Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why Secular and Theistic Darwinists Fear ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this comment I included an essay I wrote in 1994 at the behest of a Christian friend, David Pounds, after my conversion from militant atheism to traditional Christianity.

Dave encouraged me to write it, but it only chronicles one aspect of the journey (the most significant one).

But there was another extremely significant aspect of this journey, which I cannot overemphasize, and that was reading Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, recommended to me by Dave. I was thoroughly schooled in traditional Darwinian orthodoxy, and never gave a thought to the possibility that there might be problems with it.

It took me only a few hours over a couple of days to read the book, and my materialistic worldview concerning origins completely and irrevocably collapsed. The logic, evidence, and argumentation presented by Denton were compelling, and I realized that I had been conned by the “scientific consensus,” with the obvious intention of promoting a secular, materialistic worldview.

It also became immediately obvious that “God-guided evolution” was an oxymoron, since “evolution,” as defined in the academy and by its major promoters, is by definition undirected and without purpose.

This is why secular humanists (e.g., the NCSE) must denigrate, defame, ridicule, and otherwise abuse ID proponents, and fight attempts to present any contrary evidence. The stakes are high, for those who want to promote a godless worldview.

Comments
Mathgrrl you state: "Why the resistance to making your assertions testable?" Are we in Seinfeld's Bizarro World Mathgrrl? Seinfeld - Elaine discovers Bizarro World http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcjSDZNbOs0 AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. http://bcb705.blogspot.com/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html Bacteria: Fossil Record - Ancient Compared to Modern - Picture http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html Though it is impossible to reconstruct the DNA of these earliest bacteria fossils, scientists find in the fossil record, and compare them to their descendants of today, there are many ancient bacteria spores recovered and 'revived' from salt crystals and amber crystals which have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium spores, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have been revived, had their DNA sequenced, and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost same exact DNA sequence. The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637bornagain77
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Mark, Allan was still on the forum elsewhere.Upright BiPed
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
tgpeeler,
mac, not coming out to play. It has been explained to you over and over again by better minds than mine. If you really can’t understand “information” within the context of this discussion then you are way past me being able to contribute to your understanding of anything.
Mathematicians and scientists have no problem with rigorously defining the terms that they use, particularly when those terms, like "information", have a far more precise meaning than they do in ordinary conversation. If you are unwilling to define your terms, any claims you make about them are quite literally meaningless. Why the resistance to making your assertions testable?MathGrrl
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
gpuccio,
Maybe BA has a point, and my patience is not infinite.
You seem to be under the impression that you are the only one demonstrating patience in this discussion. I can assure you that is not the case. ;-) I have patiently been requesting a step-by-step example of how to calculate CSI (or some variant thereof) for a biological system taking into consideration known evolutionary mechanisms. If you are refusing to provide such, just let me know and I'll stop asking. However, if you do refuse, intellectual honesty requires that you stop making claims that involve CSI until you can demonstrate how to calculate it. My goal in this conversation is to understand your claims well enough to test them. As it stands now, you have not defined your terms clearly enough for anyone else to even calculate a value for "functional information". An example would eliminate this problem immediately. Could you please begin by answering my previous question: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI? I'll be happy to discuss Durston's paper once we have "functional information" rigorously defined.MathGrrl
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
#58 UB - if you are an ID opponent you somtimes find that you are removed from the conversation without any reason and without other participants necessarily knowing. I am not claiming it has happened to Allan or that it is intentional but it has happened to me a couple of times.markf
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
The fact that mathgrrl is not here for actual understanding (read: disingenuous) has been previously established, despite her protest otherwise.
