Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?

Originally posted by squiz

It's completely fair to say that Darwinism is not up to the task of explaining evolution.

Even if you were right - and you've been debunked all the time - that wouldn't mean that an imaginary god explains anything at all.

So if you have an alternative explanation that doesn't involve APPEALING TO MAGIC I'm all willing to consider it.

And if you insist on appealing to magic then please, perform a trick so that we're all convinced.... like CREATE SOMETHING out of thin air.

Let me summarise some problems.

1) Despite claims to the contrary we are no closer to explaining the origin of life. We have understood some of the chemical reactions associated and the field mainly consists of advanced chemical reactions under specific laboratory conditions. The leading scientist in the field has admitted the problem.

Some leading theorists recognize this point. In 2003, Nobel Prize winning origin of life researcher Jack Szostak wrote in a review article in Nature lamenting that the problem with "classical information theory" is that it "does not consider the meaning of a message" and instead defines information "as simply that required to specify, store or transmit the string."According to Szostak, "a new measure of information -- functional information -- is required" in order to take account of the ability of a given protein sequence to perform a given function.

There is no known mechanism for complex specified functional information to arise except through intelligence. This is a fact.

2) So let’s grant Darwinism that and step up to the folding problem. Imagine trying to win the lotto and you can't allow for second division either. There are twenty balls in the barrel 1-20. Now you have to win using a sequence of up to a thousand numbers. That's the sort of thing we are dealing with at this primary stage.
This has been proven scientifically. Links already posted.

3) OK, so let's grant Darwinism this impossible ability as well and move on. In recent years science has shown that small scale one or two point macro evolution examples of beneficial mutations turn out to involve a loss of genetic information. One of the leading scientists in this field has also shown evidence of negative epistasis and an overall negative effect when different beneficial mutations are combined. This research has been confirmed in other independent studies. It's also been shown that resistant bacteria lose against the parent strain without the particular drug present. This confirms the results of Lenski's negative epistasis. Links already posted.

4) Yep, we are going to give this also to Darwin and ignore that and say that micro can add up to macro somehow. We face another big problem. The larger the morphological change, the more chance that it will go terribly wrong. That is, if you need to make a new organ or new novel adaption that involves large scale change. Even if it is across large stretches of time and in small stages there is an even higher probability that it can go disastrously wrong. For similar reasons as the protein thing. These problems are actually compounded with each other but we'll ignore that.

Think of it this way, if you leave you house and you need to find a particular destination. You receive random directions. The earlier blind decisions have a increased effect on the later blind decisions. Meaning those early directions can steer you completely in the wrong direction, later random decisions will less and less likely to get you where you need to go. This has also been verified. I did not post on this issue previously.

5) Once again we let Darwinism have this as well and let's say the large scale morphological changes happened.
Yep, more problems, The Cambrian for starters. Then we have Darwin’s poster example of whale evolution. Richard Sternberg has illustrated it beautifully, except the range of time has dramatically reduced since his argument. Quite simply...

To change a land based mammal into a fully aquatic creature within the time frame of about five million years or even nine million years as he uses in his example. Is about two hundred million years to fast according Darwinian population genetics. There own science says it's impossible! This is even if you grant Darwinism everything it needs to get the job done. Everything! It's still way, way too fast. I posted his argument way back.

And there are others, every step of the way it has problems. Just admit it! It's Ok the world will not end!

I have seen no "debunking". These are real problems, I didn't make them up.

The reason ID gets attacked is really because the Darwinist fear Darwinism being exposed as weak scientific theory. What we are left with is disturbing to them, and aparently disturbing to a lot of people.

Originally posted by squiz
Let me summarise some problems.

1) Despite claims to the contrary we are no closer to explaining the origin of life.

I repeat: Darwinism only covers Evolution, the origin of life is a totally different problem.

Originally posted by squiz
There is no known mechanism for complex specified functional information to arise. This is a fact.

Yes, there is. The mechanism is so well described and so potent that it's now being implemented by computers to solve an expanding range of complex problems in all engineering domains.

The Evolution Algorithm is the most fertile contribution of Darwinism to mankind. You can't hide this massive fact under the carpet.

Originally posted by squiz
2) So let’s grant Darwinism that and step up to the folding problem. Imagine trying to win the lotto and you can't allow for second division either. There are twenty balls in the barrel 1-20. Now you have to win using up to a thousand numbers. That's the sort of thing we are dealing with at this primary stage..

That's a fallacy. The folding problem is solved sequentially as the protein is translated, limiting the barrels and balls at each stage to 1.

Originally posted by squiz
In recent years science has shown that small scale one or two point macro evolution examples of beneficial mutations turn out to involve a loss of genetic information.

Loss of information is contemplated by Evolution. Where's the contradiction?

Evolution is about discovering local maxima of a selection function. Whether this leads to complexity or simplification depends on the coordinate values of each particular local maximum and the coordinates you're evolving from.

Complex organs have been discarded by evolution as they became redundant when the environment changed. Evolution is about adaptation, not about increasing complexity for the sake of it.

Originally posted by squiz
The larger the morphological change, the more chance that it will go terribly wrong. That is, if you need to make a new organ or new novel adaption that involves large scale change.

Certainly large scale changes are improbable... which is not in contradiction with the fossil record. Your point would be????

Originally posted by squiz
5) Once again we let Darwinism have this as well and let's say the large scale morphological changes happened.

Where does Darwinism claim such thing? You're fabricating your own straw man and falsely claiming Evolution looks like it.

Originally posted by squiz
Yep, more problems, The Cambrian for starters.

The "Cambrian explosion" is not an explosion of life, but an explosion of FOSSILIZABLE life. Previous life had little or no hard parts but it was just as abundant.

Originally posted by squiz
Then we have Darwin’s poster example of whale evolution.... Is about two hundred million years to fast according Darwinian population genetics.

I haven't looked into Darwinian population genetics. If errors are being made in this relatively new branch that contradict the fossil record, then it will have to be looked at. It's not Religion remember?

The ground truth is the observation of the facts transmitted by the fossil record. Evolution doesn't pretend to supersede it, Religion does.

The evolution of whales and their intermediate stages are the best documented example of evolution ever. No amount of complaining can change that fact.

As we see, half of the "problems" creationists come up with are only MISCONCEPTIONS and the other half is plain DENIAL.

But the bottom line remains the forever the same... no matter how "wrong" Darwinism might be, still Creationism is not the alternative because it's an APPEAL TO MAGIC and therefore an AVOIDANCE of the burden to explain anything at all.

Originally posted by squiz
1) Despite claims to the contrary we are no closer to explaining the origin of life. We have understood some of the chemical reactions associated and the field mainly consists of advanced chemical reactions under specific laboratory conditions. The leading scientist in the field has admitted the problem.

See, this is exactly what I was referring to by philosophy. This thread has taken a turn from scientific evidence, back to philosophy, which is what I was trying to avoid. Now I've read the majority of your posts and not one of them contains objective evidence to suggest intelligent design. Just because we can't explain the origin of life, does not mean that it automatically designed. That is a pure guess, and nothing more.

There is no known mechanism for complex specified functional information to arise except through intelligence. This is a fact.

No that is not a fact. That is a guess. Can you provide scientific evidence to suggest anything in the natural world was designed by intelligence? Then why assume it is the only way? That's faulty logic. You are arguing classic god of the gaps. Science can't explain it, therefor it was god. But where is the evidence for god? Where is the evidence of this intelligent designer? Even if you could disprove evolution (you can't though), it STILL wouldn't prove ID. It seems your true colors are showing now. You originally hid behind the mask of science, but deviated from it whenever questioned.

2) So let’s grant Darwinism that and step up to the folding problem. Imagine trying to win the lotto and you can't allow for second division either. There are twenty balls in the barrel 1-20. Now you have to win using a sequence of up to a thousand numbers. That's the sort of thing we are dealing with at this primary stage.
This has been proven scientifically. Links already posted.

When Meyer was talking about the protein folds, the argument is flawed. He is trying to describe the Cambrian explosion, but is throwing around all kinds of numbers, and it sounds like his theory is more about abiogenesis. The There isn't a huge amount of evidence of the pre cambrian creatures because they were soft bodied and didn't fossilize besides in extremely rare conditions. We don't know the exact numbers before the explosion. There very well could have been billions of those creatures, they just didn't leave evidence. Again, it's pure speculation based on something science can't completely explain. It is NOT evidence of ID.

