Alpha, you make a good point. All people worship something - which means that all people submit to something. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Do you submit and worship to that which is true. The good news of Christianity is that it is true and testable. If you would like further explanation, please feel free to ask :)
My previous reply to your comment was this: "Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information" ID = Creationism = Religion.
@rkyeun im familiar with this example, but read that it was the result of a loss of a nucleotide and cant find anything to the contrary. could you link plz?
Worship is simply ascribing ultimate worth to something, whether that be a religious figure, ourselves, or w/e. Given the limited space we have here, would you prefer to email or facebook message about this? I feel like that will allow for a more comprehensive and in depth discussion.
So things like finch beak variation, is this more of an adaptation, and not so much micro evolution? I am not being a smarty pants. I am a believer and would love to hear some input on this. I have always thought of it as adaptation, but i have heard many Christians state it is micro evolution.
@Galmozzi99 I looked this up and ended up on a quote mining page.Seems like creationists tend to misquote Gould often,40% of the quote mining,was about punctuated equilibrium. Gal could you point me to the original article you got this from?
Let's not stereo type each other. Let's be respectful. It is a fact that a lot of reputable scientists (I have a good friend who is a PhD from MIT, does cutting edge research at Los Alamos national laboratories and is the current manager for nuclear research for NASA i.e. one of the most brilliant minds on the planet) who says that evolution is a highly questionable theory based on the most current research. Call me names if you like but he gives some compelling reasons to question the theory.
As a former atheist (converted when I was 40) I can categorically say that Paul Martin got it right. Hit the nail right on the head, there, Paul. Good on ya.
"Nothingness can never be more than nothingness. If in fact, something does exist, something has always existed. To assume that evolution is a science, is betraying science." I agree with you that Evolution is not science, but you've got to admit that you left quite a logical ravine there, don't you think? There should have been possibly a couple of paragraphs before that last sentence.
Because of the solution to Einstein's relativity equations, there was a point when all the universe was at infinite density. Infinite density means zero volume. Question: How much material can you fit in zero volume?
@5tonyww The clincher is that similar animals have similar non-functioning DNA, including ERVs, that either weren't in by a designer, or were put in by a designer who purposefully tried to make his work look like evolution.
Evidence for Macro-evolution? 1. Nested Hierarchy of Genetic and Protein sequences across species as predicted by common decent. 2. ERV's 3. Pseudogenes 4. Fossil Record (Tiktalki any one?) 5. Geographic Distribution of animals 6. Beneficial mutations as shown in the lab and nature. I am glad to accept ID, if there is supporting evidence. Perhaps, evidence and research for ID will be discussed in the subsequent parts of this interview?
@gregrutz Remember, the universe doesn't operate on your personal time scale. You are in tune with it, harmonizing with it for your survival. That being said, be careful what you wish for. Eye opening experiences can also be devastating to one's current situation.
If you missed the religious claim, then maybe it's you that did not read the book. "Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information." Intelligent Design = Creationism = Religion.
I disagree what RC Sproul says here about needing proof for faith. Faith is the trust in what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. We don’t see to believe but we rather haven’t seen and believe. That’s is faith.
@5tonyww As a painter, you learn from each experience. Thus each painting in sequence reflects an increase in your skill level and confidence. They may be entirely different subjects, but each reflects that increase in a unique way, perhaps technique ,perhaps material choce, perhaps more involved perspective, etc. Thus each painting is actually related to your first, the common ancestor. Using creationism, all were painted simultaneously, and none reflects any improvement or difference.
I read Meyers' book. He doesn't provide a shred of evidence FOR intelligent design. It's merely a science lesson for the average Christian who is completely unfamiliar with the history and philosophy of science--which is virtually all. @Designmimetics Lest I remind you that we have 150 years of scientific evidence to validate Darwins' theory. In fact, Francis Collins' work in mapping the human genome solidified it for me. I was convinced of the fact of evolution bc of Collins--a Christian.
Divergent/adaptive evolution, Nested genomic hierarchies, Vestigial structures, Hind structures in whales, Insect mouth structure, arthropod appendages, Pelvic structure of dinosaurs, Pentadactyl limb, Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes, Routing of the vas deferens, Fossil record, Evolution of the horse, Fish to amphibian Transitionals, Geographical distribution, Continental distribution, Island biogeography...
@5tonyvvvv ~I suggest you watch the program...it was made quite clear that this was NOT a case of using some pre-existing template...the fact that it is well known that there are 4 amino acids in RNA, and only 4 in DNA (ACGU and ACGT respectively) is hardly anything new, and is hardly a template...at one point, the interviewer actually asks Shostak what made life on Earth. His answer: "CHEMISTRY". And, he is entirely correct. No magical sky daddy required...
"There's virtually not evidence for macro evolution" accept for ALL of modern genetics, biogeography, morphology, embryology, phylogenetics, microbiology, anthropology, or things like atavisms, ERVs, vestigial structures, pseudogenes, speciation, gene flow, genetic drift, ring species, etc. You don't have to "believe it", just educate yourself on the facts.
@gregrutz Actually, I said chance and necessity, which equals mutations and natural selection in the case of evolutionary theory, which originated from Darwinian philosophy. I'm two or three whole levels above you on this conversation, but your comments keep bringing me down to this lower common denominator. It seems you want to argue superficially...? Feel free, but I will keep pointing it out when you quote me out of context.
The Mammal-like Reptiles, or Therapsids first appeared about 285 million years ago near the beginning of the Permian which is well before the dinosaurs. They evolved quickly and many different groups arose. They were very successful until the Permian extinction, about 245 million years ago;nearly all of the species then living died out. New species evolved rapidly to fill this empty habitat, among them the first dinosaurs.
@glabblegill Gene duplications increase DNA information. Sometimes the environment selects for these. Stephen talks about this in his book SITC. The enzyme nylonase, which digests nylon, was developed by a Flavobacterium species in a nylon factory waste-water pond. The enzyme's gene is believed to be the result of a gene duplication and frame shift mutation. Feel free to discuss!
@rkyeun Sorry, i guess my brain ignored one of the negatives as i was typing that. it does appear that this is an increase in information. Im contacting my source now to hear his rebuttal, since he has to have looked into this classic example.
@micah1116 Perhaps i underestimated the significance of the word "morphological" in your assertion. But I think the existence of such evidence would not support darwinian evolution because of the amount of time it appears to take to observe such a change (in the millions of years). There are, however, many smaller changes that have been observed (digestion of nylon, drug resistant bacteria, etc.) that more accurately fit the hypothesized time frame
Explain me, then. I was an atheist. No document convinced me that I was wrong. The only person that had the courage to actively witness to me was God Himself. No book. No Bible. Only God. Since I have known Him, there is only one book that matches the God that I know. That book is the Bible, but I had no Bible when He made Himself known to me. He did that Himself. Just because you refuse to listen to Him does not mean that He does not exist. He will not treat you as you treat us. Turn to Him.
I don't need to give an argument. Evolution isn't a syllogism. I just need to show the evidence that supports the theory. Fossils. DNA evidence. Peace.
Because of the ambiguity of the Hebrew used in the genealogies, Scripture cannot be said to give a specific length of time for the history of the earth. It does give a bulleted list of day/night cycles for the creation, but even there, there is argument (even among the top *Christian* linguists) regarding how long the author meant to depict in the first chapters of Genesis. God has no reason to mislead, so I favor a young earth, but that still leaves the problem of "What did the author mean?".
@5naxalotl actually, sir, I do have academic training in evolution. I've taken several semesters worth of classes at the University of Texas on Darwins theory (notice I said theory... because IT IS JUST A THEORY, even Darwin himself called it that) true,I have read creationist literature as well. I guess I'm just more well rounded than most. but, I'd be willing to bet that you haven't read any creationist literature at all. try it sometime. and astronomical probabilities are never irrelevant.
@micah1116 Random mutations occur while the gene is being duplicated, resulting in an unintended difference between the copy and the original. These changes often do result in permanent change if the new trait is advantageous or the gene pool is sufficiently isolated
Roach; Boysen, C; Wang, K; Hood, L (1995). "Pairwise end sequencing: a unified approach to genomic mapping and sequencing". Genomics 26 (2): 345-353. doi:10.1016/0888-7543(95)80219-C. PMID 7601461, International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001). "Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome" Nature 409 (6822): 860-921. doi:10.1038/35057062
"by Federal Law, it is illegal to teach ID in any science class in the USA" please site the statute to which you refer. I know it is illegal to REQUIRE it, but not illegal to teach it aside other theories. Please site your reference.
@gregrutz Think about the brain. We can look inside of it, but we don't see the subconscious mind (or our immediate awareness). All we see are correlations between mental activity and the brain in the physical stuff. Perhaps too, there is a "subconscious" aspect to the genetic expression system. For instance, we already know, at least tentatively, that embryos grow by following the pattern of a predetermined electromagnetic field.
First off, see abiogenesis if you are curious about something coming from nothing. There are several observations supporting this and you need to take some personal accountability for your education. Just because something is counter intuitive like heavy and light objects falling at the same rate or light being both a wave and a particle doesn't mean that the evidence isn't supporting the observations. I don't know where you are getting your info about evolution, but I would question it.
@odinata "The facts are in. Genetics proves that organisms evolve." That depends on the definition of evolve, you use. If you mean organisms change over time within a strict realm of possible changes, then I agree. If you believe organisms can change from one creature to another over time, that's speculative. If there is a god, it used evolution to produce the organisms we see." I can't argue that. The question is "can nature create life from a purely unguided mechanism?" That's not possible.
1. Allele frequencies are continuously observed to change over time. 2. Interrelated of life (ERVs a striking example). 3 .fossil record showing increase in complexity over time. 4. frequent observation of speciation in isolated populations. 5. taxonomy, genetics, paleontology, etc. all give the same tree of life. that wasn't so hard.
@rkyeun Well i certainly wouldn't disagree that new information, as in an advantageous trait, doesn't occur. I mean information in a quantitative sense. In case you cannot extrapolate as to why i make this distinction (which i suspect you can), it is because if Natural Selection is unable to increase the size of a given genome, then either the original cells must have had a genome of equal or greater size (which i find highly unlikely), or that there are other processes at work.
"Objective" only means that the truth of it is independent of perspective, while "subjective" is not. The existence of Kinshasa is objective. The existence of your objectivity is not, since it's only seen by you, and whomever else might possibly agree with you for their own convenience. Once you lay aside your own desires and stop shouting Him down, you will also see that the existence of God is objective, just like Kinshasa. If you choose, you can fly to Kinshasa. You can also fly to God. Fly!
"They do not bring in the new information that is required for the cell to know how to build something new" I love it when creationists try to opose those with actual educations. Sorry Billy Bob, the "new information" argument was dead before it got strrteed. but you guys still spew it out there. let me help you, A "Mutation" is a change in nucleic acid sequencing within the strands. By definition, this IS new information for the cell to "know" how to build something "new."
It is illegal to teach ID in any science class in the USA--see the ruling, available free online under Kitzmiller vs. Dover. The ruling of a Federal Judge is de facto law in every state. It is certainly possible to refer to creationism, especially outside of science classes [especially comparative religion or philosphy] but it may NOT be taught in science classes due to being religion.
The reason the Seminaries are full of human opinion and scepticism is because they must fulfill prophecy: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2 Thessalonians 2:3 17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; 18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. Jude 1 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. 2Coronthians 2:17 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 2Corinthians 11 There are many more. To have any discussion without bringing in the Word of God is Vanity! yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; Romans 3:4 These videos are Excellent. Stephen Meyer is a fine man and an outstanding scholar!
Right. Because only paleontologists that preach 80 species of whales including the 100' long 300,000lb blue whale evolved through genetic mistakes, that they came from 4 small precursor land mammals that were all alive around the very same time, and know it happened with absolute certainty based on a few bone chips and twigs so they can receive grant money are honest.
Note that the only references to "religion" in this little discussion are being made by its enemy, whose opponent is appealing to science, & science only, leaving "religion" completely out of it. Examine the matter soberly, pondering who it is that is making cogent arguments & who it is that is relying only on insult & unsupported assertions. From that behavior, it is easy to decide who holds the stronger position. The only real question remaining is if you will have the courage to admit it.
God is revealed in nature, but man is content to supress that knowledge and is following his natural coarse of rebellion to God, clearly stated in His word. It is up to Him who He will call to Himself, all of the rest will remain quibbling over these matters ad nauseum.
The only evidence "in light of cosmology" is that our present universe had a beginning in the finite past - not that it magically popped into existence out of nothing, or that there was once a state of affairs when literally nothing existed. I agree that out of nothing, nothing comes -- but what is your justification for assuming that there was once a state of affairs when absolutely nothing existed...?
I love the opening anecdote: Did it occur even once to this alleged jock that maybe there WERE NO FREAKIN ANSWERS TO HIS QUESTIONS?? Well Mr. Meyer?? Any reply to THAT proposition??? No? I thought not....
Galmozzi99 has replied to your comment on RC Sproul Interviews Stephen Meyer, Part 1 of 5 To reply back click here. To see all comments on this video click here. I missed the part of the book that made a religious claim or discussed human origins. Sounds like you have not even read it yet consider yourself qualified to critique the book which you have not read. Give me some specific examples from the b...
Evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming, and I know that scares you. Ask yourself this: How finely tuned must the energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120,6 which is: 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 And there you have it.I eagerly await your explanation with a logical and scientific refutation.
@frost122585 You are probably right, it's more about anti-religious motivation. But it isn't our fault that everywhere we look we see signs of intelligence. It isn't our fault that natural explanations fail to account for this intelligence at the fundamental levels of life and physics. ID is not the same as the design argument, but everyone argues against it in that way. I have a feeling that this argument will slowly lose appeal as more and more people recognize it as a straw man.
@5tonyvvvv Oh dear...just last night on NOVA; Science Now, Jack Shostak was shown synthesizing amino acids...no copying information, no borrrowing anything--->from scratch!! Too bad, so sad...btw, chirality has been shown to be irrelevent Tony...
@odinata How do u get that from what I said? We do know perfectly well that engineering is a produt of intelligence. What Darwin proposed in the first place was an alternate explanation for that fact. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious but I guess I have to for atheist. What is it with you guy's? What is so scary about facing the fact that life is better explained as a product of God? You are creationists, just like we are. There is no other explanation for the fact that we're here, it...
@lederereddy The facts are in. Genetics proves that organisms evolve. If there is a god, it used evolution to produce the organisms we see. That's demonstrable.
@micah1116 Are you being sarcastic? Or just using a strange definition of evolution? Random mutation can occur involving just a single nucleotide within an allele and still change how it is expressed.
@lederereddy You haven't described that "strict realm of possible changes", defined an "strict realm", proposed any mechanisms for such a "strict real", demonstrated that it is limited to any "strict realm", and none of the actual science indicates that their are any such limitations so far unnamed by you. What's further is that we have the evidence--physical, genetic, behavioral, paleontological, and otherwise, that indeed, EVOLUTION HAPPENS in a way that your opinions prohibit acceptance of.
@FATRgames no there's no debating it, unless of course you have academic training in evolution (which you don't), as opposed to learning about this through creationist literature (viz. you) which invents irrelevant astronomical probabilities which have nothing to do with reality
@gregrutz Darwinism is a metaphysical presupposition that has everything to do with evolution, namely the idea that life and it's diversity arose from chance and necessity, and that matter is the fundamental starting point of nature. Has it been replaced with something else? But your position doesn't bother me, I respect it, so fair enough. And I acknowledge that you have no religion.
Space provided to present is prohibitive and I am not an authority. I just want to point out that there are legitimate reasons to question a materialist (aka atheistic) world view. It is not so much the data but the model we choose to use for explaining the model. Some scientists choose to have a theistic model others atheistic. I feel that hostility towards a theistic WV is more emotional than rational (and in many cases vice versa).
@buffboynick: but bacteria does not stay bacteria! The evolve and mutate into different bacteria. I am not arguing in favor or evo or ID I am only reacting to your statement. That is why man and monkey are so similar and share 98% or their DNA . I personally do not believe in creationism but do find ID very compelling
@gregrutz on the other hand biological philosphical naturalism is also a religion and a world view.....not science . The idea that everything we experience has been brought about by random chaotic processes is a world view.....hardly science. The simple observation that nature exhibits order and information in its essence is merely a scientific observation and is valid. Everything coming out of nothing is a weak proposal.
"A 'Mutation' is a change in nucleic acid sequencing within the strands. By definition, this IS new information for the cell to 'know' how to build something 'new.'" By definition, neo-darwinian evolution happens by a random, undirected process. An educated person knows that mutations do damage, not upgrades. Going back to my allusion to computer programming. If you randomly change a bit in computer code, the result isn't going to be good, & it certainly won't be adding any new functionality.
Crusafontia, looked like a tree shrew - its limbs show arboreal existence.Towards the end of the Jurassic 'multituberculates' appeared.Some of these species still alive only 30 million years ago (MYA ). Some of the later multituberculates possessed marsupial-like bone structures which indicate that they had pouches like marsupials, suggesting a similar life cycle involving live birth of very premature young. OH shit...a different order!!!!
Even other viewers are seeing through the tripe. Nothing of what he has posted shows evidence of evolution. At most it shows people concluding before they begin. I, though, gave a pointer to an article that comments on several peer-reviewed, published studies, explaining them in the process, giving links to the studies themselves, so their commentary can be falsified (which the spammer doesn't understand). Of course, the spammer doesn't like the source, or their conclusions. Surprised? Hardly!
