". . . they really want the direct intervention of supernatural beings to be taught alongside the existing scientific explanations." That really is what it boils down to! Very well done!
If you cannot comment with honest intent then I have nothing else to say to you, You ARE a troll, using ad hominems, slander rather than logic and reason. Obviously you have nothing intellectual to say so I won't respond further.
I'm not using an appeal to authority, I WAS JUST SHOWING YOU THAT IN THE PAST SCIENCE WAS NOT ALL ABOUT NATURALISM..
Open your eyes, look at what I write rather than you're own interpretation.. What you claim is a red herring, attempting to detrac the topic, which is that SCIENCE isn't naturalistic in nature.
And I challenge you to provide a quote of me claiming as much. If you cannot then, you are gravely mistaken and are commiting slander, (a punishable offence).
and with that I KNOW you don't understand science... Science is the search for knowledge it has no bias towards naturalism, (which is what you are intending). IF the evidence points to a conclusion then it is valid despite what you claim.
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. "- Sir Issac Newton
How am I being evangelical? Please show evidence of these claims, or is your "tactic" to use slander and ad hominems? If so you're only discrediting your own credability, and showing the true (ugly) nature of your own character.
So somehow I now have a political agenda and I am a "jihadist"? All because I do not conform to your own worldview? Because I percieve the world in a different way to you...
Obviously you're a 15 year old, or perhaps your a fundamentalist naturalist, you've got alot of growing up to do buddy.
I find it amusing that attempting naturalistic "science" requires as much semantics as a talk about the existence of God etc. Where is your science? How do you close the gap of different units of measurement, furthermore as technology keeps getting advanced we are seeing more and more information pass through smaller and smaller cables, hence there is no correlation to matter and information in how much of one is required for the other, just another thing to ponder that defies naturalism.
For a smart guy, you don't seem to be arguing for the sake of truth and logic, but for the sake of producing clever arguments for the defense of your biased assumptions. It's ironic that you rig the argument instead of embrace the argument. If you embraced the true argument, you would lose. Because observation and experience both lend enormous credibility to the fact that reality extends beyond what we call nature.
You are using metaphysical presuppositions in order to define science. Once you have established your definition of science, you declare that other metaphysical presuppositions can't be science because they don't meet the criteria of your metaphysical presuppositions. This causes serious problems to science itself, which is nothing more than a rigorous method of observation. Therefore your last statement about the fruitfulness of naturalism is completely falsified by your own criteria.
Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coyne’s mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural....
You have GOT to start thinking for yourself, Ben. This is a quote mine, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.
Lewontin is reviewing Sagan's book "Demon-Haunted World" and he's conveying the perspective on astronomy. I suggest you find the whole review "Billions and billions of demons" and see just how this quote about the wave-particle duality of light has been distorted to fool the credible into thinking it refers to evolution.
@C0nc0rdance No, he is conveying a perspective on science in general and mentions nothing specifically about astronomy. Whether or not he was reviewing a book is a moot point. Those were his words and he has never retracted them. We are not speaking of science fiction. I can assure you that the title "The Neo Darwinist wedge document" where my own words. Did those words come with a bit of sarcasm?....sure why not, but I reserve the right to be sarcastic. Actually I applaud his honesty.
It doesn't matter if it was mined or not. It only takes a few classes at a major university to discover the simple truth that science has become purposefully anti-religious. Methodological naturalism is not a scientifically verifiable assertion, it is a metaphysical presupposition. You can make epistemological statements about science, but aren't you doing the exact same thing you accuse the religious of doing? Yes. How do you know what you can know? It's naturalism, period.
Really? They would? So what about someone like you with your religion (materialism, or scientific naturalism) which is clearly anti-fact? What should we say about the shameless troll scum bags like you? Leave science out of this, it's not yours to use and abuse for your metaphysical purposes when ever you feel like it.
@circusOFprecision Its a little odd that only the first part of quote is posted and the rest has been removed. In fact what concordance did by deleting the rest and stoping at the word supernatural is akin to quote editing.
I might have used a little sarcasm by using the term "The neo Darwinist Wedge Document" but I dont believe I quote mined because I didn't take anything out of context. I urge anyone who reads the original thread to Google it and get the entire quote.
The rest of the quote is still there. I haven't removed any of it, you're just being lazy. View All Comments, and it's just below this message.
It was a quote in relation to astronomy, not evolution. You can call it the Neo Copernican Wedge Strategy, if you like, or the Neo-Relativistic Wedge Strategy.
@C0nc0rdance Then on that point I stand corrected and my apologies to you, but it was quote concerning science in general and it was made by an evolutionary biologist.
No, I think he should call it the Neo-Darwinist Wedge strategy because it refers to metaphysical principles that allow no other paradigm to be invoked other than Darwinism. You don't like it and don't want to be associated with that term? Well, that's your problem.
No, I think he should call it the Neo-Darwinist Wedge strategy because it refers to metaphysical principles that allow no other paradigm to be invoked other than Darwinism. You don't like it and don't want to be associated with that term? Well, that's your problem.
LOL.. YEC doesn't wish to "replace science", considering that in the early years of science it was used to establish a creator, - evidence of complexity = designer etc.
What the YEC want to replace is the naturalistic bias that pervades science as a cancer. In an ideal world there should be NO bias, in that any conclusion is viable if the evidence fits. Like DNA = information = intelligence = designer.
Hence it isn't religion VS science, it is YEC worldview VS naturalistic worldview
cont...We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
cont.....It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
I've never seen the point of naturalism. The definition of nature precludes only that which is explicitly fictional. Virtually all "supernatural" claims are referring to forces that have some connection with observable reality and thus can be examined by science. Anyone claiming no connection is just to stupid to realize that their belief is identical to fiction. It's like a student getting 0% on every test they take and rationalizing it by claiming their knowledge exists outside of testing.
No it means that proteins had to predate DNA as the DNA needs the proteins to arrange it properly.
Furhtermore, you'd need the SPECIFIC proteins that will do this, ( check out you-tube for a computer visual on the mechanism, its just like an assembly line).
Even further there needs to be energy to power this process... Where did the energy come from? (This is pre-dating cells so no mitochondria)
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Chirality is where you have 2 opposite forms of the same compound.. Left-handed and right handed. DNA in life is 100% left handed and is aranged that way via the correct proteins. When you die, the DNA changes to a 50-50 mix of Right and Left. These strands of DNA bond randomly and as a result, right bond with left at the wrong points and not in a cohesive join along the seam. This is why the specific proteins are necessary for DNA to come about.
I mentioned chirality of DNA, did you not read it?
I recommend you read up on Chirality it is a basic process of nature that endeavours to falsify the coming about of a DNA strand without proteins to order it... Yet these specific proteins are coded for by the DNA, which also uses energy which is supplied by the mitochondria which is coded for by the DNA.
A "chicken and the egg" situation occurs as you cannot have one without the other.
The problem is that supernatural explanations are used to explain things that we don't understand. This in every situation that we don't understand supernatural explanations are superior to natural ones. The only thing where naturalists and supernaturalists differ, is that naturalists would say that we will eventually find an explanation, and supernaturalists say we won't. Thus, easy for both sides to claim victory by assertion. The alpha and the omega statement as it were...
Great video. One thing that's missing, however, is a good definition of supernatural. I recommend that you visit Richard Carrier's blog and read his essay "defining the supernatural."
Hmmm...I think a good example of a viable supernatural explaination for a phenomena is why anyone pays Dane Cook to do anything. No way this is a natural phenomena, he must of sold his soul to the devil.
methological - we can say it just happend like every single atheist states.
naturalism pov- matter has always existed big bang is just a date in time to start on.
I dont agree whats happening in the U.S.A were the majority (prodomatly redneck christian) thinks that including their beliefs to mislead science will keep religion alive.
Science is about how,
religion/philosophy gives us why. To include religion being taught along science is ignorant.
The Discovery Institute was just fabricating a bogus principle out of whole cloth [a straw man] because even they were aware that the idea of attacking the actual methodology of science itself would quickly be regarded as silly - by anyone. so they claimed, "baseball isn't just baseball - it's really theological baseball" and tried to get away with it. NO - baseball is just baseball; and theological baseball hasn't actually ever been played anywhere. one is real the other never existed.