An overly sensitive person might think that comment is uncivil.Petrushka
September 12, 2010
September
09
Sep
12
12
2010
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
#57 True, but I know as a matter of documented fact that when Allan is confronted with, er, a discontinuity in his reasoning he will simply disappear from the conversation. As they say, there is more than one way to skin a cat.Upright BiPed
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
Truly it is a marvel to watch Darwinists claim, on one post, that naturalistic forces can produce information just as efficiently as an intelligent agent and, on another post, claim not to know what it is that is being produced. You've got to love it. Allen MacNeill, though his efforts are futile, at least tries to make his case straight up without playing the ignorance card.StephenB
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
jmac, not coming out to play. It has been explained to you over and over again by better minds than mine. If you really can't understand "information" within the context of this discussion then you are way past me being able to contribute to your understanding of anything. Have a great day. p.s. No information was destroyed or injured in the making of this post...tgpeeler
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
Vivid, You are completely correct. The fact that mathgrrl is not here for actual understanding (read: disingenuous) has been previously established, despite her protest otherwise. It is a compliment to ID that the opposition has been forced to present tactics in place of evidence.Upright BiPed
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
BA; Thank you for the psychological support. I need it...gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
MathGrrl: Maybe BA has a point, and my patience is not infinite. Let's be simple. Durston measures the functional information in the P 53 DNA domain at 525 Fits. Therefore, according to my definition and threshold, and even according to Dembski's threshold, it is a protein which can be classified as exhibiting dFSCI. That means that a purely random search, starting form any non related starting state, be it from scratch of form an existing unrelated sequence, has to generate 525 bits of functional information to produce that protein domain. Now, if you or anyone else has a gradual model for the origin of that protein domain, please give it. If you believe that there are fubnctional selectable intermediates, please tell us what they can be, and why they were selected. We then will restrict the analysis to the random transitions in your model. At present, I am aware of no such model for any of the fundamental protein domain families. All the evidence points to an independent emergence of each of them, followed by an expansion of each of them in each separate funtional state, very slow and sometimes not yet completed, without ever going out of that functional space (see for that the following recent paper: "Sequence space and the ongoing expansion of the protein universe" at this link): http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7300/full/nature09105.html All this points to a designed origin of protein domains, followed by a random divergent evolution in the limits of the existing function, probably as a result of neutral mutations and negative selection. Nothing, instead, points to a gradual, functional transition from one protein domain family to another, unrelated one. But you can always believe and hope. As I have said many times, I always respect the faith in others.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
gpuccio, I'm 'borrowing' your definition for functional information @46 since it is concise and up to date I've seen recently,, In note to your exchange with Mathgrrl,, you must have the patience of Job to put up with such xxxx.bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
RE 49 " Until your terms are rigorously defined and you’ve provided a step-by-step calculation of CSI for an unambiguously defined function of a real world biological system, you cannot make any credible, testable claims." Tell me mg the rigourous step by step evolutionary steps for the unguided, undirected evolution of chemicals to man? Would you be so kind to do that for us? Otherwise Darwinists cannot make any credible, testable claims. Thanks! Vividvividbleau
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Mathgrrl, since the immune system is clearly a designed 'evolutionary algorithm' that uses directed mutations within a well defined sequence space to arrive at a desired target, is it fair to exclude the active information, as defined by Dembski and Marks, that is clearly inherent in the immune system prior to the search? notes: LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13 Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case. http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ It is interesting to note that many times evolutionists will try to use the highly choreographed mutation/selection process of the immune system itself, claiming that the brilliantly designed immune system is actually proof of evolution. Yet the immune system is almost exactly what we have with with the evolutionists claims for 'evolutionary algorithms' in that the immune system is carefully designed from the outset to converge on a solution. It would be surprising, and deadly, if the immune system did not do what it was suppose to do. This following paper gives a little glimpse behind the beauty of the design that is found within the immune system: Falk’s fallacy - Feb. 2010 Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/falks-falacy/ Signature In The Cell - Review Excerpt: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these (evolutionary) algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed to do that. What would be surprising is if the program didn't converge on the solution. That would reflect badly on the skill of the programmer. Everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill-the information input. There are no mysterious outputs. - Software Engineer - quoted to Stephen Meyer http://www.scribd.com/full/29346507?access_key=key-1ysrgwzxhb18zn6dtju0bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
gpuccio,
But, as I say rather often (sigh), each new protein superfamily’s emergence is unexplained by the darwinian theory.
