Posts by Kyle Roberts 38 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Aug 2013
"I'm arguing against government regulation of what I do in my own house.
I may not agree with those who would cause all this noise, but I will fight for their right to cause it as long as it doesn't go too far. "
When you say "as long as it doesn't go too far." of course this means the government *does* have the right, in your opinion, to legislate what happens in a home *if it goes too far*. The problem is, we all have different views as to what is *too far* so we generally go with the perceived majority.
Not a perfect system...
Clever? Most of the 'swearwords' that are multiplying themselves in this post are denigrating of women, men and sex. Why would you denigrate and debase sex, do you not like it? Why name unpleasant or unintelligent people after a slang term for genitalia? Where is the logic in this?
I regard sex as one of the most marvellous things, capable of creating another human being! Many comments seem to indicate for many here sex is about as meaningful as 'taking a dump'. Lots of people find this treatment of sex offensive, I sure do. Why are so many people reacting in hate against this standard?
There are some commentators here obviously offended that their rants are considered offensive by some 'wowsers'. There are only two possibilities. You must either be: A) an absolute Libertarian and NO public speech however offensive, vile, crude or debased should ever be forbidden at any time... OR B) you believe there IS some kind of line that people should be encouraged not to cross.
If B), then if you lambast folk who have a different 'line' or standard, then unless you can appeal to a higher authority than all mankind then YOU are a hypocrite - doing the very thing you criticise in others.
This is the most sensible answer to the question.
Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time.
F. Hoyle, ‘The big bang in astronomy’, New Scientist, 92(1280):527, 1981
GI=GO
I may agree about the superimposition of Christian meaning on other festivals such as this one, but really, serious study shows that monotheism predates the deviant religions you allude to. Many examples of ancient cultures having one supreme God (with characteristics of the Judeo Christian God) to whom is added gods and demi-gods can be found.
Monotheism 'evolving' from primitive polytheism is a myth attractive to a certain section of society.
Happy holidays :-)
Hi JLV, I agree about panspermia, (except you refer to it as a "general theory", I would call it wild speculation) but your rigorous scientific approach seems to be lacking regarding some opposing views:
>"That's certainly the case with creationism, where we are told that evolution has "lots of theoretical holes", but the only needed experimental support for creationism is "it's in the Bible, believe!". Ditto intelligent design."
Even IF that were true, it would not prove they are wrong. Evolution (in the sense of chemicals to mankind) not only has "lots of theoretical holes", it is fundamentally flawed according to Creationists. There is no way of repeating the 'experiment' of the creation of life, so it is not real science either way.
The reality is, they spend a LOT of energy looking at the actual facts and evidence, and compare how it fits with their understanding of the bible and Neo Darwinism.
Consider your own quote: "My, my, what certitudes when the best minds in the field are still figuring things out." I would add: "OR are totally flummoxed".
[The chances of actually getting a single cell that could function IF it found somewhere it could live and reproduce are close enough to zero for me to laugh at the idea.]
This is fascinating... Crick and others concluded that the chances of any kind of DNA life evolving on earth in the time available was zero, so life must have come from elsewhere!
1) Life could not have evolved here
2) Life could not have arrived from elsewhere.
Has life always existed since before the beginning of the universe?
How can this be?
Trevor
You have put in a huge amount of effort in replying to my humble questions, remarkable. I apologise in advance that my response is not as lengthy. I notice, and appreciate your bringing to the discussion a series of stories as to how it might be possible to explain a few of the many difficult problems faced by neo Darwinism.
You say: “we don't have all the pieces of that puzzle yet” which is, of course, carefully understated. As you have mentioned earlier but seem to be avoiding now, many of the pieces (you said “all”) will no doubt be found false or in need of modification, down the track.
One of my greatest beefs with many evolutionary articles and posts on blogs such as this one is the grand confidence proclaiming how “we now know” how things evolved. As you say, there are huge numbers of examples where the new knowledge is disproved. As you also say, this is what science is supposed to be about. As you say, most of it will likely be debunked.
I agree there is a danger in “God – science” for SOME people to stop investigating the natural world “Because God did it”. However it is patently disingenuous to imply this would be widespread – history shows that most of the early scientists were theists or at least deists, (Eg: Bacon, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday.) and there are many PhD scientists still really keen to investigate natural phenomena (if they could only get some funding!)
• “Where is the evidence that a gap in our understanding of the universe means god exists?”
Well since there is a “gap in our understanding” many of our scientists want to pursue the possibility of an intelligent Designer. Where is the problem with that? Why wait until the god deniers come to the complete end of their ideas before this avenue is explored?
You mention Occam’s Razor. Yep, I can foresee the day when this will be applied to the massive kludge that is the modern “Big Bang Theory”, with its dark matter, dark energy and strings propping it up. :-)
I read the article about metamorphosis it does not explain how the caterpillar (in crude terms) dissolves in the chrysalis and then re-forms into a butterfly. This must be in the DNA right from the get-go.
The stories about life forming from chemicals, the formation of multicelled organisms and the origins of reproduction (cells, is what I meant :-) are very speculative. Adding random bits of DNA to “chosen” companions and all that sounds a bit too anthropomorphic for me. I can’t help thinking, “these cells don’t actually have a brain”. The grand sweep of the story is just like my story about the sandcastle. Honestly, It’s all “Just So”!
• “Eventually, a freak of evolution occurred: cells gained the ability to alter their functionality based on environmental/epigenetic factors. A cell in the middle of the mat would perform one set of functions. A cell on the outside would perform another.”
Just so!
• Do you mean the evolution of modern genitalia? There's a fish responsible for that one; in fact, its genital claspers eventually evolved into our legs.
Just so!
• So this strand of life solved the need to rapidly respond to environmental changes by evolving the ability to unzip itself, split in two, then re-merge, randomizing genetics. We have no hard data on how long that went on before it also underwent the evolution to multicellularity, but it was probably quite a while.
Please remember this is just a single celled organism, with DNA suited to reproducing itself “after its kind” You’re talking about a huge jump. See my story about the sandcastle. Natural selection HAS to have something to work on.
• You don't just say "I am looking for a new particle"…
If you see an apple falling, you should, as a scientist, say “What makes the apple fall towards the ground?” So you go looking for the cause of the effect.
If you see a universe full of cause and effect, you should go looking for the “First Cause” EVEN if it is the unpalatable “Intelligent Designer” Evidence of design is everywhere. Evidence for a designer. Once you have ascertained there is a designer, by all means – find out who / what it is.
• Facts, not faith.
Don’t write off faith! Here’s a secret: I don’t like religion, I don’t belong to one. I do believe the evidence shows that there is a Creator, and His name is Yeshua (Jesus). The kind of faith Jesus talks about is NOT shut your eyes and hope. It is NOT the “just believe in spite of real evidence” you (and a lot of religious people too) seem to think it is. The faith He talks about is the kind of faith you have when you walk across a plank over a chasm. You look at the plank and judge whether it will break. You test the plank, then you have real faith it will hold you up. You use faith every time you drive on a motorway. You cannot live without real faith.
• No, evidence isn't open to interpretation
You miss what I’m saying. Our courts would disagree with you. Example: Lots of fossils are found in the Cambrian rock. Some scientists see this as evidence life ‘arose’ then, other scientists see the huge deposits with perfect fossils and see evidence for a sudden global flood. Interpretation.
• I assume that the universe arose without a creator because currently we have no need of a creator to explain the universe. There is no need of a creator to explain life, evolution, stellar formation...any of it. It's called Occam's razor. Given a set of diverse possible explanations for an event, the simplest one tends to be true.
Listen to yourself! We are looking at an absolutely astounding level of complexity, both in the universe and atomic level, and most of all in biology. The simplest explanation surely must be that creation requires a Creator. Theories of origins are the most complicated mish mash, constantly changing and being re-hashed when new evidence is discovered. Punctuated equilibrium anyone?
• I don't believe in a creator because I have yet to encounter something for which a creator is necessary.
Only because you have HOPE that science will one day come up with the answers they don’t have, the “gaps” you keep mentioning? Actually it is you who has ‘faith’ that science will provide naturalistic answers to these gaps.
You would be happy to accept that the sandcastle I described could have been made by purely natural forces, wind water and time plus chance? If something “has the appearance of design” then the simplest explanation is – it was designed. (This is obviously not ALWAYS the case).
• The fact that you mistakenly believe that for life to arise everything must occurexactly as it did on Earth is not my problem.
I don’t believe life can ‘arise’ at all. Some of the cleverest minds in the world have tried to ‘create life’ in a ‘test tube’ and after 60 years they have failed. Even IF they do eventually manage to make something, they will only be showing that intelligence can make a poor replica of something God made. Hardly proof that life can ‘arise’unguided!
• Earth is as "special" as you, personally are. I.E: not at all. One amongst many. Interchangeable. Disposable. Irrelevant.
Then why are we trying to ‘save’ it? Who cares that we are trashing it? You can take that attitude and stick it to the greenies! Have YOU volunteered to go to Mars?
I believe this Earth is the jewel in the universe, created for life (not just mankind) to thrive. Mankind is ruining it, it is running down. We need to lift our game, not look for hypothetical, “must be there,” Earth-like planets where any surviving people can bail to, at faster than the speed of light.
• But even then, there is absolutely zero rational reason to assume that those conditions only exist here.
Of course that pre-supposes there is no Creator, which is circular ‘reasoning’. I certainly believe creation requires a Creator, and I have NEVER seen another habitable planet. Neither have you, most likely. Why should there be one? Having said that, there could be heaps of them. There could even be aliens up there, just we have NO evidence of them, none. If YOU believe there are other life forms, you are doing so in blind faith. No facts there.
Evolution, the kind that says chemicals changed into living things which evolved into people and trees, is a crock. Everything is running down, just like the 2nd Law of you know what. Mutations do not result in novel new genetic code, lifting life forms to higher planes! Mutations damage our DNA and any that get a foothold accelerate the downward spiral of the quality of the genome. Mutations are BAD, that’s why you do not live close to a Nuclear reactor, or even under high voltage lines. You don’t want mutations in your own body.
Of course it is slightly possible you are right, the universe has consciousness and is designing itself. Good luck! :-D
Trevor,
What we have is really more of a list of your biases.
When you say there is "no evidence" for a god (creator) that is absurd. All the evidence is open to interpretation. You yourself have said: "By all rights, virtually everything we hold up as "truth" today in science will eventually be proven wrong...or at least incomplete." (I notice you did not mention this) And yet you insist on rolling out monumental assertions as if they are uncontestable facts! That is inconsistent logic, in my book.
What hypothesis have you applied to your "Gaia" type philosophy? Eh? So that's different? Do you think your philosophy does not affect your understanding of science? Maybe it doesn't, but you should have the humility to recognise that there are many Creationists whose world view has not prevented them from doing (and even enabled them to do) great science - such as Damadian and Newton who have been mentioned.
You say "If you accept god through faith there are eleventy squillion questions that arise, each that have no testable hypothesis." You must have done a LOT of research to know this!
You say "There are far more rational and logical explanations available for that which we encounter than "god did it".
That's highly debatable. Please bear with me as I try to show you how that falls over.
Suppose you and I were walking along a remote beach by the ocean, nobody else in sight, no visible evidence anyone has been on the beach. We come across an ornate sandcastle complete with a moat, turrets, a little drawbridge made of icecream sticks and string. A little flag flies from the top.
You might say "Look some clever person has made a beautiful sandcastle" .
What if I said "No, there's no evidence anyone was here - look, no footprints. This sandcastle - like structure was made by the natural forces of wind, rain and sea splashing on the sand. We know wind can pick up sand into a pile, and flowing water can make interesting shapes of it. People throw icecream sticks and string away and they can float around. The universe is so old, a sandcastle like this had to arise somewhere, there's probably many more of them on a planet out there."
You'd have me certified. And yet this sandcastle is "eleventy squillion" times less complex than a bacteria. I'm sure you get the picture.
The evidence for God is ALL around you, and I'm NOT talking about the so-called "God of the gaps" BTW, why is it that you guys, whenever there are two POSSIBLE explanations for a phenomenon, (a) naturalistic and (b) "God did it", why assume always that the naturalistic answer is the correct one? Especially when you yourself have said: "By all rights, virtually everything we hold up as "truth" today in science will eventually be proven wrong...or at least incomplete." Is that not your BIAS? Of course you BELIEVE there is NO evidence for a god, so therefore the answer HAS to be naturalistic.
Having said this, I'd be REALLY interested in your ideas for a hypotheseis to test how a caterpillar could evolve the DNA necessary to turn into a butterfly, through small mutations and natural selection. A lot of what purports to be science is really just 'faith' based guesswork, and would be called such if it were not for the big names spouting it.
OK. God of the gaps.
Gap 1. What force started the big bang?
Gap 2. How did chemicals gather to create life?
Gap 3. How did a single cell organism become a multi-cell organism?
Gap 4. What is the origin of Sexual reproduction?
What will be the hypothesis, how will you repeat the experiments to prove the answers?
You say: What's more, why you[r] god, and not someone else's? Why your interpretation of how god works, and not mine? Why one god and not many?" Again, that's a theological question, not a scientific one. I have many reasons why I am trusting in God, I'm happy to elaborate based on logic and my experiences to anyone who wants to hear.
Trevor, you say: "I do not exclude the possibility that there may be a creator." But in reality you do. You are only saying this in the hope you appear thoughtful and reasonable. Be honest with yourself.
Ok, so by your standards even Venus could be "earth like"? Neither of us have defined "Earth - like" but I think my concept is reasonable, as there are many things that must come together to make a "Goldilocks" planet, a "Privileged" planet. You are just choosing to ignore this, casting a wider net to include planets that are completely unsuitable to allow any conceivable form of life to exist.
Mate, If Mars and Venus can be so similar (by your definition) to Earth, then where is the life there?
What I have been criticising is the oddball claim you are making that there is "nothing special" about Earth"
But hey, keep trying. Eventually, if you assert it enough, you have to "win"...don't you?
:-D I watched it! Ever heard of straw-man arguments?
Religious nut says: "We don't understand how it works. God must have done it"
Humanist nut says: "It must have done it by itself, because there is no god."
Humanism excludes the possibility of a god A priori. That's not science. Science goes where the evidence leads, bearing in mind evidence is ALWAYS interpreted through a world view, be it theist or atheist.
JUST suppose there IS (or was) a Creator. If you exclude this possibility as a basic assumption, you will NEVER arrive at the truth.
Enjoy your lunch, the God I know doesn't often smite down blasphemers ;-)
"we've got three earth-like planets right here in our own solar system"
No, what we have is ONE earth - like planet. Any other planet we know about you can, AT BEST describe as "potentially" earth like. None with liquid water, none with a moon to give it tides, none with oxygen.
ooo! you said the "F" word! You MUST be right! :-D
Trevor, elsewhere on this very blog topic you state with absolute conviction that (and I quote YOU): "By all rights, virtually everything we hold up as "truth" today in science will eventually be proven wrong...or at least incomplete. Newton giving way to the quantum world, etc. That's sort of what the march of science does."
Now read your post above. Think about it.
Your 'reasoning' is circular, your logic is dreadful and your 'humility' not at all evident.
" when some new evidence comes along, we can say - oh, yes, we were wrong - lets change how we think about this" That's a nice thought, ever heard of Phlogiston?
"the religious angle again is always, at the bottom of the pile of turtles "god did it"."
Sooo... the humanist scientific angle is "We haven't a clue how it could have happened, we can't do an experiment to repeat the process , we just know it wasn't a god" because you can't do an experiment to test a god. Not only that, but because it happened on earth without a god, it must be easy. If it's easy then it must be happening all over the place!
"not any use for making anything usefull [sic] like an mri scanner, anti virals, landing on the moon etc etc."
What? The work of Damadian was essential to the invention of MRI. Damadian was a creationist!
The first man on the moon was a deist!
"its morals are also massively questionable in lots of it" Mate, God's morals are a theological issue, not a scientific one.
I know it all seems clear to you, but you also appear biased.
Trevor,
"how rare are Earth-like planets?" So far we have found: One. Just one.
"There is nothing special about Earth, about Sol, about our stellar system,..." You're kidding, right?
"about the comets that seeded life here..." So... that's how it happened!
Marvellous example of unsupported statements and circular reasoning.
Ross K: "A simple DNA test would prove that you are your mother's offspring."
Good point for my argument. I suspect there would be those who would NOT accept DNA evidence either, as it is not 100%, only 99.99 something - if they had some irrational reason to hope she did not exist, even as some people hope there is no God!
"But in short you're telling me there's no proof that one or any God exists - I'm simply expected to let logic wash over me?"
A good dose of logic would do wonders for evolutionary science :-)
Yes, you can deduce by logic that a Creator exists, and even which of the many possible alternatives is the likely Real Creator.
Once you meet your Creator there is lots of evidence - but for most people it's going to look subjective and circumstantial. Doesn't make it wrong though.
Hi Ross
There was a debate, and accusations were made of an "ambush". The interviewer's answer was here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_gb_01.asp
After a hundred years of searching and (for example) decades of studying fruit flies bombarded with radiation to induce mutations... one would think there would be many exmples.
It seems that Dawkins still hasn't answered with examples.
Re: proof God exists... it's a bit like asking me for proof my MOTHER exists. Show you her passport - could be FAKE. Show you a photo - Someone else's mother! The only thing I can do is appeal to logic that I MUST have had a mother (unless I was created from dust) because everyone has a mother.
"Every faithful believer knows there's no mileage in preaching to the choir."
Reading the posts, I thought that's what was happening here :-D So I thought I'd join in and make it more interesting for you - is that OK? Do you mind having a bit of a debate, or do you only want yes men here?
That's pretty hard to believe, since we've all been taught true science - that at first there was absolutely nothing, which somehow exploded for no known reason and became everything.
Then chemicals decided to swirl together in a soup and luckily (!) chanced to form 'simple' life forms able to reproduce and get food from the environment!!
These added vast amounts of genetic information (a process never observed in the real world) by means of chance mutations (which we inexplicably desperately avoid for ourselves and our offspring) and resulted in mankind - an animal with a very fertile imagination indeed
:-) :-D
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
