Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 10, 2012 at 7:11am

Sadly, it's only your preconceived bias that makes you think you've proven your case. If such were true, there would be no atheists.

Jesus made miracles, that nobody else made before, and after him. He made it in front of the eyes of the Pharisees. And despite the fact, they knew, only God could make the miracles, Jesus did, they did not believe  him. As said, and you demonstrate and confirm it very well. Since the beginning i said, i would not believe your claim, if i would demonstrate you a  convincing argument, that God exists, you would not believe.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/probabilities-and...

The important thing to keep in mind concerning probabilities and the origin of life is that proteins, and everything else in a living cell, are manufactured by machinery which is controlled by an abstract-representation digital coding system. Proteins not only don’t self-assemble, they cannot self-assemble, because basic chemistry drives the process in the opposite direction.

Once this is taken into consideration all arguments that assert, “But it could have happened by chance,” are rendered ludicrous on their face.

And here we have it. You do not believe, not because there are no convincing arguments to make a case for God, BUT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE. You reject God based on emotional ground, and bad will. I don't know what your real reasons are. I can only say that to convert myself, was DEFINTIVELY THE BEST DECISION I MADE IN MY LIFE. I could tell you miracles God  made in front of me, you would not believe.....

So we are left to assume that A) You're case isn't made. B) Worldwide conspiracy to hide something you claim is intrinsically obvious, which would make trying to hide it pointless.

You forgot option C)

Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enterthrough it. 7:14 But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

 "we've never witnessed it so it's impossible". 

We do not need to witness it. Probabilistic calculations give us confident results.

Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:

1040,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10-40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10-143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.

Angelo, I was all in once but cut my losses when I saw things from a new perspective that enlightened me.

So try then to make a convincing case for a alternative, which is better than God....

 

Permalink Reply by James on January 10, 2012 at 10:22pm

@Angelo

Jesus made miracles, that nobody else made before, and after him. He made it in front of the eyes of the Pharisees. And despite the fact, they knew, only God could make the miracles, Jesus did, they did not believe  him. As said, and you demonstrate and confirm it very well.

Seriously, the Bible? Sit back and let me tell you about what the Qur'an say Muhammad did. I hope you get my point.

Since the beginning i said, i would not believe your claim,

Finally, some honesty. Quick question then. If you already knew you wouldn't entertain any other claims, then why are you even here? To antagonize? Attention? Do tell.

if i would demonstrate you a  convincing argument, that God exists, you would not believe.

False. I don't know how many ways I have to say that.

Once this is taken into consideration all arguments that assert, “But it could have happened by chance,” are rendered ludicrous on their face.

Chance? Who was talking about blind chance... You know what, never mind. You already said you wouldn't listen to other ideas.

And here we have it. You do not believe, not because there are no convincing arguments to make a case for God, BUT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE. You reject God based on emotional ground, and bad will. I don't know what your real reasons are. I can only say that to convert myself, was DEFINTIVELY THE BEST DECISION I MADE IN MY LIFE. I could tell you miracles God  made in front of me, you would not believe.....

I'm just going to have to assume that you haven't read a single word of all the times I told you that I already was a believer for years.

Because I don't want to believe: Wrong! As I've stated, I did believe and wanted to believe. I head things that didn't match up with my faith, so I decided to show that my faith was correct and that what I heard was in error. I studied my religion, read the Bible, and studied the things I was trying to disprove. But what I found was that the more I knew about  my religion, it's stories and the counter arguments something else was happening. Even though I was trying to falsify the science, I actually found that it made more sense and that they could actually back it up. Being one that's always valued truth and honesty, I felt the proper thing for me to do was to continue that search with an open mind. In the end, it led me to atheism even though I kept trying to support the religious case in hopes of, if nothing else, the afterlife. So you see, wanted belief, but at the end of the day I had to be honest with myself and follow where my learning led.

Emotional ground/bad will: I'm assuming you're going for the 'mad at god' claim. Quite the opposite really. I already shared the story about my grandfather. You know, the one where I blamed myself, not god for my unanswered prayers. In reality I've had a very easy life. Only that one death in the family, my parents are still together and loving, always did great in school, have a wife I love endlessly, I do something I've always enjoyed for work, I don't make enough to wealthy but am definitely living happily and comfortably, have a house I love, etc. I could go on and on, but I've had a relatively easy and great life thus far. The simple fact is that I have no reason whatsoever to be mad/vengeful toward your, or any god.

My true reasons: Actually you can understand why I don't believe. Re-read the 'Because I don't want to believe' section that I posted above to understand why I lost faith.

Best thing I've done: I'd wager that marrying my wife is the best thing I've done. But on theological grounds, leaving the faith would be my 'best thing I've done' in regards to religion. I had no complaints when I was a believer, other than not wanting to go to church some weekends when I was a kid that just wanted to play out side on a beautiful Spring day, rather than getting all dressed up. While I believed, things were good, things made sense and belief was never a question. But now things are more than good, things make even more sense, I feel liberated, I view the world and cosmos with a renewed amazement, I appreciate this one shot at life all the more than I once did (now that the assumed certainty of the afterlife was gone), etc. I learned it's okay to ask questions, expand you horizons, broaden your mind, and learn everything you can.

As for what you've seen and experienced that make you sure, I've had no such experience. So please do share yours.

You forgot option C)

Matthew 7:13 ...

Not really relevant to the point I made, but I'll let it pass. But again with the Bible? Let me tell you all about Horus and Set...

 "we've never witnessed it so it's impossible". 

We do not need to witness it. Probabilistic calculations give us confident results

Irrelevant to the point I was making...
But suppose we asked the ancient Greeks what the odds of bulb of glass emanating something called 'electric light', with no use of fire of candle. They'd call it magic, give it overwhelmingly low odds or say it was impossible. I was going off of you saying 'not witnessing something = impossible' (an admittedly curious position for someone in your shoes to take). But remember, you have constantly said a god is the only possibility. Now you say one alternative is a low probability. Your own words, so which is it? Even if the probability is low, it's still a possibility, thus GOD can't be the ONLY possibility. That's what we were talking about.

So try then to make a convincing case for a alternative, which is better than God....

In regards to what exactly? In general, specific questions/claims? My non-belief in general... I've answered as far back as my first post in this thread. But remember, we don't need to have an alternative to discount your claim. We need only find yours unconvincing or feel it hasn't met it's burden of proof. But a general alternative to a god? Does it matter which god? Based of the bits we do know, the universe seems to be natural. As for before the big bang and abiogenesis, we may never know. But from what we do know, a vast expansive universe with no concern for us seems likely. One where our existence is unlikely, but all the more special because it was unlikely. A life that I only get one shot at and a beautiful wife that I will only know in this one life. But when I think about it, it doesn't make me sad or demand more lives. Quite the contrary, I am overwhelmed with appreciation that I am alive, that I get this one chance, and that every moment good and bad is a gift I wouldn't trade for an eternity of treasures.

Cheers!

 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 8, 2012 at 11:28pm

Hey Angelo,

 

That is strong evidence that a intelligent mind created life.

 

It certainly is not. Even if your claim were true, who created the DNA, exactly? You don't know. And "intelligent mind" implies something more than it is.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 9, 2012 at 11:37pm

It certainly is not. Even if your claim were true, who created the DNA, exactly? You don't know. And "intelligent mind" implies something more than it is.

 That argument does not explain, who it was. We have other evidence to come to that conclusion

Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on January 9, 2012 at 11:50pm

Who created Diamonds Angelo?

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 9, 2012 at 11:56pm

debeers ? they have good lapidating facilities

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 10, 2012 at 12:54am

Hey Angelo,

 

That argument does not explain, who it was. We have other evidence to come to that conclusion

 

Can you share that evidence?

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 10, 2012 at 1:29am

Right: "We we have other evidence to come to that conclusion."

This is in a nutshell the methodology. You start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it.

It is the assumed default for which there is no evidence, no science involved, only fallacious arguments, spirited rhetoric with flawed logic and a parroting congregation of the willingly deluded.

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on January 10, 2012 at 5:19am

Actually... they're looking at RNA as being the initial building blocks which helped to form DNA. That being said,  there are four main pieces of RNA. Two of which scientists have reconstructed successfully in the lab. The funny thing is.. they were only attempting to create one. They stumbled across the second when they added sunlight which caused 1/2 of the components to change into one of the other  missing parts.. Two for the price of one, you might say. 

Permalink Reply by Wintershade3001 on January 9, 2012 at 4:38am

What evidence? What empirical proofs? Please provide some.

Also, what is information? Please define and elaborate, and then reason how this is "contained" in DNA.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 9, 2012 at 11:40am

Hey Wintershade,

 

Bingo, we have a winner. I think you've identified the problem. I posted a full response to @Angelo's discussion regarding "Information Theory" on my blog which you can find here

The same article follows below:

 

Hey all,

I had a discussion last night with a theist regarding yet more "arguments" for the existence of a "god" or "gods". As is typically the case, the poster was completely off-topic and wandering all over the logical landscape of this discussion. Thus it invariably landed in the completely irrelevant Oz of the Theory of Evolution, something theists seem predisposed to attack with all measure of vigor. But the argument I heard last night was new to me, and as a deconverter I needed to understand this apologetic.

So, I've done some research and am sorry to report that this "argument" has all the trappings of Pascal's Wager; drivel.

The argument is based on what is called Information Theory; and as applied to DNA/RNA. The basic argument, I think, is to say that genetic systems contain information, or "code", that could not come from less information; that is, it is irreducibly complex. And furthermore, this code, being an intelligent code that cannot derive from less information, could have only come from a "mind".

Of course, the immediate problem you can see here is that a "mind" need not be god's, but we won't tangent into a discussion of aliens and all the other possibilities because the premise of the statement is invalid anyway.

Information Theory is a mathematical treatment of the evolution, or change, in information within a system over a period of time.

Specifically, it defines information as a reduction in uncertainty; caused by an event for which the outcome can be predicted only in terms of probability. Therefore, once the event occurs and a “decision” is made, the uncertainty is reduced and that reduction in uncertainty constitutes information.

Therefore, in this treatment, information has a very specific mathematical meaning. To illustrate it, consider the exercise of flipping a coin. The act of flipping the coin is an event, call it x, that is binary in the sense that it has two possible outcomes. Therefore, the total number of outcomes available is M=2. So, information can be precisely treated as a function I such that:

I (x) = log_u(M)    [equation 1.0]

where u is the base used and the units in which I(x) is measured. So, the units of measure for Information are likewise precisely defined as the base of the logarithm of M. Suppose we choose base 2 so that we can express our result in binary notation. Then flipping a coin yields exactly 1 bit of information after the event occurs.

Contrast this with the definition of “information” in DNA; i.e. biological systems: “information” in DNA is base pair sequencing corresponding to an amino acid. We will return to this shortly.

These are completely different definitions and Information theory is not even applicable to the problem of information in Biology. But for the sake of demonstration, we will momentarily grant this falsehood. Let me expound:

Let x be an information source (an event). These events are any events in nature that can be characterized using an understanding of math and physics.

As an aside, this analysis also illustrates why you cannot depend on wikipedia for all of your information, or quote it as an authority, as atheists, in particular, love to do. This is because here we have yet another example of people posting on wikipedia who don't know what they are talking about. In the wikipedia entry it is stated that "entropy" is a concept in the Second Law of Thermodynamics and does not apply to Information Theory. This is a reflection of ignorance of Information Theory since Information Theorists are using this term in a completely different manner; i.e. they have created their own operational definition that has nothing to do with physics. If they do not even know this much, a poster should not be trusted in any conversation about Information Theory. But I digress.

Entropy, denoted in the literature as a function H(x), is a measurement of our average uncertainty when we don’t know the outcome of an information source. That means it’s a measurement of how much information we don’t have (before the event) or how much information we gain (after the event).

H(x) =  Σ^M_i=1 p_i log₂ (1/p_i)   [equation 2.0]

where p is the probability of a symbol, i. Much of the terminology in Information Theory is unfortunate. The term “symbol” is an obfuscated way of referring to one possible, measurable outcome of an event, x. M is the total number of “symbols” the source, x, can possibly generate. Therefore, using the simplest example, a binary event with equal probabilities in outcome will generate exactly 1 bit of information from an antecedent condition consisting of 0 bits of information. Information has increased. As we can see from the equation above, equal probabilities of symbols in an event x generate the greatest amount of information.

Therefore, in a biological system information is generated from a lack of information; exactly the opposite of what the Information Theory proponents argue. This is represented as a change in the genotype due to an event, z, which alters the base pair sequence such that the sequence before event z is not identical the sequence afterward. Once a selection pressure, for example, forces a change in a genotype, information is increased, not decreased. And from no information thus can come information.

To prove this we can take our previous equation 1.0 and explicitly solve the coin flipping event scenario:

I (x) = log_u(M)

=> I(x) = log₂ (2) = 1 bit.

But what about the condition prior to the event x? Does it contain more or less information? Since the number of total possible outcomes, M=1, we set that value appropriately and solve:

I(x) = log₂ (1) = 0 bits.

Q.E.D.

Therefore, information is gained from no information. And this also denies any possibility of it "requiring" an intelligent "mind" to  create it, as it derives of "disorder", randomness or a lack of information. As with so many academic arguments so easily dispatched already, there truly is nothing to see here.

- kk

 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 10, 2012 at 12:57am

Hey Angelo,

 

that a source different than a intelligent mind can create codified information

 

Within sight of this post to which I reply is your post repeating the fallacy I've here disproven.

 

- kk

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 45
• 46
• 47
• 48
• 49
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page