Science vs. Creationism

[babe]

Oh yeah, then where did these things come from.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaXEzvosnSE
Bacon?

could be better than bacon.

I'll get to work on this idea right away.

hmmm. . . . . get me some squid and some gophers, head back into my lab for oh, mayber a few million years of genetic engineering, and voila!!!!!!

"The Creator" might have a little production lag time following up on Imagination, but anything we can imagine, we can eventually create.

 

[babe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_information_theory

Randomly created strings tend to have maximal complexity for the string size.

So I read the links. Maybe you should, too.

Probably you missed the point. Even these sorts of computational theorists, working with numbers, run into some limits and start talking about some things being unknowable or incomputable. But the limits which living things face relate to some other mathematical "theory" determined by limits of physical resources and the requirements of life for organization, function, and propagation. A living thing needs energy supply in food resources or sunlight and say carbon dioxide. It needs to in some compact way form a structure that can function somehow in addressing life needs, and within a fiinite time, to reproduce itself.

Observational data I'm sure would sustain the point that most organisms are simpler in nature rather than infinitely complex. Even humans apparently settle for two arms and two legs for some reason. . . . while a centipede may have a hundred, your information theory would suggest that, given enough time, we'll get smarter and have more arms and legs just because it's one of an infinite number of possible outcomes. . . . and given an infinite number of outcomes, the probability on any one outcome goes as a limit towards zero. . . .

but we haven't had that much time, and if the universe were actually random, it is far more probable that the closest thing to "life" that would have happened in merely 4 billion years is about four strings of amino acids six units long, with only two amino acids being of one kind.

It may be true that unhinged imagination can imagine anything, but imagination by itself is not "creation". "Creation" is the production of something in the material or real world which is functional. The essence of "religion" or human belief is its usefulness in ascribing some compact explanation to the world we are in. We have religion because it is useful in shaping our actions to achieve simple results, such as orderly social interactions. . . .and concise explanations of "life".

 

[babe]

One Brow: Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.
One Brow: [System]= A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.

So complexity is an expected result from a complex whole.
Darwiniac: Hey guys, a complex whole is complex!

An oxymoron wrapped in a redundancy is even better than a plain old oxymoron.

*******
One Brow: Systems don't need to be governed. for example, the water cycle is a system.

I'm going to follow your liberal "logic":
Patterns don't need to be repetitive. for example, the water cycle is a pattern.
Oceans don't need to be salty. for example, the Pacific is an ocean.
American Presidents don't need to live in the white house. for example, Obama is the president.

"There oughtta be a law against having this much fun."

 

[carolinajazz]

Complexity is an expected result from an ungoverned system.

There is a “fire” that warms our skin by day. That “fire” is burning some 93*million miles [150*million km] away! What power the sun must have for you to be able to feel its heat from such a distance! Yet, the earth orbits that awesome thermonuclear furnace at just the right distance. Too close, and earth’s water would vaporize; too far, and it would all freeze. Either extreme would render our planet lifeless. Essential to life on earth, sunlight is also clean and efficient, not to mention delightful.

Creative power is evident in every facet of the earth’s design. Consider the atmosphere, which serves as a protective shield. The sun emits healthful rays and deadly ones. When the lethal rays strike the earth’s upper atmosphere, they cause ordinary oxygen to turn into ozone. The resulting ozone layer, in turn, absorbs most of those rays. In effect, our planet is designed with its own protective umbrella!

That is just one aspect of our atmosphere, a complex mix of gases ideally suited to supporting the creatures living on or near the earth’s surface. Among wonders of the atmosphere is the water cycle. Every year the sun lifts up by evaporation over 100,000 cubic miles [400,000 cu km] of water from the earth’s oceans and seas. The water forms clouds, which are circulated far and wide by atmospheric winds. This water, now filtered and purified, falls as rain, snow, and ice, replenishing water supplies.


....yeah, Brow, we are just bombarded by "ungoverned" systems!!!

 

[One Brow]

...oh, I believe "mutations" happen and some aspects of the animal kingdom do survive better than others when presented with various environments. However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

the vast majority of mutations are neutral, some are harmful, and a few are beneficial. I agree mutations do not produce new kinds of things; as I have mentioned, evolutionary theory does not teach that populations from one kind of thing change into a different kind of thing.

And decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power. In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H.*Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.

In the decades since, we've seen some of the power natural selection has, and I have said many times evolutionary theory does not teach that populations give rise to something completely new.

 

[One Brow]

Hey guys, a complex whole is complex!

Degrees of complexity can vary. Ungoverned systems become more complex.

Patterns don't need to be repetitive. for example, the water cycle is a pattern.

The water cycle is repetitive, hence the term "cycle".

Oceans don't need to be salty. for example, the Pacific is an ocean.

They are salty because land waters drain salt into them, not because they are oceans.

American Presidents don't need to live in the white house. for example, Obama is the president.

We have had Presidents who did not live in the White House.

 

[One Brow]

But the limits which living things face relate to some other mathematical "theory" determined by limits of physical resources and the requirements of life for organization, function, and propagation. A living thing needs energy supply in food resources or sunlight and say carbon dioxide. It needs to in some compact way form a structure that can function somehow in addressing life needs, and within a fiinite time, to reproduce itself.

I agree that life can never have the sort of random complexity that a fully ungoverned system would have, because selection does limit the possibilities.

However, the point I was arguing against is that life is too complex to be ungoverned.

Observational data I'm sure would sustain the point that most organisms are simpler in nature rather than infinitely complex.

So, you're saying life is so simple it must be designed. That is the opposite of carolinajazz's view.

I would disagree, because living things show too many signs of jury-rigging, kludges, and other pointless complexities to be designed. However, you can certainly choose to believe in a designer who likes jury-rigging, etc., and there will be nothing I can do to disprove it.

 

[One Brow]

Yet, the earth orbits that awesome thermonuclear furnace at just the right distance.

The puddle marvels that the pot-hole it is in is so perfectly shaped as to fit the puddle, and concludes the pot-hole is designed.

 

[MVP]

However, 99% of mutations are harmful to the organism AND mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals!

Alone maybe not but in combination with environmental changes they do. London underground mosquito says hello again. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[MVP]

There is a “fire” that warms our skin by day. That “fire” is burning some 93*million miles [150*million km] away! What power the sun must have for you to be able to feel its heat from such a distance! Yet, the earth orbits that awesome thermonuclear furnace at just the right distance. Too close, and earth’s water would vaporize; too far, and it would all freeze. Either extreme would render our planet lifeless. Essential to life on earth, sunlight is also clean and efficient, not to mention delightful.

Creative power is evident in every facet of the earth’s design. Consider the atmosphere, which serves as a protective shield. The sun emits healthful rays and deadly ones. When the lethal rays strike the earth’s upper atmosphere, they cause ordinary oxygen to turn into ozone. The resulting ozone layer, in turn, absorbs most of those rays. In effect, our planet is designed with its own protective umbrella!

That is just one aspect of our atmosphere, a complex mix of gases ideally suited to supporting the creatures living on or near the earth’s surface. Among wonders of the atmosphere is the water cycle. Every year the sun lifts up by evaporation over 100,000 cubic miles [400,000 cu km] of water from the earth’s oceans and seas. The water forms clouds, which are circulated far and wide by atmospheric winds. This water, now filtered and purified, falls as rain, snow, and ice, replenishing water supplies.

Knowing how stars behave we know for sure that that perfect/safe distance will fry us in few billions of years and those conditions necessary for life may happen at more distant planets like Mars or moons of Jupiter.
Nothing proves creation or design there, there are billions of planets in universe which are in that Goldilocks zone.

"On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy alone!!!"

 

[carolinajazz]

.....as I have mentioned, evolutionary theory does not teach that populations from one kind of thing change into a different kind of thing.....and I have said many times evolutionary theory does not teach that populations give rise to something completely new.

....so what business do you have believing the hogwash, then?

 

[carolinajazz]

Alone maybe not but in combination with environmental changes they do. London underground mosquito says hello again. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

....you keeping bringing up that "London underground" mosquito too often.....and it's going to bite you and give you malaria!

 

[MVP]

....you keeping bringing up that "London underground" mosquito too often.....and it's going to bite you and give you malaria!

Because it destroys myths of creation. What is pregnancy of DONKEY again?

 

[One Brow]

....so what business do you have believing the hogwash, then?

What hogwash is that?

 

[babe]

What hogwash is that?

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

 

[Tarkanian]

PearlWatson on a lecture-spree!
Well done!

 

[One Brow]

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

I don't think that is what carolinajazz meant by "hogwash".

Life has passed down to us through a process that is brutish, unforgiving, and willing to engage in wholesale slaughter. I don't look to the process of evolution as a guide to proper morality, and the few people who seem to do that are hideous people. Going all the way back to Darwin himself, most biologists wants humans to do better than evolution in the treatment of individuals.

I don't believe in evolution any more than I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I accept tomorrows sunrise as the inevitable result of the facts regarding the earths rotation, and evolution as the inevitable result of the facts of biology.

As for whether the knowledge of past eras was superior morally, it's just as wrong to say they had better morality as to say they had worse morality.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

 

[MVP]

From late in the nineteenth century until now, the idea that all life has come from a kind of resurrected "spontaneous generation" theory much like the one some contemplated in the medieval era, without purpose, without meaning, without morals, and most importantly without "accountability" for our own actions. . . . otherwise generally referenced with the pseudo-scientific claims of "evolution".

People talk about "believing in evolution" the same way they think others "believe in religion". As a generality, it is a concise template for washing hogs of a whole lot of "accountability". Whoopeeeee!!!!!!!!! Our parents know nothing, and the people in past eras were all ignoramuses lost in obsolete mythologies. The "church lady" is a frumious old bandersnatch and we(generally speaking, at the threshold of teenage knowitallness) can laugh at the fuddy duddy old folks who think there's a right way in life which we just don't want.

A few folks are capable of more complex systems of thought, and will make some allowance as that there are still better ways than others, but most of those are just fools for statism, perhaps entrhralled with the idea that they are important cogs in the state machinery somehow. . . . . .

 

[babe]

Yay, another post by babe neither about science nor creationism.

Trolling is so fun for you.

hogwash.

you simply don't care to admit "why" "evolution" has been raised up out of the primordial muck to take down religion.

I am explaining why this is a vital question of our day, as it represents a crossroads for human civilization. The reason why some "religious" people don't want to accept the science as it is popularly promulgated. . . . and cling to the old biblical story of the creation. . . . is because they want to affirm some of their personal values. The reason "why" some "progressive", or otherwise unhinged folks want to claim the science and misconstrue it to their purposes, is because they don't want to credit the value or truth of a mass of personal values ordinarily taught generally by religions of every kind.

Of course "Science" is not about validating or discrediting personal values or particular moral beliefs. A lot of "evolutionists" want to use it for that purpose, though, and want to drum religious beliefs out of the public discourse. . . . relegating those people's views in regard to morals to the closet, so to speak, and trying to shout these people out of their rights of free speech.

I generally accept the relationships which have been found between various species, and believe that changes do occur. . . . even on the level of bringing forth new species. I don't think this necessarily requires a purposed hand, either, to make it happen. I do think a lot of researchers have a bias in their interpretations, perhaps. . . .either one way or the other.

In my view, there has been a concerted campaign against our traditional values by folks who wish, for whatever purpose, to put their own values forward. Some of it has been in the "Marxist" or "Progressive" line of "change", with a stated intent to destroy religion in society. These folks are open in their eagerness to press every "fact of science" to their service, for the purpose of putting religion out of our society.

OB is interesting to me because, while I do think he is thoroughly committed to a progressive agenda, he is at least willing to "walk the line" as to what is or is not "science". Perhaps some others don't want to give him that credit, but I look for it, and am willing to credit him to that extent.

Pearl, to her credit, is getting more educated about the science and has been able to raise some valid points in the discussion, as well.

For me, personally, the value of religion is not in its interpretations of science or human history so much as in its teachings about how we ought to conduct our personal lives. Some values have stood the test of time and produced some good results on the personal level.

Of course OB's point about the abuse of "religion" by power-craving or other-hating folks are not exemplary nor relevant to the teachings of Jesus about returning good for evil, or about accountability for personal conduct to a righteous Judge at the end of our earthly day. I consider them more to the point of examples of what religions do not teach, but what ignorant and willful people will do when they actually have no true religion or personal values.

The attempt of some statists, such as Lenin or Stalin or Mao, for example, to cleanse the earth of religious beliefs through wholesale slaughter of suspected believers is just as atrocious as anything tyrants have done in the name of religion.