Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Gotta wonder when these geniuses will explain how the two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes...came into being.

And...how the material that allowed the Earth to come into being...came into being.

There is no way to come to "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there are gods"...

...or...

..."it is more likely that there are gods than that there are none"...

...through science or reason or logic.

All of this is faith in blind guesswork ...on both side fighting this battle here.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

well you already have an answer that satisfies you so why even play your silly bait game.

Read some more and you can understnd the many types of reactions and bonds. Perhaps the mysteries will begin to dissolve.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Bob Hazen, a colleague from Carnegie, has been working on the hydrothermal vent and pressure model of abiogenesis for almost 15 years. He made a presentation at a conference about 8 years ago and was snickered at by all the old Miller and Urey people who were only then making adjustments into the pre ""spark" conditions that M&E combined.

Everyone is now using pyruvates in a hydrothermal vent "Hypothesis" and its showing the shortcomings of relying upon a single mechanism like Miller and Urey in a reducing environment or failing to include pressure vents in with the chemistry.
All we can see is that an "RNA world" mechanism needs more "interdisciplinary work".

Leadfoot has already stipulated to the "ease " of accepting the continuing role of evolution ,even though the same chemistry is basically involved with life exploiting an entirely new (often quite toxic to the existing life ) niche, than the previous. The same "readjusting" of the peptides and metabolites would be necessary for the new classes of life as were needed for the previous.

As you say, new evidence appears daily and the "god squad" paints itself into an ever decreasing area in their corner

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

As you say, new evidence appears daily a

Not true! Unless you believe in the evolution-GOD.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

its only untrue if youre an idiot or a God Squad member--WHICH ARE YOU?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

well you already have an answer that satisfies you so why even play your silly bait game.

Read some more and you can understnd the many types of reactions and bonds. Perhaps the mysteries will begin to dissolve.

One of your many problems, Farmerman....is that you cannot acknowledge the obvious...even when it is staring you in the face.

If there is the possibility of a god...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

That is undeniable...a hypothetical that is a tautology.

But you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge it...probably because you are not nearly as scientific or logical as you pretend to be.

Your loss!

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.

More of the same. No thinking or analysis on your part. If all I wanted was to see published papers I wouldn't bother with A2K.

I have MANY times stipulated that you could show that the building blocks for abiogenesis were possible by natural causes (giving this the benefit of the doubt) but you have never shown how they could assemble themselves into a living organism.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I have many times stipulated that organic molecules and glycerides will assemble themselves in the presence of clay, especially montmorillonite. This is a natural result of the chemical properties of the clay. The holy rollers always cross the street and walk on the other side when such things are pointed out. If it becomes necessary they will put their fingers in their ears and repeat: "La-la-la-la, i can't hear you." This naturally occurring chemical reaction has been known since at least 1970, if not earlier.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I have many times stipulated that organic molecules and glycerides will assemble themselves in the presence of clay, especially montmorillonite.

Even if I agreed with your 'stipulation' (and in principle i agree that there are some conditions where that is true) that assembly will be a random pattern. It does not account for the highly ordered encoding of the instructions necessary to direct the operations of a living organism. And of course this ignores the requirement for the machinery required to execute those instructions. I've made this point numerous times.

You are obviously more motivated to throw up arguments against ID rather than understand what the theory of ID is actually about.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
the team describes how they were able to map reactions that produced two and three-carbon sugars, amino acids, ribonucleotides and glycerol—the material necessary for metabolism and for creating the building blocks of proteins and ribonucleic acid molecules and also for allowing for the creation of lipids that form cell membranes.
More of the same. No thinking or analysis on your part. If all I wanted was to see published papers I wouldn't bother with A2K.

Why so afraid of scholarship? Maybe it would do you good to spend a little more time learning the science instead of repeating the denialist failures, like the god of the gaps approach.

Quote:

I have MANY times stipulated that you could show that the building blocks for abiogenesis were possible by natural causes (giving this the benefit of the doubt) but you have never shown how they could assemble themselves into a living organism.

You obviously didn't bother to read the research I brought to the table. Go back and read, please. Scholarship is valuable. Eschewing it is preferring ignorance over awareness. Willful ignorance.

You said that there's been no new developments in abiogenesis research; I proved you wrong. Otherwise, you're the one claiming there's a god behind it all, so the burden of proof is on you. Show us your god.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Theory of ID ? ! ? ! ?

I swear, you cannot make up **** as funny as some jokers will post here in all seriousnes.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Theory of ID ? ! ? ! ?

I swear, you cannot make up **** as funny as some jokers will post here in all seriousnes.

If they had enough evidence for a theory, they wouldn't need faith.

0 Replies

Basically, this joker has got his head stuck in a mindset of those who believe in a creator god. Everything is seen to be purposive, and nothing happens by chance, or as a result of the random interaction of physical laws, such as the laws of chemistry. If you don't provide him evidence that something came into existence, full-blown, with the mechanisms of reproduction which now exist, more than two billion years after life appeared on the planet, he will claim you have provided no evidence.

Intending at the outset to deny any evolutionary process, he just can't get his pinhead around the notion that there is a process of change which adequately explains the emergence and development of self-replicating molecules. Once again, he sticks his fingers in his ears, shouting: "LA-LA-LA-LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

If there has been "intelligent design," who or what is the designer? Your move, Bubba.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It's an old tactic. Demand an account of every molecular interaction during the past 13.7 billion years, but dodge requests for a single scrap of clear evidence for their invisible friend. Rolling Eyes

Thing is, I don't think they're deliberately being dishonest. They just want it to be true so bad that they've genuinely deluded themselves. Sadly, part of their delusion is that they feel the compulsion to spread it in order to feel validated. That's where the trouble begins.

1 Reply

Citing the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Wikipedia describes a scientific theory as follows: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

How was the scientific method applied to come up with "intelligent design?" How has "intelligent design" been tested? What observations and experiments have confirmed "intelligent design?"

ID theory . . . Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

0 Replies

@FBM,

I'm not expecting an intelligent response from this joker. But then, you don't expect that either.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

True that.

0 Replies

The only reasonable response to hecklers on an Internet forum is to ignore.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It would be more reasonable to inform yourself thoroughly about the topic(s) you're discussing, construct valid logical arguments free of fallacies and misinformation, and to appeal to relevant scholarship instead of subjective preferences and rhetoric.

Or you just just

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/lalala_1.gif

Your call.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Been there, done that. At least you have made an attempt to be substantive, unlike Setana who has done little more than hcckle. I've blocked him but if you come up with something new, I'm still listening.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know