Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

We are told: The recipe for the origin of life has been revised

Spread the love

The proposed revision is a tweak on RNA world:

Recently, Nobel laureate Jack Szostak’s lab made serious headway in answering the life origin question by publishing the first recipe for making a spontaneously self-reproducing gene in a 2020 Journal of the American Chemical Society paper…

These observations together point to a chemically functional role of ANAs [arabinonucleic acids] that would significantly increase the rate of RNA synthesis and stability in the environment of a primordial Earth. Szostak’s unusual addition to his recipe likely became the “secret ingredient” to making the most plausible RNA-filled gazpacho to date. And with that, the scientific debate around the origins of life on Earth keeps on simmering.

Lauren Gandy, “Scientists have revised the recipe for the first gene and the origin of life” at Massive Science

Scientists revising their origin of life theories is—in the present climate—somewhat like fiction writers revising their novels. Nothing in the world wrong with it. But let’s be clear what level of real-world information we are talking about.

See also: Astonishing! Astrophysicist determines that the odds are against a random origin of life. One might ask why he thinks that “science” must find a random origin for life. Who decided that life originated randomly? What if it did not? Is science still committed to finding a random origin?

and

Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

179 Replies to “We are told: The recipe for the origin of life has been revised

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    The “secret ingredient” for anyone to believe that a naturalistic origin of life is remotely feasible has always been ignorance as to what ‘simple’ life actually entails:

    Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information – David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors – Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8
    “No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?”
    http://www.biomedcentral.com/c.....2-2-29.pdf

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

    To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers – July 2012
    Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That’s a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
    The bioengineers, led by Stanford’s Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What’s fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell’s lifecycle processes.,,,
    ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore’s Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that’s only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
    http://www.theatlantic.com/tec.....rs/260198/

    And also entails ignorance as to what scientists are actually up against in trying to create ‘simple life’

    (July 2019) “We have no idea how to put this structure (a simple cell) together.,, So, not only do we not know how to make the basic components, we do not know how to build the structure even if we were given the basic components. So the gedanken (thought) experiment is this. Even if I gave you all the components. Even if I gave you all the amino acids. All the protein structures from those amino acids that you wanted. All the lipids in the purity that you wanted. The DNA. The RNA. Even in the sequence you wanted. I’ve even given you the code. And all the nucleic acids. So now I say, “Can you now assemble a cell, not in a prebiotic cesspool but in your nice laboratory?”. And the answer is a resounding NO! And if anybody claims otherwise they do not know this area (of research).”
    – James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained – 4:20 minute mark (The more we know, the worse the problem gets for materialists)
    https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=255

    Origin of Life: An Inside Story – Professor James Tour – May 1, 2016
    Excerpt: “All right, now let’s assemble the Dream Team. We’ve got good professors here, so let’s assemble the Dream Team. Let’s further assume that the world’s top 100 synthetic chemists, top 100 biochemists and top 100 evolutionary biologists combined forces into a limitlessly funded Dream Team. The Dream Team has all the carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids and nucleic acids stored in freezers in their laboratories… All of them are in 100% enantiomer purity. [Let’s] even give the team all the reagents they wish, the most advanced laboratories, and the analytical facilities, and complete scientific literature, and synthetic and natural non-living coupling agents. Mobilize the Dream Team to assemble the building blocks into a living system – nothing complex, just a single cell. The members scratch their heads and walk away, frustrated…
    So let’s help the Dream Team out by providing the polymerized forms: polypeptides, all the enzymes they desire, the polysaccharides, DNA and RNA in any sequence they desire, cleanly assembled. The level of sophistication in even the simplest of possible living cells is so chemically complex that we are even more clueless now than with anything discussed regarding prebiotic chemistry or macroevolution. The Dream Team will not know where to start. Moving all this off Earth does not solve the problem, because our physical laws are universal.
    You see the problem for the chemists? Welcome to my world. This is what I’m confronted with, every day.“
    James Tour – leading Chemist
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nt-design/

    Shoot, a single functional protein is far beyond the reach of any naturalistic explanation, much less ‘simple life’:

    Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA

    Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
    Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
    http://www.originthefilm.com/mathematics.php

    Minimal Complexity Relegates Life Origin Models To Fanciful Speculation – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: Based on the structural requirements of enzyme activity Axe emphatically argued against a global-ascent model of the function landscape in which incremental improvements of an arbitrary starting sequence “lead to a globally optimal final sequence with reasonably high probability”. For a protein made from scratch in a prebiotic soup, the odds of finding such globally optimal solutions are infinitesimally small- somewhere between 1 in 10exp140 and 1 in 10exp164 for a 150 amino acid long sequence if we factor in the probabilities of forming peptide bonds and of incorporating only left handed amino acids.
    – per arn

    The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds – Douglas Axe – 2010
    Excerpt Pg. 11: “Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin.”
    https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  2. 2
    jawa says:

    Any news on Dr Lee Cronin’s attempt to grab the coveted Evo2.0 $10M OOL prize?
    There yet?
    🙂

  3. 3
    jawa says:

    Have Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church looked at any serious entry to the contest yet?

    🙂

  4. 4
    AaronS1978 says:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-homogenous-rna-could-emerge-from-a-primordial-mess/

    So it’s this again

    He still didn’t make the spontaneous Self generating DNA molecule

    Apparently this is serious headway

    Am I missing something here?

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    Darwinists feel they are right, which is a big difference from knowing something. Emotions cloud judgement and the stronger the emotion, the less logical the justification. Without God, there can be no life. You cannot get something from nothing. Without God, math could not exist, since there would be nothing to discover. Without God, there can be no laws of physics, since the must have been put in place by something. Order does not come from chaos.

  6. 6
    Ed George says:

    I see two solitudes here. One side hypothesizes different possible scenarios for the origin of life, presents it to the world for criticism and devises experiments and observation to test the viability of the hypothesis. The other side concludes that it was the result of intelligent design and refuses to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design or devise experiments to test and observe these proposed means of design. As a rational, reasoned approach, I prefer the former approach. It has the benefit of being the starting point of further investigation, not the end of it.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    One side IMAGINES, not hypothesizes.

    The Intelligent Design side has the tests. We can test if what we are investigating can arise via nature, operating freely. And we can test to see if what we are investigating matches what we know takes a mind/ intelligent agency to produce.

    ID does NOT refuse to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design. Those are SEPARATE questions and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we can determine ID exists. We do not have to know the who and how before making that determination. Does Eddie think that if scientists genetically engineered a ribosome that would be evidence for ID? Because they have done that. And yet no one has ever seen nature doing it.

    The two solitudes> One has imagination based on hope. The other, ID, has the science and evidence.

    And only a moron would think that the design inference is the end. Yet that same moron thinks that fantasy is a starting point.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    EG at 6,

    FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it. In fact many of the founders of modern science considered science to be somewhat of a divine vocation. For instance Maxwell’s bible verse he had inscribed above his laboratory

    Psalm 111:2
    The works of the LORD are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein.
    (‘Magna opera Domini exquisite in omnes voluntates eius’), the verse is carved into the heavy wooden doors of the old Cavendish Laboratory (Department of Physics) of Cambridge University, albeit in ornate gothic lettering which is not easy to read. It was apparently put there at the behest of James Clerk Maxwell, the first Cavendish Professor, at the time of the building of the laboratory in the early 1870s.

    Belief in God, is a science starter, not a science stopper,,,

    Is Religion a Science-Stopper? – REGIS NICOLL – OCTOBER 18, 2017
    Excerpt: On the Shoulders of Giants
    Christians remained in the vanguard of scientific discovery well into the nineteenth century. Groundbreaking advances in electro-magnetism, microbiology, medicine, genetics, chemistry, atomic theory and agriculture were the works of men like John Dalton, Andre Ampere, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, William Kelvin, Gregor Mendel, and George Washington Carver; all believers whose achievements were the outworking of their Christian faith.
    Scientists in the truest sense of the word; these were investigators who doggedly followed the evidence wherever it led, approaching the gaps of understanding not with “God did it!” resignation, but with “God created it” expectation.
    https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/religion-science-stopper

    As to Ed George supposedly preferring “a rational, reasoned approach” instead of belief in God in OOL research,,,

    Might I ask EG, exactly how are rationality and reason themselves to be grounded within his Atheistic materialistic worldview in which the existence of free will is resolutely denied?

    Sam Harris’s Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It – Martin Cothran – November 9, 2012
    Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state — including their position on this issue — is the effect of a physical, not logical cause.
    By their own logic, it isn’t logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66221.html

    (1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts.
    (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism).
    (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2)
    (4) no effect can control its cause.
    Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality.
    per Box UD

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the popular scientific philosophy]. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears… unless Reason is an absolute, all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”
    —C.S. Lewis, Is Theology Poetry (aka the Argument from Reason)

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself
    Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/

    i.e. If you believe in reason then you must believe in God.

    “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.”
    Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White
    Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn’t Dead

    Verse and quote:

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

    of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic
    http://etymonline.com/?term=logic

    What is the Logos?
    Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,,
    In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.”
    https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html

  9. 9
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.

    Really? Could you link me to the research about the nature of the designer? Or the research on the mechanisms that were used by the designer to realize her design?

  10. 10
    JVL says:

    ET: ID does NOT refuse to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design.

    But you’ll never get any of them to do it!

    Those are SEPARATE questions and have absolutely no bearing on whether or not we can determine ID exists. We do not have to know the who and how before making that determination.

    But, it would matter if the intelligent designer(s) were aliens from another solar system would it not? That would make their purposes somewhat suspect wouldn’t you say? Also, being much like us but more advanced they would need to have labs and raw materials and energy sources and living quarters and waste disposal facilities and and and. Plus they would have to have some kick-ass propulsion systems! Unless they managed the whole thing by sending their life ‘seed’ on some long lived interstellar probe . . . but that would mean no further intervention after life got started. Which would change the way you looked at the development of life on earth (opposed to a frequent intervention model).

    But that could all just be me I suppose. I would certainly have a lot of questions!

  11. 11
    AaronS1978 says:

    I hate this argument, evolutionists are guilty of literally the same thing, vestigial organs, appendix is a good example

    Now instead of pointing figures at one another on who’s view is better for science let’s discuss the fact the this man has the recipe for the “ultimate cookie” and has not baked such “ultimate cookie” or am I missunderstanding this. I truly think they are over stating what he really has done here

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George,

    Could you link me to the research about the nature of the designer? Or the research on the mechanisms that were used by the designer to realize her design?

    Well, for one, upon discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared:

    ‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’
    http://www.biblicalcreation.or.....cs104.html

    Here are a few more quotes to help you get a small inkling of the Christian thinking behind these great men of science,,,:

    Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD – Tihomir Dimitrov – (pg. 222)

    Quotes:

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God.”
    (Newton 1687, Principia)

    “When I reflect on so many profoundly marvellous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done, I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.”
    (Galileo, as cited in Caputo 2000, 85).

    “To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.”
    (Copernicus, as cited in Neff 1952, 191-192; and in Hubbard 1905, v)

    “Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.”
    (Kepler, as cited in Morris 1982, 11; see also Graves 1996, 51).

    “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”
    (Bacon 1875, 64).

    “And thus I very clearly see that the certitude and truth of all science depends on the knowledge alone of the true God, insomuch that, before I knew him, I could have no perfect knowledge of any other thing. And now that I know him, I possess the means of acquiring a perfect knowledge respecting innumerable matters, as well relative to God himself and other intellectual objects as to corporeal nature.”
    (Descartes 1901, Meditation V).

    “The book of nature which we have to read is written by the finger of God.”
    (Faraday, as cited in Seeger 1983, 101).

    “I think men of science as well as other men need to learn from Christ, and I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of.”
    (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 404-405)
    – James_Clerk_Maxwell

    “Overpoweringly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them for a time, they come back upon us with irresistible force, showing to us through Nature the influence of a free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler.”
    (Kelvin 1871; see also Seeger 1985a, 100-101)

    “When with bold telescopes I survey the old and newly discovered stars and planets, when with excellent microscopes I discern the unimitable subtility of nature’s curious workmanship; and when, in a word, by the help of anatomical knives, and the light of chemical furnaces, I study the book of nature, I find myself often times reduced to exclaim with the Psalmist, ‘How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast Thou made them all!’ ”
    (Boyle, as cited in Woodall 1997, 32)

    “Wishing them also a most happy success in their laudable attempts to discover the true nature of the works of God, and praying, that they and all other searchers into physical truths may cordially refer their attainments to the glory of the Author of Nature, and the benefit of mankind.”
    — Robert Boyle (1627-1691) largely regarded today as the first modern chemist, speaking of the Royal Society in his will

    “The examination of the bodies of animals has always been my delight, and I have thought that we might thence not only obtain an insight into the lighter mysteries of nature, but there perceive a kind of image or reflection of the omnipotent Creator Himself.”
    (Harvey, as cited in Keynes 1966, 330)

    “There is for a free man no occupation more worth and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honor the infinite wisdom and goodness of God.”
    (Ray, as cited in Graves 1996, 66; see also Yahya 2002)

    “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God.”
    (Pasteur, as cited in Lamont 1995; see also Tiner 1990, 75)

    50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrov
    PART IV. FOUNDERS OF MODERN SCIENCE
    (16th – 21st Century) – page 89
    http://nobelists.weebly.com/up.....nglish.pdf

    And Pastuer, who gave us the law of biogenesis (only life begets life), made this almost prophetic quote about a beginning for the universe being discovered in the future,

    “Science brings men nearer to God.,,
    Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory.,,
    The Greeks understood the mysterious power of the below things. They are the ones who gave us one of the most beautiful words in our language, the word enthusiasm: a God within.,,,
    I have been looking for spontaneous generation for twenty years without discovering it. No, I do not judge it impossible. But what allows you to make it the origin of life? You place matter before life and you decide that matter has existed for all eternity. How do you know that the incessant progress of science will not compel scientists to consider that life has existed during eternity, and not matter? You pass from matter to life because your intelligence of today cannot conceive things otherwise. How do you know that in ten thousand years, one will not consider it more likely that matter has emerged from life? You move from matter to life because your current intelligence, so limited compared to what will be the future intelligence of the naturalist, tells you that things cannot be understand otherwise. If you want to be among the scientific minds, what only counts is that you will have to get rid of a priori reasoning and ideas, and you will have to do necessary deductions not giving more confidence than we should to deductions from wild speculation.”
    Pasteur – [en francais, Pasteur et la philosophie, Patrice Pinet, Editions L’Harmattan, p. 63.]

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    Nobel price laureate Jack Szostak is a funny guy.

    In 2014, in an interview with Suzan Mazur, Szostak said:

    “Life in the lab in 3-5 years, more likely in 3 years”

    (source: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1406/S00007/jack-szostak-life-in-lab-in-3-5-years.htm)

    Szostak said that in 2014 … now it is 2020 and all what he got is some ‘secret ingredient’

    :)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    these darwinian clowns …. after 150 years of OOL-research, they have got nothing to show us … only some messed up molecules …

  14. 14
    martin_r says:

    will Nobel laureate Jack Szostak retract this paper as well ?

    Because he retracted an origin-of-life-research paper before:

    RetractionWatch.com:

    “”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal”

    https://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/05/definitely-embarrassing-nobel-laureate-retracts-non-reproducible-paper-nature-journal/

  15. 15
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But you’ll never get any of them to do it!

    Your ignorance is not an argument. “Built-in responses to environmental cues” was a mechanism proposed in 1997.

    But, it would matter if the intelligent designer(s) were aliens from another solar system would it not?

    Would it? Do we have to know who the designer was before determining something was designed? Do we have to know how the design was implemented before we can determine that design exists? No, to both.

    The science of ID is the detection and study of designs in nature. The other side is supposed to be all about mechanisms and yet they have failed to present one that can to the task.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    And it still remains that design is a mechanism, by definition. And saying design is a mechanism is just as valid as saying natural selection is a mechanism.

  17. 17
    martin_r says:

    AaronS1978 @11
    you have mentioned an appendix

    are you aware of this?

    from a mainstream magazine:

    “The appendix may not be useless after all. The worm-shaped structure found near the junction of the small and large intestines evolved 32 times among mammals, according to a new study.”

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/02/appendix-evolved-more-30-times

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    ET: Your ignorance is not an argument. “Built-in responses to environmental cues” was a mechanism proposed in 1997.

    I will stand by my statement that it’s hard to get any ID proponent to take a stand on the nature of the designer or the techniques utilised. Or even when design was implemented.

    Would it? Do we have to know who the designer was before determining something was designed? Do we have to know how the design was implemented before we can determine that design exists? No, to both.