Again, I appreciate all of your efforts in attempting to explain CSI, but I think you're overstating what you've managed to demonstrate thus far. You and I agreed previously that it is essential to understand the evolutionary history of the system under discussion in order to compute the "functional information" created by those changes. We're also still in the process of determining exactly how to measure "functional information" / CSI in this thread. Until your terms are rigorously defined and you've provided a step-by-step calculation of CSI for an unambiguously defined function of a real world biological system, you cannot make any credible, testable claims.MathGrrl
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
gpuccio, I appreciate the time you're spending to respond, but I'm afraid you still haven't quantified CSI. Usually when mathematicians define a new term, they define it very rigorously. It would help immensely if you provided a step-by-step worked example of how to quantitatively measure CSI (or any variant thereof) for a real world biological system. Please, let's consider measuring the CSI of either the immune system (using the papers referenced in the earlier thread) or of any frameshift mutations (referenced by Petrushka in that same thread). We should be able to agree on clearly defined functions for those and be able to start to test some of the claims made about the ability of evolutionary mechanisms to generate CSI. I'd also really appreciate it if you could answer one particular question from my previous post: If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI? Thanks!MathGrrl
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Warehuf: I strangely agree with many of Jurassicmac's objections to your position :) . The problem with it is that it is not scientific, but purely based on faith. ID does not refute darwinian evolution because of faith problems, but becasue it does not explain facts. The unexplained fact is the origin of functional information in biological beings. All of them, not just humans. Indeed, the least explained quantity of unexplained information is probably at OOL. But, as I say rather often (sigh), each new protein superfamily's emergence is unexplained by the darwinian theory. And much more. This is the only scientific approach to the problem. The problem is not to make darwinists happy, or christians happy. The problem is to understand what is scientifically reasonable and what is not.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
MathGrrl: dFSCI is a subset of CSI. CSI is all kind of complex specified information. For our biological discussion, I prefer to use the subset of dFSCI, which can be easier to discuss. Nothing is lost in that, because protein coding genes and proteins, which are the sbject of my discussion, are both dFSC. d is for digital. I mean by that that we are observing information in the form of a digital string. I don't think I have to argue that both the sequence of nucleotides in a protein coding gene and the sequence of AAs in a protein are digital strings of information, the one in a base 4 alphabet with words of 3 characters, the second in a base 20 alphabet. They are two forms of the same information, cnnected by the redundant genetic code. For convenience, I ususally debate proteins. FS is for functionally specified. My definition for that is that a conscious intelligent observer must recognize a function and define it explicitly, giving also a quantitative method to asses its presence or absence. You say that different persons can define different functions. That's not a problem, The functional information is always expressed for an explicit function, and not in absolute. So the definiton of the function is part of the measurement. We have to be careful, anyway, that the function is defined in a way that it is really performed by the object or system we are analyzing, and it must be possible in some way to measure the information necessary for the function. That's why, in the case of Lenski, I have insisted that we had to define the function arisen in the mutation, and only that, and at the same time know at biochemical level the details of its implementation. So, if it is true (I really don't know) that the only modification in the case of Lenski was a modification in permeability to citrate, and not in other biochemical activities, that is the function arisen in the transition, and the protein or proteins mutated are the object or objects on which the computation of the dFSC of the transition must be done. Defining the new function as "the ability to digest citrate" is just too vague and generic and imprecise, because indeed that ability is the sum of different biochemical activities, like the Krebs cycle, which have probably not varied in the transition. I hope that is clear. The necessity of being clear and explicit in defining the function is one of the reasons why I never try to apply, at least at the level that ID is at present, the concept of dFSCI to whole biological systems, and I apply it only to single proteins, or better still to single protein domains. Those are the functional units in the proteome. Discussing more complex systems is infinitely more difficult, and had no sense, until we have clarified the essentials at protein level. This has always been my position. Moreover, for most proteins the function is well known, and, as I have often said, is alredy explicitly defined in protein databases. Therefore, I don't see what are the problems about the functional specification. For most known proteins, the functional specification is already there. C is for complex, and I for information. The concept of information in Shannon's theory is, as all know well, more a measure of complexity. Indeed, as all know, Shannon's theory is not about information, but about data transmission. I mean that we can measure the complexity of a string, but that measurement has nothing to do with the "meaning" of that string. Indeed, random strings have ususally the highest complexity, because they are not compressible and they have the highest uncertainty. The important point is that protein sequences are mostly pseudo random sequences. This too is well known: they are scarcely compressible, and they cannot be generated by any simpler algorithm. You ask why the non compressibility is important for dFSCI. The answer is that it is a good way to ensure that the string is not the result of some necessity mechanism. Let's make an example. If we have a string of 300 "A", the Kolmogorov complexity of that string is much lower than the mere complexity of it. THat kind if string can well be the product of a necessity mechanism. In the same way, if we have a protein of 300 glycins, even if it could have a function (which I doubt), it would not be dFSCI, because highly compressible. IOW, that string could easily arise in a biochemical system where only the glycin is available, for instance. That would be a simple necessity mechanism. Therfore, it is important that the string we analyze be a truly pseudo-random string, otherwise a necessity mechanism cannot be ruled out. Proteins vastly satisfy that requisite. Even if in theory they can have some minimal compressibility, functional proteins have a primary sequence which is related only to the functions of the final, folded molecule. The relationship between that sequence and the final biochemical structure is so complex that at present we cannot really compute one from the other, not even by the most powerful computing resources. That's why, to all effects, the sequence of proteins is pseudo random and practically non compressible. IOW, teir is no way to generate the sequence of a protein for a function through an algoritm. And if and when it will be possible, the algorithm will certainly be much more complex than the sequence itself. I hope that clarifies the aspect of compressibility. Let's go to the threshold. You ask why one and not another. The threshold is conventionally established. And it can vary in different contexts. Why? Because the only purpose of the threshold is to make the measurement of dFSCI useful to analyze an object (for instance a protein) and decide if it can be generated by a random model, or by a model that in part includes random steps. So, the threshold must be high enough to empirically exclude the random emergence of the functional sequence in a random model (or of the random transition, in a model with random steps). In a sense, it has a meaning similar to an alpha error in a classical hypothesis testing scenario, but the concept is different because it must rule out with certainty all the potential probabilistic resources of the system we are considering. IOWs, we must completely rule out (at least empirically: they remain "logically" possible) all false positives. As anybody probably knows, that means usually that we accept a high rate of false negatives. Dembski has suggested a UPB of 500 bits (more or less), to rule out chance even if we take into account all the probabilistic resources of the whole universe. I have proposed 150 bits to rule out any realistic biological model on our planet. I arrived to that number by a very gross computation from general maximum values for variables such as bacterial populations all over the planet, bacterial reproduction rate, age of the earth, and so on. Again, it is a very rough estimation, and it is only for general debate. Frankly, I believed that the bound of 500 bits was certainly vastly overestimated for a biological context. I am quite confident that 150 bits is still a very generous, high threshold. At present, the only empirical esteem of an edge for observed biological systems is the two AAs proposed by Behe in his TEOE. That would be less than 10 bits. Finally, Shannon's entropy. I mentioned it for two reasons: 1) The complexity in dFSCI is best expressed in similar units as Shannon's entropy, that is as the negative ln of probability (I am not trying to be precise here, please: I am not a mathemathician). But the general concept is simple. If the probability of a single event (a specific sequence) is the ratio of 1 to the search space (I know, that implies a uniform distribution of probability, but that's another problem, and if you want we can discuss it later), than the probability of a target space (let's say the set of all the sequences which have the function we defined) will be the ratio of the target space to the search space. Let's suppose that the ratio is 2^-100. Then the complexity, in bits (or better Fits) is 100. As you can see, the most difficult part in that is to know, even approximately, how big is the target space. As far as I know, Durston's indirect method ia at present the best empirical answer to that. And Dusrtom applies directly the concept of Shannon's entropy to protein families, as you can see in his paper. The reduction in uncertainly between functional sequences and a random sequence is a measure of the functional information in Fits. I think that's enough, for now.gpuccio
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
@BA You can add Sir Lionel Luckhoo. A British lawyer knighted for his work. He won 245 consecutive cases. He said, "I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt." There is Simon Greenleaf who was one of the founders of the Harvard Law School who wrote the book "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence". He was an atheist until some students challenged him to examine the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. In his book "Testimony of the Evangelicals" he wrote, "Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth."andrewjg
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
