- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 25 2007,22:47) In otherwords Stu, what you believe in is a type of faith. It is by this faith that you believe that nothing created everything. You have no proof and yet you just choose to believe it anyway. So you are religious. Your religion is that nothing is the creator. Nothing is the source. Nothing was before the beginning. I believe that someone made everything. Even from a scientific theoretical point of view, it is much more plausible. But then I have my proof too. It is the relationship I have with the creator. Something that I cannot prove to you and wouldn't want to either.
Someone vs nothing.
I know which one is more viable. And I know that God exists anyway, even putting aside where to place my bet based on likelihood.
Sorry, I missed something there. What is your Theory of Divine Creation?Stuart
First things first.
Can you admit that it is impossible for nothing to create something, even everything?
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 26 2007,13:11) First things first. Can you admit that it is impossible for nothing to create something, even everything?
I don't know how matter and antimatter separated at the big bang. We have not found a way to “see” backwards beyond that singularity, partly because the concept of “backwards” becomes meaningless at that point.Why would I be keen to jump prematurely into condemning such a concept as impossible? I have not even said that of your god! We can observe matter coming into, and going out of existence now, in any case. The science of origins of matter is far younger than 100 years. Christianity is 2000 years old and it still has not come up with even a sniff of an explanation for anything real.
I'm ready for the scientific Theory of Creation by Divine Fiat. Don't hold out on us t8!
Stuart
Was there a big bang or a glorious and extremely quick outstretch of creation layed out like a scroll by The Almighty, Stu?
Quote (acertainchap @ Sep. 29 2007,15:22) Was there a big bang or a glorious and extremely quick outstretch of creation layed out like a scroll by The Almighty, Stu?
Hi acertainchapYou're the one making the hypothesis! Tell us more of your Divine Carpet-Rolling Theory of the generation of matter. how did those baryons leave the antibaryons like that?
Maybe we could ask your avatar – is that MacGyver, or have I made a ghastly mistake?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 26 2007,21:33) I don't know how matter and antimatter separated at the big bang. We have not found a way to “see” backwards beyond that singularity, partly because the concept of “backwards” becomes meaningless at that point.
OK.Can you admit that if this indeed happened, that it is impossible for nothing to have made this separation?
I am not stalling, I just want to back you into a corner as much as possible in order to separate what you honestly believe by some kind of faith with that of scientific thought.
After I get to the bottom of what you understand, except, and believe, I will gladly explain creation to you.
BTW: Where's that banana? Or did you (an intelligence of some sort) admit that it was too hard to make?
I can't remember now.
Hi t8,
Letâs have it. Tell us how your creator differentiated bone and connective tissue cells from Adamâs rib to make brain, liver, pancreas and epithelial cells for Eve. Explain how when initiating the separation of matter and anti-matter he created himself, retrospectively.
Re bananas, I'd nearly forgotten the thread heading. Youâll be pleased to know that I finished my banana but was, as I had anticipated, penalised by the LORD for not using my own atoms. My creation disappeared in a puff of disbelief.
Stuart
Hey Stu, nice pic BTW.
I can understand why you can't make a banana, you don't make em, you just eat em.
Tell you what, I won't penalise you for not using your own atoms.
That seriously stacks the odds more in favour of you, over nothing doing it.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 01 2007,19:04) Letâs have it. Tell us how your creator differentiated bone and connective tissue cells from Adamâs rib to make brain, liver, pancreas and epithelial cells for Eve. Explain how when initiating the separation of matter and anti-matter he created himself, retrospectively.
Stu.I will give you a clue.
Adams rib contains DNA. That DNA code can be mashed to create all kinds of things.
I do the same thing in my job. OK, I don't create physical things because that is way beyond me, I create cyber things. It's all code and from a web page about apes, even daffodils, I can reuse the code and create a web page about humans. I am not talking just about the content either, but the underlying code that structures the documents can be and should be reused.
Daffodils have something like 40% DNA in common with humans.
So it all look at it like a pool of code to me.
When you want to create something you just string different bits together and you can create a myriad almost an endless amount of things from it.
Evolution says that the code evolved from nothing, but it is much more plausible that the code was written/created and then the environment helped shape the combinations of code that make up whole organisms so they could adapt and remain alive.
Think about a computer virus for example. It is designed by a programmer. There are even ones that can mutate to escape the clutches of an antivirus program which are the immune systems of PCs. But even those viruses were carefully written with the ability to mutate. They didn't just come from nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing and perpetuates nothing. In fact it cannot even perpetuate.
Life comes from life and creates life.
In your browser Stu, go to the 'View' menu and choose 'Source'. Look at the code that makes up this page. It looks nothing like this page. So that code makes this page. Likewise DNA looks like one thing, but it creates another looking thing at this level.
E.g., blue eyes are a trait that is specified in the DNA code.
So this webpage's code can be reused to create a completely different page. Similary DNA code is reused.
God made woman from man for example.
Humans and daffodils have 40% common DNA.
Monkeys and humans have 90 something % DNA in common.God wrote the code, and then he creates all these species from it. He also allows them to adapt so they can survive environmental changes. God made the construct and the laws and to some degree everything just hums along.
Similarly I create websites and they just hum along once made. Sometimes I need to make some changes for whatever reason and I am sure that God can and does that too.
Effects have a cause. Design is designed by a designer.
Hi t8,
So this is it! The first peek at the Theory of God making himself and all the stuff we have from nothing by magic? I was hoping you might explain the details of the âmashedâ bit of this (is âmashedâ a biochemical term?).
Strictly, evolution says nothing at all about where the first living thing came from. Youâre talking about abiogenesis, as we have already discussed. You say it is more plausible that the code was written. Why is it more plausible? I donât know any decent theories that simply claim plausibility. I think it isnât plausible at all. You say: âŠâ the environment helped shape the combinations of code that make up whole organisms so they could adapt and remain alive.â This is evolution by natural selection, isn't it?
Your coding analogy has some problems. We donât know what kind of code we should expect to get from a designer. If it is the designer mentioned a few times in the bible, then I think you would say he is perfect, and might be expected to produce parsimonious code that was quite specifically functional for the individual organism.
Why do we have âjunk DNAâ? Even given the possibility that we have missed some loci for functional genes, there is lots of code that does nothing. Lots more of the DNA is non-functional accidental duplications of other genes or âswitched offâ genes that do really whacky things (like enable chickens to grow teeth if chemically stimulated).
As humans, you and I are unusual in that we cannot produce our own Vitamin C. We have four enzymes that should convert glucose to ascorbic acid, but one of them has mutated and doesnât produce a functional enzyme.
Was it careless coding? Was it mutation, the like of which drives the variation from which natural selection selects? Has the creator not got round to âmaking changesâ to fix it yet? We make these other three functional enzymes that can do nothing useful because of one mutation.Imagine a coder who just copies routines from other programs, almost at random, then spends years playing randomly with them until something that might be useful turns up (appearing to know nothing about how to construct code at all). Instead of writing new code for a new purpose, he just reworks old material, possibly code for something entirely different, until it does well enough to just pass muster. His completed programs take up many GB when they should be a few MB at most, contain all sorts of bits of unusable routines that should have been removed but have just been ignored or switched off. This is what DNA is like. This is exactly what you would expect from natural selection working on mutations, and if the bible is worth anything then it is exactly what you would not expect from the alleged god.
If the creator were writing code for you, you would fire him for incompetence!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2007,19:49) So this is it! The first peek at the Theory of God making himself and all the stuff we have from nothing by magic? I was hoping you might explain the details of the âmashedâ bit of this (is âmashedâ a biochemical term?).
It's a programming term.I use it because I am dealing with code.
Look up the meaning of mashup.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2007,19:49) Strictly, evolution says nothing at all about where the first living thing came from. Youâre talking about abiogenesis, as we have already discussed. You say it is more plausible that the code was written. Why is it more plausible? I donât know any decent theories that simply claim plausibility. I think it isnât plausible at all. You say: âŠâ the environment helped shape the combinations of code that make up whole organisms so they could adapt and remain alive.â This is evolution by natural selection, isn't it?
God can easily create the prototypes and the code that makes them up allows for variation, so that a species can survive.E.g., a disease that wipes out 95% of a species should rebound and the descendants of that 5% will have immunity built into their DNA code.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2007,19:49) Why do we have âjunk DNAâ?
Junk DNA could be any of the following:- DNA that we do not understand
- DNA that was used once but not now
- DNA that could be used in the future if our environment changes
The same question of course could be asked of your faith.
Why Junk DNA? What would force evolution to produce junk DNA if it had no survival usage?Probably the answer doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2007,19:49) As humans, you and I are unusual in that we cannot produce our own Vitamin C. We have four enzymes that should convert glucose to ascorbic acid, but one of them has mutated and doesnât produce a functional enzyme.
Was it careless coding? Was it mutation, the like of which drives the variation from which natural selection selects? Has the creator not got round to âmaking changesâ to fix it yet? We make these other three functional enzymes that can do nothing useful because of one mutation.
This creation is not going to be around forever. Like all things it is winding down or wearing out.The human DNA has lot's of DNA that has negative consequences.
Man is not perfect although the prototype was.
All sorts of code has been introduced as a curse to man.You can read about these things in scripture.
Sin brings curse. It is a law. The soul that sins will die.
God limited mans years severely because of sin. He does so by tampering with the code. Such functions are in the code.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 02 2007,19:49) Imagine a coder who just copies routines from other programs, almost at random, then spends years playing randomly with them until something that might be useful turns up (appearing to know nothing about how to construct code at all). Instead of writing new code for a new purpose, he just reworks old material, possibly code for something entirely different, until it does well enough to just pass muster. His completed programs take up many GB when they should be a few MB at most, contain all sorts of bits of unusable routines that should have been removed but have just been ignored or switched off. This is what DNA is like. This is exactly what you would expect from natural selection working on mutations, and if the bible is worth anything then it is exactly what you would not expect from the alleged god.
It doesn't matter whether the coder wrote a whole lot of code and then using laws, created all kinds of variations, or whether he started with prototypes and allowed variation according to the code.Either idea suggests a coder or an originator. This is where you will fail in your arguments because it doesn't matter how much you flog it. nothing will always produce nothing. You can't say that it doesn't because if nothing made something, then it must have been something all along and I am at base level arguing that it all came from something.
When we look at the code it is complex, way complex than any man written code. I will take you back to the story I told you suggesting that the oranges that formed a circle were caused by falling randomly out of a bag. Statistically this is way more plausible than a whole universe from micro to macro resulting in a certain rearrangement of code due to one process causing an another and so on.
It could also be argued that if you were to create/code/speak the universe into existence that it would be just as hard to create a perfect one as an imperfect one. You argue that a God would create perfection and if there is a God he cannot be perfect if we look at the code and its consequences, but as I said before, scripture teaches that God created a perfect creation and he cursed it intentionally because the created beings that inhabited his creation had sinned. So it was his way of ensuring that this order was going to end one day. It makes sense that only perfection should exist forever. In the meantime he is redeeming from the old creation to populate the new creation.
Now you of course will deny all this (to your own peril), but ask yourself one thing. If you are the result of an imperfect universe, then how is it that you know conceptually speaking what perfection is if it doesn't exist? Why isn't what you see considered perfection? How do you know that something is wrong, if reality is wholly this universe?
Similarly how do we know what colour is if we are blind?
Hi t8
++âLook up the meaning of mashup.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mashup (or mash it up) is a Jamaican Creole term meaning to destroy.
++âGod can easily create the prototypes and the code that makes them up allows for variation, so that a species can survive.
You say easily. What is the Theory of God Creating Code?
++âE.g., a disease that wipes out 95% of a species should rebound and the descendants of that 5% will have immunity built into their DNA code.
Again, what mechanism are you suggesting here? The Theory of God Knowing In Advance which viruses will mutate which ways? How does that go?
++â Junk DNA could be any of the following: DNA that we do not understand. DNA that was used once but not now. DNA that could be used in the future if our environment changes The same question of course could be asked of your faith. Why Junk DNA? What would force evolution to produce junk DNA if it had no survival usage?
Another question is whether keeping it has any survival disadvantage. Still, your statement is completely in line with evolutionary theory (apart from the oxymoronic âfaithâ part).
Stuart
t8,
++âThis creation is not going to be around forever. Like all things it is winding down or wearing out.
Please can you link to some scientific evidence that supports this hypothesis. Forget about the Second Law of Thermodynamics â living things are not closed systems.
++âThe human DNA has lot's of DNA that has negative consequences. Man is not perfect although the prototype was. All sorts of code has been introduced as a curse to man. You can read about these things in scripture. Sin brings curse. It is a law. The soul that sins will die. God limited mans years severely because of sin. He does so by tampering with the code. Such functions are in the code.
Yep, still waiting for some SCIENTIFIC arguments!
++âIt doesn't matter whether the coder wrote a whole lot of code and then using laws, created all kinds of variations, or whether he started with prototypes and allowed variation according to the code. Either idea suggests a coder or an originator. This is where you will fail in your arguments because it doesn't matter how much you flog it.
It doesnât suggest anything about a creator at all. You havenât said what kind of code you would expect from a creator! You have just asserted a circular argument for one, based on no premise at all, apart from the proposed existence of such a malevolent dimwit.
Stuart
t8,
++ânothing will always produce nothing.
Have you written a macro that gives this sentence when you hit -N??
++âWhen we look at the code it is complex, way complex than any man written code.
Well, it is NOT man-written, is it?!
++âI will take you back to the story I told you suggesting that the oranges that formed a circle were caused by falling randomly out of a bag. Statistically this is way more plausible than a whole universe from micro to macro resulting in a certain rearrangement of code due to one process causing an another and so on.
More plausible than WHAT? How? The Theory of Falling Apples has evolved into the Theory of Falling Oranges!
++âIt could also be argued that if you were to create/code/speak the universe into existence that it would be just as hard to create a perfect one as an imperfect one. You argue that a God would create perfection and if there is a God he cannot be perfect if we look at the code and its consequences, but as I said before, scripture teaches that God created a perfect creation and he cursed it intentionally because the created beings that inhabited his creation had sinned.
When I type -B my computer produces âbut hold on, you havenât said what kind of code your creator would be expected to writeâ.
++âSo it was his way of ensuring that this order was going to end one day. It makes sense that only perfection should exist forever. In the meantime he is redeeming from the old creation to populate the new creation.
I donât think there are any observations that require this kind of explanation, are there?
++âNow you of course will deny all this (to your own peril),
Is that threat? What do you think will happen to me? Do you think I will be overcome by the utterly convincing Theory of My Imaginary Friend Bringing Matter and Himself into Existence by Magic?
Will I burn in eternity with a thousand of Satanâs imaginary little friends skewering my tenderloins with red-hot tridents? Not even the Pope with a history of bloodthirsty Inquisitions behind him believes this!++âbut ask yourself one thing. If you are the result of an imperfect universe, then how is it that you know conceptually speaking what perfection is if it doesn't exist?
I do not judge the perfection or otherwise of the universe. It just is how it is. I do judge your proposed creator (I am making up your theory for you here, although it is not a scientific one) by considering what the Judeo-Christian club rulebook says about him.
-B âbut hold on, you havenât said what kind of code your creator would be expected to writeâ.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
