Christian dun believe in Darwin's
-
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap -- a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind -- "specified complexity" -- is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally. -
"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism -- it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally.
Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover -- their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.
In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)
Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion -- that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.
Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.
Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort. -
aiyah...all these most prob is what the church used to try to affect people's thinking that Darwin's theory is false etc...the churchs' propanganda...etc..
but my bottomline is still on my previous post.....be a discerning christian and think for yourself....whether you believe God or not, I dun think God will be angry with you...as an intelligible (maybe wrong thinking sometimes) may be better than a blind and hollow follower.
-
Oh..yah, i am neither pro or anti...
-
doneOriginally posted by plo30360:Are you done cutting and pasting?
"Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort." -
Originally posted by crazy monkey:cannot lah post this in EH wait got ppl kpkb
-
While, I don't support creationism of fundamentalists, I don't support Darwin's theory either.
done
"Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort."
[Edited]
If you want to see counter-arguements for those that you have posted, EH is a better place. -
Originally posted by plo30360:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
While, I don't support creationism of fundamentalists, I don't support Darwin's theory either.
And there are a couple of things that your cut-and-paste arguments did not cover; lets begin with the Law of Biogenesis:[b]life only comes from life
Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects.
[/b]
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. -
Please read my above post
-
aiyoh..u one shot paste so many things, nobody will read one leh...too troublesome to read...
-
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.Originally posted by plo30360:Please read my above post
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials. -
This by the way still does not answer my question. And anyway these compounds are life in nature.Therefore where does this life originate from?
nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
This argument basically talks about open-ordered systems. But eventually all systems(including open-ordered ones) will attempt to reach stable state and therefore still does not answer my question.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials. -
Originally posted by plo30360:
go ask John Rennie he's the expert
This argument basically talks about open-ordered systems. [b]But eventually all systems(including open-ordered ones) will attempt to reach stable state and therefore still does not answer my question.[/b] -
Aiyo, I don't see the point of debating about this in Chit Chat, go to EH if you are interested in serious answers. This thread, confirm people will come in and say all unrelated things.So once again, for those who are interested go to EH.Originally posted by crazy monkey:go ask John Rennie he's the expert -
go EH ppl say non christian come and make troubleOriginally posted by plo30360:Aiyo, I don't see the point of debating about this in Chit Chat, go to EH if you are interested in serious answers. This thread, confirm people will come in and say all unrelated things.So once again, for those who are interested go to EH. -
But then christians there say you people trying to stir up unrest leh. Chit chat cannot. EH cannot also. Go where....Originally posted by crazy monkey:go EH ppl say non christian come and make trouble
where
where -
tats why post in CCOriginally posted by The return:But then christians there say you people trying to stir up unrest leh. Cannot also. Go where....
where
where -
But when you post in C C, people say you also try to stir up unrest leh.Originally posted by crazy monkey:tats why post in CC
Where
where
where
where
........................................(hit rock bottom)....................................................... -
things are less complicated....god creates life...nothing complicated to argue about....the original reliegions are similar in this thought of the one true godOriginally posted by Icemoon:do they have a strong opinion on their version of creationism? I don't see them speak out boldly and confidently like the christian creationists. -
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'Originally posted by nightzip:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The return:
But have you tried digging further? Even going to the extent to other countries to dig for truth? Be careful. When you meet God one day, that is too late.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yah, i think God would be proud of you that you have an independent mind and one which is able to discern and decide.
I think God wont like those blind chrisitian follows who just blinding believe him and worship him etc, but not knowing the true meaning of life etc...
I think he would have preferred a more intelligent, albeit maybe sometimes think wrong person, than one blind religious follower. The previous you can forgive as he does not mean it even if he disbelieve, but once he sees God, he will believe. But the latter, is just like an empty shell that is hollow and more than a heretic or mock.
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "
(Luke 16:27-31)
Study the conversation between the rich man and Abraham and see what you can gather. If needed, read Luke 16:19-31 for overview. -
y not
-
if God creates life, why did he make life so complicated? as in we need such complex systems in our body to maintain our lives. why isn't it just a simple body and a soul for us to live?Originally posted by Rockhound:things are less complicated....god creates life...nothing complicated to argue about....the original reliegions are similar in this thought of the one true god
did God complies to some law of nature(as in we need oxygen, food, nutrients to live and grow) that's beyond his power to overturn or did he create all these laws?
examples of miracles and God talking and giving instructions to humans are frequent in the bible, but why are miracles or voices of God unheard of in this Era, where Christianity shd be more widespread than it used to be? -
got wat when ppl sick go to hospital his frens pray for them they recover then they call it a miracleOriginally posted by UandMe:if God creates life, why did he make life so complicated? as in we need such complex systems in our body to maintain our lives. why isn't it just a simple body and a soul for us to live?
did God complies to some law of nature(as in we need oxygen, food, nutrients to live and grow) that's beyond his power to overturn or did he create all these laws?
examples of miracles and God talking and giving instructions to humans are frequent in the bible, but why are miracles or voices of God unheard of in this Era, where Christianity shd be more widespread than it used to be? -
Darwin's theory had many problems. You mean you don't know?
Creationist had far worse problems.
Evolutionary biologists had to come out with new theories to cover up those gaps.
In fact creationist come out with laughable ridiculous theories to cover far worse gaping holes tat can't even make themselves publish in scientific papers. In fact they don't even seems to have any solid evidences on their side. U either believe in creationist, evolution or your own theories. Which side u take ?It doesn't.
It does contradicts the bible in the sense tat in the bible men was made to be the form they r from dust while evolution claims tat men r really evolved from apes. In fact in the bible men were made in 1 day and in evolution it is a gradual process tat took millions of years. Strangely as well men know how to garden and rear animals within a single generation when it is shown to take many generations before men accomplish tis.Aiyo, I don't see the point of debating about this in Chit Chat, go to EH if you are interested in serious answers. This thread, confirm people will come in and say all unrelated things.So once again, for those who are interested go to EH.
Yet in EH there will be people who want to stop any form of such discussion and keep telling people it is a christian forum and people have to follow christian rules -
got one person post a topic proving no such thing, in EH, go look...Originally posted by crazy monkey:evolution theory ?