The Discovery Institute doesn't understand science. It goes back to falsification: even if they were right and God created everything in 7 -24 hr periods, it still wouldn't be science. And there's the objective/subjective experience: even if the supernatural is "real" , to date all experiences reported are subjective. Until there is objective data, such experiences are irrelevant to science. If we discover objective supernatural data, by definition, it wouldn't be supernatural any more.
He said it more clearly than I did: Methodological naturalism is the most productive meme in science. Supernatural explanations have all turned up empty and unproductive when applied to the natural world. What basis, then, does the Discovery Institute have for wanting to "overthrow scientific materialism"?
I'm trying to point out how inherently anti-science this goal of theirs is.
Scientists have continually failed in creating life by only naturalistic means. This is shown empirically. The creation of DNA requires the proper proteins, yet to create the proteins DNA is needed to code for them. Hence a Chicken and the Egg problem.
Hence since no scientist can naturalistically make life in reality, the supernatural explaination is best!
Hey, Haeckel fanboy, what's going on? Did you block me from your page? I just wanted to give a big shout out to my favorite Haeckel fan, but I couldn't post anything on your page. Feel free to post something on my page. I won't delete it unless it's really bad.
Haeckel accomplished more than any modern biologist. So yeah, I am a fan. He classified tens of thousands of radiolarian species, did some early histology, founded modern embryology
I have to disagree with the definition of methodological naturalism. If there was a supernatural world, it would still be possible to test its existence if it can manifest or interact with the physical one. If no other physical explanation can be reached, a non-physical one would seem more likely.
They understand this, and they know their arguments are bullshit, so they pretend that science cant accommodate the "truth".
But the 'non-physical' is an unknown, how can you explain something by invoking an unknown?
If i dont' know how tall a person is, i can't use that person as a ruler for someone else's height, and you can't even say what the 'likely' height might be in comparision because you dont' have anything to compare with.
So saying a non-physical explanation is likely if no physical is found is nonsense and has historically inhibited further physical investigation by making people stop looking too soon.
What I said, was if there was not a physical explanation, then a non-physical one becomes more likely. That would mean changing what defines physical (which is currently space and time).
I think you're confusing inference with guessing, by saying this is nonsense. There are lots of things that are not physical (like numbers) that still exist.
No, redefining physical into an unknown domain to support an explanation doesn't 'follow' just because you say it does, and since you use that as your basis to judge me as confused, your judgement becomes invalid and reflects back to you.
And your numbers example is irrelavant, because numbers are demonstratable in the natural world. But you are assuming a property of the supernatural world before any proof it even exists and declaring a likelyhood without even knowing all the possibilities.
Your first paragraph, for one thing, is totally silly and nonsensical.
When you say "But you are assuming a property of the supernatural world before any proof it even exists and declaring a likelyhood without even knowing all the possibilities". You completely missed the part where I am talking about inference, and the fact that science changes definitions all the time when new evidence is available, even if that evidence is based on an inference.
I discounted your example of supernatural because it can be demonstrated in nature. This is what i said so thats not a back peddle, its a forward peddle, a discount followed by the reason why.
By saying numbers therefore supernatural is a logical fallacy if numbers can arise in nature. (its called affirming the consequent).
If there's 3 apples and 1 orange in box C and 3 oranges and 1 apple in box D, you can say you're likely to find an orange in D compared to C, but only if you know about box D.
I object to your original statement about likelihood because you have no D and it may make us loose the orange in C.
Read my first comment; I was talking about making inferences, not guessing, which is what you seem to be saying.
Science does this all the time. We can know things exist without seeing them because they interact with reality in some way. If you read my first comment, I said this would be the case is -if there was a supernatural world-, and if our current understanding is not sufficient, we find a new explanation and that can include redefining old frameworks.
in many ways, the Discovery Institute has forsaken reality as a tool for explaining science and have opted to embrace a more supernatural outlook. One can see this as a cunning business decision. As there are far more theists in the world & that viewer ratings translates to cash flow...a reasonably minded being can see the reasoning behind their change of heart.
I'm not a theist, but I responded to the challenge a week ago and have not yet been met with one in return. For now, I am giving the benefit of a doubt, and perhaps he is very busy.
I received your message. I have been very busy, traveling abroad.
These were good examples of how supernatural phenomenon can be tested. Great job. Can you provide some papers showing third party confirmation of these phenomenon? I assume that such exciting results would be reproducible by a second group that is not invested in the results.
You realize that these loonies are religious loonies who believe the supernatural is an integral part of everything. They're just going to say "genesis is a superiour explaination than evolution" and think they met the challenge.
But a 'better' explanation demands fewer assumptions, sound logic, and ample observable back up. That oughtta be a bad news for magical sky daddy fans.
@n1a1s1i1m. Yes, I do agree. A third party observing a debate between a creationist and a scientist would be more easily convinced by the scientist's rational ideas and the theory of evolution than they would the "god did it" cop-out of the creationist. But I was referring to the creationists though, they will claim "genesis is a superior explanation than evolution" and believe it, and will not listen to reason or consider the evidence from reality. They always choose the sky-daddy.
Also, I am firmly convinced for reasons too long to go into, that a third principle exists in the universe that I do not think is reducible to mater or energy. That is, information. Information is always instantiated in the form of matter and energy, but is not an inherent property of them.
Some theists I know have jumped on this idea and claimed it is a supernatural explanation. It does not seem so to me but how would you argue this point?
Information is the same thing as order or structure. As long as the overal order and structure decreses in a system, there can be local increase in order/structure. Order is a form of energy, since it requires energy to get a more ordered system, therefor it is a part of energy. just as an object contains energy in the forms of speed, matter, heat, it also contains energy in the forms of order or structure. So no, it is not a "third principle"
I know we have PM'd about this, but for the group:
There is a fine line between Materialism and Naturalism. Non-material things (like information) can be part of the natural world. Things like Justice or Truth may have an existence, if only a subjective one, in the non-material natural world.
The supernatural can be defined positively as:
Phenomenon that do not conform to physical law in our universe.
Information does not equal intelligence. I know creationists keep claiming that but it's simply not true.
Information is imbued in ANYTHING that has structure. Even light bouncing off a stone contains information (which is the reason you can see the stone).
The useful information in DNA has evolved. Pretty much every biologist in the entire world accepts that as the fact it is.
I'm not saying that it's true because they believe it. I'm saying that the fact that those who spend their lives studying this sort of thing agree on their basic conclusions lends weight to those conclusions, while the vast majority of those who speak out against it are religionists who constantly use fallacious arguments, showing their deep ignorance (or dishonesty) on the subject.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Yes you were, saying "everyone else says so" is as bad as name dropping, and has no value of evidence at all! Science is Empirical and is proven as such, not a popularity vote made by the masses.
I'm not religious and I am using examples of REALITY that defy evolutionary thought.
Again I will ask you to support your point that "light contains information".. What information is contained?
Or is it as you said, (which contradicted yourself), when OUR SENSES TRANSDUCE INFORMATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT... Last I heard people were inteligent, so thanks for the example that supports MY claim :D lol :D
Well, the information for colors is contained in the frequency of light. The information for shape is contained in the pattern of light that enters our eye. This information does not have an intelligent source, it's just a product of physics.
"knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance"
Yes, you receive knowledge about the color and shape of an object through the information contained within the light. It fits the definition perfectly.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi But the light doesn't communicate it doesn't it.. It is just a property of nature, the wavelength of light is reflected off an object that is the same colour as its wavelength. It isn't communicating anything, since to communicate you NEED sentience.
Or are you claiming that light is sentient now? lol
"But the light doesn't communicate it doesn't it."
That's exactly the point. Properties of light fit the definition of information perfectly, but no sentience is required. Information can have non sentient origins.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Whilst I do not agree, I'll have to concur as whilst it is very simplistic it is technically information by definition.
Hence my assumed evidence solely of a designer is not so. Congrats, you're the first person on here to actually prove me wrong on something :D :D
This doesn't change my belief in a designer, (whoever it is), however. As from my studies in Microbiology I see the cell as a factory (even a city), this in itself, (in my mind), denotes a designer.
I don't really understand your point about it being simplistic. It seems to me that you want to imbue information with properties of complexity which it does not require.
What do you think about my answer to the question posed in this video?
My answer was, life itself. Since there is no empirically proven way for life to start naturalistically on its own. Furthermore there are many hinderances to the idea of a natualistic origin of life, (chirality of DNA is one). Hence the only logical explaination is that something supernatural had to "skew" the forces of nature to allow life to occur. However this in turn doesn't say WHO did it.