    So, you’re happy if the designer you detected was an alien from another solar system. Who was trying to do what in a far flung system for what reason? I mean, serously, some aliens travelled light years just to seed iife on another planet? Why? Why would they do that?

    The science of ID is the detection and study of designs in nature. The other side is supposed to be all about mechanisms and yet they have failed to present one that can to the task.

    So, ID doesn’t care about HOW design was implemented? Or is that just you? And why wouldn’t ID care? Surely how design was implemented would say something about the designer yes?

    I can not believe that someone would support ID and not care about the designer and he/she/it’s methods and motivations. And if you care about those things then why not research them? You keep saying that’s not part of ID but then what are those questions part of? If the designer(s) are aliens then those questions are not theology.

    ID doesn’t seem to go anywhere; no one seems interested in pursuing the obvious follow-on questions. It’s your call but after supposed design detection what are you guys doing?

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    ET: And it still remains that design is a mechanism, by definition. And saying design is a mechanism is just as valid as saying natural selection is a mechanism.

    How was it implemented? You cannot get design in nature without a designer and a method of implementation. So . . .

  20. 20
    ET says:

    We don’t even know who built Stonehenge nor how they built it. Everything we know about it came from centuries of studying it and all relevant evidence.

    The mere existence of intelligent design is evidence that at least one intelligent designer existed. And you can remove the designer requirement by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. But you can’t. You have nothing but your blind reliance on some alleged experts.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I will stand by my statement that it’s hard to get any ID proponent to take a stand on the nature of the designer or the techniques utilised. Or even when design was implemented.

    Those have nothing to do with ID. But it does prove that ID forces us to ask other questions and because of that ID isn’t a science stopper.

    So, you’re happy if the designer you detected was an alien from another solar system.

    I am OK with that.

    Who was trying to do what in a far flung system for what reason? I mean, serously, some aliens travelled light years just to seed iife on another planet? Why? Why would they do that?

    To get liberals to act like lost children on internet forums.

    So, ID doesn’t care about HOW design was implemented?

    ID is not about the how. How many times do you have to be told that? In “No Free Lunch” Wm. Dembski says it. He goes on to say that ID doesn’t prevent anyone from looking onto it. Again, I have been over and over this with you. Clearly you have some issue you need help with.

    I can not believe that someone would support ID and not care about the designer and he/she/it’s methods and motivations.

    Now you are running around with the goal post like a little child. ID is NOT about the who or how. That is because we do NOT have to know the who or how before we can determine design exists or not. We don’t even ask about the who or how until after design has been detected.

    And again, we have been over and over that but you have some willful ignorance problem.

    One thing is certain- ID is not beholden to your asinine agenda. Your side has all the power to refute ID and yet has nothing to show for itself. You have to be full-on delusional to think that nature can produce coded systems from the bottom up. You have to be a desperate cling-on to think the studies offered so far, in any way shows nature has that capability.

    Why aren’t you and yours asking the hard questions with respect to whatever alternative to ID you think that you have? Why don’t you care that you are a hypocrite?

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    ET: We don’t even know who built Stonehenge nor how they built it. Everything we know about it came from centuries of studying it and all relevant evidence.

    We know it was humans living in the area at the time. We know some of the tools they used. We know some things about their diet and the kind of structures they lived in.

    The mere existence of intelligent design is evidence that at least one intelligent designer existed. And you can remove the designer requirement by demonstrating that nature is up to the task. But you can’t. You have nothing but your blind reliance on some alleged experts.

    What kind of designer? What was their purpose? Were they aliens trying to populate the whole galaxy for nefarious reasons? Did they set up the whole of life on earth just so they could come along later and harvest us for meat and nutrients? What was their purpose? Don’t you care? Are you asking those questions?

    Those have nothing to do with ID. But it does prove that ID forces us to ask other questions and because of that ID isn’t a science stopper.

    I think ID brings up a lot of other questions. But no one seems to be working on them.

    ID is not about the how. How many times do you have to be told that? In “No Free Lunch” Wm. Dembski says it. He goes on to say that ID doesn’t prevent anyone from looking onto it. Again, I have been over and over this with you. Clearly you have some issue you need help with.

    Well, what’s the point of ID then? Just to stand there and say: see, there is design? And then what? If that’s all ID is about then, according to you, it was done and dusted awhile ago. Then you should be moving on now shouldn’t you?

    Now you are running around with the goal post like a little child. ID is NOT about the who or how. That is because we do NOT have to know the who or how before we can determine design exists or not. We don’t even ask about the who or how until after design has been detected.

    And you’ve claimed design has been detected! Quite a while ago now. And so . . . .

    One thing is certain- ID is not beholden to your asinine agenda. Your side has all the power to refute ID and yet has nothing to show for itself. You have to be full-on delusional to think that nature can produce coded systems from the bottom up. You have to be a desperate cling-on to think the studies offered so far, in any way shows nature has that capability.

    Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day and yet ID has almost nothing published. There doesn’t seem to be any work being done. Why is that? You can pick your own agenda so . … what is it? What are you doing?

    Why aren’t you and yours asking the hard questions with respect to whatever alternative to ID you think that you have? Why don’t you care that you are a hypocrite?

    I think evolutionary researchers ARE asking the hard questions and working on them. Even Denyse published a post about a variation on the RNA World theory recently. You may disagree with it but that shows that people are working the problem. What are ID proponents doing? What research is being done? What is the research agenda?

    IF ID is just about design detection and since you’ve all claimed that design was detected (multiple times) a while ago then what are you doing now? What science are you doing? What is your research agenda? What questions are you pursuing? That’s what scientists do after all, they try to answer questions.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    JVL:

    We know it was humans living in the area at the time.

    That is not a who. Thank you for making my point.

    We know some of the tools they used. We know some things about their diet and the kind of structures they lived in.

    As I said- everything we do know came from centuries of study.

    What kind of designer? What was their purpose? Were they aliens trying to populate the whole galaxy for nefarious reasons? Did they set up the whole of life on earth just so they could come along later and harvest us for meat and nutrients? What was their purpose? Don’t you care? Are you asking those questions?

    Can’t answer those questions from what we have to examine.

    Well, what’s the point of ID then?

    The same as the point of science. To try to understand what we are observing.

    And then what?

    The same as I have always told you. We study it so we can understand it. We want to understand it so we can properly maintain it. And possibly duplicate it. That is for a start.

    And you’ve claimed design has been detected! Quite a while ago now. And so . . . .

    Now we either have to kill the denialists, hope they just die or force them into a debate to see which side has the science and which side is total BS.

    Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day and yet ID has almost nothing published.

    Nonsense. There isn’t any scientific theory of evolution and there aren’t any papers that support evolution by means of natural selection or any other bind and mindless processes.

    I think evolutionary researchers ARE asking the hard questions and working on them.

    No one cares what you think. What labs are looking into the evolution of bacterial flagellum? Which developmental biologists are trying to figure out what determines form?

    Putting imagination on paper isn’t working on it.

    But look, Jerad, you are clearly willfully ignorant. Not all design detection has been completed. And the thing is to be able to do SCIENTIFIC research nd be able to come to a design inference, if warranted. And given the codes that rule biological organisms, the design inference is warranted. There isn’t any other viable explanation for the coded systems in biology.

    Try to answer questions? For over 160 years and your side still has nothing to answer the questions. You don’t have a mechanism capable. All you have is hope, misguided hope at that

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Suffice it to say, I have little patience with the “identify the designer” rhetoric. It’s not just an example of sloppy thinking. It’s a form of sloppy thinking that gunks up any sincere interest in design. It turns an attempt to adhere to logical, responsible thinking into a sinister motive. So perhaps, there is a better question to ask. Why do ID critics refuse to publicly acknowledge that it is illogical to identity the designer using the criteria of mainstream ID (IC and CSI)?- Mike Gene

    IDists agree with Mike Gene. And no one can find any real fault with what Mike Gene said.

  25. 25
    Seversky says:

    Ed George @ 8

    I see two solitudes here. One side hypothesizes different possible scenarios for the origin of life, presents it to the world for criticism and devises experiments and observation to test the viability of the hypothesis. The other side concludes that it was the result of intelligent design and refuses to propose the nature of the designer, the mechanism of the design or devise experiments to test and observe these proposed means of design. As a rational, reasoned approach, I prefer the former approach. It has the benefit of being the starting point of further investigation, not the end of it.

    I couldn’t have put it better myself.

  26. 26
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 8

    FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.

    Yet, strangely, while they all might have attributed the original creation to God, all their theories were materialistic explanations of whatever natural phenomena they happened to be studying. None of their theories include terms like “Here there be miracles” or “Here their be divine interventions”. And none of them had the slightest idea of how God, if He exists, accomplished the Creation.

    FYI, belief in God certainly did not stop the Christian founders of modern science from investigating the universe to try to figure out how God did it.

    If your answer to every conundrum in the physical universe is “Goddidit” or “it is God’s will” then it very definitely is a science-stopper.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    seversky:

    I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    Insipid trolls do think alike.

  28. 28
    ET says:

    seversky:

    If your answer to every conundrum in the physical universe is “Goddidit” or “it is God’s will” then it very definitely is a science-stopper.

    And yet science giants such as Newton and Kepler saw science as a way to understand God’s Creation.

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, you falsely claimed that,

    Yet, strangely, while they all might have attributed the original creation to God, all their theories were materialistic explanations of whatever natural phenomena they happened to be studying.

    That is a false claim. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”

    The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show – Monday, Aug. 2012
    Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”
    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....how-80307/

    The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014
    Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator.
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....nd-maxwell

    “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
    John D. Barrow

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    There is nothing ‘materialistic’ about the Christian founders of modern science discovering the laws of nature. In fact, materialism, with its assumption of chaos instead of rational order, is antithetical to presupposing there should be laws of nature.

    In 2007 Paul Davies stated, “All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.,,,
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,,,”

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    Atheists, with their ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations, simply have no clue why there should even be universal laws that govern the universe in the first place:

    “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations.
    Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws.
    Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.”
    Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.”
    – Origenes – UD blogger

    Einstein himself stated, ““You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way”,,,

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    Likewise, Eugene Wigner also stated, “It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,”

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    Max Planck, one of the main pioneers of Quantum Theory, certainly did not believe in Atheistic Materialism

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.
    We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
    – Max Planck

    It is simply blatantly dishonest for Seversky to repeatedly falsely claim that science is a materialistic enterprise. The philosophy and Atheistic Materialism, (i.e. the belief that there is nothing beyond the material realm), had nothing to do with the founding of modern science nor does that horrid nihilistic philosophy have anything to do with the continued success of science.

    contrary to what many people have been falsely led to believe by Darwinian atheists, about Intelligent Design supposedly being a pseudo-science, the fact of the matter is that all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.

    Moreover, not only does the philosophy of atheistic materialism have nothing to do with the founding nor current practice of science, materialism has now been falsified by advances in empirical science.

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    Verse and quote:

    Colossians 2:3
    in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    – Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

  30. 30
    AaronS1978 says:

    @17

    Martin_r

    Yes I am. That’s why I mentioned it
    For years the appendix was thought of as useless and it was settled science.
    It was the Darwinian perspective that put it in the useless category and then settled the science. It, amongst many other organs is a perfect example of the thing both Ed and Seversky are accusing religious people of.
    It’s actually quite fallacious to make that statement

    It annoys me because it’s not close to the actual truth, and that accusation is often levied by people that just blindly hate religion, to try to Reinforce why religion shouldn’t be part of science

    Now do Darwinians do it all the time, no they don’t. So I’d appreciate it if that argument of “God did it!” Now we don’t have to do more science” would be dropped because it’s false and the other perspective is just as guilty

    I mean we literally have multiple physical examples of people saying it’s a useless organ because of evolution and nobody looks into it until years later (maybe) and then it turns out that assumption was false

    Thank you for at least talking about
    Jack Szostak

  31. 31
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978

    Now do Darwinians do it all the time, no they don’t. So I’d appreciate it if that argument of “God did it!” Now we don’t have to do more science” would be dropped because it’s false and the other perspective is just as guilty

    My point was not that ID can’t follow their conclusions (ie. the detection of design in nature) with the obvious next levels of research, just that they don’t. Even if the designer is outside the universe, which is not a requirement of ID, it must interact with our universe at some level. It must have applied some physical processes to realize it’s design. Why is ID reluctant to hypothesize what these were and devise tests to demonstrate them? Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study.

    I can appreciate the annoyance of ID proponents at the ‘God-did-it’ retort (I try to avoid using it), but their reluctance/refusal to take their “science” to the next logical step invites this comment.

  32. 32
    AaronS1978 says:

    @31
    Fair enough, that’s not unreasonable to ask
    I think there’s a poor back-and-forth between the two ideas ID and DE
    Personally I think both are more world views and science can be interpreted to support both

    Now I might get crucified by both groups when I say this but, they are planning on testing Panpsychism, which, well is kind of testing for intelligent design.

    I’m waving my flag of neutrality here please everybody don’t jump down my throat now that I’ve said that

  33. 33
    EDTA says:

    Yes, everyone is having fun hammering on ID using an argument that they think is a slam dunk. A few points in response.

    JVL,
    >You cannot get design in nature without a designer and a method of implementation. So . . .

    – As others are pointing out, you can infer design before moving on to other inquiries.

    – When discussing the origin of anything, there are tighter limits on discovery than there are for talking about an on-going process. This applies to things like what was there before the Big Bang. People can hypothesize all day long, but we cannot reach back there to test any of those hypotheses. Empirical science stopper? Pretty much, yes. We’ll just have to explore other aspects of cosmology or explore it theoretically. With ID, we can investigate other aspects, such as the paper (Marks was one of the authors?) on comparing nested hierarchies to other arrangements of living things, genetically speaking. (Doggonit, I can’t find the link or the PDF…BA77?)

    In IDs case, for the theist, God’s interaction with matter may have been of a miraculous nature, and we cannot explore that. That does not mean the inference is incorrect.

    >Well, evolutionary theory has papers published every day

    As I’ve pointed out before, if there are 1/1000th as many ID researchers as evo’s, I wouldn’t expect ID papers every day. That also does not mean the inference to design is incorrect.

    EG,
    >Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study.

    Biologists are studying an on-going process. Of course they proceed that way. But they can’t test the past in the same manner, and simply cooking chemicals looking for life to begin won’t prove that it happened that way. It won’t even shed light on how likely or unlikely it was, because there is improvement being poured into each successive experiment.

    Perhaps we’re actually agreeing here: The paradigm you limit yourselves to carries with it the advantage that everything you want/need is available to you all the time. That’s not the case for ID + theism. But that goes nowhere in proving that you are correct in your choice of paradigm.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    My point was not that ID can’t follow their conclusions (ie. the detection of design in nature) with the obvious next levels of research, just that they don’t.

    You have no idea what the obvious next levels of research are.

    Why is ID reluctant to hypothesize what these were and devise tests to demonstrate them?

    Most likely because it is beyond our capacity to reproduce. But we have tests that are used to determine if design exists.

    What does your side have beyond liars and bluffers such as yourself?

    Evolutionary biologists and OOL researchers certainly don’t shy away from developing and testing hypotheses regarding the mechanisms of the processes that were involved in their respective fields of study.

    The alleged best evidence for macroevolution doesn’t include a mechanism. No one uses the concept of blind watchmaker evolution for anything. All you have are speculations based on the assumption.

    At least ID’s concept of evolution by ,means of design is used with genetic algorithms. ID is both useful and being used. Blind watchmaker evolution? Still waiting…

  35. 35
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 29

    That is a false claim. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”

    C S Lewis’s speculative claim about why men became scientific carries no more weight than any other and doesn’t answer my claim that, whatever their religious beliefs, the actual theories proposed by these men were purely materialistic.

  36. 36
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978 @ 30

    For years the appendix was thought of as useless and it was settled science.
    It was the Darwinian perspective that put it in the useless category and then settled the science. It, amongst many other organs is a perfect example of the thing both Ed and Seversky are accusing religious people of.
    It’s actually quite fallacious to make that statement

    From the TalkOrigins Archive:

    Claim CB360.1:

    The human appendix is not really vestigial. It has an immunological function as part of the lymphatic system. Its lymphoid follicles produce antibodies.

    Source:

    Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland, 1997. Your appendix: It’s there for a reason. Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):41-43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp

    Response:

    1. Vestigial does not mean functionless. The appendix appears as part of the tissues of the digestive system; it is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum. Since it does not function as part of the digestive system, it is a vestigial part of that system, no matter what other functions it may have.

    2. The human appendix may not be functional. Its absence causes no known harmful effects (other than surgical complications from removing it). When it is present, there is a 7 percent lifetime risk of acute appendicitis, which is usually fatal without modern surgical techniques (Hardin 1999).

