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
09-06-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 05:07 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 02:30 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  How so? Please explain details how that process works following natural selection.

We'll start slow since that appears to be all that you can take
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

(09-06-2016 02:33 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  I always been a fan of science as well. I hold a degree in a field of applied science.

"a field of applied science"?
Laugh out load

Quote:In science, He is everywhere.

Only when viewed with presuppositions and a willingness to ignore and distort evidence.

Ah yes, the age old tactic of throwing sand in the eyes. Can't argue solid facts or answer simple questions so try insults and the like; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem .

I agree there is some limited evolution, change over time, and mutation as part of the implementation of the design. However, there is no evidence that life starts like a tree from a simple cell and then evolves all the way up to a human. Rather, there was an explosion of life around 500 million years ago of all sorts of different species which, in geological time ranges, happened extremely quickly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 06:37 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 05:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 02:38 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Many of those items you listed as design deficiencies or inefficiencies could simply be design trade-offs. For instance, the human eye is lacking in some aspects so that it may be optimized in others. Design trade-off is typical in all system design.

Again, there are only two options, design or random. That's it. Does DNA to cell operation process appear random or designed? Choose one or the other which appears most likely to you and give a true well thought honest response.

Almost everything is a trade-off, in biology. In the case of the spine, for instance, the trade off was that a quadruped ancestor needed to be able to support its weight vertically, so we eventually developed the double-curved spine, with its inherent disc problems. It was not "made from scratch" to be a biped's spine. This is evidence against the hypothesis of a Designer.

And you are wrong about there being only two options. You're employing a logical fallacy called the "false dichotomy". Many things in nature are "designed" by a lack of intelligence-- the streamlining of rocks that are at the bottom of a riverbed. Yes, they're all different from normal rocks, and they're all of similar shape... but we know the forces that "design" them that way are not magical.

As for the DNA element, it does not appear to me in the least bit to be designed, in the manner you indicate/imply. It is full of visible errors and deletions, such as the pseudogene for ascorbic acid, resulting in Hypoascorbemia, an inability to produce Vitamin C naturally, which results from a small deletion even though the rest of the gene is there, as it is--but intact--in other mammals with the exception of the Great Apes, including us, for instance.

Again, there are design trade-offs to optimize design in some areas and weaken in other areas. Also, living systems were designed to degrade over time and die, which is explained in theological texts. Even life spans of living systems have upper age limits apparently built into their genetic code.

I was speaking of DNA and the operation of living systems when I stated there are two options; either design or random. That truly is it. Are these DNA systems designed or random? These systems are so obviously and clearly designed, it amazes me that I even have to have these discussions, sometimes with very intelligent people. Often seems to be an agenda here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 06:01 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Order becoming more orderly that is (which in a sense flies in the face of thermodynamics).

So you don't understand thermodynamics either.

Quote:Natural selection never explained origins.

Natural selection doesn't address abiogenesis but it isn't intended to. It addresses how existent life evolves.

Quote:Even Darwin said if life is more complex than a glob of plasm, which is all they could see of a cell microscopically at the time in the mid-18th century, then his theory would fall apart.

Even if he did say that, we've come a long way since Darwin.

Quote:Around 100 years later, in 1953, DNA was discovered and years and decades following breakthroughs in the understanding of this immense genetic information were made.

Which means that the fact that Darwin didn't know about DNA and couldn't imagine it is irrelevant. He did not develop a complete theory of evolution, he provided a solid framework on which much has been built as scientists learned more of the details.

Quote:DNA is specified and complex beyond imagination.

What exactly is being specified and by whom? That seems to be nothing more than a buzzword thrown about by creationists that doesn't really mean anything.

Also, you apparently have a poor imagination.

Entropy is a measure of disorder, in a sense, and nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system. Also, living systems often mutate to improve themselves, thus, using information to make improvements to the system.

That's right, natural selection never explained origins. Scientists will never find naturalistic explanations for origins since it is so crystal clear that living systems are designed.

We have come a very very long way since Darwin, you are right there, and now see that the encoding for living cells is so extraordinarily complex, it boggles the mind.

The complex 4-digit DNA code is specified which give specific instructions to build highly complex living systems.

By the way, the systems and processes I described earlier were for building proteins for one cell. There are an estimated 37.2 trillion cells in the human body!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 06:58 PM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2016 07:03 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:37 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Again, there are design trade-offs to optimize design in some areas and weaken in other areas. Also, living systems were designed to degrade over time and die, which is explained in theological texts. Even life spans of living systems have upper age limits apparently built into their genetic code.

I was speaking of DNA and the operation of living systems when I stated there are two options; either design or random. That truly is it. Are these DNA systems designed or random? These systems are so obviously and clearly designed, it amazes me that I even have to have these discussions, sometimes with very intelligent people. Often seems to be an agenda here.

This is how I can tell you're not a scientist, nor have you ever worked in science. You're projecting a *MASSIVE* presupposition onto your evaluation of the evidence, and leaping to a conclusion that is in no way supported by any of the evidence, while skipping over the steps it would take for you to make such a conclusion logically/reasonably. It does not matter if it is "obviously and clearly designed" to your eye, it matters if you can demonstrate by some means other than saying, "Well, gosh, it sure looks complicated!!" that the systems are not the products of natural forces at work.

So it's not "either design or random", because Natural Selection is not random, and neither are any of the other forces which act upon the chemicals that make up our DNA. You have created a false dichotomy, and I'm a little offended that you continue to assert that dichotomy as if you can make it true through repetition.

What you mean to say here is "it is either natural or it is magical", because you're trying to argue that a design-shape equals a Designer (capital letter). I've tried to show you with an easy example, in the rocks at the stream bed, why things which may appear to be designed are simply the result of natural phenomena. Snowflakes are my personal favorite example.

The fact that you quote Darwin as if any scientist alive today bases his ideas on what Darwin wrote (with the exception of the parts about Natural Selection he discovered, which turned out to be demonstrated time and again, and which is why even you Creationists can't deny "micro" evolution), and that you attempt to insult my intelligence because I don't agree with your magical fairydust ideas, shows me that you're yet another dishonest Creationist here to provide quote-mined and badly plagiarized ideas to try to show me something that any real biologist would laugh out of the room. [Edit to Add: Your mis-characterization of the Cambrian Explosion trope also shows us that you are not educated in science, and are taking your guidance from Creationist websites. You should brush up a bit on what we now know about the era you're describing... I'll give you a hint: "explosion" is the wrong word, and we now know not only how it happened but that the rate at which it happened is well within the expectations for rates of evolutionary change.]

If you think it's just some "agenda" on the part of atheists, then you're going to first have to explain to me why so many Christians (and members of many other faiths) are evolutionary biologists, and not just atheists. You can start with Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, two of the top men in the field, the latter of whom is not only an evangelical Christian but former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institutes of Health, since both of them wholly dismiss Intelligent Design and accept evolution in its entirety, including common ancestry.

[Image: 41x3Izj17zL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
09-06-2016, 07:01 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:26 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Ah yes, the age old tactic of throwing sand in the eyes. Can't argue solid facts or answer simple questions so try insults and the like; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem .

Wait, did the man who just tried to imply that our intelligence was in question because we can't see the "obvious" evidence for a Creator just try to turn around and complain because someone questioned his scientific credentials!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Laugh out load

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
09-06-2016, 07:02 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 04:18 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  And since you're the "expert" on this alleged god's intent, people are just dying to know, when god is continually modifying viruses and bacteria to get around vaccinations that we create, what exactly is his intent?

People are literally dying to know!

[Image: resized_jesus-says-meme-generator-there-...c8d40c.jpg]

We were speaking science but I don't mind delving into theology.

DNA proves the design of living systems and the extreme fine-tuning of the universe proves the design of the universe.

Science reaches a plateau at this point and it becomes necessary to step into theology to search for answers. There is only one source which prophesizes (foretells) thousands of years of this world's history, with astounding precision, written in an encoded symbolic language; and that source is the Bible.

According to this Source, it is sin and disobedience which caused the fall of man. Death is the punishment for sin.

We should focus back on the science though. I have seen this side tracking tactic used many times during debate of this topic. Can't argue the facts so try to divert to attacking the creation or Creator.

Bullshit! You didn't answer the question. What is the intent for continuously modifying viruses to thwart vaccines we develop? I really want to know.

What was this god thinking when he decided to modify the flu virus last year so it would kill more people?

This is a system in need of constant support from god to maintain.

This has been going on for before man existed, what is the intent god guru? Let is in on the mystical molecule mover's motivation.

You haven't presented any facts, you've just made wild assertions with zero evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
09-06-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  According to this Source, it is sin and disobedience which caused the fall of man. Death is the punishment for sin.

Oh, I though it was gaaawd, that modified these viruses, so now your saying it was sin and disobedience?

Is it gaawd or sin modifying viruses?

You're pretty confused, is god not as powerful as this force of "sin and disobedience"?

Sin and disobedience took over and your poor wittle gaawd can't stop it. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

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
09-06-2016, 07:19 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:58 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 06:37 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Again, there are design trade-offs to optimize design in some areas and weaken in other areas. Also, living systems were designed to degrade over time and die, which is explained in theological texts. Even life spans of living systems have upper age limits apparently built into their genetic code.

I was speaking of DNA and the operation of living systems when I stated there are two options; either design or random. That truly is it. Are these DNA systems designed or random? These systems are so obviously and clearly designed, it amazes me that I even have to have these discussions, sometimes with very intelligent people. Often seems to be an agenda here.

This is how I can tell you're not a scientist, nor have you ever worked in science. You're projecting a *MASSIVE* presupposition onto your evaluation of the evidence, and leaping to a conclusion that is in no way supported by any of the evidence, while skipping over the steps it would take for you to make such a conclusion logically/reasonably. It does not matter if it is "obviously and clearly designed" to your eye, it matters if you can demonstrate by some means other than saying, "Well, gosh, it sure looks complicated!!" that the systems are not the products of natural forces at work.

So it's not "either design or random", because Natural Selection is not random, and neither are any of the other forces which act upon the chemicals that make up our DNA. You have created a false dichotomy, and I'm a little offended that you continue to assert that dichotomy as if you can make it true through repetition.

What you mean to say here is "it is either natural or it is magical", because you're trying to argue that a design-shape equals a Designer (capital letter). I've tried to show you with an easy example, in the rocks at the stream bed, why things which may appear to be designed are simply the result of natural phenomena. Snowflakes are my personal favorite example.

The fact that you quote Darwin as if any scientist alive today bases his ideas on what Darwin wrote (with the exception of the parts about Natural Selection he discovered, which turned out to be demonstrated time and again, and which is why even you Creationists can't deny "micro" evolution), and that you attempt to insult my intelligence because I don't agree with your magical fairydust ideas, shows me that you're yet another dishonest Creationist here to provide quote-mined and badly plagiarized ideas to try to show me something that any real biologist would laugh out of the room. [Edit to Add: Your mis-characterization of the Cambrian Explosion trope also shows us that you are not educated in science, and are taking your guidance from Creationist websites. You should brush up a bit on what we now know about the era you're describing... I'll give you a hint: "explosion" is the wrong word, and we now know not only how it happened but that the rate at which it happened is well within the expectations for rates of evolutionary change.]

If you think it's just some "agenda" on the part of atheists, then you're going to first have to explain to me why so many Christians (and members of many other faiths) are evolutionary biologists, and not just atheists. You can start with Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, two of the top men in the field, the latter of whom is not only an evangelical Christian but former head of the Human Genome Project and current head of the National Institutes of Health, since both of them wholly dismiss Intelligent Design and accept evolution in its entirety, including common ancestry.

[Image: 41x3Izj17zL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg]

Random/natural, tomato/tomahto.

DNA code is located in a protein molecule but it takes DNA to create a protein. Which came first, the DNA code or the protein molecule?

Dr. Dean Kenyon wrote the theory on Biochemical Predestination, an evolutionary theory. This theory became widely popular in academia and science. However, years later, after many breakthroughs were made in the understanding of DNA and creation of proteins, Dr. Kenyon had to throw his own popular theory out the window in favor for design. He found his own popular theory impossible. Experiments showed amino acids cannot order themselves into a biological meaningful sequence.

I have a question for you, where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 07:23 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 06:37 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  Again, there are design trade-offs to optimize design in some areas and weaken in other areas. Also, living systems were designed to degrade over time and die, which is explained in theological texts. Even life spans of living systems have upper age limits apparently built into their genetic code.

Bullshit!

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


Did you get that sparky? Bi-bull says women were fucking with "Sons of God" so gaawd limited our lifespans.

You don't even know your own book.

Oh, BTW, when did elephants (who live about the same age as humans) or turtles (who live longer than humans) fuck with "Sons of God" and have their life spans limited?

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
09-06-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: Belief vs Facts in the programed religious mind.
(09-06-2016 07:02 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(09-06-2016 06:18 PM)CDF47 Wrote:  We were speaking science but I don't mind delving into theology.

DNA proves the design of living systems and the extreme fine-tuning of the universe proves the design of the universe.

Science reaches a plateau at this point and it becomes necessary to step into theology to search for answers. There is only one source which prophesizes (foretells) thousands of years of this world's history, with astounding precision, written in an encoded symbolic language; and that source is the Bible.

According to this Source, it is sin and disobedience which caused the fall of man. Death is the punishment for sin.

We should focus back on the science though. I have seen this side tracking tactic used many times during debate of this topic. Can't argue the facts so try to divert to attacking the creation or Creator.

Bullshit! You didn't answer the question. What is the intent for continuously modifying viruses to thwart vaccines we develop? I really want to know.

What was this god thinking when he decided to modify the flu virus last year so it would kill more people?

This is a system in need of constant support from god to maintain.

This has been going on for before man existed, what is the intent god guru? Let is in on the mystical molecule mover's motivation.

You haven't presented any facts, you've just made wild assertions with zero evidence.

No one has answered a single question of mine in here.

Where do the information bearing properties of DNA come from?

Also, go step-by-step explaining origins of DNA code all the way to the process of the final operation of the machine created and explain how this happened randomly or naturally. Explain each system, each sequence of operation, each program, the communication protocol in general, the operations of the machines, the hand and glove fit of assembled components, the assembly of components, the transport mechanisms, the forming of the parts, the precise arrangement of amino acids to serve their end function,.................

I asked the first questions which were all avoided. After those are answered or attempted to be answered, then I will inform you about my theological beliefs, which I already began explaining.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: