Please Present The Best Explanation For Our Existence

[sdelsolray]

I do not ignore your explanations. I do not have an answer for the problem of abiogenesis. To presume God from that is the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

 

Well, but based on the fact that we KNOW that DNA contains codified information, and based on the fact that we KNOW that codified information comes ALWAYS from a mind, we can conclude logically, DNA was created by a mind.

 

 

Speak for yourself (and your hero Stephen Meyer). This is the essence of the Stephen Meyer snake oil.

 

Define "information" (let's see if you use Shannon or not).

 

Define "specified information".

 

Define "specified codified information".

 

Define "mind".

[bdp]

 

that you ignore my explanations, is your problem , not mine.

 

Refuting is not ignoring - learn the difference.

[bdp]

And now your fantasy gets you in trouble again. What is the objective evidence that some Christian is "a true born again Christian"? Demonstrate or else admit that you cannot.

 

I don't know, since only God knows each ones heart. But i know, that anyone, that belongs to the family of God, will never want to pull out.

 

Who ever said any of us WANTED to? You're one dense...guess I'll just leave it at that.

[agnosticator]

How did the biblegod create humans? Did the biblegod create humans with his magic voice? What about all the varieties of hominids? Did the biblegod create these fossils to test our faith? Please explain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution H. antecessor 1.2 – 0.8 Spain 1.75 m (5.7 ft) 90 kg (200 lb) 1,000 2 sites 1997 H. cepranensis 0.9 – 0.8 Italy 1,000 1 skull cap 1994/2003 H. erectus 1.8 – 0.2 Africa, Eurasia (Java, China, India, Caucasus) 1.8 m (5.9 ft) 60 kg (130 lb) 850 (early) – 1,100 (late) Many 1891/1892 H. ergaster 1.9 – 1.4 Eastern and Southern Africa 1.9 m (6.2 ft) 700–850 Many 1975 H. floresiensis 0.10 – 0.012 Indonesia 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 25 kg (55 lb) 400 7 individuals 2003/2004 H. gautengensis >2 – 0.6 South Africa 1.0 m (3.3 ft) 1 individual 2010/2010 H. georgicus 1.8 Georgia 600 4 individuals 1999/2002 H. habilis 2.3 – 1.4 Africa 1.0–1.5 m (3.3–4.9 ft) 33–55 kg (73–120 lb) 510–660 Many 1960/1964 H. heidelbergensis 0.6 – 0.35 Europe, Africa, China 1.8 m (5.9 ft) 60 kg (130 lb) 1,100–1,400 Many 1908 H. neanderthalensis 0.35 – 0.03 Europe, Western Asia 1.6 m (5.2 ft) 55–70 kg (120–150 lb) (heavily built) 1,200–1,900 Many (1829)/1864 H. rhodesiensis 0.3 – 0.12 Zambia 1,300 Very few 1921 H. rudolfensis 1.9 Kenya 1 skull 1972/1986 H. sapiens idaltu 0.16 – 0.15 Ethiopia 1,450 3 craniums 1997/2003 H. sapiens sapiens (modern humans

[Astreja]

you should tell that Dawkins, Crigg, and Watts...

I think they already know. It's "information" only in the sense that it creates a somewhat consistent result, and can be analyzed to obtain insights into heritable medical conditions. It is not proven to be "information" in the form of "secret message from a god."

How do you know its not design ?

Parsimony. It doesn't have to be a "design," and there is no evidence of a designer. It functions just fine without mythological woo-woo and hypothetical beings lurking in the background.

and what does the fact, that it is self replicating , to do with your assertion its not design ?

Self-replicating molecules are an excellent illustration of the fact that matter can and does aggregate into increasingly complex forms. A molecule of suitable structure can make copies of itself by attracting oxygen, hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen to the appropriate spots. It doesn't have to think about it; it just has to be located in a place where it can obtain suitable materials.

...baseless assertion {about the genetic structure of humans}.

I think your "Goddidit" hypothesis is a vastly more baseless assertion than My honest opinion about humans. I can imagine countless variations on life that don't look the least bit like Homo sapiens sapiens, and if I found Myself in an alien body tomorrow morning I'd just shrug and try to figure out how it worked.

and what is a men's beard for ? what survival function does it have ?

Not all genetic traits are directly related to survival, but may have some quasi-social function in attracting mates. Men with a propensity to grow thick, dark beards will tend to attract women who like thick, dark beards.

what does {the messiness of human physiology} that have to do with the fact, that DNA carries complex, specified, codified information, and the impossibility that to have arisen by chance?

<Inigo Montoya>You keep using that word "impossible." I do not think it means what you think it means.</Inigo Montoya>

 

Well, if the human body is an example of your god's purported "design", your god is either a complete screw-up or malevolent. Pick one.

oh, so you want to shift now from one issue to the other, and argue of bad design ?

It's all part of the same issue, BIG (and I happened to notice that you have no good answer to the "bad design" issue, either). The human body does appear to be something that evolved over millions of years, keeping not the best possible version of a component, but the "works well enough to keep the organism alive for one more generation" version. Surely a god could do better, which leads Me to think that no gods were involved.

[Vigile]

you are making unsupported claims not represented by the virtual unanimous scientific consensus on the subject?

 

 

Oh, do I ? Please let me know, what claim i made, which is not represented by the scientific consensus.

 

You claimed it in the same quote you just responded to dumbass.

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball and giving us phoney probabilities on its development too.

[skepticalme]

 

 

Did you know that 98% of the human genome doesn't code for protiens.

 

well, it has other functions, which we still do not 100% understand......but that does not eliminate the fact, that DNA contains codified information. And that evidences a intelligent creator.

 

What is your evidence that it has other functions, or is that a baseless assurtion.

 

Then you proceed to draw a conclusion off something you admit you don't understand. Even if that is true, and that is a BIG if, how do you know that creator is the christian god? What if it's Thor or Ra or Zeus or Allah or some other deity?

[skepticalme]

You deny the existence of Ex-Christians,

 

Yes, i do. Nobody, that has truly born again and sealed with the holy spirit, will renounce his faith.

 

I was. Church and Sunday school every sunday morning. Baptised when I was 14. There were a few occations where our pastor pointed to charity/volunteer work I had done and used them as examples of how a true christian lets the holy spirit work through them. I later served on one of the commitees that ran the church. In fact, if we had internet forums like this back then, I would probably have been doing the same thing you are trying to do here.

 

I was very happy when I was a christian. Unfortunately, none of it was true.

 

Nothing of all that evidences a true born again christian.

 

So its the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.^[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

[believeingod]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

People, who accept that our universe was designed and brought into existence by God, often point to the thousands of examples of structures and chemical processes within life forms, that seem to demand the operation of a designing mind. However, there are some scientists who have an atheistic agenda, who try to find examples of poor design. They seem to believe that discovery of a poor design will present powerful evidence against intelligent design.

 

One example often mentioned as evidence of a complex design that could not be the result of blind chance is the human eye. It is therefore not surprising that great efforts have been made to show that, in spite of its complexity, it nevertheless could have been designed much better.

 

The well known Atheist Richard Dawkins was one of the scientists to raise this argument. He claims that the vertebrate eye is functionally sub-optimal because the retina photoreceptors are oriented away from incoming light. I quote from his book ‘The blind watchmaker’. (1986).

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the

light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire (nerve) sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells ,has to pass through a forest of connective wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer).

 

Others have followed in the same argument against Intelligent Design.

 

However, these claims of poor design have been challenged by research since the year 2000. For instance, a study by Berman (2000) has shown that a major reason for the retina reversal is that it allows the rods and cones (light receptive cells) of the retina to interact with the retinal pigment epithelium cells that provide nutrients to the retina, recycle photo pigments, provide an opaque layer to absorb excessive light, and perform other functions. This design is superior to other systems, because it allows close association with the pigmented epithelium required to maintain the photoreceptors. It is also critical in both the development and normal function of the retina.

 

This example of the eye, has recently been further turned on its head by research from Israel’s internationally recognized Technicon-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa. Research by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak has shown that the surface of the retina has so-called Muller cells.

 

The research showed that these Muller cells not only compensate for the light sensitive receptors being ‘back to front’. Their function actually results in vision being better than it would have been if the light sensitive cells had been the so-called ‘right way round’.

 

The research suggests that sending light via the Muller cells offers several advantages. A 2010 report on these findings (McAlpine 2010), notes as follows, At least two types of light get inside theeye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and “noise” that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Muller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.

The researchers also found that light that had leaked out of one Muller cell was unlikely to be taken up by a neighbour, because the surrounding nerve cells help disperse it. What’s more, the intrinsic optical properties of Muller cells seemed to be tuned to visible light, leaking wavelengths outside and on the edges of the visible spectrum to a greater extent.

The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Just as light separates in a prism, the lenses in our eyes separate different colours, causing some frequencies to be out of focus at the retina. The simulations showed that Muller cells’ wide tops allow them to “collect” any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cells, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus.

“It suggests that light-coupling by Muller cells is a crucial event that contributes to vision as we know it, says Kristian Franze, a neurophysicist at the University of Cambridge…

 

In summary, the idea that our eyes are poorly designed has been given a ‘punch in the eye’. Human wisdom suggested it was a mistake to have the light sensitive cells facing backwards in the retina of our eyes. However, it turns out that this arrangement plus the Muller cells, actually results in better sight than if the retina had been put together as suggested by Richard Dawkins and others.

[believeingod]

What is your evidence that it has other functions, or is that a baseless assurtion.

 

http://creation.com/...-from-evolution

 

Dr John Mattick of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, has published a number of papers arguing that the non-coding DNA regions, or rather their non-coding RNA ‘negatives,’ are important for a complicated genetic network.10 These interact with each other, the DNA, mRNA, and the proteins. Mattick proposes that the introns function as nodes, linking points in a network. The introns provide many extra connections, to enable wEven if that is true, and that is a BIG if, how do you know that creator is the christian god?

 

 

 

What if it's Thor or Ra or Zeus or Allah or some other deity?hat in computer terminology would be called multi-tasking and parallel processing.

 

shifting the goalposts again.....that seems a useful practic here.....

[bdp]

 

.....that seems a useful practic here.....

 

what's a 'practic'? And you marvel that we don't all just genuflect immediately to your visibly superior intellect.

[Realist]

What if it's Thor or Ra or Zeus or Allah or some other deity?hat in computer terminology would be called multi-tasking and parallel processing.

 

shifting the goalposts again.....that seems a useful practic here.....

 

... no, just as I said earlier ... said with the "True" born again narrow mindedness and tunnel vision ... it is something you are not able to see because it is a major flaw in what you believe!

 

How to you think it happened to be the christian god you just happened to be trapped with? Any idea which society you live in? Do I need tell you?? Which was its mythology of choice? Get the drift? Nah, maybe not!

[Realist]

what's a 'practic'? And you marvel that we don't all just genuflect immediately to your visibly superior intellect.

 

... don't forget that self practised smug superior interlect bdp is also another one of the "TRUE" signs of a born again christian!

[Vigile]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

Cool, you can cut and paste from pseudo science sites. You're mom is probably proud of your accomplishments. Me, not so much. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

[believeingod]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

Cool, you can cut and paste from pseudo science sites. You're mom is probably proud of your accomplishments. Me, not so much. http://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB301.html

 

yes, i have a proud mummy.....

 

 

http://creationwiki.org/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved_(Talk.Origins)

[Ouroboros]

Pixies. The world can't be explained unless pixies are real. Don't deny it. It's obvious.

[Vigile]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

Cool, you can cut and paste from pseudo science sites. You're mom is probably proud of your accomplishments. Me, not so much. http://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB301.html

 

yes, i have a proud mummy.....

 

 

http://creationwiki...._(Talk.Origins)

 

I won't go down any rabbit trails with you, but since this is so lost on you, TO represents the scientific consensus view. Posting a dispute of that view without strong, peer reviewed evidence is nothing more than hand waving.

 

Do you believe the majority of scientists are in on a vast conspiracy BIG?

[Vigile]

Pixies. The world can't be explained unless pixies are real. Don't deny it. It's obvious.

 

Clearly they waved their wands and placed fully-formed DNA in the ancestors ancestors of amoeba, which held the life code to us all. Damn them pixies to hell for their sloppy work:

 

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1525&bih=645&q=genetic+disorders+in+babies&gbv=2&oq=gentic+diso&aq=1s&aqi=g-s9g-ms1&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=2147l5941l0l8866l13l13l1l0l0l0l237l2030l0.8.4l12l0#hl=en&safe=off&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=genetic+disorders+&pbx=1&oq=genetic+disorders+&aq=f&aqi=g6g-m1g-S3&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=4708l4979l0l5954l2l2l0l0l0l1l447l597l0.1.4-1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=220c4967a5ece6ed&biw=1525&bih=645

[skepticalme]

What is your evidence that it has other functions, or is that a baseless assurtion.

 

http://creation.com/...-from-evolution

 

Dr John Mattick of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, has published a number of papers arguing that the non-coding DNA regions, or rather their non-coding RNA ‘negatives,’ are important for a complicated genetic network.10 These interact with each other, the DNA, mRNA, and the proteins. Mattick proposes that the introns function as nodes, linking points in a network. The introns provide many extra connections, to enable wEven if that is true, and that is a BIG if, how do you know that creator is the christian god?

 

I actually read that garbage you call a source and found no evidence, just more baseless assertions. Why would introns be needed to turn genes on and off, that is already done with start and stop codons. When we do gene therapy we don't use introns to express genes. In fact, scientist created the first synthetic genome for a bacterium not long ago and that genome was a tiny fraction of the size of the organisms original genome. They did so by not including introns and the bacteria survived just fine. Clearly the introns were not needed to express those genes.

 

 

 

What if it's Thor or Ra or Zeus or Allah or some other deity?hat in computer terminology would be called multi-tasking and parallel processing.

 

shifting the goalposts again.....that seems a useful practic here.....

 

Moving the goalpost? Somehow you shifted from arguing Christianity to arguing general theism. Sounds like YOU moved the goal post and I just put them back where they were originally.

[skepticalme]

 

 

Did you know that 98% of the human genome doesn't code for protiens.

 

well, it has other functions, which we still do not 100% understand......but that does not eliminate the fact, that DNA contains codified information. And that evidences a intelligent creator.

 

I find it ironic and hypocritcal that, in a thread you started asking atheist to explain everything, you present this argument. On matters of the big bang and biogenisis science doesn't have 100% understanding of those, they are still areas of ongoing research. But you reject that argument then turn around and make it yourself. The fact that we don't fully understand doesn't eliminate natural explainations.

[believeingod]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

Cool, you can cut and paste from pseudo science sites. You're mom is probably proud of your accomplishments. Me, not so much. http://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB301.html

 

yes, i have a proud mummy.....

 

 

http://creationwiki...._(Talk.Origins)

 

I won't go down any rabbit trails with you, but since this is so lost on you, TO represents the scientific consensus view. Posting a dispute of that view without strong, peer reviewed evidence is nothing more than hand waving.

 

Do you believe the majority of scientists are in on a vast conspiracy BIG?

 

there is no conspiracy, but your ad populum fallacy is evident.

[believeingod]

I find it ironic and hypocritcal that, in a thread you started asking atheist to explain everything, you present this argument.

 

Well, that is how it usually goes. Atheists have nothing to present, have no reasonable standpoint and explanation at all for their position, and play the game as long, as the questioner is forced to give a answer of his view of things. Then it becomes easy for the atheist to go the usual railoroad downwards, to start to attack the posititon of the asker.....Chance, and a eternal universe, is still a irrational position......

[bornnormal]

 

 

Next you'll be talking about the complexities of the eyeball.

 

sure, why not.

 

http://www.factandfaith.co.za/

 

 

Cool, you can cut and paste from pseudo science sites. You're mom is probably proud of your accomplishments. Me, not so much. http://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB301.html

 

yes, i have a proud mummy.....

 

 

http://creationwiki...._(Talk.Origins)

 

 

Hi there! (1st post, deconversion story -or sort of- coming soon...)

 

I read the creationwiki "rebuttal" of the talkorigins article.

As an engineer I have a vague understanding of natural sciences, so I dare to ask the question: WTF thermodynamics has to do with the evolution of the eye?

 

Go ahead, don't be shy and bring the newtonian laws into the discussion as well. Never mind that they don't make any sense!

 

Nice to be here, greets from Budapest!

[Vigile]

there is no conspiracy, but your ad populum fallacy is evident.

 

Scientific consensus is ad populum?

 

Your logical troubles run deep my friend. It may be curable, but it's going to be painful and require major mental surgery.

 

http://rationalwiki....ntum_ad_populum

Scientific Consensus

 

So, what's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X. Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences.

• Firstly scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter.
  
• Secondly scientific consensus is built upon a logical foundation, the scientific method, rather than dogma or that which is taught in Sunday school. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers.
  

[agnosticator]

Hi there! (1st post, deconversion story -or sort of- coming soon...)

 

Hi and welcome bornnormal! Feel free to share a piece of your gray matter with us. By the way, your avatar is hilarious!