Why is God invisible to me?

[Nils]

Design is of course evident in the code in the DNA of life on our planet.
I think you would agree that there is more information in the DNA of life on the planet today than there was in the DNA of life on out planet 1 billion years ago. So it is a simple fact that information has somehow been infused into the DNA of life on our planet over the last billion or so years.

This only shows that you don't understand the evolution theory. Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago, but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment.

Assume an individual that had no DNA information about light sensitive cells. By a random mutation one day one of the cells becomes sensitive in a certain area of the electromagnetic spectrum. If there were no energy in that area of the spectrum, there would be no benefit to the individual with that mutation and the mutation would be useless and the individual and its offspring with that mutation would not multiply faster than other individuals of the same species and that mutation would sooner or later disappear. On the other hand, if the mutation was in the part of the spectrum where there is lot of energy, for instance light, this would be beneficial to the individual and its offspring and the mutation would spread throughout the species. There would be a change of the information in the DNA and it was caused by the random mutation AND the property of the environment. No God was needed.

If you read or listen to other sources than Discovery Institute members as Meyer and Behe you will become better informed. Have you tried Wikipedia on Meyer and on the evolution theory?

[Nils]

I tried to delete this post but wasn't allowed to do that

[RickD]

Nils,

After reading your responses in this thread, I’m now pretty convinced that you just refuse to believe in God, despite the evidence. DBowling just gave you perfectly good evidence that should get any honest skeptic to question his disbelief in God. But you responded, “No God was needed.”

That says it all to me.

[Nils]

Nils,

After reading your responses in this thread, I’m now pretty convinced that you just refuse to believe in God, despite the evidence. DBowling just gave you perfectly good evidence that should get any honest skeptic to question his disbelief in God. But you responded, “No God was needed.”

That says it all to me.

Rick,

I find your comment extraordinary strange. DB gave an argument and I explained why he was wrong. Then you say, without saying why, that his argument/evidence was good.

[DBowling]

Design is of course evident in the code in the DNA of life on our planet.
I think you would agree that there is more information in the DNA of life on the planet today than there was in the DNA of life on out planet 1 billion years ago. So it is a simple fact that information has somehow been infused into the DNA of life on our planet over the last billion or so years.

Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago, but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment.

So you actually agree that there is evidence that...
"The fossil record and the code in the DNA of life in our planet today demonstrate that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet."

Once we have agreed that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet, the question then becomes...
is "random" mutation capable of producing either the scope and/or rate of change required for the changes we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today?

And empirical observation of the scope and rate of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab demonstrates that the answer to that question is a resounding "no".

These two lectures provide examples of how "random" mutation actually works in the real world
The Edge of Evolution
https://www.c-span.org/video/?199326-1/ ... -evolution
Darwin Devolves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4

In The Edge of Evolution Behe uses the real world example of malaria adapting to atovaquone and chloroquine.
To adapt to atovaquone, malaria needs a specific single point mutation that occurs at an observed rate of 1 in 10^12.
To adapt to chloroquine, malaria needs two specific coordinated point mutations that occur at an observed rate of 1 in 10^20.

So a mutation that requires four coordinated point mutations for an organism to evolve from one selectable state to another would require a rate of 1 in 10^40, which exceeds the number of living cells that have existed during the history of life on earth.
And there are many mechanisms within many living creatures that require much more than four specific coordinated mutations for that particular mechanism to work.

In Darwin Devolves an analysis of the observed behavior of random mutations demonstrates two things
- of those mutations that affect an organism about 99% are detrimental
- of even beneficial mutations, the great majority break genes or degrade function

So the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world demonstrates that random mutation is incapable of producing the either the scope or rate of change that we see in either the fossil record or the DNA of life today.

That's what the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world tells us.
And for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation.


Now let me come back to the Resurrection of Jesus for a quick minute.
With all the historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, what is it about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that causes you to doubt that it really occurred?

[RickD]

Nils,

After reading your responses in this thread, I’m now pretty convinced that you just refuse to believe in God, despite the evidence. DBowling just gave you perfectly good evidence that should get any honest skeptic to question his disbelief in God. But you responded, “No God was needed.”

That says it all to me.

Rick,

I find your comment extraordinary strange. DB gave an argument and I explained why he was wrong. Then you say, without saying why, that his argument/evidence was good.

The design is evident in dna. You just dismiss a designer: “ but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment.”

“ No God was needed.”

And you expect us to believe you are open, if God would show you evidence that would convince you? I’m not buying it for a moment.

[Nils]

Design is of course evident in the code in the DNA of life on our planet.
I think you would agree that there is more information in the DNA of life on the planet today than there was in the DNA of life on out planet 1 billion years ago. So it is a simple fact that information has somehow been infused into the DNA of life on our planet over the last billion or so years.

Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago, but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment. [see #30 for the explanation]

So you actually agree that there is evidence that...
"The fossil record and the code in the DNA of life in our planet today demonstrate that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet."

I didn't use the word "infuse", it's a transitive verb implying that someone has infused. I said "comes from" or would rather say that the DNA has mutated, intransitive. But this is probably not important.

Once we have agreed that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet, the question then becomes...
is "random" mutation capable of producing either the scope and/or rate of change required for the changes we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today?

Oops, you say ""random"". The correct wording should be: Is random mutation in combination with natural selection capable ....
Is this just a careless error or don't you understand the evolution theory?

And empirical observation of the scope and rate of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab demonstrates that the answer to that question is a resounding "no".

... and here you start to cite Behe and Behe again. Is the Discovery Institute gang the only persons you read? DI have a well known agenda defending the Intelligent Design theory. Perhaps not the best source for independent studies.

If you read other sources, e.g. Wikipedia you get another view, a view the almost every professional biology scientist share.

We have discussed the evolution theory before and I have no hope to be able to persuade you, but this thread is not about persuading each other. What I say is that there is no clear evidence that the evolution if false. A massive majority thinks it is true. Therefore it is reasonable to me not accepting ID as an evidence for Gods interaction (and existence).

Now let me come back to the Resurrection of Jesus for a quick minute.
With all the historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, what is it about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that causes you to doubt that it really occurred?

As I said before, I don't doubt Jesus historical existence. I doubt that he died on the cross. If he didn't there was no resurrection. The historical evidence for his death seems weak to me. I can elaborate if you wish.

[DBowling]

Once we have agreed that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet, the question then becomes...
is "random" mutation capable of producing either the scope and/or rate of change required for the changes we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today?

Oops, you say ""random"". The correct wording should be: Is random mutation in combination with natural selection capable ....
Is this just a careless error or don't you understand the evolution theory?

I think it is more likely that you are the one being careless...
Natural selection doesn't "produce" anything.
Natural selection determines which organisms will survive and propagate and which will die.

The sole causal agent in evolution is "mutation" and the problem with your position is that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the outcomes that you assert.

... and here you start to cite Behe and Behe again. Is the Discovery Institute gang the only persons you read? DI have a well known agenda defending the Intelligent Design theory. Perhaps not the best source for independent studies.

I cite Behe because he is a trained professional scientist who provides actual empirical evidence to support his conclusions instead of speculation and wishful thinking,

If you read other sources, e.g. Wikipedia you get another view

I've read Wikipedia, and Dawkins, and many others...
But as I said before, for me, I prefer evidence that is based on observed empirical data over openly biased speculation with no supporting empirical evidence.

Now let me come back to the Resurrection of Jesus for a quick minute.
With all the historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, what is it about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that causes you to doubt that it really occurred?

As I said before, I don't doubt Jesus historical existence. I doubt that he died on the cross. If he didn't there was no resurrection.

There is plenty of extraBiblical evidence concerning the death of Jesus of Nazareth, including Jewish and Roman sources that were not friendly to either Jesus or Christianity. Why would you dismiss non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources that testify to the life and death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans?

Is There Any Evidence For Jesus Outside The Bible?
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... the-bible/

[Nils]

Once we have agreed that information has repeatedly been infused into the DNA of life throughout the history of life on our planet, the question then becomes...
is "random" mutation capable of producing either the scope and/or rate of change required for the changes we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today?

Oops, you say ""random"". The correct wording should be: Is random mutation in combination with natural selection capable ....
Is this just a careless error or don't you understand the evolution theory?

I think it is more likely that you are the one being careless...
Natural selection doesn't "produce" anything.
Natural selection determines which organisms will survive and propagate and which will die.

The sole causal agent in evolution is "mutation" and the problem with your position is that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the outcomes that you assert.

There are two components operating in biological evolution, mutation and natural selection. Without any of these there will be no long term evolution. Citing from the introduction of Wikipedias extensive article on evolution. "Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population." If you think that mutation is "the sole causal agent in evolution" this is apparently some kind of wishful thinking and there is no idea discussing evolution.

According to Wikipedia, 50% of the scientists in USA think that The evolution theory without any intervention of any God is the correct world view. That includes the scientist of all kinds. For scientists in biology the figure is far higher. In Western Europe the figures are still higher. The conclusion is that there are no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.

In my last post i wrote:
"We have discussed the evolution theory before and I have no hope to be able to persuade you, but this thread is not about persuading each other but what I say is that there is no clear evidence that the evolution if false. Therefore it is reasonable to me not accepting ID as an evidence for Gods interaction (and existence)."
You didn't comment that.

Now let me come back to the Resurrection of Jesus for a quick minute.
With all the historical evidence that supports the resurrection of Jesus, what is it about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that causes you to doubt that it really occurred?

As I said before, I don't doubt Jesus historical existence. I doubt that he died on the cross. If he didn't there was no resurrection.

There is plenty of extraBiblical evidence concerning the death of Jesus of Nazareth, including Jewish and Roman sources that were not friendly to either Jesus or Christianity. Why would you dismiss non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources that testify to the life and death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans?"

If Jesus didn't die when he was crucified how could any person that wasn't there get to know. The Romans would certainly deny this because admitting that would be admitting that had made a mistake. Asking Jesus' friends who had conspired would also be meaningless because of many reason, for instance, they had a good story. This is a case where it is useless to ask the historians. Or as Dr Simon Gathercole wrote in The Guardian: "These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived. "
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... d-and-died

[RickD]

Nils wrote:
The conclusion is that there are(is)no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.

I wholeheartedly agree!

[DBowling]

Natural selection doesn't "produce" anything.
Natural selection determines which organisms will survive and propagate and which will die.

The sole causal agent in evolution is "mutation" and the problem with your position is that the empirically observed behavior of "random" mutation is incapable of producing the outcomes that you assert.

There are two components operating in biological evolution, mutation and natural selection. Without any of these there will be no long term evolution.

Correct...
Those who understand evolution know the basics
Mutations are the causal agent for changes in a biological organism.
Natural selection determines which changes to a biological organism are perpetuated.

According to Wikipedia, 50% of the scientists in USA think that The evolution theory without any intervention of any God is the correct world view. That includes the scientist of all kinds. For scientists in biology the figure is far higher. In Western Europe the figures are still higher. The conclusion is that there are no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.

For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact yor numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.

In my last post i wrote:
"We have discussed the evolution theory before and I have no hope to be able to persuade you, but this thread is not about persuading each other but what I say is that there is no clear evidence that the evolution if false.

I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection are false.
I'm not even claiming that common descent is false (which might annoy some people here).

What I am claiming is that the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the observed rate and scope of "random" mutation at the genetic level is incapable of producing the changes necessary to explain the scope and rate of information that has been infused into the the DNA of life on our planet.
Behe clearly demonstrates this in his genetic analysis of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.

I have seen absolutely zero empirical evidence that the observed scope rate of "random" mutation is capable. I've seen plenty of speculation with no basis in empirically observed reality, but Behe has actually done the detailed analysis of how "random" mutation behaves at the genetic level. So as an engineer I will take observed empirical data over unverified speculation any day.

So if we conclude that mutation and natural selection are indeed true.
And since empirical observed data at the genetic level demonstrates that "random" mutation is incapable of producing the observed changes.
Then the logical conclusion is that some sort of "guided" mutation is required.
Which brings us back to a very familiar place regarding the implications of the scientific evidence.
Guidance requires some sort of Guide.

There is plenty of extraBiblical evidence concerning the death of Jesus of Nazareth, including Jewish and Roman sources that were not friendly to either Jesus or Christianity. Why would you dismiss non-Christian Roman and Jewish sources that testify to the life and death of Jesus at the hands of the Romans?"

If Jesus didn't die when he was crucified how could any person that wasn't there get to know.

This is where the historical evidence comes in.
The gospels give us contemporary eyewitness reports of Jesus' death and resurrection.
And we even have some nonbiblical historical accounts that I have pointed out.

I am unaware of any contemporary historical data that says that Jesus didn't really die when he was crucified.
So again you just dismiss evidence that contradicts your personal paradigm.

When the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was crucified by the Romans
And when the historical evidence indicates that Jesus rose from the dead.
What is your rebuttal?
"it is useless to ask historians"

[Philip]

DB: For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact your numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.

Yes! So the question is, why does Nils not see sufficient evidences for belief in God, when the vast majority of the planet does AND a sizeable percentage of scientists do as well. Some of the best minds and scientists have held a strong belief in God, and they redundantly state they do so based upon the scientific evidences.

A small sampling of noted scientists realizing that there is a Creative Intelligence behind the universe:

American physicist and Nobel Prize winner Arthur Compton said, "For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence--an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered--'In the beginning God.'"

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."

Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater): "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

Einstein: "As I've said before, science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind. They are interdependent and have a common goal—the search for truth. Hence it is absurd for religion to proscribe Galileo or Darwin or other scientists. And it is equally absurd when scientists say that there is no God. The real scientist has faith, which does not mean that he must subscribe to a creed."

Einstein: "... every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

Nils, why do you not recognize as evidence what so many scientists and most humans on the planet do, that seems obvious to them? And bizarrely, while rejecting the incredible cellular and DNA evidences revealing powerful evidences for a Creative Intelligence behind the Creation, instead you DO find credible wild speculations with zero validation for String Theory? What a contrast - on one hand, you reject considerable, examinable evidence that a Creative Intelligence had to build the universe, and yet you are satisfied with a theory which has no evidence whatsoever???!!! Maybe your true problem isn't really a lack of evidences?

[Nils]

According to Wikipedia, 50% of the scientists in USA think that The evolution theory without any intervention of any God is the correct world view. That includes the scientist of all kinds. For scientists in biology the figure is far higher. In Western Europe the figures are still higher. The conclusion is that there are no obvious evidence for evolution without God intervention.

For a person who is willing to dismiss the conclusions of over 90% of the humans on the planet, those numbers are hardly a convincing argument. In fact yor numbers just confirm the fact that there is enough evidence to convince a significant percentage of scientists to agree with 90% of the humans on the planet that some sort of god does in fact exist.

We are discussing if it's irrational of me to ignore what you call evidence against evolution. If 50% of all scientists and almost all scientists in biology agree with me my position it's daring to call this position irrational.

In my last post i wrote:
"We have discussed the evolution theory before and I have no hope to be able to persuade you, but this thread is not about persuading each other but what I say is that there is no clear evidence that the evolution if false.

I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection are false.
I'm not even claiming that common descent is false (which might annoy some people here).

What I am claiming is that the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that the observed rate and scope of "random" mutation at the genetic level is incapable of producing the changes necessary to explain the scope and rate of information that has been infused into the the DNA of life on our planet.
Behe clearly demonstrates this in his genetic analysis of "random" mutation in nature and in the lab.

No, he doesn't. I read his article a few years ago. To come to his conclusion he makes an assumption that isn't accepted by the evolution theorists. (When I say "evolution", I usually means The evolution theory based on mutation and natural selection only, without God's interference.)

You wro te in #30: "So a mutation that requires four coordinated point mutations for an organism to evolve from one selectable state to another would require a rate of 1 in 10^40, which exceeds the number of living cells that have existed during the history of life on earth.
And there are many mechanisms within many living creatures that require much more than four specific coordinated mutations for that particular mechanism to work. "

This is the old argument Behe and others in Discovery Institute have used since Behe started to talk of about irreducible complexity and the example the mouse trap. It's not an empirical fact, it's just an assumption. Citing Wikipedia again:
"Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community,[1] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity.[2] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents, alongside specified complexity.[3] "
Behe's work doesn't give any evidence. "The scientific community .. regards intelligent design as pseudoscience"

Note the ID statement cited above: "certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection," This statement is not falsifiable which is why the ID-theory isn't scientific. Note also that this statement is used as a presumption in what I cited abouve from #30.

The question is: Should I trust Behe or The scientific community. To me the answer is clear beyond doubt.
If you prefer to say that you trust Behe instead, it's up to you, but don't say that it's based on scientific research.

I'll comment on the discussion of Jesus' death in a separate post.

[RickD]

Nils wrote:
The question is: Should I trust Behe or The scientific community.

Behe is a biochemist. Biochemists are scientists. Behe is a part of the scientific community.

If you let someone speak enough, his biases start to come out. Let’s stop pretending you are open minded, and are willing to accept God’s existence if there’s evidence.

[RickD]

Here’s Nils, wondering why God is invisible to him.