelligent Design.

Once the case is made for Intelligent Design, then we can move to identifying the designer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How does the existence of other planets affect the odds of the conditions required to support life as we know it on Planet Earth?

Wow you really need to ask that question? The more planets there are the more likely there are planets similar to earth.

In an infinite universe the chances of another planet being able to support life similar to life on earth is more than possible and is most definitely probable.

Add planets that might be able to support life other than that found on earth and I would say the odds are very high that there is other life in the universe.

I have long believed in the probability that there are many planets capable of supporting life as it appears on Planet Earth. But right now I am focused on the almost impossible odds that Planet Earth could support life as we know it purely as an accident of nature. The fact that other planets like Planet Earth probably exist does not affect those odds in any way.

When you throw the dice, the odds are the same no matter how many others people are also throwing dice.

The term "almost impossible" is meaningless in an infinite universe. You dice analogy falls flat because there are a finite number of outcomes. The universe, being an infinite system, is not bound by the limits of the dice.

In an infinite system the earth can definitely be a mere accident of circumstance. And because the system is infinite, the likelihood of another planet sharing earth's characteristics is most probable.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow you really need to ask that question? The more planets there are the more likely there are planets similar to earth.

In an infinite universe the chances of another planet being able to support life similar to life on earth is more than possible and is most definitely probable.

Add planets that might be able to support life other than that found on earth and I would say the odds are very high that there is other life in the universe.

I have long believed in the probability that there are many planets capable of supporting life as it appears on Planet Earth. But right now I am focused on the almost impossible odds that Planet Earth could support life as we know it purely as an accident of nature. The fact that other planets like Planet Earth probably exist does not affect those odds in any way.

When you throw the dice, the odds are the same no matter how many others people are also throwing dice.

The term "almost impossible" is meaningless in an infinite universe. You dice analogy falls flat because there are a finite number of outcomes. The universe, being an infinite system, is not bound by the limits of the dice.

In an infinite system the earth can definitely be a mere accident of circumstance. And because the system is infinite, the likelihood of another planet sharing earth's characteristics is most probable.

Please provide a rationale for why, when everything else that we can identify can be given an age, i.e. a beginning, that the universe itself is infinite.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

What the believers tend to forget is that odds are meaningless when one is faced with infinite possibilities.

In an infinite system, to believe that Earth is a one off is infinitely naive.

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

I don't have a side.

And unless you can quote me where i said the universe was finite then you again have no leg upon which to stand.

And no one knows with any degree of certainty if the big bang actually happened. For now it is just the most accepted working theory and has not been proven to be absolutely true.

herein lies the problem. We don't know where when or how the universe began. We struggle with our limited senses to understand our world and the universe but as of yet there are still more questions than answers.

We might be physically incapable of finding the answer just as a dog is physically incapable of speech or performing mathematical calculations. We might not have the sensory or intellectual capability to understand origin.

 

[Cammmpbell]

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.

Intelligent design....LMAO!! If there's anything at all which could be described as "Intelligent" in the bible it is overridden 10 times by "Rediculous Nonsense."

 

[Foxfyre]

What the believers tend to forget is that odds are meaningless when one is faced with infinite possibilities.

In an infinite system, to believe that Earth is a one off is infinitely naive.

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

I don't have a side.

And unless you can quote me where i said the universe was finite then you again have no leg upon which to stand.

And no one knows with any degree of certainty if the big bang actually happened. For now it is just the most accepted working theory and has not been proven to be absolutely true.

herein lies the problem. We don't know where when or how the universe began. We struggle with our limited senses to understand our world and the universe but as of yet there are still more questions than answers.

We might be physically incapable of finding the answer just as a dog is physically incapable of speech or performing mathematical calculations. We might not have the sensory or intellectual capability to understand origin.

But you have said that the universe is infinite and therefore odds that apply to things in our solar system are meaningless. I am still hoping for your rationale for why the universe is infinite given that science places an age or origin for everything that we can determine that exists in it.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

I don't have a side.

And unless you can quote me where i said the universe was finite then you again have no leg upon which to stand.

And no one knows with any degree of certainty if the big bang actually happened. For now it is just the most accepted working theory and has not been proven to be absolutely true.

herein lies the problem. We don't know where when or how the universe began. We struggle with our limited senses to understand our world and the universe but as of yet there are still more questions than answers.

We might be physically incapable of finding the answer just as a dog is physically incapable of speech or performing mathematical calculations. We might not have the sensory or intellectual capability to understand origin.

