Searching for GOD...

[Spud]

No - all the human is doing is reproducing the conditions that would have occurred in primordial times.

It's all very interesting, but even if we assume that the conditions were just right for a 'protocell' to form, since macroevolution is not observed, we cannot assume that this 'protocell' would evolve into anything more complex than itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It's all very interesting, but even if we assume that the conditions were just right for a 'protocell' to form, since macroevolution is not observed, we cannot assume that this 'protocell' would evolve into anything more complex than itself.

"Macroevolution" is observed, most obviously in the fossil record. Clearly it couldn't be observed in the sense of "witnessed in real time" because people don't live for the millions of years it generally takes.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spud,

Or perhaps like the conditions obtained at geothermal vents.   

Always wondered about how tight Dawkins claim that any new life form that arose would automatically get eaten was......That's a polite term for sounds like crap to me/Ken Ham doesn't have the monopoly on biogenesis bullshit.

I think they should be closely investigating Bluehillsides geothermal vent for signs of novel life.

[Spud]

Spud,

"Macroevolution" is observed, most obviously in the fossil record.

Isn't that a matter of interpretation of the fossils? Some of the geological evidence points to catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism.

Clearly it couldn't be observed in the sense of "witnessed in real time" because people don't live for the millions of years it generally takes.   

But experiments on organisms that reproduce rapidly should demonstrate macroevolution, yet no increase in complexity is observed in bacteria.

[ippy]

Isn't that a matter of interpretation of the fossils? Some of the geological evidence points to catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism. But experiments on organisms that reproduce rapidly we should demonstrate macroevolution, yet no increase in complexity is observed in bacteria.

Indoctrinated fossils?

[ProfessorDavey]

But experiments on organisms that reproduce rapidly we should demonstrate macroevolution, yet no increase in complexity is observed in bacteria.

And indeed you can - for example antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Regarding complexity - you appear to be implying a directed and hierarchical imperative. That isn't the case - evolutionary traits survive if they confer a greater likelihood for survival. If those traits are associated with greater complexity they will survive - if greater complexity does not provide evolutionary advantage it won't survive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Always wondered about how tight Dawkins claim that any new life form that arose would automatically get eaten was......That's a polite term for sounds like crap to me/Ken Ham doesn't have the monopoly on biogenesis bullshit.

What "claim" would that be, what with emegent species only being predated when they themselves aren't the alpha species and when any other alpha species have access to them? Any chance of a citation, or is that yet another flat out lie you've just posted?

I think they should be closely investigating Bluehillsides geothermal vent for signs of novel life.

Heat, pressure and chemistry - plausibly that's all that's needed. Rather than post your gloating ignorance why not bother at least to find out something about the subject before parading that gloating ignorance? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

What "claim" would that be, what with emegent species only being predated when they themselves aren't the alpha species and when any other alpha species have access to them? Any chance of a citation, or is that yet another flat out lie you've just posted?

Heat, pressure and chemistry - plausibly that's all that's needed. Rather than post your gloating ignorance why not bother at least to find out something about the subject before parading that gloating ignorance?

gloating ignorance? What are you talking about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

While nobody else on this board is bothered about citations I'll be fucked if I am.

[Roses]

While nobody else on this board is bothered about citations I'll be fucked if I am.

You seem to take pleasure in making meaningless statements.

[Nearly Sane]

While nobody else on this board is bothered about citations I'll be fucked if I am.

https://youtu.be/mzgT-fg01vY

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

gloating ignorance? What are you talking about?

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/life-hydrothermal-vents-07772.html

While nobody else on this board is bothered about citations I'll be fucked if I am

Another lie - I regularly provide citations (see above). So now we know you lied about the Dawkins "quote", is that it for now or do you have more lying to do today before you're satisfied?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Isn't that a matter of interpretation of the fossils?

All of science is interpretation. In the case of evolution, the evidence from multiple disciplines, exhaustively tested and shown to make reliable predictions gives us a theory of evolution that's a close to certain as science gets. 

Some of the geological evidence points to catastrophism rather than uniformitarianism.

Really? Then you should be able to provide a citation for it then it then right?

But experiments on organisms that reproduce rapidly we should demonstrate macroevolution, yet no increase in complexity is observed in bacteria.

Depends what you mean by "macroevolution", but that's not true either. As an example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California, Davis, demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409278?seq=1

[Spud]

And indeed you can - for example antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Macroevolution - a protocell evolving into a human or a dog - requires an increase in functional systems, like a circulatory or neurological system. Antibiotic resistance enables bacteria to survive, through a mutation in their DNA that stops the antibiotic disabling them. But the mutated DNA doesn't function as well, and typically leads to slower reproduction, so that the mutant bacteria can't compete in a normal non-antibiotic environment.

Regarding complexity - you appear to be implying a directed and hierarchical imperative. That isn't the case - evolutionary traits survive if they confer a greater likelihood for survival. If those traits are associated with greater complexity they will survive - if greater complexity does not provide evolutionary advantage it won't survive.

A mutant is no more complex than its ancestor. This only goes to show that common ancestry, emergence of life through natural processes, is impossible, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation, a creator.

[ProfessorDavey]

Macroevolution - a protocell evolving into a human or a dog - requires an increase in functional systems, like a circulatory or neurological system.

Well the later stages are well described as we have extensive fossil records that demonstrate the evolution of more complex organisms from more primitive ones.

And for the earliest development of complexity (prokaryotic organisms to eukaryotic) - well this appears to have been driven by the eukaryotic cell being a combination of simpler prokaryotic ones, each of which had more restricted metabolic functions. Hence why many of our intracellular organelles are themselves membrane bound, similar to the external plasma membrane.

The evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic to multicellular organisms, with specialised tissues/organs is backed up by loads of evidence.

Antibiotic resistance enables bacteria to survive, through a mutation in their DNA that stops the antibiotic disabling them. But the mutated DNA doesn't function as well, and typically leads to slower reproduction, so that the mutant bacteria can't compete in a normal non-antibiotic environment.

Not necessarily - it depends on the mutation. Some might result in slower growth in non-antibiotic environments, others might lead to no change or even an increase in growth rate. Depending on the environment each would be selected for due to their evolutionary advantage.
 

A mutant is no more complex than its ancestor.

It depends entirely on the mutation - for example the mutation may lead to the formation of a variant protein with a conformational change linked to environmental conditions - e.g. pH or salinity, that the non mutated version does not have. This will lead to an organism that can adapt to its external environment - greater complexity has arisen. Whether that mutation survives or not will depend on the evolutionary advantage it may, or may not, confer.

This only goes to show that common ancestry, emergence of life through natural processes, is impossible, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation, a creator.

Non-sense - classic god of the gaps rubbish. And also the inference that complexity can only arise if 'created' by a more complex creator is an impossible argument to sustain as it just begs the question, 'who created the creator?'. The only sustainable theory for the development of organismal complexity is one that is bottom up - in other words the generation of more complex organisms from less complex ancestors.

[Outrider]

Macroevolution - a protocell evolving into a human or a dog - requires an increase in functional systems, like a circulatory or neurological system.

It also requires millions of years, even with potentially rapidly reproducing organisms - humanity has been around to study it, at most, for around 200,000 years, and we've been actively tracking evolution for the best part of 200 years.  To expect to see observed 'macro'-evolution in that time is preposterous.

Antibiotic resistance enables bacteria to survive, through a mutation in their DNA that stops the antibiotic disabling them. But the mutated DNA doesn't function as well, and typically leads to slower reproduction, so that the mutant bacteria can't compete in a normal non-antibiotic environment.

Exactly - so if the effect is temporary then that mutation will likely be bred out of the pool, but if it remains in a particular locale then you get two distinct variations of the bacterium for evolution to increasingly work on and render more distinct.
 

A mutant is no more complex than its ancestor.

People with Trisomy 21 (more commonly referred to as Down's Syndrome) have a partial or complete third copy of chromosome 21.  There are at least three well understood mechanisms by which this happens, which could equally have occurred to any number of other genetic divisions during reproduction across the entirety of evolutionary history.

This only goes to show that common ancestry, emergence of life through natural processes, is impossible, therefore there must be a supernatural explanation, a creator.

Even if your arguments were valid, they would only indicate that the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution principally by natural selection on random variation would be refuted; it's a false dichotomy to therefore presume a possible other explanation which lacks supporting evidence is therefore 'proven'.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I really hope god has been found while I was away !

Or is he still in lockdown ?

Lockdown could have been a wonderful opportunity - being free from the frenetic distractions of this modern world gave people the chance to discover the reality of their own spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God.

Here is one who discovered it earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxsjQ967kV8

[Roses]

Lockdown could have been a wonderful opportunity - being free from the frenetic distractions of this modern world gave people the chance to discover the reality of their own spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God.

Here is one who discovered it earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxsjQ967kV8

Hmmmmmmmm!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lockdown could have been a wonderful opportunity - being free from the frenetic distractions of this modern world gave people the chance to discover the reality of their own spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God.

That's your reality Alan, not the reality. You have all your work ahead of you still to find a path from the subjective to the objective.

Here is one who discovered it earlier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxsjQ967kV8

No, he's "discovered" a belief - if you want to claim that he's actually discovered "spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God" then you need to make an argument to justify that claim that isn't wrong.

Good luck with it though.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's your reality Alan, not the reality. You have all your work ahead of you still to find a path from the subjective to the objective.

No, he's "discovered" a belief - if you want to claim that he's actually discovered "spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God" then you need to make an argument to justify that claim that isn't wrong.

Good luck with it though.

It all depends upon where the burden of proof lies.
You claim your conscious awareness is determined by material reactions alone, with no knowledge of how.
You claim the universe is an unintended consequence of something, without knowing what that "something" is.

I claim that our spiritual nature and awareness of God's presence is confirmed by divine revelation in scripture, personal prayer, miraculous divine intervention and personal witnesses from other people.

Neither of us can provide absolute proof of our claims which can be acceptable to the other person.
We each discern the truth from within our own existence.
And there can only be one truth.

[Stranger]

It all depends upon where the burden of proof lies.

The burden of proof is perfectly clear and it's with those who make actual claims.

You claim your conscious awareness is determined by material reactions alone, with no knowledge of how.

The claim here is that we have no evidence or logical reason to support the idea there is anything else involved, and what evidence we do have supports the hypothesis.

You claim the universe is an unintended consequence of something, without knowing what that "something" is.

The universe might not be the consequence of anything. If it is, then, unless anybody can give some evidence or reasoning as to what it is, saying we don't know is simply a statement of our current lack of knowledge.

I claim that our spiritual nature and awareness of God's presence is confirmed by divine revelation in scripture...

Seriously laughable. The bible is an incoherent, often self-contradictory mess with no clear message at all. If it's a message from a god, said god is either mad or has serious communication problems.

...personal prayer, miraculous divine intervention and personal witnesses from other people.

All of which apply equally well/badly to any number of mutually contradictory faiths - not to mention other superstitions.

Neither of us can provide absolute proof of our claims which can be acceptable to the other person.
We each discern the truth from within our own existence.
And there can only be one truth.

The problem is that you are the only one here who is claiming to know the "truth" of these things and you have no objective evidence (despite repeatedly claiming you have) and your 'arguments' are riddled with self-contradiction, endless fallacies, meaningless gibberish, and blind faith (despite repeatedly claiming to have sound logic).

[Alan Burns]

No, he's "discovered" a belief - if you want to claim that he's actually discovered "spiritual nature and the eternal presence of God" then you need to make an argument to justify that claim that isn't wrong.

It is more than just belief.
Listen to Stormzy's lyrics (btw I am not a fan of rap singers) and see how they are describing an experience of God.
Perhaps you could come to believe after having a real experience of God in your life.
The trouble is that you can't experience God if you do not allow Him into your life.
You could try opening the door to God instead of shutting Him out by finding reasons not to believe in Him.

[torridon]

It is more than just belief.
Listen to Stormzy's lyrics (btw I am not a fan of rap singers) and see how they are describing an experience of God.
Perhaps you could come to believe after having a real experience of God in your life.
The trouble is that you can't experience God if you do not allow Him into your life.
You could try opening the door to God instead of shutting Him out by finding reasons not to believe in Him.

Having experience of something for which there is no objective evidence is pretty much the textbook definition of delusion.  Maybe that is why not everyone wants to 'go there'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It all depends upon where the burden of proof lies.

No it doesn’t – the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

You claim your conscious awareness is determined by material reactions alone, with no knowledge of how.

No, I “claim” that the explanatory model that most closely aligns with the evidence and reasoning we have so far is a materialistic one. If you wish to replace that model with a different one you need to show that it better aligns with the reason and evidence we have so far.

You claim the universe is an unintended consequence of something, without knowing what that "something" is.

No, I “claim” that it’s a basic error in reasoning to assume that you were an intended outcome and then to marvel at the unlikeliness of that happening and calling that unlikeliness evidence for the same god you needed to decide on you as the outcome in the first place.

I claim that our spiritual nature and awareness of God's presence is confirmed by divine revelation in scripture, personal prayer, miraculous divine intervention and personal witnesses from other people.

That’s just reason- and evidence-free assertion, and moreover it’s epistemically indistinguishable from reason- and evidence-free truth claims from any faith traditions different from your own.

Neither of us can provide absolute proof of our claims which can be acceptable to the other person.

That’s called “going nuclear”: you seek to reduce both positions to just guessing, then claim them to be therefore equal. The cheat is that “absolute proof” – there’s no absolutes proof claimed in science in particular, but there are provisional explanations that are coherent, cogent and testable by experiment. We call these explanations “truths”. By contrast, religious claims have no coherence, no cogency and no means of investigation – thus there’s no good reason to think them to be true at all. Short version: the epistemic equivalence you’re trying for is bogus.     
 

We each discern the truth from within our own existence.

Yes, but some truths are investigable and verifiable. That’s the difference between us – it’s the difference between reason and magic. 

And there can only be one truth.

Nonsense. There are lots of truths, and even if there was one ultimate one we’d have no way to know we’d found it.

It is more than just belief.

Fine – demonstrate that then.

Listen to Stormzy's lyrics (btw I am not a fan of rap singers) and see how they are describing an experience of God.

Well that was stupid. They describe a belief that he had an “experience of God”. I can write a song about meeting leprechauns if I want to – that would tell you nothing about whether they’re real though, no matter how sincere I was. You have all your work ahead of you still to show that the belief is correct.

Perhaps you could come to believe after having a real experience of God in your life.

Perhaps you could come to believe after having a real experience of leprechauns in your life too. So what?

The trouble is that you can't experience God if you do not allow Him into your life. You could try opening the door to God instead of shutting Him out by finding reasons not to believe in Him.

That fallacy is called begging the question. You can’t “let into your life” something you have no good reason to think to be true in the first place. What you actually mean here is closer to, “the trouble that you haven’t abandoned your critical faculties as I have”. That much a least is true.
 

[Alan Burns]

Seriously laughable. The bible is an incoherent, often self-contradictory mess with no clear message at all. If it's a message from a god, said god is either mad or has serious communication problems.

If you read the bible with the intention of finding fault, you will no doubt find them in abundance.

Try reading the bible with an open mind to allow the true intended meaning to penetrate your mind, heart and soul - and you may discover the reason why many millions have devoted their lives to God.  The divinely inspired words of scripture do not only provide the foundation upon which the Christian faith has grown over the last two thousand years - they provide the foundation for life itself.