General > Off Topic

Two arguments that give the creationists the upper hand.

(1/11) > >>

Testlund:
1. Something can't appear out of nothing.

(I wanted to post a link to a video I saw about this but can't manage to find it again. Why is the thing you wants to find the most the most difficult thing to find? It's like you need something in your apartment, but nomatter where you look you can't find it, just everything else that you DON'T need. When you go to a store to buy something you often find it has everything else you DON'T want but not the thing you were looking for!)

2. The complexity of DNA and the machinery of the cell, explained in this video:

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

I find that after watching these two videos, trying to argue against it feels like refusing facts and just being stubborn. Unless a better explanation about the origin of life comes from the Darwinists I think we should now assume a creator is responsible, but at the same time be open to that other possibilities might be discovered in the future.
The next would be trying to solve what the creator IS. Personally I don't believe in the man with the white beard and the bible as I've already mensioned before is written by humans and sensored by humans through the ages, plus the texts have been missinterpreted by every religious society, so it ends up being little more than a fairytale, although some sections about how a human should behave makes sense wether you're religious or not.
So the concept of God must be a totally new one. It may not be an intelligent being or even self aware, but it may be a law of energy about attraction between forces and matter, that must have some kind of will to progress into complex structures. So what happens if every protein in the DNA was taken appart and just thrown together in a mixer. Would it assemble itself again? Probably not because it needs a machinery to be assembled, by machines that were assembled by machines and so on. Where's the force that started it? I'm talking about cells necessary for complex DNA structures explained in the second video (watch all 10 clips).

Also these machines need to be working together from the beginning otherwise none of them will work, which can't just appear at random.
On the other hand, once the foundation of life is there it will work by itself without any involvement from a higher being.
When I run my evosims I feel reluctant to even click on a bot that could accidently move it away, because I don't want to interfere. I want it to find it's own way. I want them to have the freedom to chose. To mess around in the sim to try and favor one bot over another would feel like a violation. The progress of the sim will find the best way by itself, otherwise it will cease to exist. There is no need for me to affect it. I just made the foundation of life with the best settings that I've managed to figure out. If it doesn't work, I will start over with something else, which could be compared with mass extinctions on the earth from time to time.
So maybe that's what God is, a founder that watch and wait, until we enters his realm by our own progress. If the suffering of humanity and destruction of the environment is not a good thing it will cease by itself.
What do you think?

And now I'm going to try starting a new zerobot sim from scratch with Eric's latest drop to see if sexual reproduction has it's place in this environment. Maybe it will take a year before it even shows up!
Another thing that's interesting is the time it takes for things to appear. Why would God wait billions of years just watching single cellular organisms before suddenly decide to create the rest of the species that exists? That makes me think God waits and let it appear by itself, like I do when I patiently run my evosims.  

shvarz:
1. Something can appear out of nothing. It always does. It may not be something that YOU want, but it's something nevertheless.

2. That movie is way too long to waste my time on it. Can you post the gist of the argument? I'm betting it's going to have something to do with irreducible complexity, that old horse of creationists, that is actually so old that it's been dead for almost a century.

Peter:
I would't really say the upper hand, but it are the two main arguments of creationists against evolution.

1. Something can appear out of nothing, hmm well, I gues if you take a buch of luck, some quantum physics, some random energy. And you could have air changing in gold, and so raindrups of gold.  

2. It hasn't started complicated(I think) Live has probably started pretty simple, and it has probably taken enourmous time to get a complicated system like it is now. We can't see how the organisms have looked like, if you even could call them organisms, the begining was probably simple.

It is mainly a mix between the two points. There can't appear a complicated system out of nothing. True, it couln't be that suddenly out of nothing an 'trio-quad-nano-parallelism computer' comes appearing. But as we have computers now and they keep getting better and better, there is a change it will come someday,(maybe something already exists, I just threw some computer terms within eachother  ) computers have started pretty simple, and I gues live has too.

On the other side, it could also imagine that live on earth came from an astroide or something simular. Anywhere where the possibility to begin live is bigger then on the gamma-rayed earth as it was in the begining.

Testlund:

--- Quote from: shvarz ---I'm betting it's going to have something to do with irreducible complexity...
--- End quote ---

Yes, they mension this but when you look at the animations showing how it works inside a cell, the complex structure of the flagellum, and that one part at a time wouldn't continue to assemble itself with new parts over time until suddenly it starts to work. It's clearly a goal towards a working flagellum, and there is no advantage by dragging that lifeless tail behind if it isn't working. The thought that evolution caused it is based on the probability that one piece at a time would have been usefull. But they have proven the flagellum is useless if it is not complete. No advantage with a few useless parts assembled, not to mension the investment the cell must do to create it. Better to save that energy for things that work imedeately.

shvarz:
It's funny that they used a flagellum, because that's one of the things that actually has a pretty clear path of reducible complexity with intermediate forms alive today. I'll try to find the link to the explanation, but the point is that it did not appear as a flagellum right away but performed different functions at different levels of complexity.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page