further notes jurassicmac: This following recent video revealed a very surprising holographic image that was found on the Shroud: Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205 Even with the advantage of all our advanced space-age technology at their fingertips, all scientists can guess is that it was some type of electro-magnetic radiation (light) which is not natural to this world. Kevin Moran, a scientist working on the mysterious '3D' nature of the Shroud image, states the 'supernatural' explanation this way: "It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." http://www.shroudstory.com/natural.htm If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The Extremely 'Monitored' Near Death Experience of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 The Scientific Evidence for Near Death Experiences - Dr Jeffery Long - Melvin Morse M.D. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4454627 It should be noted: All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Another very interesting point about the Shroud is, since the Shroud had to be extremely close to the body when the image was made, and also considering the lack of any distinctive shadow patterns on the image, it is apparent the only place this supernatural light could have possibly come from, that made the image on the Shroud, was directly from the body itself ! Yes, you read that last sentence right: THE SOURCE OF LIGHT WAS THE BODY ITSELF !!! God's crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder of it all is something I can scarcely begin to understand much less write about. Thus, I will finish this portion of my paper with a scripture. Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since we, God's children, are human beings - made of flesh and blood - He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread." ------------------- He's Alive - Dolly Parton - 1989 CMA - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbRPWUHM80M jurassicmac that ism what I meant by verfiably true.bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
further notes jurassicmac: In a fairly recent breakthrough, the carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by Raymond Rogers. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1989 carbon testing has been accepted across the board scientifically. New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339 The following is the main peer reviewed paper which has refuted the 1989 Carbon Dating: Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years. http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/shroud/shroudold.htm Rogers passed away shortly after publishing this paper, but his work was ultimately verified by the Los Alamos National Laboratory: Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today. http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/the-custodians-of-time/ This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report and video which completely confirms the Rogers' paper: “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008) Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case....... LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. - Robert Villarreal http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/ Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review - Robert Villarreal - Press Release video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041193 Now that the flawed carbon dating is finally brought into line, all major lines of evidence now converge and establish the Shroud as authentic. This rigidly tested, and scrutinized, artifact establishes the uniqueness of the Shroud among all ancient artifacts of man found on earth. I know of no other ancient artifact, from any other culture, which has withstood such intense scrutiny and still remained standing in its claim of divine origin. It is apparent God thought this event so important for us to remember that He took a “photograph” of the resurrection of Jesus Christ using the Shroud itself as a medium. After years of painstaking research, searching through every materialistic possibility, scientists still cannot tell us exactly how the image of the man on the Shroud was imprinted. How Did The Image Form On The Shroud? - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045581 "The shroud image is made from tiny fibres that are (each) 1/10th of a human hair. The picture elements are actually randomly distributed like the dots in your newspaper, photograph or magazine photograph. To do this you would need an incredibly accurate atomic laser. This technology does NOT exist (even to this day)." - Kevin Moran - Optical Engineer "the closest science can come to explaining how the image of the Man in the Shroud got there is by comparing the situation to a controlled burst of high-intensity radiation similar to the Hiroshima bomb explosion which "printed" images of incinerated people on building walls." Frank Tribbe - Leading Scholar And Author On Shroud Research This following video, which I've listed previously, and article give fairly deep insight into what the image formation on the Shroud signifies for us: The Center Of The Universe Is Life! - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847bornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
