nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 206:
Line 206: + + + + + + + Line 239:
Line 246: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 248:
Line 269: + + + Line 253:
Line 277: + + + Line 273:
Line 300: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 284:
Line 328: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Revert post making slanderous allegations with no attempt to justify them. And blocking user (duplicate account) for doing so.
:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.
:::Nope, sorry, there are quite a few Christians who believe certain things that there is actually fairly solid evidence AGAINST, so a simple lack of evidence in support is not a problem for them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: You're not addressing the point: You said that some Christians would likely see it as ''proof'' of God, because it "popped" into existence. It didn't "pop" into existence, so your conclusion is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. <u>NO</u> hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::There, you're comparing apples with oranges. We know that the spearheads were created by man as we can compare them with independant evidence that very similar spearheads were created by man. In addition, we do have evidence of man in the areas surrounding the region, and there was, at the time, no barrier to man moving into that region. In your hypothetical example, Stonehenge is fairly unique and unusual (to such an extent that we still haven't actually figured out exactly what it's for) and, in your hypothetical example, the one and only piece of evidence we actually have that man was even on the same landmass was the simple fact Stonehenge existed, so there was a barrier to man simply moving into the region - it's called the sea. Now, if the simple existence of these artifacts were the one and only bit of evidence that we had of the existence of man at the time in the whole of the North American continent, and these were so strange, unusual and unknown that we simply couldn't work out what they were for, then you would be comparing apples with apples. However, that's not true. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: You're trying to find a distinction that doesn't exist. We know that Stonehenge was created by man as we can compare it with other large constructions created by man. And we have evidence of man in surrounding regions. We know that he was capable of crossing water, so that's not an issue. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:'''Example 2'''
:'''Example 2'''
:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::And here we are back at your whole underlying mistake - that people must prove you wrong, rather than you proving yourself correct. In science, you have to back up what you say with evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: It's a basic principle of debate that you must show my argument to be wrong if you want to dismiss it. You tried dismissing it without showing that it was wrong. Equivocating into a different point that merely sounds similar is fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".
::: Not if they're the same species. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Oh dear, oh dear. How can beings of the "same species", which means that they ''contain'' DNA like us, have ''created'' DNA?????? Please try and follow the argument! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::I remember hearing about that. You know something? The reason Dawkins was 'stumped' was because he was struggling to hold onto his temper. The reason this was the case case was that he had been told that he was being interviewed for a film, called Crossroads, that explores the relationship between science and religion. Being asked that question gave the game away that he was, in fact, being interviewed by creationists for a creationist piece of propoganda. This is because this question is so easy to actually answer that only creationists ask it, and the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to. I gave you three examples in an article below, one of which was, arguably, actually a decrease in genetic information, even though this lead to an advantageous ability. However, for a rather more definitive answer, try Down's Syndrome. In this, not just a protein, or even a gene, is added, but an entire extra chromosome. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah, yes, I thought I remembered seeing a response to that, written by Dawkins himself - here it is.[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm] [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:37, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: How about broadening your mind to include reading from sources that are not so one-sided and bigoted? If you actually read the link that I provided, you would see that some of the claims you made there are simply not true. For one thing, "strugging to hold onto his temper" was ''not'' the reason he was stumped, as he had realised that he was being questioned by creationists ''prior'' to that. Second, if the question is "so easy to actually answer", why has he ''still'' not answered it? And why would it be that only creationists would actually ask for evidence? Aren't evolutionists interested in evidence? Third, he was ''not'' lied to. You're earning a block for your false accusation of lying and your bigoted comment about propaganda.
:::: I've answered the three examples, and ''none'' of them are clearly increases in information. And where did the "entire extra chromosome" with Down's Syndrome come from? By copying an ''existing'' chromosome! So it's NOT ''new genetic information'', but a duplicate of ''existing'' genetic information. Yet again, we have someone arguing against creation that simply has very little idea of the creationist arguments. "Pretending to be wise, they became fools". If you want to argue against an idea, ''learn about that idea first''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.
"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.
:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, sorry, we're back at the 'it must be God, as we're here to talk about it' argument, just one step removed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: I note that when you can't answer the argument, you write nonsense. That's not the way to win arguments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.
"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.
:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Your whole point is that, according to you, in science, you use the evidence to eliminate possibilities. If you are only using the evidence to eliminate the possibilities, what did you use to establish the possibilities you're now eliminating? It can't be the evidence, because you have to establish the possibilities before they are there to be eliminated. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: That's ''still'' almost a "huh?". Until you eliminate possibilities, everything is already a possibility by default. When a scientist wants to explain some evidence, he is (or should be) free to propose ''any'' possibility that fits the evidence. He doesn't have to consult a list of approved possibilities or draw up a list of possibilities before he can start considering them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.
"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.
:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on. If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause. So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
:::No, it doesn't, as what you've basically said is that, as well as using 'God' to refer to the Christian god, you can also use 'He' and 'His'. You still haven't proven, in any way, that 'God' can also be used, for example, to refer to the Great Snozuflu. Even if the claim was, in fact, that he/she/it was a 'supreme being', he/she/it would be a god, not 'God'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: If the Great Snozuflu was the 'supreme being', then it would be appropriate to refer to that being with a term that was capitalised, i.e. "God". So by definition, the 'supreme being' is "God". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on.
:::Well, in the case of the Great Snozuflu, what, exactly, is the normal way that term is used? I invented that term, so, in effect, the 'normal way' for that term to be used is whatever I say it is. If I decide that term is referring to a being from another planet, then that's what it refers to. If I decide it refers to a god, then it does. If I decide it refers to my pet cat, and we were created by my cat sneezing and that snot hitting a quantum subspace wave in the fabric of the space-time continuum, which catapulted it back in time, and that was the first set of microbes from which all life evolved, then it does. According to your argument, all three of those scenarios are actually solid science until someone comes up with solid evidence that disproves them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Again, you are not reading what I'm saying. I have previously denied that ''proposing'' an idea amounts to it being "solid science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause.
:::Nope, sorry. Ultimately, you get back to <u>a</u> cause. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it <u>must</u> be a 'supernatural Creator'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Why not? I thought my argument was valid. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::But we're back at the 'it must be evidence for God, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it' argument, which is no argument whatsoever. The question being asked is 'how did we come to exist?' You're saying the answer is, 'we exist, so it must be that God created us.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: You are correct that that is a ''summary'' of the argument, but if you are suggesting that is the ''entire'' argument, you are quite incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.
"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!
::: You're not getting the distinction. Some people (generally not scientists) think that evolution is only concerned with the actual mechanism whereby genetic features change from generation to generation. This means that this mechanism takes existing genetic features and alters them. Evolution is normally regarded by scientists as also including the mechanism whereby these genetic features arose in the first place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Either I'm ''still'' not getting the distinction that you're trying to make, or you're not understanding me. I essentially agree with what you said, but my point is that even though scientists think that, evolution can't ''do'' that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!
:::I'll give you a clue - evolution states that advantageous genetic features arise and are selected for, and thus spread through that selection process. Guess what the ability to digest milk as an adult is, in the circumstances detailed in the article? Depending on how you define 'information', that means that is either an increase in information (as the body gains the information not to eliminate the ability to digest milk) or a decrease in information, as the mechanism for this is a situation whereby the body fails to produce the enzyme to trigger the elimination of this ability. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yeah? How is that a clue? Even according to you, this beneficial mutation could be caused by a ''loss'' of information, which is what creationists claim, and for which no refutation is offered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.
::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.
:::You're missing the point. They know the cause - a change in gene activity. The results of this change is the development of a more complex heart, which is exactly the kind of thing evolution requires. This more complex heart also requires more information in the genetic sequence - the information to create two chambers, not one. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is the second chamber due to ''new'' information, or duplication of ''existing'' information on building a heart chamber? Unless you can show that it is ''new'' information, you haven't made a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.
::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.
:::So, what 'information' would a completely non-working protein be? If God created it, the only 'information' would be 'I can't create very well, as I left all sorts of useless crap in the genetic code'. This mutation adds information by taking a useless piece of protein and adding it to a working protein, thus creating a different protein. Again, exactly what evolution needs to work, especially as the part you lopped off that sentence is, 'which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: A non-working protein might be like a television with a blown fuse: originally working, but with one crucial little bit damaged. Again, if you had a clue what you were arguing against, you would know that God created things without faults, but that since the [[fall of man|fall]], things have 'run down', including accumulating defects. So the existence of defects does ''not'' meant that God created them with defects. And there are ''many'' examples of cells resisting infection or etc. due to a ''loss'' of information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.
:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.
:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest. But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:::Well, in short, that is an article detailing three instances of exactly the kind of changes that the Theory of Evolution predicted way back before the existence of genes and genetic code was even known, and you're still saying that evolution is impossible and cannot happen. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, it is ''not'' "exactly the kind of changes that the Theory of Evolution predicted". Evolution predicted one type of creature changing into another type of creature. This is not that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest.
:::Thank you - you have just defeated your own argument. If you remember, it was <u>you</u> who originally advanced that our mere existence was evidence for God. I merely pointed out that <u>by the same standards</u>, it was also evidence for evolution, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible pink unicorn, etc, etc, etc. By my standards, not yours, this is not evidence for any of them, including evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: No, I have not defeated my own argument. I guess I failed to show that you were using the same argument, but that is all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
:: But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::No, because your assertion that 'information can only come from intelligence' is wrong. I'll give you an example. Go to the number pad on your computer keyboard. Close your eyes and type in four numbers completely at random. I'll do the same - 4337. The result is information, in my case, the number four thousand three hundred and thirty-seven. Randomness is, in fact, capable of producing information. It may not be useful information, but, guess what? Not everything in any creature's genetic sequence is actually useful. In fact, it's fairly typical that there's plenty that's not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Incidentally, you touched on 'my position' being faith-based. Well, I am actually an agnostic. However, I am an agnostic from a philosophical position - there is no guarantee that science will be able to give all the answers to the whole of existence, and there is no argument that persuades me about any particular religion. Science, however, is based on evidence, and there is no objective evidence of God, or any other god-like being, so you can have faith that God exists from a religious standpoint, and you can say that God might exist from a philosophical standpoint, but you cannot base any science on the idea God exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Typing in a number into a computer requires a keyboard/computer and a keyboard/computer require intelligence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::You're confusing the mechanism for recording the number with the number itself. The number itself was derived from a purely random process. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You are correct in your reply to Conservative, and his comment was missing the point (although he gets to it below). However, you are also missing the point, in that a random number is ''not'' information. Information is something with ''meaning'', and this ''meaning'' is conveyed by ''arbitrary symbols'' (such as English alphabet letters and numerals or DNA 'letters') that only have ''meaning'' to someone who knows the ''code'' (i.e. knows what meaning is attached to what symbols or combination of symbols). So "4337", by itself, is ''not'' information; it has no ''meaning'': it's just a random arrangement of symbols. If I asked you "how many brothers do you have", and you closed your eyes and typed on the keyboard "4337", and gave that as your answer, I'd wonder what you'd been smoking. Because that "answer" has no ''meaning'' for that question. Of course, you could type just a single digit, say "6", which would ''appear'' to possibly be a ''meaningful'' answer, but, except by co-incidence, it would be ''wrong''. And the reason it would be wrong would be because it was produced by randomness, not by your ''intelligence''. Information does ''require'' intelligence, and that principle is the basis of the SETI program: they are looking for a ''non-random'' signal in order to determine that they have discovered ''intelligence''. A ''random'' signal won't do it. DNA has ''information'', which could only have come from an ''intelligence''. That is ''science''.
::::::::: Non-useful DNA ''may'' be the result of the Fall (defects arising since creation), but geneticists are finding that much of what they thought was "junk DNA" actually has a purpose, as a creationary view would predict, but an evolutionary view would not (which is why it was so readily thought of as 'junk': an example of the evolutionary view holding back science).
::::::::: As for your last paragraph about philosophy, you are merely putting a point of view that I've already pointed out the errors in, such as the claim that there is no objective evidence of God.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::A raindrop falling into a lake causes a ripple. That ripple contains information on the force with which the raindrop hit the lake. Information from a completely unintelligent source. Information comes from everything and anything.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I suggest looking at the concept of [[Intelligent design|specified complexity]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Basically a claim of incredulity. Just because the information in DNA leads to a specific result (the protein and it's properties), is not to say that the drip of water doesn't, it leads to the ripple, which may lead to a number of specific results. The drop is simpler because it cannot replicate itself. Imperfect replication is the key to DNA's success. The selfish gene, it is indeed a truly brilliant theory (though in truth I don't think you could claim it even as a theory, it is simple logic). In short my point with the previous comment was simply to show that just because a system contains information, it most certainly does not mean that system, or information, was made by an intelligence.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, it's not a claim of incredulity. The ripples do not contain a message, because there is no specified complexity, as Conservative mentions. The ripples are the result of natural processes, whereas the information on DNA is not, because the DNA is not arranged by natural laws, but by machines that put it together according to a code. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:51, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::Actually DNA is a self-assembling molecule, arranged by natural laws. Many common pieces of lab equipment use this fact to replicate, expand and sequence DNA molecules. If you take the four bases, sugars and phosphates and place them in a simple solution they will bind to form a DNA molecule. The reason for this is that the DNA configuration is a lower energy state compared to the individual molecules of the bases, phosphates and sugars. As for information encoded in DNA, well that is another issue.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:39, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I must admit that the methods used in laboratory DNA replication, etc. is something that I don't know much about. However, the only places we have ever seen DNA forming are (a) in living things, and (b) in laboratories. This is because it simply does not occur naturally. What you are talking about is getting ''existing'' DNA to replicate or join, in very precise conditions that scientists create, which is hardly DNA being arranged simply by natural laws. Also, I found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction this] on Wikipedia (not always a trustworthy source, but probably reasonable in this case), which says "The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a technique widely used in molecular biology. It derives its name from one of its key components, a DNA polymerase used to amplify a piece of DNA by in vitro enzymatic replication." In other words, in order to amplify DNA, the process includes the ''machines'' (DNA polymerase) that I mentioned above were required. Doesn't that actually support what I was saying? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:17, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
== Ending Debate ==
Well, I have been blocked for 'accusations of lying'. Ironically, that, in itself, is a complete lie. I have no interest in continuing what I regarded as a healthy discussion and exchanging of views with someone who resorts to such tactics. Goodbye. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 16:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
: You said, "the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to.". That is, you were accusing the producers of the video of lying. Admittedly, you were basing your accusation on what someone else has said, but you weren't putting it as a quote or attributing it to someone else, but repeating the accusation yourself. So no, that reason for the block was ''not'' a lie. Secondly, that was only one of the reasons for the block. Why didn't you mention the other? Why misrepresent the reasons for the block by only mentioning one of the reasons? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:20, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<!-- Message to Kels: Urushnor2 is /not/ blocked, and Urushnor's block--not the one I applied--will expire in a few days. -->
:: Well, as the person who said that the interviewers lied was Richard Dawkins, the person being interviewed. That is NOT a 'third party', that is a FIRST party. Secondly, if you are blocking me for saying this, I guess you're saying that this did not happen (unless, of course, you feel justified in blocking someone for stating the truth), so this means that you are accusing Richard Dawkins of lying, so feel free to block yourself for 'allegations of lying' any time. Thirdly, the reason that I did not mention the other reason for being blocked was that I was going to let that slide, as certain things I have said could be perceived as being insulting, if you're rather sensitive about such things, but since you've brought it up, let's address it - the only thing I have said that could really be perceived as an insult is that you are ignorant of science. Considering I have seen you call people ignorant of creationism or ignorant of intelligent design, blocking me for that 'insult' is blocking me for something you do yourself. There is a word that is not very nice for such actions, that begins with 'H', but I will refrain from saying it, as you will no doubt say I'm insulting you again. [[User:Urushnor2|Urushnor2]] 15:24, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::: I didn't use the term 'third party'. Saying that they didn't lie does not mean that I'm accusing Richard Dawkins of lying. It could (and does, incidentally) simply mean that I'm claiming Dawkins was ''mistaken''. Not that that justifies ''him'' making accusations of lying, but that's a separate issue.
::: As for the insult, rather than try and figure out what I must have meant, how about reading what I said (on this page) was the reason? It wasn't for calling me ignorant, so ho hypocrisy involved.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 11 May 2008 (EDT)