DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Brandon9000 wrote:

spendius wrote:
That's because rl is a nice bloke who knows you can't handle the truth.

I'm an arsehole.

The God theory is designed to be simple and straightforward so that all those who spend their lives arguing about other theories can be got back mending the roads and designing frocks and such like. Anything important.

It's the workshy who reject it.

I just wish they would try to do so with a little bit more wit than they have so far managed to demonstrate.

It's their capacity to bore the arse off a gatepost that puts me off.

The theory that a magical being "poofed" us here is simple alright, but since the main attack on the theory of evolution is on the basis of insufficient rigor, by the same argument, the God Theory must be condemned utterly.

All the personal references are irrelevant, and just a smokescreen for an indefensible position.

You continue to compare apples to oranges, Brandon.

Creationists candidly state that their position is supernatural.

The old standby

'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID'

by the hyper-naturalist crowd is a statement of faith, not science.

Ros' assertion about 'numerous generations' of self replicating molecules is a great example.

It's trotted out without a whiff of evidence that such EVER existed, and we're expected to take it on faith, but call it science.

I don't think so.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

He is proposing how to get to a living organism without a replicative molecule because postulating an 'independent replicator' that leads to first life is a waste of time, and he's not wasting his thinking about it.

And you are relating this because of course you agree with it.

I agree with half of it.

An independent replicator is not going to assemble itself in the mud or in the ocean or anywhere else.

But a living organism without replicative ability is a dead end as well.

So then you don't agree with Shapiro or you don't understand Shapiro since he states that is does have replicative ability to meet the standard he set out.

Yeah, 'replicative ability'.

Quote:

A system of reproduction must eventually develop. If our network is housed in a lipid membrane, then physical forces may split it, after it has grown enough. (Freeman Dyson has described such a system as a "garbage-bag world" in contrast to the "neat and beautiful scene" of the RNA world.) A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments. Whatever the mechanism may be, this dispersal into separated units protects the system from total extinction by a localized destructive event. Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution

Shapiro hopes that if a rock falls on his metabolic organism (physical forces split it ) that somehow (he doesn't really say how ) that two 'mini-me' bubbles will pop up in the place of the one that was split, and each of the 'new generation' will have sufficient chemical contents to continue the previous metabolic activity uninterrupted.

Laughing

Quite a 'standard' there, parados.

Wishful thinking would be a more accurate term.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
spendius wrote:
That's because rl is a nice bloke who knows you can't handle the truth.

I'm an arsehole.

The God theory is designed to be simple and straightforward so that all those who spend their lives arguing about other theories can be got back mending the roads and designing frocks and such like. Anything important.

It's the workshy who reject it.

I just wish they would try to do so with a little bit more wit than they have so far managed to demonstrate.

It's their capacity to bore the arse off a gatepost that puts me off.

The theory that a magical being "poofed" us here is simple alright, but since the main attack on the theory of evolution is on the basis of insufficient rigor, by the same argument, the God Theory must be condemned utterly.

All the personal references are irrelevant, and just a smokescreen for an indefensible position.

You continue to compare apples to oranges, Brandon.

Creationists candidly state that their position is supernatural.

The old standby

'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID'

by the hyper-naturalist crowd is a statement of faith, not science.

Ros' assertion about 'numerous generations' of self replicating molecules is a great example.

It's trotted out without a whiff of evidence that such EVER existed, and we're expected to take it on faith, but call it science.

I don't think so.

No, I'm comparing apples to apples. The belief in God isn't exempt from the reasoning you use to criticize evolution. As you appear to at least partially acknowledge, the logic you give for criticizing the believability of the theory of evolution applies far more strongly to the theory of God. You cannot claim that your reasoning shows that there isn't sufficient reason to believe in evolution, but that the God theory is magically exempt and that there is a good reason to believe in it. By analogy, it simply isn't allowable to claim that the germ theory has been demonstrated with insufficient rigor, and that the idea that disease is caused by demons is a better belief.

I actually do believe that there is more than enough reason to believe in evolution, including the initial formation of a self-replicating molecule that has been discussed above.

1. It seems inevitable to me that between natural selection and mutation, all self-replicating systems would improve over time. This is actually observed both in fossil records and in the ability of bacterial infections to adapt to antibiotics.
2. Evolution argues that existing life evolved from simpler forms.
3. It doesn't seem hard to me to believe that the beginning of evolution was a randomly formed self-replicating molecule of some sort. Given the billions of years and immense quantity of ocean involved, this doesn't strike me as hard to believe. People who condemn the idea as too improbably never show the calculations which lead to their condemnation.

You just flat out cannot say that a scientific theory involving natural forces is justified with insufficient rigor, but that a completely unsubstantiated magical explanation is more acceptable. You're contradicting yourself.

0 Replies

Quote:

A system of reproduction must eventually develop.

That's another way of saying " 'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID' .

We wouldn't be here to tell the tale if it hadn't happened and us being here is the proof that it had happened.

It's obvious from this thread what religious leaders had in mind when Creationism was invented. The Tower of Babel would result otherwise.

Much better to POOF it in with a fabulous story,better than ros's, which the world's most fabulous book is, and then we can get on with building the ramparts and training the defenders of our faith and lands and dominions.

Movies always start with a whole world poofed into existence. It's called HIS-story. Picking the right story was our prize.

I think atheists should unhook themselves from the utilities and support services to be consistent. It's looking a gift horse in the mouth.

BTW-My definition of atheist does not include those who don't believe in God but who also refrain from informing anyone.

0 Replies

The statement of "we may not know how it happened, but it did happen" would be problematic for evolutionist theory if science wasn't providing new information everyday.

The attempt to put ID on par with evolution by trying to make evolution an issue of faith is intentionally deceptive or ignorant.

Evolution isn't popular because people reject a different faith based belief, it's popular because believing it can be supported by something greater. Further the support for it grows everyday, and thus we earn a greater understanding.

If ID is to be considered on the basis of yet to be closed holes in evolution, then the holes in ID should be grounds for outright dismissal of the ID concept.

It's not even a theory. Not testable.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Yeah, 'replicative ability'.

Quote:
A system of reproduction must eventually develop. If our network is housed in a lipid membrane, then physical forces may split it, after it has grown enough. (Freeman Dyson has described such a system as a "garbage-bag world" in contrast to the "neat and beautiful scene" of the RNA world.) A system that functions in a compartment within a mineral may overflow into adjacent compartments. Whatever the mechanism may be, this dispersal into separated units protects the system from total extinction by a localized destructive event. Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution

Shapiro hopes that if a rock falls on his metabolic organism (physical forces split it ) that somehow (he doesn't really say how ) that two 'mini-me' bubbles will pop up in the place of the one that was split, and each of the 'new generation' will have sufficient chemical contents to continue the previous metabolic activity uninterrupted.

Quite a 'standard' there, parados.

Wishful thinking would be a more accurate term.

Hardly wishful thinking. Make a stack of glasses. Pour water into the top glass. You will notice that water flows into the lower glasses after the top glass is full.

Did you forget that one of the requirements Shapiro lists is growth. When something increases in size it eventually overflows any hard container it is in. It isn't wishful thinking at all but an easy thing to show. I think you are "wishing" it wasn't true.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

'We may not know HOW it happened, we just know IT DID'

by the hyper-naturalist crowd is a statement of faith, not science.

This is incredible stupidity, just incredible. We know that RNA and DNA exist. We know that they have existed well back into the fossil record (far further back that your ludicrous ten thousand years or so). So, admitting one's ignorance of the mechanism, but asserting the obvious is a honest statement, it is not a statement of faith.

You assert that your imaginary friend exists, but don't offer a shred of evidence, and can in the end only offer blind faith. Anyone who argues that life exists, that it is self-replicating, and that RNA and DNA are the replication agents is simply stating a demonstrable fact, not an article of faith. Saying that one does not know how it arose is honesty, as is proceeding from a naturalistic position--since we know that the natural world exists, but don't know that your imaginary friend exists.

It might help you to think about the implications of your babbling nonsense before hitting the submit button.

0 Replies

Quote:

The statement of "we may not know how it happened, but it did happen" would be problematic for evolutionist theory if science wasn't providing new information everyday.

Assertion Alert!!. What new information every day?

Quote:

The attempt to put ID on par with evolution by trying to make evolution an issue of faith is intentionally deceptive or ignorant.

Assertion Alert!!

Quote:

Evolution isn't popular because people reject a different faith based belief, it's popular because believing it can be supported by something greater. Further the support for it grows everyday, and thus we earn a greater understanding.

Assertion Alert!!

Why would growing support, even asserted growing support, earn a greater understanding.

Quote:

If ID is to be considered on the basis of yet to be closed holes in evolution, then the holes in ID should be grounds for outright dismissal of the ID concept.

Assertion Alert!! Holes in theories are not grounds for dismissal.

Quote:

It's not even a theory. Not testable.

How is evolution theory testable except insofar as the social consequences its acceptance will cause. Nothing is repeatable so how would you test it?

What a way to teach science.

0 Replies

This from the dipsomaniac gobshite who never offers any evidence, who relies exclusively upon assertion.

This thread will go to **** rapidly now with Spurious puking all over it.

0 Replies

Right. Back to Settin' Aah-aah.

Give me an example of a significant assertion I have made.

0 Replies

I think Spendy that assertion is the meat in your sandwich.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This from the dipsomaniac gobshite who never offers any evidence, who relies exclusively upon assertion.

This thread will go to **** rapidly now with Spurious puking all over it.

Not to mention Spendius's absolute inability to come up with a decent derogatory term that doesn't fall apart from lack of thought... like AIDSes (which would imply more than one Intelligent Design theory) and Settin' Aah-aah.

However, I would actually like to respond in a non ad-hominem way to the following:

spendius wrote:

Assertion Alert!!

Why would growing support, even asserted growing support, earn a greater understanding.

Greater support would mean more people researching it. We can see this with the Theory of Evolution itself. In the beginning, there was just Charles Darwin and maybe Alfred Wallace, but as it gained acceptance, more people started researching it.

Quote:

Assertion Alert!! Holes in theories are not grounds for dismissal.

ID proponents are dismissing Evolution because of the holes in the theory. If holes in theories are not grounds for dismissal, then Creationism and ID are both unjustified in dismissing Evolution.

spendius wrote:

Assertion Alert!!. What new information every day?

Admittedly, it's not exactly every day but it's close enough.

There's this article, which was published in New Scientist today?

Then there's this article published on 8th July.

Then there's this article published on 3rd July.

Then there's this article published on 2nd July.

Then there's this article published on 30 June.

All these articles detail recent advances in evolutionary science. It may not be every day precisely, but it is close enough to Setanta's meaning, which is that science progresses very quickly and finds new evidence very quickly. I take it that you will now try to argue that Setanta is wrong by interpreting his comment literally. Sure, if you want to take that underhanded tactic, go ahead, but it'll only make you look like devious, underhanded, untrustworthy snake-oil salesman.

Quote:

How is evolution theory testable except insofar as the social consequences its acceptance will cause. Nothing is repeatable so how would you test it?

What a way to teach science.

Well, seeing as Evolution states that random mutations are selected for by the environment, you could grow E. coli for a long time, let them mutate by themselves and expose them to a certain environment and see whether that environment will select for any mutations.

I mean, if the E. coli evoled the ability to metabolise citrate, for example, under conditions that favoured citrate-metabolising bacteria... I'm sure that would prove a central concept of Evolution.

But of course, I'm sure you'll just stick your fingers in your ears and ignore anything that contradicts your world view. It's what you usually do.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

btw ros,

You inadvertently missed:

Quote:
The problem is that as you go upladder, some of the compounds you need are inherently unstable, and even water will destroy them

I knew you wanted to address it, so I thought I'd mention it.

Some are and some aren't. What about it?

Shall we go back to asking you which of the facts I presented you disagreed with? I know you wanted to address it, so I though I'd mention it (again).

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

Creationists candidly state that their position is supernatural.

PUH LEEZE RL

Now which Creationists are you speaking of. The "SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS" who tried to get their viewpoint taught in the SCIENCE classes of Louisiana in 1980 and were defeated by the USSC because they couldnt provide any scientic data that supported their worldview(THOUGH THEY TRIED),

Or are you referring to the "INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS", who , only recently tried the same routine in Pennsylvania?
Each of these worldviews has sworn up down and sideways that they are science and are based upon scientific evidence (of which they have yet to provide any evidence of).

The Creationists world is so fractionated that its hard to see where youre at without a Bible by your side.

See, if theres evidence, Its really not supernatural. If its really supernatural , theres no evidence.

0 Replies

Addressing Mr ODonnell's post- (The wolf-man),

What a farrago of balderdash that is.

I read the first link about the wandering eyeholes and that was quite sufficient for one day.

Quote:

ID proponents are dismissing Evolution because of the holes in the theory.

In which case hadn't you better address yourself to those particular ID proponents whose views you have chosen to quote.

I have never dismissed evolution theory except insofar as its acceptance by 100% of the population at the expense of other theories would lead logically to consequences which, I believe, very few people would wish to see and I include anti-IDers. That is why anti-IDers shut their brains down when asked to describe the world they are seeking to usher in. They can't, daren't, even offer a view on performance enhancing drugs when asked to do so. They are talkie-talkie machines a very long way from the action and the periodicals they read, an industry invented by Robert Maxwell, are in it for money and flattering their readers is how they go about getting it.

I see anti-IDers as living and benefitting from a Christian world but seeking to throw off those aspects of its discipline which they don't fancy for one reason or another. Anti-ID is a one-shot fundamentalist position.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I have never dismissed evolution theory except insofar as its acceptance by 100% of the population at the expense of other theories would lead logically to consequences which, I believe, very few people would wish to see and I include anti-IDers.

To use your own words, I find this complete and utter balderdash. You have consistently failed to state what these consequences are and failed to prove that these are really consequences.

I have even attempted to engage you on this matter, but the moment I discussed the only argument I have heard (regarding how Evolution leads to eugenics), you insisted that wasn't your position and then refused to state what it was and to elaborate on what this consequence of yours was. You've kept running about in circles, never really providing anything concrete to even discuss. Why should we engage you in discussion if you will not even define your position?

I see people like you as living and benefitting from a scientific world but seeking to throw off those aspects of its discipline which you don't fancy for one reason or another. Your position is a one-shot fundamentalist one.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

The Creationists world is so fractionated that its hard to see where youre at without a Bible by your side.

Isn't that the very essence of its charm fm?

Isn't error the driving evolutionary force. Flies, having seemingly not changed in hundreds of millions of years, maybe thousands, must have made no errors and thus be the cleverest little critters on earth as some say they are.

Pretty nifty trick is living on ****. Talk about a free lunch eh?

Flies are not fractionated. There's the one fast in the amber and the one that shat on the light bulb and you can't tell them apart.

Without fractionation you have what I said--one-shot fundamentalism. You couldn't invent the calculus when your meditations needs must stop in the slime on earth. It depends upon meditations on the infinite being.

No juice. Imagine that fm.

0 Replies

same ****, different day with you.

0 Replies

Mr ODonnell wrote-

Quote:

I see people like you as living and benefitting from a scientific world but seeking to throw off those aspects of its discipline which you don't fancy for one reason or another. Your position is a one-shot fundamentalist one.

In what way?

I oppose abortion, poofism, women bishops, birth control and cloning.

Which aspects of its disciplines are you suggesting I have thrown off.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I see anti-IDers as living and benefitting from a Christian world but seeking to throw off those aspects of its discipline which they don't fancy for one reason or another. Anti-ID is a one-shot fundamentalist position.

1) Not everyone lives in a "Christian world" in which you should more accurately refer to nations and not worlds.
2) Evolution does not need to refute ID.

What consequences are there for teaching evolution? You seem to think there are any.

T
K
O

0 Replies

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know