| padib said: The final question to answer this is, whetever you claim to be outside our universe, and obeying different laws |
I don't claim anything to be outside our universe.
Some theories of the big bang include time being created then as well as matter, which makes the question "what was before the big bang" meaningless.
Other theories say that there might have been a universe that contracted into a big crunch until it reexpanded into the big bang, which might be true but would only push back the question to what created that universe in a similar way that positing a god only implies the question of its origin.
Note that I would not claim that that later theory is not true just because it pushes the question back; whether that theory gets accepted as the leading theory or not should be on the basis of whether the evidences experiments give us support it or disprove it.
| padib said: is it self-sufficient? Does it answer the eternal question, what/who caused it to be? |
That is a religious question, not a scientific one. The scientific question would be, given the evidence we have, what is the most likely explanation. If it turns out that evidence points out to time originating during the big bang then it would be self-sufficient. If it turns out that the evidence points out to a former universe then it would not be self-sufficient as that former universe would need explaining as to its origin too but doing so would likely be impossible as we cannot study it.
The question is not "is it self-sufficient" but "is it what the evidence we have point to".
A police detective who built his case on its internal consistency regardless of evidence would be a poor policeman; a scientist doing the same would be a poor scientist too.
| padib said: If not, then my position in the world God lives in gives me better grounds, as the question does not apply to that realm. Is it the same for you, or will you voyage a never-ending puzzle? |
First, the question of what caused it to be would also apply to the spiritual realm so your position would give you better grounds.
Second, if the leading theory at a given point is not self-sufficient then that would be because the evidence point that way. What objective evidence points toward a spiritual realm?
Simply claiming that the puzzle doesn't apply to your god of choice does not mean he escapes it, it just means you are copping out.
| padib said: And then that's only the begining. If that's resolved, then the question comes "how do you get matter from energy"? Your answer is the Big Bang. |
Actually it is not for the big bang claims no such thing. Einstein, in his famous equation E=mc2 does. And we routinely do the opposite, get energy from matter, in nuclear reactors.
| padib said: It can be somewhat observed, but how is it scientific to assume it as fact in any way? Were you there to observe it? You can use forensic science, but it remains forensic. On that grounds ID stands the same. |
Again, you show that you do not understand what scientific theories are. That galaxies are moving away from each others is a fact (observed by Hubble). The big bang is a theory that explain that fact (amongst others) but is not a fact in itself. Scientific theories are not facts, they use facts as a basis for their explanations but they are not facts themselves.
As for observing it, did you know that the speed of light in a vacuum is finite? This means that the light emitted by the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach Earth (due to the speed of light and the distance between the Sun and Earth). Which means that if you look at the Sun you are looking at 8 minutes into the past. Same thing with stars. You are looking at stars the way they looked like hundreds or thousand or more years ago. Look far enough and you will see what the universe looked like in its infancy.
We can't look at the big bang itself, but we can look back in time far enough to have evidence that supports (and was predicted by) the big bang theory.
The big bang theory predicted the cosmic background radiation and its discovery was in large part why it is so accepted today. If it had been found out that there was no cosmic background radiation then we would have a different theory, maybe we still would have a steady state theory.
ID does not stand the same because it does not predict anything not known at the time of prediction that was later found out to be true.
| padib said: Then, lastly, from matter, how do you get living cells and micro-organisms? Your answer is Evolution. |
Read my earlier posts again and you will see that the partial answer is abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution concerns what happened after life appeared, abiogenesis concerns how life appeared.
We do not have a very good understanding of it yet so feel free to claim it could only have happened by an intelligent entity so you can believe in your god of the gaps (but it still would only be a belief, not a scientific theory).
| padib said: But it's been proven that it's mathematically impossible. I'm going to send you a link. I haven't read IT, but I've read this tons of times and seen presentations on it. If you have counter-args, we'll go from there. http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/ |
From that article:
"nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them"
Wrong. More than 98% of DNA in humans is non-coding DNA. It means that changes in that portion does not change genes themselves so that nearly all mutations are neutral to the organisms which experience them.
"No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial"
We can see ways that beneficial mutation can easily occur using observed mechanisms but AFAIK we have not observed beneficial mutations directly (but detrimental ones frequently). However, the biggest reason is because to do so you need a before and after picture of the genome. Genome mapping is still in its infancy and not nearly fast or cost effective enough to allow us to routinely map the genome of test animals.
However, not only does the lack of direct observation (at least to my knowledge) not disprove evolution any more than the lack of direct observation of Neptune (whose existence was predicted by Newtonian mechanics) between when it was predicted to exist and when it was first observed (others had seen it but mistook it for a star) mean that Neptune did not exist.
Incidentally, Lake Victoria's Cichlids might well provide such direct observation in the next decades or hundred years (too late for us if the latter is the case) as after having their diversity and numbers drasitcally reduced they are starting to adapt to their new environment (note that a free registration is required to read this article).
"A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system."
Nowhere does evolution state that all components must be functioning at the same time. Like with non-coding DNA you can have DNA components that are present and not functioning (as they are not expressed) but aren't detrimental. Even today we have human with genetic defects (like sickle cell anaemia) that can live and reproduce so the assumption that all components must be working perfectly (and the unspoken assumption that there can be no component with no function) is faulty.
"Therefore, the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires,at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely."
No, a 200 functional components organism (that might have some more components that do not add it ist function but do not impede it either) needs 200 positive mutations and can have an arbitrary number of neutral mutations (and as shown earlier, neutral mutations are more likely). The neutral mutations can themselves be steps in a beneficial series of mutations.
A negative mutation can also be a step in a beneficial series of mutations if it is not negative enough to cause it to be bred out and is followed at some point later in time by another mutation, the combination of which is positive. For example if there was to be a mutation of the gene causing sicke cell anaemia in humans which caused it to create an improved haemoglobin, the original mutation from normal haemoglobin to sickle cell would be negative but the combination of both mutations would be positive.
So their statistical analysis is based on the belief that evolution being right is the equivalent of calling heads or tails 200 times in a row (in their example). Evolution says no such things as not only is it more like rolling a d3000000000 (a 3 billion sided dice, the size of the human genome), most of which do nothing immediately and even when they are negative they are not necessarily lethal.
It might be higly improbable to call heads 200 times in a row (especially when getting tails results in death) but calling heads 200 times is not that hard when it is not in a row.
Understand that I am not disputing their math, I am disputing the claim that their math are even a remote mathematical representation of the claims of evolution. They are not, so their whole reasoning is a straw man and no more valid than if I said christianity is bunk because you cannot transform orange juice into wine; the bible doesn't claim that so by saying it I would not be refuting anything that the bible claim.
| padib said:
This movie is also very good: http://creationwiki.org/Chemicals_to_Living_Cell:_Fantasy_or_Science. Get a copy. |
From your link: "“Goo-to-you”evolution is impossible and this lecture shows why. The laws of real chemistry prevent non-living chemicals from arranging themselves into living cells."
They don't even know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis so I seriously doubt that it is very good scientifically speaking. I bet is is very good religious propaganda though.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