3) OK, so let's grant Darwinism this impossible ability as well and move on. In recent years science has shown that small scale one or two point macro evolution examples of beneficial mutations turn out to involve a loss of genetic information. One of the leading scientists in this field has also shown evidence of negative epistasis and an overall negative effect when different beneficial mutations are combined. This research has been confirmed in other independent studies. It's also been shown that resistant bacteria lose against the parent strain without the particular drug present. This confirms the results of Lenski's negative epistasis. Links already posted.

Still refusing to call evolutionary science by its real name eh? Shame that people are still living in the past. Calling modern evolutionary theory Darwinism yet refusing to show science behind your version of "evolution" is deceptive, plain and simple. You said before that Darwinism and evolution are the same, but yet refuse to acknowledge it in your description. I already clearly explained, that if you have bacteria in a controlled lab environment for a SHORT TIME period, you aren't going to witness complex evolution. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. It doesn't matter that some genetic material might be lost. The traits that favor survival come to the front, and it was shown. This doesn't contradict Darwinian evolution by a long shot.

4) Yep, we are going to give this also to Darwin and ignore that and say that micro can add up to macro somehow. We face another big problem. The larger the morphological change, the more chance that it will go terribly wrong. That is, if you need to make a new organ or new novel adaption that involves large scale change. Even if it is across large stretches of time and in small stages there is an even higher probability that it can go disastrously wrong. For similar reasons as the protein thing. These problems are actually compounded with each other but we'll ignore that.

Darwin is dead. What he said is irrelevant. Please talk about modern evolutionary scientists if you want to discredit it. You are not understanding the fundamentals of speciation and long term evolution. Again, you are attempting to describe large changes, suddenly happening and using it as an argument to claim that small changes adding up over time is wrong. MORE

Those statements both contradict each other. Small changes add up over time. Big morphological changes don't just suddenly happen. Stop using arguments that have nothing to do with evolution or process thereof.

5) Once again we let Darwinism have this as well and let's say the large scale morphological changes happened.
Yep, more problems, The Cambrian for starters. Then we have Darwin’s poster example of whale evolution. Richard Sternberg has illustrated it beautifully, except the range of time has dramatically reduced since his argument. Quite simply...

To change a land based mammal into a fully aquatic creature within the time frame of about five million years or even nine million years as he uses in his example. Is about two hundred million years to fast according Darwinian population genetics. There own science says it's impossible! This is even if you grant Darwinism everything it needs to get the job done. Everything! It's still way, way too fast. I posted his argument way back.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of evolution. Drastic changes in environment lead to faster evolution. There's no set time table. If a comet hits the earth and changes it, a lot of creatures will go extinct, while the ones that can survive, move to the front and take over the territory and leave more evidence in the fossil record as they multiply. Could you please post scientific data that shows this time table and how it is not possible through evolution?

And just to summarize you are completely off topic in this thread. You have not posted a single solitary piece of scientific data to suggest intelligent design OR an alternative theory to evolution. Please post evidence that SUPPORTS your hypotheses, not strawmanning "Darwinism" with a false definition and pitiful attempt to debunk evolution. You ignored my links that prove evolution. It doesn't matter if science can't explain every last detail about it. It has happened, is happening and will happen in the future. Even if you COULD disprove it, it doesn't show convincing or compelling evidence of creation, which is the topic of the thread. Stop distracting people with false definitions of evolution, prove intelligent design or at least show some evidence. If not, it can't hold water in the scientific community.

You guys are having all these deep seated discussions about religion and such, and whether evolution exists which has nothing to do with this thread, btw. Evolution exists, saying it doesn't is like saying the world is a square, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Its nonsense. Of course evolution exist, thats just how it works. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but I choose to believe that I am a human being that lives on the planet earth, not some child of god, living on a planet he created, giving us the free will to do whatever we want. O yea and then he built the entire universe which we have no influence on, one we haven't even begun to explore yet. Its a bunch of nonsense, we are trying to explain something we literally can't concieve. We can use all the analogies, and technological models we can, but we will never understand the origins of life, at least not any time soon. We still think some god created life, but then we'd have to redefine our definition of life, because isn't god "alive", yet if he created life how can he be?