jurassicmac, I am sorry for confusing you with the hundreds of dogmatic atheists that I have dealt with over the years. Perhaps you can forgive me for thinking you were a dogmatic atheist since you are asking basically the same questions, and asserting the same things as they. Somehow that old question that preacher asked me, that really made me think, comes to mind in your case though,, "If you were on trial for being a Christian would they find enough evidence to convict?",,,. That you accepted Christ into your life as your savior is wonderful news since He truly is who He says He is.. You chide me in my statement about Christianity being verifiably true as if I meant merely contentment and such,, and then try to denigrate 'contentment' by saying it could be found elsewhere.,,, Again I'm asking,,, would they find enough evidence to convict you jurassicmac? When I said Christianity is verifiably true, besides anything like the subjective experience you derided of the personal witness of millions who have felt and seen Christ move in their lives, I mainly meant that the primary claim of Christ defeating death on the cross is verifiably true: Consider these quotes: A British agnostic once said "let's not discuss the other miracles; let's discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter." Sir Edward Clark -- a prominent lawyer in Great Britain "As a lawyer, I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. To me, the evidence is conclusive; and over and over again in the high court, I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection I accept unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate." Canon Westcott -- for years a brilliant scholar at Cambridge University "Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it." Thomas Arnold -- Professor of History at Oxford University; author of a 3-volume history on ancient Rome "I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them; and I know of no fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than that Christ died and rose again from the dead." http://www.awordfromtheword.org/what-if.htm But of course jurassicmac my favorite evidence is the Shroud of Turin itself since that puts us in the tomb of Christ at the time of the resurrection: notes: The fact is that, as I've heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body, yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead. Matthew 28:5-6 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Burial places of founders of world religions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions The Shroud of Turin is one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in recorded history. Through a rigid process of elimination, through all materialistic possibilities, it becomes crystal clear; the way in which the photographic negative, and uniquely three dimensional, image of the man on the Shroud of Turin had to be imprinted was 'supernatural' in its process. The Turin Shroud - Comparing Image And Photographic Negative - interactive webpage (Of note: The finding that the image on the Shroud is indeed a photographic negative is still as much a mystery today as when it was first discovered by Secondo Pia in 1898.) http://www.shroud.com/shrdface.htm Shroud Of Turin's Unique 3 Dimensionality - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182 All attempts to reproduce the Shroud fail: Experts Question Scientist’s Claim of Reproducing Shroud of Turin - Oct 6, 2009 http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=98037# Many solid lines of evidence pointed to the Shroud’s authenticity back in the 1980’s, yet the carbon dating of 1989 indicated a medieval age. In spite of many other, more reliable, lines of evidence establishing the Shroud as authentic, many people unquestionably accepted the carbon dating as valid and presumed the Shroud to be a medieval fake. THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE - Evidence of Authenticity http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html Shroud Of Turin - Sewn From Two Pieces - 2000 Years Old - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101 The Sudarium of Oviedo http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm Russ Breault - Shroud Video Library http://www.shrouduniversity.com/libraryvideo.phpbornagain77
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
J’mac at #20 Your category error remains embedded in your comments. In extended your unshakable belief that natural processes can produce information, you say:
Many, many, things that can be described by physics and chemistry produce information.
While it is true that we use the Laws of Physics to explain the material world, it is not those laws that are doing the explaining – we are. This is the point that you are missing. Everything we know about the cosmos (all information) is created by our ability to perceive it through our senses. Without exception this is true. Lets us look at it this way. Let us say that you are a mad chemist in his lab, and for the very first time in cosmic history you took a highly-refined material constituent “A” and mixed it with a very unstable material constituent “B” and heated them in a vacuum, in a centrifuge, under the effects of a massive magnetic field. Let us say further that all the sudden the lights in you lab dim and something incredible happens. Something never seen before; something that will cause a new law to be written into our book of knowledge of the cosmos. Congratulations. Here is the point. Did mankind’s information of the cosmos suddenly increase because of the chemical reaction which happened in your lab? Is that when this new information was created and began to exist – at the instant the reaction took place? Or, did this information begin to exist when you (the mad chemist you are) perceive, describe, and record it for others to know? It seems fairly certain that the reaction did not create the information, you did. So returning to your comment that I might not understand the meaning of the word “unequivocal”, Yes, I do understand it. There is no information in the cosmos that exist without first being perceived. That’s just the way it works. Information is the product of perception. - - - - - - - I then questioned why you would use a man-made clock as an example of a natural process. You replied:
A clock works according to natural precesses. No miracles are needed to explain how a clock works.
Completely true. So what? The point remains that a clock is not a natural process. It’s a category error. - - - - - - - - I then remind you that a clock does not produce information. All a clock does is rotate a needle around a marked dial with precise regularity. You responded:
What!!?? Seriously? A clock produces no information? Not even about the time? Or date? Why in blazes do we make clocks, if not to produce information about what time it is?
A clock produces information? Turn your back to a clock and inform me what time it is.
What in the world would you call the numerical data that is perceived by a human observer to gain enlightenment about their local time?
I would call it the time of day. But the clock did not produce the information; the observer did by observing the needle he had created in relation the dial he had placed behind the needle. Allow me to ask you a question. Let us say that I quickly glance over at the clock and see that it is 3:00pm. However, I had been mistaken; it was really 2:00pm. Did the clock produce misinformation? Or, did I? Who produces the information, me or the clock? Allow me to offer you a local colloquialism which is perhaps appropriate to your current predicament: “When the horse is dead, get off.”Upright BiPed
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
gpuccio, The thread in which we're discussing CSI is now off the main page and getting harder to find. I hope you don't mind me jumping in here to continue it.
here is a very concise definition of dFSCI: 1) Any string of digital information
I believe the 'I' in dFSCI, and know that the 'I' in CSI, stands for "information". You're using part of your term to define it. When you say "digital information" here, do you mean one of the standard measurements such as Shannon Information, or something else?
2) which conveys the information for an explicitly defined function
Continuing on from the other thread, how can this function be unambiguously defined? I suggested that the ability to digest citrate that evolved in Lenski's experiment met this criteria, but you disagreed. This characteristic requires more detail.
3) which is in a non compressible or scarcely compressible form
Why? What does the compressibility of whatever you mean by "string of digital information" have to do with the calculation of CSI?
4) whose complexity (ratio of the functional space to the search space) expressed in bits (like in Shannon’s information) is higher than a certain threshold, appropriately chosen for each specific context (I have suggested 150 bits for a generic biological context on our planet)
Why 150 bits rather than 10 or 1E6? You mention Shannon Information here again. Previously you have said that CSI is not Shannon Information, but this suggests that Shannon Information is a synonym. Which is it? If it were shown that evolutionary mechanisms could create Shannon Information, would you concede that those same mechanisms could create CSI? A step-by-step worked example of how to calculate CSI for either the immune system (references to the literature are available in the other thread) or for something like the ID mascot bacterial flagellum would address a lot of these questions and prove that CSI is, in fact, an objective, measurable quantity.MathGrrl
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
jtgpeeler @ 27:
jurassicmac – aha! the old “Well what IS information, exactly?” gambit. I’ll make this easy on you. You give me a definition and we’ll go from there.
Uh, "What is information?" isn't a gambit; it's an honest question. You are the one making the claim that a very specific type of information can't arise naturally; the onus is on you to define that specific type of information, (like gpuccio has done) because as far as I can tell, the debate isn't about information per se, but FCSI. If I tell you that life contains blorbyblast, and that blorbyblast can't occur naturally, and you then ask me to define blorbyblast, I can't say: "you give me a definition and we'll go from there."jurassicmac
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 24:
I just don’t get it,,, I don’t know jurassicmac you can throw you life away on a lie if you want, this is America,, but I certainly think you should consider the truth of Christianity before you do throw your life away any further on that lie… for the payoff for Christianity,, which I hold, unlike neo-Darwinism. to be verifiably true,,, is certainly a lot better nothingness.
My goodness you're full of assumptions! I happen to be a devout Christian, have been my entire adult life. I used to be a young earth creationist as well. Since you seem not to have been aware of my religious beliefs, It's odd that you think someone is 'throwing their' life away simply because they accept one particular explanation of biological diversity. I can't really comprehend that view. Though I don't really appreciate when people make assumptions about me, I don't loose any sleep over it. It really just makes them look foolish and presumptuous. My one beef with your statement is is when you say the 'payoff for Christianity' (by which you seem to mean Heaven) is verifiable; if that's the case I'm not sure you know what 'verifiable' means. If you meant something else like 'happiness' or 'contentment', those things are not exclusive to Christianity by any stretch of the imagination. In the future, I would just recommend being on guard about assuming that you know why a person believes the way they do; it's awfully annoying to hear a dime-store Freud psycho-analyzing you without knowing the first thing about you.jurassicmac
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
gpuccio @ 21, Saw your link on quantification, I will read it at my earliest convenience. Thanks for the reply.jurassicmac
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Warehuf @ 32:
Gil, gpuccio and the group: I see theistic evolution working something like this: God decides that he wants someone to talk to, so he either goes back a few million years and starts life going or just lets life start by itself. Evolution proceeds undirected to the point where God looks down and sees some semi-intelligent creatures like the great apes walking the earth.
This is why I don't call myself a theistic evolutionist even though I'm a Christian who accepts evolution; The term has a reputation of being as pandering and contradictory as your description makes it out to be.
God glances at the ape DNA and notes that it differs from human DNA by only a percent or two and most of the differences are “noise”, which has no discernible effect and can be ignored. So God changes a few hundred or a few thousand key DNA base-pairs over a few thousand generations and voila, God has used Intelligent Design to transform some apes into humans.
Now here's my (our) question. If natural processes could account for 99.99% of the formation of humans over a certain period of time, why in the world do you need to invoke miraculous intervention to explain the other 0.01%? If natural processes can get you 99.99 percent of the way in 3 billion years, why not wait a few hundred thousand more years for them to finish the job? Is God just impatient? This is irrelevant to the discussion, but if God has to 'go back a few million years,' doesn't to do something differently, doesn't that mean he can't see the future, or that he regretted a decision because of an oversight or error? Are you a theist yourself, or are you just contorting evolutionary theory to make it palatable to the religious?
This is what most theistic evolutionists mean by theistic evolution: Darwinian evolution does the dirty work, creating the vast assortment of living creatures we see today while God just “tweaks” some DNA here and there to “fine tune” a species to make it exactly the way he wants it.
If there is any divine tinkering required as an explanation, then it is not Darwinian evolution! I think even the IDers here would agree with that. What you have just described is ID to a t; its just ID that accepts common ancestry. (Like Michael Behe's view)
I really don’t understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It’s an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits.
ID isn't hostile to theistic evolution as you've described it; by your definition, it is ID.
The scientists are happy because evolution works as advertised,
No it does not. If you have to invoke a miracle in your explanation, It is not science at all.
Christians are generally happy because God made us after all, ID theorists should be happy because Theistic Evolution means that we are Intelligently Designed – the only ones I can see who should be disappointed are Biblical Literalists
I've got an idea! let's say that heliocentricity is halfway true: That way, astronomers are happy because we throw them a bone that observation based on empirical evidence is a valid way to find things out, and the Christians who take Psalms 93:1 literally are happy because we work in the word 'God' somehow.jurassicmac
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
RE 32 ware "I really don’t understand why ID is so hostile to theistic evolution. It’s an excellent way to do Intelligent Design. Let evolution do the dirty work and just Design the fiddly bits." I can think of several reasons. 1) There is absolutely no evidence to support Darwinist's grand claim. 2) ID is about design detection not theology. Like the creationists TE's start from a theological premise and then make science conform to their theology. I have always thought that TE was flawed from the start since it started from a misplaced acceptance of Dawinism. If Darwinist's grand claim is false then TE is superfluous. TE is married to Darwinism, it falls their theology falls. Its not surprising that TE's are opponets of ID, their theology rests on ID's demise. Vividvividbleau
September 11, 2010
September
09
Sep
11
11
2010
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply