Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is Creation Science or "Biblical Creation"? Simple words, but how to flesh out?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Yes, post #123. The one with his "scientific hypothesis" that was loaded with undefined terms and dealing with a subject about which there is abundant ongoing research (abiogenesis, I presume is what he was getting at.)

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      As I said, you are truly ignorant of these matters and, worse yet, you appear to be oblivious of that fact! Sure, here's one that I've used in several of my own writings and in my academic work as well:

      Raw mass-energy will never self-organize into a complex, functional system unless there is a preexisting set of instructions or a guiding intelligence independent of that mass-energy.

      To falsify simply do this: show some raw mass-energy self-organizing into a complex, functional system without either a preexisting set of instructions or an external guiding intelligence.

      Don't try too hard because, (1) you'll pop a vein and, (2) you will never succeed.

      Jorge
      Hmmm .... this is a post with 'content'? Well lets see. You called Klaus ignorant (which I've yet to see him do to you - in fact he continues to be fairly cordial to you despite of numerous attempts on your part at insulting him in one way or another so Klaus clearly wins in the 'fruit of the Spirit' category).

      We have an assertion: Raw mass-energy will never self-organize into a complex, functional system.

      And some qualifications: without a preexisting set of instructions or an external guiding intelligence


      To falsify - show a counter example. Simple. Mars. Simple. The Sun. Simple The solar system.

      Oh, those don't meet your definition of 'complex functional system'? Well what, pray tell IS your definition then? Have you supplied it? Can it be used to differentiate between what you will reject and what you will accept?


      So where is the content Jorge? An undefined vague assertion?. At least supply some definitions of your terms.

      Oh, and you follow it up with two other somewhat derogatory comments. Not unexpected.

      Your content score here is pretty low Jorge. Is that really the best you can do?

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jorge
        It can only obey the LAWS that govern raw mass-energy.
        So if it's not those laws you are talking about, then just what instructions are you referring to?????

        And if it's only the macro you are referring to, then why not the micro? Your hypothesis does not sound metaphisically neutral to me, because you seem to be saying that if it is big and complex, then the ID does it, but if it is small and simple then the ID does not do it.

        That is not metaphysically neutral. It's riddled with non-neutral metaphysics.

        Originally posted by Jorge View Post
        Think you can get a PC to self-organize beginning with raw mass-energy and no guidance or instructions?
        A lump of plastic, glass, or steel does not have the same kind of attributes as a molecule or an atom. These are very much inert lumps of matter.


        Originally posted by Jorge
        How about the 'simplest' living system that exists - think it can self-organize out of raw mass-energy with no guidance or instructions?
        Yes, because matter at its elemental level is not inert.

        Originally posted by Jorge
        Go ahead ... show me ... I triple dare you.

        Jorge
        Well we do have some experiments that get part of the way there to showing how matter at its most elemental level can begin to self organise into some of the important molecules of life.

        We do have something.

        Do you have anything at all to show me how an invisible deity, by speaking, makes a pile of dirt pop into a man? Do you know of any creationists who are attempting this experiment, even in part?
        Last edited by rwatts; 04-23-2014, 09:34 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Your "hypothesis" has undefined terms like "raw", "external intelligence", "independent of mass-energy". Clarify what you mean by "intelligence" and by what process this intelligence works.

          Without such, your "hypothesis" is no different logically than "show that a miracle can't occur". You DO believe in miracles, don't you?

          And how the heck is one supposed to demonstrate the existence of an "external (to what?) intelligence independent of mass-energy" when you can't DEFINE those concepts?

          What you've posited is a extreme example of petito principe. You assume these undefined concepts exist and challenge me to disprove your proposition.

          Try again, and do better this time.

          K54

          P.S. If you want a falsifiable theory, biological evolution is exceedingly falsifiable. So is Deep Time. Really.

          P.P.S. There is robust research being carried out on chemical evolution (separate from biological evolution, but I'm sure you're aware of that.
          Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

          The word evasion - more specifically, Clinton-like evasion - came immediately to my mind as I read the above gibberish.

          Stop trying to muddy the waters of something that is as clear as clear can be. Take raw mass-energy (e.g., a "chunk of inert mass" such as 1 gram of the element iron (Fe) with other "chunks of inert mass-energy") provide no direction or instructions (i.e., no intelligent guidance of any kind) and let's see those 'raw' components produce a complex, functional system such as a bicycle or a computer.

          I will personally hand you my net worth if you do that - all you would have to do is share 50-50 the monetary proceeds of the Nobel Prize that you are certain to receive should you demonstrate what I'm asking for.

          BTW, it's petitio principii. Also, among the most asinine stuff that I've read in a long while was this little gem of yours : "And how the heck is one supposed to demonstrate the existence of an "external (to what?) intelligence independent of mass-energy" when you can't DEFINE those concepts?" I wasn't trying to DEFINE the concepts as I am not playing Clinton-like semantic tricks here. And what I meant by "external" was obvious from the context.


          You truly are clueless about all this stuff, aren't you.

          Kindly stop wasting my time - I am a few days away from departing on my lengthy trip. I am responding to you out of courtesy but soon that too shall end.


          Jorge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rwatts View Post
            So if it's not those laws you are talking about, then just what instructions are you referring to?????

            And if it's only the macro you are referring to, then why not the micro? Your hypothesis does not sound metaphisically neutral to me, because you seem to be saying that if it is big and complex, then the ID does it, but if it is small and simple then the ID does not do it.

            That is not metaphysically neutral. It's riddled with non-neutral metaphysics.

            A lump of plastic, glass, or steel does not have the same kind of attributes as a molecule or an atom. These are very much inert lumps of matter.


            Yes, because matter at its elemental level is not inert.



            Well we do have some experiments that get part of the way there to showing how matter at its most elemental level can begin to self organise into some of the important molecules of life.

            We do have something.

            Do you have anything at all to show me how an invisible deity, by speaking, makes a pile of dirt pop into a man? Do you know of any creationists who are attempting this experiment, even in part?
            Regarding the highlighted part above - which is all that I'm responding to - if you truly, genuinely believe that then all I can say is that you are : (1) wholly ignorant of reality, (2) delusional, or (3) not being honest with yourself and/or with others.

            "We do have something". No, No, NO!!! Not even close ... I mean, you are about 3 million parsecs away from having "something". I haven't the time to educate you on this, Roland. I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth in these matters, that you study well beyond what you have.

            Jorge

            Comment


            • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
              Hmmm .... this is a post with 'content'?...Is that really the best you can do?
              Jim, Jim, Jim... you've missed the most salient point of the post. Jorge referred to his "academic work"!

              Roy
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                Okay, I'll concede your admission, highlighted above. Your recollection is indeed faulty in more than one way - it is incomplete, inaccurate and a caricature of reality. At least you were honest enough to admit the possibility -- you're moving in the right direction for a change. Keep it up!
                Perhaps one day Jorge will realise that merely claiming some-one is wrong isn't enough. But i doubt it.

                Roy
                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

                  The word evasion - more specifically, Clinton-like evasion - came immediately to my mind as I read the above gibberish.

                  Stop trying to muddy the waters of something that is as clear as clear can be. Take raw mass-energy (e.g., a "chunk of inert mass" such as 1 gram of the element iron (Fe) with other "chunks of inert mass-energy") provide no direction or instructions (i.e., no intelligent guidance of any kind) and let's see those 'raw' components produce a complex, functional system such as a bicycle or a computer.

                  I will personally hand you my net worth if you do that - all you would have to do is share 50-50 the monetary proceeds of the Nobel Prize that you are certain to receive should you demonstrate what I'm asking for.

                  BTW, it's petitio principii. Also, among the most asinine stuff that I've read in a long while was this little gem of yours : "And how the heck is one supposed to demonstrate the existence of an "external (to what?) intelligence independent of mass-energy" when you can't DEFINE those concepts?" I wasn't trying to DEFINE the concepts as I am not playing Clinton-like semantic tricks here. And what I meant by "external" was obvious from the context.


                  You truly are clueless about all this stuff, aren't you.

                  Kindly stop wasting my time - I am a few days away from departing on my lengthy trip. I am responding to you out of courtesy but soon that too shall end.


                  Jorge
                  Ah - so you want to specify that a complex-functional system is a man-made object. Which is a bit silly, because there is no theory that supposes man-made objects will arise spontaneously from some random mix of elements in anything less than a few billion years of time. (first life has to form, then it has to evolve and happen to hit on a direction that can produce a sentient, tool building creature like ourselves).

                  What you are looking for is a definition that will somehow preclude the formation of self-replicating chemicals. Once we get there, we pretty much known how the rest will fall out as a result of natural processes acting over time given the right environment. As Roland pointed out, current research is making progress on this issue. But there are a large number of potential environments which must be investigated. Finding the right one is not trivial. But we can use our growing knowledge of the early solar system and Earth to help us narrow the choices (though it is possible some components of life must form in space and then be delivered to the Earth via meteor/asteroid impact.

                  I am fairly certain Jorge that you will in the not too distant future have to eat your words on this, much like you had to over the issue of planets and an image of a planet and the fact there are 1000's of planets now known to exist. (at one point on the old TWEB, Jorge used to pretend there was some realistic possibility these sub-stellar mass objects we were finding orbiting stars might not be planets after all, and that he would need an image of one to admit they were planets. He was wrong, and we have images of these objects, and in some cases have even been able to determine atmospheric content.).

                  Poor Jorge. You are under the delusion that you can without study just pick up the Bible and understand all you need to know about not only its theology but science itself. And if you perceive the scriptures mentioning something about the natural world you think you have 'special' knowledge of the natural world that you can use to 'divine' the truth about creation and ignore the facts before you. (e.g. "God created the stars" and "God has rested from creation" therefore they don't form naturally). And that is just wrong Jorge. Provably wrong. And in many ways not too far from Gnosticism. Yet you continue on and on making a mockery of faith in the process.

                  Jim
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • And there's Earth-sized exoplanet spotted in star’s habitable zone. Jorge's gaps are shrinking fast...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Wow ... I mean, WOW !!!

                      The word evasion - more specifically, Clinton-like evasion - came immediately to my mind as I read the above gibberish.

                      Stop trying to muddy the waters of something that is as clear as clear can be. Take raw mass-energy (e.g., a "chunk of inert mass" such as 1 gram of the element iron (Fe) with other "chunks of inert mass-energy") provide no direction or instructions (i.e., no intelligent guidance of any kind) and let's see those 'raw' components produce a complex, functional system such as a bicycle or a computer.

                      I will personally hand you my net worth if you do that - all you would have to do is share 50-50 the monetary proceeds of the Nobel Prize that you are certain to receive should you demonstrate what I'm asking for.

                      BTW, it's petitio principii. Also, among the most asinine stuff that I've read in a long while was this little gem of yours : "And how the heck is one supposed to demonstrate the existence of an "external (to what?) intelligence independent of mass-energy" when you can't DEFINE those concepts?" I wasn't trying to DEFINE the concepts as I am not playing Clinton-like semantic tricks here. And what I meant by "external" was obvious from the context.


                      You truly are clueless about all this stuff, aren't you.

                      Kindly stop wasting my time - I am a few days away from departing on my lengthy trip. I am responding to you out of courtesy but soon that too shall end.


                      Jorge
                      You've "defined" terms such that you make your hypothesis impossible to test.

                      Jim gave a good example with star formation. The only "information" is gravity plus strong force.

                      What kind of thing would propose to be formed in the manner you define? A Boeing 787? A neuron? Give me an example, please. Oh, and try REALLY hard this time.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Hmmm .... this is a post with 'content'? Well lets see. You called Klaus ignorant (which I've yet to see him do to you - in fact he continues to be fairly cordial to you despite of numerous attempts on your part at insulting him in one way or another so Klaus clearly wins in the 'fruit of the Spirit' category).

                        We have an assertion: Raw mass-energy will never self-organize into a complex, functional system.

                        And some qualifications: without a preexisting set of instructions or an external guiding intelligence


                        To falsify - show a counter example. Simple. Mars. Simple. The Sun. Simple The solar system.

                        Oh, those don't meet your definition of 'complex functional system'? Well what, pray tell IS your definition then? Have you supplied it? Can it be used to differentiate between what you will reject and what you will accept?


                        So where is the content Jorge? An undefined vague assertion?. At least supply some definitions of your terms.

                        Oh, and you follow it up with two other somewhat derogatory comments. Not unexpected.

                        Your content score here is pretty low Jorge. Is that really the best you can do?

                        Jim
                        What you call "derogatory comments" is nothing more than me calling a spade, a spade. I'm sorry that the you find the truth "derogatory", Jim.

                        The three "simple" counter-examples that you provide are embarrassing, to say the least. Don't you realize that you are invoking something that you need to first demonstrate? No, of course you don't.

                        You are assuming that Mars, the Sun and the Solar System self-organized ... that is PRECISELY what hard-core Materialists assume. How many times over the years have I pointed out the extremely high level of solidarity that you have with Materialists? You see, for me self-organization was NOT how Mars, the Sun and the solar system came about. You may believe what you will, but don't be telling the world that you believe in one thing when you preach another.

                        A mini-digression: Why don't you just come out, Jim? ... you know, just as Sylas did. I remember exchanging posts with Sylas when he was in your camp and I 'predicted' that he was on the path towards abandoning God altogether. When he finally made his announcement, I for one was not the least bit surprised. End of mini-digression.

                        Without your assumption, you have nothing - absolutely nada! Hey, let me prove that unicorns exist, okay? Watch: "My back yard was grazed upon and I have no cows. Therefore, it was a unicorn. QED." That is about what you did except that your adherence to an ideology blinds you to that fact.

                        Get a clue, O-Mudd. If you listen to me, you will.

                        Jorge
                        Last edited by Jorge; 04-24-2014, 01:50 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          You've "defined" terms such that you make your hypothesis impossible to test.

                          Jim gave a good example with star formation. The only "information" is gravity plus strong force.

                          What kind of thing would propose to be formed in the manner you define? A Boeing 787? A neuron? Give me an example, please. Oh, and try REALLY hard this time.

                          K54
                          You guys are a total waste of time.
                          Read my last post (to O-Mudd) and try not to choke on it.

                          Jorge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            You guys are a total waste of time.
                            Read my last post (to O-Mudd) and try not to choke on it.

                            Jorge
                            Give us a testable hypothesis -- a specific hypothesis -- and we won't have to waste your time.

                            K54

                            P.S. The star formation example Jim gave is testable and is in fact supported since we can DIRECTLY observe star systems at various stages of formation. We see planetary nebulae, a system in the t-Tauri stage, exoplanets, etc. It's like an alien space mission landing on Earth and trying to figure out H. sapiens lifecycle but having only three days to do so. They would observe women becoming pregnant, babies being born, toddlers, children, adolescents, young adults, adults in the reproductive stage, adults past the reproductive stage, very worn-out adults, and finally people dying. The only point where this analogy fails is that the aliens would have no way of measuring the time it takes. Astronomers have that luxury due to vast distances and the finite speed of light in vacuo.

                            Oh, just a tangential note in passing -- if you think light has changed speed or radioactive decay rates have change, then Google "Supernova 1987a". But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
                            Last edited by klaus54; 04-24-2014, 03:18 PM. Reason: additions

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              What you call "derogatory comments" is nothing more than me calling a spade, a spade. I'm sorry that the you find the truth "derogatory", Jim.
                              ...
                              Jorge
                              Using your logic regarding "calling a spade a spade", we should be lambasting you with pejoratives like stink on a rotting carcass.

                              BTW, that would be tit-for-tat, which would not be nice.

                              K54

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                Regarding the highlighted part above - which is all that I'm responding to - if you truly, genuinely believe that then all I can say is that you are : (1) wholly ignorant of reality, (2) delusional, or (3) not being honest with yourself and/or with others.

                                "We do have something". No, No, NO!!! Not even close ... I mean, you are about 3 million parsecs away from having "something". I haven't the time to educate you on this, Roland. I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth in these matters, that you study well beyond what you have.

                                Jorge

                                Hi Jorge,

                                I note you completely avoided my claim that your micro/macro distinction is utterly charged with non neutral metaphysics, even your micro claims are not metaphysically neutral. They are full of non neutral metaphysics.

                                Afraid to discuss it Jorge?


                                Originally posted by Jorge blind to a lot of what I posted
                                Well we do have some experiments that get part of the way there to showing how matter at its most elemental level can begin to self organise into some of the important molecules of life.

                                We do have something.


                                Do you have anything at all to show me how an invisible deity, by speaking, makes a pile of dirt pop into a man? Do you know of any creationists who are attempting this experiment, even in part?
                                Originally posted by Jorge in response to the bit he could see, supersized
                                Regarding the highlighted part above - which is all that I'm responding to - if you truly, genuinely believe that then all I can say is that you are : (1) wholly ignorant of reality, (2) delusional, or (3) not being honest with yourself and/or with others.

                                "We do have something". No, No, NO!!! Not even close ... I mean, you are about 3 million parsecs away from having "something". I haven't the time to educate you on this, Roland. I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth in these matters, that you study well beyond what you have.

                                Jorge
                                I only wrote that we do have something. I made no claim that we were nearly there. Here are two examples of the kind of thing we do have:-

                                http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/ja0706955

                                http://phys.org/news/2012-10-rna-rib...5dResearchers/


                                There is a lot of this kind of stuff in the research literature.


But Jorge, what you did not want to see was this question:-

                                Originally posted by Roland, a question Jorge does not want to answer
                                Do you have anything at all to show me how an invisible deity, by speaking, makes a pile of dirt pop into a man? Do you know of any creationists who are attempting this experiment, even in part?
                                Be honest Jorge. You simply ran off when you saw that one. Care to address it now, or do you remain running?


                                Originally posted by Jorge, because he really has no argument to make
                                I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth ...
                                Oh, I'd be rich if I were given 5 cents for every time a creationist wrote this as opposed to addressing the points of an argument. I've had it put to me two or three times this week by creationists, devoid of anything to say. Jorge? I can just as easily write to you "I can only suggest that if you genuinely seek the truth ..."
                                Last edited by rwatts; 04-24-2014, 05:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X