Poll: How do we get them to see the truth?
This poll is closed.
Peacefull reasoning 69.23% 9 69.23%
Full attack of facts 30.77% 4 30.77%
Total 13 votes 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2016, 03:44 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(17-06-2016 05:21 AM)Einharjar Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 10:29 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I've read more science books than you care to imagine. Provide references for your replicating molecules.

Read this please...

If you've actually read as much as you say you have, you'll realize how molecular constructs can even self animate, just because of the laws of physics - much like building some basic magnetically powered lego contraption.
All life needed to start itself was self replicating molecules. Hell, even your cells use replicated, self animated molecules called motor molecules like Myosin, complex protein molecules that are literally animated machines.
Molecular Machines

That is what makes up life.

The process which leads to the complex molecules we know today in living organisms is evolution.
The rules of evolution even effect molecular biology - such as DNA, RNA and those complex motor proteins that are the back bone of our cell's internal factory workforce.

I read much of that before or similar. First life is not explained. Inanimate to animate is not explained.

Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

Another longer video is below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:39 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  You have way way too much faith that a random process can create a 4-digit code which can program manufacturing plants to place specific parts in specific order based on the code which is then transported and formed and installed in a machine as a part of a larger assembly which then is programmed to start it's function after all construction is complete. This is only example of this system. Also, if one of these parts of the machine fails, the machine either does not operate or is degraded in function.

Natural selection is not random. It is an algorithm that takes random input and sifts and sorts it.
The process did not come into existence all at once, but by stages.
Your ignorance of the process and incredulity are not an argument.

Quote:There are spell checker type enzymes searching and correcting errors in the code, there is copying and transporting of the code. DNA has nested coding. DNA has a files within folders hierarchical structure. A senior software engineer with Microsoft once said DNA follows design strategies similar to those used by their software programmers but one far more advanced than they have been able to devise.

The process did not come into existence all at once, but by stages. It evolved.
Your incredulity is not an argument.

Quote:The specific genetic instructions to build a protein in even the simplest one celled organism would fill hundreds of pages of printed text.

So? It is chemistry, not text.

Quote:Approximately 3 percent of DNA encodes protein sequences and the other 97 percent is noncoding DNA. Noncoding DNA transcribes into functional non-coding RNA molecules (like transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulator RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centormeters and telomeres. This is no longer referred to as "junk DNA." That was an old term. The noncoding DNA is more like the operating system.

DNA has several functions, encoding proteins is one. There is still much DNA that does nothing - e.g. mutated copies of genes. The evidence for random mutation is compelling.

Quote:Watch the 3 minute and 34 second video below on how DNA works if you are interested (there is a real good and easy to understand computer generated model showing how DNA works in this short video):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

"Where does the information come from?" is an ingenuously phrased question.
But the answer is natural selection.

Quote:There is also the fine tuning of the entire universe.

No, there isn't. This has been repeatedly explained to you.

Quote:There are approximately 20 constants of the universe which are fine-tuned;

No, there aren't. This is presupposition. How do you know they are changeable? You don't.

Quote:such that, if these mathematical figures were off by the most smallest fraction of a percent, life as we know it would not exist.

So? If things were different, they would be different.

Quote:The most finely tuned figure is the cosmological constant (energy density of the vacuum of space) which is fine tuned to an order of magnitude of 1:10^120. If that figure was off by that small a value, there would be no life. To give you an idea of the size of that number, there are approximately 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe and there have been 10^16 seconds since the creation of the universe in the Big Bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago. By the way, back to DNA, the probability of building a short functional protein from amino acids is 1 X 10^164. Just amazing!

Your incredulity is not an argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
20-06-2016, 03:52 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
And apparently you have a poor grasp of statistics, as well. I'll let our mathematicians tear you a new one, on that "probability" of life BS.

I have a question for you-- we've made it clear to you that several of us have degrees in this field. I have a biochem degree, and TheOrganicChemist has advanced degrees in this field, as does Bearded. We also have guys trained in physics and mathematics... all right here on this thread.

