Posted on 08/08/2008 9:26:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only some aspects of life are irreducibly complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle autopoiesis (self-making)-—to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
That isn't necessarily so, but keep believing as you will. I have found that science through the centuries have been wrong most of the time and failed to acknowledge real facts until years, and sometimes centuries, had passed. You do remember tomatoes being poisonous right? Or do you remember the ether? Maybe not but it used to be taught in schools. Also, many, many fake fossils have been submitted to schools and taught as fact. Still being done today. Evolution and creationism, as Christians see it, are both wrong and I am waiting for the truth but think I will not see it before I die.
In time, more and more mysteries will be solved, especially with the help of more and more sophisticated computers and technology.
Will we ever get to the absolute bottom of it? I'm guessing not, either in this life or the next if there is really one. And even that, if it turns out to be true could potentially have infinite possibilities, which is why I try to keep an open mind to all the possibilities put forth at this point in time and haven't decided it all to satisfy myself one side or another
It just could turn out both sides are right to certain limits, and even other possibilities added to the mix the human mind has yet to conceive and perhaps never will.
Nope because the matter has to exist. You cannot create matter out of nothing, unless of course you have super powers that don’t seem to exist anywhere that I have looked. The same is true of life on the planet earth, no science has been able to explain how it started, it has become so embarrassing to them that they(scientists)are now reduced to the theory that life came here from outer space on an asteroid or some other interplanetary vehicle, thinking this would shut people up but totally ignoring the fact that this does not explain how life started else where in order to be transported to earth. Nope, you can create matter from no matter, period.
I was not alive when the examples you talk about were believed to be real, but I am aware of them— and many more.
The difference between science and religion is NOT that either of them make mistakes. They both do. But that there are internal mechanisms in the scientific process that eventually correct the mistakes through testable, repeatable, peer-reviewed means.
No such provision exists in religion.
Right now, in probably many scientific theory we hold as “true” there are almost certainly flaws and errors that we have no idea exist. In time, these errors will be revealed and corrected.
I hope you see the problem with this.
Materialists must posit the existence of quadrillions of randomly appearing Universes in order to allow for the 1 in a quadrillion Universe that can give rise to life.
Deists must only posit the existence of a designer who created time and space.
Neither is a disprovable hypothesis. Similarly no-one can show that there is no God. No-one can show that there aren't quadrillions of random, mutually orthogonal Universes.
The Deist version can at least be proven - if for instance God were to enter His creation. But the materialist version cannot be proven because of the definition of what a Universe is. If you can detect a Universe, you are in it.. So if you detect a remote piece of dark matter in a Brane dimension coiled within an affine space or whatever, it's part of your Universe. The test of an event belonging to another Universe is that you can't detect it.
Any theory of multiple Universes is therefore completely divorced from the Scientific process. It can't be disproved : moreover it can't be proved. A theory that God made the Heavens and the Earth can at least be proved: God only has to make Himself known.
Actually, that's not true. Cells do not work in a perfect fashion, nor do they do nothing extraneous. If cells did nothing extraneous--if they worked perfectly--we would not age, get diseases like cancer, or die. The amount of non-functional DNA in cells is huge. Cells "make mistakes" all the time: misfolded proteins, mutated DNA, etc. As machines with a supposedly ideal design for our function, we're pretty poorly engineered, when you get right down to it.
At this time, you are correct, but many cosmologists speculate that it may be possible, some day, to create universes in a laboratory. If this is proven to be a possibility, then it is easy to speculate that given enough time, trillions of universes could have been created in a similar fashion by multitudes of civilizations reaching that state of technology.
It is speculated that such universes would contain their own sets of laws, and that the creators would not be able to interact with their creations in any way.
Who knows. I love cosmology!
That's not true. Read up on something a little more modern than a 20 year old biology text please.
In fact it is specifically mutated DNA, a “mistake” in the coding process that leads directly to evolution. Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are good and offer an advantage and this mutation is passed along the genetic chain into future generations.
In fact it is specifically mutated DNA, a “mistake” in the coding process that leads directly to evolution. Most mutations are bad for the species, but some are good and offer an advantage and this mutation is passed along the genetic chain into future generations.
The world is a part of the universe. The fact of the species is hardly an argument for the theory that all the complexities of it originated without original intention. Especially so, when we see the opposite. We observe that great complexity comes about by intentional act, where we can observe this happening.
John 14
8Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Hebrews 1
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Actually, most mutations are either neutral or occur in non-coding regions.
And, of course, the harm or benefit depends on the environment at the time.
I read the paper.
It’s just the same tired old rehash of how man-made objects are designed and that proves that science is a lie. The paper makes no sense and covers nothing new.
You snake oil salesmen who pray on us Christians are the problem. You’re in cohoots with the teachers unions to create an ignorant audience for your multi-billion dollar industry.
How much do you personally make selling this nonsense? At least when Medved was here, he admitted that he made money doing this.
What’s your excuse for demeaning Christians?
You pose the issue perfectly. Neither science (at least at our level) nor religion is sufficient to answer all of our questions adequately. But science shows infinitely more promise of eventually doing so
ME: yes, science shows infinitely more promise of eventually doing so, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU RULE OUT ANYTHING ELSE, BEFORE HAND, CLAIM IT ISNT SCIENCE (BY THE RULES YOU MAKE UP AND CALL SCIENCE) AND TOSS IT OFF A ‘FAITH’ OR ‘RELIGION’.
DUH.
You have the scientific method confused with something else. There can certainly be prejudiced scientists, but the methodology welcomes alternative theories.
They just have to be (generally) testable, repeatable and not break any laws.
Thanks GGG! I’ll take a look at it this afternoon.
They just have to be (generally) testable, repeatable and not break any laws.
In other words, only naturalistic theories allowed. All others will be dismissed outright. I think that was raygunfan’s point. Your naturalism is as much of a religious faith as my theism.
ME: yup, my point exactly, the deck is stacked,the ‘game’ is fixed.
rule out anything that dosent point to mindless, purposeless random time chance and mutation....
and say it isnt science....
and voila’, you have evolutionism....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.