Proof of Creation from Science

Originally posted by jaywill
Is science an exercise in [b] democracy ? I mean is the science truth always a matter of what the majority agrees is the science truth ?[/b]

These are red herrings. There is no peer review process or evaluation of the vote I cast in a democracy. Even if - one day - a majority of ordinary people like you and I reject scientific knowledge and go for what's laid out in manipulative books that fuel or reaffirm our superstitions or preconceptions will you then stick up for the minority that still adhere to science? No. Will you be still banging on about what the majority does and doesn't mean to you or to me or to the validity of knowledge? No. You won't. Red herrings, jaywill.

Originally posted by jaywill

Scientific consensus is achieved when the evidence is clear on a particular subject.

And when the consensus view was that the sun revolved around the earth according to Ptolemy's mathematics, and the evidence pointed to that, and was agreed upon by the majority, that was the best scienctific theory for awhile.

Was it the scientific t ...[text shortened]... tead.

In the interim between the two consensuses, should people listen to a minority view ?

It wasn't a scientific theory, science and the scientific method hadn't been invented yet.

And the earth does not revolve around the sun.

The earth 'revolves' on it's axis.
It orbits around the common common centre of mass between it and the sun,
AND the common centre of mass between it and the moon.
It is perturbed by the gravitational influence of the other planets, moons, an asteroids that
occupy the solar system.


EDIT: People should pay attention to what the current best available theory says.
The one that the evidence points to, while accepting that no theory is perfect, and
any theory can (and probably will be) changed.
The scientific consensus is THE gold standard best current understanding of the way the world works.
If evidence is discovered that points to a different view then the consensus changes to accommodate it.
For any lay person who can't possibly expect or hope to keep up with all the intricacies of scientific theory
(and by lay person I mean a non-specialist in the relevant field, so an expert physicist could well be a lay
person with respect to evolutionary biology) the only sensible course of action is to accept the current
consensus view of those who study a particular field.

In this specific case of evolution, while our understanding of exactly how it works and what course it followed
throughout history will change with new finds and discoveries, The idea that one day people will discover that
evolution isn't real is about as likely as discovering gravity doesn't exist.
It's not going to happen.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe you could explain to us then how God went about creating that which natural selection could not.

How exactly did he go about putting that information in cells?

I have said many times that God created speaking and it was the sound
waves from His voice that resulted in the creation. I am not a scientist
so I can not go beyond that explanation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have said many times that God created speaking and it was the sound
waves from His voice that resulted in the creation. I am not a scientist
so I can not go beyond that explanation.

That isn't an explanation.
It's nonsense.

You can't explain a mystery by invoking a bigger mystery.

To explain anything by invoking god fist you have to explain god, which you can't do.

god is not an explanation of anything.


Also, Sound waves in what?

You have no basis for asserting any of this, which means you are just making stuff up.

Originally posted by jaywill
But you are articulate on a subject of Evolution.

But I do not expect to be used as a reference by anyone else. My ideas, however articulate, have not been cheeked for accuracy or challenged by peers. Sure, they may be interesting, but they are not reference material.

There's another person, Stephen Meyer, who has some well expressed opinions about it too.
But his opinions are controversial. He is claiming that other scientists are wrong, and that he has made new discoveries. If this is the case, he should be willing to submit his ideas for scrutiny.

On that level, you may be compared. And we need not call in the credentialists.
Well and good. But you cannot use Stephen Meyer or his writings as a scientific reference.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Belief is not required, only understanding.

[b]It does not do anything as far as I am concerned.
Because you don't understand what it is. You cannot possibly know if it does anything if you remain wilfully ignorant of what it is.

And what Darwin thought was natural selection turns out to be changes due
to coded information acting to adapt t ...[text shortened]... have pointed out that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and thus your argument is flawed.

I read Darwin's book, "origin of the Spieces" for one reason.

Since you claim to be a programmer, I believe you must have a little
intelligence and know that a computer will not perform any function
without instructions from a program code. The computer needs the
instructions to be put in its memory before anything can be done.
Then additional information code can be entered to perform additional
functions, etc. Where does these instructions come from that allows
the computer to output the answer to a math problem, for example?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Since you claim to be a programmer, I believe you must have a little
intelligence and know that a computer will not perform any function
without instructions from a program code. The computer needs the
instructions to be put in its memory before anything can be done.
Then additional information code can be entered to perform additional
functions, etc. ...[text shortened]... uctions come from that allows
the computer to output the answer to a math problem, for example?

I also know that most of the code in programs I create is 'auto-generated'. I do not write it all my self.

But all that is besides the point. It is irrelevant where computer programs come from.
The issue is whether or not we know ways in which programs can arise without intelligence, and the answer is - you don't, and I do. But your ignorance does not prove that intelligence is required, it just proves your ignorance.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I read Darwin's book, "Origin of the Species" for one reason.

Since you claim to be a programmer, I believe you must have a little
intelligence and know that a computer will not perform any function
without instructions from a program code. The computer needs the
instructions to be put in its memory before anything can be done.
Then additional inform ...[text shortened]... ions come from that allows
the computer to output the answer to a math problem, for example?

What you have failed to grasp, is that while DNA and RNA may be said to be 'like' a computer
program or blueprint, they are not actually computer programs or programs of any kind.

It's a metaphor to aid in understanding, and you have to understand the limits of that metaphor.

DNA is not 'read' nothing comes along and looks up section A12 part C subsection 237 to see
how to build a kidney.
DNA is a chain of self replicating molecules that through incredibly complex series of chemical
reactions produces a suite of other chemicals that form living organisms.
It needs, and has, no designer, or intelligent input.
It wasn't written, and it isn't read, it just is.

All life is is a complex series of self organising self replicating chemicals organised by evolution into
the incredibly diverse set of organisms we see today.

There is no need for any designer, and you haven't posed any question that wasn't answered at
least 50 years ago if not 150 years ago.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That isn't an explanation.
It's nonsense.

You can't explain a mystery by invoking a bigger mystery.

To explain anything by invoking god fist you have to explain god, which you can't do.

god is not an explanation of anything.


Also, Sound waves in what?

You have no basis for asserting any of this, which means you are just making stuff up.

By that rule evolution explains nothing either. 😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
I also know that most of the code in programs I create is 'auto-generated'. I do not write it all my self.

But all that is besides the point. It is irrelevant where computer programs come from.
The issue is whether or not we know ways in which programs can arise without intelligence, and the answer is - you don't, and I do. But your ignorance does not prove that intelligence is required, it just proves your ignorance.

So you do not write programs that work from scratch. You must have
a program already there that will help you "automatically " as you say
generate your program for you. But there is still some intelligence
that created that program that will "auto-generate" other programs.
This is the question being asked about the discovery of the DNA code
in the cell. How did it get there? Where did it come from? It just
doesn't appear out of thin air. What is its cause? Biologist know that
it is needed for life, but can't account for it being there without some
superior intelligence to create it and put it there.

P.S. If you know then you are more knowledgeable than any other
scientist in biology. You should explain it to them and solve the mystery
for all of us. Then there would be no need for me to be talking about
it anymore. But since you will not, or more likely can not, I will continue.

Originally posted by RJHinds
By that rule evolution explains nothing either. 😀

No, because evolution isn't a mystery, it's an explanation.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, because evolution isn't a mystery, it's an explanation.

The mystery is "what" is evolution an explanation for? I say "nothing".

Originally posted by RJHinds
The mystery is "what" is evolution and explanation for. I say "nothing".

Only for you.

For those who have actually studied it and understand it evolution is not a mystery it's an explanation.

What you say on the subject is irrelevant.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Only for you.

For those who have actually studied it and understand it evolution is not a mystery it's an explanation.

What you say on the subject is irrelevant.

The Holy Bible is not irrelevant it explain all that is important to know.
Even some of the nysteries of God. I know evolution is not a mystery.
I solved it for you. Evolution does not explain anything. It is simply
another name atheists made up for adaptation and mutation combined.

P.S. See you should have taken your smart pill today.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible is not irrelevant it explain all that is important to know.
Even some of the nysteries of God. I know evolution is not a mystery.
I solved it for you. Evolution does not explain anything. It is simply
another name atheists made up for adaptation and mutation combined.

Really, well I don't like to put it like this, but tell me which part of the bible explains how to treat your wife's cancer.

Try again without being so blindingly obviously catastrophically wrong.