Why do you presume to lecture us about how DNA works, as if we don't know?

Are you capable of even considering the possibility that it is you whose understanding of biology is elementary enough to be manipulated by others who have a pro-religion agenda to push? Because there are many Christians who are top-level evolutionary biologists... I know of no one on your side who isn't religious. Just sayin'.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
20-06-2016, 03:54 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(17-06-2016 06:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 10:29 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I've read more science books than you care to imagine.

On evolution? If so, you didn't understand them.

Quote:Provide references for your replicating molecules.

Replicators

And more replicators

The first replicators remain unexplained, even in these articles. The transition to DNA and proteins remains unexplained. The development of genetic code remains unexplained.

Design is the explanation of the sophisticated, specified, and complex "code." Design is the explanation of the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Design is the explanation of the fine-tuned universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(18-06-2016 05:55 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So the assertion of goddidit in regards to molecular evolution can be compared to the scientific answer of natural evolution without a deity guiding it.

So when a virus mutates to circumvent vaccines we develop, here are the competing explanations:

Goddidit: Sin entered the world after Adam ate an apple causing god to lose control of his creation at the molecular level.

Natural evolution: Organisms adapt to survive, this process shows up down to the molecular level of viruses.

One tries to ram an entire mythological construct into the explanation and it's easy to see the flaws in the mythological construct.

We have evidence of disease, suffering, death, etc. in dinosaur fossils, there's an entire field of science dedicated to this field of research - Paleopathology

This falsifies the mythological explanation.

We can also extend this to larger organisms, what would you expect to see if the goddidit assertion was the correct one for larger organisms?

Probably a clear evolutionary direction towards the culmination of humans, if an ID universe is true, we really shouldn't see any evolutionary changes in other animals, god would only be tinkering with humans.
A tinkering that is necessary because god can't get it right the first time and doesn't know the results until he tinkers with his creation. Seriously? Laugh out load

What would we expect to see if a natural process; with no guidance from a deity, is true?

A hallmark of such a process would be evolution that has no direction. Do we see examples of evolution that just meanders with no purpose? Of course! Every species that has gone extinct!

We can even get more specific, the evolution of the whale:

[Image: whale_evo.jpg]

The whale came from a land animal, which came from an earlier animal that lived in the ocean.

The evolution of whales


This is clear evidence of a meandering process that has no designer conferring his purpose upon his creation.

If you have to contrive a mythological Rube Goldberg explanation to explain whale evolution, that should be a red flag that that explanation is implausible and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Some micro-evolution, mutations and some change over time, is clearly part of the implementation of the design of living systems, I agree with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 04:04 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:42 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(20-06-2016 03:22 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I understand evolution, it is not that complicated in the basic sense. My point is, natural selection acting on random variations among chemicals to produce the first life is not possible.

Natural selection also cannot explain the 65 billion miles long string of "information" (if uncompressed) which exist inside the human body and which programs specified and complex systems to be manufactured and operated. There is only one explanation for that and that is a Designer.

No. No, no, no. Natural Selection does not have anything to do with "the first life", except after it was formed and began to reproduce. Natural Selection only works on things that reproduce. It is literally only possible when you have a "gene pool"... as the things (DNA in most modern cases) reproduce, there are variations among them, and some of those variants will survive and reproduce more efficiently/frequently than others, based on factors in their environment (and a few other basic factors). That is what Natural Selection means, and nothing else. So, yet again, you have mis-stated what a major principle of biology means.

You keep using the phrase, "cannot explain". How can you possibly know that, if A) we humans haven't stopped learning everything about the natural world, and B) you have made it clear that you don't even have a strong grasp of basic biology?

Just repeating it over and over again, like some sort of mantra, does not make it more true. Seriously, what is wrong with you?!

Exactly, natural selection and evolution cannot explain origins. That was my point. Nothing more, nothing less. I know what evolution and natural selection are.

Cells forming and beginning to reproduce is a giant leap with no explanation in your argument above.

Again, explain how the genetic code came about and the systems and processes operating in living cells, in a natural sense. Explain how the "information" came about naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 04:15 PM (This post was last modified: 20-06-2016 04:21 PM by CDF47.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:52 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  And apparently you have a poor grasp of statistics, as well. I'll let our mathematicians tear you a new one, on that "probability" of life BS.

I have a question for you-- we've made it clear to you that several of us have degrees in this field. I have a biochem degree, and TheOrganicChemist has advanced degrees in this field, as does Bearded. We also have guys trained in physics and mathematics... all right here on this thread.

Why do you presume to lecture us about how DNA works, as if we don't know?

Are you capable of even considering the possibility that it is you whose understanding of biology is elementary enough to be manipulated by others who have a pro-religion agenda to push? Because there are many Christians who are top-level evolutionary biologists... I know of no one on your side who isn't religious. Just sayin'.

There was once a consensus in science that the world was flat (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

There was once a consensus in science that the sun revolved around the earth (which included the greatest minds of the time). They were all wrong.

Are you capable of even considering the possibility that there are extremely specified and complex systems, which are also irreducibly complex, that are built and programmed to operate by an incredibly sophisticated 4-digit "code" which clearly bears the hallmarks of design?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 04:35 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:58 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(18-06-2016 05:55 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So the assertion of goddidit in regards to molecular evolution can be compared to the scientific answer of natural evolution without a deity guiding it.

So when a virus mutates to circumvent vaccines we develop, here are the competing explanations:

Goddidit: Sin entered the world after Adam ate an apple causing god to lose control of his creation at the molecular level.

Natural evolution: Organisms adapt to survive, this process shows up down to the molecular level of viruses.

One tries to ram an entire mythological construct into the explanation and it's easy to see the flaws in the mythological construct.

We have evidence of disease, suffering, death, etc. in dinosaur fossils, there's an entire field of science dedicated to this field of research - Paleopathology

This falsifies the mythological explanation.

We can also extend this to larger organisms, what would you expect to see if the goddidit assertion was the correct one for larger organisms?

Probably a clear evolutionary direction towards the culmination of humans, if an ID universe is true, we really shouldn't see any evolutionary changes in other animals, god would only be tinkering with humans.
A tinkering that is necessary because god can't get it right the first time and doesn't know the results until he tinkers with his creation. Seriously? Laugh out load

What would we expect to see if a natural process; with no guidance from a deity, is true?

A hallmark of such a process would be evolution that has no direction. Do we see examples of evolution that just meanders with no purpose? Of course! Every species that has gone extinct!

We can even get more specific, the evolution of the whale:

[Image: whale_evo.jpg]

The whale came from a land animal, which came from an earlier animal that lived in the ocean.

The evolution of whales


This is clear evidence of a meandering process that has no designer conferring his purpose upon his creation.

If you have to contrive a mythological Rube Goldberg explanation to explain whale evolution, that should be a red flag that that explanation is implausible and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Some micro-evolution, mutations and some change over time, is clearly part of the implementation of the design of living systems, I agree with that.

Define the difference between micro and macro evolution. For you even to make that distinction belies your ignorance.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 04:52 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:58 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Some micro-evolution, mutations and some change over time, is clearly part of the implementation of the design of living systems, I agree with that.

What mechanism prevents micro changes from accumulating into macro changes?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(20-06-2016 03:54 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(17-06-2016 06:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  On evolution? If so, you didn't understand them.


Replicators

And more replicators

The first replicators remain unexplained, even in these articles. The transition to DNA and proteins remains unexplained. The development of genetic code remains unexplained.

You didn't understand the explanation.

Quote:Design is the explanation of the sophisticated, specified, and complex "code."

It is only one explanation, and not a likely one.

Quote:Design is the explanation of the irreducible complexity of molecular machines.

It is only one explanation, and not a likely one.

Quote:Design is the explanation of the fine-tuned universe.

The universe is not fine-tuned. This has been repeatedly explained to you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: