Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

It is impossible to argue against intelligent design fm. Intelligent design embraces laboratory experiment results. And your reaction to them. And everything else you might think of.

That's what the Book of Job means isn't it?

You can only have faith. One way or the other.

The question is thus inevitable. Which faith do we organise around?

I have been telling you for 10 years that social consequences are the only consideration in adult discussions on the matter.

I was responding to your assertion that amino acids are NEVER "create" fom inorganic substances. You are wrong about that. The Miller Urey experiment iis a favorite nasty-grm from Cretionists. They purposely overstate the goals of Miller and Urey and then gloat that life "was Not" created in a "test tube". That was never the goal. These two guys wanted to see what they would get if they (in their primitive understanding) would replicate the early earth atmosphere and(sort of) environment. Well, Im always amazed that people forget that they "Cooked up" several different amino acids . These were all C13 based and , by our knowledge today, these isotopes are never involved with "molecular biology".
SO, I never claimed they created life. I ont want to have to keep bringing you back to your assertions because you quickly change your positions after you discover that your assertions were wrong

That's not a valid example of abiogenesis. The earth was a sterile non-living ball in space. Life arose by a means we are NOT able to replicate yet. Research is going on and weve been able to crete an erzats "cell wall" and "sub-life molecules and polymers .(After all, simply stated, the first life to appear was nothing more than a complex "polymer" or cluster of polymers. Because research hasn't found an answer yet, is no reason to default that "In step 2 a miracle happened". Its not good enough for the enquiring human mind. As rosborne says above, You introduce the concept of "POOFISM" (a word that sums up the 'deep research' that Creationist "science" is involved with.

Pretty much. You have an annoying habit of standing up with some dubious data (the sources of which you never present to us). Then , when accosted with facts from the scientific literature, you try to change and modify your stance (Like the above statement that I am claiming that they created life in the lab)

That gets rather annoying in a discussion. If you aren't presenting anything that cannot be cited in literature then just lose it.

are you saying that Java Man was a fake? Id like to read your sources



See , your bullshitting again . "Piltdown Man" was a combined hoax of a lawyer, an unscrupulous scientist, and a Catholic Priest. All of whom were involved in a hoax that they knowingly cooked up inorder to deceive the scientists of the day. There were no "laser grindings" nor any "digitally remastered teeth"
The hoax was perpetrated between 1911 and 1915 . It wasn't officially exposed as a hoax until1953 when the whole thing was published in theBulletin of the British Museum, in which the authors commented on the "perfectly executed and perfectly prepred fraud"
The level of forensics was rather primitive because it took them over 35 yers to reach the conclusion that the skull and jw hd been "doctored" by potassium dichromate (not lsers or computers)
Try to avoid reaching for the outrageous clims because it doesn't make your other l points worthy of response

Why don't you talk about the Scam at Paluxy Texas where two Creationist brothers carved guman" footprints" in the Clays of the Cretaceous Pqluxy Formation . They carved a couple of actul dinosaur footprints and climed that they were evidence that humans lived when the dinosaurs flourished.
Or the recent find of a skeleton of a human in the grip of the remains 0f a Jurassic predator

Theres plenty of hoaxes to go around and usually it takes the efforts of real science to discover them.

And if I was you I would pm that trolling clown Setanta to tell him that you have no need of his advice on the subject of who you choose to respond to.

You caused this thread with--

and? your point is?

If I join in a discussion I think I have an expectation (certainly I have no right) that the information that is presented to me as counter to my facts, WILL, at least be that which is not artfully being presented as fact when it is , indeed, being presented solely to deceive .

See, when that happens I begin to doubt the veracity of my correspondent and I start my nagging question that says
"Is this guy that dumb or does he think that I m that dumb to buy some of his ridiculous claims"

I think I used that conundrum when I first encountered your style of "debate".
I call your style the "Spendi fluffinutter"

I made two points. You have answered neither.

I call your style "dickietalk".

The whole matter is grounded in the orderly management of rumpy-pumpy.

Wasn't the big mistake farming? The Neolithic Revolution. From which there is no going back.

Farmerman claimed:

Dream on chum, Dawks was forced to do a grovelling u-turn and admit that the nerves of the retina are transparent and therefore don’t block incoming light despite being wired the "wrong way", so Dr George Marshall is right and Dawks is wrong.
Perhaps the link I posted isn't workng for some of you, so let me post Marshall's detailed explanation which he arrived at after simply looking through a microscope at the eye-
"The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply—the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. …
The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy"
http://creation.com/book-review-of-dawkins-climbing-mount-improbable

In other words, Marshall's observations are indisputable, that's the great thing about FACTS, they can't be argued with..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rockhead said

Yes it's me, but to put it in an avatar in A2k is a bit complicated and requires going through an outside image agency or something and might mess up my other avatars in other net forums, so posting it at the bottom of my posts is the next best thing.
It's needed because it's like a flag that says "Here I am!" and allows my fans all over internet-land to quickly scroll down the A2K pages to find my stunning posts..
---------------------------------

I have had a retinal detachment. It blinded my eye. It was successfully operated on.

the entire argument was whether there was any evidence that the eye was or was not traceable to earlier organisms. And the result (despite Dawkins own debate style) , evidence clearly shows , by means of the placement of ocular nerves in older life forms, evolution of the eye is clear.

The whole point is that the fossil record shows the original "wiring" that has since been turned inside out to accommodate the oculr orbit of the vertebrate and higer vertebrate eye. To say that its "perfectly wired" is just the point. Its wired to meet the convolutions of the entire ocular orbit and the way that the vertebrate eye is required to work. It doesn't discount the fact that this is backwards from the early simple eyefold .
You and Dr Marshall miss the point entirely. Because something is "wired perfectly" for its present configuration says nothing about how it hd to be "jiggered" to become configured to fit the way vertebrate eyes are forced to work. Thast all. Dr Dawkins may be rather brusque but hes not wrong evolutionarily

The blind spot issue is still being side stepped by your Creationist eye doctor

Fans? heh. Then you aint doin it right.

You are allowing your propensity to masticate on red herrings to get the better of you again fm.

The characteristics of the eye have nothing to do with the orderly management of rumpy-pumpy.

Spendius said:

Yes mate thank God for medical science..
(And as you know, gospel-writer Luke was a doctor)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farmerman said:

1- When I read Mt Improbable, one of Dawks quotes re the evolution of the eye that's stuck in my mind went something like this- "It was not difficult for a lump of transparent jelly to spontaneously form".
In other words he's saying it suddenly appeared out of nowhere! His credibility with me slipped a truckload of notches from then on.

2- As for the blind spot, it's no obstacle to vision because the brain "fills it in" so that we don't have black holes in our vision..
--------------------------------

EXACTLY, that's what evolution does. It takes what you have and does it somewhat differently. Look at wings and fins and legs

AS far as Dawkins, every side has its people we are not proud of. You have Austen and Gish and Demski and Behe.
Dawkins is just a bit of a whiner who steps out of his fields to argue on a brod scale. Evolutionary sciences are too broad for any one person to have it all down and accurate.

When your Dr Mrshall was arguing (or attempting to) regarding plate tectonics in a Youtube video, Im sure Dr Austen wanted to shoot him. Austen is your Creationist "isotope genius"

Why don't you simply state what is your claim: you believe that abiogenesis is possible - is that your claim? When I talk with you and Frank I never know what you are saying?
IF your claim is that abiogenesis is possible (or has happened) - where are your 'accosting facts from the scientific literature' in support of this?


I don't say that this is abiogenesis. What I am trying to say is that abiogenesis if possible at all, should be much more complex that you are trying to present it.


This claim is very interesting. So you want to say that if something is published somewhere it becomes truth of the last resort. How does that happen?


I don't know - but the circumstances around this are rather suspicious. "Thus for example Eugène Dubois for a period of 30 years was hiding the fact that next to the Java Man he has found in the same layer!? a skull of a human, which pressupposes that the human has existed by the time the Java Man was supposed to have lived. Eugène Dubois himself before his death changes his mind by saying that the Java Man is most probably a large gibon ... and has nothing to do with the stages of the development of the human." -- Dr. Dwayne Gish


... Piltdown Man has been presented as the 'missing link' (500 000 years ago) in the development of the human. This has been presented as evidence for the evolution of the human ... just like the Java Man.


This is far more than 'plenty of hoaxes to go around'. These two have been presented as 'evidences' to the evolution of the human ... which is still 'accosting fact from the "scientific literature" '.


Life is nothing of the kind. Life is a masterpiece of bioprocessing, selectively processing various things from the environment, and reacting to some other things that it coinsiders dangerious. I don't know about any polymer capable of doing this.
Our body for example is so intelligent that your 'real science' and 'accosting facts from the scientific literature' will never catch up with it.

If you do not know or understand what I am saying...it is because you do not want to. I am willing to stay with any subject for as long as it takes to make my position clear.

What specifically do you still question about ANYTHING I have said?

Make it just one thing...and we can discuss it until it is crystal clear. I do not mind how long it takes.

And then we get that cleared...you can go on to any other single thing that remains "unclear."

Like I've said before, God wrote the 'Creation/Evolution Program' and hit Enter, so evolution is his doing anyway..

Do you believe in abiogenesis & what evidences do you have in support to this?
Can you prove that the probability theory and the poker game are one and the same thing? Can you prove that if somebody can play poker he is a genius in probability theory? Can you prove that the best poker players have the qualification and can teach probability theory at the university ... without any problems? ... or you were trying to say something else.

(I think my reference was very clear-It appears that you were the one who forgot what you were even saying that warranted my response)

As far as abiogenesis, Its a working hypothesis based upon the evidence of the rise of life on the planet. As far as earths history goes, Weve got a Billion years (about) which has NO EVIENCE of life in the early sedimentary rocks. The planet is basically sterile. 1.18 Billion years after it formation, and in the Hadean rocks of Greenlnd, Austrlia and the Siberian Shield we see evidences of new hemicals being brought into the crust (from meteorite impcts?). Also we see evidence of life in the form of C12 residues in the organic fraction. The rise of archeobacteria and Cyanobacters make their debut. Life cruises along with very small changes (Evidences of cell walls nd tromatolites abound but only a single specimen of a hrd test organism. Then t bout a 100 million years after the end of the Grenvillean age nd just after the Cryogenian period , we see the rather diverse body forms of the Ediacaran fauna. and a few hard shell animals. Then at about 600my years ago we have a rather longish "Cambrian Explosion(about 50 to 80 million years ) In which half of the faunal classes appear in the fossil record. That , almost 4 billion year ascendance of life is not "Sudden" or "life making its appearance fully formed" or life "fter its own kind"

The conclusion is that , unless there were some event of pangenesis (qs Fred Hoyle liked) , life appered an developed on the planet from basic chemicals and physical substances (like cly minerals which can selectively rearrange other compounds it comes in contact with. Clays can act as a "Chemical catalyst" for surface chemistry reactions , and adsorption desorption phenomena. (ll of which are seen in living molecules that carry energy, oxygen and information)

Of course you may say that its all the interaction with an intelligence but, as far as I know, the guys out there seeking "Glctic Intelligence" hvent reported in as of yet. Hell, they've only been at it for 20 years or so so lets give em some time. They are wating much of their time trying to find fault with biological and geological research

I don't know how it orks in your world but science is a multidisciplinary multifaceted inquiry . Not everyone is individually funded or skilled to take on the vast amount of inquiry into so many varying subject. Literature is published to be reviewed, scrutinized and debated. Just because its published doesn't mean it stands unchanged. When Wegener published his ideas on Continental Drift he was excoriated and blasted by colleagues and the entire scientific world didn't change its mind until more data and evidence supported Wegeners ideas (now its a theory of Global Tectonics and sea floor spreading)
Remember, in science, a theory IS NOT conjecture. It is an explntion for a phenomenon in which all the evidence supports AND NO EVIDENCE REFUTES.
remember that

The indecision agnosticism inevitably entails. (see post on getting out of bed).

The working term here I "HAD" .iltdown man was a hoax that was accepted for about 35 years until it ws officially debunked by cience. It was called EoHomo even though severl scientists were skeptical about it erly in its presentation.
IT WAS A HOX, science disposed of it and learned the methods of the clowns who did the deed.

As far as Java man, the cretionists have been hammering on this one because Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of the Tanil skull qnd working with the "Peking man" teams had backed off his claim for Jav mn of Tanil and the Peking Man. (Duane Gish, who is, in most anyones eyes, mn with NO credentials in paleoanthropology , hs led the argument aginst Jv Man)
However, recent studies of Java and Peking clearly place these guy in the Homo erectus clan. SO your Mr Gish is just blowin smoke again