Originally posted by andersensrm
You guys are having all these deep seated discussions about religion and such, and whether evolution exists which has nothing to do with this thread, btw. Evolution exists, saying it doesn't is like saying the world is a square, and that the sun revolves around the earth. Its nonsense. Of course evolution exist, thats just how it works. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but I choose to believe that I am a human being that lives on the planet earth, not some child of god, living on a planet he created, giving us the free will to do whatever we want. O yea and then he built the entire universe which we have no influence on, one we haven't even begun to explore yet. Its a bunch of nonsense, we are trying to explain something we literally can't concieve. We can use all the analogies, and technological models we can, but we will never understand the origins of life, at least not any time soon. We still think some god created life, but then we'd have to redefine our definition of life, because isn't god "alive", yet if he created life how can he be?

So if there is no Creator, life must have started of itself, correct?

If that's the case - how and why did life started apart from a Creator?

What say you?

So no scientific peer reviewed science to back up any of that opinion and posturing?

It doesn't matter I'm done here. To answer I'd have to repeat myself and further illucidate on the problems that are being misunderstood and twisted. They mostly come from within Darwinism itself! If the problem itself cannot be comprehended, there's nothing I can do about that.

It's simple to falsify ID. All you have to do is show how specified functional information can arise through natural forces. It's that easy! If it were true. It's solved. The darwinists would be all over it! we'd have never heard the end of the resounding celebration!

This hasn't happened.

To state this has been solved, only shows that the problem is not understood. Computer scientists and information specialists are at the forefront of the ID movement. The problem is admitted. We have no answer.

But the whiz kids on the ATS forum have got it sorted.

I'm done with the thread, Thanks edmc2. Although I'm not christian, I still like the way you think.

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

I believe in Creationism and Evolution - because they can Both be valid.

Wrong. Creationism is a preconceived conclusion that no amount of evidence can ever change.

Creationism started in ancient times when man had no knowledge of Nature and everything was explained away by myths. Creationism hasn't moved an inch since the caveman and it will never move an inch from today.

Also, Creationism is a non-explanation, it only passes the problem on to an imaginary entity.

What creationists fail to see that proposing an entity that had no beginning is the same as proposing a Universe that had no beginning. The reasoning is the same, but the latter is more probable giving the principle of Economy that an explanation should not unnecessary multiply the number of entities involved.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Science is just as much a religion as any if one is not willing to be objective and open minded - even open minded to the possibility that God exists.

reply to post by squiz


Yes because the thought being magicaly hand crafted by a loving bearded genie keeps me up at night

I hope ID is right, but it just seems so amazingly ignorant and delusional to believe in.

From what I hear(from religious folk), god is a self caused entity... why can't the universe and life also be self causing? Maybe it just happens.

Originally posted by squiz
So no scientific peer reviewed science to back up any of that opinion and posturing?

It doesn't matter I'm done here. To answer I'd have to repeat myself and further illucidate on the problems that are being misunderstood and twisted. They mostly come from within Darwinism itself! If the problem itself cannot be comprehended, there's nothing I can do about that.

It's simple to falsify ID. All you have to do is show how specified functional information can arise through natural forces. It's that easy! If it were true. It's solved. The darwinists would be all over it! we'd have never heard the end of the resounding celebration!

This hasn't happened.

To state this has been solved, only shows that the problem is not understood. Computer scientists and information specialists are at the forefront of the ID movement. The problem is admitted. We have no answer.

But the whiz kids on the ATS forum have got it sorted.

I'm done with the thread, Thanks edmc2. Although I'm not christian, I still like the way you think.

edit on 13-1-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Just because ID hasn't been proven wrong, doesn't mean its correct. All I'm trying to do is learn the truth. When people claim that peer reviewed science papers have been published about intelligent design, or that science backs up ID it grabs my interest because I had never read anything like that. This was what you originally claimed. You posted 1 paper published by mistake (causing the editor to be discredited in the scientific community), that was speculating on the possibility of certain things arising naturally. There's nothing wrong with having the opinion that life was created, I just have a problem with it being considered science, because it's not. It's filling in what science doesn't know with a creator that has no evidence behind it. Science is constantly expanding, and believe me they are trying their damnedest to answer the questions about the origin of life. Your use of the words Darwinism and Darwinist show your true intentions, however. It's been fun.

If humans can do those things, a higher being even if they were an alien that could Create matter, perhaps planets, the universe, is not out of the reach of science. You simply do not understand the methods and means yet.

I don't think that's the argument here. The argument is that there is scientific evidence that supports intelligent design, and there is not. Sure it would be cool if it was true, and it could have happened, but I don't believe anything absolutely until I see evidence.

