Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why it's called the "first cause" and not simply a cause.
The alternative is that all which now exists spontaneously came into being from nothing and without a cause.
Small correction... an alternative is that all which now exists spontaneously came into being from nothing and without a cause.
But there are others.
One is that the universe never "came into being" in the first place... it is eternal and uncreated.
Before the theists start declaring that impossible or absurd, they have already conceded the possibility of eternal and uncreated things. In their case they call it "God."
Religions generally advance creationism, but we didn't know the Universe was 13.75 billion years old and all matter, energy, space and time came into being in a single event and at one place until the last century.
Amazing. I say this because... we don't even know that now.
The Big Bang was not an event in which "all matter, energy, space and time came into being in a single event and at one place." It is instead an event in which the universe that preexisted it became as it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Now I'll ask the question again.
Do you have an explanation as to why this may have happened such that a creative force independent of time, space, matter and energy would be ruled out?
You have that backwards.
What evidence based reason would you have for inserting what is essentially "magic" into an ostensibly scientific explanation for the universe?
"A creative force independent of time, space, matter and energy" is not ruled out... it is irrelevant. You have already defined it as being inaccessible to science and scientific examination.
The laws of conservation and causality. All of which are empirically derived.
If ex hihilo, nihil fit... then there must have been something before the Big Bang. Even theists agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
He's entitled to his opinion, and apparently yours as well. The question of why is ignored like the elephant in the room. I'm a little more intellectually curious than that.
As one of the greatest geneticists and biologists of all time, Dozhansky's comments are more than mere opinion. You do know the difference between a lay opinion and an expert one, right?
That is not a rhetorical question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The number of causes doesn't matter, just that eventually we come to a first cause.
If the law of causality is true, there can be no "first cause." You are welcome to believe it's not true... but that just makes your problem less subtle. If effects do not need causes, then the cosmological argument you are pushing fails even faster than it is failing now. it eliminates even the pretense of a need for a creator god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Source?
Again, the laws of conservation and causality. All of which are empirically derived.
I find it funny about many people....seems the ones who spout tolerance are always always are the most intolerant of others..funny how that works.
Tolerance? In science?
Science doesn't give a hoot in hell about "tolerance." It is ruthless in its pursuit of truth. Bad ideas are not tolerated... they are eviscerated and left to rot.
And while it may not be perfect in that pursuit, it is more successful than any other endeavor in all of human history. To include especially religion.
First off .... you said "We are nothing but an ape mutation only few codons away from the ape. Larger brain and thumbs gave us advantage in the environment. .... insinuating that a larger brain and thumbs were what differentiated humans from the apes. And though all apes don't have thumbs, most do ... and I can't tell you how many times I've had that "opposable digit" argument tossed at me from the Darwinist crowd.
Once again, we find GuyNTexas either deliberately misrepresenting his opponent's argument, or demonstrating a profound inability to comprehend simple written English. In this case the modifier "larger" was meant for both brains and thumbs. It was no more said that apes don't have thumbs than it was said they don't have brains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And, make no mistake, both genetic mutation AND natural selection are subtractive ... not additive.
The mistake is entirely yours.
Natural selection is subtractive. Genetic mutation is additive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
The evolution theory demands that we believe that one could start with a Go Cart ... and through slight and subtle alterations over time create a Lamborghini out of it. It's absurd!!
What is absurd is your analogy, because evolution demands nothing of the sort.
Unless of course you can show us where go carts are having sex and recombining their DNA over multiple generations. Can you do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
There are molecular machines in the human body that possess the nature of "irreducible complexity", and the construction of these machines is such that one missing part, or sequence of construction would render them useless and non functional.
To this point, no ID author has ever been able to demonstrate a single organ or molecular machine that is "irreducibly complex." Given the opportunity to do so in a court of law, Michael Behe (the shining star of ID) was humiliated by the real sceintists brought in to challenge his claims on this issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Molecular biologists understand the complex nature of life, and the folly of it coming into existence by random chance.
All biologists do. Life did not come into existence by random chance. This is a straw man that bears no relationship to actual evolutionary biology. And the fact that IDers use it proves they are unrefined creationists, since it is a core creationist straw man going back to the earliest days of the Creation Research Society.
Like a dead fish, it has not gotten better with age.
Point mutations have nothing whatsoever to do with "evolution" because they are either negative or silent (just as I stated in more detail earlier).
And as pointed previously out, you are completely wrong in this claim.
Point mutations replenish the genetic variation that is lost when the genome undergoes natural selection. It provides the raw material on which natural selection acts.
Or do you not believe there is any such thing as genetic variation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And point mutations can be DRAMATICALLY devastating ... just ask any African American with Sickle Cell Anemia .... which is caused by a single point mutation.
Sure they can... but you did not pick the best example. The sickle cell gene persist (and reappears) because while it might be devastating for individuals with two such genes, for those with only one it offers protection from malaria. In this way it is fixed in populations that coexist with the malaria parasite and while bad for individuals is helpful to the larger population.
It is an excellent example of the way evolution works, and a pretty damning indictment on any sort of intelligent designer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And even in non-coded portions of the DNA, single point mutations can cause "frameshift", which is an error in reading the DNA code due to an absent base pair.
Uuuhhh... those are not point mutations. Those are indels. They are a completely different thing from what we are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And of the significant variety of point mutations that can occur, NOT ONE can be considered a positive enhancement to the organism .. hence, no evolutionary value ... only adamaged DNA that is either silent, negative, or disastrous.
Now you're just making stuff up. For example, the point mutations that tuned the third opsin gene in old world primates to a new frequency allowing tricolor vision were a mere 8 mutations... each and every one of which incrementally improved the frequency sensititvity of the protein.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Blathering nonsense. Sounds impressive to the 70 IQ ... but nonsense to anyone who can tie their own shoes. You want to sell this bill of goods that this infinitely complex system stands a 50/50 chance of seeing positive results from a random alteration in how it functions? YOU CANNOT BE REAL ... well, maybe you do believe this.
I'll take this as a full concession that you have no substantive response to the details of my discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Bull .... it's a copy ... it adds nothing, except perhaps some redundancy, but also an increase chance of severe disease, as
gene duplication/amplification is one of the primary causes of several types of cancer .... again, such mutations are almost always detrimental.
It adds nothing?
It has increased the total number of functioning genes by one, thus proving the creationist claim that mutations cannot increase genetic information to be a lie.
It has further provided a starting point for the evolution of a completely new protein while allowing the original to be conserved.
And we can prove that exactly this process has occurred. We can identify the exact genes that were duplicated, when the duplications occurred, and the changes to the duplicated gene that took place afterward... driven by natural selection.
Do somatic duplications (of oncogenes, not just any gene) sometimes cause cancer? Sure they do. But such duplications cannot be inherited, since they are somatic and will not outlive the individual they affect. So as usual... you appear to have little understanding of the issue at hand.
I think it's funny that you accuse me of copying and pasting. Surely... you can demonstrate where I have done so, right?
I didn't thinks so.
But understand at least this: your personal ignorance is not universal. Real scientists (almost all non-jewelers) actually know more than you do. Apparently.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 02-09-2011 at 10:37 AM..
Just listen to yourself!!! The courts have decided??? Since when are judges scientists?
They're not scientists. They are judges. And in the Dover, Pennsylvania courtroom they judged that ID is merely repackaged creationism. This is not a scientific judgment. It is a judgment on the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Intelligent design is not an endorsement of any religion ... therefore those arguments are red herrings.
Nonsense.
Go educate yourself on its invention as the tip of "The Wedge Strategy."
It is nothing more than religious evangelism.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 02-09-2011 at 10:35 AM..
That's why it's called the "first cause" and not simply a cause.
The alternative is that all which now exists spontaneously came into being from nothing and without a cause.
So to be clear, you say that a universe that came into being from nothing, and without cause is inconceivable? Yet a Creator that came into being from nothing and without cause is?
Ever Wonder Why We Continue to Argue About Evolution?
Nope, the simple answer is that some of us are more evolved than others.
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
