|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
My university evolution class devoted two whole class sessions at the end of the semester to anti-evolution objections like irreducible complexity and religious incompatibility, and the professor was far more generous than he should have been with them. |
Ah, creationism reluctantly presented by an atheist for one class out of 200.
And that's the full extent that atheists will permit a competing theory.
"Religious incompatibility" is not the objection to evolutionism. Criticisms of evolution are entirely scientific. Such as, the fossil record does not support it; or, mutation is a harmful damaging process that could not possibly account for a hypothsized transformation of molecules into men. Is it "science" to keep avoiding criticisms? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Julius"]
| catman wrote: |
| Irreducible complexity and the 'god of the gaps" arguments are not evidence. |
| Quote: |
| Well, irreducible complexity does demonstrate that many of our complex biological machines could not have evolved step-by-step and show much evidence of purposeful design. Of course evolutionists knee-jerk rejected this argument. But none of them could ever properly debunk it. |
Proving a designer would go a long way in helping your argument.
| Quote: |
What they do is ridicule it in the media that they own, claim it is wrong- without giving any detailed or convincing scientific argument-
|
Yep, no evidence has ever been given. Another pious lie from religion.
| Quote: |
You keep saying 'scientists' as if evolutionists were beyond question. |
I say scientists because it has been accepted by 99%+ of scientists.
| Quote: |
you're putting words in my mouth again. Is the Kim dynasty of north korea a conspiracy theory? No, its just a system whereby a small group of people have managed to sieze power and devise a system of keeping themselves in power and stifling all competition. humans are constantly creating this sort of societal structure, it is in our nature to do so. Including even within academia. |
You are a conspiracy theorists. You are asserting that scientists have an ulterior motive outside of looking at the evidence.
| Quote: |
| if it were not the case and evolutionists are absolutely honest and open to all possibilities then they would not get all defensive about the whole creationists ID debate. they would not seek to keep out the opposition. They would freely publish and consider opposing theories and ideas. |
Including aliens planting life on earth? Would that be ok?
| Quote: |
Most evolutionists 'scientists' as you like to flatter them- are atheists first and foremost, scientists second. |
Again, do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory?
| Quote: |
But the biblical account is simply not compatible with the idea that the earth is billions of years old, that life came about naturalistically by some unguided process from a chance aggregation of molecules, that man descended from apes, etc. These are all totally against Christianity. |
Well I'm no theologian so I won't argue about what defines a true Christian. It is still a fact that plenty of self identified Christians do believe in evolution.
Regardless my main point is that evolution has nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God/s
Last edited by catman on Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:08 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
The bible is the most archaeologically verified ancient dcument in existence. Almost every event, person, place in it has been confirmed by other sources.
|
Sorry to post this on Sunday, but I guess no day is a good day for bad news...
---------------------
Did the historical Jesus exist? A growing number of scholars don’t think so
Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.” In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.
At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/30/did-the-historical-jesus-exist-a-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Proving a designer would go a long way in helping your argument. |
Nobody has observed gravity, yet we can infer it exists because we see its effects. Similarly the Higgs-Bosun particle that we know likely exists.
The point is that scientists make inferences, not all evidence is directly observable. Theories ( in theory) survive by being the best explanation for what we observe.
The best, most logical explanation for what we observe in the natural world around us is that it was intelligently and deliberately designed by an intelligence far exceeding our own. That is the most obvious conclusion, it sets all our common-sense detectors on fire, it is the conclusion reached by all peoples and all civilisations throughout human history. just because we haven't met the designer of a jumbo jet, we don't try to prove that it self-assembled by random chance processes. So it is with all highly-complex machinery that follows functional specificity.
Yet evolutionists- in their arrogance- appear to "correct" conventional wisdom by making ridiculously outlandish claims- that everything came about by random undirected chance processes. They get away with this for several reasons:
1. The masses who they inform with their mass media simply aren't interested enough in the topic to investigate closer.
2. Even if they do, humans have a strong drive to follow their own will, rather than that of authority. Enough evidence abounds that God exists- but humans by instinct are in rebellion against their creator. they want an excuse not to acknowledge a higher power than themselves. Evolutionism does not stand up to close scrutiny, but it fulfils a deep need in humans. An atheist religion.
| Quote: |
| I say scientists because it has been accepted by 99%+ of scientists. |
..well you would have to back up those statistics.
certainly many top scientists strongly doubt the chance hypothesis that the dumbed-down media speculates on and which you blindly propound. You want names/ how about Francis crick, Robert Shapiro, Christian De Duve, Hubert Yockey, Chandra Wickramasinghe.
