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-evolutionWhat 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 lieReply:
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 naturalismhttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1692-historical-sciences-and-methodological-naturalismWhy does modern science never point to a Creator as the best explanation of origins ?
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 existencehttps://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-eventsChance 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.
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 impossiblehttps://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#81381. 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 systemshttps://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.
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-fromLaws of Physics, where did they come from?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8VYZwzLbk8&t=256s1. 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 GOD1. 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 universehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1277-fine-tuning-of-the-universeFine-Tuning Argument for God? | Otangelo Vs Leophiliushttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT6gZKqQkPw&t=1631sThe 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.