Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Which is it? You keep tripping over your own religion as you claim it isn't about God when it comes to evolution.

0 Replies

@layman,

Simply put, it's environment driven.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Simply put, it's environment driven.

Well of course! If the world had been covered in railroad tracks, Locomotives would have evolved.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

well, innstead it was mostly covered with acidic water so marine and water dwelling organisms appeared and evolved. When some ;annd masses appeared from late Grenvillean to the Lower Ordovician, filamentoud shallow water algae like charales evolved and gradully became adpted to terrestrial environment.
So your "track" analogy iant really too far off. (except that tracks , of course, evolved by "intelligent beings" learning that steel was the preferred materil nd it took a snotty ENglishman to learn how to blow bubbles into a foundry.)
land was a product of shallow ledges of crustal material moving about helter skelter over a hot plastic mantle. Are you saying that continental drift is an intelligent force?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

PS, in case youre still in a quandry about "entropy" and the living state, heres a brief summary from Wiki.

I thought you said you had a science background, we have thermo and phase rule taught in sophomore chem or mineralogy

Quote:

thermodynamic interpretation of evolution in relation to entropy has begun to utilize the concept of the Gibbs free energy, rather than entropy.[9] This is because biological processes on earth take place at roughly constant temperature and pressure, a situation in which the Gibbs free energy is an especially useful way to express the second law of thermodynamics. The Gibbs free energy is given by:
\Delta G \equiv \Delta H-T \Delta S \,
The minimization of the Gibbs free energy is a form of the principle of minimum energy, which follows from the entropy maximization principle for closed systems. Moreover, the Gibbs free energy equation, in modified form, can be utilized for open systems when chemical potential terms are included in the energy balance equation. In a popular 1982 textbook, Principles of Biochemistry by noted American biochemist Albert Lehninger, it is argued that the order produced within cells as they grow and divide is more than compensated for by the disorder they create in their surroundings in the course of growth and division. In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

In short, according to Lehninger, "living organisms preserve their internal order by taking from their surroundings

So you're saying that we consume lovely prepared happy meals from McDonalds and leave **** behind. I get it! I'm totally convinced now!

But seriously, it would have been more convincing if you'd said the eddies eventually run out of available energy to steal and enter the free stream once again. Dust to dust eventually.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

whatever it takes for you to better understand . It kind of gives me the shivers when you are trying to argue something from a point of mislocation of terms and concepts.
BUT, if the happy meal fueling the furnace works for you at least you will be less ignorant than when youre trying to throw naive insults.

0 Replies

To me, it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that there is some, for lack of a better word, "intelligence" involved in the emergence and development of living systems.

What is this "intelligence" exactly? I don't know. How does it work? Where does it come from? I have no idea, and I suspect that we will never have clear answers such questions. To me it just seems to be an inherent feature of "the universe" which permeates everything to some degree. It has to just "be" there, somehow, some way.

The amazing level of complexity and co-ordinated interactions between and among successive hierarchical "systems" in biological "structures" far exceeds anything man could create, or even understand. I find it impossible to accept an "ex nihilo accident" as a sufficient explanation for it. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone can. In my opinion, it requires an ideology and an emotional commitment to that ideology, to "buy into" that "explanation."

Once again, I do not pretend understand this "intelligence" I'm referring to. But that's not a sufficient reason for me to deny it exists. I don't think that the only things that can exist are things that I know. Good thing, too, cause I don't really understand ****.

2 Replies

@layman,

The only intelligence is nature itself.

Quote:

Intelligence in Nature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intelligence in Nature: An Inquiry into Knowledge
Author Jeremy Narby
Intelligence in Nature: An Inquiry into Knowledge is a 2005 non-fiction book by Jeremy Narby. The book is an ethnographic work which continues Narby's quest that began in The Cosmic Serpent (1995) about the ability of alternative traditions of knowledge to gain access to knowledge by communicating with other species, organisms, and even being able to communicate at the level of molecular level.[1]

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Can you "communicate at the molecular level" Cicerone?
If so that would be impressive. If you do, do you believe what you hear? Why?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

No.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Once again, I do not pretend understand this "intelligence" I'm referring to. But that's not a sufficient reason for me to deny it exists. I don't think that the only things that can exist are things that I know

Imagination is a bsis for a lot of cretivity. You dint give the 8 basic chemicals of life enough of a chance to impress you with what they can do all by themselves if we just dont **** with em.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Imagination is a bsis for a lot of cretivity. You dint give the 8 basic chemicals of life enough of a chance to impress you with what they can do all by themselves if we just dont **** with em.

Well, I guess that what "impresses" a person, and how "imaginative" they can get is a subjective thing, eh, Farmer?

I am "impressed" that some guys can lift dead weight of over 500 pounds. I can "imagine" someone lifting millions of pounds, and I would be much more "impressed" if I saw that. I ain't seen it, but, being creative, and all, I can certainly "imagine" it, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

I mean like, looky here, eh?:

1. We know for a fact that there are guys on this planet

2. We know for a fact that there are things with mass, heavy things, available for them to lift, if they want.

3. We know for a fact that these guys sometimes do lift heavy things.

So, I mean, like, really, is it that much of a stretch to conclude that some guy could lift millions of pounds? Is that out of the realm of what's "possible?" It's just lifting weight, which we already know is possible. It's just "more of the same," that's all.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You dint give the 8 basic chemicals of life enough of a chance to impress you with what they can do all by themselves if we just dont **** with em.

Yeah, I probably don't give "basic chemicals" enough credit for being able to defy natural laws and combine themselves to form living creatures who then chemically transform themselves into intelligent beings, eh, Farmer?

I know that some basic chemical compounds, like, say, salt, pepper, paprika, etc. exist. I can even imagine them suddenly getting smart, organized, and mobile. I can imagine them reading a cookbook, mashing up some hamburger, putting it into a hot frying pan on a lit stove, then jumping in to it, in just the right proportions, to help make some tasty-ass sloppy joes, ya know?

But, for some reason, even given the pride I take in my extensive imagination, I haven't convinced myself that that's actually possible.

1 Reply

@layman,

Code:

        

Yeah, I probably don't give "basic chemicals" enough credit for being able to defy natural laws and combine themselves to form living creatures who then chemically transform themselves into intelligent beings, eh, Farmer?

Obviously you dont have any feel for what chemicals can do in our absensce. The formation of such grand families as fatty acids, nucleotides, some proteins , even little methane (abiotic methane by a thing called the Tropsch process).

Chemistry has always been the "hidden chils" its never been "Sexy" like physics, yet all the rules that bind physics also apply to chemicals .

Your imagination seems to totally absent when it comes to abiogenesis yet its fully accepting when it comes to "poofism". HMMMM,

HERE: Ypou can even buy it at WALMART.Remember , its a good source of at lleast 20 Amino acids

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DZH2cmCoois/Sg2T9IjjaCI/AAAAAAAAJp0/WyFGJMdXnuU/s400/tmp.bmp

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

all the rules that bind physics also apply to chemicals.

Yeah, that's the problem, eh?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

HERE: Ypou can even buy it at WALMART.Remember , its a good source of at lleast 20 Amino acids

Which is a good illustration of the problem with 'your' theory. Your can of soup does indeed contain EVERY needed ingredient for life. But as long as the continents are indeed sterile and kept isolated from EXISTING life forms, they don't produce even the simplest bacteria.

I ate a lot of canned goods from WWII while in the army.

I know, I know, next you'll say 'just wait awhile'. Layman put it well, even when exposed to all your facts, I can't see it happening. Ever.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

even when exposed to all your facts, I can't see it happening. Ever

Thats why science is mostly an art.
If you cant imgine one thing happening, how can you credibly imagine its direct opposite without any problem?
You and Lamont dont really make sense to me.
See I can imagine what you "believe in". I can see the constraints , benefits, possible methodology of an ID "world"etc.

At the same token I can also imagine the contrary worldview (where life explodes from its primordial"soup" only by standard chemical means. (Unless , of course, you think that someone hd to "turn on" oxidation/ reduction properties or acid? base reactions or the five forces.
Matter seems to bring along its own properties and evidence seems to follow the second worldview.

Thats where we differ a lot.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

you think that someone hd to "turn on" oxidation/ reduction properties or acid? base reactions or the five forces.

Nope, I give all that full credit for what they can do. I get that.

I am still not sure whether you really don't get the core of my argument or you're just pretending.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know