I'm not all that up to speed on abiogenesis so I can't really go into too much detail. I do know that there multiple competing theories with several gaps/mysteries.
But isn't your argument just the classic argument from ignorance? "We don't know how it happened so it must have been supernatural." The fact that we haven't figured out plausible mechanisms for every step doesn't indicate anything supernatural.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Nope. Since there are Laws / tenets in reality that prevent abiogenesis from EVER occuring. A supernatural explaination is the only answer.
Unless you wish to believe that the laws / tenets of reality were broken just for this to occur... Which in itself would make abiogenesis supernatural as to be supernatural is to be above natural laws. Life creates Life, this is empirically proven. Life coming from non-life is a story.
I mentioned chirality of DNA, did you not read it?
I recommend you read up on Chirality it is a basic process of nature that endeavours to falsify the coming about of a DNA strand without proteins to order it... Yet these specific proteins are coded for by the DNA, which also uses energy which is supplied by the mitochondria which is coded for by the DNA.
A "chicken and the egg" situation occurs as you cannot have one without the other.
Besides, the supernatural explanation is not better in any regard. It tells you absolutely nothing other than it happened by some supernatural means. You might as well say that "it happened somehow." I don't really see the difference between that and not knowing at all. On the other hand, the natural explanations (even if they're incomplete) can give you a detailed understanding of the mechanism and processes involved.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually it is better in many regards as it also complies with the complexity of life. Cells are referred to as "molecular machines", however as far as anyone knows a machine is designed. The interspecificity of a cell defies gradualistic evolution, as multiple parts of a system would need to "evolve" before the cell to observe any benefit, (hence it cannot be selected for by natural selection during the unfinished phases).
"multiple parts of a system would need to "evolve" before the cell to observe any benefit"
You're referring to a concept called irreducible complexity. This is a pseudoscientific concept with no backing in the scientific literature. In fact, there's plenty in the scientific literature to refute the claims made by irreducible complexity (for example a step by step mechanism for the formation of the flagellum). It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually IR is a concept of logic and is far more logical than evolution will ever be. Since evolution makes alot of grand claims, yet cannot provide the mechanisms that can account for how these claims are fulfilled. IR acnowledges that life is far more complex than Darwin EVER imagined, it is backed by all literature describing micro-biology, (its just that the bias tends to attempt an evo perspective despite the evidence saying otherwise)
RNA world hypothesis is CREATED by scientists in laboratories, using assumed data of what the world was like back then. Furthermore, they STILL haven't created life, (nor have they created DNA). Hence it doesn't solve the "chicken and the egg" problem. You just assume it does.
The RNA world hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. They haven't shown that it necessarily happened. But that's missing the point. It is a plausible explanation of the origin of DNA.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi In that case, why did you say that the RNA world solves the problems. When you now admit that it is just an idea.... It isn't plausable, please don't say that just to give yourself more credability. Until they find a mechanism to bring RNA = DNA, to bring about all the systems of a cell via gradual change, (without the cell dying), THEN it will be plausable
RNA world hypothesis is CREATED by scientists in laboratories, using assumed data of what the world was like back then. Furthermore, they STILL haven't created life, (nor have they created DNA). Hence it doesn't solve the "chicken and the egg" problem. You just assume it does.
I gave you one on the brain, showing its undeniable complexity beyond what random chance can acheive
Yes, but selection is not. If a rare incremental benefit (in population 1) is selected for, the individual with that mutation will have more offspring until the entire population (population 2) has it. Most mutations in pop2 will be deleterious and removed from the gene pool. Some time down the road, another beneficial mutation appears and spreads in the same way, and so on. That's exactly what natural selection is.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The problem is in the paper I cited. It says you only get increased fittness occuring after a progression of MULTIPLE CORRECT mutations. Hence just one or two, won't be enough for it to be selected for. Furthermore, what about promoters? A promoter is specific to the function it promotes and the signals system in place for it. Yet when a function changes then how does it get a promoter that is specific to its function? (Let alone the signal systems that are needed too)
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi I never said the papers were on Chirality! That they were "the limits" to mutation that you asked for. Hence their points do apply, and please do not confuse the issue.
Promoters ARE specific to their function, otherwise the cell would be non-stop creating things it doesn't need. The specificity enables efficiency of production. I got it from my UNIVERSITY LECTURER, where does it say otherwise? OR are you just saying that to attempt to invalidate my point?
Promoters are not specific to a function, they are part of the gene. If you change a downstream portion of the gene and thereby change its function, the promoter will promote this new function. Your lecturer is wrong.
Also, the paper about RNA viruses has nothing to do with what you're claiming.
You have not at all shown that "the naturalistic view of the origins of life defies laws of reality."
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Yes the promoter will promote the new function. However the signal system in place was already made for the previous function. Thus you will get the cell signaling for a specific function to be carried out, but it doesn't since that signal doesn't activate that function, it now activates a new function, one that the cell doesn't need since the signal system is set up for the original function.. Its like buying tyres on ebay, but they keep on sending steering wheels.
Yes, and it happens all the time. Many human diseases are caused this way. For example in Huntington's disease, the modified protein leads to neural degradation. This is why vital proteins tend to be conserved in evolution. But this is by no means a barrier to evolution happening at all.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi So you admit that the alledged "mechanism" of evolution. Is actually a detrimental process. Thus how can you justify that a destructive process can cause such masterworks of engineering, such as the brain, mitochondria- electron transport chain, the list goes on.....
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Can you show me documentation that shows that promoters are not specific to a function?
The paper was about MUTATIONS, read it again, also READ WHAT I QUOTED FOR YOU BEFORE.
Yes I did, DNA occuring naturalisticaly defies Chirality, hence I have proven that the natualistic origins of life defies reality, you just stubbornly refuse to accept it...
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you read what I said and can put 1+1 together then you will understand it. (PLease stop playing the fool, READ what I said before I put it quite simply)
If ALL of life is LEFT HANDED, and yet in nature DNA is only found outside of life in BOTH LEFT and RIGHT. Thus the 2 strands will not join properly without the proper proteins that put them together. This is what is observed when a jar of DNA is left to its own devices.
The paper is not about mutations, it's about epistatic effects on fitness in an RNA virus. Mutations were used to evaluate this. The paper does not say anything that amounts to what you're claiming.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi You missed the quoted part I posted here. It says nothing about promoters. All I was using it in support for was that IT says that you need multiple "correct" mutations to build up "fitness" in a mutation. This defies the "randomness" of mutation. In sipport of this did you know scientists have found there are parts of the DNA that are not subject to mutation AT ALL. Hence this shows that mutation is not inherently random.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The problem is in the paper I cited. It says you only get increased fittness occuring after a progression of MULTIPLE CORRECT mutations. Hence just one or two, won't be enough for it to be selected for. Furthermore, what about promoters? A promoter is specific to the function it promotes and the signals system in place for it. Yet when a function changes then how does it get a promoter that is specific to its function? (Let alone the signal systems that are needed too)
"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation of mutations that increase the new function. However, these mutations may also affect the protein’s existing function and its stability."
w w wDOTweizmannDOTac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(82)SoskineTawfikNRG2010.pdf
Most mutations are detrimental, yet for fitness to develop there needs to be multiple "good" mutations that build up to it, yet mutations are random
Wrong. Mutations are normally neutral. Even albinism despite being generally negative is largely a neutral mutation t may have a benefit depending on a certain situation, but generally it is a neutral mutation. A negative mutation can result from inbreeding, to cite an example.
And your point? What I've shown is that you need MANY MANY MANY positive mutations to occur for any effect to occur, yet (as we all know) most mutations are either detrimental or have no effect, (which is still not positive). Claiming most are neutral does nothing to increase the amount of positive mutations that are required, (which are required to occur over and over in order to increase fitness to a level where it can be selected for via "natural selection").
A statement that astoundingly ignorant shows you know nothing of genetics. Most mutations are neutral. Ho it ultimately affects the organism will vary depending on the enviornment it lives in, or other similar factors. My point still stands.
Haha I'm studying genetics at university you clown. Your point doesn't stand since as mentioned earlier MANY MANY MANY POSITIVE mutations will need to occur to increase the fitness to a level where it can be selected upon. Claiming most are neutral does NOTHING to help here since it is the POSITIVE mutations that are required for something to "evolve", as the name suggests neutral mutations don't do anything positive thus no increase in fitness.