But you have said that the universe is infinite and therefore odds that apply to things in our solar system are meaningless. I am still hoping for your rationale for why the universe is infinite given that science places an age or origin for everything that we can determine that exists in it.

Ever hear of black holes and how they suck up everything around them. The universe is a model of the remnants of an exploding shell.....just magnified too numerous to imagine. It has taken billions of years to advance to where we are and it will take more billions of years to finally cease to exist....but it will happen.

Bible thumpers talk like they know what will happen and now it's my turn.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cammmpbell, I'm doing my damndest to ignore you and any others who want to make this into another anti-religious, anti-Christian thread and be insulting and snotty to believers. It's an interesting topic. Either join in the topic or please find something else to do.

 

[code1211]

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.

No argument that this was not justification for what followed.

Clinton had the right approach with this, but just too light a touch to make it stick.

If we had a Congress with the gumption to enforce the right to declare war, this would not have happened.

The imperial Presidency is what the Constitution was designed to prevent. Cowards in Congress were not really accounted for by the Founders. Who could have guessed we'd be electing and re-electing traitorous thieves who don't care about their duty, their oath or our welfare.

We need the TEA Party.

 

[code1211]

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!

I teach concepts of evolution right alongside concepts of ID with PhD scientists sitting in my class who have no problem with that so far. So far nobody, and I mean nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible or that it is in any way in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you are the one who will finally show us the error in that.

Intelligent design demands proof that there is a designer.

Please produce that proof.

Fiction demands a willing suspension of disbelief. If your theory demands the same thing, this should define what you are putting forth.

 

[code1211]

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.

Evolution and biology explain what has gone before and predicts what is yet to occur.

ID explains what has come before.

Explaining what has come before though, does not always guarantee why it came before. There have been many myth type explanations of how things came to be. Accepting the limitations of science and making stuff up are two different things.

 

[code1211]

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.

This from an open mind?

 

[code1211]

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.

What is essential within a cell to form the elements needed to create a protein? Could these be created in a laboratory? If they can't, is this a reflection of the limitations of science or proof of a Creator?

 

[code1211]

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

I didn't say life on Earth. Life. It happens to be here. Who knows how many other worlds have had how many other chances to combine how many other bits of stuff to make life.

I think we're talking about trillions of trillions of trillions.

It's kind of like the debt in a second Obama Administraion.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Cammmpbell, I'm doing my damndest to ignore you and any others who want to make this into another anti-religious, anti-Christian thread and be insulting and snotty to believers. It's an interesting topic. Either join in the topic or please find something else to do.

Not once has anybody on this section of the board answered any of what I have posted. God people like one thing and one thing only....their ideas which were accumulated by their childhood brainwashing. Jesus loves me this I know...for the bible tells me so, Little ones to him belong...I am weak but he is strong. Horse Schit!!

As far as the ignoring...that's what you people do every day....ignore science and the facts which were long ago proven. 'Course the ignorant primitive folks who wrote the bible are your heroes so what else is new................

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

I don't have a side.

And unless you can quote me where i said the universe was finite then you again have no leg upon which to stand.

And no one knows with any degree of certainty if the big bang actually happened. For now it is just the most accepted working theory and has not been proven to be absolutely true.

herein lies the problem. We don't know where when or how the universe began. We struggle with our limited senses to understand our world and the universe but as of yet there are still more questions than answers.

We might be physically incapable of finding the answer just as a dog is physically incapable of speech or performing mathematical calculations. We might not have the sensory or intellectual capability to understand origin.

But you have said that the universe is infinite and therefore odds that apply to things in our solar system are meaningless. I am still hoping for your rationale for why the universe is infinite given that science places an age or origin for everything that we can determine that exists in it.

Science estimates an age of origin and has as yet to prove with any certainty the actual age of the universe.

I don't accept theory as fact.

There are many forces in the universe which we do not understand. Dark energy for one. Who knows what else we are missing from the equation?

As I said there are still many more questions than answers.

Infinite, virtually infinite; the distinction means little as we will never actually reach the boundary of the universe and even if we can detect it with observation and instruments we will at best be seeing what was millions or even billions of years ago and hence we cannot assume that anything we observe is still as we see it.

We do know that the universe is large beyond our ability to perceive it. We can guess that there are billions upon billions of stars and even more planets.

Those numbers surely allow for another earth like planet. We can't calculate the odds of that planet existing as we don't know how many planets actually exist in the universe.

There is an equally likely possibility of life forms that we cannot begin to imagine.

 

[code1211]

I don't have a side.

And unless you can quote me where i said the universe was finite then you again have no leg upon which to stand.

And no one knows with any degree of certainty if the big bang actually happened. For now it is just the most accepted working theory and has not been proven to be absolutely true.

herein lies the problem. We don't know where when or how the universe began. We struggle with our limited senses to understand our world and the universe but as of yet there are still more questions than answers.

We might be physically incapable of finding the answer just as a dog is physically incapable of speech or performing mathematical calculations. We might not have the sensory or intellectual capability to understand origin.

But you have said that the universe is infinite and therefore odds that apply to things in our solar system are meaningless. I am still hoping for your rationale for why the universe is infinite given that science places an age or origin for everything that we can determine that exists in it.

Science estimates an age of origin and has as yet to prove with any certainty the actual age of the universe.

I don't accept theory as fact.

There are many forces in the universe which we do not understand. Dark energy for one. Who knows what else we are missing from the equation?

As I said there are still many more questions than answers.

Infinite, virtually infinite; the distinction means little as we will never actually reach the boundary of the universe and even if we can detect it with observation and instruments we will at best be seeing what was millions or even billions of years ago and hence we cannot assume that anything we observe is still as we see it.

We do know that the universe is large beyond our ability to perceive it. We can guess that there are billions upon billions of stars and even more planets.

Those numbers surely allow for another earth like planet. We can't calculate the odds of that planet existing as we don't know how many planets actually exist in the universe.

There is an equally likely possibility of life forms that we cannot begin to imagine.

That whole eco system that lives in the black depths of the oceans with no light thriving in the exhaust vents of volcanoes is a good example of this.

Unerarthly is an apt word for this.

 

[Parsifal]

If there's anything at all which could be described as "Intelligent" in the bible it is overridden 10 times by "Rediculous Nonsense."

I disagree. To a fair extent my disagreement boils down to a question of taste so I'm not presenting this as an argument.

The folks that wrote the Bible were brilliant. Much of it (I hate to lump the OT and NT together) requires understanding of what was going on in the time and place that the Bible was written and a forgiving attitude (both of which I have).

The Bible is full of profound truths (overflowing with them in my opinion) but not a lot of literal truths.....The Bible is full of truths of a different sort......Timeless truth......Poetic truth.

Shortly after Jacob met Rachael (this is from memory and it's been awhile) he was in an arranged situation where he lived with Rachael, her sister Leah, and their servants (female).

The four women were described as "comely" and Jacob was, according to Genesis, having sex with all 4 of them.

After seven years of this Laban (Rachael's father) asked Jacob if he wanted to sign up for another seven years and he, of course, did.

That story rings true.....Have you ever known a guy (at least a heterosexual one) who wouldn't 're-up' under those circumstances?

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

I teach concepts of evolution right alongside concepts of ID with PhD scientists sitting in my class who have no problem with that so far. So far nobody, and I mean nobody, has come with any any logical rationale for why ID is not both rational and plausible or that it is in any way in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you are the one who will finally show us the error in that.

Intelligent design demands proof that there is a designer.

Please produce that proof.

Fiction demands a willing suspension of disbelief. If your theory demands the same thing, this should define what you are putting forth.

Sure. Just as you prove that nothing was created from nothing. Or if it is not true that nothing was created from nothing, please prove that. Or if you think there was stuff that existed in the universe prior to the big bang, please prove that.

Or if you saw your shadow this morning, would you please prove that you observed your shadow this morning?

Or perhaps we could agree that there are things that are observable, or that are reasonable to conclude, that do not require ability to prove them in order to rationally know that they exist.

And anyway, if we go with Spinoza's 'god', the same adopted by Einstein, the intelligence that both observed did not preclude a being but rather an intelligence that exists within the whole.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another term for it is genetic drift.

Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms for speciation.

Well microevolution and macroevolution are terms that came from evolutionist

I've studied genetics, molecular biology, evolution, and a whole lot of other stuff that dwells on evolution and I've never encountered the term except when used by creationists.

Where a fly becomes a non-fly or a horse becomes a non-horse

Horses and Zebras have common ancestors. They are different species with different ancestors.

They are from the same family and they are a kind,a group. They were created as they are and they will always be what they are. Genetic drift can create a change in traits but it's minimal.

As for macro and micro evolution.

Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History