    3. Co-opting a part for an entirely different function, such as turning part of the intestines into part of the lymphatic system, is entirely compatible with, and even expected from, evolution. However, it argues against design because
    it rarely occurs with known (human) designs, and
    it invalidates design arguments, such as irreducible complexity.

    In addition:

    The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix

    However, contrary to what one is apt to read in anti-evolutionary literature, there is currently no evidence demonstrating that the appendix, as a separate organ, has a specific immune function in humans (Judge and Lichtenstein 2001; Dasso et al. 2000; Williams and Myers 1994, pp. 5, 26-29). To date, all experimental studies of the function of an appendix (other than routine human appendectomies) have been exclusively in rabbits and, to a lesser extent, rodents. Currently it is unclear whether the lymphoid tissue in the human appendix performs any specialized function apart from the much larger amount of lymphatic tissue already distributed throughout the gut. Most importantly with regard to vestigiality, there is no evidence from any mammal suggesting that the hominoid vermiform appendix performs functions above and beyond those of the lymphoid-rich caeca of other primates and mammals that lack distinct appendixes.

  37. 37

    .
    Others here have already sufficiently addressed JVL’s and Ed’s “objections” re: ID science.

    I would just like to point out that while these two guys posture about science, neither of them has even a leg to stand on. They’ve both (very clearly) run screaming from scientific evidence and reasoning — i.e. the successful predictions, the unambiguous descriptions recorded in the literature, and the documented history of science itself that points unmistakably to intelligence.

    Here are just two examples:

    Here is Ed: Mr Duck

    And here is JVL: Mr. Hot Potato

    Neither of them will engage earnestly in the science and reasoning already in the literature (for half a century or more). Their objections above not only miss the mark from a logical perspective, but they are hypocritical as well.

  38. 38
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Seversky 36

    I think you just inadvertently supported exactly what I was talking about

    https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/72762/immunology-study-suggests-appendix-has-use-after-all

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151130130021.htm

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170109162333.htm

    I’m just saying, by the way I don’t pay attention to anything Ken Ham says. Like this old dusted stuff you sited from 23 years ago.

    (Ham, Ken, and Carl Wieland, 1997. Your appendix: It’s there for a reason. Creation Ex Nihilo 20(1):41-43. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/357.asp)

    And I can’t help but feel that when someone rebuttals ken ham, it is similar to making your own definition of God, rebuttal it, and then declaring that you were right all along

    It’s not exactly the same but it does share the same validity, which is none at all

  39. 39
    jawa says:

    Martin_r,

    Good contributions -as usual- @13, @14 & @17.
    Thanks.

  40. 40
    jawa says:

    Martin_r,

    Have you heard anything on Dr Jack Szostak being a strong candidate to receive the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize?

    Is it possible that Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church are scratching their heads trying to figure out whether to split the prize between Dr Lee Cronin, Dr Jack Szostak and Dr Craig Venter? Tough call, isn’t it? They all seem to have narrowed down the task, right? 😉

    As far as you understand it, what is the explanation for the multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution?

    BTW, -off topic- the JHU website on CoViD-19 seems to show your country doing much better than most countries. Did I read the right information? How did you guys do it?

  41. 41
    ET says:

    The losers @ talk origins don’t have anything to account for any appendix. They cannot even account for the organisms who have one. Evos have no idea what is vestigial and what is not. All they have is speculation based on the assumption.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 35 reiterates his false claim that,

    the actual theories proposed by these men, (i.e. the Christian founders of modern science), were purely materialistic.

    Seversky gave no example of a ‘purely materialistic’ theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are ‘purely materialistic’. So, since he gave no examples, let’s take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is ‘purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.

    Newton publicized his Theory of Universal Gravitation in the 1680s. It basically set forth the idea that gravity was a predictable force that acts on all matter in the universe, and is a function of both mass and distance. The theory states that each particle of matter attracts every other particle (for instance, the particles of “Earth” and the particles of “you”) with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question2321.htm

    Here is what Newton himself said about his supposedly ‘purely materialistic’ Theory of Universal Gravitation in his book Principia,

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM.
    http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

    After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation is ‘purely materialistic’ I have no idea. Newton himself, as the above quote makes abundantly clear, certainly did not see his theory as being ‘purely materialistic’ but saw universal gravitation as clear cut evidence for God’s providence and sovereignty over the entire universe.

    As Stephen D. Snobelen noted, “for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural (experimental) philosophy, but rather are integral to it.”

    Isaac Newton: His Science and Religion – Stephen D. Snobelen
    Excerpt: At this point Newton launches into a majestic description of the God he found in Nature and Scripture. This Being, Newton begins, “rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his dominion he is called Lord God Pantokrator”. Then follows an account of God’s eternity and omnipresence that is shot through with biblical language. Newton’s God is sovereign over time and space. This twofold sovereignty, Newton suggests, ultimately underpins all things in time and space: “All the diversity of created things, each in its place and time, could only have arisen from the ideas and will of a necessarily existing being”. … At the end of the explicitly theological section of the General Scholium Newton writes: “This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of experimental philosophy” (changed to “natural philosophy” in the 1726 third edition of the Principia). Thus for Newton discussions about God and design are not to be kept separate from natural philosophy, but rather are integral to it.
    [Snobelen]
    https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newton-in-science-religion-and-society.pdf

    Perhaps Seversky, whom has accomplished nothing is science that I am aware of, just thinks that Newton, whom many consider the greatest scientist to have ever lived, was just colossally mistaken in his belief that universal gravitation was evidence for God almighty?

    Yet Seversky provided, and can provide, no evidence that Newton’s universal gravitation is a ‘purely materialistic’ theory.

    When examining the details of universal gravitation, we find that gravity is far from being a ‘purely materialistic’ theory.

    For instance, the inverse square law.

    “When Isaac Newton realized that the acceleration of the Moon as it orbited around the Earth could be related to the acceleration of an apple as it fell to the ground, it was the first time that two seemingly unrelated physical phenomena had been “unified”. The quest to unify all the forces of nature is one that still keeps physicists busy today. Newton showed that the gravitational attraction between two point bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: F = GMm/r2, where F is the force, G is Newton’s gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between them.,,,
    ,,, in the limit of low velocities and weak gravitational fields, Einstein’s theory still predicts that the gravitational force between two point objects obeys an inverse-square law.”
    https://physicsworld.com/a/testing-the-gravitational-inverse-square-law/

    But, from the ‘purely materialistic’ perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?

    “Newton proposed that Gravitational force is inversely proportional to the Square of the distance between two masses (Inverse Square Law). For an orderly, designed universe, this makes sense – why wouldn’t it be something nice and even, like the square of the distance? For someone who believes in a random universe though – why the Square? Why not r ^ 2.148273.. or r ^ 1.932157.. The universe is full of nice, neat relationships like this, at very fundamental levels – moreso than not. I find the ability of the atheist to accept so many coincidences nothing short of astonishing.”
    drc466 – UD blogger

    Designer gravity – Don DeYoung
    The force F between two masses m1 and m2, when separated by a distance r, can be written as F = (G m1 m2)/r2
    Where G is the gravitational constant, first measured by Henry Cavendish in 1798.(1)
    This equation shows that gravity decreases as the separation distance, r, between two objects becomes large but never quite reaches zero.
    The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.’2
    http://creation.com/gravity-the-mystery-force

    It certainly seems that the inverse square law is just a little too neat, and simple, to be a accident. It seems apparent that the inverse square law was ‘set up’ for man to be able to, fairly easily, discover it.

    In regards to being ‘set up’ for discovery, the inverse square law also plays out in the ‘perfect’ solar eclipses that we observe here on earth.

    the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance r between the two bodies.
    The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 92.96 million miles.
    The distance from the Earth to the Moon is 238,900 miles, or 0.2389 million miles.
    https://www.quora.com/The-Sun-has-stronger-gravity-than-the-Moon-yet-it-is-the-Moons-gravitational-pull-that-causes-tides-What-could-be-the-reason-for-this

    And 92.96 divided by .2389 equals 389.117.

    Thus,

    At this particular moment in Earth’s history – although the sun’s diameter is about 400 times larger than that of the moon – the sun is also about 400 times farther away. So the sun and moon appear nearly the same size as seen from Earth. And that’s why we on Earth can sometimes witness that most amazing of spectacles, a total eclipse of the sun.

    Moreover, the amazing coincidence of perfect solar eclipses, which is an outplaying of the inverse square law. has allowed us to make further scientific discoveries:

    The Illuminating Power of Eclipses – 2017
    Excerpt: The invention of the spectroscope in the mid-19th century brought new solar discoveries. A glass prism splits light into a rainbow of colors emitted by specific atoms and molecules — bar codes, in a way, that identify the elements making the light.
    In 1868, a French scientist, Pierre Janssen, traveled to India to view an eclipse through a spectroscope. The sun’s prominences, he concluded, are largely made of hot hydrogen gas.
    But a bright yellow line seen through the spectroscope, initially thought to be an identifier of sodium, did not match the wavelength of sodium.
    That signified the discovery of helium, the universe’s second most common element. It would not be found on Earth for another 13 years.,,,
    Einstein’s ideas set the stage for the most famous eclipse experiment of all time, in 1919, during which Sir Arthur Eddington observed the bending of starlight around the sun. The findings verified the theory’s predictions.
    Solar eclipses have been used not just to deduce what is going on in the solar system but also to study Earth.,,,
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/science/eclipse-discoveries-science.html

    So it certainly seems readily apparent that the laws of the universe, particularly the inverse square law, is set up in such a way so as to allow us to, number one, discover it, and number 2, make further scientific discoveries, via ‘perfect eclipses’ about the universe from the earth.

    This thesis, i.e. that the earth is ‘privileged’ in order to enable humans to make scientific discoveries, has been more fully developed by Gonzalez and Richards,

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    – Jay Richards – Privileged Planet

    The Privileged Planet – The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability
    “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”
    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”
    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
    – Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Here is a video that goes over the ‘Privileged Planet’ thesis,

    The Privileged Planet – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmIc42oRjm8

    Robin Collins, building off the work of Gonzalez, predicted and confirmed that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) is such “as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.”

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Examples of fine – tuning for discoverability.,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Moreover, besides gravity being set up in such a way, via the inverse square law, so as to allow us to, fairly easily, discover it, and then to make further scientific discoveries from it, gravity is also fine-tuned to an astonishing 1 part in 10^40.

    “Or, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had not been precisely balanced to 1 part in 10^40 then we would have no stars of the right size to support life. We need both fast burning large stars to produce the essential elements for life’s chemistry and planet formation as well as long burning small stars to burn long enough to provide planetary systems habitable for life.”
    “Or, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant had not been precisely balanced to 1 part in 10^40 then we would have no stars of the right size to support life. We need both fast burning large stars to produce the essential elements for life’s chemistry and planet formation as well as long burning small stars to burn long enough to provide planetary systems habitable for life.”
    John_a_designer – UD

    Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) – (27:32 minute mark) video
    – LEE STROBEL – The Case for a Creator Full documentary
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ajqH4y8G0MI#t=1652

    At the 4:45 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Bruce comments that varying the gravitational constant by just one inch, on an imaginary ruler that stretched across the entire universe, would either increase or decrease our weight by a trillion fold:

    Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 Dr Bruce Gordon – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff_sNyGNSko

    Like the inverse square law, the 1 in 10^40 fine tuning of gravity certainly gives all appearances of being just a ‘little too neat’.

    Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not bad enough for Seversky’s atheistic materialism, mass is now shown to not even be an intrinsic property of material particles themselves, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism, but mass is ‘given’ to material particles via interactions with the Higgs field:

    39:00 minute mark:
    “Mass turns out not to be an intrinsic property of matter either” (mass is a phenomenological artifact of field interactions, i.e. specifically ‘otherwise massless particles’ interacting with the Higg’s field)
    – Bruce Gordon: –
    The Incompatibility of Physicalism with Physics: A Conversation with Dr. Bruce Gordon
    https://youtu.be/wk-UO81HmO4?t=2344

    Focus: Nobel Prize—Why Particles Have Mass – October 11, 2013
    Excerpt: Subsequent work showed that the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism (or “Higgs mechanism,” for short) could give mass not only to weak particles, but also to electrons, quarks, and other fundamental particles. The more strongly a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the more massive it is.
    https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/111

    Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains

    SINGULARITIES
    Excerpt: In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is “the point where all laws of physics break down”.
    Current theory suggests that, as an object falls into a black hole and approaches the singularity at the center, it will become stretched out or “spaghettified” due to the increasing differential in gravitational attraction on different parts of it, before presumably losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity.
    https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

    As should be needless to say, Seversky has more than a small problem with his claim that gravity is a ‘purely materialistic’ theory since gravity, via black holes, is shown to exist whilst the material particles themselves ‘completely disappear’ at the singularity of a black hole.

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    In fact, via Einstein’s general relativity, gravity is no longer thought of to be a ‘force’ arising from material particles themselves, but is thought to be a curvature of space time itself. Moreover, this curved space time is ‘higher dimensional’

    Spacetime
    Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.
    Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein’s development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,,
    Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

    That ‘higher dimensional’ geometry would be found to be our best description of gravity is, to put it mildly, unexpected for atheistic materialism. Whereas, on the other hand, these higher dimensional 4-D spacetimes that undergird both special relativity and general relativity are extremely comforting to overall Christian concerns.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    March 2020
    what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDE is, needless to say, (very) powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension.
    I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.
    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/michael-behe-muses-on-design-and-covid-19/#comment-695282

    Thus in conclusion, Seversky’s oft repeated false claim that, “the actual theories proposed by these men, (i.e. the Christian founders of modern science), were purely materialistic”, is a patently false claim. Universal gravity itself, which was discovered by Newton, is certainly not a “purely materialistic” theory. In fact, when looking at the scientific details of what we now know to be true about gravity, we find that Newton’s theory of universal gravitation more strongly supports Christian Theism now than it ever did when Newton first, unambiguously, claimed that gravity supported belief in Christian Theism. i.e. belief that “The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;”

    If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  45. 45
    jawa says:

    BA77,

    Very informative contributions, as usual. Thanks.

  46. 46
    OLV says:

    Martin_r @17,
    Buddy, you have opened a can of worms for the Darwinian evolution.
    That’s not nice. 🙂
    Oh, well. Too late now. 🙂

  47. 47
    OLV says:

    Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. 😉

    Multiple independent appearances of the cecal appendix in mammalian evolution and an investigation of related ecological and anatomical factors (2013)

    Although the cecal appendix has been widely viewed as a vestige with no known function or a remnant of a formerly utilized digestive organ, the evolutionary history of this anatomical structure is currently unresolved.

    Substantial evidence supports the view that the cecal appendix is an immune structure primarily functioning as a safe-house for beneficial bacteria, and comes from a range of disciplines, including medicine, epidemiology, immunology, and microbiology

    Given all of the information available, a new working hypothesis might be developed in which the appendix has evolved as a microbial safe-house under selection pressure from gastrointestinal pathogens potentially transmitted via a range of mechanisms rather than via a single mechanism dominated by a particular dietary or social factor.

  48. 48
    OLV says:

    Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. 😉

    The immunological functions of the Appendix: An example of redundancy?   (2018)

    Biological redundancy ensures robustness in living organisms at several levels, from genes to organs.

    In this review, we explore the concept of redundancy and robustness through an analysis of the caecal appendix, an organ that is often considered to be a redundant remnant of evolution. However, phylogenic data show that the Appendix was selected during evolution and is unlikely to disappear once it appeared. In humans, it is highly conserved and malformations are extremely rare, suggesting a role for that structure.

    The Appendix could perform a dual role. First, it is a concentrate of lymphoid tissue resembling Peyer’s patches and is the primary site for immunoglobulin A production which is crucial to regulate the density and quality of the intestinal flora. Second, given its shape and position, the Appendix could be a unique niche for commensal bacteria in the body. It is extremely rich in biofilms that continuously shed bacteria into the intestinal lumen.

    The Appendix contains a microbiota as diverse as that found in the colon and could replenish the large intestine with healthy flora after a diarrhea episode. In conditions of modern medicine hygiene, and people live healthy without their appendix. However, several reports suggest that the effects of appendectomy could be subtler and associated with the development of inflammatory conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), heart disease but also in less expected disorders such as Parkinson’s disease. Lack of an Appendix also predicts a worsen outcome for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, which is the first nosocomial infection in hospitals.

    Here, we review the literature and in combination with our own data, we suggest that the Appendix might be redundant in its immunological function but unique as a reservoir of microbiota.

  49. 49
    OLV says:

    Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. 😉

    The Appendix in Parkinson’s Disease: From Vestigial Remnant to Vital Organ?

    the appendix offers an appealing gateway to access the immune system, microbiome, and ?-syn pathology within the intestine to benefit the development of a new generation of the therapies for PD that extend beyond the brain.

     

  50. 50
    OLV says:

    Blame it on Martin_r for starting this topic @17. 😉

    BTW, the term “appendix” does not seem to appear in this 2019 paper even once. Hmm…

    The gut in Parkinson’s disease: Bottom-up, top-down, or neither? (2019)

    in addition to gut-brain pathways, the brain-to-gut communication may also be involved in Parkinson’s disease pathophysiology. In this mini-review, we describe the strengths and limitations of the existing studies on the gut-brain axis in experimental models of parkinsonism and discuss an alternative hypothesis in which the central and enteric nervous system would evolve separately during disease progression.

  51. 51
    AaronS1978 says:

    @OLV
    Nice

  52. 52
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978 @ 38

    And I can’t help but feel that when someone rebuttals ken ham, it is similar to making your own definition of God, rebuttal it, and then declaring that you were right all along

    It’s not exactly the same but it does share the same validity, which is none at all

    Everyone has their own definition of God. They are not all the same. How do you choose between them? Is there any way? If not, then all you can do is look at the logical inconsistencies within and between them. I think my definition is the right one. You might disagree and insist that yours is the right one. There is no way to decide that I can see.

  53. 53
    EDTA says:

    Sev @ 52,

    Do we need an exhaustive definition of God? All we can ever come up with (because we are finite beings with finite brains) is an approximation anyway. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.

    (Yes, people spend time attributing various things to God, and because they come from different vantage points, they come up with different things. Then they disagree. That just means they went too far, not that God doesn’t exist.)

  54. 54
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 42

    Seversky gave no example of a ‘purely materialistic’ theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are ‘purely materialistic’.

    Find one that isn’t. All you need to do is show a term for divine intervention or supernatural agency – “Here there be dragons” – in any of their theories. Don’t waste your time, though, you won’t find any. Whatever their personal religious beliefs or metaphysical musings, their actual theories were firmly anchored in observable, material reality.

    So, since he gave no examples, let’s take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is ‘purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.

    Good example. Show me gravity in the absence of material mass.

    After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation is ‘purely materialistic’ I have no idea.

    After reading that, all I see in that florid prose is a statement of his belief in God as the Creator of all things, not a statement of his theory of gravity or any other physical theory.

    Another point is that this is a fine example of how religious belief can stultify science. Here is one of the most powerful scientific intellects of all time who described the nature of gravity and formulated the classic laws of motion. Yet when it comes to the nature of the God he worships and how He accomplished His creations, the driving curiosity, the obsessive thirst for knowledge are abruptly switched off. If that isn’t a science-killer, I don’t know what is.

    Perhaps Seversky, whom has accomplished nothing is science that I am aware of, just thinks that Newton, whom many consider the greatest scientist to have ever lived, was just colossally mistaken in his belief that universal gravitation was evidence for God almighty?

    I am no more of a scientist than you are and have never claimed to be. And, yes, Newton might have been colossally mistaken in his belief that gravity is evidence for the existence of God. He wasn’t always right. Look at the time he spent on occult studies.

    But, from the ‘purely materialistic’ perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?

    I freely admit I have no idea why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. Neither do you or anyone else. As I’ve noted before, “Goddidit” is a suggestion of “who” not “how”.

  55. 55
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 43

    Moreover, as if all of the preceding was not bad enough for Seversky’s atheistic materialism, mass is now shown to not even be an intrinsic property of material particles themselves, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism, but mass is ‘given’ to material particles via interactions with the Higgs field:

    Sorry, but there is nothing in the explanation of mass as interactions between a particle and a Higgs field causes a problem for atheism or materialism. It’s just a different account of the underlying nature of physical (material) reality.

    Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains

    No, the mass of any matter falling into a black hole is added to the mass of the hole itself. That is how black holes can grow. This is now thought to be offset by the black hole bleeding energy (or mass) into the surrounding space through the emission of Hawking radiation through the interaction of the black hole’s event horizon with the “quantum foam” around it.

  56. 56
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 44

    If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy.

    And I, as an atheist materialist, would suggest that the reason that you and your fellows partake so copiously of the “opium of the people” is that you cannot contemplate the bleak prospect of a Godless reality where atheists can.

    I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this “vale of tears”? Why not move on?

  57. 57
    AaronS1978 says:

    A similar question can been asked of atheists. (Assuming you didn’t ask what I think you asked) Why do they even care that religious people have a belief in God. People like Richard Dockins make it a goal in life to spread atheism like a religion, as if it’s helping anybody. More redundantly, is the lion share of these types of atheists believe everything is determined and nobody has a choice in the decision they make

    This reality alone makes every effort to prove that they are right utterly worthless and a colossal waste of time

    So why must you convince everybody that you’re right? That somehow you know the truth about reality that no one else really does and no one else is willing to contemplate but you

    If there is no meaning to life, if there really is no god, then why do you care than anybody else believes in it? They also don’t have a choice like you don’t in not believing in god

    The only thing that ever pops in my head is the fear of being wrong.

    And the comfort of not being alone

    I don’t proselytize my belief nor do I force it down anybody’s throat

    But it has been my life’s experience that the only three groups of people I’ve ever made me miserable and have attacked me on my beliefs

    Mormons, Jehovah witnesses, and a specific type of atheist I like to call the anti-theist

    And of all three the rudest, most persistent, and obnoxious one has been the anti-theist
    The one of the three that has no meaning in life and believes no one has free will

    Lastly, if I’m wrong, I have nothing to lose nor will I ever know I was wrong. You also won’t be able to say “I told you so” nor will you ever know you were right either

    You will know if you were wrong though
    Whether you believe in it or not

    Now I just wanna be clear did you just ask the believers why they don’t kill themselves? If you did that shows a whole level of misunderstanding that you have for almost all religions

    Furthermore if you believe this world is a veil of tears, why do you bother with any of this? Stop wasting time making enemies on this site, and go make some friends. You have a very limited time on this planet, this horrible veil of tears, so go do something positive, before it gets swallowed up by your oblivion.

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    at 54, In response to,

    Seversky gave no example of a ‘purely materialistic’ theory from the Christian founders of modern science. He just falsely claims, (again and again, year after year), that all of their theories, (as well as all current theories of science), were and are ‘purely materialistic’.

    Seversky states,

    Find one that isn’t.

    I did. Since you provided no example, I gave the most famous example from the history of science. Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.

    So, since he gave no examples, let’s take the most famous example in the history of science and see if it is ‘purely materialistic. i.e. Sir Isaac Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation that he published in the 1680s.

    To which Severky responded,

    Good example. Show me gravity in the absence of material mass.

    I did. To repeat.

    SINGULARITIES
    Excerpt: In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is “the point where all laws of physics break down”.
    Current theory suggests that, as an object falls into a black hole and approaches the singularity at the center, it will become stretched out or “spaghettified” due to the increasing differential in gravitational attraction on different parts of it, before presumably losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity.
    https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

    As should be needless to say, Seversky has more than a small problem with his claim that gravity is a ‘purely materialistic’ theory since gravity, via black holes, is shown to exist whilst the material particles themselves are ‘losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity’ at the singularity of a black hole.

    I quoted Newton from his book Principia.

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
    Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM.
    http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm

    To which I observed,,

    After reading that, how Seversky can possibly claim that Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation is ‘purely materialistic’ I have no idea.

    To which Seversky responded,

    After reading that, all I see in that florid prose is a statement of his belief in God as the Creator of all things, not a statement of his theory of gravity or any other physical theory.

    Au Contraire Seversky. Newton’s ‘florid prose’ was the conclusion of his scientific investigation. Newton, in what has been termed the ‘first major unification in physics’, postulated that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”,,

    Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
    Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena.
    https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3

    Newton’s postulation that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”, did not arise out of thin air, and especially did not arise from atheistic materialism, but arose from his belief in God. As Paul Davies commented, “Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way.”

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed.
    ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    And as Einstein himself noted, (if atheistic materialism were true), “a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.”

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    And it was not just Newton, but it was all the Christian founders of modern science who held this view. As Paul Davies further noted, “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies
    http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

    Thus Newton’s quote from Principia was hardly ‘florid prose’ on his part. He postulated that if God created the universe then there should universal laws that govern the universe. From that postulation he, via empirical science, discovered the law of Gravity. Thus his ‘florid prose’ was actually the result of empirical science. i.e. He hypothesized, He experimentally confirmed. Then he concluded what the results meant, “This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,” i.e. Newton made that statement as a result of the observational science, not in spite of the science as Seversky seems bent on believing.

    I further stated

    But, from the ‘purely materialistic’ perspective of atheists, why should there even be such a nice, neat, and tidy, thing as the inverse square law?

    To which Seversky responded,

    I freely admit I have no idea why and how the laws of nature came to be what they are. Neither do you or anyone else. As I’ve noted before, “Goddidit” is a suggestion of “who” not “how”.

    Actually Seversky, since Seversky is a causal agent himself, does understand the basics of ‘how’ Goddidit.

    A Professor’s Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist – University of Wyoming – J. Budziszewski
    Excerpt page12: “There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition.
    If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don’t know. “But there is gravity,” you say. No, “gravity” is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. “But there are laws of gravity,” you say. No, the “laws” are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term “laws”; they prefer “lawlike regularities.” To call the equations of gravity “laws” and speak of the apple as “obeying” them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the “laws” of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more.
    The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn’t trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn’t have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place.”
    http://www.undergroundthomist......theist.pdf

    In fact, the denial of the reality of agent causality and/or free will is the main and primary thing that drives atheistic materialism into catastrophic epistemological failure.

    For instance, since Seversky refuses to recognize agent causality as a valid form of causation, then Seversky is forced to claim that the laws of physics are writing his posts for him instead of he himself writing his own posts

    Do You Like SETI? Fine, Then Let’s Dump Methodological Naturalism
    Paul Nelson – September 24, 2014
    Excerpt: Assessing the Damage MN Does to Freedom of Inquiry
    Epistemology — how we know — and ontology — what exists — are both affected by methodological naturalism. If we say, “We cannot know that a mind caused x,” laying down an epistemological boundary defined by MN, then our ontology comprising real causes for x won’t include minds.
    MN entails an ontology in which minds are the consequence of physics, and thus, can only be placeholders for a more detailed causal account in which physics is the only (ultimate) actor. You didn’t write your email to me. Physics did, and informed you of that event after the fact.
    “That’s crazy,” you reply, “I certainly did write my email.” Okay, then — to what does the pronoun “I” in that sentence refer?
    Your personal agency; your mind. Are you supernatural?,,,
    You are certainly an intelligent cause, however, and your intelligence does not collapse into physics. (If it does collapse — i.e., can be reduced without explanatory loss — we haven’t the faintest idea how, which amounts to the same thing.) To explain the effects you bring about in the world — such as your email, a real pattern — we must refer to you as a unique agent.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/09/do_you_like_set/

    Seversky’s denial of the reality of his own agent causality is simply insane.

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then tries to play off the fact that mass is now found NOT to be an intrinsic property of material particles by saying,

    Sorry, but there is nothing in the explanation of mass as interactions between a particle and a Higgs field causes a problem for atheism or materialism. It’s just a different account of the underlying nature of physical (material) reality.

    First, it is quite disingenuous for Seversky to not admit that mass being shown to be separate from material particles is quite a blow against atheistic materialism since atheistic materialism originally held that gravity was an intrinsic property of material particles.

    Secondly, ‘fields’ are not material particles but are to be considered quite distinct from material particles. Thus it is disingenuous for Seversky to insinuate that the fields are, more or less, just material particles. The most that Seversky can now say it that now material particles are “really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself”, which is a far cry from what atheistic materialism originally postulated.

    As John Wheeler noted

    “I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons.
    I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself.
    Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory.”
    – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.

    Then Seversky gets to Black holes and claims

    BA77: Black holes further confirm that gravity is not an intrinsic property of material particles, as would be presupposed within Seversky’s atheistic materialism , in that material paricles are destroyed at the singularity of black holes and yet the gravitation attraction, that was associated with the material particle, remains

    Sev: No, the mass of any matter falling into a black hole is added to the mass of the hole itself. That is how black holes can grow. This is now thought to be offset by the black hole bleeding energy (or mass) into the surrounding space through the emission of Hawking radiation through the interaction of the black hole’s event horizon with the “quantum foam” around it.

    And there you have it folks, naked, unashamed, dogmatism in the face of contradictory evidence.

    The material particle ‘disappears’ in the singularity of a black hole and yet the gravity remains, and yet Seversky, because of his dogmatic commitment to atheism no matter what the evidence says to the contrary, resolutely refuses to believe that gravity can exist in the absence of material particles. Whatever Seversky is doing on this site, he is certainly not doing science.

    Seversky, after giving us a crystal clear example of intellect blinded by dogmatism, goes on to state

    BA77: If Seversky were ever inclined to be honest with himself and others, he should honestly admit that his atheistic materialism is false and then perhaps even become a Christian Theist. He has nothing to lose save for the hopeless nihilism inherent in his atheistic philosophy.

    Sev: And I, as an atheist materialist, would suggest that the reason that you and your fellows partake so copiously of the “opium of the people” is that you cannot contemplate the bleak prospect of a Godless reality where atheists can.

    Seversky may claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true, but, as with practically everything else that Seversky says, that claim is a lie. Seversky, nor any other atheist, lives his life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true.

    In the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to live their life as if atheistic materialism were actually true.

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.”
    An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,,
    In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.”
    One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true
    Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Thus Seversky’s claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true is simply a false claim. As the following article notes, “Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.”

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    After his false claim that he can live consistently as it atheistic materialism were actually true, Seversky offers the ‘friendly’ suggestion that we Christians ought to kill ourselves so as to get to heaven quicker,

    I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this “vale of tears”? Why not move on?

    But alas, the Christian knows that there is a purpose for this life and thus the Christian can live his life perfectly consistently here on this earth knowing full well that it is not meaningless but that there is a reason for why he is here. Whereas Atheists, on the other hand, since they believe their lives are objectively meaningless, have no objective purpose for living and thus, as a consequence. have a much higher rate of suicides than Christians do:

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    “Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”[3]
    https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

    Verse:

    JOHN 10:10
    The thief cometh not but to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

  60. 60
  61. 61
    daveS says:

    EG,

    The graphs are interesting. I’m surprised the percentage was so high in the first half of the 20th century.

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    Is American Christianity really in decline?
    http://www.therepublic.com/201.....n_decline/

    No, Non-Believers Are Not Increasing In America – APRIL 24, 2019
    Excerpt: The stats are given as often and with as much confidence as they are wrong. The story goes that our nation is growing more secular with every passing day. Christianity is tanking, and atheists and generic non-believers mushrooming.,,,
    Stark gets more precise: “The entire change [toward none-ness] has taken place with the non-attending group.” “In other words,” he adds, “this change marks a decrease only in nominal affiliation, not an increase in irreligion.” Stark says the wealth of data he has studied, as well as that his peers have, “does not support claims for increased secularization, let alone a decrease in the number of Christians. It may not even reflect an increase in those who say they are ‘nones.’”,,,
    In fact, Professor Barry A. Kosmin, director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, the man who coined the term “the nones,” expresses frustration that the larger press has not really gotten the story right on what belief group is actually seeing the largest size increase. He told me, “The rise of nondenominational Christianity is probably one of the strongest [religious growth] trends in the last two decades” in the United States.
    He added that the percentage gain among the “nons,” or nondenoms, is “many times larger” compared to those we have come to know as the nones. Read that again. The growth of nondenominational churches has been many times larger than that of the nones. Is it likely that one group that is growing—the nones—are gaining folks from a particular group that is growing at even greater pace? That answer would be no.
    Greg Smith, the long-time associate director of research at the Pew Research Center, adds heft to the conclusion that evangelicalism is actually growing. He confidently explains that while the more liberal mainline churches have been tanking dramatically, losing from 5 to 7.5 million members since 2007 (!), things are completely different for evangelical and non-denominational churches….
    The Harvard/Indiana University researchers found the same thing, explaining “evangelicals are not on the decline” but “grew from 1972 when they were 18 percent of the population, to a steady level of about 28 percent” from the late 1980s to the present. This “percentage of the population” measure is very significant because it shows not only growth in terms of real numbers, but enough growth to keep up with or even exceed the rate of population growth. That’s not nothing.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/24/no-non-believers-not-increasing-america/

    Pew: Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe
    In 18 nations across Central and Eastern Europe, religion is now essential to national identity. (massive study based on face-to-face interviews with 25,000 adults in 18 countries}
    Jeremy Weber – 5/10/2017
    Excerpt: “The comeback of religion in a region once dominated by atheist regimes is striking,” states Pew in its latest report. Today, only 14 percent of the region’s population identify as atheists, agnostics, or “nones.” By comparison, 57 percent identify as Orthodox, and another 18 percent as Catholics.
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....#038;w=380
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ntity.html

    Russia’s Journey from Orthodoxy to Atheism, and Back Again
    By Gene Zubovich | October 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In Russia, there is a religious revival happening. Orthodox Christianity is thriving after enduring a 70-year period of atheistic Soviet rule. In 1991, just after the collapse of the USSR, about two-thirds of Russians claimed no religious affiliation. Today, 71 percent of Russians identify as Orthodox.
    https://religionandpolitics.org/2018/10/16/russias-journey-from-orthodoxy-to-atheism-and-back-again/

    Christians Now Outnumber Communists in China – 12/29/14
    Excerpt: Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China.,,,
    “By my calculations China is destined to become the largest Christian country in the world very soon,” said Fenggang Yang, a professor of sociology at Purdue University
    http://www.breitbart.com/natio.....-in-china/

    May 2019 – As to the claim that people are leaving the churches. (As a percentage of worldwide population, Christianity is, and has been, relentlessly growing whereas atheism has been in steady decline)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/religious-nones-the-bigger-picture-shows-increasing-polarization/#comment-676591

  63. 63
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978

    A similar question can been asked of atheists. (Assuming you didn’t ask what I think you asked) Why do they even care that religious people have a belief in God.

    I would say that the vast majority of them don’t. But I would extend this to say that many religious people expend a lot of energy trying to defend their region when nobody is asking them to. The thousand word rants of BA77 and KF are prime examples. As are the insult riddled comments of ET and TruthFreedom (who seems to have disappeared). Religious people also seem to care what people of other religions believe. Much of the uproar over Sharia law comes from people of other religions.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^^^
    says the troll who spends an inordinate amount of his time on a blog bashing Christianity and refusing to honestly engage the science. for ID.

  65. 65
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978, sorry, I forgot to mention the insult riddled comments of BA77 🙂

    I very seldom criticize religion. But I certainly criticize the actions and behaviours that some people use their religion to defend.

  66. 66
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Ed George

    “A specific type of atheist I like to call the anti-theist”

    I make a distinction. Richard Dawkins and Coyne would be anti-theists

    I have friends that are atheist stick and they don’t bother me but I’ve also had anti-theist friends who are no longer friends that almost daily attacked me and I would never bring it up with them

    Even my atheist friends would come to my defense

    So I do know there’s a big difference

  67. 67
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978, yes, I know a couple atheists like that. It is not enough that they simply don’t believe, they have to ridicule those who do. But their are those on the theist side (BA77 comes to mind) who, for whatever reason, can’t tolerate people who don’t believe.

    We have a friend who is Christian. We have dinner with them at least once a month. Before dinner we hold hands and say grace. Even though I think it is a pointless gesture, I do it because it is important to them.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    Ed George at 65,

    To call you an atheistic troll who bashes Christianity and who refuses to engage the science of ID is not an insult but is a fact. You did just that on this very thread in post 60 where you referenced a study, supposedly, noting the decline of Christianity (a false claim which I addressed at 62), a study that had nothing to do with the science for ID that was being discussed in the thread at that time ,,, And again, as AaronS1978 asked of atheists (and/or ‘anti-theists’ such as yourself), why waste your time doing that? If you really believe your life is without any purpose or meaning then why constantly bother Christians?

    Of related note, although atheism necessarily entails that the universe and our lives are meaningless, only a minority of atheists actually believe that is true,,

    Major ‘unbelief’ conference held at Vatican – 28 MAY 2019
    Excerpt: The multidisciplinary research programme,,, mapped the nature and diversity of ‘unbelief’ across six countries including Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, UK and the USA.
    Researchers asked unbelievers across the six countries about attitudes to issues such as supernatural phenomena, whether the “universe is ultimately meaningless” and what values matter most to them.
    Their interim findings, published in a report “Understanding Unbelief Atheists and agnostics around the world”, showed that in all six countries, the majority of unbelievers identified as having ‘no religion’. Unbelievers, the report found, exhibited significant diversity both within, and between, different countries. It also found that a lack of belief in God didn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena – the majority of unbelievers in all countries surveyed expressed belief in one or more supernatural phenomena.
    The report also found that, contrary to popular belief, only around a third of unbelievers in each country regard the universe to be ultimately meaningless.
    The report also tackles the implication of unbelief on morality and values, finding that most unbelievers endorse objective moral values, human dignity and attendant rights and the “deep value” of nature, at similar rates to the general populations in their countries.
    https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/11733/major-unbelief-conference-held-at-vatican-

    Reports – Understanding Unbelief – Research – University of Kent
    – Atheists and agnostics around the world: Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States
    Excerpt conclusions:
    5. Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief in other supernatural phenomena. Atheists and (less so) agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than do the wider populations. However, only minorities of atheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear to be thoroughgoing naturalists. (2.2, 2.3)
    6. Another common supposition – that of the purposeless unbeliever, lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning to the universe – also does not bear scrutiny. While atheists and agnostics are disproportionately likely to affirm that the universe is ‘ultimately meaningless’ in five of our countries, it still remains a minority view among unbelievers in all six countries. (2.4)
    7. Also perhaps challenging common suppositions: with only a few exceptions, atheists and agnostics endorse the realities of objective moral values, human dignity and attendant rights, and the ‘deep value’ of nature, at similar rates to the general populations in their countries. (3.1)
    8. There is remarkably high agreement between unbelievers and general populations concerning the values most important for ‘finding meaning in the world and your own life’. ‘Family’ and ‘Freedom’ ranked highly for all. Also popular – albeit less unanimously so – were ‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’, ‘Nature’, and ‘Science’. (3.2)
    https://research.kent.ac.uk/understandingunbelief/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2019/05/UUReportRome.pdf

    The irresolvable dilemma for atheists is that if atheism is actually true, despite what atheists may want to believe to the contrary, then their lives are objectively meaningless, PERIOD! i.e. Hopeless Nihilism is their lot!

    Is There Meaning to Life? – Dr Craig videos (animated video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE

    Fortunately, the hopeless nihilism inherent within atheism is now shown to be false by science itself,

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives – video (review of the scientific evidence starts at the 13:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/aqUxBSbFhog?t=782

    For instance

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    Whereas Dr. William Demski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption of the Copernican Principle.

    Thus, besides the CMBR, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity overturning of the Copernican principle, the centrality of life in the universe is also established by yet another fairly impressive angle in physics in which life is found to be at ‘the geometric mean’ or quote unquote ‘the middle’ of the universe.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

  69. 69
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note: Although atheists continually deny seeing any evidence for Intelligent design, science itself betrays the atheist in his claim,

    Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!

    Is Atheism a Delusion?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ii-bsrHB0o

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    It is not that Atheists do not see purpose and/or Design in nature and biology, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose and/or Design that they themselves see in nature. And yes, ‘denialism’ is considered a mental illness.

    In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person’s choice to deny reality, as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.
    Denialism – Wikipedia

    I hold the preceding studies to be confirming evidence for Romans 1:19-20

    Romans 1:19-20
    For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

  70. 70
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    “thousand word RANTS” is unacceptable, more than condescending, inaccurate and contempt laced, an atmosphere-poisoning tactic.

    It says more about you than about the state of issues on the merits.

    Particularly, it directly implies that you are not participating in a serious discussion on the merits but only to push an agenda with rhetoric laced with obvious hostility.

    I suggest, you would be better advised to think again.

    I start with the current global focus. It is increasingly clear that HCQ + cocktails is an effective treatment for Covid, but has become caught up in the US 4th gen civil war’s information battlespace. Fair comment, people in numbers are probably paying for that, needlessly, with their lives.

    Linked, there is no one size fits all and only Big-S Science method that sets a gold standard for credible inductive evidence. In particular, double-blind, placebo control studies are controversial for several reasons [including the ethics of do no harm] and it is manifestly improper to use this design as a threshold “below” which, evidence is severely discounted or dismissed. This is contributory to the fair comment just above.

    Next, we can clearly see a deeply entrenched cultural pattern where hyperskepticism joined to the ideology of Scientism [especially evolutionary materialistic scientism] has been pushed into the role proper to the virtue of prudence. Namely, following a Catechism lesson:

    Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” 65 “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” 66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St.
    Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. 67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity
    or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other
    virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of
    conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment.
    With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles [–> and first principles of sound reason more generally] to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

    That sort of thinking is my context for noting what should be a commonplace of our lives as rational, responsible creatures. Namely, that inescapably, our rationality is governed by first duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice, etc. That which is inescapable . . . your own arguments cannot escape these appeals . . . is self evidently, manifestly true and undeniable on pain of patent self-refutation.

    But such means, instantly, that we are morally governed in ways that are intelligible, indeed, we here see a pattern of built in laws of our nature. Laws which therefore frame a natural law basis for community and civil law. Law, then is not merely disguised imposition by power. It is inescapably accountable before the first duties of reason. That is why, say, murder, is a crime by itself.

    Now, this points to the vexed IS-OUGHT gap, which can only be bridged in the root of reality, on pain of ungrounded ought. For that, after centuries of debates, there is but one serious candidate. (If you doubt, simply propose another adequate candidate _____) Namely, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifest nature.

    In that context, we find that the religion you principally have in mind may well need reformation, but is founded on core truths that are well warranted to moral certainty. The degree of warrant that attaches to matters of fact. Which, rather puts certain common attitudes, projections, talking points, sneers and arguments on the back foot.

    Truth comes first.

    Next, there is the issue of the design inference and its warrant as a matter of inductive warrant applied to the sciences. For that, I have come to hold that the pivotal case is the alphanumeric, algorithmic code found in DNA and functioning as a key part of biological life. Language applied to step by step goal directed procedures using molecular nanotech. Pretty definitive evidence of design, on many grounds.

    That is unwelcome, disparaged and dismissed in many quarters, indeed. But given the sort of poor reasoning we see in the face of manifest evidence and a pandemic, we should take time instead to see if our thinking is straight. Or are we doing little more than echoing Lewontin’s notorious cat out of the bag remarks in January 1999.

    Some re-thinking is in order.

    KF

  71. 71
    Ed George says:

    KF@70. Your response was only 787 words. You will have to pick up your pace to match BA77’s 1,561 word response. 🙂

  72. 72
    Ed George says:

    BA77

    You did just that on this very thread in post 60 where you referenced a study, supposedly, noting the decline of Christianity…

    This is a prime example of why I very seldom respond to your comments. My comment was about the decline in religious affiliation, not the decline in Christianity. There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who distorts his opponent’s comments to better dispute them. Ed our.

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    EG 71 offers a cutesy, smart aleck, remark? And how did that not exactly confirm what KF noted about you, i.e. “that you are not participating in a serious discussion on the merits but only to push an agenda with rhetoric laced with obvious hostility.”???

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    EG at 72, “My comment was about the decline in religious affiliation, not the decline in Christianity.”

    funny,,,

    Muslims are growing in America

    New estimates show U.S. Muslim population continues to grow
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/03/new-estimates-show-u-s-muslim-population-continues-to-grow/

    New age is growing

    Analyst says ‘New Age’ beliefs more popular as fewer Americans follow traditional religions
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/414129-analyst-says-new-age-beliefs-are-partially-a-reflection-in-more

    Judaism is growing

    America’s 7.5 million Jews are older, whiter and more liberal than the country as a whole
    In the past seven years, the American Jewish population has grown 10 percent.
    https://www.jta.org/2019/10/07/united-states/americas-7-5-million-jews-are-older-whiter-and-more-liberal-than-the-country-as-a-whole

    Thus I wonder what ‘religious affiliation’ EG could possibly be talking about if he is not talking about Christianity.

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, your continued rhetorical stunts simply confirm your want of seriousness. This means you reflect some of the driving dynamics behind the decline you suggested. The issues on the table are of first seriousness, but that pricks you but little. At least, Saul was kicking against pricks. The numbness where there should be pricks, is actually a warning. KF

    PS: For those who are unfamiliar with my allusion, here is the Pauline diagnosis of our civilisation in a besotted, forgetting God mode:

    Eph 4:17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart.

    19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand].

    20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him] [–> Cf here in context], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation]. [AMP]

  76. 76
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, This is your in decline. Sinach speaks, prophetically. KF

    PS: Lyrics:

    “Way Maker”

    You are here
    Moving in our midst
    I worship you
    I worship you
    You are here
    Working in this place
    I worship you
    I worship you
    You are here
    Moving in our midst
    I worship you
    I worship you
    You are here
    Working in this place
    I worship you
    I worship you

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    That is who you are
    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God
    That is who you are

    You are here
    You are here
    Touching every heart
    I worship you
    I worship you
    You are here
    You are here
    Healing every heart
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you

    You are here
    Turning lives around
    Turning lives around
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you
    You are here
    You are here
    Mending every heart
    Mending every heart
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you
    I worship you

    We call you “way maker”
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are

    We call you “way maker”
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are

    Lift up your hands

    You wipe away all tears
    You mend a broken heart
    You’re the answer to it all

    You wipe away all tears
    You mend all the broken heart
    You’re the answer to it all (to it all)
    Jesus

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are
    Way maker
    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are

    Way maker
    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are
    Way maker
    Way maker
    Way maker
    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness

    That is who you are

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    That is who you are
    That is who you are

    Lift up your hands

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    That is who you are

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    That is who you are

    …to you
    He’s always on top
    He’s a way maker

    It doesn’t matter how long it takes

    Lift up your hands and worship

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    That is who you are

    One more time of your life

    Way maker
    Miracle worker
    Promise keeper
    Light in the darkness
    My God, my God
    That is who you are

    No one knows

    What he’s done for me
    I don’t know about you
    I don’t know about you
    But that’s why I praise
    The way I do
    I just wanna surprise him
    Come on

  77. 77

    .
    Ed at #71. Here are just 25 words for you. Have at it:

    Meaning exist.. There is no meaning among the dynamic properties of matter. It’s impossible for materialists to explain meaning without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

  78. 78
    Ed George says:

    UBP, why would I want to explain “meaning”?

  79. 79
    AaronS1978 says:

    Honestly this shouldn’t even of gone into religion and I wish it didn’t.

    We should’ve just been talking about ool

  80. 80

    .
    Ah yes … the religious defense of materialism through the art of wordsmithing, otherwise known as dissembling, otherwise known as obfuscation. Very scientific.

    A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist. It’s impossible for materialists to explain the ability to specify a thing among alternatives without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

  81. 81

    .

    A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist. It’s impossible for materialists to explain the ability to specify a thing among alternatives without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

    That’s just 32 words, Ed – less words than you once used to try and deceive people here that you were an ID proponent based on your religious faith, or less words than you used to say that you had no moral obligations to anyone if you lived outside their culture, or less words than you used to tell a grown Christian man here that you felt sorry for his wife if she wasn’t getting it like your wife gets it from you, and certainly less words than the numerous occasions you’ve pretended to be offended in a confrontation here so that you could avoid the substance of the confrontation.

  82. 82
    Ed George says:

    AaronS1978

    We should’ve just been talking about ool

    But given that religions claim to have the answer to OOL, it would be difficult to talk about OOL without religion popping up.

  83. 83
    vividbleau says:

    AaronS1978
    May 1, 2020 at 11:10 pm
    “A similar question can been asked of atheists. (Assuming you didn’t ask what I think you asked)“

    Well done re 57

    Wasn’t it Sartre or some other existentialist that said the only honest question for the intellectually honest atheist was when to commit suicide?

    Vivid

  84. 84
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist. It’s impossible for materialists to explain the ability to specify a thing among alternatives without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

    Can I just ask a clarifying question regarding your views?

    Let’s say we start with a multi-cellular life form with a few organs and sub-systems like digestion and circulation, etc. So the ‘code’ is in place and the population is viable and thriving.

    How far do you think diversification can go via only a process of unguided step-by-step minor inheritable modifications?

  85. 85

    .

    A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist. It’s impossible for materialists to explain the ability to specify a thing among alternatives without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

    C’mon Ed. Don’t run away again. Defend materialism.

  86. 86
    ET says:

    There still isn’t any materialistic theory of evolution. Why is that? There isn’t any materialistic theory on the OoL, either. Why is that? Materialism has never added anything to our knowledge. Materialism has never solved anything. Why is that?

  87. 87
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    As are the insult riddled comments of ET…

    Astute observations are not insults. Eddie. Proving that you are an imbecile is not an insult. It is what it is. And I am not religious.

  88. 88
    ET says:

    JVL:

    How far do you think diversification can go via only a process of unguided step-by-step minor inheritable modifications?

    According to the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations”, not very far at all.

  89. 89

    .

    Can I just ask a clarifying question regarding your views?

    A question that clarifies the challenge, so that you can respond to it?

  90. 90
    JVL says:

    ET: According to the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations”, not very far at all.

    Yes, but how far? Not a new species?

  91. 91
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: A question that clarifies the challenge, so that you can respond to it?

    I admit I haven’t always kept with arguments I’ve brought forward. In this particular case I am just trying to be clear on your views so that I do not misrepresent them. And I am getting at the ‘micro’ vs ‘macro’ evolution issue. I’m just trying to see where your line is.

  92. 92

    .

    Let’s say we start with a multi-cellular life

    Would such a thing have to be specified among alternatives in order to exist? If so, then it assumes the very thing I asked about, and is therefore irrelevant to that question.

  93. 93
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Yes, but how far? Not a new species?

    Not if it takes more than two specified mutations.

  94. 94
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: Would such a thing have to be specified among alternatives in order to exist? If so, then it assumes the very thing I asked about, and is therefore irrelevant to that question.

    Well, I wanted to start at that point where such a thing already existed as I said. So, yes, a very limited query.

  95. 95
    JVL says:

    ET: Not if it takes more than two specified mutations.

    Aren’t you assuming, that mutations change form? That genomics determine morphology? I thought you . . . okay, perhaps you should clarify your views on that.

    How do you get a new species? Can it be done just via genomic alterations no matter where they come from?

  96. 96
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Aren’t you assuming, that mutations change form?

    No. There are different species with the same body plan.

    How do you get a new species?

    Genetic engineering comes to mind. Built-in responses to environmental cues also comes to mind.

  97. 97

    .

    I wanted to start at that point where such a thing already existed as I said. So, yes

    So your question merely assumes the very thing in question — i.e. that being the fact that materialism is unable to explain life without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Are you saying that you are unable to address that question?

  98. 98
    JVL says:

    ET: No. There are different species with the same body plan.

    Right, okay. So . . . looking at very different body plans, let’s say a spider and a snake. They do have very different genomes. Those genomes do something. Why is it not possible for one genome to transmogrify into another GIVEN that there are viable life forms along the path? Unless, of course, genomes do not determine bodies. So . . .

    <b?Genetic engineering comes to mind. Built-in responses to environmental cues also comes to mind.

    Yes, but we’re still dancing around the idea of: what does the genome do? I don’t think you think that the genome determines form (given epigenetic factors). But I do not want to put words in your mouth.

    IF you don’t think the genome determines form then what does determine form? And how do you get new forms if the genome does not determine it?

  99. 99
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: So your question merely assumes the very thing in question — i.e. that being the fact that materialism is unable to explain life without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Are you saying that you are unable to address that question?

    I’m saying that I want to address the issue of the diversification of life once a viable, multicellular life form was present.

  100. 100
    Barry Arrington says:

    Vivid at 83. It was Camus.

  101. 101
    Barry Arrington says:

    Upright. Give up on JVL. He obviously is unwilling or unable to engage. You have made your point with him. He wants to assume his conclusions. His confirmation bias is much safer that way. Also it is less psychologically painful for him if he shields himself from questions that not only he cannot answer but that cannot be, in principle, answered by anyone.

  102. 102
    Ed George says:

    UB

    A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist.

    Why?

  103. 103

    .

    I’m saying that I want to address the issue of the diversification of life once a viable . . .

    Then you should be able to state that you are unable to explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Right?

  104. 104
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: Give up on JVL. He obviously is unwilling or unable to engage. He wants to assume his conclusions. His confirmation bias is much safer that way. Also less psychologically painful if he shields himself from questions that not only he cannot answer but that cannot be, in principle, answered by anyone.

    First off, I’m happy to let Upright BiPed make up his own mind; he’s clearly capable of defending his views!

    Secondly, I am narrowing down the discussion in an attempt to concentrate on one particular aspect of the disagreement between unguided evolutionary theory and intelligent design. Yes, I am picking something I feel more capable of having a good discussion about but I figured you would prefer that anyway!!

  105. 105

    .

    Why?

    Rope-a-dope.

    (in the defense of materialism from ID, using nothing more that documented physical evidence).

  106. 106
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: Then you should be able to state that you are unable to explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Right?

    That isn’t the question I want to deal with.

    Look, ID proponents tell me over and over and over again that my questions about when design was implemented and how design was implemented and who implemented design are not part of ID. I keep asking but they keep saying that’s not the point.

    I’m trying to have a discussion with you about one aspect of the development of life on Earth. I’m granting you the existence of a multi-cellular life form and wanting to work from there. You keep wanting to work on a different question.

  107. 107

    .

    That isn’t the question I want to deal with.

    Why do you avoid it? Is it just a coincidence that it supports ID?

  108. 108
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL
    “I’m trying to have a discussion with you about . . . ” Any subject whatsoever so long as it does not require me to engage with your ideas. Sad that. Yes, pathetic. But sad too.

  109. 109
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: Why do you avoid it? Is it just a coincidence that it supports ID?

    Why do you keep avoiding my question?

  110. 110
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: “I’m trying to have a discussion with you about . . . ” Any subject whatsoever so long as it does not require me to engage with your ideas. Sad that. Yes, pathetic. But sad too.

    You don’t have to address my question; that’s fair. I won’t cstigate you for it.

  111. 111

    .
    JVL, it was a mistake if you believed your approach here was somehow novel, perhaps, obviously, you’ve placed too much confidence in your ability to sashay around the evidence in favor of design in biology.

    From your request, you want to merely assume that your model is correct, and then start the discussion from there. In case it does not occur to you, this is the exact opposite of trying to understand.

    Can you explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity, or not?

  112. 112
    Ed George says:

    UBP

    Rope-a-dope.

    Now who is walking away?

  113. 113
    Barry Arrington says:

    “You don’t have to address my question; that’s fair. I won’t cstigate you for it.”
    And now the inevitable turnabout accusation. Does it every get old being a cliche?

  114. 114
    Barry Arrington says:

    Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation. Well, UB, while you will never get the satisfaction of getting JVL or EG to expressly admit they have nothing, their continual evasions have certainly given you the functional equivalent.

  115. 115
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: it was a mistake if you believed your approach here was somehow novel, perhaps, obviously, you’ve placed too much confidence in your ability to sashay around the evidence in favor of design in biology.

    I was just asking you a question which you do not want to address. Fine, we’ll drop it.

    From your request, you want to merely assume that your model is correct, and then start the discussion from there. In case it does not occur to you, this is the exact opposite of trying to understand.

    I was trying to understand your view on how life developed after there was a multi-cellular life form present. Many ID proponents would say that ‘my model’ could not account for what happened after that. Are you saying the unguided approach CAN account for what happened after that?

    Can you explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity, or not?

    I am trying to ask you about a different issue. You do not want to address my question. We’ll just drop it.

  116. 116
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: And now the inevitable turnabout accusation. Does it every get old being a cliche?

    No, no accusation. I proposed a question and Upright BiPed has chosen not to address it. I’m good.

    Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation. Well, UB, while you will never get the satisfaction of getting JVL or EG to expressly admit they have nothing, their continual evasions have certainly given you the functional equivalent.

    Like I said: I asked a question and was told that no answer was coming. I appreciate the clarity and honesty in that.

    I think we’re done now.

  117. 117
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you weren’t born yesterday and neither were we. You full well know that say detection of accelerants points to arson without knowing more than that arson is possible. That twerdun is antecedent to whodunit, how. And on the material issue, it is decisive. Life builds in coded, alphanumeric, algorithmic — thus linguistic and purposeful — information. The import of which is effectively decisive. That for the moment we may or may not be able to infer from evidence in hand who did it, when, where, how is irrelevant to that. But then, you long since know that one bird in hand is worth a flock out in the bush somewhere. The continued refusal to deal with a material finding itself tells us all we need to know. KF

  118. 118
    Ed George says:

    BA

    Wow, even as I was typing my last, EG comes in with his own turnabout accusation.

    He claimed that “a living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist” so I asked him why that was a requirement. His non-response was “rope-a-dope”.

    But given that you don’t understand the concept of quote-mining a sentence out of context, it shouldn’t surprise me that you also can’t distinguish between a justified turnabout accusation (ie, pointing out someone’s hypocrisy) and an unjustified turnabout accusation. Ed out.

  119. 119
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: you weren’t born yesterday and neither were we.

    Yeah, I am getting on a bit.

    You full well know that say detection of accelerants points to arson without knowing more than that arson is possible. That twerdun is antecedent to whodunit, how. And on the material issue, it is decisive. Life builds in coded, alphanumeric, algorithmic — thus linguistic and purposeful — information. The import of which is effectively decisive. That for the moment we may or may not be able to infer from evidence in hand who did it, when, where, how is irrelevant to that. But then, you long since know that one bird in hand is worth a flock out in the bush somewhere. The continued refusal to deal with a material finding itself tells us all we need to know.

    I don’t get the term “twerdun” (“it were done”?) but I do get your basic drift of course.

    Look, I just asked Upright BiPed a question. He (?) chooses not to answer it. That’s fine. He was clear he didn’t want to answer it and I appreciate the honesty. I will try and remember where his (?) no-go areas are and not waste his (?) time asking the same question again.

  120. 120

    <UB: A living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist. It’s impossible for materialists to explain the ability to specify a thing among alternatives without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

    JVL: Let’s say we start with a multi-cellular life

    <JVL: I want to address the issue of the diversification of life once a viable

    <UB: Then you should be able to state that you are unable to explain the specification required for life to become viable without discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. Right?

    JVL: That isn’t the question I want to deal with.

    <b<JVL: Why do you keep avoiding my question?

    Classic

  121. 121

    .
    ED,

    Rope-a-Dope requires someone to take the bait.

    As an educated man, you don’t think living things can exist without being specified.

    I didn’t take the bait.

    EDIT: Oh, and you can’t explain that specification without recourse to discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

  122. 122
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed:

    Like I’ve said: I’m okay that you don’t want to answer my question and I will try hard to remember that so I don’t bother you with the same question again in the future because I don’t want to waste your time.

  123. 123
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL
    “Like I’ve said: . . .”
    Yes, it is like you said. You have no idea how to respond to Upright Biped’s challenge. Instead of doing the honest and courageous thing and admitting that, you dissemble, obfuscate and try to change the subject. That makes you a dishonest, and that makes you a coward. The amazing thing is not that you are a dishonest coward. There are plenty of those in the world. No, the really astounding thing is that you come into these pages and bare your dishonesty and cowardice to the entire world. It is puzzling why anyone would want to do that.

  124. 124
    Ed George says:

    UB

    As an educated man, you don’t think living things can exist without be specified.

    That wasn’t your claim. Your claim was that “a living thing must be specified among alternatives in order to exist”. That is where I was confused.

    With regard to current life, yes, specifications (ie, DNA or RNA) are required. Neither you nor I know how life originated. I suspect it was through natural causes and you think it was designed.

  125. 125

    .

    With regard to current life, yes, specifications (ie, DNA or RNA) are required.

    Correct, and materialists cannot explain [any life, “current” notwithstanding] that specification without recourse to discontinuous association and irreducible complexity.

  126. 126
    EDTA says:

    Sev @ 56,

    >…would suggest that the reason that you and your fellows partake so copiously of the “opium of the people” is that you cannot contemplate the bleak prospect of a Godless reality where atheists can.

    And having been an agnostic for a time, it is _incredibly_ bleak over there. Worst part of my life in fact. Oh, and TV/media/internet is today’s opiate of the people. It distracts people from the pain of meaninglessness that they have elected to live within. People spend way too much time entertaining themselves, instead of facing life and dealing constructively with it. Very sad.

    >I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this “vale of tears”? Why not move on?

    Because we have more than one imperative that we live by. I have heard this argument before: “Why don’t you all just commit suicide and get to heaven right now?” But this assumes that we have exactly one priority to our existence: getting to heaven by any means possible as fast as possible. Actually our existence is a lot more complex than that, and we are not expected to hurry the process up, but to do good here, bring others into the fellowship, etc.

  127. 127
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, we can safely assume you know the game, animal, vegetable or mineral. A string of choice nodes [reducible to binary] is one way that information is recognised. Where, it is obvious that DNA and proteins are informational. The significance of loss of function mutations shows the reality of islands of funcyion in configuration spaces for such entities, and in turn that makes any blind search procedure maximally implausible on sol system or observed cosmos gamuts once we pass 500 – 1,000 bits. Which is not a lot compared to requisites of life. So your distractive attempt further suports the design inference. Where it also points to the problem of accounting for novel body plans on such blind search. But then, Newton’s rules that warn against unbridled speculation have long since been banished. KF

  128. 128
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Why is it not possible for one genome to transmogrify into another GIVEN that there are viable life forms along the path?

    How is that a GIVEN? Why don’t evos use targeted mutagenesis and selection to get fish to transmogrify into something other than fish?

    As I said- genomes control and influence development. You keep forgetting that part. Also genes influence traits. But a human isn’t just a sum of traits.

    IF you don’t think the genome determines form then what does determine form?

    That is the BIG, unanswered question.

    And how do you get new forms if the genome does not determine it?

    Figure out that other question.

    Look, “the Island of Dr. Moreau” wasn’t a scientific evolutionary documentary. Evo-devo’s best are working on the problem, though. They’ve been silent for a while. And before going silent they hadn’t solved it.

  129. 129
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    Neither you nor I know how life originated. I suspect it was through natural causes and you think it was designed.

    You have nothing to base your suspicion on, though. You can’t even get biologically relevant replicators without having to have them designed. And even then Spiegelman’s Monster rules the day.

    Then there is the fact that nature is incapable of producing codes because nature doesn’t have the tools to do so. So forget about going from biologically relevant replicators to the coded systems of biological life.

    You don’t have any rational reason to suspect it, the OoL, was through natural causes.

  130. 130
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, you need to face the signature of design: alphanumeric algorithmic code in DNA, implying not only FSCO/I but language. KF

  131. 131

    .
    Checking back in, I see nothing new.

    JVL, if you will recall, in our last exchange you had posted an observation that science was conducted by “finding models that match reality”, and in turn I suggested we compare each other’s model of the “physical conditions surrounding autonomous open-ended self-replication” (I.e. living things).

    You then asked me a question:

    JVL: Tell me what your model is.

    I immediately answered your question:

    UB: I argue for the model successfully predicted by Von Neumann (confirmed by Crick, Brenner, Hoagland, Zamecnik, Nirenberg, et al) and documented in the literature by Pattee, Barbieri, and others. It simultaneously requires a symbol system (i.e. a system of discontinuous association), a language structure (i.e. the onset of spatial orientation to enable multiple referents), a set of non-integrable constraints, and semantic closure in order to begin to function (i.e. persist over time). I am prepared to walk through the details of each of these requirements.

    What model do you conclude best “matches reality” and what details of that model will you be arguing support your conclusion?

    You then responded by telling me you argued for the ”standard unguided evolutionary model” which you already know merely assumes the physical conditions in question, and thus, you would be completely unable to defend your position. So (in the very first comment you posted after I answered your question) you asked me if we could just drop it:

    JVL: I’m happy to let it drop if you are.

    You are happy to “drop it” IF I AM. …good grief man.

    But then a most interesting thing happened. You attempted to wrap up this exchange between us – a glaring failure on your part to present and defend your model — with a pure positioning statement that literally came out of thin air:

    JVL: I meant no insult or slight. It just seemed to me that pursuing our discussion would end up being more frustrating than productive. If I phrased that in a way you find objectionable then I apologise. But I do not want to waste your time so I figured it would be better if I just bowed out.

    Insult? Slight?

    You literally attempted to invent something (out of the clear blue) that you would then use to reposition your hasty retreat as something else entirely. And it was not just pure invention on your part, but was almost a kind of favor you were doing for me; a noble thing where you would bend a dispassionate knee and kindly apologize for whatever phrase you might have used that confused me and caused me to misunderstand the true substance of your contributions to the conversation.

    (face palm)

    I took note of this little tendency of yours because it was the second time you had tried that kind of (dishonest) thing with me — and here again today, you are trying to do it a third time.

    You desperately want (as can be seen in your posts above) to reposition another complete failure on your part (frankly the same failure as before) as an example of me avoiding your oh-so-important question. After you “grant me the existence of a multi-cellular life form” (lol) in comment #106, you then feverishly try to paint of picture of me tucking my tail and running from your penetrating inquiry in comment #109, repeated in comment #110, and repeated again in comment #115, then repeated again in comment #116, then again in comment #119, and then yet again in comment #122. You were in a full-court press to sell this little charade, and all you really needed of your audience was for them to not ask if any of it made any sense whatsoever.

    But what if someone went back and looked to see what your question to me actually was? What would they find? Would they find that your question to me had any bearing whatsoever on the question that I had posed to Ed (the very question you were responding to)? No, they would not. Your question is completely irrelevant to the question I had posed to Ed. But there is a larger issue here, and it is the very thing you try so hard to avoid: Does my question to Ed have any bearing whatsoever on the question you asked of me? The answer is obvious; it is the whole point of the question. Design is already on the table. Design is already on the table in a way that you simply cannot respond to without first assuming your conclusions. And even granting your assumptions, you have a) literally nothing concrete in the way of a mechanism or pathway to explain what has been observed and therefore must be explained, and b) you must adopt an entirely unscientific position and completely ignore the successful predictions, confirmations, and critical physical descriptions recorded in the scientific literature that unambiguously support the design inference. In other words, to defend your materialism you have to first ignore science. You know this, and I know this.

    This is the whole reason you want to “grant me” multicellular life and rattle on about it meaninglessly for paragraphs on end. (note: no one with one ounce of sense in their head buys into your schtick about being a curious materialist just trying to “understand” what others think, give it a rest for crying out loud). You are here to attack and aggravate against the physical evidence of design in biology and you want to do it without having to deal with the heart of the design inference, where you are summarily defeated by both documentation and history all at once. All your attempts, before and here again now on this thread, to cajole and reposition those defeats cannot hide that fact.

    At this point, I have certainly wasted enough time on you JVL (untangling BS is certainly more time-consuming than spouting it). But instead of just leaving it like that, let me address a question you say you have. You say you want to know how the design was implemented. Well, JVL, the evidence suggests that it was implemented by arranging one set of objects to serve as a set of rate-independent symbol vehicles, and a second set of objects to serve as a set interpretive constraints. The constraints would physically establish the symbol vehicles as a medium and would coordinate the spatial orientation required to distinguish one referent from another in a common medium. In order to function, these objects would all have to be organized within a dissipative process that would cause the system (using the dynamical laws of physics) to read the medium and construct its products from available resources. This dissipative process would need to have its constituents described in the sequence of the medium, along with the descriptions of the constraints themselves. And as von Neumann had shown, it could begin to function when the individual sequences of the symbols describing the constraints were simultaneously coordinated with the all sequences describing the various constituents carrying out the dissipative process. So you don’t have to wonder any longer what I think about that. And you can now have the last word. You can use it to conjure up a fantastic new reason to avoid the evidence and to reposition this comment in some self-serving way. That’s all you’ve done so far.

  132. 132
    Ed George says:

    KF

    EG, you need to face the signature of design: alphanumeric algorithmic code in DNA, implying not only FSCO/I but language. KF

    Making an inference to a single example (human language) is statistically invalid.

  133. 133
    Barry Arrington says:

    Upright Biped
    (untangling BS is certainly more time-consuming than spouting it).
    There is a formal name for this: “BAP,” which stands for the BS asymmetry principle..

  134. 134
    Ed George says:

    Barry, and I thought I was the only one who noticed the asymmetry in the BS that flows around here. 🙂

  135. 135
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, we are not talking about empty statistical correlation but about the inherent nature of language and its causal requisites, which BTW is much of what UB has been discussing. That you tried that sort of fallacious appeal speaks further volumes. KF

  136. 136
    Ed George says:

    KF, if life arose through natural processes, currently the leading theory, then language, however likely, is a consequence of natural processes. But we will leave that aside for the moment.

    As far as we know, and there is some disagreement on this, humans are the only life on earth that has developed language. This in spite of many species having some level of intelligence. Given this, the only inference you can make is that alphanumeric languages (including DNA) are the result of human intelligence. But nobody is suggesting this because of its absurdity.

  137. 137
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: You have no idea how to respond to Upright Biped’s challenge. Instead of doing the honest and courageous thing and admitting that, you dissemble, obfuscate and try to change the subject.

    If you look back on the thread you will see that I asked Upright BiPed a question st comment 84. I think. The he (?) countered with a different question. I wanted to stick with my question so tried to bring things back around.

    No, the really astounding thing is that you come into these pages and bare your dishonesty and cowardice to the entire world. It is puzzling why anyone would want to do that.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I figured if I wanted to understand what ID proponents think I should go to an ID website and ask questions. Surely that’s better that making something up and attacking you for something you didn’t actually say or believe?

    I really thought You’d be glad to be asked about what your views really are. I guess you’re so used to being attacked that you find it hard to get back to being generous and forthcoming.

    Anyway, I’m not sure this comment will get through as I’m pretty sure I penned something similar earlier today and it never appeared. I don’t know why; I’ve tried to be respectful.

  138. 138
    JVL says:

    Upright BiPed: You literally attempted to invent something (out of the clear blue) that you would then use to reposition your hasty retreat as something else entirely. And it was not just pure invention on your part, but was almost a kind of favor you were doing for me; a noble thing where you would bend a dispassionate knee and kindly apologize for whatever phrase you might have used that confused me and caused me to misunderstand the true substance of your contributions to the conversation.

    You take everything I say as a slight or attack. I really am trying to be respectful of your time. So, yes, I asked you a question about models and then realised, after you replied, that I couldn’t imagine presenting anything that you wouldn’t have already seen and had an answer for. So I chose to withdraw so as not to waste your time rehashing something you had probably already gone over many times. I thought I was being respectful but you took it as being offensive.

    You desperately want (as can be seen in your posts above) to reposition another complete failure on your part (frankly the same failure as before) as an example of me avoiding your oh-so-important question. After you “grant me the existence of a multi-cellular life form” (lol) in comment #106, you then feverishly try to paint of picture of me tucking my tail and running from your penetrating inquiry in comment #109, repeated in comment #110, and repeated again in comment #115, then repeated again in comment #116, then again in comment #119, and then yet again in comment #122. You were in a full-court press to sell this little charade, and all you really needed of your audience was for them to not ask if any of it made any sense whatsoever.

    Look, I asked you a question, you chose not to answer it directly. I’m fine with that. I’m not shaming you; I’m just explaining the situation.

    But what if someone went back and looked to see what your question to me actually was? What would they find? Would they find that your question to me had any bearing whatsoever on the question that I had posed to Ed (the very question you were responding to)? No, they would not. Your question is completely irrelevant to the question I had posed to Ed.

    And that’s a perfectly good reason not to answer the question!! If I got it wrong then I apologise and withdraw!

    it is the whole point of the question. Design is already on the table. Design is already on the table in a way that you simply cannot respond to without first assuming your conclusions. And even granting your assumptions, you have a) literally nothing concrete in the way of a mechanism or pathway to explain what has been observed and therefore must be explained, and b) you must adopt an entirely unscientific position and completely ignore the successful predictions, confirmations, and critical physical descriptions recorded in the scientific literature that unambiguously support the design inference. In other words, to defend your materialism you have to first ignore science. You know this, and I know this.

    I don’t see how this precludes the question I actually posed to you. But, since it seems to have cause a huge amount of offence I withdraw it completely.

    You are here to attack and aggravate against the physical evidence of design in biology and you want to do it without having to deal with the heart of the design inference, where you are summarily defeated by both documentation and history all at once. All your attempts, before and here again now on this thread, to cajole and reposition those defeats cannot hide that fact.

    I am here trying to understand what you think and not wanting to just guess and then attack you for something that isn’t the case.

    Well, JVL, the evidence suggests that it was implemented by arranging one set of objects to serve as a set of rate-independent symbol vehicles, and a second set of objects to serve as a set interpretive constraints. The constraints would physically establish the symbol vehicles as a medium and would coordinate the spatial orientation required to distinguish one referent from another in a common medium. In order to function, these objects would all have to be organized within a dissipative process that would cause the system (using the dynamical laws of physics) to read the medium and construct its products from available resources. This dissipative process would need to have its constituents described in the sequence of the medium, along with the descriptions of the constraints themselves. And as von Neumann had shown, it could begin to function when the individual sequences of the symbols describing the constraints were simultaneously coordinated with the all sequences describing the various constituents carrying out the dissipative process. So you don’t have to wonder any longer what I think about that. And you can now have the last word. You can use it to conjure up a fantastic new reason to avoid the evidence and to reposition this comment in some self-serving way. That’s all you’ve done so far.

    Okay! So when did that happen do you think? Again I’m just trying to figure out how you see things as they played out in time.

    I don’t know why you take such offence. `i’m just trying to understand your view more clearly.

  139. 139
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL

    If you look back on the thread . . .

    Yes, Upright Biped tracked the thread and outlined all the times you tried to change the subject, obfuscate and dissemble. See comment 131.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

    Another cowardly lie.

    I figured if I wanted to understand what ID proponents think . . .

    By stamping your feet and refusing to engage with their ideas? Another cowardly lie.

    I really thought You’d be glad to be asked about what your views really are.

    Then why did you try to change the subject and refuse to engage UB on the point he was making? Another cowardly lie.

    JVL, when I say you are a coward and a liar, I am not “attacking” you. I am merely pointing out that you are a coward and a liar. The purpose of pointing that out is to exhort you to better behavior. It is not working, but I will continue to exhort you. Do better.

  140. 140
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: Yes, Upright Biped tracked the thread and outlined all the times you tried to change the subject, obfuscate and dissemble.

    Hang on: I asked Upright BiPed a question at comment 84 I believe. Granted, it may have been slightly off the main topic of the thread but I asked a question. IF Upright BiPed thought I was trying to deflect the discussion or change the subject then all he had to do was say so. When I figured out that he wanted to address a topic other than what I had brought up I bowed out, with no animosity.

    By stamping your feet and refusing to engage with their ideas? Another cowardly lie.

    I was trying to engage with a particular idea; Upright Biped was working on something else so we didn’t match up. What’s the problem?

    Then why did you try to change the subject and refuse to engage UB on the point he was making?

    Because I was asking about something else. He didn’t want to engage with that, fair enough. I stopped. I did not castigate him or berate him or call him names. I quit.

    JVL, when I say you are a coward and a liar, I am not “attacking” you. I am merely pointing out that you are a coward and a liar. The purpose of pointing that out is to exhort you to better behavior. It is not working, but I will continue to exhort you. Do better.

    I think everyone who participates in this forum has the right to participate when and if they choose. As I have admitted, my question to Upright BiPed might not have been what he wanted to discuss. He chose to pursue a different topic. I chose to decline that invitation. End of.

    Why are you trying to make this some kind of antagonistic conflict when it isn’t? I’m not pointing fingers and accusing anyone of anything. I wanted to know what Upright BiPed thought about one narrow topic and that’s it. I won’t ask that question again because I don’t want to press Upright BiPed on a topic that he may not want to discuss. I do that out of respect to him and his time. I am NOT trying to trip him up or make him look foolish.

  141. 141
    jawa says:

    Does this breakthrough qualify Dr Szostak for the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize?
    Any news from Dr Denis Noble and Dr George Church on this?
    Would they have to split the prize between Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak?
    Should Dr Venter be included too?
    What’s Perry Marshal’s take on all this?
    Would he prefer to invest their funds in Szostak’s results instead of Cronin’s, leaving Venter out too?
    🙂

  142. 142
    Seversky says:

    AaronS1978 @ 57

    A similar question can been asked of atheists. (Assuming you didn’t ask what I think you asked) Why do they even care that religious people have a belief in God.

    On January 8 1697 – I remember the date because that’s also my birthday – a Scottish student called Thomas Aikenhead was executed following conviction on a charge of blasphemy, the last person to suffer that fate in Great Britain. He was incautious enough to express atheist sentiments in discussions with Christian “friends”, one of whom ratted him out to the authorities.

    In 1987, in a public interview, there was allegedly the following exchange between then Vice-President George H W Bush and an atheist activist called Rob Sherman:

    I asked Mr. Bush, “What are you going to do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?”

    Mr. Bush replied, “I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.”

    I followed up: “Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?”

    Mr. Bush replied, “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”

    After other reporters asked a few questions about issues that they were concerned about, I was then able to get in one more follow-up question on my subject: “Do you support the constitutionality of state/church separation?”

    Vice President Bush responded, “I support separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.”

    I say “allegedly” because, although Sherman never deviated from his claim, it has not been possible to very that the exchange took place as reported.

    Nonetheless, the sentiments attributed to Bush were widespread at the time and are still around today.

    So if Christians will leave us alone, I will leave them alone.

  143. 143
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    Making an inference to a single example (human language) is statistically invalid.

    It wasn’t a single example. But a single example is still one more than you have.

  144. 144
    jawa says:

    Now that Dr Szostak got a piece of RNA in his primordial lab, can he describe how to get a functional RNA that can be used to regulate some biological processes? What function(s)?
    Can he describe how to get the DNA that codes for regulatory ncRNAs and pre-mRNAs ?
    How does he plan to get the TF-binding DNA sequences, promoter regions, enhancer sequences, epigenetic markers, histone code?

  145. 145
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    if life arose through natural processes, currently the leading theory,…

    There isn’t any such theory. There is only hope that is based on personal biases and willful ignorance.

    As far as we know, and there is some disagreement on this, humans are the only life on earth that has developed language. This in spite of many species having some level of intelligence. Given this, the only inference you can make is that alphanumeric languages (including DNA) are the result of human intelligence.

    No. Only an imbecile would say that. If it couldn’t have been humans then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature has already been eliminated. Our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships still rules the inference. And that inference is open to refutation is someone can demonstrate that nature can produce communication codes, from the bottom up.

  146. 146
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77@ 58

    As should be needless to say, Seversky has more than a small problem with his claim that gravity is a ‘purely materialistic’ theory since gravity, via black holes, is shown to exist whilst the material particles themselves are ‘losing dimensionality completely and disappearing irrevocably into the singularity’ at the singularity of a black hole.

    First, I refer you first to the law of conservation of mass/energy, which asserts essentially that mass/energy are neither created nor destroyed, although they may change form.

    Second there is passage from the Wikipedia entry on black holes

    Black holes of stellar mass are expected to form when very massive stars collapse at the end of their life cycle. After a black hole has formed, it can continue to grow by absorbing mass from its surroundings. By absorbing other stars and merging with other black holes, supermassive black holes of millions of solar masses (M?) may form. There is consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies.

    The problem is not with my claim but with your understanding.

    Newton’s postulation that “the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth”, did not arise out of thin air, and especially did not arise from atheistic materialism, but arose from his belief in God. As Paul Davies commented, “Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way.”

    Once more, it doesn’t matter where he got it from, the theory as stated is materialistic. It describes observable physical reality, not Newton’s personal beliefs about who created it all.

    And it was not just Newton, but it was all the Christian founders of modern science who held this view. As Paul Davies further noted, “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”

    Yes, we know. Christian scientists were inspired by their Christian beliefs. Some US astronauts and others were inspired to join NASA by their love of Star Trek. That doesn’t make the TV show a documentary or mean they believed they were propelling themselves through space with “warp drive”.

    Actually Seversky, since Seversky is a causal agent himself, does understand the basics of ‘how’ Goddidit.

    Causal agents or not nobody – not you, not me, not Paul Davies, not Einstein – has any idea how God is supposed to have done it.

    Seversky’s denial of the reality of his own agent causality is simply insane.

    I’m not denying the reality of my own experience of exercising free will. Neither am I denying that there are many aspects of physical reality both inside and outside myself of which I am unaware and over which I have little or no control, regardless of what I might will. I believe the same is true for you.

  147. 147
    ET says:

    Earth to seversky- Theories are only materialistic if you can show that materialistic processes produced what we observe. You can’t do that.

  148. 148
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 59

    Seversky may claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true, but, as with practically everything else that Seversky says, that claim is a lie. Seversky, nor any other atheist, lives his life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true.

    If I wanted to, I can live a perfectly consistent life as an atheist if, for no other reason than, I am free to construct any “worldview” that suits me. I don’t have to stand around waiting for some deity to tell me what to do.

    Christians, on the other hand, have a real problem with living according to some coherent and consistent “worldview” given the inconsistencies and contradictions that are found in the Bible. In practice, they can only really do it by rejecting or at least ignoring a lot of what is found in the Old Testament.

  149. 149
    kairosfocus says:

    EG,

    >>if life arose through natural processes, currently the leading theory, then language, however likely, is a consequence of natural processes.>>

    Do you see the lurking begged questions?

    There is a well known trichotomy of causal factors, blind chance, mechanical necessity, intelligently directed configuration. Where, if DNA and associated execution machinery are NECESSITATED by laws and circumstances of origin of the observed cosmos, we have fine tuning on steroids. Where, of course the physics and circumstances of the observed cosmos permit such phenomena, just as they permit PC’s, ARM processors and the like.

    Such fine tuning would simply bake the design into the physics of the cosmos and your sense of “natural” would be pointless.

    As for chance, you have been around UD for years, so if you don’t know the implications for config spaces for just 500 – 1,000 bits it is because of ideological blindness not want of such being repeatedly pointed out. Or maybe you have been so busy sneering at 1,000 word rants that it has never dawned on you that there are substantial issues you need to address cogently.

    At this stage, I am pretty convinced that you are not a reasonable, responsible participant in a discussion but are instead little more than an ideological obscurant tossing out objections as a sneering distraction. You have destroyed whatever shreds of credibility you may have had.

    So, the following is for those who are actually serious.

    Where, first, as say AutoCAD shows, effectively any 3-d structure can be informationally specified in a description language string, ultimately in a chain of Y/N questions. So, contemplation of the config space of strings of bits or such length is WLOG.

    For n bits, there are 2^n possible configs from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1. Every conceivable message expressible in n bits is in that list. For 500 and 1,000 bits, that’s 3.27*10^150 to 1.07*10^301 possibilities. Where also, it is easy to see that FSCO/I requires a cluster of right-sized, key-lock fitting, properly aligned and coupled parts as we may see from protein synthesis. This means that functionality based on such configuration comes in islands deeply separated by seas of non function.

    In that light it is easy to see that for 10^57 atoms to 10^80, searching at say 10^12 – 14 configs per second [compare speed of organic reactions], the sol system or observed cosmos cannot credibly blindly search any but a negligible fraction of the possibilities. And search for a golden search runs into the problem that a search samples a subset. So, the space of searches is the power set, which will have cardinality 2^[2^n]. Calculator smoking territory.

    Blind chance is not a credible source for FSCO/I. Where, language is precisely an example of such.

    That is, there are good reasons to regard language as a strong signature of design.

    In which context, your resort to question begging and to antics with statistricks, speaks volumes on the fundamental weakness of your case.

    KF

  150. 150
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, a mechanical an/or chance driven entity may be a computational substrate but it cannot be a rationally free entity, much less a morally governed one. That comes straight from the implications of dynamic-stochastic entities. KF

    PS: That God or an intelligence can reason, project world models, weigh alternatives, choose goals and identify or develop appropriate means, techniques and production systems to desired ends is not having a clue? Or are you demanding dynamic-stochastic explanation for agency. Which is a question begging blunder of first magnitude.

  151. 151
    jawa says:

    This is getting really intriguing:

    Who is closer to win the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize?

    Dr Szostak or Dr Cronin ?

    Could another lab enter the contest and win the race?

    Could it be Dr Venter or he’s too busy with his business deals?

    As we see both Dr Szostak and Dr Cronin making real progress in their research and getting closer to the goal, could they win the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize later this year or next year?

    Could they both reach the goal simultaneously?

    🙂

  152. 152
    Seversky says:

    EDTA@ 126

    I would also ask of believers, if you genuinely believe that there is an afterlife spent in a state of infinite bliss in heaven with your God and all who have gone before, why are you wasting your time here in this “vale of tears”? Why not move on?

    Because we have more than one imperative that we live by. I have heard this argument before: “Why don’t you all just commit suicide and get to heaven right now?” But this assumes that we have exactly one priority to our existence: getting to heaven by any means possible as fast as possible. Actually our existence is a lot more complex than that, and we are not expected to hurry the process up, but to do good here, bring others into the fellowship, etc.

    I thought this would come up when I wrote that.

    To be clear, I am not advocating that Christians should commit suicide, I am simply asking the obvious question: if you really believe there is a much better afterlife waiting for you, what are the reasons that compel you to stay in this “vale of tears”? What plausible or even possible reason could your God have for requiring you to do it?

  153. 153
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you full well know that cold blooded suicide is self-murder. Your objection falls apart, tellingly. KF

  154. 154
    Barry Arrington says:

    JVL:

    Granted, it may have been slightly off the main topic of the thread

    If you mean it was a transparent attempt to change the subject and hijack the thread, you are correct. But I don’t think that is what you mean.

    I was trying to engage with a particular idea;

    Of course, any idea but the one under discussion. You tried to hijack the thread because you are too gutless to engage with UB on the topic he asked you about. And you keep trying to justify that. Give up. It cannot be justified.

    I’m not pointing fingers and accusing anyone of anything.

    Well that’s good, because no one else has displayed cowardice and dishonesty.

    I am NOT trying to trip [Upright Biped] up or make him look foolish.

    Of course not. You were trying to change subject, because you can’t trip him up or make him look foolish. You were literally speechless when it came to responding to the question on the table. Your dishonesty, cowardice and rudeness are there for all to see.

    JVL, you have attempted to justify your behavior over and over and over. I admit to having a (probably morbid) curiosity about how long you will keep that up. Again, I exhort you to better behavior. Do better. BTW, when you are caught out in bad behavior, as you have been, trying to justify it — even trying to make yourself out as some sort of victim — only exacerbates the original wrong. Doubling down does not remedy it. Your antics are cringeworthy. Please stop. I know you won’t but I will continue to exhort you to better behavior. Go ahead, have another go at it; I know you will. And when you do, I will exhort you to do better again.

  155. 155
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev at 148 claims:

    I can live a perfectly consistent life as an atheist if, for no other reason than, I am free to construct any “worldview” that suits me.

    Uhh well, as should be needless to say, ‘constructing’ a worldview does not reflect the worldview that you hold to be the true worldview, i.e. atheistic materialism, is called living in a delusion. In some people delusional thinking is a severe form of mental illness.

    So to repeat, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Thus Seversky’s claim that he can live his life consistently as if his atheistic materialism were actually true is simply a false claim, (as he himself basically admitted). As the following article notes, “Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.”

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....tml?page=3

    As to your claim that the Christian must live with contradictions in the Bible, that is also a false claim. First off, you offhandedly granted that I can live my consistently as a Christian,, i.e. as if my life really does have meaning and purpose. Secondly, your gripe is with what you believe to be contradictions in the Bible, not with how I am actually living my life right now. But anyways, as to your claim of alleged contradictions, Inspiring Philosophy has done excellent work debunking practically all of the atheist’s claims for supposed contradictions in the Bible:

    Bible Contradictions Refuted – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfo

    Verse:

    Hebrews 4:12
    For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

  156. 156
    ET says:

    seversky:

    if you really believe there is a much better afterlife waiting for you, what are the reasons that compel you to stay in this “vale of tears”?

    That “much better afterlife” is contingent how you how are here. There isn’t any “opt out” clause.

    What plausible or even possible reason could your God have for requiring you to do it?

    Pretty much the same all parents have for their children. Get out there, learn, find and fulfill your destiny.

  157. 157
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ Seversky

    I just read all of your posts
    You either completely misunderstood everything I wrote, you don’t care, or you’re delusional to your own actions

    Asides from you and BA77’s poor interplay (BA77 will chastise your opinion first and visa versa), you generally throw the first jabs and make fallacious claims about religious groups (Generally evil ignorant science hating Christians) which usually get shut down, with maybe a few exceptions.

    I normally give you the benefit of the doubt
    But some of the things you say about Christians are ridiculous and you obviously ignore anything that is counter to your personal opinion and blind biased for Christians which I question now why you are even on this site

    I am terribly sorry you feel that way and I am terribly sorry anybody did something to you to make you this way, unfortunately it is a 2 Way street though. (Ive suffered plenty by the hands of anti-theists and I never looked to pick a fight with them) your constant attacks on Christians makes you a hypocrite

    By the way atheist atrocities go for miles too you know Joseph Stalin, any kind of communist regime that embraced ridding themselves of religion. China comes to mind.
    The usual suspects that you probably ignore
    Should I quote the myriad of horrible things said about Christians, Jews, and Muslims at the hands of nonbelievers? does it really matter? And trust me you don’t have to try to lecture me on the atrocities of religion, I certain you have fully memorized. All I can do is try not to make those mistakes

    You complain about people being intolerant to you but all I ever see is you being intolerant to Christians, often you’re the one that brings up how horrible Christians are. that’s all I’ve experienced from you

    Now I believe your questions were answered by both me and EDTA quite well and it was ignored by you

    By the way why is it an atheists don’t kill themselves when the statistical likelihood of them being happy is under 50%?

    Stupid question right, don’t ask Christians why they don’t kill them selves to be with god, it’s an equally stupid question

    Again I’m sorry you feel that way but your opinion of Christians is both biased and ignorant and shows that you do not care to look at why you could be wrong

    And don’t bring up BA77, ET, and you being a prime example of what you are complaining about. I understand the three of you have a crappy relationships, I don’t know how that started and I don’t know how it will end

    Good luck

  158. 158
    bornagain77 says:

    ^^^ Hmmm, and here I thought me and Seversky got along pretty well compared to my ‘crappy’ relationship with all the other atheists on UD 🙂

  159. 159
    vividbleau says:

    “Mr. Bush replied, “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God”

    This is BS and what is sad is you know it is BS yet you post this “allegedly” BS comment.

    Vivid

  160. 160
    vividbleau says:

    “or you’re delusional to your own actions”

    Aaron Sev knows exactly what he or she is doing, not delusional at all. This is one very hateful individual IMO.

    Vivid

  161. 161
    AaronS1978 says:

    I shouldn’t have used talk to text, there’s a ton of grammatical errors, sorry everyone

    “Why is it that atheists don’t”
    Not “an atheists”

    “I’m certain “not “I certain”

    Ugh

  162. 162
    Ed George says:

    KF

    Do you see the lurking begged questions?

    Yes, I do. But it is painfully obvious that you don’t.

  163. 163
    kairosfocus says:

    EG, turnabout attempt. Let’s just say on the above that your IF is a very big word. I notice, again, you failed to cogently, substantially address the specific issues on the table, from me as well as UB. Duly noted. KF

  164. 164
    EDTA says:

    Seversky @ 152,
    > if you really believe there is a much better afterlife waiting for you, what are the reasons that compel you to stay in this “vale of tears”? What plausible or even possible reason could your God have for requiring you to do it?

    Among the known reasons: We were created and put here to live, reproduce, raise families, strive to grow and improve, help each other, acknowledge that we are not our own creators, i.e., to exhibit humility, and to seek God. We are not to kill ourselves for selfish reasons. We are to strive for virtue as God defines it–because we clearly can’t find it ourselves.

    And of course there can be many reasons for our existence of which we are not aware; perhaps God has not informed us, or perhaps the reasons are beyond our ability to comprehend. That is not unexpected if there is indeed a higher being than us.

  165. 165
    JVL says:

    Barry Arrington: Go ahead, have another go at it; I know you will. And when you do, I will exhort you to do better again.

    Nah, time to quit.

  166. 166
    jawa says:

    It seems like the discussion has digressed away from the OP topic related to Dr Szostak’s latest paper on his attempt to show how OOL could have happened.
    Some folks seem to avoid the topic.
    They seem to prefer off topic discussions.
    Perhaps it would help if they step aside and keep off the discussion.
    🙂

  167. 167
    jawa says:

    One issue to deal with could be determining how close are Dr Szostak and Dr Cronin to win the Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize.
    There yet?

  168. 168
    jawa says:

    Has Dr Szostak been in the program Unbelievable?

  169. 169
    AaronS1978 says:

    Not sure, Dr. Cronin was making artificial cellular systems last I checked. Dr. Szostak from what I gathered is just declaring he has a recipe. My ORIGINAL question was if he has the recipe to ool why has he not produced it yet.

  170. 170
    jawa says:

    AaronS1978:

    “ If he has the recipe to ool why has he not produced it yet “

    That’s a good question indeed.

    But what does he mean by “life”?

    Is his definition correct?

    Dunno.

    To me those smart guys are working on OOW, not OOL. 😉

  171. 171
    Ed George says:

    KF

    . I notice, again, you failed to cogently, substantially address the specific issues on the table, from me as well as UB. Duly noted. KF

    There is nothing of substance to address. DNA is a chemical that interacts with RNA and several amino acids to produce proteins. The chemistry behind this is very well understood. DNA (or RNA) is required for all life as we know it. We don’t know how life began or how/when DNA/RNA first appeared. Using these facts to conclude that it was the result of ID is just a God-of-the-gaps argument. If you want to provide some substance, start researching how the designer created life, how she programmed the cell, how she created the chemicals necessary for life to be possible, etc?

  172. 172
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    DNA is a chemical that interacts with RNA and several amino acids to produce proteins.

    That is your simpleton’s version, anyway. Your simpleton ways are the only thing which allows you to say what you do. Your beliefs are based on your simpleton PoV.

    Using these facts to conclude that it was the result of ID is just a God-of-the-gaps argument.

    We don’t only use those facts. Those facts do help. But it is our knowledge of cause-and-effect relationships that leads us to the Design inference. And the Design inference is no more a God-of-the-gap argument than is archaeology and forensic science.

    If you want to provide some substance, start researching how the designer created life.

    Look, troll, YOUR side is the mechanistic scenario so it is YOU and yours that needs to provide some substance. Start researching how blind and mindless processes didit or shut up.

    Ed George is the worst type of cynic. Too afraid to ante up and willfully ignorant. Not a good combination but it’s all the evos have, really.

  173. 173
    jawa says:

    Wow! So much nonsense written in one comment @171.

  174. 174
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed George,

    DNA is a chemical that interacts with RNA and several amino acids to produce proteins.

    Are you suggesting that the genetic code works through a series of chemical reactions?

  175. 175

    .
    #171,

    Ed, you are lying to yourself and hiding from documented experimental science and history.

    EVEN IN that documentation, MATERIALIST scientists will specifically warn that you can fool yourself and simply describe the chemical interactions within the system using nothing more than the dynamical laws of nature, but you cannot actually describe the function of system from those laws. That is why every biology textbook on the surface of the planet (the entire edifice of biology) has complimentary descriptions of the system. The two cannot be integrated.

    The reason you will not engage the question I asked you at #81, is that it utterly destroys your lie. The mental excuse that you must have the designer’s hair color and shoe size is destroyed. The excuse that we don’t know anything about how life began on earth is destroyed. And the very first thing destroyed is your incoherent God-of-the-Gaps excuse. It is destroyed by science and reason. No one is telling you (at least not I) that you have to believe in any God, Ed, we are telling you (via documented experimental evidence) that you can’t describe the physical system of specification that makes all life possible without recourse to discontinuous association and irreducible complexity. You can’t describe it without the onset of spatial orientation. You can’t describe it without rate-independent control. You can’t describe it without the mandatory simultaneous coordination of multiple unrelated encoded sequences. And you can’t describe it without also describing the same physical organization found in the use of language and mathematics – two unambiguous correlates of intelligence. These are documented facts Ed. These are the facts given to us through the methodical practice of science and reason.

    Frankly Ed, as an atheist in general, you are a-dime-a-dozen. You will go through your life and to your grave with your hands in the air, telling any gods out there to f ‘off – and that is your personal choice and your right to do so. But you do damage to society and to others when you attempt to convince and deceive people into believing that you have science and reason on your side. You have nothing of the sort. So if your many prior actions on this blog (comment #81) do not fully communicate to casual readers that you are a snake in the grass, then we will just have to continue to point out that you clearly do not have science and reason on your side, indeed, you refuse to engage them at all.

  176. 176
    Ed George says:

    BA

    Are you suggesting that the genetic code works through a series of chemical reactions?

    Duh!

  177. 177
    Barry Arrington says:

    Ed George
    “Duh!”
    That is a non-response. Are you suggesting that the genetic code works through a series of chemical reactions?

  178. 178
    jawa says:

    Just a refreshing lemonade for those who are experiencing the uncomfortable hangover after being intoxicated by the materialistic Kool-aid for so many years:

    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/05/my-inference-article-demonstrates-implausibility-of-natural-processes-explaining-the-origin-of-life/

  179. 179
    jawa says:

    In addition to the DNA sequences that code for pre-mRNA which is converted to mRNA after splicing, then translated to proteins by by the ribosome with the involvement of tRNA and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, there are also DNA sequences that serve as patterning code in TF-binding sites, promoter regions, enhancers, for activators and inhibitors, Also there are many DNA sequences that code for regulatory RNA transcripts. On top of all that there are epigenetic markers on different sites of the DNA. Also there are histone codes and chromatin remodeling issues.
    Then we are told to blindly believe that the whole enchilada is the result of some accidental event in a primordial warm pond and gazillion years of undirected variations and the almighty natural selection. Yeah, right.

Leave a Reply