Originally posted by edmc^2

So if there is no Creator, life must have started of itself, correct?

If that's the case - how and why did life started apart from a Creator?

The smallest unit of life is a molecule that copies itself (RNA or DNA).

Therefore it's logical to assume that life started with a random molecule that produced copies of itself.

Originally posted by squiz

It's simple to falsify ID. All you have to do is show how specified functional information can arise through natural forces. It's that easy!

It's called Chaos and a whole branch of Maths is devoted to it.

It seems you were schooled in a Madrassa- You know nothing outside canned criticisms produced by others, based on charicature and misconceptions of the theory they attack for those like you who'll never bother to study the original.

You renege of the natural forces that surround you while you'll never be able to experimentally demonstrate anything supernatural, let alone provide a thory of how it's supposed to work... what a crock that of yours! you're done indeed!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

You do not know the entity is imaginary, you simply choose to believe that.

If lack of belief were a belief, then something could be itself and its opposite at the same time. Absurd!

Can you tell us what your criterium to tell the plausible from the imaginary is?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

Science can not confirm or deny this.

Anything that can't be refuted by any obervation or experiment is non-falsifiable.

God and the Tooth Fairy are irrefutable because they fail the falsability test. Failure means they have no possible physical effects on reality. What has no effect on reality is called fantastic or imaginary. Therefore the Tooth Fairy and your god are on the same footing and both live in people's imagination.

Before you demand again that non-falsifiable entities be taken into consideration, please educate yourself in common sense and get a sound criterium to differentiate the fantastic from the plausible.

Originally posted by Engafan
From what I hear(from religious folk), god is a self caused entity... why can't the universe and life also be self causing? Maybe it just happens.

Exactly, if creationists don't have a problem proposing a god that "just happens", by the same logic they could propose that the Universe and life "just happen" too. It wouldn't be more miraculous.

Creationists avoid the burden of explaining anything by conjuring an uncreated entity. They don't realize is that their trick can also be applied to the Universe at large. An uncreated Universe is even more plausible because it avoids postulating additional entities (principle of economy). Creationists are just closet pantheists.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
You sound bitter, as if religion has wronged you in some way.

The last resort of cornered women and creationists: emotional blackmail. It just confirms that my logic has run over you like a bulldozer.

Originally posted by Brasov

Originally posted by Engafan
From what I hear(from religious folk), god is a self caused entity... why can't the universe and life also be self causing? Maybe it just happens.

Exactly, if creationists don't have a problem proposing a god that "just happens", by the same logic they could propose that the Universe and life "just happen" too. It wouldn't be more miraculous.

Creationists avoid the burden of explaining anything by conjuring an uncreated entity. They don't realize is that their trick can also be applied to the Universe at large. An uncreated Universe is even more plausible because it avoids postulating additional entities (principle of economy). Creationists are just closet pantheists.

edit on 14-1-2012 by Brasov because: (no reason given)

You're not making sense Brasov .

An uncreated Universe is even more plausible because it avoids postulating additional entities (principle of economy).

And where do you based this new theory of yours? Did you made it up or is it based on scientific facts?

If you say facts - then are you saying the following statements are wrong? You know the "Big Bang theory" or the "moment of creation"?


The book “God and the Astronomers,” page 14, said:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.”

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

Consider a few more:

Professor of astronomy David L. Block wrote:

“That the universe has not always existed—that it had a beginning—has not always been popular.”

Now:

“Virtually all astrophysicists today conclude, that “the universe began with a big bang that propelled matter outward in all directions.” – reported U.S.News & World Report in 1997

“You can call it the big bang, but you can also call it with accuracy the moment of creation.” – Robert Jastrow

Penzias, who shared in the discovery of background radiation in the universe, observed:

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing.”

“What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” – COBE team leader George Smoot

www.youtube.com...=619s

So care to explain to us why your theory is "more plausible" than what is now a confirmed event?

BTW the Bible agrees with the scientific findings that the universe had a "beginning".

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

So enlighten us please?

Originally posted by edmc^2

You're not making sense Brasov .

Since I was ridiculing YOUR position taking it to its most absurd consequences, yours is an admission that YOU don't make sense.

Why should the biblical speculations be any more worthy than a cheap fiction book's? I don't see where the scientific authority of the bible is suppoosed to be.