Merged: Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

And that's from a real news source. not creation science nonsense.

you make me laugh.....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ht-in-the-act/

Quote:

evermind that E. coli can normally digest citrate in anaerobic conditions and that being able to digest citrate in aerobic conditions is a very common ability in many different bacterial species. Also nevermind that aerobic citrate metabolism has been reported in E. coli before so this wasn’t the first time it “evolved”. Ignore the fact that E. coli already has a suite of enzymes to metabolize citrate and all it’s missing is a way of getting citrate molecules across its cell membrane in the presence of oxygen. Mike Behe already pointed out all these things which show what a trivial bit of evolution this really is and how it falls well inside the ability of random mutation & natural selection that he describes in “The Edge of Evolution”.

The theory of evolution is being marketed like toothpaste. Now we have a new and improved product in that for the first time we really do have evidence of it. Like when Crest toothpaste gets a new formulation and is marketed as “new and improved”. We’re not supposed to think about how the old Crest that was being sold to us was really “old and inferior”.

Well folks, DO think about it. And do not “nevermind” how trivial the new evidence really is. This is a grand admission that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is 19th century junk science that was never supported by anything more than wishful thinking that science had provided an answer to one of nature’s deepest mysteries – the origin and diversification of life.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you make me laugh.....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ht-in-the-act/

Your links make me laugh. Is that the best you have?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

You are being extremely dishonest.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

if i am dishonest, you loose your time, posting at this topic, and answering me.....

http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_do...alk.Origins%29

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Your links make me laugh. Is that the best you have?

yes, what is the problem ?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you make me laugh.....

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intel...ht-in-the-act/

Here read the actual PNAS paper
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899

The strains of E Coli they used didn't have citrate metabolizing ability. The fact that other bacterial strains do is completely immaterial and an intentionally dishonest argument.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Wanna try linking to a serious website instead of this creationist nonsense?

you just show your bias. Whatever comes from the creationist side, you presuppose to be nonsense ?!!

[Lowpro]

I'll keep it simple; the cytoskeleton is not irreducibly complex when you study how it evolved. This is the flagellum argument all over again.

A more accomplished paper on ancestral proto-eukaryotes for those that read the previous article and wanted to know more.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_do...alk.Origins%29

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

if i am dishonest, you loose your time, posting at this topic, and answering me.....

http://creationwiki.org/Mutations_do...alk.Origins%29

You linked the same site that we just debunked again. That's dishonest. You're lying again and you're just flailing around being useless. Do you have any non-debunked evidence to present?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you just show your bias. Whatever comes from the creationist side, you presuppose to be nonsense ?!!

Have a bias towards reliable information is simply the prudent thing to do.
reputation is everything. We trust peer reviewed journals more then blog sites because they have been vetted.

After reading enough of the sites you posted from, I know that they are highly unlikely to have any rational argument founded upon evidence.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you just show your bias. Whatever comes from the creationist side, you presuppose to be nonsense ?!!

A super-being created the universe? And the only proof in an old story book called the bible? In the face of all the scientific evidence? Now that does make sense.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

wanna try again ??!!

No. <SNIP> , and I have better things to do.

Edited by Locknar:

Edited, breach of rule 0.

[Krikkiter]

... and in three, two, one...

Peer review is a conspiracy by scientists to make money...

[Giordano]

This thread has become the most impressive pile of empty theological and creationist arguments I've ever seen: sort of a "worse hits" album!

GIBHOR- you ask for just one peer-reviewed article- we give you dozens. You then dismiss them out of hand, make blank statements of denial, or link over and over again to discredited Creationist websites that lie, distort, or make stuff up. We explain why the Creationist quotes are wrong- you ignore our arguments and cite the same sites again.

I'm a biologist- you really have no idea just how far from reality your quotes and website "explanations" are! It's like someone telling me how "the theory of cars" must be wrong because it is impossible to fit 250 horses under the hood of an automobile. They totally misrepresent both prevailing theory and the known facts. Not just of evolution, but the facts about chemistry and physics, and the basics of biology. As I've told you before- I can find websites that explain the Earth is flat, that the moon was split into two as described in the Koran, and that there are aliens that kidnap people to probe their neither ends. Trust me: these latter websites are more fact-based than the Creationist ones you cite.

You tied yourself in knots trying to convince others that the existence of absolute morality was proof of God. You've made multiple statements that contradict one another. Now you are embarrassing yourself by parroting lies that slimy people with their own religious agenda and no knowledge of science have invented to fool you.

I suggest you read what people have provided to you here on this thread- you will learn a lot. And then, you may wish to reconsider who is your friend- those who have lied to you and exploited your faith, or those who want you to have the facts. No one here says you can't believe in God if you wish, but that doesn't mean you can ignore how the genetic code has increased in complexity, or how photosynthesis arose through evolution.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by Krikkiter

... and in three, two, one...

Peer review is a conspiracy by scientists to make money...

I sometimes wonder, as I review other people's manuscripts, why I'm not paid a penny for it. The tradition of reviewing manuscripts as an unpaid professional obligation is an interesting phenomenon.

[Giordano]

I've begun to think we should just take turns posting counter-links to real science to respond to GIBHOR's creationist links. Why bother discussing anything: GIBHOR's not spending the effort to think about what he posts, let alone read what everyone else is trying to tell him. He's just copying and pasting made up stuff, thinking it must be true because it is on a website. If GIBHOR thinks his viewpoint is worth so little effort, I can only agree with him.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Giordano

This thread has become the most impressive pile of empty theological and creationist arguments I've ever seen: sort of a "worse hits" album!

GIBHOR- you ask for just one peer-reviewed article- we give you dozens. You then dismiss them out of hand, make blank statements of denial, or link over and over again to discredited Creationist websites that lie, distort, or make stuff up. We explain why the Creationist quotes are wrong- you ignore our arguments and cite the same sites again.

I'm a biologist- you really have no idea just how far from reality your quotes and website "explanations" are! It's like someone telling me how "the theory of cars" must be wrong because it is impossible to fit 250 horses under the hood of an automobile. They totally misrepresent both prevailing theory and the known facts. Not just of evolution, but the facts about chemistry and physics, and the basics of biology. As I've told you before- I can find websites that explain the Earth is flat, that the moon was split into two as described in the Koran, and that there are aliens that kidnap people to probe their neither ends. Trust me: these latter websites are more fact-based than the Creationist ones you cite.

You tied yourself in knots trying to convince others that the existence of absolute morality was proof of God. You've made multiple statements that contradict one another. Now you are embarrassing yourself by parroting lies that slimy people with their own religious agenda and no knowledge of science have invented to fool you.

I suggest you read what people have provided to you here on this thread- you will learn a lot. And then, you may wish to reconsider who is your friend- those who have lied to you and exploited your faith, or those who want you to have the facts. No one here says you can't believe in God if you wish, but that doesn't mean you can ignore how the genetic code has increased in complexity, or how photosynthesis arose through evolution.

if you want to defend your standpoint, you make a better job at pointing out exactly what you do believe to be wrong about the explanations of the websites i quote.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by dafydd

A super-being created the universe? And the only proof in an old story book called the bible? In the face of all the scientific evidence? Now that does make sense.

If a argument of incredulity is all you have on hand ??

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

Have a bias towards reliable information is simply the prudent thing to do.

oh sure. and that must be of course naturalist-evolution biased information, isnt it ? So you pressupose these to tell you the truth, because you want so, right ?

Quote:

reputation is everything. We trust peer reviewed journals more then blog sites because they have been vetted.

then you should really use them more, and present the arguments of them here. So far you and all others have done a tremendously poor job. When it comes to check the details, naturalist explanations fail all together.

Quote:

After reading enough of the sites you posted from, I know that they are highly unlikely to have any rational argument founded upon evidence.

Since that is what you wish, it must be so, isnt it ?

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

You linked the same site that we just debunked again. That's dishonest. You're lying again and you're just flailing around being useless. Do you have any non-debunked evidence to present?

dishonest is to argue the site was debunked, while it was not. What exactly has been debunked ?? might to point it out exactly ?? i am all ears.....

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by devnull

No. Because you're an idiot, and I have better things to do.

so i guess you will say good bye, isnt it ??

goodbye.......

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

oh sure. and that must be of course naturalist-evolution biased information, isnt it ? So you pressupose these to tell you the truth, because you want so, right ?

When I say truth, I mean truth that is obtained by observation, evidence gathering and hypothesis testing.
As this is the basis of naturalism, yes.
I am biased towards it.

The question is, why aren't you?

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

then you should really use them more, and present the arguments of them here. So far you and all others have done a tremendously poor job. When it comes to check the details, naturalist explanations fail all together.

Your opinion isn't supported by the evidence of this thread.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I'll keep it simple; the cytoskeleton is not irreducibly complex when you study how it evolved. This is the flagellum argument all over again.

A more accomplished paper on ancestral proto-eukaryotes for those that read the previous article and wanted to know more.

i just want remind you that i have not seen a rebuttal of the last website i quoted about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum......

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

Quote:

What "mainstream scientists", like Kenneth Miller, don't seem to understand is that all systems of function are irreducibly complex regardless of whether or not a working subsystem can be found within the larger system. The flagellar motility system still requires at least 35-40 genes producing a structure with at least 21 different specifically arranged proteins each requiring a minimum of hundreds of specifically arranged amino acid residues in order for the function of flagellar motility to be realized at all - even a little bit. Just because one or more subsystems may be found within the overall requirements needed to build a flagellar motility system, such as a TTSS system, does not remove the fact that the flagellar system still has a minimum structural requirement that cannot be reduced beyond a high threshold point without complete loss of the flagellar motility function. System reduction may leave the TTSS system intact, since the TTSS system has a much lower minimum threshold structural requirement. However, having the TTSS function in place, does not mean that the flagellar function will also be in place.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

Your opinion isn't supported by the evidence of this thread.

what evidence ??!!

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

i just want remind you that i have not seen a rebuttal of the last website i quoted about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum......

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html

You haven't been looking very hard.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...72#post8301572

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

what evidence ??!!

The posts in this thread.
Indeed, look at the post above where you claim to have not seen a counterargument to the flagellum being irreducibly complex.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I'll keep it simple; [url=http://jcb.rupress.org/content/194/4/513.full]the cytoskeleton is not irreducibly complex

please show where exactly your posted website supports your assertion.

http://hisways.com/evidence_of_god/cell_level/amazing_copy_process.htm

Quote:

The fact that FtsZ requires several protein factors that work in a precise interdependent fashion to promote cytokinesis shows that the FtsZ-dependent cytokinesis mechanism present in E.coli is an irreducibly complex system. As such, it is highly questionable whether this complicated system could have arisen by Darwinian gradualism starting with a simple protocell.

[GIBHOR]

Originally Posted by joobz

The posts in this thread.
Indeed, look at the post above where you claim to have not seen a counterargument to the flagellum being irreducibly complex.

correct. indeed , so far, i have not seen it......

[joobz]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

please show where exactly your posted website supports your assertion.

http://hisways.com/evidence_of_god/c...py_process.htm

please point out exactly what element of the FtsZ is irreducibly complex.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

you need to explain how these physical properties arose, in the first place....

1. Technically, we don't have to. No matter HOW those properties arose, or when, or why, or whatever.... Most combinations of properties could result in life arising, even if it is a small one. No "physical necessity", no "creation event". And, we're doing better than merely relying on "chance".

2. Phyicists are doing just that, anyway! Check out the LHC, and its search for the Higgs Boson, for example. At the moment, we can explain almost all of the properties of all the particles from the decay of more powerful ones - going all the way back to a rift in quantum space.
These are theoretical ideas, yes. Perhaps some of them on the verge of speculation. BUT, they all have experiments associated with them, that we can check results against, once we develop the resources and tools to do so.

Naturalism is best explanation because it can be probed!

Non-naturalistic ideas, by contrast, do not lend themselves to be empirically examined.

3. Can you need explain how God arose, in the first place; or at least how or why he had the properties of matter to arise as they did. It's only fair that we challenge you in this way, if you are going to challenge us, like that!


I have another question for you, just out of curiosity:

Is God an All Powerful entity? If so, why would he need to "fine-tune" the Universe for life? That implies he had limits: He had to create a Universe just right to get life going. And, that contradicts being "All Powerful". A truly All Powerful entity could create life out of ANY properties at all! Right?!

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

if you want to defend your standpoint, you make a better job at pointing out exactly what you do believe to be wrong about the explanations of the websites i quote.

Stop playing dumb: you know where this has been documented on this thread multiple ways. Do you often find monkeys willing to dance for you? Why should I bother- given you history in this thread?

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

please show where exactly your posted website supports your assertion.

http://hisways.com/evidence_of_god/c...py_process.htm

And I told you already, that doesn't prove that it's irreducibly complex. It's the same argument made for the flagellum, that they all have to work interdependently to operate, in this case they've decided to move from the flagellum to the cytoskeleton.

However just like the flagellum:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

the cytoskeleton as we know it evolved just as the flagellum did (at the very least could hypothesize such). The entire article shows the homology of ancient bacteria.

Quote:

Unlike tubulin, FtsZ does not assemble into microtubules, but it does form a range of other structures in vitro using lateral interactions between protofilaments (Bramhill and Thompson, 1994; Mukherjee and Lutkenhaus, 1994; Erickson et al., 1996; Löwe and Amos, 1999, 2000). In vivo, FtsZ forms a dynamic “Z ring” between prospective daughter cells during cytokinesis (Fig. 2 A). This ring acts as a scaffold for the recruitment of the “divisome”, which gradually constricts to divide the cell (Adams and Errington, 2009). This system of cytokinesis was clearly an evolutionary success because FtsZ is both widely distributed and highly conserved. Its presence in most lineages of bacteria is indicative of it being an ancient protein. It has even been suggested that an over-representation of amino acids with simpler biosynthetic pathways in conserved positions of FtsZ might be evidence that the protein predates the completion of the 20–amino acid standard code itself (Davis, 2002).

FtsZ is a highly conserved in the genome aand is ancient, as the article suggests, and yet there are bacterium with a cytoskeleton that do not produce ubiquitous FtsZ (Crenarchaeota) so FtsZ probably isn't integral to all cytoskeletons; because it evolved alongside other parts that eventually evolved into successful bacterium and cells (much like the flagellum) they are now integral. Not irreducibly complex, they evolved that way.. This is a point against IC, and a point for evolution. It would make more sense that an ancient protein ubiquitous would perform many functions, especially given the amount of time for natural selection to play its role. Just. Like. The. Flagellum.


You're demanding the mountain's peak couldn't get there, completely ignoring the gentle slope that climbs to it. This is why IC is stupid and doesn't work.

Thanks for providing another debunked argument GIBHOR, IC doesn't work for cytoskeletons of cells. If you link this crap again you'll be lying...again. By the way do you never read the things we put forth for you? This is actually a really good paper on the evolution of the cytoskeleton, a lot of work by people better than us went into it and it will probably further evolutionary and molecular biology disciplines. But you treat it so poorly...

Oh and here's the molecular evolutionary record of FtsZ. Like it or not, it evolved.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

dishonest is to argue the site was debunked, while it was not. What exactly has been debunked ?? might to point it out exactly ?? i am all ears.....

Because it was debunked.

Or have you already forgotten.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

Whatever comes from the creationist side, you presuppose to be nonsense ?!!

I, for one, tend to presuppose Creationist material to be useless.

Creationist materials do not help us generate new, empirical knowledge about biology -at least not anything innovative or non-trivial.

Creationist materials do not help us solve any problems in the field of biology. They do not contribute to medicine, agriculture, nor animal conservation, just to name a few.

Creationist materials do not lend themselves to be probed for accuracy.

Creationist materials are are almost always on the defense: Trying to wave away the progress of Evolution scientists, at every point. Evolution has always been powerful enough to change the course of Creationism. But, Creationists contribute nothing that would change the course of Evolutionary studies.

Most Creationists already accept almost all of Evolutionary theory, though they won't admit that: They hide their acceptance under the banner of alternative terminology. For example: Small changes are only "micro-evolution". When big changes are demonstrated, they don't call it "macro-evolution", they simply say "it's breeding, and it was done before Darwin came along". Etc.

Calling creationist material "Nonsense" might be an exaggeration. But, not much of one.

[pakeha]

GIBHOR, you offered to show us secular studies supporting your view yet tposted up a newspaper coverage of a convention held 32 years ago.

When I asked if you were going to offer something better, you wrote:

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

No. Its upon you and others to present better evidence than fruit flies.....

I'm not sure who that was supposed to impress.
Certainly nobody here.

In any case I see your posting pattern has evolved to the 'lalalala' stage we know so well from other creationist posters.
I'd hoped you'd offer the latest in creationist thought on how life evolved here, especially in light of your vigorous defence of creationism.

However, it looks as though you've reached the end of your resources on the subject.
Prove me wrong, if you will.

[Twiler]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

correct. indeed , so far, i have not seen it......

To quote Blackadder, you are lying, blind or mad.

[IanS]

If GIBHOR is a creationist claiming that evolution is untrue, then I’m afraid creationists already lost that argument very publicly in the Dover Trial.

In that trial not only were the creationist claims shown to be totally untrue, but their claims were also shown to be deliberate lies. And the Judge was even motivated to stress that the creationist defendants had been proved to be lying not only in the court, but also in the books they themselves had written and tried to circulate in US schools.

That’s really an end to the creationist argument.

As if it were not already ended long ago by over a century of many millions of detailed and highly expert research papers in the scientific literature, all of which confirm evolution in vast detail.

That's apart from the most basic fact that it's not even an explanation anyway just to say that God made man. Creationists would have to do what evolutionary science does, and explain in detail exactly how God had made humans … what exactly did God do to make humans.

[Lowpro]

It's not that GIBHOR says evolution is untrue, it's that it doesn't explain whatever he thinks it doesn't explain. But he hasn't brought anything forth that proves a supernaturalistic explanation.

[Krikkiter]

Originally Posted by Giordano

I've begun to think we should just take turns posting counter-links to real science to respond to GIBHOR's creationist links. Why bother discussing anything: GIBHOR's not spending the effort to think about what he posts, let alone read what everyone else is trying to tell him. He's just copying and pasting made up stuff, thinking it must be true because it is on a website. If GIBHOR thinks his viewpoint is worth so little effort, I can only agree with him.

I agree. Good idea, I'm in.

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity and the Flagella:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreduc...exity#Flagella

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f8_1188001377

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/id_checklist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP3AY0iHEUA

Definition of Argument From Incredulity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumen...of_imagination

[mike3]

Originally Posted by GIBHOR

We know very little about the earliest origins of photosynthesis. There have been numerous suggestions as to where and how the process originated, but there is no direct evidence to support any of the possible origins (Olson and Blankenship, 2004).

At least he is admitting that......


wanna try again ??!!

Just because we don't (yet) have a pat answer doesn't mean that:

1. there won't be one

2. evolution is false.

We don't yet have a "pat answer" for what dark matter is, either. Yet would you seriously entertain the idea it's gnomes?