They doubt it because it is vanishingly impossible by all laws of statistical probability. if you think otherwise, then you simply don't appreciate the functional complexity of DNA. Its not equivalent to a piece of wool. Its something showing a functional-specific design far exceeding what you currently imagine. It could not have arisen by chance, all theories that suggest it couls have self-assembled naturalistically have failed. hence the latest fad among atheist scientists of transplanting the problem to some theorized planet or place far away in outer space where it is theorized correct conditions might have occurred. This is called agenda-driven fantasy speculation. The popular media might enjoy using it as copy to fill up its spoare columns, but it is not science, neither is it fact.
-talking of your claim of "99%" of scientists, you are aware, perhaps, that most scientists are not qualified in the relevant field to make any such judgement. Neither have they been exposed to any alternative theory other than evolution. Neither has anyone in the mainstream atheist establishment been granted permission or funding to explore the possibility that life may have been created rather than evolved. neither would they even publically side with such an idea unless they were happy to lose their jobs, credibility and livelihoods in the climate of fear and intimidation that the atheist mainstream has established.
The ones that have studied this topic- are handpicked atheists that have long been inducted into the evolutionist framework. So your boast is still no more impressive than saying "but 99% of the North Korean Government agree that Kim Jong-Un is the best person to lead North korea!"
Last edited by Julius on Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Yet evolutionists- in their arrogance- appear to "correct" conventional wisdom by making ridiculously outlandish claims- that everything came about by random undirected chance processes.
|
Let's say you run an experiment with many different elements and forces, to see how they will interact over time. If you rerun the experiment once every second, all over the universe, for billions of years, every possible combination will happen. Even highly improbable combinations, won't be improbable, they will be certain. And they will happen many many times. The combinations that worked are the ones we see around us today.
It's basic math. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| for billions of years |
Well, I don't know anyone who will live that long to prove it...but then again the absence of evidence does not suggest the evidence of absence.
60% of the time, it works every time...right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Quote: |
| for billions of years |
Well, I don't know anyone who will live that long to prove it...but then again the absence of evidence does not suggest the evidence of absence.
|
The experiment was already conducted; we are the result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Francis crick |
This Francis Crick?
| Francis Crick wrote: |
| I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about. |
Doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Robert Shapiro |
This Robert Shapiro?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe. |
Doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Christian De Duve |
This Christian De Duve?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| He strongly supported biological evolution as a fact, and dismissive of creation science and intelligent design, as explicitly stated in his last book, Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity. He was among the seventy-eight Nobel laureates in science to endorse the effort to repeal Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. |
Vehemently doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Hubert Yockey |
This Hubert Yockey?
| http://www.hubertpyockey.com/hpyblog/about/ wrote: |
| Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey shows why Michael Behe and his ilk are wrong in his books, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992). |
Doesn't believe in current 'scientific' accounts of creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Chandra Wickramasinghe |
This Chandra Wickramasinghe?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Throughout his career, Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle, has advanced panspermia, the belief that life on Earth is, at least in part, of extraterrestrial origin. |
Doesn't believe in creationism...
You're really not helping your case here Julius... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My understanding of Vedic philosophy is that infinite consciousness has ultimately directed, produced and personally/impersonally acted in the creation of exactly 8,400,000 "species" (defined in terms of different levels of consciousness and culture) based on facilitating all the desires of living entities to enjoy in the bodily concept of life (i.e., engaging in sex life in the water as various kinds of fish, in the air as various types of birds, on the land..., underground..., etc.) The subtle mechanism of transmigration enables spirit-souls to evolve from species to species - usually to one with more developed consciousness (e.g., from a monkey to a human...)
Here's a link to a couple articles by scientists well versed in this Vedantic tradition who present arguments drawn from Embryology, Homology, and Genetics that tend to disprove Darwinian evolutionary theory ... http://www.mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/Newsletters/Harmonizer_July_2014.pdf
I personally find articles like this one more interesting - since I took spiritual initiation (in 1974) from Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (who departed this world three years later...)
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-14/editorials12086.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
| Francis crick |
This Francis Crick?
| Francis Crick wrote: |
| I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about. |
Doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Robert Shapiro |
This Robert Shapiro?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| He opposed the RNA world hypothesis, and held that the spontaneous emergence of a molecule as complicated as RNA is highly unlikely. Instead, he proposed that life arose from some self-sustaining and compartmentalized reaction of simple molecules: "metabolism first" instead of "RNA first". This reaction would have to be able to reproduce and evolve, eventually leading to RNA. He claimed that in this view life is a normal consequence of the laws of nature and potentially quite common in the universe. |
Doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Christian De Duve |
This Christian De Duve?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| He strongly supported biological evolution as a fact, and dismissive of creation science and intelligent design, as explicitly stated in his last book, Genetics of Original Sin: The Impact of Natural Selection on the Future of Humanity. He was among the seventy-eight Nobel laureates in science to endorse the effort to repeal Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. |
Vehemently doesn't believe in creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Hubert Yockey |
This Hubert Yockey?
| http://www.hubertpyockey.com/hpyblog/about/ wrote: |
| Nuclear physicist and bioinformatician Dr. Hubert P. Yockey shows why Michael Behe and his ilk are wrong in his books, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992). |
Doesn't believe in current 'scientific' accounts of creationism.
| Julius wrote: |
| Chandra Wickramasinghe |
This Chandra Wickramasinghe?
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Throughout his career, Wickramasinghe, along with his collaborator Fred Hoyle, has advanced panspermia, the belief that life on Earth is, at least in part, of extraterrestrial origin. |
Doesn't believe in creationism...
You're really not helping your case here Julius... |
I know they're not creationists, thats why I quoted them. They're top mainstream scientists. If i'd quoyed creationists you would have discarded their opinions automatically.
I'm trying to show you that the origin of life theories - eg the chance hypothesis- are not 99% agreed upon as was claimed. In fact they've failed as theories: they've hit insurmountable brick walls. The tabloids usually won't tell you that. But the top scientists know they're dead ends.
For me to explain to you why would take hours. i don't have the time right now but I promise to get round to it at some point in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't rule out the highly unlikely possibility of "a creator", but I don't necessarily believe that creator knows we exist, should such a creator exist.
There are different dimensions of size. We know that. Say the whole universe is just a small explosion in the creator's lab. For the creator it lasts a second, for us it lasts 30B years. We know time is weird like that.
But how would the creator know something in a different dimension of size exists? The experiment was done intentionally, but the pond scum that developed on some rock was just an accident. Creator is off to get a sandwich. In fact we may be the creator in our own experiments, perhaps a nuclear explosion is a big bang for some creatures in an impossibly small dimension of size we will never know...
I didn't smoke pot, by the way.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
I know they're not creationists, thats why I quoted them. They're top mainstream scientists. If i'd quoyed creationists you would have discarded their opinions automatically.
I'm trying to show you that the origin of life theories - eg the chance hypothesis- are not 99% agreed upon as was claimed. In fact they've failed as theories: they've hit insurmountable brick walls. The tabloids usually won't tell you that. But the top scientists know they're dead ends.
For me to explain to you why would take hours. i don't have the time right now but I promise to get round to it at some point in this thread. |
Most of the scientists you listed that don't necessarily buy into abiogenesis as a result of chance are putting forth theories that abiogenesis occurred as a result of another process that also doesn't involve a creator. Shapiro's 'metabolism first' instead of 'RNA first' and Wickramasinghe's panspermia. The fact that these 'top' scientists also do not support creationism is very important in the context of this discussion.
Abiogenesis is still in its early stages of scientific inquiry. There's a reason there are many competing theories. It has a very long way to go. And despite your assertions, progress has been made. In any case, you're conflating abiogenesis and evolutionary theory when yes, they are circumstantially related to each other; however, they are also wildly different from each other. We know evolution occurs. The manner in which abiogenesis occurs, or indeed if it occurs at all, is still up in the air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
I know they're not creationists, thats why I quoted them. They're top mainstream scientists. If i'd quoyed creationists you would have discarded their opinions automatically.
I'm trying to show you that the origin of life theories - eg the chance hypothesis- are not 99% agreed upon as was claimed. |
I said 99%+ of scientists believe in evolution. I said nothing of abiogenesis.
With regards to the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" statement issued by the Discovery Institute
| Quote: |
The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized, with many signatories coming from wholly unrelated fields of academia, such as aviation and engineering, computer science and meteorology.
In addition, the list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields. According to the National Science Foundation, there were approximately 955,300 biological scientists in the United States in 1999. Only about 1/4 of the approximately 700 Darwin Dissenters in 2007 are biologists, according to Kenneth Chang of the New York Times. Approximately 40% of the Darwin Dissenters are not identified as residing in the United States, so in 2007, there were about 105 US biologists among the Darwin Dissenters, representing about 0.01% of the total number of US biologists that existed in 1999. The theory of evolution is overwhelmingly accepted throughout the scientific community. Professor Brian Alters of McGill University, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 "scientists" listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
You also won't know (for a very long time) if evolution is consciously directed or not unless you at least theoretically accept the original transcendental explanation purportedly coming via oral tradition going back millions of years, restated/compiled in Vedic scriptures about 5000 years ago and passed along by disciplic succession of spiritual masters who've fully realized their constitutional position as servants of the servants of the Original Person.
Here's another installment (part 6) of Srila Prabhupada's conversations with some of his young disciples on the topic of evolution.
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-14/editorials12089.htm
Here's an interesting very short video of someone's (not necessarily a perfect source) interpretation of Vedic evolution theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxXJrlNNnDM
I'm not sure when this (also brief) article was published ...
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
Most of the scientists you listed that don't necessarily buy into abiogenesis as a result of chance are putting forth theories that abiogenesis occurred as a result of another process that also doesn't involve a creator. Shapiro's 'metabolism first' instead of 'RNA first' and Wickramasinghe's panspermia. |
All these attempts to show that life arose by chance undirected processes have failed though. But when you're legally barred from investigating the special creation option, then continuing to bang your head against a brick wall over and again is the only thing left to do.
That's why the latest trend is to just ged rid of the problem. To the furthest reaches of outer space, where anything can be imagined to have happened.
| Kimchininja wrote: |
| The experiment was already conducted; we are the result. |
In earlier times, scientists did not realize the biochemical complexity of living things. Therefore it was easy for them to wave that magical-thinking wand and get away with all kinds of preposterous claims.
"Darwins bulldog"- TH Huxley- in 1869 stated that the cell is "a simple homogenous globule of plasm".
Ignorance allowed evolutionism to take hold.
We now know that a living cell has a mechanical complexity on a par with the infrastructure of a modern city. It is filled with interdependent little machines performing vital jobs-mitochondrions, lysosomes, vesicles, centrioles, cilia, endoplasmic reticulums, Golgi apparatus, on and on and on.
Cell proteins, which do nearly everything, have construction information stored in DNA. This construction information is in a true code, a contingent code, one not based on chemical constraint, one for which self-construction is not an evident option.
Using a four-base code, the plan for a protein is transcribed to messenger RNA. The mRNA is modified and checked by a highly co-ordinated system and released into the cytoplasm. By the process called translation in a ribosome, the four-base code is translated to a 20 amino-acid code to build a protein. Translation incorporates 20 different amino acids in the precise sequence dictated by the three-base codons built from an alphabet of four bases. The process in the ribosome builds the polypeptide chains that will become proteins.
Taken in three-base "codons", each triplet of bases along DNA unambiguously specifies a particular amino acid. All four bases have the same kind of bond to the sugar-phosphate backbone. There are no bonds between the bases in the longitudinal direction along the helix.
In transcription, the RNA polymerase is capable of adding 20 to 50 nucleotides per second to the growing mRNA chain. Electron microscope images suggest that there can be over a hundred RNA polymerases operating simultaneously. So the cell nucleus is like a programmed factory for mRNA with over 100 parallel assembly stations. Each station can build a 400 unit mRNA chain in 10 to 20 seconds.
Life, from the smallest microscopic structures upward, shows incredible purpose, interdependence and design. DNA carries specific information- data in codes that makes a supercomputer look simple- that functions interdependently. If one thing goes wrong, the entire process fails. Its miraculous that it happens at all, yet you wave your hand and take it for granted.
The structure of DNA cannot possibly have self- assembled by any undirected process any more than an airbus could self-assemble. And even if you give it a billion billion years, it does not make the spontaneous self-assembly of the Eiffel tower any more likely simply because we know iron ore ("the basic building blocks of the tower!") were found nearby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
