Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Defending the Christian Worlview, Creationism, and Intelligent Design » Various issues » Debate with Aron Ra

Debate with Aron Ra

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 3]

26Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:05 am

Otangelo


Admin
You did not adress any points made AT ALL. All your answers are just more strawmen and red herrings. For example: You did not adress why you come up with abiogenesis below an evolution video AT ALL. At the same time: You did not adress why you conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation/biogenesis - there you did not adress why you assumed cells with proteins as they are to be basically lego brick ideas from thin air - instead you post even more outside topics. As like I said the pointing out that a dog heart is not from thin air would go away when you would link more nonsense about other organs of dogs to be also not from thin air or jump to wolf hearts as it wouldn't be a canine heart variation but also from thin air. At the same time you did not adress why you ignore the mechanism origin of anything you listed in particular in long lists - for example when it comes to organelles as cell machinery you did not adress endosymbiosis as it would not be a thing to adress. When it comes to cell colony mechanism like for example gluconeogenesis in a today's organism you do not adress the origin in single cells and the repurposement. You did not adress why you list long statements, which are of course factual statements like that there are homeobox genes, BUT nothing you list does support your position AT ALL(!) It is just a list with facts. Homeobox genes shows why common ancestry is true like basically 90% of what you posted without even adressing it. When you post scientific papers like Szostak it supports what I crticized without you even noticing it.

You did not adress why you want to squeeze a magic man idea in front of either finite and infinite timeframes-
You did not adress that time is as we talked a dimension for processes not a perception you confuse there 2 different uses of the term of time - like you would confuse a crane as bird with the crane machine with a hook.

The list is basically endless of nonsense what you propose and partially you admit this:
When I said:
"He did not buy your "complexity = info = design" redefinition & misunderstanding of reality. //// "
Because we do not extract the actual meaning out of terms like "info" or "complexity" to make the terms as empty phrases to a religion like you try and fail.

You answer with:

"True. Because he is a wilful ignorant. He did not even permit me to talk when i called in, but constantly interrupted me. "
No he pointed out that you did not stick to the meaning and tried to mud the water of how language is even used.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

27Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:05 am

Otangelo


Admin
To give you another example how you act is when you post again another video with "impossible" claims as they would be that way at all costs.
You write and state for example: "The problem of understanding why life uses 20 amino acids, and not more or less." Which is an ok statement like most of the statement you copy and paste - BUT You even mention there can be more like 22 (in other forms like some archaean actually 2x 1 and they are not for the same transcription etc.) and in actual Designed 6 letter DNA like https://www.wired.com/2014/05/synthetic-dna-cells/ are 172 able to be in use.

You get however your understanding entirely backwards it exists as stabilizing protein today, because the alternative forms did not make the stabilizing forms to sustain in such long sizes - with the exception already listed but ignored for the sake of the fallacious argument.
So your way of thinking is completely backwards you look at how it was selected to be stable today and then you say: all other ways are not of your interest incl. the selection of them and present them as already there to squeeze in your magical man idea again. OF course when alternative outcomes of instable polypeptides are ignored by you - you will only get what is here today and ignore what breaks your neck. Like the homeobox to break your neck when it comes to the mapped out tree of organ and form repurposement. What a shocking surprise by ignoring the possible alternative outcomes you have only the outcome you don't ignore to fake an argument which was never given.
It is again the same old: Oh look how complex it is therfor magic man in the sky fallacy.
It is 1 0 1 the same nonsense as in all your posts. Look how complicated this thing is complexity shall be another word for: Mah magic man in the sky faith is legit. Nope, bad luck. It is just chemistry lol



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:26 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

28Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:06 am

Otangelo


Admin
As I said you did not adress anything here:
"1. If nothing ever existed, then there would still be nothing."
Nothing is not a state. And no, Krauss redefines the term nothing as negative quantum field or quantum energy etc.
Like you want to redefine the term causality as God or whatever. Redefinitions mean not much.

"2. Since we exist, something has always existed."
"Always" can refer to a countable number of timeframes or a not countable number of timeframes.

"3. Since the universe had a beginning, it was caused into existence by something else. "
Nope , when the very first timeframe is the absolute oldest point that iwas. It is by itself the very embodiment of non-coming into being, not being caused by somewhere or something else and therfor another term for embodiment of non-creation.
Or it would not be the very first timeframe at all as an absolute.
It would have a prior creation or causation point - which is forbidden by its being the absolute oldest thing, state and form PERIOD.


That means god claimers can beg on their knees and pray their entire life to change that - it will be meaningless. There is no way they could make the embodiment of non causation and non creation go away.


"4. That cause must be either personal or non-personal. "
Personality is depending on brain chemistry that is why being drunk or on drugs changes your personality.
Same goes to alzheimer, dementia etc.
I already adressed that and you ignored it.

Personality is not a magical spell - adressed to a magic man to make the very embodiment of non creation go away.



"5. A non-personal cause would be of physical substance,"
Personality is also a physical substance and the denial of it means nothing.

"and so subject to change and time."
So God can't be regretful or wrathful so the biblical god with changing moods and commands and such is not the deity you talk about.

" That cause would also need to have a beginning, and be caused by something else, leading to infinite regress which is impossible."
Infinite regress is not needed when the timeframes are just countable and the first timeframe is absolute as not being caused.
You just want to deny the absoluteness of the countable number of timeframes which do not need a cause at all.



"6. The best explanation as cause of the universe is a personal creator,"
This sentence does not make any sense it only tiggers your personal meaningfulness emotions Otangelo which are meaningless in reality.

That means you wish that those sentences make sense like someone says: Sparking unicorn personalities caused the star to shine.
As those terms would have further meaning.



"independent,"
You can't use languages to even adress it when you want to make the term god independent of literally anything.



" immaterial"
What should that be beside: I wish that everything I love in my mind shall be real instead of just fiction.

I do not even believe you that you believe in a deity. You just vomit trigger words and feel meaningful with those empty phrases.



" existing in an eternal timeless"
Square circle? When something is timeless it is never, not eternal - eternity would be  an infinite number of timeframes.

"dimension,"
So there shall be another dimension ALL of a sudden?!
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sad for you this is not how dimensions work.

When you would argue God is an extradimensional alien - what you try to do actually, but deny that then it would be a dimensional critter.
It would have metatimeframes of its own meta dimension to move and think with their meta-brain organ equivalents.

That is something you do not get. Because you hate the idea that your mystical buzzword is under a dissecting table.



"triggering the Big bang"
Since when was the Big Bang triggered?



" and creating the universe"
The universe was not created.


It is again: Your personal (meaningless) feelings with the buzzphrase God which was always an empty phrase (you can also use Briffartszslender) and remains so  - shall be meaningful - so it is a pleading to me to let you put the magic man in front of reality.
Like all your pleading like complexity shall mean magic man did it - information shall be synonymous to magic man did it.
etc.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:18 am; edited 2 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

29Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:07 am

Otangelo


Admin
"We had a loooooong debate about common ancestry " No we didn't. Like you were not able to show any whale fossils in mesozoic layers, neither. Or to adress anything like the nose to blowhole repurposement here at 4:21 .

You did not adress common ancestry AT ALL. You just ignored it. Like you ignored Endosymbiosis or the context of this video which isn't abiogenesis you also confused with spontaneous generation you link 5x out of context.
The list goes on and on,
Your recent replies are also just repeating the very same strawmen and the same debunked stuff over and over again. Which I already adressed. Instead of correcting it you just ignored it and post it again. I just can copy and paste my answers they are still not adressed.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

30Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:07 am

Otangelo


Admin
"I did not. Biogenesis is not an issue i have addressed " You did adress it at least with linking 2x a paper about spontaneous biogenesis probabilities when I caught you that you tried your game with the "cells are protein complex" where you wanted them to be LEGO brick results of magic man puzzlegames/manufacturing and accused others they would claim cells would be from thin air as alternative instead of magic man puzzle games.
Neither magic man NOR from thin air is there the correct answer.

Both are false.
Instead of admitting that you tried a red hering you jumped off the topic with 2x links about spontaneous biogenesis probabilities which were of course entirely offtopic, because no one claimed cells with proteins came from thin air - YOU just demanded they shall come from magic man and accused others of other nonsense.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

31Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:07 am

Otangelo


Admin
The best thing is: "God is a remarkably simple entity."
Your own source: https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1332-god-is-not-complex

Is real satire pure. I saved that for teaching purposes. Of course the magic man BUZZWORD! is simple. It is just a term in the language that you can shot to feel good like when your soccerteam hits a goal you scream "GOOAAAL" and this alone causes happiness like being trained like a circus elephant. Jesus images in someones head can even cause literal orgasm on stage - live in front of an audience like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMgd6T5OTvs Those feelings are real - they are observable - but they have no internal truth to them beyond the emotional satisfaction value.
Because it is just an emotional association with triggerterms - like you can also train some person or a dog to a bell. Or Muslims when you ritualistic say: Muhammad peace been upon him. as little catchphrase.
You are very similar.

You use terms like "information" ; "complexity" and such as personal imprinted buzzwords to lift your mood - as personal drug shorts like languagealcohol to let you feel good in a sermon of terms.
When you would get sick and in pain when someone would say "god" or "jesus" all the time you would not claim to like the bible AT ALL. You would avoid it like the Qur'an, the book of dianetics etc.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:20 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

32Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:07 am

Otangelo


Admin
To adress all the text walls (you can't even write just 1 post, can you?) so that you flood the comment section with strawmen and red hering spam or just a giant number of facts which do not support anything you said. It would need a whole debate where you get nailed on the wall with specific topics and not acting like a pudding thrower to hope that something would stick - without flooding your opponent with all off topic rubbish like you flood this video about evolution with abiogenesis off topic walls of spam.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

33Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Second conversation with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:10 am

Otangelo


Admin
Second conversation with Aron Ra

Yeah they admit that they even believe 2+2=5 when the bible would say so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysecinv367w or why people like Intelligent Design Academy makes statement like: "If God can create a universe, and life, its peanuts for him to make a snake and a donkey talk." to make the bible sound legit with snake and donkey talk by default.

That is why they even make long long lists of either obvious statements like "Look how complicated this thing is like gluconeogenesis " and therfor magic man in the sky.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:21 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

34Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:10 am

Otangelo


Admin
The user Intelligent Design academy here calling in 2 shows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vYXETmSv_w
&
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo9LiACghEI
Is oblivious about all the logical fallacies OR  he doesn't care.
His stick is like: Look! This and that is complicated therfor magic man in the sky... with hundreds upon hundreds of such statements.
Look! some statements of spontaneous generation shall mean in his opinion abiogenesis is not a thing BUT Therfor magic man in the sky!

Here a blog entry about his talking: https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/trying-to-educate-creationist-otangelo.html
Look gluconeogenesis in todays organism is complicated - therfor lalala i don't care about mechanism in single cells or anything - it can't happen from thin air therfor magic man in the sky!



I mean imagine you have a hypothetical person making an own blog with a giant set of actual true statements like:
The heart of a poodle is so complicated it can't fall from the sky. That would be magic.
Then another statement follows like
The heart of a Pitbull dog is so complicated it can't just fall from the sky. That would be magic
and repeat this for hours and hours.
And you do this with organs, organielles, processes like polypeptides, all animals etc.
As just some sort of archive and cherrypick all the statements in existence just to say AHA! Magic man in the sky.


Without EVER adressing even the content of anything, but at the same time the person also wants that magic is true ANYWAY with magic man making talking donkeys and snakes.

This is not all. I mean he tries every possible excuse to squeeze in the magic man ideas.
Because thinking as process/chains of thoughts need time to be even a thing to begin with - but to make the term "timeless" meaningful for the magic man - the term timeless shall mean simultaneously or magic man thinking shall be of course also magic and not thinking as we know it - anyway!



Or when you either have an infinite uncaused chain of events - this shall not be true because Magic man must be squeezed in upfront.
Finite uncaused number of timeframes - shall not be there without magic man to be squeezed upfront, too.


There is not a single theist fallacy not done.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

35Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:11 am

Otangelo


Admin
Because creationists made their idol they worship as God after their own image in which they consider any relationship between animals "icky" by default. So it is not about being allmighty as God or anything: It is about icky feelings. It is similar why some southstate people consider the loss in the civil war very "icky" and therfor pretend by hoisting flags of the confederecy in their garden - they could somehow undo history and the "icky" victory of the yankees. So creationists just want to stick to a personal interpretation of an old text collection - several times translated - with talking donkeys and snakes, because that should be better than "icky" facts of history hurting their snowflake feelings. Usually this goes along with 2 psychological reason: Giant greed for a better world in a supposed heaven/paradise as a vague promise of a salvation from the so well"intelligently designed world" (all of a sudden shall exist a better designed realm) ; and fear from a torture chamber, where the "loving idol" they imagine would put them in when they don't feel guilty. It is a convoluted mess for psychiatrists and therapy.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

36Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:11 am

Otangelo


Admin
The ID troll will just take the material to copy and paste what he likes to use for his deception. He will just cherrypick what sounds complicated in his opinion without copying the presented answers, the solution or origin at all. He is a search for complicated sounding things in chemistry and biology-guy, specialized in hiding any solution, former forms etc. - and pretending scientists would say it felt from the sky and therfor God puzzled it into being-person.
When for example a blog explains how complicated a chloroplast in a plant cell works and then it is explained with cyanobacteria symbiosis and from that on with selection - the explanation and selective history is thrown out the window and only the "how complicated works this and that thing like chloroplasts" is copy and pasted. Then a small anecdote like "this chloroplast can't come from thin air" or "all of a sudden" or "by accident" is added and it is suggested by him scientists or especially "nasty atheists" would make such "from thin air come chloroplast"-strawman - then he announces proudly: BUT I know better: MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY aka Goddidit - no debate or explanation. And goes on to the next point.
In his blog and talk the actual reason how those mechanism came into being is never adressed EVER.

He does not even stick to the definition of terms. The term timelessness for example shall mean simultaneously for example instead of no time, at all. And then he jumps around to other topics and starts the rotation again without correcting his behavior.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

37Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:11 am

Otangelo


Admin
You spam again many posts as you would be able to bury responses to your fallacies with many posts. This is again not an answer to your fallacies I exposed. Like for example that you tried to sneak in a God dimension for God/s to be extradimensional meta-entities without adressing the problems of a metatime/supernatural metatime to metamove/supermove and metathink/superthink in that realm to be even a critter there. You start already with a false dichotomy - there can be many God/s like in various claimed belief systems like in hinduism. This is flat out denied because you want to stick to "mah magic man in the sky" is the true fable. In fact you also conflate deistic ideas with a hyperspecific theistic fable collection.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

38Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:12 am

Otangelo


Admin
I already answered you in my first reply (first answer in this thread) that irreducible complexity is a PREDICTION and a result of Evolution by natural selection - I gave you even an example you did not read / ignore on purpose. Read it up again but you won't do that neither. When you write for example: "Cells are irreducible complex" this is a true statement like a dog is also irreducible complex this however does not make a cell not evolved or a dog not evolved from earlier forms. because to be so complex that you can't take various part out of the current running system without crashing the system as it is today does not imply it didn't come from ancestral forms to interlock this complexity from precursors to the current state. So many MANY statements you write which are standing alone in the room are true statements WHILE at the same time you are trying your very best o hide the actual answers about the origin of such systems, mechanism and processes. It is a meaningless hide game you perform.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

39Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:12 am

Otangelo


Admin
"DETERIORATE the genome." You either re-define the term "deteriorate" to "the genome is not as it was in the precursors" like for example the ape genome is with the loss of fur towards humans deteriorated from the apeness towards the humans nudity as example.
OR you just ignore the observations you hate, where the genetic info increase is observed - like with more deadly snakevenom by longer chains and increase of genetic complexity of the venom over generations as example. This is just another example of you hiding observations and jumping around with "Mah magic man shall make genomes like lego bricks" nonsense. It is the same fallacy AGAIN complexity is not another term for "Goddidit".



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

40Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:12 am

Otangelo


Admin
" FAR many more mechanisms to build complex organisms" No one claimed otherwise. This is why there are not just 1 type of mutations but almost a dozen. You however ignore their very existence or try to downplay the very topic of it. Like you tried to redefine what "deterioration" means.
Either you hide the fact that of course the precursor form need to "deteriorate " symbolically - towards a subset form like ape with fur to human nakedness as example. Or apes with skull squeezing muscles to humans with skull enhancement and brain wildgrowth.
Or you deny the observations of gain of genome complexity like with snakevenom or increase of coloration info by duplication and so forth. It also makes no sense to list all the possible errors, because they are offtopic and do not support your hiding of the observations you try to hide, like you always try to go offtopic when you wish to hide observations breaking your ideological neck.



Last edited by Admin on Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:27 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

41Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:13 am

Otangelo


Admin
I wrote: "It is a meaningless hide game you perform ////
"Psychological projection" Is not the case when you try to redefine "deterioration" and hide the observations of gaining of genome info in the biological definition. (it is again hiding this) by stepping offtopic with other topics. When someone points out info gain with examples - you can't cancel them out by listing for example deletion observation. Then any statement of gain shall not exist are proven invalid and your ideological neck is broken. Then you can jump around as much you want and make lists of hundreds upon hundreds of deletions as example it will not be able to undo the gain examples. That is why you jump offtopic again.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

42Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:12 am

Otangelo


Admin
The universe is the embodiment of NON-Creation
An embodiment of a beginning as very first not caused timeframe has no prior cause to it AT ALL. It is just the first time frame incarnate. WIthout any prior thing, event or state upfront of it. ;-)
Nonsense talk there was no literal nothing state - because the universe did not come from anywhere else
There is no fine tuning

Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce  functional proteins" are explained by lipid chemistry by chemical selection in lipid versicles
The gentic information stored in the first living cell emerged naturally
The acids chain by magnetic + and - charges
+ / - bounding and chaining is a basic physical observation
All what exists is naturally.
The cells you refer to were ALREADY a subset of already existing coacervates-
Chemistry works as it does.
There are chemical laws
glycine amino acids, pyrimidines,  DNA -   all those forms got selected in fat bubbles called cells to sustain.
interlocking of complexity in abiogenesis models.
Polypetides work in lipids and not outside.

interlocked codes into different directions.
interlocking of complexity mechanism
Interlocking of complexity is a PREDICTION of evolution

Complexity slowly accumulated
The development of organelles is by symbiosis, endosymbiosis not random
Evolution can of course interlock a system so that you can't take parts out of it without crashing the system
common ancestry is readable true in this code as well.
lifeforms are selected by darwinian evolution
endosymbiosis.
The mechanism itself are under natural selection they are not outside of it.
repurposement of former ancestral form.
Species speciate as variations of former forms and there is no creator.
humans are right now in this moment an ape species.

Personality needs a brain
Brains are minds

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

43Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Dec 23, 2020 10:41 am

Otangelo


Admin
Claim: It is not possible to defend creationism honestly because it is only a misrepresentation and denial of science
Reply: The fact that science papers do not point to God does not mean that the evidence unraveled by science does not point to God. All it means is that the philosophical framework based on methodological naturalism that surrounds science since its introduction in the 19th century through Thomas Huxley, Darwin's bulldog, and the X-club, is a flawed framework, and should have been changed a long time ago when referencing to historical science, which responds to questions of origins. Arbitrary a priori restrictions are the cause of bad science, where it is not permitted to lead the evidence wherever it is.

Claim: The distinction of operational science vs historical science was made up by creationists, but does not exist in science.
Reply:  Gravity is inferred by observing an apple falling to the floor, so the existence of a non-physical non-created creator is inferred by observing the existence of a finite universe. What is dishonest by inferring God based on what we do know? Since there is being, being has always been. Creation requires a creator. Design requires a designer, Laws require a lawmaker. Creating mathematics requires a mathematician. Fine-tuning requires a fine-tuner, Codes require a code-maker. Codified information comes always from a mind. Life only comes from life. Logic comes from logic, Consciousness comes only from consciousness, Factories require a factory-maker, Objective moral values come from a moral giver.

Methodological naturalism is the framework upon which operational science performs empirical tests and attempts to elucidate and explain how natural things work and operate.  Historical science asks a different question, namely how things occurred in the past. Historical science draws its data from records of past events, as opposed to "experimental" or "operational" science. It uses the knowledge that is already currently known to tell the story of what happened in the past. While it is justified to limit possible explanations related to operational science to methodological naturalism, since things operate in nature without supernatural intervention, in regards of origins, there is no justification to limit the possible explanations only to natural ones. While random, unguided natural events is a possible explanation of origins, so is intelligent design, or 

Either the physical universe and all in it emerged by a lucky accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction,  purely physicodynamic processes and reactions, or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator. Excluding a priori, one possible explanation leads undoubtedly to bad inferences and bad science.

When we see a bicycle, and never saw one before: the question: How does it work, and what is its function?  will give us entirely different answers, then: What made the bicycle and how was it made?


Claim: It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, pretending to know things no one even can know.
Reply: That is the kind of generalisation which i object. Who made absolute claims? If a creationist did, point out who did, and object to it. Do not claim that all creationists argue in an absolute manner. I don't.

Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.

1. Accepting the best explanation maximizes the robustness of one’s position relative to accepting any other available explanatory hypothesis.
2. It is reasonable to maximize the robustness of one’s position.
3. One of the explanatory hypotheses should be accepted.
4. Thus: It is reasonable to accept the best explanation.


Claim: the mechanisms which allow life to adapt do not require "programming" by some external agent, nor is that even possible. If you think a god had to pre-program the first life, then you have absolutely no understanding how population genetics work at all.
Reply:  I disagree. Here is why:

Evolution, adaptation, homeostasis, and the essential preprogrammed processes essential for life to survive in a changing environment 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2724-evolution-adaptaion-homeostasis-and-the-essential-preprogrammed-processes-essential-for-life-to-survive-in-a-changing-environment

Btw. please clarify: What has the origin of life to do with population genetics ?

Otangelo

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

44Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Wed Dec 23, 2020 3:22 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Aron: Science doesn't point to God because there is no god.
Reply:  Now you are doing exactly what you accuse of us, creationists of doing: Making absolute claims. Ok. God does not exist? Prove it !!
Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

What happens when you have a whole bunch of uncomfortable, embarrassing and annoying emotions that you don’t want to unconsciously deal with? According to famous psychologist Sigmund Freud these emotions are projected on to other people, so that other people become carriers of our own perceived flaws. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for us, this form of emotional displacement makes it much easier to live with ourselves … because everyone else is responsible for our misery – not us!


Aron: Evolution is real and verifiable.
Reply: Agreed upon a certain extent.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2806-main-topics-about-evolution

What is fact in regards of evolution :
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from
a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly pre-programmed selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Natural selection acting up to two random mutations as shown in malaria ( See Behe's Edge of evolution )

What is not fact:
6. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
7. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural
selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Aron: Creation never happened and is a lie
Reply: Prove it !! See what you said:  It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, pretending to know things no one even can know.


Aron:  methodological naturalism is not a flawed framework. If there was any truth to your position, there would be some evidence of it, even if science could not explain it.
Reply: That is entirely irrelevant to the point i made. It seems you did either not read it carefully, or not comprehend it. The matter is not, if creationism is compelling or not. The problem is that it is not permitted to be proposed even as a hypothesis. This is arbitrary, and wrong. Evidence should be permitted to lead wherever it is. 

Historical sciences, and methodological naturalism
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1692-historical-sciences-and-methodological-naturalism

Why does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSrCs3u8LHU


Aron:  If magic were real, there would be people like Obiwan, Hermione, Spock and Gandalf who could demonstrate that reliably enough that we could at least see that there is a THERE there. But there has never been not even one tiny element of the supernatural demonstrated to be real at all.
Reply:  Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of God's existence

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence

Many atheists have made a career out of making silly requirements based on ignorance, rather than first creating a solid epistemological framework of inquiry, and then asking relevant questions. Abiogenesis is how to test the materialism claim and it fails. Almost seventy years of experimental attempts of recreating life in the lab and not even the basic building blocks have been recreated. Evolution has been tested and it fails. 70,000 generations of bacteria, and all they got, are bacteria. No hint of a transition zone to a new organismal limb or improvement of complexity. Fail.
The existence of God is inferred just like all historical science is. This is basic logic and critical thinking but some atheists have a mind like a sieve.
God's existence is inferred by many criteria, like abductive reasoning, and eliminative inductions, but many persevere on nonsensical demands like asking for demonstrations of God's existence.
How does someone “test” for the widely credited multiverse? They can’t, don’t even try. Honest physicists know this.
The existence of God is as valid as multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution, and numerous other improvable theories.
Many atheists are like the kid stuck in high school who never grows up or moves on. Like a windup echo chamber.


Aron: very testable claim made by intelligent design "theorists" has been disproved in science and exposed as fraudulent in a court of law.
Reply:  Dover, a good argument against ID ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1795-dover-a-good-argument-against-id

Whenever the teleological argument of Gods existence is brought forward by believers, it  is very common that unbelievers immediately try to shift the goal posts and begin to point out that intelligent design is not science, that it was debunked at the Dover Trial, rather than stick to the issue, and actually deal with honesty in regards of the arguments brought up for debate.

Ask ANY real scientist, if he thinks the best way to proceed in scientific truth, is to have courts of law decide what scientific theories should be accepted.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2508-abiogenesis-uncertainty-quantification-of-a-primordial-ancestor-with-a-minimal-proteome-emerging-through-unguided-natural-random-events

Chance of intelligence to set up life: 
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence produces all the things, as follows:
factory portals  ( membrane proteins ) factory compartments ( organelles ) a library index ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network ) molecular computers, hardware ( DNA ) software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, ( the genetic and over a dozen epigenetic codes ) information retrieval ( RNA polymerase ) transmission ( messenger RNA ) translation ( Ribosome ) signaling ( hormones ) complex machines ( proteins ) taxis ( dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles ) molecular highways ( tubulins ) tagging programs ( each protein has a tag, which is an amino acid sequence  informing other molecular transport machines were to transport them.) factory assembly lines ( fatty acid synthase ) error check and repair systems  ( exonucleolytic proofreading ) recycling methods ( endocytic recycling ) waste grinders and management  ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )   power generating plants ( mitochondria ) power turbines ( ATP synthase ) electric circuits ( the metabolic network ) computers ( neurons ) computer networks ( brain ) all with specific purposes.

Chance of unguided random natural events producing just a minimal functional proteome, not considering all other essential things to get a first living self-replicating cell,is:

Let's suppose, we have a fully operational raw material, and the genetic language upon which to store genetic information. Only now, we can ask: Where did the information come from to make the first living organism? Various attempts have been made to lower the minimal information content to produce a fully working operational cell. Often, Mycoplasma is mentioned as a reference to the threshold of the living from the non-living. Mycoplasma genitalium is held as the smallest possible living self-replicating cell. It is, however, a pathogen, an endosymbiont that only lives and survives within the body or cells of another organism ( humans ).  As such, it IMPORTS many nutrients from the host organism. The host provides most of the nutrients such bacteria require, hence the bacteria do not need the genes for producing such compounds themselves. As such, it does not require the same complexity of biosynthesis pathways to manufacturing all nutrients as a free-living bacterium. 

Mycoplasma are not primitive but instead descendants of soil-dwelling proteobacteria, quite possibly the Bacillus, which evolved into parasites. In becoming obligate parasites, the organisms were able to discard almost all biosynthetic capacity by a strategy of gaining biochemical intermediates from the host or from the growth medium in the case of laboratory culture.

The simplest free-living bacteria is Pelagibacter ubique. 13 It is known to be one of the smallest and simplest, self-replicating, and free-living cells.  It has complete biosynthetic pathways for all 20 amino acids.  These organisms get by with about 1,300 genes and 1,308,759 base pairs and code for 1,354 proteins.  14  That would be the size of a book with 400 pages, each page with 3000 characters.  They survive without any dependence on other life forms. Incidentally, these are also the most “successful” organisms on Earth. They make up about 25% of all microbial cells.   If a chain could link up, what is the probability that the code letters might by chance be in some order which would be a usable gene, usable somewhere—anywhere—in some potentially living thing? If we take a model size of 1,200,000 base pairs, the chance to get the sequence randomly would be 4^1,200,000 or 10^722,000. 


Aron: But the reason we have to limit our explanations to what can be tested is because that prevents us from doing what you're doing, assuming things that are not evidently true and then asserting them as fact. In any other application, that would be considered lying.    
Reply:  You keep misrepresenting what i say, despite that i corrected you in my previous email. I do use abductive reasoning to the best explantion, and do not claim to know what nobody can know. You, on the other hand, are doing PRECISELY what you accuse me of doing. Stating things as a fact, which you can't, because you are not all knowing.


Aron:  Creation requires a creator, but this isn't a creation. This is reality, and reality doesn't need a realtor.
Reply:  I have never seen an atheist logically disproving Aquinas five ways. Try.

Gods existence can be logically proven:
1. A series of events exists.   One event is added to another to get us to today.  But we know that whenever we pause, we can't have an infinite number of events.  This means that there is not an infinite number of events that go backward from this point in time. Adding individual events together can never get to an infinite period of time.  
2. The series of events exists as caused and not as uncaused(necessary)
3. There must exist an uncaused necessary being that is the cause of all contingent being
4. Since that cause created space, time, and matter, it must be above and beyond physical reality. That cause must be timeless, uncaused, eternal, spaceless, and personal. We call it God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPCzEP0oD7I&t=8s

Aron: There are both discoveries that can be made and experiments that can be performed to confirm events in the past just as well as in the present. We both know that there was a point when there was no life yet on this planet and then there was. So we both know life does not only come from life, but must have had a beginning.
Reply:  Life from nonlife would be, if life emerged from inanimated matter. Life from life is, if God did interveen.


Aron: Scientists say it happened naturally, creationists say it happened magically.
Reply:  Is the claim that it happened naturally, warranted ? If so, you must know something which i don't. Because, in my book, Abiogenesis is a FAILED hypothesis.

Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible

Some of the worlds leading scientists in the field of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and computational biology, like James Tour, Graham Cairns-Smith, Eugene Koonin and Steve Benner have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, that abiogenesis research is a failure, and the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general.

Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 351:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.

Steve Benner:  Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed,  page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.

Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.

Aron: Life is an emergent property of matter.
Reply: Prove it. 


Aron:> > Aron: It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, pretending to know things no one even can know.
> Otangelo: That is the kind of generalisation which i object. Who made absolute claims?

You did. You're the one who cited yourself in defense of the erroneous notion that life has to be pre-programmed, which it obviously does not and cannot have been.
Reply:  You need to argue with science then. Not with me.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1281-dna-stores-literally-coded-information#8138

1. Algorithms, prescribing functional instructions, digital programming, using symbols and coding systems are abstract and non-physical, and originate always from thought—from conscious or intelligent activity. 
2. Genetic and epigenetic information is characterized containing prescriptive codified information, which result in functional outcomes due to the right particular specified complex sequence of triplet codons and ultimately the translated sequencing of amino acid building blocks into protein strings.  The sequencing of nucleotides in DNA also prescribes highly specific regulatory micro RNAs and other epigenetic factors.
3. Therefore, genetic and epigenetic information comes from an intelligent mind. Since there was no human mind present to create life, it must have been a supernatural agency. 

Dichotomy in the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms: biosemiotics applications in genomic systems
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319427/
Biological information frequently manifests its “meaning” through instruction or actual production of formal bio-function. Such information is called Prescriptive Information (PI). PI programs organize and execute a prescribed set of choices. Closer examination of this term in cellular systems has led to a dichotomy in its definition suggesting both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms are constituents of PI. This paper looks at this dichotomy as expressed in both the genetic code and in the central dogma of protein synthesis. An example of a genetic algorithm is modeled after the ribosome, and an examination of the protein synthesis process is used to differentiate PI data from PI algorithms.

Both the method used to combine several genes together to produce a molecular machine and the operational logic of the machine are examples of an algorithm. Molecular machines are a product of several polycodon instruction sets (genes) and may be operated upon algorithmically. But what process determines what algorithm to execute?

In addition to algorithm execution, there needs to be an assembly algorithm. Any manufacturing engineer knows that nothing (in production) is built without plans that precisely define orders of operations to properly and economically assemble components to build a machine or product. There must be by necessity, an order of operations to construct biological machines. This is because biological machines are neither chaotic nor random, but are functionally coherent assemblies of proteins/RNA elements. A set of operations that govern the construction of such assemblies may exist as an algorithm which we need to discover. It details real biological processes that are operated upon by a set of rules that define the construction of biological elements both in a temporal and physical assembly sequence manner.

Aron: In that, you also demonstrated that you don't know what microevolution is. Creationists never do, even though your lot pretend to accept it. So I'll be making a video soon to explain what microevolution really is, and how you liars don't really accept what you say you do.
Reply:  I know precisely what it means. What i question imho, if the mechanisms proposed are adequate. Which i think, they are not. You don't need to make a video on the subject.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_02

Aron: You said that natural laws require a lawmaker, so you don't know what natural laws are either.
Reply: Laws of Physics, where did they come from? 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from

Laws of Physics, where did they come from?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8VYZwzLbk8&t=256s

1. Laws and mathematical formulas objectively, exist and originate in the mind of conscious intelligent beings.
2. The physical laws that govern the physical universe therefore had to emerge from a mind.
3. We call that the mind of GOD

1. The laws of physics are immutable: absolute, eternal, perfect mathematical relationships, infinitely precise in form.
2. The laws were imprinted on the universe at the moment of creation, i.e. at the big bang, and have since remained fixed in both space and time.
3. The ultimate source of the laws transcend the universe itself, i.e. to lie beyond the physical world.
4. Laws and mathematical formulas objectively, exist, and originate in the mind of conscious intelligent beings.
5. Therefore, the physical laws that govern the universe came from God.

Aron: You believe the universe was "fine-tuned" for us, which is demonstrably false.
Reply: Fine-tuning of the universe
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universe

Fine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophilius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6gZKqQkPw&t=1631s

The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history. Without fine-tuning, there would be no universe. The likelihood to have the right expansion rate at the Big bang is one to 10^123 ( Cosmological constant ) 

Steven Weinberg Department of Physics, University of Texas 
There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

45Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:58 am

Otangelo


Admin
Aron: You are an irrationalist. You are operating on religious biases that are not based on reason
Reply: We are all biased up to a certain degree. I can also say: YOu are operating on atheism biases and not based on reason.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1375-the-practical-impossibility-of-atheism

The strong atheist which claims that most probably, no God(s) exists, has no rational basis to make any meaningful and trustworthy claim if his brain is developed from the mind of the lower animals, evolved from some random forces of nature, some random mutations, why should someone believe in anyone else's arguments and claims? Atheists are irrational and atheism is self-defeating.

The only way to know anything at all is to know everything.....***OR***..... have revelation from someone who does.
The atheist worldview can not account for knowledge. So as soon as he makes a knowledge claim he has already abandoned his worldview and borrowed from the theistic / judeo-christian worldview. Which means he has lost as soon as he begins to debate. Christianity is true by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary.

Aron: It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact
Reply: That's precisely what you did, when you claimed that there is no God in absolute terms. Neither view, theism, nor materialism can be proven. Science will never demonstrate how reality came about. We can only look at the science available to us and find adequate philosophical explanations based on the evidence. The Scientific method nor any other will never be able to demonstrate God's existence or the claim that the material universe is all there is. Historical events cannot be repeated. From what we know, we can decide which is the bigger leap of faith - which materialism as well requires. Any view, conclusion, and position, is based on a leap of faith. It is just that - a leap of faith.  Upon my understanding, there is extraordinary evidence FOR a creator, therefore, theism requires the smallest leap of faith and that points to a creator. In my view, it is the best hypothesis based on evidence. Once that happens,  the truth seeker can choose to investigate which creator best fits the bill. Without God's hiddenness, we would not have any significant freedom. Even those that hate God would be unable to fully live according to their wishes; much like a criminal would find it intolerable living in the police station. God stays hidden to a degree, He gives people the free will to either respond to His tugging at their hearts or remain autonomous from Him. There is enough light for those who desire to find him, and enough darkness for those that prefer to live autonomously to HIM. If you prefer being an atheist, God values your free will more than His desires for you. If you are really after truth, then have an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if you don’t like the conclusion.


Aron: yet that's what all religions do, pretending to know what no one even can know.
Reply: God has proven his existence to me. I cannot believe anymore, that he does not exist. To me, he DOES exist, and I am 100% certain about that. I am convinced about that fact, as much as i am convinced about the existence of the air i breath. And somebody could even torture me to death, and I COULD NOT stop to believe in his existence. His existence is overwhelmingly obvious through his creation, and direct revelation. BUT. I cannot prove you, what I am convinced of. You have to do your own work of forming an epistemological framework and then search for the truth of our existence.

Matthew 7:8
For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
But when you seek, it's actually not, that you will find the truth. But the truth will find you.

Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.


Aron: In science, we call this lying. We cannot honestly say that a thing exists until or unless we have actual factual evidence to indicate that it does.
Reply:  Evidence does not equal demonstration or absolute proof.
Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2793-worldviews-there-are-basically-just-two-in-regards-of-origins

Claim: So we are presented with what I see as a very clear choice between the natural and the supernatural. The natural we all know exists, while the supernatural is only believed to actually exist by some who have no rational reason why they believe it exists.
Reply: Inferring that because of the fact that we have observable evidence of the existence of the natural world, therefore all reality is just natural, is a logical fallacy. The evidence points to two possible outcomes. Either the natural world is all there is and has ever been, or there is a necessary being, a creator above and beyond space-time and matter, which created all contingent beings for his own purposes. Either there is a God, a conscious intelligent mind at the bottom of all reality, or not. Based on Plato's principle of Contradiction and Excluded Middle: either that proposition is true or its negation is true, and contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time. The dichotomy that either there is a God, or there is not a God, are jointly exhaustive: everything must belong to one part or the other, and mutually exclusive: nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts.

Only one worldview can be true. If the various worldviews have mutually exclusive truth claims, only one can be true. A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. It must possess consistency and coherence in its overall claims. But most importantly, the system must correspond to reality, past, present, and future, natural and supernatural. And all major systems of thought contain key truth claims which are contrary to those of all other systems. A worldview must be consistent and explain the evidence, phenomena, and observations in the natural world adequately.

Norman Geisler:
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.

The deepest intellectual battle is not between science and religion (which, as we have seen, can operate with a great deal of accord), but between naturalism and theism—two broad philosophical (or metaphysical) ways of looking at the world. Neither view is a scientific view; neither view is based on or inferable from empirical data. Metaphysics, like numbers and the laws of logic,
lies outside the realm of human sense experience. So the issue of naturalism versus theism must be decided on philosophical grounds

Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nothing exists but matter/energy in space-time. Naturalism denies the existence of anything beyond nature. The naturalist rejects God, and also such spooky entities as souls, angels, and demons. Metaphysical naturalism entails that there is no ultimate purpose or design in nature because there is no Purposer or Designer. On the other hand, theism is the view that the universe is created by and owes its sustained existence to a Supreme Being that exists outside the universe. These two views, by definition, contradict each other.

Aron: We cannot even say that something is possible until we have a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such probability exists.
Reply: There is no logical reason to believe that God's existence is not possible. What can be said with certainty is, that was never a state o absolute nothingness ( in a philosophical sense), since otherwise, there would still be absolutely nothing. An eternal universe is not plausible based on scientific and philosophical reasons. The Big bang theory points to the origin and beginning of the universe. The second law of thermodynamics refutes an eternal universe or Cosmos ( Multiverses, Bubble universes, etc. ), and we cannot traverse an infinite period of time in the past.

Aron:  Empty, unsupported assertions without factual basis have no more credence than claims that have already been disproved.
Reply:

- Multiverse: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Virtual particles causing the universe: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Accretion theory: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Abiogenesis: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Chance producing blueprints, and upon them the make of machines, computers, energy plants, energy turbines, transistors, outboard motors, production lines, factories: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Common ancestry: unsupported assertions without factual basis
- Common ancestry & primary speciation/macroevolution: unsupported assertions without factual basis


Aron:  Come back when you have something to show. Until then, we have literally nothing to talk about.
Reply: Come back when you have something to show. Until then, we have literally nothing to talk about. See? It goes both ways. You cannot show that the natural world is all there is.
How long are you a militant atheist? And you still fail on this VERY BASIC epistemological fact ? We cannot prove which ultimate reality is true. The one where the physical world is all there is, or if there is a necessary creator at the bottom of reality.


Aron: Until then, I am completely justified, both scientifically and philosophically to reply in the negative, "no there isn't" to your unsupported (and thus indefensible) assertion of "there is a god". Just saying that there is no evidence of a thing is effectively equivalent to saying "there is no such thing".
Reply: The Bible presupposes God’s existence. To deny God’s existence is to deny the obvious. God made Himself known. When he says that the universe is designed, but it’s not.” the unbeliever is rejecting the obvious. To deny God’s existence means to reject that the evidence points evidently to God.

Being cannot come from non-being. Contingent existence is evidence of a necessary Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

“I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour if we will only tune in.”
George Washington Carver

If God is not the metaphysical, supernatural, primary ultimate essential eternal necessary irreducible personal being upon which all other temporal natural things, humans with personality, consciousness, and rationality causally derive and depend, what is, and why? If there was not an eternal being, an agency with a will, that caused all physical and contingent mental conscient beings, the cosmos and/or our universe into existence, how could an alternative substance without qualia be an explanation, and on top of that, a better explanation? That, in special, in light of the fact that consciousness, an irreducible, fundamental property of mind cannot, even in principle, be reduced to known physical principles? To ascribe to the electrons in our brain the property to generate consciousness, and not to ascribe the same property to the electrons moving in a bulb, is in contradiction with quantum physics, which establishes that all electrons are equal and indistinguishable, that is they have all exactly the same properties.



Last edited by Otangelo on Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:14 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

46Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Thu Dec 24, 2020 5:13 am

Otangelo


Admin
Aron:  Do not quote known frauds in defense of your position. May I remind you that Behe was reprimanded by a District Court Judge for lying in the courtroom. Judge John E Jones requested that Behe be charged with perjury for the lies he told under oath attempting to defend Intelligent Design.

I must repeat, there is no "pre-programming" evident in living cells.
Reply:  Science does LITERALLY PROVE you wrong. 

1. The cell has a sophisticated information-processing system. It is not only analogous to a man-made computer but operates literally as a computer.  
2. Computer programs require programmers, conscious agents with knowledge and foresight who can code the needed instructions, in the right sequence, to generate a functioning and information-rich program.
3. Since cells contain an information storage system (DNA), a code language (the genetic code), and instructions encoded through the genetic code stored in DNA, and an information transmission system, that is 1. Encoding ( transcription into messenger RNA (mRNA) through RNA polymerase enzyme catalysts (transcription), 2.  Sending (mRNA), and 3. Translation (mRNA to amino acids through the Ribosome), all this requires a programmer. The programmer is with high probability an intelligent designer (God).

Dynamic changes of genome, pre-programmed or in response to the changing environment.  
In the last decade or so, however, it has been revealed that genetic material is not stable or static but a dynamic one, changing incessantly and rapidly, the changes being either pre-programmed or in response to the changing environment.
https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do;jsessionid=12397CF37F046B9EB4DEA093BC909F0B?request_locale=fr&recordID=KR19900040981&query=&sourceQuery=&sortField=&sortOrder=&agrovocString=&advQuery=&centerString=&enableField=

These alterations in the genome size occurred right at the first generation of amphidiploids, revealing the rapidity of the event. They suggest that these alterations, observed after allopolyploidization and without additive effect on the genome size, represent a pre-programmed adaptive response to the genomic stress caused by hybridization, which might have the function of stabilizing the genome of the new cell.
https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-70542003000100003&script=sci_arttext

Early pre-programming of genes
Special proteins are pre-programming genes which later regulate fetal development. This pre-programming occurs at an earlier stage than previously known.
https://partner.sciencenorway.no/dna-forskningno-norway/early-pre-programming-of-genes/1403186

[Pre-programmed genes]
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28823208/

The evolution of the temporal program of genome replication
In yeast, active origins are distributed throughout the genome at non-transcribed and nucleosome-depleted sequences and comprise a specific DNA motif called ARS consensus sequence which is bound by the Origin Recognition Complex throughout the cell cycle 4–6. Despite of this partially pre-programmed replication activity, different cells in a population may use different subsets of active origins.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/210252v1.full

Learn about behaviors that are pre-programmed into an animal's genes, including reflexes and fixed action patterns.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/ecology-ap/responses-to-the-environment/a/innate-behaviors

A number of theories have been generated to account for this spatial heterogeneity, including a zonated response to spatial gradients, or an internal clock where epithelial cells are pre-programmed to express different functional genes.
https://www.epistem.co.uk/spotlight/Lgr5-telocytes-signalling-source

The cells of the human body are governed by a set of pre-programmed processes, known as the cell cycle, which determines how cells progress and divide.
https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/The-Role-of-Cell-Division-in-Tumor-Formation.aspx

CRISPR (again, shorthand for CRISPR-Cas9), utilizes the Cas9 enzyme, a naturally produced protein in cell types built for DNA splicing, to “unzip” these chained nucleotides at a specific spot and then replace the nucleotide chain with the one attached. The location is based on pre-programmed information in the enzyme—essentially it floats around inside the nucleus until it finds the correct spot, then gets to work.
https://nanocellect.com/blog/using-crispr-technology-to-engineer-genetically-modified-cell-lines/

What are telomeres?
Are our cells just following a pre-programmed biological timetable regardless of any other factors? Most likely it’s a combination of all of these, plus some other causes we haven’t yet discovered.
https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/what-are-telomeres



Aron: As for the rest, let me explain what evolution really is. Unless otherwise specified, when scientists speak of evolution, they're referring to an explanation of biodiversity via population mechanics, summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent modification’: Paraphrased for clarity, it is a process of varying allele frequencies among reproductive populations; leading to (usually subtle) changes in the morphological or physiological composition of descendant subsets. When compiled over successive generations, these can expand biodiversity when continuing variation between genetically-isolated groups eventually lead to one or more descendant branches increasingly distinct from their ancestors or cousins.
Reply:  Correct. And - your point is ??

Aron: Correct. Evolution being defined as "descent with inherent modification" follows an ancestor-descendent relationship, but much of what we know of prokaryote reproduction is that there is quite a lot of horizontal gene transfer going on; so much that we don't have a clear phylogenetic tree. Eukaryotes could arguably be from a single common ancestor, despite some horizontal gene transfer even there, but that's where a distinct lineage becomes clearly traceable, as I demonstrated in my 50-part series on the Systematic Classification of Life.
Reply:  Common descent, the tree of life, a failed hypothesis

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2239-evolution-common-descent-the-tree-of-life-a-failed-hypothesis

1. The DNA replication machinery is not homologous in the 3 domains of life. The bacterial core replisome enzymes do not share a common ancestor with the analogous components in eukaryotes and archaea.
2. Bacteria and Archaea differ strikingly in the chemistry of their membrane lipids. Cell membrane phospholipids are synthesized by different, unrelated enzymes in bacteria and archaea, and yield chemically distinct membranes.
3. Sequences of glycolytic enzymes differ between Archaea and Bacteria/Eukaryotes. There is no evidence of a common ancestor for any of the four glycolytic kinases or of the seven enzymes that bind nucleotides.
4. There are at least six distinct autotrophic carbon fixation pathways. If common ancestry were true, an ancestral Wood–Ljungdahl pathway should have become life's one and only principle for biomass production.
5. There is a sharp divide in the organizational complexity of the cell between eukaryotes, which have complex intracellular compartmentalization, and even the most sophisticated prokaryotes (archaea and bacteria), which do not.
6. A typical eukaryotic cell is about 1,000-fold bigger by volume than a typical bacterium or archaeon, and functions under different physical principles: free diffusion has little role in eukaryotic cells but is crucial in prokaryotes
7. Subsequent massive sequencing of numerous, complete microbial genomes have revealed novel evolutionary phenomena, the most fundamental of these being: pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT), in large part mediated by viruses and plasmids, that shapes the genomes of archaea and bacteria and call for a radical revision (if not abandonment) of the Tree of Life concept
8. RNA Polymerase differences: Prokaryotes only contain three different promoter elements: -10, -35 promoters, and upstream elements.  Eukaryotes contain many different promoter elements
9. Ribosome and ribosome biogenesis differences: Although we could identify E. coli counterparts with comparable biochemical activity for 12 yeast ribosome biogenesis factors (RBFs), only 2 are known to participate in bacterial ribosome assembly. This indicates that the recruitment of individual proteins to this pathway has been largely independent in the bacterial and eukaryotic lineages. 22

Aron: hat you're calling the Blind Watchmaker is the fact that we do have comprehensive explanations for these evolutionary processes, and not only do we not have to want to a magic invisible manipulator, but there is no way to squeeze one in and no evidence to justify such an assumption to be inserted.
Reply:  Where Do Complex Organisms Come From?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2316-evolution-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from

How does biological multicellular complexity and a spatially organized body plan emerge?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2990-how-does-biological-multicellular-complexity-and-a-spatially-organized-body-plan-emerge

The findings show a clear Lamarckian epigenetic contribution to gene network evolution and the classic Darwinian interpretation of evolution alone cannot explain our observations. “The findings support the idea that both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms need to be combined in a ‘grand unified theory of evolution,’”
https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/yeast-study-yields-insights-longstanding-evolution-debate

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

47Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Thu Dec 24, 2020 2:51 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Aron:Aron: Creation never happened and is a lie
Reply: Prove it !! See what you said: It is dishonest to assert baseless speculation as though it were a matter of fact, pretending to know things no one even can know.
Once again, positive claims require positive evidence.
Reply: Creation never happened and is a lie /// So then. You made a positive claim. Prove that the natural world is all there is.

Aron: cough up something you can show to be true
Reply:  Many atheists have made a career out of making silly requirements based on ignorance, rather than first creating a solid epistemological framework of inquiry, and then asking relevant questions. Abiogenesis is how to test the materialism claim and it fails. Almost seventy years of experimental attempts of recreating life in the lab and not even the basic building blocks have been recreated. Evolution has been tested and it fails. 70,000 generations of bacteria, and all they got, are bacteria. No hint of a transition zone to a new organismal limb or improvement of complexity. Fail. The existence of God is inferred just like all historical science is. This is basic logic and critical thinking but some atheists have a mind like a sieve.
God's existence is inferred by many criteria, like abductive reasoning, and eliminative inductions, but many persevere on nonsensical demands like asking for demonstrations of God's existence.
How does someone “test” for the widely credited multiverse? They can’t, don’t even try. Honest physicists know this.
The existence of God is as valid as multiverse, string theory, abiogenesis, macroevolution, and numerous other improvable theories.
Many atheists are like the kid stuck in high school who never grows up or moves on. Like a windup echo chamber.


https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existence

Aron:  It is a lie to say that "operational science and historical science are two different "kinds" of science.
Reply:  You demonstrate that you did not read the information of the link given in my previous reply.

Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
Historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/81ca/78baf41581a70ddf0af3115ea8255aace4fb.pdf

International Committee of Historical Sciences
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_Historical_Sciences
The International Committee of Historical Sciences / Comité international des Sciences historiques (ICHS / CISH) is the international association of historical scholarship. It was established as a non-governmental organization in Geneva on May 14, 1926.[1] It is composed of national committees and international affiliated organizations devoted to research and to scholarly publication in all areas of historical study. There are currently 51 national committees and 30 international associations members of the CISH.

So, its NOT a lie.

Aron: (1) Abduction is making probable conclusions based on what you know. You don't know anything about the supernatural.
Reply: We do not need to know anything in absolute terms. But we can search for signs of ( past ) intelligent action in the natural world.

How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2805-how-to-recognize-the-signature-of-past-intelligent-action

Once we have detected that an intelligent designer most likely created the world, we can use philosophy and theology to try to identify the designer:

125 reasons to believe in God
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god

Aron: You can't even define it or show that there is such a thing. 
Reply: Aquinas showed us that the attributes of a true God are logically deduced. Properties of the first cause:

1. Supernatural in nature, (As it exists outside and beyond of the natural physical universe),
2. Uncaused, beginningless, and eternal (self-existent, as it exists without a cause, outside of time and space, besides the fact that infinite regress of causes is impossible. ),
3. Omnipresent & all-knowing (It created space and is not limited by it),
4. Changeless ( Change depends on physical being )
5. Timeless  ( Without physical events, there can be no time, and time began with the Big Bang  )
6. Immaterial (Because He transcends space and created matter),
7. Spaceless ( Since it created space)
8. Personal (The impersonal can’t create personality, and only a personal, free agent can cause a change from a changeless state )
9. Enormously Powerful ( Since it brought the entire universe, space-time and matter into existence )
10. Necessary (As everything else depends on it),
11. Absolutely independent and self-existent ( It does not depend on a higher causal agency to exist otherwise there would be infinite regress which is impossible )
12. Infinite and singular (As you cannot have two infinities),  
13. Diverse yet has unity (As all multiplicity implies a prior singularity),  
14. Intelligent (Supremely, to create everything, in special language, complexity, factories and machines),  
15. Purposeful (As it deliberately created everything with goals in mind),

An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect

1. God is supernatural in nature Acts 17:24-25
2. God is uncaused, beginningless, and eternal  1 Timothy 1:17
3. God is omnipresent & all-knowing Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24
4. God is unchanging Malachi 3:6
5. God is immaterial (spirit) John 4:24
6. God is personal John 4:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Isaiah 25:1,  Isaiah 63:7, Psalm 78:1, 1 Chronicles 16:8, Micah 4:12, Job 29:4, 2 Corinthians 13:14
7. God is enormously Powerful Genesis 17:1
8. God is timeless Revelation 1:8
9. God is necessary Genesis 1:1
10. God is omniscient ( All-knowing ) Psalm 147:4-5
11. God is absolutely independent and self-existent Isaiah 46:9
12. God is One, yet He exists in three persons Matthew 3:16-17
13. God is extraordinarily intelligent Jeremiah 32:17
14. God is all-understanding Psalm 147:5
15. God is purposeful 

The Kalam leads to the God of the Bible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2877-the-kalaam-leads-to-the-god-of-the-bible

Aron:  In order to qualify as an explanation at all, we have to be able to objectively confirm that this can happen and that it does account for the data we're examining.
Reply:  Can you objectively confirm the alternative explanations, like that the universe can be eternal, or pop up out of absolutely nothing? You make evidently silly requirements at the one side, and do not apply them to your preferred worldview. That's epistemological incompetence in square.

Aron:   We have discovered an awful lot about the many chemical processes involved in abiogenesis,
Reply:  Abiogenesis is mathematically  impossible

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible Some of the worlds leading scientists in the field of synthetic chemistry, biochemistry, and computational biology, like James Tour, Graham Cairns-Smith, Eugene Koonin and Steve Benner have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, that abiogenesis research is a failure, and the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general.

Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 351:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.

Steve Benner:  Paradoxes in the origin of life
Discussed here is an alternative approach to guide research into the origins of life, one that focuses on “paradoxes”, pairs of statements, both grounded in theory and observation, that (taken
together) suggest that the “origins problem” cannot be solved.

Graham Cairns-Smith: Genetic takeover, page 66:
Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building up nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speaks strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis.

Garrett: Biochemistry, 6th ed,  page 665
Key compounds, such as arginine, lysine, and histidine; the straight-chain fatty acids; porphyrins; and essential coenzymes, have not been convincingly synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions.

Robert Shapiro: A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life
A profound difficulty exists, however, with the idea of RNA, or any other replicator, at the start of life. Existing replicators can serve as templates for the synthesis of additional copies of themselves, but this device cannot be used for the preparation of the very first such molecule, which must arise spontaneously from an unorganized mixture. The formation of an information-bearing homopolymer through undirected chemical synthesis appears very improbable.

Aron:   So the first thing we needed to know was how do we get to organic chemistry, specifically beginning with amino acids.
Reply:  Amino acids

Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L1MfGrtk0A

How could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation?
How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required in a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)?
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided?
How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
How did prebiotic events produce the twenty amino acids used in life? Eight proteinogenic amino acids were never abiotically synthesized under prebiotic conditions.
How did a prebiotic synthesis of biological amino acids avoid the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products?
How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced and concentrated only left-handed amino acids? ( The homochirality problem )
How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
How did nature "know" that the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal and optimal?
How did Amino acid synthesis regulation emerge?  Biosynthetic pathways are often highly regulated such that building blocks are synthesized only when supplies are low.
How did the transition from prebiotic synthesis to cell synthesis of amino acids occur? A minimum of 112 enzymes is required to synthesize the 20 (+2) amino acids used in proteins.

Aron:   The emergence of eukaryotes was technically not an evolutionary event but one of endosymbiosis,
Reply:  On the Origin of Mitochondria: Reasons for Skepticism on the Endosymbiotic Story 4

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1303-challenges-to-endosymbiotic-theory

The origin of eukaryotes is one of the hardest and most intriguing problems in the study of the evolution of life, and arguably, in the whole of biology. On average, the volume of eukaryotic cells is about 15,000 times larger than that of prokaryotic cells. 4 A major problem faced by this scenario (and symbiogenetic scenarios in general) is the mechanistic difficulty of the engulfment of one prokaryotic cell by another. The origin of eukaryotes is a fundamental, forbidding evolutionary puzzle. The scenario of eukaryogenesis, and in particular the relationship between endosymbiosis and the origin of eukaryotes, is far from being clear. Compared to archaea and bacteria (collectively, prokaryotes), eukaryotic cells are three to four orders of magnitude larger in volume and display a qualitatively higher level of complexity of intracellular organization. Eukaryotic cells function on different physical principles compared to prokaryotic cells, which is directly due to their (comparatively) enormous size. The gulf between the cellular organizations of eukaryotes and prokaryotes is all the more striking because no intermediates have been found. So intimidating is the challenge of eukaryogenesis that the infamous notion of irreducible complexity’ has sneaked into serious scientific debate 2 . The diversity of the outcomes of phylogenetic analysis, with the origin of eukaryotes scattered around the archaeal diversity, has led to considerable frustration and suggested that a ‘phylogenomic impasse’ has been reached, owing to the inadequacy of the available phylogenetic methods for disambiguating deep relationships. The evolutionary trajectory of modern eukaryotes is distinct from that of prokaryotes. Data from many sources give no direct evidence that eukaryotes evolved by genome fusion between archaea and bacteria. Nuclei, nucleoli, Golgi apparatus, centrioles, and endoplasmic reticulum are examples of cellular signature structures (CSSs) that distinguish eukaryote cells from archaea and bacteria.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

48Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:02 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Aron:   Evolution has withstood a more concentrated and sustained battery of critical analysis than any other scientific theory, yet it has never failed once.
Reply: Why Darwins theory of evolution does not explain biodiversity

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2623-why-darwins-theory-of-evolution-does-not-explain-biodiversity

Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. 
2010 Sep 15
"Genomic changes caused by epigenetic mechanisms tend to fail to fixate in the population, which reverts back to its initial pattern." That's not all that doesn't fixate. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. This is notable because in wild populations we expect the strength of natural selection to be less intense and the environment unlikely to remain constant for ~600 generations. Consequently, the probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments. 6

Evolution by epigenesis: farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise
2004 May-Aug
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. 7
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191

Dissecting Darwinism
2012 Jan; 25
regarding the origin of the species and life (DNA), even Darwin commented, “If it could be shown that complex systems could not arise by small sequential steps, then my theory would completely break down.” Irreducibly complex systems involving thousands of interrelated specifically coded enzymes do exist in every organ of the human body. At an absolute minimum, the inconceivable self-formation of DNA and the inability to explain the incredible information contained in DNA represent fatal defects in the concept of mutation and natural selection to account for the origin of life and the origin of DNA. As new theories emerge that explain the origin of life, the inevitable emotional accusations of heresy and ignorance are not surprising in a period of scientific revolution. It is therefore time to sharpen the minds of students, biologists, and physicians for the possibility of a new paradigm. 8
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/

Werner Arber  Nobel Prize in 1978, Physiology or Medicine (sharing the honor with Daniel Nathans and Hamilton O. Smith) for the discovery of restriction enzymes and their application to molecular genetics.
The deeper we penetrate in the studies of genetic exchange the more we discover a multitude of mechanisms" involved in human genetics that falsify the mutation plus natural selection core of macroevolution.
Arber, W, D. Nathans, and H. O. Smith. 1992. 1978 Physiology or Medicine, Nobel Lectures: Physiology or Medicine 1971-1980, 469-492.

James Shapiro Microbiologistof the University of Chicago : 
There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Shapiro 1996).

Lynn Margulis: 
Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.
The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact.
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.
biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis).
The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1

Consider the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” website which informs the student that “natural selection can produce amazing adaptations.” This hilariously appears on a page  entitled “Misconceptions about natural selection.”

In fact natural selection, even at its best, does not “produce” anything. Natural selection does not and cannot influence the construction of any adaptations, amazing or not. If a mutation occurs which improves differential reproduction, then it propagates into future generations. Natural selection is simply the name given to that process. It selects for survival of that which already exists. Natural selection has no role in the mutation event. It does not induce mutations, helpful or otherwise, to occur. According to evolutionary theory every single mutation, leading to every single species, is a random event with respect to need.


Aron: So, do you understand and accept that it is a lie, a misrepresentation of evolution to expect one "kind" of thing to produce another "completely different kind"?
Reply:  Have i EVER claimed that this is how evolution works ?

Aron: This is the process by which humans harnessed to breed kale, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts and kohlrabi all from the wild mustard plant.
Reply: Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ? 
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1390-macroevolution-fact-or-fantasy

Macro-Evolution, is an atheistic, secular-humanistic, philosophical worldview that requires:
(1) massive/infinite amounts of “natural” small changes;
(2) many beneficial/magical, random genetic mutations, producing novel, more complex structures over eons of time, from a “simple” virus or amoeba, to man; and
(3) Natural Selection – the continued survival (of fittest) of these different/new living Species (cf. speciation) & Families.

NEVER, in in over 150 years, since Darwins book " On the origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation.

Microevolution and secondary speciation is a fact. The macro change however from one organism into another in long periods of time, the change of body plans and evolutionary novelties, phenotypic complexity, and phenotypic novelty is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. It's not possible.  Show me some examples of observed facts;  please provide and give me empirical data of an unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event.

What is a macroevolutionary novelty?

The change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. primary speciation),  like an organism, randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different organism with new fully functioning biological features, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. The origin of new body plans, forms, and architecture. The origins of novel branches of the tree of life at levels above that of primary speciation.  The origin and diversification of higher taxa. Of new phyla. From the supposed Last Universal Common Ancestor to unicellular eukaryotic cells. From unicellular to multicellular life.  There Are Six Important Patterns of Macroevolution: Mass Extinctions. Adaptive Radiation. Convergent Evolution.

A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003); The evolution of sirenians,   Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone” (Mayr 1963, 602). Coevolution. Punctuated Equilibrium. Developmental Gene Changes.

something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?

Robert Shapiro:
Darwin “ignored the inconvenient fact that human selection for altered traits has never generated a truly new organismal feature (e.g., a limb or an organ) or formed a new species. Selection only modifies existing characters.“

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191
In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. 


Aron:   let me just say that mAcroevolution has been directly observed and documented dozens of times
Reply:  Primary, and secondary speciation

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2360-evolution-speciation-primary-and-secondary-speciation

There are observed instances of secondary speciation -- which is not what Darwinism needs -- but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria.

primary speciation
The splitting of one species into two, usually resulting from natural selection favoring different gene complexes in geographically isolated populations.

secondary speciation
the fusion through hybridization of two species that were formerly geographically isolated, followed by the establishment of a new adaptive norm ...

Secondary speciation in the genus level is possible, but at the family level and beyond is not. Organisms can evolve only up to different genera, but not different families.

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another.

Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy are limited to flowering plants. 2 Furthermore, according to American evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy — known as “ secondary speciation ” — “ does not confer major new morphological characteristics” and does not cause the evolution of higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again — a process known as “primary speciation”—to produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwin’s theory.

Allopolyploidy, i.e. hybridization followed by chromosome doubling, is a frequent mode of secondary speciation in vascular plants (Leitch and Bennett 1997; Haufler 2008). 3The occurrence of diploids and their derived polyploids in the same area provides an excellent natural experiment to test the unique environmental responses that may exist across ploidy levels.

primary speciation : The splitting of one species into two, usually resulting from natural selection favoring different gene complexes in geographically isolated populations. 4

Aron: Don't copy text of someone else's argument that you don't understand yourself. I can refute all of this, but you wouldn't understand that either.
Reply: Nice dodge. That is MY ARGUMENT. Search the entire web, and show me if you can find a place where i supposedly copied the information from.
And your problem is: Your world view ends right here. Against facts, there are no arguments. Abiogenesis is impossible by all means. If you are so keen about honesty, its time to admit that your worldview is bunk.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

49Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:39 pm

Otangelo


Admin
Aron:  However, I will say that astro physicists Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss both say that an absolute nothing is not even possible. So that's one reason there is something rather than nothing, because there can't just be nothing.
Reply: It doesnt take Carroll nor Krauss to say this. Logic is enough.

1. The physical universe exists.
2. Existence cannot come from non-existence.
3. Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
4. The universe had a beginning. It cannot be the product of an infinite serie of regress, nor be caused by nothing.
5. Therefore, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
6. That being is God.

Aron:  abiogenesis is a long series of successful experiments, and I will show you how as we proceed.
Reply: Open questions in prebiotic chemistry to explain the origin of the four basic building blocks of life
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279p75-abiogenesis-is-mathematically-impossible#7759

What successful experiment are you talking about? No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce a self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization.

The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.

Aron: I'm already on it above. But I could refer you to Jeremy England, an assistant professor at MIT who has derived a mathematical formula that explains this capacity.
On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England
https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/on-the-origin-of-life-here-is-my-response-to-jeremy-england/

Aron: You're citing yourself again. You are not an authority. //// Now we've come to the inevitable quote-mine, ubiquitous in all arguments with creationists./// Where did the laws of physics come from? We humans made them up.
Reply:  LOL....

Aron: Once again, the universe was obviously NOT "fine-tuned" for us, as we can only live on a fraction of the surface of this one tiny mote of dust in an incomprehensibly vast cosmos of wasted space where there are trillions of other worlds that are all out of reach, and we would be killed instantly on nearly all of them.
Reply:  Is the universe hostile to life?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1896-is-the-universe-hostile-to-life?highlight=hostile

The fact to be explained is why the universe is life-permitting rather than life-prohibiting. That is to say, scientists have been surprised to discover that in order for embodied, interactive life to evolve anywhere at all in the universe, the fundamental constants and quantities of nature have to be fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision. Were even one of these constants or quantities to be slightly altered, the universe would not permit the existence of embodied, interactive life anywhere in the cosmos. These finely-tuned conditions are necessary conditions of life in a universe governed by the present laws of nature. it would be obtuse to think that the universe is not life-permitting because regions of the universe are not life-permitting! 1



https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

50Debate with  Aron Ra  - Page 2 Empty Re: Debate with Aron Ra Fri Dec 25, 2020 8:45 am

Otangelo


Admin
Aron: You could say that, but you'd be lying again. R4elgion is a bias by definition, but science seeks to minimize or eliminate bias however it can.
Reply: The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about case-adequate accurate interpretation and inferences based on the scientific evidence versus inadequate interpretations. As pointed out previously, applying methodological naturalism to historical sciences is arbitrary and unjustified. Inquiry of origins should permit the evidence to lead wherever it is, and not exclude any possible explanation a priori. The fact that science papers do not point to God, does not mean that the evidence unraveled by science does not point to God. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, it's about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.

Aron: I heard Sye Ten Bruggencate say that if you don't know everything, you don't know anything, and that the only way to anything is to know everything, or know someone who knows everything. But if you don't everything yourself, and you have to know everything to know anything, then how would you know if you knew someone who knew everything? Because by that logic, you couldn't even know even that!
Reply: If our biological features, and more importantly our cognitive machinery evolved from some random forces of nature can we trust our brain and our thinking? the very thinking, belief or trust in naturalism which are the products of blind or random forces of nature?? If we are just an evolved, ape-like being, the result of random mutations, why should someone believe in someone else's arguments? How could I trust that our rationale makes actually any sense?

“But then with me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[ Charles Darwin To William Graham 3 July 1881]”

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1375-the-practical-impossibility-of-atheism?highlight=schaeffer

Aron:  You just have to take his word for it, same as you expect me to take yours. 
Reply:  I am not suggesting that you use blind faith, but Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith

Aron:  Once again, I repeat, Hitchens' razor allows that what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Unsupported assertions have no more credence than claims that been disproved. So I am justified both scientifically and philosophically to reply "no there isn't" to your unsupported (and thus indefensible) empty assertion that there is a god.
Reply:   You dodged my point. You accuse creationists to make absolute claims, but that's PRECISELY what YOU do !! 

No-one asserts the truth of Christianity without evidence - there is a huge amount of evidence, for those willing to consider it. You ask me to provide you evidence, but it doesn't matter what evidence I provide because you will dismiss it automatically--an action consistent with your belief that "there has never been a shred of evidence" for God's existence.

Asking for 100 percent,  to truly know what occurred in the past is unrealistic. We believe in lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. It is up to logic and the factors of different lines of evidence to determine what causes best to explain our origins.  Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require. Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence.

Science provides us with evidence. Based on it, we can make post-dictions in regard to the past.  Historical sciences cannot go back with a time-machine and observe what happened back in the past. As such, abiogenesis, and macroevolution ( primary speciation ) cannot be demonstrated in as much as ID/creationism. This is not a dispute between religion and science, but good interpretations of the scientific evidence, and inadequate interpretations, which do eventually not fit well the data.

BAYESIAN PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2721-bayesian-probability-and-science

Aron:  So George Harrison actually met his god in person, face to face. How do you explain that, Otangelo?
Reply:........ where you can actually obtain God perception.”​  Having a perception is not meeting God face to face.

Aron: Nor are we talking about absolutes. But you don't get to call it truth until you show the truth of it, to show that there is some truth to it, at least some basis in fact to what you're trying to sell. Then we have something to test to determine how true it is.
Reply: … we can never have perfectly clean-cut knowledge of anything. It is a general consequence of the approximate character of all measurement that no empirical science can ever make exact statements.
P. W. Bridgman; (1882-1961); The Logic of Modern Physics; 1927/1951; p33, 34

A typical epistemological lack of understanding common to atheists is how to setup a correct methodology to find the best answers in regards to origins and reality, and to assume that given further investigations, science will or can discover with absolute certainty and tell us what has happened in the past. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Asking theists to prove that there is a God is silly.

Science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data.

Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences.

Aron: Correction: We are neither foolish nor dishonest enough to assert anything as fact that is not evidently true, and we do not want to be fooled into believing things that have not been established or demonstrated, especially when there is literally not even a possibility to consider.
Reply: Has it been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, that the natural world is all there is, and that there is nothing beyond it?

Aron: Wrong. The logic is, as I just said, that we cannot honestly say that a god is possible until we have a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating such a possibility. If you can't show that possibility, then we would by lying to say there is one.
Reply: I disagree. As long as there is no logical contradiction, the God claim is a possibility and should be taken into consideration as a possible explanation of origins.

Aron: On that we agree, which is one of the reasons why atheists do not believe that everything came from nothing.
Reply: Krauss actually does.

Krauss claims that ABSOLUTELY nothing could have created our universe !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghLSHorrcoQ&t=7s

The universe had a beginning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-beginning-the-universe-had-a-beginning

1. The universe cannot be past eternal.
2. Neither could it be self-caused.
3. Therefore, it must have been caused by something else.
4. Since that cause created space, time, and matter, it must be above and beyond physical reality.
5. That cause must be timeless, spaceless, and personal.
6. We call it God.

Carroll: "In my favorite cosmological model, which again is always subject to updating when new ideas or data come in, the universe doesn't have a beginning. It doesn't come into existence at a moment in time. It always existed.
Reply: 

The universe and/or quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1333-kalaam-the-cosmological-argument-for-gods-existence#5124

Infinite regress (a creator who needs a creator who needs a creator who needs a creator who needs a creator who needs a creator - ad infinitum), like an infinite chain of toppling dominoes, is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Because you can’t have a chain of only “needy” finite effects. There must be a “non-needy” prime mover to start the chain of creator/created – cause and effect.

If we are starting to count from now. Whenever we stop counting and look back, there is always a finite number that was counted. If we stop counting after one million, it is a finite number. A trillion. Finite. it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete.

The Second Law points to: (1) a beginning when, for the first time, the Universe was in a state where all energy was available for use; and (2) an end in the future when no more energy will be available (referred to by scientists as a “heat death”), thus causing the Universe to “die.” In other words, the Universe is like a giant watch that has been wound up, but that now is winding down. The conclusion to be drawn from the scientific data is inescapable—the Universe is not eternal.

Aron: Then it is up to you to show that there is another world besides this one. Until you do, then we cannot honestly say that any supernatural other-world exists.
Reply:  Burden of Proof : Are Theists the Only People Who Have it ?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1873-burden-of-proof-are-theists-the-only-people-who-have-it
Atheists demand constantly for evidence of Gods existence, but never apply the same burden of proof to materialism.

21:03  Burden of proof
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054s

The position of weak atheists is nothing more than a complaint about what other people believe in, referencing God. I don't believe in UFOS, but I do not go around wearing a label pin or flag to identify as one who does not believe in UFOS. So there is a problem in the logic of this issue. If you do not believe in God, big deal, but what is it that you proactively believe in, what is your positive worldview that influences your moral values, your daily behavior, your motivations, your family life, your vote, in short: that regulates or laws your own personal life? A person ought to be identified by what they believe in , not by what they do not believe in. So this is a shell game, a parlor trick. ...

We totally understand why atheists avoid the burden of proof. We all know that atheists are the very definition of a "WIMP" and why? Because they always scream about "burden of proof"  We both KNOW that if the burden of proof was placed on their tiny narrow shoulders, they will IMMEDIATELY COLLAPSE!! Their worldview is irrational and pathetic  We don't mind to demonstrate why intelligence is an infinitely more adequate potent cause in comparison to - wait - what exactly ?!! There is NO ALTERNATIVE to an eternal necessary powerful Creator; Maybe rub that in the face will help to wake-up their brains and start thinking ?

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum