How is there reality without God?

[EarthScienceguy]

Neils Bohr
"No Phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Or another way to say this is that a tree does not fall in a forest unless it is observed.

The only way for there to be an objective reality is if God is the constant observer everywhere.

Physicist John Archibald Wheeler: "It is wrong to think of the past as 'already existing' in all detail. The 'past' is theory. The past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present."

God is everywhere so He can observe everywhere and produce objective reality.

[otseng]

Blah blah blah and more blah blah blah. No honor. They should make me a moderator
at least I will not cut and run from any debate. Seeing how this is a DEBATE FORUM.

Moderator Warning

Disrespect and incivility is not allowed on this forum.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #63]

I invite all doubters to click on the link above and read more about the evidence for evolution. For those compelled to dismiss the validity of evolution out of hand, enjoy your ignorance in silence.

I invite all that really want to know the truth about evolution to read what researchers really think about evolution here at this site. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/


Dr. Douglas Axe, Director of Biologic Institute and Maxwell Visiting Professor of Molecular Biology, Biola University
“Because no scientist can show how Darwin’s mechanism can produce the complexity of life, every scientist should be skeptical. The fact that most won’t admit to this exposes the unhealthy effect of peer pressure on scientific discourse.”

Dr. Marcos Eberlin, member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory.
As a (bio)chemist I become most skeptical about Darwinism when I was confronted with the extreme intricacy of the genetic code and its many most intelligent strategies to code, decode and protect its information, such as the U x T and ribose x deoxyribose exchanges for the DNA/RNA pair and the translation of its 4-base language to the 20AA language of life that absolutely relies on a diversity of exquisite molecular machines made by the products of such translation forming a chicken-and-egg dilemma that evolution has no chance at all to answer.”

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Over 1000 scientist have signed the following statement

"We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of hte evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/ ... 152021.pdf

Thank you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]

So you make up your own definitions of words to suit your needs to where even the emergence of new species or genera isn't evolution. Such is the fundamentally dishonest nature of creationism.

Good you agree with me then.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #62]

So you make up your own definitions of words to suit your needs to where even the emergence of new species or genera isn't evolution. Such is the fundamentally dishonest nature of creationism.

Good you agree with me then.

What in th......? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.

[Jose Fly]

I invite all that really want to know the truth about evolution to read what researchers really think about evolution here at this site. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/

Seriously? Man you creationists really need new arguments! So of course this old and stale creationist talking point will generate the same old and stale replies....Project Steve, pointing out how lists mean nothing in science, and trying to get you to understand how the statement they signed to is quite ignorant (there's more to evolution than mutation and selection).....

The list is 21 years old and what exactly has it accomplished? Nothing. So why you think citing it now will change that is indeed a mystery. But then, I guess that's all you have....regurgitation of decades old talking points that have never accomplished a thing.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #0]

Where are you getting that it is my belief that matter and energy created the universe? They are the universe, but we don't yet know the exact mechanism for how this universe came into existence. Science has hypotheses which some observational support (eg. the Big Bang), but I'm open to whatever is found to be the mechanism if humans ever figure this out, and happy to accept that we don't yet know for sure and it is an open problem. Science supports that viewpoint perfectly well. Why draw premature conclusions?

Where did the matter and energy come from and what exists outside of this universe? That is the question. Matter and energy are what make up this universe.

The James Webb space telescope observations do not support the Big Bang model at all.

but I'm open to whatever is found to be the mechanism if humans ever figure this out,

Well, this is certainly a very humanistic comment. Do you believe in all of the tenets of humanism?

So you put your faith in humans. So you are saying that you worship the human intellect. Worship is defined as the feeling or expression of reverence (deep respect for someone or something.) and adoration (deep love and respect) for a deity(In this case the human intellect). You seem to have a deep love and respect for the human intellect. That means that you worship the human intellect as the supreme source of knowledge.

Because the problems go beyond just finding the beginning. The solution also has to find the answer to the middle and the end also all at the same time. Because Einstein's theory of relativity states that past, present, and future all exist. So when the universe has been created all points of space and time throughout the life of the universe also had to be created.

The mutation numbers are wrong as Jose pointed out, but are you claiming that nothing on this Earth or in the cosmos can be deduced unless a human physically witnesses it? That's clearly ridiculous. We'd never have forensic science or know how the Grand Canyon formed, or countless other examples of things we can learn without a human actually witnessing it, if this were true.

So you use statements like the one above when you think they work for you, I get it.

I am not sure what mutation numbers you are talking about.

No, I believe they can be deduced but they are dependent on your starting presuppositions. I am not sure how you can say that your starting presuppositions are correct when they at the present time do not produce the one universe with one objective reality that we see. This is relevant because every moment in time had to be created at the moment of creation because past, present, and future all exist according to Einstein's theory of Relativity.

You do not have to believe in the laws of physics that is fine. There are a lot of people out there that prefer their own beliefs to what can be proved by science.

Paul had a reported experience on the road to Damascus that sounds awfully hard to believe. And no one actually saw Jesus awaken from the dead and ascend to heaven. By your reasoning (nothing can be confirmed unless a human saw it happen), the resurrection of Jesus woud not qualify as being confirmed. I don't question that people all over the world believe this as part of their religion, but there's no indisputable evidence that it actually happened. The Karan? Did she ask for the manager? The point was that these are stories in holy books. Muslims believe the Muhammad stories just as strongly as you believe the Jesus stories.

Paul did say that he saw the risen Jesus. Along with the disciples and 500 others so yes there were those that saw the risen Jesus in the city where he was actually crucified. The disciples preached the message of Jesus' resurrection in Jerusalem where Jesus was killed. The resurrection was the central message of the disciples and of Christianity.

The Church was born and grew.
Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

Liberal scholars even agree with the facts above.

Muslims do not believe that Mohammod was god. There is no other religion in the world that believes that God came down and dwelt among us. (Emanuel)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #75]

Seriously? Man you creationists really need new arguments! So of course this old and stale creationist talking point will generate the same old and stale replies....Project Steve, pointing out how lists mean nothing in science, and trying to get you to understand how the statement they signed to is quite ignorant (there's more to evolution than mutation and selection).....

The list is 21 years old and what exactly has it accomplished? Nothing. So why you think citing it now will change that is indeed a mystery. But then, I guess that's all you have....regurgitation of decades old talking points that have never accomplished a thing.

For those readers that want to read more on the serious problems that evolution has you can read here. https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/

11 of the problems would be as follows.

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code
Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures
Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution
Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species
Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”
Problem 11: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage

Thank you

[Jose Fly]

For those readers that want to read more on the serious problems that evolution has you can read here. https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/

This oughta be funny.....

Problem 1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
Problem 2: Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code

No matter how many times you try and explain to a creationist that abiogenesis is not evolution, they never get it, which tells us a lot about the fundamental dishonesty behind creationism.

Problem 3: Random Mutations Cannot Generate the Genetic Information Required for Irreducibly Complex Structures

Really? We gonna do this again, where I ask you "How are you defining and measuring 'genetic information'", and you dodge and avoid answering? How about you surprise me this time and actually give a meaningful and useful answer?

Problem 4: Natural Selection Struggles to Fix Advantageous Traits into Populations

No it doesn't, we see it happen all the time. I did a basic experiment as an undergrad that showed it!

Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution

Why not? And by the same token, do examples of gradualism in the fossil record support Darwinian evolution?

Problem 6: Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”

Bizarre. https://www.science.org/content/article ... ns-species

Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry
Problem 8: Differences between Vertebrate Embryos Contradict the Predictions of Common Ancestry
Problem 9: Neo-Darwinism Struggles to Explain the Biogeographical Distribution of many Species

The moon is made of cheese. See? Anyone can go online and make empty assertions.

Problem 10: Neo-Darwinism has a Long History of Inaccurate Darwinian Predictions about Vestigial Organs and “Junk DNA”

Such as?

Problem 11: Humans Display Many Behavioral and Cognitive Abilities that Offer No Apparent Survival Advantage

Indicative of a fundamental ignorance of evolutionary biology. Not all traits have to be advantageous (see genetic drift for example).

Thank you

Thank you for demonstrating just how empty creationism is and how creationists haven't come up with any new arguments in quite some time now. The article you linked to is over 7 years old and is just a rehash of arguments that are even older (notice how many are on Talk Origin's Index to Creationist Claims from 2006).

Funny too to see you cite the Discovery Institute, given how they shut down their "research arm" years ago, which means any new creationist arguments probably aren't forthcoming. Guess you'll just have to keep throwing the same old rocks over and over, desperately hoping that maybe this time they'll have an impact.

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete redundant info

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #78]

No matter how many times you try and explain to a creationist that abiogenesis is not evolution, they never get it, which tells us a lot about the fundamental dishonesty behind creationism.

How are we supposed to have a conversation if you do not believe in logic? The law of Cause and effect says that every single effect had a cause. Accept when it comes to evolution. The first bacteria had to have a genetic code. Or are you one of those that believe that we are some part of an alien video game? Are you a na noo na noo or something like that? Live long and prosper right?

Really? We gonna do this again, where I ask you "How are you defining and measuring 'genetic information", and you dodge and avoid answering? How about you surprise me this time and actually give a meaningful and useful answer?

What does it matter to you? According to your comment above you believe genetic information was formed out of thin air, by some alien or something, or maybe something like an elf, or a pixy or maybe it was Tinkerbell. Where did the genetic information come from? Until you answer that question your argument is illogical and there is really nothing to discuss.

No it doesn't, we see it happen all the time. I did a basic experiment as an undergrad that showed it!

Really you observed it out in nature? Or did you control the variables so as to produce the outcome you wanted? You know kind of like breeding dogs. Oh, wait you believe the genetic code popped into existence out of thin air. So I guess for you it would be more like a pixy using its magic pixy dust maybe? You let me know what the analogy for you would be ok.

Why not? And by the same token, do examples of gradualism in the fossil record support Darwinian evolution?

"Paleontologists now increasingly recognize that “jumps” between species, without intermediates, are not simply the result of an incomplete record. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionary paleontologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History, puts it this way with Ian Tattersal: “The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history — not the artifact of a poor fossil record.”

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted: “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

You have never heard of Punctuated equilibrium? the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.

Paleontologists now increasingly recognize that “jumps” between species, without intermediates, are not simply the result of an incomplete record. Niles Eldredge, an evolutionary paleontologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History, puts it this way with Ian Tattersal: “The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history — not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

One study in Nature reported that “if scaled to the … taxonomic level of the family, the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past.”

We do not see gradualism above the level of the family. Right where creationists put kinds of animals.

Molecular Biology has Failed to Yield a Grand “Tree of Life”

biochemist W. Ford Doolittle to explain that “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” New Scientist put it this way: “For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life … But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.”

Carl Woese, a pioneer of evolutionary molecular systematics, explains:
Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves

Michael Syvanen tried to create a tree showing evolutionary relationships using 2000 genes from a diverse group of animals:
He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. … the genes were sending mixed signals. … Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another.

It has been called a bush, not a tree. But that even has problems.

Got to go finish later Dang pixy dust is everywhere.