You exclude natural selection from the equation, then of course it isnt going to work. Natural selection is the way it ultimately pans out. By ignoring that you are no better than a creationist. Though the childish typed laughter is enough indication that you are.
@NUTCASE71733 Um no, it still doesn't work. Perhaps what I am getting at is more intuned to greater minds. Natural selection doesn't play a part UNTIL THERE IS SUFFICIENT FITNESS FOR IT TO BE SELECTED FOR, (I have said this many times, are you just ignorant of my point), as the paper said YOU NEED MANY MANY MANY positive mutations accumulate (in the first place) in order to have enough fitness for selection to occur.... Understand now????
I asked what the paper was supposed to show and your response was: "I just told you, it goes against chirality of the DNA molecules. " Or was that a response to something else?
Information is a limitation, there is no way whereby information is "created" via random, unguided (un-knowing) processes... Since information is a product solely of intelligence.
Furthermore, irreducible complex systems are another limit- cellular respiration, DNA synthesis, organism body systems- digestion etc, all these REQUIRE the use of multiple parts in order to function AT ALL.. There is no way these can come about via small changes over time.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually IR is a concept of logic and is far more logical than evolution will ever be.
Evolution cannot account for the complex nature of life, they assume that blind chance created masterpieces like the brain. Here read this article it states that the brain is more complex than the internet... NOW THATS COMPLEX!
h t t p://newsDOTcnetDOTcom/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Are you going to bother reading these? Many times I have been asked for "evidence" only to have the person not even bother to read it.
Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena, “Evolution: The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0404125101, Published online before print October 18, 2004.
w w wDOTnatureDOTcom/scientificamerican/journal/v250/n1/pdf/scientificamerican0184-102.pdf
Anything to do with regulation, information processing, code repair mechanisms etc are all works of complexity, and thus are design related. It is a huge "leap of faith", to hope that random change somehow brought about all these processes.
" however as far as anyone knows a machine is designed"
It's an analogy. They are not machines in the same way as a car engine is.
And if you do want to define them as machines.. well what's your point? They you just have naturally occurring machines (just like stars are naturally occurring fusion reactors)
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you knew Micro-biology then you would realise how similar a cell is to a machine... (actually they are like factories).. I suggest reading a few paper on micro-biology, very often scientists will comment on the machine-like nature of the cell. Furthermore it is demonstrated by how it functions, - ie it is a production-line for protein assembly, quality control mechanisms, information processing, the list goes on. Read the literature, I am using THEIR analysis.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually I DID answer you, however just like before you fail to comprehend it.
A Naturalistic view on life MUST always be empirical, hence if you cannot explain something empirically then it cannot have happened. PERIOD. This is because naturalism goes hand in hand with the laws of nature, hence it should be able to be empirically proven.
A supernatural explaination does away with empirical viability as to be supernatural is to be above natural law.
Alright, but the original question at hand is to provide an example of where the supernatural provides a superior explanation. But how can it be a superior explanation if it doesn't give you any information? It doesn't even fit the definition of "explanation." It leaves the matter just as nebulous as not knowing at all.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It is superior as the naturalistic explaination GOES AGAINST REALITY. When normally naturalism is only based on reality, hence it is contradictory to its own nature. Hence it is illogical.
". . . they really want the direct intervention of supernatural beings to be taught alongside the existing scientific explanations." That really is what it boils down to! Very well done!
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
If you cannot comment with honest intent then I have nothing else to say to you, You ARE a troll, using ad hominems, slander rather than logic and reason. Obviously you have nothing intellectual to say so I won't respond further.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
Bert, you are losing this argument.
Your religious opinions aren't going to find purchase here, let alone replace the science you can't seem to grasp.
Organisms evolve.
No Designer can be named by you, let alone be proven....
odinata 4 months ago
I'm not using an appeal to authority, I WAS JUST SHOWING YOU THAT IN THE PAST SCIENCE WAS NOT ALL ABOUT NATURALISM..
Open your eyes, look at what I write rather than you're own interpretation.. What you claim is a red herring, attempting to detrac the topic, which is that SCIENCE isn't naturalistic in nature.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
You were just showing me that Newton believed in God in support of your position.
What Newton wasn't able to do is the same thing you have so far been able to do, which is prove it.
Your claim that Design is necessary is so far a failure...
odinata 4 months ago
I was quoting NEWTON you Moron!
Showing you that in the past SCIENCE was about idealism, (designer orientated)
Newton was one the greatest physicists (after Einstein, who also believed in a designer)
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
You were throwing out an appeal to authority with Newton proclaiming his belief in God to BACK YOUR POSITION.
Moron.
odinata 4 months ago
I've never said anything religious!
And I challenge you to provide a quote of me claiming as much. If you cannot then, you are gravely mistaken and are commiting slander, (a punishable offence).
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
"the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. "
Jesus CHRIST you have a short memory......
odinata 4 months ago
Its abundantly clear that the troll here is the one that his been here for a year......
odinata 4 months ago
@Odinata
and with that I KNOW you don't understand science... Science is the search for knowledge it has no bias towards naturalism, (which is what you are intending). IF the evidence points to a conclusion then it is valid despite what you claim.
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence. "- Sir Issac Newton
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
Newtons religious opinions are not science either, Bert.
Your appeal to authority is yet another fallacious misfire in your Jihad against facts....
odinata 4 months ago
How am I being evangelical? Please show evidence of these claims, or is your "tactic" to use slander and ad hominems? If so you're only discrediting your own credability, and showing the true (ugly) nature of your own character.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
As much as I appreciate your ad hominems Gil, I have to warn you--I'm going to go with the facts rather than your religious opinions.
odinata 4 months ago
@Odinata
So somehow I now have a political agenda and I am a "jihadist"? All because I do not conform to your own worldview? Because I percieve the world in a different way to you...
Obviously you're a 15 year old, or perhaps your a fundamentalist naturalist, you've got alot of growing up to do buddy.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
Never has the answer to ANY mystery of the universe been magical in nature.
Sorry Bert.
odinata 4 months ago
I'm not sure how many times you need your own quotes shown to you.
""INTELLIGENCE = DESIGNER" is a religious opinion.
odinata 4 months ago
I find it amusing that attempting naturalistic "science" requires as much semantics as a talk about the existence of God etc. Where is your science? How do you close the gap of different units of measurement, furthermore as technology keeps getting advanced we are seeing more and more information pass through smaller and smaller cables, hence there is no correlation to matter and information in how much of one is required for the other, just another thing to ponder that defies naturalism.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
For a smart guy, you don't seem to be arguing for the sake of truth and logic, but for the sake of producing clever arguments for the defense of your biased assumptions. It's ironic that you rig the argument instead of embrace the argument. If you embraced the true argument, you would lose. Because observation and experience both lend enormous credibility to the fact that reality extends beyond what we call nature.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusfreak
You just don't like science.
odinata 4 months ago
You are using metaphysical presuppositions in order to define science. Once you have established your definition of science, you declare that other metaphysical presuppositions can't be science because they don't meet the criteria of your metaphysical presuppositions. This causes serious problems to science itself, which is nothing more than a rigorous method of observation. Therefore your last statement about the fruitfulness of naturalism is completely falsified by your own criteria.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Comment removed
pompousprick 6 months ago
The neo Darwinist Wedge document.
Dr. Richard Lewontin—Dr. Coyne’s mentor at Harvard—wrote Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural....
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester
You have GOT to start thinking for yourself, Ben. This is a quote mine, and you bought it hook, line and sinker.
Lewontin is reviewing Sagan's book "Demon-Haunted World" and he's conveying the perspective on astronomy. I suggest you find the whole review "Billions and billions of demons" and see just how this quote about the wave-particle duality of light has been distorted to fool the credible into thinking it refers to evolution.
Be more skeptical!
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago 3
@C0nc0rdance No, he is conveying a perspective on science in general and mentions nothing specifically about astronomy. Whether or not he was reviewing a book is a moot point. Those were his words and he has never retracted them. We are not speaking of science fiction. I can assure you that the title "The Neo Darwinist wedge document" where my own words. Did those words come with a bit of sarcasm?....sure why not, but I reserve the right to be sarcastic. Actually I applaud his honesty.
benthemiester 7 months ago
@benthemiester
It doesn't matter if it was mined or not. It only takes a few classes at a major university to discover the simple truth that science has become purposefully anti-religious. Methodological naturalism is not a scientifically verifiable assertion, it is a metaphysical presupposition. You can make epistemological statements about science, but aren't you doing the exact same thing you accuse the religious of doing? Yes. How do you know what you can know? It's naturalism, period.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"the simple truth that science has become purposefully anti-religious"
Only someone who's religion has become anti-fact would say such a thing.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Really? They would? So what about someone like you with your religion (materialism, or scientific naturalism) which is clearly anti-fact? What should we say about the shameless troll scum bags like you? Leave science out of this, it's not yours to use and abuse for your metaphysical purposes when ever you feel like it.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Calling science a religion doesn't make it so.
Your Jehovah's Witness beliefs are a religion.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision Its a little odd that only the first part of quote is posted and the rest has been removed. In fact what concordance did by deleting the rest and stoping at the word supernatural is akin to quote editing.
I might have used a little sarcasm by using the term "The neo Darwinist Wedge Document" but I dont believe I quote mined because I didn't take anything out of context. I urge anyone who reads the original thread to Google it and get the entire quote.
benthemiester 4 months ago
@benthemiester
The rest of the quote is still there. I haven't removed any of it, you're just being lazy. View All Comments, and it's just below this message.
It was a quote in relation to astronomy, not evolution. You can call it the Neo Copernican Wedge Strategy, if you like, or the Neo-Relativistic Wedge Strategy.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Then on that point I stand corrected and my apologies to you, but it was quote concerning science in general and it was made by an evolutionary biologist.
benthemiester 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
No, I think he should call it the Neo-Darwinist Wedge strategy because it refers to metaphysical principles that allow no other paradigm to be invoked other than Darwinism. You don't like it and don't want to be associated with that term? Well, that's your problem.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
@C0nc0rdance
No, I think he should call it the Neo-Darwinist Wedge strategy because it refers to metaphysical principles that allow no other paradigm to be invoked other than Darwinism. You don't like it and don't want to be associated with that term? Well, that's your problem.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Do you think your inability to back your YEC assertions is the major reason why YEC hasn't replaced science?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
LOL.. YEC doesn't wish to "replace science", considering that in the early years of science it was used to establish a creator, - evidence of complexity = designer etc.
What the YEC want to replace is the naturalistic bias that pervades science as a cancer. In an ideal world there should be NO bias, in that any conclusion is viable if the evidence fits. Like DNA = information = intelligence = designer.
Hence it isn't religion VS science, it is YEC worldview VS naturalistic worldview
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gilbertus1986
YEC isn't a worldview.
Its a religious opinion backed by ZERO evidence.
This is why it fails to replace the sciences.
odinata 4 months ago
cont...We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
benthemiester 7 months ago
cont.....It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
benthemiester 7 months ago
I've never seen the point of naturalism. The definition of nature precludes only that which is explicitly fictional. Virtually all "supernatural" claims are referring to forces that have some connection with observable reality and thus can be examined by science. Anyone claiming no connection is just to stupid to realize that their belief is identical to fiction. It's like a student getting 0% on every test they take and rationalizing it by claiming their knowledge exists outside of testing.
kyebean 9 months ago 3
Or better yet, since this talk is getting to big for Youtube comments.. We can continue this on here...
w w wDOTevolutionfairytaleDOTcom/forum/index.php?s=491d79aaa52f47501a4edb6bfe50c6b4&showforum=20
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Comment removed
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986 w w wDOTweizmannDOTac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(82)SoskineTawfikNRG2010.pdf
w w wDOTevolutionfairytaleDOTcom/forum/index.php?s=491d79aaa52f47501a4edb6bfe50c6b4&showforum=20
These two links don't seem work.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Here is what I said before about chirality
No it means that proteins had to predate DNA as the DNA needs the proteins to arrange it properly.
Furhtermore, you'd need the SPECIFIC proteins that will do this, ( check out you-tube for a computer visual on the mechanism, its just like an assembly line).
Even further there needs to be energy to power this process... Where did the energy come from? (This is pre-dating cells so no mitochondria)
Gilbertus1986 2 days ago
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Chirality is where you have 2 opposite forms of the same compound.. Left-handed and right handed. DNA in life is 100% left handed and is aranged that way via the correct proteins. When you die, the DNA changes to a 50-50 mix of Right and Left. These strands of DNA bond randomly and as a result, right bond with left at the wrong points and not in a cohesive join along the seam. This is why the specific proteins are necessary for DNA to come about.
Gilbertus1986 2 days ago
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
I mentioned chirality of DNA, did you not read it?
I recommend you read up on Chirality it is a basic process of nature that endeavours to falsify the coming about of a DNA strand without proteins to order it... Yet these specific proteins are coded for by the DNA, which also uses energy which is supplied by the mitochondria which is coded for by the DNA.
A "chicken and the egg" situation occurs as you cannot have one without the other.
Gilbertus1986 2 days ago
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Do you admit that the naturalistic view of the origins of life defies laws of reality, (like I showed)?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Grilled Cheese Jesus...WIN
twizelby 1 year ago
They are a bunch of theocrats. They not only want god in the science curriculum, they want only god in the curriculum.
stevehayes13 1 year ago
Their reply was nicely worded, but, TBH, was shitty.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
The problem is that supernatural explanations are used to explain things that we don't understand. This in every situation that we don't understand supernatural explanations are superior to natural ones. The only thing where naturalists and supernaturalists differ, is that naturalists would say that we will eventually find an explanation, and supernaturalists say we won't. Thus, easy for both sides to claim victory by assertion. The alpha and the omega statement as it were...
Keeban3 1 year ago
Great video. One thing that's missing, however, is a good definition of supernatural. I recommend that you visit Richard Carrier's blog and read his essay "defining the supernatural."
biznor3 1 year ago
Hmmm...I think a good example of a viable supernatural explaination for a phenomena is why anyone pays Dane Cook to do anything. No way this is a natural phenomena, he must of sold his soul to the devil.
TingTang1234567 1 year ago
what caused the big bang?
methological - we can say it just happend like every single atheist states.
naturalism pov- matter has always existed big bang is just a date in time to start on.
I dont agree whats happening in the U.S.A were the majority (prodomatly redneck christian) thinks that including their beliefs to mislead science will keep religion alive.
Science is about how,
religion/philosophy gives us why. To include religion being taught along science is ignorant.
xmrwaffles2 1 year ago
Comment removed
xmrwaffles2 1 year ago
The Discovery Institute was just fabricating a bogus principle out of whole cloth [a straw man] because even they were aware that the idea of attacking the actual methodology of science itself would quickly be regarded as silly - by anyone. so they claimed, "baseball isn't just baseball - it's really theological baseball" and tried to get away with it. NO - baseball is just baseball; and theological baseball hasn't actually ever been played anywhere. one is real the other never existed.
TheDarwinman 1 year ago
The Discovery Institute doesn't understand science. It goes back to falsification: even if they were right and God created everything in 7 -24 hr periods, it still wouldn't be science. And there's the objective/subjective experience: even if the supernatural is "real" , to date all experiences reported are subjective. Until there is objective data, such experiences are irrelevant to science. If we discover objective supernatural data, by definition, it wouldn't be supernatural any more.
trinity12357 1 year ago
How DARE these fuckers align themselves with the fine tradition of discovery.
Excellent vid, C0nc0rdance!
Cotdail 1 year ago 3
PZ Myers has a good spin on this subject at Pharyngula right now. Under the heading
"It isn't an exclusionary filter, it's a standard of quality"
Enjoy!
middlekk 2 years ago 2
He said it more clearly than I did: Methodological naturalism is the most productive meme in science. Supernatural explanations have all turned up empty and unproductive when applied to the natural world. What basis, then, does the Discovery Institute have for wanting to "overthrow scientific materialism"?
I'm trying to point out how inherently anti-science this goal of theirs is.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 5
@C0nc0rdance
I have solved your problem :D
LIFE, the creation of Life
Scientists have continually failed in creating life by only naturalistic means. This is shown empirically. The creation of DNA requires the proper proteins, yet to create the proteins DNA is needed to code for them. Hence a Chicken and the Egg problem.
Hence since no scientist can naturalistically make life in reality, the supernatural explaination is best!
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Hey, Haeckel fanboy, what's going on? Did you block me from your page? I just wanted to give a big shout out to my favorite Haeckel fan, but I couldn't post anything on your page. Feel free to post something on my page. I won't delete it unless it's really bad.
Mortison77577 1 year ago
Haeckel accomplished more than any modern biologist. So yeah, I am a fan. He classified tens of thousands of radiolarian species, did some early histology, founded modern embryology
LeopardFrogPilboxhat 1 year ago
obvious that there is.
VyckRo 2 years ago
Well stated.
philstilwell 2 years ago
I have to disagree with the definition of methodological naturalism. If there was a supernatural world, it would still be possible to test its existence if it can manifest or interact with the physical one. If no other physical explanation can be reached, a non-physical one would seem more likely.
They understand this, and they know their arguments are bullshit, so they pretend that science cant accommodate the "truth".
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
But the 'non-physical' is an unknown, how can you explain something by invoking an unknown?
If i dont' know how tall a person is, i can't use that person as a ruler for someone else's height, and you can't even say what the 'likely' height might be in comparision because you dont' have anything to compare with.
So saying a non-physical explanation is likely if no physical is found is nonsense and has historically inhibited further physical investigation by making people stop looking too soon.
intermender 2 years ago
What I said, was if there was not a physical explanation, then a non-physical one becomes more likely. That would mean changing what defines physical (which is currently space and time).
I think you're confusing inference with guessing, by saying this is nonsense. There are lots of things that are not physical (like numbers) that still exist.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
No, redefining physical into an unknown domain to support an explanation doesn't 'follow' just because you say it does, and since you use that as your basis to judge me as confused, your judgement becomes invalid and reflects back to you.
And your numbers example is irrelavant, because numbers are demonstratable in the natural world. But you are assuming a property of the supernatural world before any proof it even exists and declaring a likelyhood without even knowing all the possibilities.
intermender 2 years ago
You're not understanding what I am saying at all.
Saying one is assuming something before there is "proof" has nothing to do with what I just said, because I was saying just the opposite.
I am not even sure why you're arguing, because you're not addressing what I actually said, but making assumptions yourself.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
what assumption am i making?
intermender 2 years ago
Your first paragraph, for one thing, is totally silly and nonsensical.
When you say "But you are assuming a property of the supernatural world before any proof it even exists and declaring a likelyhood without even knowing all the possibilities". You completely missed the part where I am talking about inference, and the fact that science changes definitions all the time when new evidence is available, even if that evidence is based on an inference.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
science hasn't inferred the existence of a supernatural, you have. There is a difference.
intermender 2 years ago
lol for fuck's sake, read what I said and not what you think I am saying.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
Dont tell me we cant know of non-physical things, then when I give you a direct example, back-peddle saying that doesnt count because we know it.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
I discounted your example of supernatural because it can be demonstrated in nature. This is what i said so thats not a back peddle, its a forward peddle, a discount followed by the reason why.
By saying numbers therefore supernatural is a logical fallacy if numbers can arise in nature. (its called affirming the consequent).
intermender 2 years ago
Your use of supernatural, and your insistence at telling me what I am thinking is also an assumption. I said nothing like that.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
by supernatural i mean positing the existence of something or assuming it without scientific basis.
if you can't find something in box A, you can't say its likely to be in box B if theres no box B in evidence. Its more likely you missed it in box A
Thats my whole point, i'm not saying anything else. or put it another way:
intermender 2 years ago
If there's 3 apples and 1 orange in box C and 3 oranges and 1 apple in box D, you can say you're likely to find an orange in D compared to C, but only if you know about box D.
I object to your original statement about likelihood because you have no D and it may make us loose the orange in C.
intermender 2 years ago
You need to calm it down a notch.
Read my first comment; I was talking about making inferences, not guessing, which is what you seem to be saying.
Science does this all the time. We can know things exist without seeing them because they interact with reality in some way. If you read my first comment, I said this would be the case is -if there was a supernatural world-, and if our current understanding is not sufficient, we find a new explanation and that can include redefining old frameworks.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
Sorry, I shall never see why you have to add 'if there was a supernatural world', when all that can be done by re-examining the natural world.
intermender 2 years ago
in many ways, the Discovery Institute has forsaken reality as a tool for explaining science and have opted to embrace a more supernatural outlook. One can see this as a cunning business decision. As there are far more theists in the world & that viewer ratings translates to cash flow...a reasonably minded being can see the reasoning behind their change of heart.
thedeeliciousplum 2 years ago
They will never response because there is NO answer .
CDTOE 2 years ago
I'm not a theist, but I responded to the challenge a week ago and have not yet been met with one in return. For now, I am giving the benefit of a doubt, and perhaps he is very busy.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
@poorkinghaggard
I received your message. I have been very busy, traveling abroad.
These were good examples of how supernatural phenomenon can be tested. Great job. Can you provide some papers showing third party confirmation of these phenomenon? I assume that such exciting results would be reproducible by a second group that is not invested in the results.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 2
Thanks for getting back to me, finally :)
I'll send you a personal message about this.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
You realize that these loonies are religious loonies who believe the supernatural is an integral part of everything. They're just going to say "genesis is a superiour explaination than evolution" and think they met the challenge.
ristinraccoon 2 years ago 8
But a 'better' explanation demands fewer assumptions, sound logic, and ample observable back up. That oughtta be a bad news for magical sky daddy fans.
n1a1s1i1m 2 years ago
@n1a1s1i1m. Yes, I do agree. A third party observing a debate between a creationist and a scientist would be more easily convinced by the scientist's rational ideas and the theory of evolution than they would the "god did it" cop-out of the creationist. But I was referring to the creationists though, they will claim "genesis is a superior explanation than evolution" and believe it, and will not listen to reason or consider the evidence from reality. They always choose the sky-daddy.
ristinraccoon 2 years ago
Indeed. That's when they go 'God did it, so shut your blow holes'. Humanity is doomed!
n1a1s1i1m 2 years ago
dem ghosts!
lockandkeynes 2 years ago
Also, I am firmly convinced for reasons too long to go into, that a third principle exists in the universe that I do not think is reducible to mater or energy. That is, information. Information is always instantiated in the form of matter and energy, but is not an inherent property of them.
Some theists I know have jumped on this idea and claimed it is a supernatural explanation. It does not seem so to me but how would you argue this point?
michalchik 2 years ago
@michalchik
Information is the same thing as order or structure. As long as the overal order and structure decreses in a system, there can be local increase in order/structure. Order is a form of energy, since it requires energy to get a more ordered system, therefor it is a part of energy. just as an object contains energy in the forms of speed, matter, heat, it also contains energy in the forms of order or structure. So no, it is not a "third principle"
N3CR1S 2 years ago
@michalchik Gravity magnetism IS the natural explanation, which debunks any spooky powers.
johnmc2k 2 years ago
@michalchik
I know we have PM'd about this, but for the group:
There is a fine line between Materialism and Naturalism. Non-material things (like information) can be part of the natural world. Things like Justice or Truth may have an existence, if only a subjective one, in the non-material natural world.
The supernatural can be defined positively as:
Phenomenon that do not conform to physical law in our universe.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
@C0nc0rdance
But isn't information simply the structure of matter/energy? If yes, then it is entirely material.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Yet WHERE does information come from?
The only place where you will find information in reality is where INTELLIGENCE has been implied.
Therefore, (this is simplistic but it is logical)
DNA = CODE
CODE = INFORMATION
INFORMATION = INTELLIGENCE
INTELLIGENCE = DESIGNER
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Information does not equal intelligence. I know creationists keep claiming that but it's simply not true.
Information is imbued in ANYTHING that has structure. Even light bouncing off a stone contains information (which is the reason you can see the stone).
The useful information in DNA has evolved. Pretty much every biologist in the entire world accepts that as the fact it is.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Argumentum ad populum ... Just because lots of people believe it doesn't make it truth.
How does light bouncing off a stone actual information? Or are you just claiming it does without actually showing it does.
(Don't worry, most evos are like this, its as if by them saying it makes it a fact of reality)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I'm not saying that it's true because they believe it. I'm saying that the fact that those who spend their lives studying this sort of thing agree on their basic conclusions lends weight to those conclusions, while the vast majority of those who speak out against it are religionists who constantly use fallacious arguments, showing their deep ignorance (or dishonesty) on the subject.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Yes you were, saying "everyone else says so" is as bad as name dropping, and has no value of evidence at all! Science is Empirical and is proven as such, not a popularity vote made by the masses.
I'm not religious and I am using examples of REALITY that defy evolutionary thought.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"I am using examples of REALITY that defy evolutionary thought."
No, you are using your misunderstanding of what information is in order to make a fallacious point.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi WRONG!
I have given you examples where information denotes design... (blueprint for building a car, man makes a computer for info processing, etc)
You have given me NO evidence that falsifies this point, (as I asked you to show me some).
YET you say I misunderstand?.. I am the one with the evidence from REALITY, all you have is your ad hominems and assumption-based logic.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi WRONG!
Again I will ask you to support your point that "light contains information".. What information is contained?
Or is it as you said, (which contradicted yourself), when OUR SENSES TRANSDUCE INFORMATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENT... Last I heard people were inteligent, so thanks for the example that supports MY claim :D lol :D
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Well, the information for colors is contained in the frequency of light. The information for shape is contained in the pattern of light that enters our eye. This information does not have an intelligent source, it's just a product of physics.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Thats not information dude. Here is the dictonary definition of information. Enjoy!
h t t p://dictionaryDOTreferenceDOTcom/browse/information
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3. the act or fact of informing.
..continued..
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance"
Yes, you receive knowledge about the color and shape of an object through the information contained within the light. It fits the definition perfectly.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi But the light doesn't communicate it doesn't it.. It is just a property of nature, the wavelength of light is reflected off an object that is the same colour as its wavelength. It isn't communicating anything, since to communicate you NEED sentience.
Or are you claiming that light is sentient now? lol
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"But the light doesn't communicate it doesn't it."
That's exactly the point. Properties of light fit the definition of information perfectly, but no sentience is required. Information can have non sentient origins.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Whilst I do not agree, I'll have to concur as whilst it is very simplistic it is technically information by definition.
Hence my assumed evidence solely of a designer is not so. Congrats, you're the first person on here to actually prove me wrong on something :D :D
This doesn't change my belief in a designer, (whoever it is), however. As from my studies in Microbiology I see the cell as a factory (even a city), this in itself, (in my mind), denotes a designer.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I don't really understand your point about it being simplistic. It seems to me that you want to imbue information with properties of complexity which it does not require.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
What do you think about my answer to the question posed in this video?
My answer was, life itself. Since there is no empirically proven way for life to start naturalistically on its own. Furthermore there are many hinderances to the idea of a natualistic origin of life, (chirality of DNA is one). Hence the only logical explaination is that something supernatural had to "skew" the forces of nature to allow life to occur. However this in turn doesn't say WHO did it.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I'm not all that up to speed on abiogenesis so I can't really go into too much detail. I do know that there multiple competing theories with several gaps/mysteries.
But isn't your argument just the classic argument from ignorance? "We don't know how it happened so it must have been supernatural." The fact that we haven't figured out plausible mechanisms for every step doesn't indicate anything supernatural.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Nope. Since there are Laws / tenets in reality that prevent abiogenesis from EVER occuring. A supernatural explaination is the only answer.
Unless you wish to believe that the laws / tenets of reality were broken just for this to occur... Which in itself would make abiogenesis supernatural as to be supernatural is to be above natural laws. Life creates Life, this is empirically proven. Life coming from non-life is a story.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"Since there are Laws / tenets in reality that prevent abiogenesis from EVER occuring"
Such as?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
I mentioned chirality of DNA, did you not read it?
I recommend you read up on Chirality it is a basic process of nature that endeavours to falsify the coming about of a DNA strand without proteins to order it... Yet these specific proteins are coded for by the DNA, which also uses energy which is supplied by the mitochondria which is coded for by the DNA.
A "chicken and the egg" situation occurs as you cannot have one without the other.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Besides, the supernatural explanation is not better in any regard. It tells you absolutely nothing other than it happened by some supernatural means. You might as well say that "it happened somehow." I don't really see the difference between that and not knowing at all. On the other hand, the natural explanations (even if they're incomplete) can give you a detailed understanding of the mechanism and processes involved.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually it is better in many regards as it also complies with the complexity of life. Cells are referred to as "molecular machines", however as far as anyone knows a machine is designed. The interspecificity of a cell defies gradualistic evolution, as multiple parts of a system would need to "evolve" before the cell to observe any benefit, (hence it cannot be selected for by natural selection during the unfinished phases).
Abiogenesis isn't incomplete, it is non-existant
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"multiple parts of a system would need to "evolve" before the cell to observe any benefit"
You're referring to a concept called irreducible complexity. This is a pseudoscientific concept with no backing in the scientific literature. In fact, there's plenty in the scientific literature to refute the claims made by irreducible complexity (for example a step by step mechanism for the formation of the flagellum). It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually IR is a concept of logic and is far more logical than evolution will ever be. Since evolution makes alot of grand claims, yet cannot provide the mechanisms that can account for how these claims are fulfilled. IR acnowledges that life is far more complex than Darwin EVER imagined, it is backed by all literature describing micro-biology, (its just that the bias tends to attempt an evo perspective despite the evidence saying otherwise)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Darwin lived 150 years ago, it's absolutely irrelevant that life is far more complex than he imagined.
" I suggest reading a few paper on micro-biology"
Alright, provide me with the links to papers that show this kind of stuff.
I get the impression that you have no idea what the word "chiral" means. I suggest you look it up before trying to use it in your arguments.
You should also look up the "RNA world hypothesis." It solves your DNA - protein "chicken and egg" problem.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
RNA world hypothesis is CREATED by scientists in laboratories, using assumed data of what the world was like back then. Furthermore, they STILL haven't created life, (nor have they created DNA). Hence it doesn't solve the "chicken and the egg" problem. You just assume it does.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
The RNA world hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. They haven't shown that it necessarily happened. But that's missing the point. It is a plausible explanation of the origin of DNA.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi In that case, why did you say that the RNA world solves the problems. When you now admit that it is just an idea.... It isn't plausable, please don't say that just to give yourself more credability. Until they find a mechanism to bring RNA = DNA, to bring about all the systems of a cell via gradual change, (without the cell dying), THEN it will be plausable
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
RNA world hypothesis is CREATED by scientists in laboratories, using assumed data of what the world was like back then. Furthermore, they STILL haven't created life, (nor have they created DNA). Hence it doesn't solve the "chicken and the egg" problem. You just assume it does.
I gave you one on the brain, showing its undeniable complexity beyond what random chance can acheive
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"complexity beyond what random chance can acheive"
What evidence is there that there is a limit to which complexity can be achieved by natural means, and where is that limit?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The limit is here.
"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation
of mutations that increase the new function. However, these mutations may also
affect the protein’s existing function and its stability."
w w wDOTweizmannDOTac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(82)SoskineTawfikNRG2010.pdf
Most mutations are detrimental, yet for fitness to develop there needs to be multiple "good" mutations that build up to it, yet mutations are random
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Okay, any other limits to natural complexity other than that?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Both the papers you posted using urls lead me to "page not found" pages.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
Change DOT into .
and delete the spaces between the w w w
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"yet mutations are random"
Yes, but selection is not. If a rare incremental benefit (in population 1) is selected for, the individual with that mutation will have more offspring until the entire population (population 2) has it. Most mutations in pop2 will be deleterious and removed from the gene pool. Some time down the road, another beneficial mutation appears and spreads in the same way, and so on. That's exactly what natural selection is.
What's wrong with this?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The problem is in the paper I cited. It says you only get increased fittness occuring after a progression of MULTIPLE CORRECT mutations. Hence just one or two, won't be enough for it to be selected for. Furthermore, what about promoters? A promoter is specific to the function it promotes and the signals system in place for it. Yet when a function changes then how does it get a promoter that is specific to its function? (Let alone the signal systems that are needed too)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Why did you tell me this paper is about chriality when it obviously is not?
" you only get increased fittness occuring after a progression of MULTIPLE CORRECT mutations"
The paper says nothing of the sort (correct me if I'm wrong by showing me exactly where in the paper this is shown).
Promoters are not specific for the function they promote, I don't know where you got that idea.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi I never said the papers were on Chirality! That they were "the limits" to mutation that you asked for. Hence their points do apply, and please do not confuse the issue.
Promoters ARE specific to their function, otherwise the cell would be non-stop creating things it doesn't need. The specificity enables efficiency of production. I got it from my UNIVERSITY LECTURER, where does it say otherwise? OR are you just saying that to attempt to invalidate my point?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Promoters are not specific to a function, they are part of the gene. If you change a downstream portion of the gene and thereby change its function, the promoter will promote this new function. Your lecturer is wrong.
Also, the paper about RNA viruses has nothing to do with what you're claiming.
You have not at all shown that "the naturalistic view of the origins of life defies laws of reality."
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Yes the promoter will promote the new function. However the signal system in place was already made for the previous function. Thus you will get the cell signaling for a specific function to be carried out, but it doesn't since that signal doesn't activate that function, it now activates a new function, one that the cell doesn't need since the signal system is set up for the original function.. Its like buying tyres on ebay, but they keep on sending steering wheels.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Yes, and it happens all the time. Many human diseases are caused this way. For example in Huntington's disease, the modified protein leads to neural degradation. This is why vital proteins tend to be conserved in evolution. But this is by no means a barrier to evolution happening at all.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi So you admit that the alledged "mechanism" of evolution. Is actually a detrimental process. Thus how can you justify that a destructive process can cause such masterworks of engineering, such as the brain, mitochondria- electron transport chain, the list goes on.....
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Can you show me documentation that shows that promoters are not specific to a function?
The paper was about MUTATIONS, read it again, also READ WHAT I QUOTED FOR YOU BEFORE.
Yes I did, DNA occuring naturalisticaly defies Chirality, hence I have proven that the natualistic origins of life defies reality, you just stubbornly refuse to accept it...
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
"DNA occuring naturalisticaly defies Chirality"
Chrirality simply means handedness (non-mirror images). How does DNA defy this?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you read what I said and can put 1+1 together then you will understand it. (PLease stop playing the fool, READ what I said before I put it quite simply)
If ALL of life is LEFT HANDED, and yet in nature DNA is only found outside of life in BOTH LEFT and RIGHT. Thus the 2 strands will not join properly without the proper proteins that put them together. This is what is observed when a jar of DNA is left to its own devices.
It shows that protiens are needed before DNA
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
The paper is not about mutations, it's about epistatic effects on fitness in an RNA virus. Mutations were used to evaluate this. The paper does not say anything that amounts to what you're claiming.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi You missed the quoted part I posted here. It says nothing about promoters. All I was using it in support for was that IT says that you need multiple "correct" mutations to build up "fitness" in a mutation. This defies the "randomness" of mutation. In sipport of this did you know scientists have found there are parts of the DNA that are not subject to mutation AT ALL. Hence this shows that mutation is not inherently random.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The problem is in the paper I cited. It says you only get increased fittness occuring after a progression of MULTIPLE CORRECT mutations. Hence just one or two, won't be enough for it to be selected for. Furthermore, what about promoters? A promoter is specific to the function it promotes and the signals system in place for it. Yet when a function changes then how does it get a promoter that is specific to its function? (Let alone the signal systems that are needed too)
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The limit is here.
"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation of mutations that increase the new function. However, these mutations may also affect the protein’s existing function and its stability."
w w wDOTweizmannDOTac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(82)SoskineTawfikNRG2010.pdf
Most mutations are detrimental, yet for fitness to develop there needs to be multiple "good" mutations that build up to it, yet mutations are random
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Wrong. Mutations are normally neutral. Even albinism despite being generally negative is largely a neutral mutation t may have a benefit depending on a certain situation, but generally it is a neutral mutation. A negative mutation can result from inbreeding, to cite an example.
NUTCASE71733 6 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
And your point? What I've shown is that you need MANY MANY MANY positive mutations to occur for any effect to occur, yet (as we all know) most mutations are either detrimental or have no effect, (which is still not positive). Claiming most are neutral does nothing to increase the amount of positive mutations that are required, (which are required to occur over and over in order to increase fitness to a level where it can be selected for via "natural selection").
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
A statement that astoundingly ignorant shows you know nothing of genetics. Most mutations are neutral. Ho it ultimately affects the organism will vary depending on the enviornment it lives in, or other similar factors. My point still stands.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733
Haha I'm studying genetics at university you clown. Your point doesn't stand since as mentioned earlier MANY MANY MANY POSITIVE mutations will need to occur to increase the fitness to a level where it can be selected upon. Claiming most are neutral does NOTHING to help here since it is the POSITIVE mutations that are required for something to "evolve", as the name suggests neutral mutations don't do anything positive thus no increase in fitness.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@Gilbertus1986
You exclude natural selection from the equation, then of course it isnt going to work. Natural selection is the way it ultimately pans out. By ignoring that you are no better than a creationist. Though the childish typed laughter is enough indication that you are.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 Um no, it still doesn't work. Perhaps what I am getting at is more intuned to greater minds. Natural selection doesn't play a part UNTIL THERE IS SUFFICIENT FITNESS FOR IT TO BE SELECTED FOR, (I have said this many times, are you just ignorant of my point), as the paper said YOU NEED MANY MANY MANY positive mutations accumulate (in the first place) in order to have enough fitness for selection to occur.... Understand now????
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi The links will work if you delete the spaces between the w w w and change the DOT to a full stop.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I asked what the paper was supposed to show and your response was: "I just told you, it goes against chirality of the DNA molecules. " Or was that a response to something else?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Here is what I said, (not sure where your confusion is coming from)
The limit is here.
"The fitness of an evolving protein increases via the accumulation
of mutations that increase the new function. However, these mutations may also
affect the protein’s existing function and its stability."
w w wDOTweizmannDOTac.il/Biological_Chemistry/scientist/Tawfik/papers/(82)SoskineTawfikNRG2010.pdf
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
Do you admit that the naturalistic view of the origins of life defies laws of reality, (like I showed)?
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
Information is a limitation, there is no way whereby information is "created" via random, unguided (un-knowing) processes... Since information is a product solely of intelligence.
Furthermore, irreducible complex systems are another limit- cellular respiration, DNA synthesis, organism body systems- digestion etc, all these REQUIRE the use of multiple parts in order to function AT ALL.. There is no way these can come about via small changes over time.
Gilbertus1986 4 months ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually IR is a concept of logic and is far more logical than evolution will ever be.
Evolution cannot account for the complex nature of life, they assume that blind chance created masterpieces like the brain. Here read this article it states that the brain is more complex than the internet... NOW THATS COMPLEX!
h t t p://newsDOTcnetDOTcom/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Wait... I thought we were talking about the origin of life, not evolution.
So you're saying not just that life was created supernaturally, but that it was also created in it's current state?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Are you going to bother reading these? Many times I have been asked for "evidence" only to have the person not even bother to read it.
Rafael Sanjuán, Andrés Moya, and Santiago F. Elena, “Evolution: The contribution of epistasis to the architecture of fitness in an RNA virus,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0404125101, Published online before print October 18, 2004.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
I'll read it. But first, could you clarify which of your points it backs up?
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi
w w wDOTnatureDOTcom/scientificamerican/journal/v250/n1/pdf/scientificamerican0184-102.pdf
Anything to do with regulation, information processing, code repair mechanisms etc are all works of complexity, and thus are design related. It is a huge "leap of faith", to hope that random change somehow brought about all these processes.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
" however as far as anyone knows a machine is designed"
It's an analogy. They are not machines in the same way as a car engine is.
And if you do want to define them as machines.. well what's your point? They you just have naturally occurring machines (just like stars are naturally occurring fusion reactors)
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you knew Micro-biology then you would realise how similar a cell is to a machine... (actually they are like factories).. I suggest reading a few paper on micro-biology, very often scientists will comment on the machine-like nature of the cell. Furthermore it is demonstrated by how it functions, - ie it is a production-line for protein assembly, quality control mechanisms, information processing, the list goes on. Read the literature, I am using THEIR analysis.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Oh and you never answered my question about how this supernatural explanation is any better than saying "it happened somehow."
I await your answer.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually I DID answer you, however just like before you fail to comprehend it.
A Naturalistic view on life MUST always be empirical, hence if you cannot explain something empirically then it cannot have happened. PERIOD. This is because naturalism goes hand in hand with the laws of nature, hence it should be able to be empirically proven.
A supernatural explaination does away with empirical viability as to be supernatural is to be above natural law.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
@Gilbertus1986
Alright, but the original question at hand is to provide an example of where the supernatural provides a superior explanation. But how can it be a superior explanation if it doesn't give you any information? It doesn't even fit the definition of "explanation." It leaves the matter just as nebulous as not knowing at all.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi It is superior as the naturalistic explaination GOES AGAINST REALITY. When normally naturalism is only based on reality, hence it is contradictory to its own nature. Hence it is illogical.
Gilbertus1986 1 year ago