Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@farmerman,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"I know that you know that I'm fully aware that there is more than carbon in life forms. "

so were you making **** up on top of the page or with this "Leadfact"

You mean about the main difference between lifeforms and computers? I'm not following you here. I'm sure you know that terrestrial life forms are generally referred to as 'carbon based life forms' regardless of the fact that they need more than carbon. And computers are based on silicon.

I don't get your nitpicking about 'my being sure lifeforms requiring ONLY carbon'. It sounds like you are just trying to 'score points' rather than engage in a serious discussion.

In any case, I don't see how what I said qualifies as 'making **** up'.

1 Reply

2 or 3 metaphysical killers to ID:
"God" is not free. "God's nature, order, is final.
"God" does not "create". Nature is done and complete. One.
We metaphorically say that BEING is the root of all things because BEING transcends time. But what is actually meant to be said is that Reality is complete and has a final finite order and limited extension of information.
This is why the World is logical, instead of free open irrational.
In fact the order and rigor of the process on which reality unfolds within spacetime favours "Evolution" as mean of explanation of such flawless general order.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Since you asked, let's see what occurs to me. It's not going to be easy because of course God is not figurative to me. And I'm loony enough to talk from personal experience. But as long as you understand that..

Quote:

2 or 3 metaphysical killers to ID:
"God" is not free. "God's nature, order, is final.
"God" does not "create". Nature is done and complete. One.

I understand your mind set on this, but I find myself trapped, at least for now, in linear time. I'm blown away by the unfolding of the last 60 years and find myself longing for what has not come to completion. Perhaps when it has, my perception will match your own. But for now, I'm 'trapped'.

Quote:

We metaphorically say that BEING is the root of all things because BEING transcends time. But what is actually meant to be said is that Reality is complete and has a final finite order and limited extension of information.
This is why the World is logical, instead of free open irrational.

Again, I am not free of the fourth dimension. My perception is blinded by the rust and decay of all this 'BEING'. I want all that to stop, and my creations to be finished and perfect, but oh God, don't let this 'now' be IT.

Quote:

In fact the order and rigor of the process on which reality unfolds within spacetime favours "Evolution" as mean of explanation of such flawless general order.

The scientist says evolution explains it and the proof is because it is this way. I'm trying my best to be respectful of your views but as long as we have left the realm of science, I've met the tinker who made it so.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I can only respond to what you say. You seem, again, to be all over the map ithout really being an advocate

Never mind. I need a haircut

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Never mind. I need a haircut

Try a 'Flowbie' or a 'Aircut'. Gives me a better cut and I can't stand blowing half a day going into town for a barber.
I'd rather be flying.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

why bother, you seem to be flying all over the place while youre on line

0 Replies

There are a few honest biochemists out there who will level with the public about the myth that science knows how life arose. James Tour is one of them and gave a scathing talk exposing the deceptive claims of those who say the answers have all been found.

Here's a snippet and a link to the full article below. Yes, the article is printed by the dreaded Discovery Institute but he is not connected to them in any way and points out that he is not advocating or defending ID. He's just being honest about what we don't know.

Quote:

Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. And no wonder: few biologists have ever synthesized a complex molecule ab initio. If they need a molecule, they purchase molecular synthesis kits, which are, of course, designed by synthetic chemists, and which feature simplistic protocols.
Polysaccharides? Their origin?

The synthetic chemists do not have a pathway.

The biologists do not have a clue.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/on_prebiotic_ch102902.html

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Here's another bit of writing from James Tour. I'll let it speak for itself.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-%E2%80%9Ctheory%E2%80%9D-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-%E2%80%9Cscience%E2%80%9D/

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

"not having a clue" does not automatically default to ID, as your posts usually wind up.
Try becoming a pson of "multiple Hypotheses" rather than misunderstanding what many are even about.

While the "kick start" of abiogenesis or pansppermia, or divine spaghetti sauce, needs much more research admittedly (Im really not sure who these guys are that say we have it all in hand?), but paleobiochemistry has enough "snapshots" of fossil biochemistry to understand that we pretty much DO know the pathway that life has followed on its struggles of ascendancy . Weve got enough fossil material that shows when certain things happened, and HOW and WHAT CAUSED IT.

So far, no surprises , like fossil apes in the precambrian.

Scientists are all fond of chiding each other and, should we get too "uppidy", some other complementary scientist will let everyone know that we dont know jack ****.

Thats the fun of it, ie,proving what we do know to a farthings width.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

paleobiochemistry has enough "snapshots" of fossil biochemistry to understand that we pretty much DO know the pathway that life has followed on its struggles of ascendancy . Weve got enough fossil material that shows when certain things happened, and HOW and WHAT CAUSED IT.

That's what I thought you've been saying all along.

Quote:

(Im really not sure who these guys are that say we have it all in hand?)

That would be guys like you.

Sorry for re-ordering your paragraph but sometimes I'm not sure you follow your own train of thought unless it's reversed.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I read your link (nice article btw) but I was expecting it to refute the picture of him that my post portrayed. To me it was 100% compatible.

If your post was in support of mine (not likely based on past posts) , thank you.
But if there is some contradiction with mine, I'd be interested in what exactly it was.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well, I tried talking slowly so that you would unerstand better.
Whenever I said that "I know how life started" Id really like to read that. Ive established pretty much that I was first a chemist then I became a geologist. SO my training an experience has been in the araes of "following the evidence that paleo an geochemistry has left". Ive never been so smartass as to state how life began. As you should remember (perhaps its an age thing with you), my mind is not closed to valid hypotheses with evidence . Even pnspermia is not beyond any realms , especially if we find the building blocks of life in the spectra of stars and basic "building blocks" of life on Mars.

I think you confuse speculation and opinion with somekind of certainty, and nowhere has that been my stance. In fact, you and Mr Layman were the two who, after attempting to dismiss natural selection by the introduction of neutral hypotheses , have stated that "Natural selection is dead", when it was obvious that neither of you fully understood the basis of the scientific arguments
.
Dont get too loaded up with vague hints of luddistic thinking on my half, Ive openly admitted ignorance in areas Im not involved in. I hardly include you as a "colleague" so Ive kep it damn simple because this aint a conference .

If you post something that you wish to use as a poke stick, just make sure you try to read other things that people write .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

See, that's the dodge that 'you guys' frequently use. You drop a statement like this:

Quote:

paleobiochemistry has enough "snapshots" of fossil biochemistry to understand that we pretty much DO know the pathway that life has followed on its struggles of ascendancy . Weve got enough fossil material that shows when certain things happened, and HOW and WHAT CAUSED IT.

into a discussion of abiogenesis knowing full well that the average reader will think it applies to the discussion at hand. Then when you are called on it you say 'but I wasn't talking about THAT!'.

And then you smear me with denying natural selection which I've never done. I have questioned its ability to explain all life as it exists today, but again, that's another subject.

I was talking about abiogenesis. Got anything on that?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

please dont play the obtuse angle on this. You know what "circumstantial vidence" can do to support a hypothesis . AsI said, you will never be accused of having an open mind with multiple hypotheses. There are at least 5 competing hypotheses on abiogenesis. Each has its supporters and detractors in the science community, (not chat room enthusiasts). Weve discussed them here and several people includingme have discussed them simply and with DATA, SCience without data to assess, is just science fiction,

I can factually say that if intelligent design is responsible for the origin and rise of life, I dont know what the supportive evidence is. Not so for an abiogenesis origin .
You should go find some evidence, then we could talk and see how ID stacks up.

Perhaps you were just allowing layman to do your talking but you distinctly were "siding with him" and trying to ridicule my position. I call that being an accomplice, (maybe in your case you had no idea what he was saying and were just seeking another bon mot like you recently tried on Chumly in another thread).

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I agree: The problem I see with ID is the fact that you must 'create' two scenarios out of thin air.
1. create god
2. god created our universe

0 Replies

@farmerman,

This latest exchange started over my posting an experts opinion on existing abiogenesis theories. He (and I) made it clear that this was not an endorsement of ID. If anything it throws open the door to those multiple hypothesis that you advocate. The five existing ones are not viable possibilities in his opinion.

So which of us is being closed minded?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

he made it clear, you did not. You cannot escape the baggage of your past posts. His view is one scientists printed op ed. Its neither a groundswelling or an endorsement of anything.
I dont think hes saying what you wish though.
He is saying that (with todays level of knowledge) he does not feel that we YET fully understand the entire chain of events that resulted in life. HE feels we aint even close. Well, there are other "experts" who disagree with that op-ed position. So what, research will keep going on, we are NOT gonna quit because some Wag has capitulated .

I can also accuse him of shortsightedness in that he seems to feel that today's living state is exactly the same as it was at its inception.
He has no evidence of that either.
Several of the abiogensis ideas(nd these are closer to theories than some others), state that life, at its inception was a polymer bag of specific isoprene chemicals that changed the environment by routine (By todays environments) chemical reactions, NO RNA, NO DNA etc etc. Chemical paleontology from more and more Hadean sites discovered around the world, seem to agree with each other(NONE of these sites refute the concept)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I read your link (nice article btw) but I was expecting it to refute the picture of him that my post portrayed. To me it was 100% compatible.

I didn't think his article refuted or confirmed anything, it was just a revealing view of the man himself. That's why I said it should speak for itself. It's interesting that you interpret it as 100% compatible with your view.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

We must parse things differently.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

confirmation bias creeps into many things when when all we are looking for is something to support what we exclusively believe in. I recall that you once said that DNA "confirms" ID "theory".

when asked how you are certain about that, you made some mention of computers and bar codes, You should have also mentioned jacquard looms and spectra .

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know