Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by squiz

Show me the empirical evidence for the emergence of even one novel protein.

certainly : Flavobacterium Sp K172

a Flavobacterium clade that has independantly developed unique enqimes that digest nylon-6

i cannot at this time answer your other questions - but will simply note that they are ` god of the gaps ` obstacles which you would not have asked 100 years ago

lastly - inability to answer all questions , does not make your alledged god the correct answer

reply to post by squiz


if you are going to quote people , i will too :

Steven Weinberg

"The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization."

further the quote you use contains the vital caveat :

life as we know it

to put it bluntly - life addapts to ints evironment

there are no olive groves in norway and no polar bears in egypt

an important reminder for several people in this thread :

falsifying a given scientific theory or hypothesis does not make an alledged " god " is the only posible [ and true ] answer

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by squiz

 

certainly : Flavobacterium Sp K172

a Flavobacterium clade that has independantly developed unique enqimes that digest nylon-6

To be clear, I do not refute evolution, my preferred evolutionary theory is that of James Shapiro's natural genetic engineering. It holds that evolutionary change is the result of organised cellular processes. Similar to how the immune system works. This example is not indicative of random mutation and selection. Your link makes that clear, no mechanism is offered or verified.

Though this helps support that Sp. K172 is a Flavobacterium, it does little to explain how this metabolic pathway developed so quickly......

Sp. K172 raises many questions as to the adaptability of microbiological life forms, and will continue to be an interesting specimen for the foreseeable future.

Obviously new proteins arise it is the mechanism that is in question. This is actually a case against the modern synthesis. I already mentioned we have discovered a range of mechanism (including transposable elements) that make the simplistic view of random mutation and selection insignificant in comparison.

Some claimed that this new enzyme arose from a frame shift mutation. But today scientists are doubting the claim that this is an example of random mutations and natural selection generating new enzymes because their are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. Transposase enzymes are responsible for cleavage of dsDNA (Double-stranded DNA). Transposase recognize specific sequence of nucleotides and these transposons/jumping genes inserts into DNA molecule. This insertion creates direct repeats on each side of transposons, known as insertion sequences. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. [Ohno, S., Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 81:2421–2425, 1984.] The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is "pre-designed to adapt" when the bacterium is under stress. [Truman, R., Protein mutational context dependence: a challenge to neo-Darwinism theory: part 1, TJ 17(1):117–127; Truman, R. and Heisig, M., Protein families: chance or design? TJ 15(3):115–127.]

evolutionfacts.blogspot.com.au...

Lets take a look at plasmids. Does this look random to you?


A highly organised cellular process. Nice try though.
Here is Shapiro's web site. shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu...

Once again this is not a gaps argument, it is based on what is known not the absence of what is known.

At least this concerns science, your other posts do not. But let's stay on subject. First cause and cosmological fine tuning.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by squiz

 

if you are going to quote people , i will too :

Steven Weinberg

"The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion... Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilization."

further the quote you use contains the vital caveat :

life as we know it

to put it bluntly - life addapts to ints evironment

there are no olive groves in norway and no polar bears in egypt

Oh well that it explains it then.

reply to post by squiz






Fine tuning and first cause demolished. They have been destroyed time and time again.... but most religious people don't seek out counters to their arguments...

You seem awful smart squiz, but when it comes to understanding the arguments against what the superstitious and religious assert you are either pretending to be ignorant or just trolling.

This is know as the internet meme "lying for jesus" Where dishonesty is used as a method to promote religious belief.

The Intelligent Causation crowd seems to have shifted the discussion toward attacking known science instead of defending Intelligent Causation.

In science, if it isn't known, it is simply unknown.

In intelligent causation, if it isn't known, it is evidence of superstition.

When a causation is discovered, the goal posts will simply be moved again, as they always have been.

The Sun is no longer a God, as you all know, but don't try to convince early man of that.

I really should not encourage departing from the subject however if anyone is interested in the new view of evolution that is emerging should take a look at this lecture from Dennis Noble. This is not ID it is scientific progression. It just happens that it paints a very different picture to the story you have been told.
www.voicesfromoxford.org...

Ok back on topic. Sorry.

reply to post by Wertdagf

Dear Wertdagf,

Thanks for those videos, I'm always happy to get more information. I'm not sure that they "demolished" anything, though. What I find interesting is the summary way they dismiss the Intelligent Designer idea. There's never any attempt to seriously refute the idea, they basically say it's silly and go on from there.

Interestingly, both videos use the identical argument to support their claims, the idea that since you can't explain how God came to exist, neither the "First cause" or the "Fine tuning" argument is valid. I really thought they'd have something more persuasive than that.

But what really concerns me about your post is that the last two paragraphs attack the honesty and character of squiz. That seems to me to be completely uncalled for. Sure, sometimes the heat of the argument takes control of a better selves, but you shouldn't have written that.

Were I in your position, I'd send him an apology.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Wertdagf


Demolished? Really? Richard likes the multiverse. That is really the only out isn't it? But where did the multiverse come from?

The second video is rather weak, all he is doing is conflating an eternal universe or eternal singularity with an eternal creator. The problem is an eternal universe means eternal time, in which case there could never have been a first anything there would be an eternity before the first star so what caused that? Likewise the same is true for an eternal singularity why did it wait for eternity to bang? and what caused it to bang? And Krauss's nothing is not nothing at all, the quantum foam is not nothing.

If time and space had a beginning. The source, whatever it was must be outside of time and space. Anything you can draw a circle around owes it's existence to something outside of the circle. Outside of time there is no beginning and no end. I understand the problems of infinite regress. It applies to the physical universe and anything existing in time. It does not apply to something outside of time. The logos, the source.

You can accept those excuses if you like. I am often surprised how people are so willing to accept any story as long as it supports their world view, regardless of how incredulous it is. Eternal time and the concept of no time are equally paradoxical for sure.

It is really a question of time. If I may speculate. I believe time or illusion of time is a result of the physical. Our consciousness is not physical so it is not constrained by time. You will obviously disagree with this but the evidence for the reality of NDE's is overwhelming IMO and well documented in the medical journals with hundreds of veridical cases cited. A constant theme is that the experiencers refer to being outside of time, seeing both past present and future simultaneously, not knowing if they are in the light for a minute or a hundred years.
Coincidently it sounds the same as what some physicists have stated regarding time.
www.near-death.com...

It is very easy just to write these things off. I'd recommend looking at Dr Sam Parnia's contribution who began as a sceptic on the subject.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

Demolished? Really? Richard likes the multiverse. That is really the only out isn't it? But where did the multiverse come from?

Prime example of moving the goal posts.

- God created the Universe.
- There might be more than one Universe.
- WHAT CREATED ALL OF THE UNIVERSES????
- Wait for it...
- Must be God.
- Right on cue.

reply to post by squiz

Our consciousness is not physical so it is not constrained by time

Yet again you make unsubstantiated claims which you use and an anchor.

Do you really look at the mountain of evidence in neuroscience, just from functional MRI's alone, and still claim that consciousness is some transcendent thing, or is this another instance of "lying for jesus"?

reply to post by Wertdagf


I said let me speculate. But qualia can in no way be physical.

“The evidence we have so far is that human consciousness does not become annihilated,”

Dr Sam Parnia.

Please stop with the religious labelling. I am not religious, I have not read the bible and I can count the amount of times I was forced to got to church on one hand in my 40+ years.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by squiz

 

Our consciousness is not physical so it is not constrained by time

Yet again you make unsubstantiated claims which you use and an anchor.

Do you really look at the mountain of evidence in neuroscience, just from functional MRI's alone, and still claim that consciousness is some transcendent thing, or is this another instance of "lying for jesus"?

edit on 30-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Evidence? What evidence?

EDIT: Take a look at this article. It shows how the idealistic assumption that the brain produces consciousness is completely illogical. www.superconsciousness.com...

reply to post by squiz


“If near-death experience is an illusion, a trick of the mind-which it may well be-and I suspect it will turn out to be.”

Dr. Sam Parnia

He is an obvious charlatan that uses this topic as a money maker while he disguises his professional opinion to keep the money flowing from talks and books.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Take a look at this article. It shows how the idealistic assumption that the brain produces consciousness is completely illogical. www.superconsciousness.com...

edit on 30-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

Fine. For the sake of moving the argument along, the brain doesn't produce consciousness. The burden now lies on you to prove any claim you might make as to where it comes from.

reply to post by HarryTZ


From the article:

consciousness can operate beyond the brain, body, and the present, as hundreds of experiments and millions of testimonials affirm. Consciousness cannot, therefore, be identical with the brain.

He bases his entire article on this single sentence. What does he cite for this monumental statement... nothing. These people are taking you on a ride with nothing to support it.

Heres some material to get you started... its called neuroscience...

www.slideserve.com...

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


"Where does consciousness come from" is not being asked in the right context, because 'where' indicates a location. All location is relative to other location. It does not truly exist. Consciousness is everywhere if you assume locations do exist, and nowhere when you realize that 'location' is a false doctrine.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

It is really a question of time. If I may speculate. I believe time or illusion of time is a result of the physical. Our consciousness is not physical so it is not constrained by time. You will obviously disagree with this but the evidence for the reality of NDE's is overwhelming IMO and well documented in the medical journals with hundreds of veridical cases cited. A constant theme is that the experiencers refer to being outside of time, seeing both past present and future simultaneously, not knowing if they are in the light for a minute or a hundred years.
Coincidently it sounds the same as what some physicists have stated regarding time.
www.near-death.com...

It is very easy just to write these things off. I'd recommend looking at Dr Sam Parnia's contribution who began as a sceptic on the subject.

I was waiting for someone to bring up the reality of NDE's. I didn't want to be the one to do it but I'm glad you did. Thank you Squiz.

There's no question there is something very real that happens when someone passes on. Fortunately, modern day medicine has allowed us to bring these folks back from the dead, allowing them to share with us their experiences. I've been reading up on this and I have to say it really quite compelling to say the least.

Ive just read, "Proof Of Heaven" by Eben Alexander M.D.
Don't be put off by the title, it's not based in religion. This is the very interesting NDE story told by Eben himself, who is a very accomplished neurosurgeon. Needless to say given the nature of his practice he was very skeptical of such things and considered them, like most scientists in his field, to be just a product of brain function or lack of oxygen. That is, until he found himself lying in a deep coma, thanks to a rare form of bacterial meningitis that began eating away at his brain and rendering it completely useless. No brain activity whatsoever for 7 days. He goes into detail about what happened to him during those 7 days and how very real the experience was. This is a man of neuroscience who now categorically refutes that such experiences are the result of brain activity. He has dedicated his life to sharing his experience and learning the "science" behind it. I encourage anyone to read it.

Currently I am reading Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near Death Experience written by renowned cardiologist Pim Van Lommel who was of the reductionist and materialistic mindset before he started researching NDE's and the nature of consciousness.

He writes:

"That death is the end used to be my own belief, but after many years of critical research into the stories of the NDErs, and after a careful exploration of current knowledge about brain function, consciousness, and some basic principles of quantum physics, my views have undergone a complete transformation. As a doctor and researcher, I found the most significant finding to be the conclusion of one NDEr: `Dead turned out to be not dead.' I now see the continuity of our consciousness after the death of our physical body as a very real possibility."

This doesn't have to take on a religious view. This is a very real phenomena with some very smart and credible people reporting on it.

It's quite amazing to hear how similar peoples NDE's are. The main theme being that they all experienced pure consciousness on a level that goes beyond words. That time didn't exist.

It's pretty fascinating stuff.