Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

If its posible for th nucleotides to assemble at qll, wheres the rgument about places in line?? Do I detect a bit of ledfootery??.

The IDesr seem to miss the point that evidence for existence i s obviously evidence of the process no?

"Screwing simple RNA" presents your side with a problem. Its seen that RNA can act as a enzyme and rhizome. It can catalyze and ajust plqcements of bases.
Once RNA is around its probably merely time that affects changes into a double helix.

The code is ,to IDers, a newly created bunch of language with each new organism. However, its easily seen from genetic "clocks" that qdditions of repet lleles occur in airly fixed frequency that is based upon the number of "generation" of an organism.
"Common ancestry" cannot be denied, its repeatable, observable, and experimentally verifiable. "Like Craig Venter, we dont need to start from scratch, we can recreate by "bucket chemistry for modifying Dna, and we can make STR seqiences of RNA from very simple (non biological, or pre-biologicals) like formaldehyde, and acetylene, and we can create the prexcursors of AMP, ADP and ATP fom Phosphate minerals, Cyanide, and Hydrogen Sulfide in an acidic media.
This is being done.

My argument is that, despite what we find, we will NEVER be sure thqt this was the correct formulqtion of first life. Of course its a guess, but a verifiable scientifically dound guess. Its not some myth based story .

The ID story sounds l;ike Donald Trump's entire campaign. He has nothing to offer, so his only chance at the bone is to find fault and criminality with his opponent. Dsicovery Institute, meet the Donald.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Dsicovery Institute, meet the Donald.

Godwin's Law at work again. Just substituting Donald for Hitler doesn't get you a pass.

And BTW, nothing you said there addressed the core argument.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
rosborne979 wrote:
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/

UltraBlue replied:
This guy is miffed because ID isn't allowed to be taught as science in schools and equates that to Nazism. For being a scientist, this position is severely lacking in rationality and is rife with logical fallacies. It seems this guy merely pays lip service to science.

Don't know where in that link you draw those absurd charges from but I think the visceral responses ros, farmer and now you give on this issue, are because rational educated men like James Tour don't go along with the 'evolution explains everything' mantra.

My name is InfraBlue, thank you very much.

This guy cites a propaganda movie by the IDers that "strikes so close to home" because he relates with their predicament, they cannot push ID in science classes because ID is not scientific, and their skepticism is based on their belief in ID. He then goes on to equate their banning with Nazi oppression. I doubt that his position on the matter is complacent ignorance and nary an idea as to what brought about the diversity of life on earth. He should put up or shut up.

Leadfoot wrote:

If you accepted what he says as valid, It means you might have to re-think your long held beliefs - a painful process which most people avoid.

Accept what, that there are questions about the Theory of Evolution? Sure. What alternative scientific theories are there to consider to even begin to dismiss the theory?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

As I said, these arguments are not presented (by me anyway) as arguments for ID, these are merely reasons to consider other alternatives.

So, what are these alternatives?

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Dsicovery Institute, meet the Donald.

Godwin's Law at work again. Just substituting Donald for Hitler doesn't get you a pass.

And BTW, nothing you said there addressed the core argument.

You're reaching here, and you won't shut down the discussion so easily. Sorry.

This tactic is Machiavellian, to which all three (i.e. Donald, the Discovery Institute and Hitler himself) subscribe.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

And BTW, nothing you said there addressed the core argument.

Because you dont understand it isnt the fault of science.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Snappy!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

We need to remember John, the author of this thread, as the great and smoothly even tempered guy he was. A proud Daddy and an accomplished conversationalist. Even in disagreement,his manner was never disagreable. He never went for the invective or cheap insult. He was one of the few who accepted his positions as right or wrong with equal grace.
I am gonna miss you buddy. In your honor, Ive even tried to fix my typos

My heartfelt sympathy for John;s family. I hope his leaving was painless for him

Maybe in another space-time continuum we shall finally meet.
As in the Zevon song, many of us will "think of ya once and awhile"

0 Replies

The earth itself can be more intelligent than humans. Our arrogance is what makes us believe that rocks are dumb.

1 Reply

@TheCobbler,

You mean, "dumb as a rock" is a compliment?

0 Replies

Yes CI, dumb as a rock is a complement, according to 'science' anyway. They say that rocks are fully capable of spontaneously generating the most intelligent life totally without help. Rocks are pretty smart, right?

Here's the latest problem for evolution. It seems that rocks had less time to do the job of building life with each new discovery. They are smarter than we thought :-)

Quote:

It's reported in Nature ("Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,700-million-year-old microbial structures"). From the New York Times:

Geologists have discovered in Greenland evidence for ancient life in rocks that are 3.7 billion years old. The find, if confirmed, would make these fossils the oldest on Earth and may change scientific understanding of the origins of life.

Experts are likely to debate whether the structures described in the new report were formed biologically or through natural processes. If biological, the great age of the fossils complicates the task of reconstructing the evolution of life from the chemicals naturally present on the early Earth. It leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred and puts the process close to a time when Earth was being bombarded by destructive asteroids. [Emphasis added.]

The microbial mats from the Isua Greenstone Belt involved creatures already "fairly evolved."

Several different species of microbes are involved in stromatolite creation. The Isua structures, if indeed stromatolites, would represent fairly evolved organisms.

Here's the problem:

If life on Earth did not begin until after the Late Heavy Bombardment, then it had a mere 100 million years in which to evolve to the quite advanced stage seen in the new fossils.

If so, Dr. [Abigail] Allwood wrote, then "life is not a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing." It will emerge whenever there's an opportunity.

But the argument that life seems to have evolved very early and quickly, so therefore is inherently likely, can be turned around, Dr. [Gerald] Joyce said. "You could ask why, if life were such a probable event, we don't have evidence of multiple origins," he said.

In fact, with trivial variations, there is only one genetic code for all known forms of life, pointing to a single origin.

If some unguided chemical and biological evolutionary model must be assumed as explaining the origins of life, then something is wrong. Life springs up easily. It must, "whenever there's an opportunity." If so, it should have happened repeatedly on earth -- why not? -- leaving evidence in the form of multiple genetic codes. But there is no such evidence.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

lets reserve the preaching until we get back probes from two of jupiters moons and give the "Rapidity problem" a real test.
Lord Kelvin was preaching the same stuff and It merely turned out that his assessment of the age of earth was off by a couple orders of magniture.

PS, whats the big deal, when youre dealing with the Hadean, 3.7 v 3.85 is 150 MILLION YEARS.
The first Isua indicators of life were discovered many yers qgo (in fqct I was posting about it in som of the earliest threads like this back in 2005). The first indicators include fossil Carbon wherein the predominant isotope of carbon is C12, and isoprenes in SEDIMENTARY sequences among the LBP metaigneous rocks. In other words, availble water , in various concentrations of Ammonia, H2S an cyanogen were availble long with proto apatie ( A phosphorus mineral). These show up s early as 4.2 BILLION YEARS AGO. Still within the heavy bombardment.

You Thumpers feel that any new twist on the data trnslates into a "Major problem" for abiogenesis nd evolution.

Come back in 10 years n well see whether we have ANY signhs of simple life in the Jovian lunar icewater dips.

PS, calling Stromatolites and filamentous "fossils" ADVANCED is kinda funny. Boy have you got a lot to read up on. Remember, newspapers should Not be counted on getting Nature articles fully accurate. The Kelly cherts from Pilbara in Australia as well as the Isua have indications of these simple "first living things"

As far as life coming from rocks, the atmowphere nd hydrophere were probably the biggest ingredient donors. The lithosphere, in the foms of "mud pools" are ALWAYS seen to xist wherever these oldest fosils are found> The Barberton greenstones of S Africa even show lots of thermal mudpools. and extremophilic "fossils" of later life (3.57 By). Again, these are stromatolites also.

More advqnced life needs to wait till the "CRYOGENIC PERIOD" that ushered in the beginning of the Ediqcaran period at aboout the End of the Pre Cambrian.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Yep, I've read accounts of earlier life too.

But you didn't address the key point that if life starts so easily and quickly, and so therefore should have developed independently in different places (on earth) with unique DNA, why do we not see these different genetic lines?

BTW, it wasn't me or ID advocates saying the life forms were advanced, these were the Phd. guys on your side of the argument saying that.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Isn't protein a necessary ingredient for life?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Oh yes, a good hamburger now and then is absolutely necessary for life.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

if you wish to insist upon your fact free belief, who am I to stop you. I just hope that you dont continue to want to have a "quasi cientific" discussion when you have nothing to offer.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

proteins are merely a chemical mix that, under a certain chemical environments, can generate via a step process. (we see amino acids and certain simple proteins in spectra of stars)

The climates involved in those sites where stromatolites or biotic chemicals were discovered during what became known as the "Archeozoic" were acidic atmospheres with a hydrosphere laced with sulfides, hydrogen sulfide, cyanide, ammonia, and some phosphitic salts (We have gesochemical evidence of these pools of stuff in Australia, Greenland, Africa, Canada, South America.)

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

BTW, it wasn't me or ID advocates saying the life forms were advanced, these were the Phd. guys on your side of the argument saying that

Actually, what you read was q "filtration compound.

When you say that "shouldnt the DNA be the same?? When I think the point was "did DNA define the earliest life as a necessary compound??

If you say yes, how do you know??

Ive been in the field 40 yeas next Tuesdy and I cant say that Im so convinced that we have a clue.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Proteins are essential to life!

Food Today The word protein comes from the Greek word “protos”, meaning first element. Proteins are essential elements for growth and repair, good functioning and structure of all living cells. Hormones, such as insulin, control blood sugar levels; enzymes, such as amylases, lipases, proteases are crucial for digestion of foods; antibodies help us fight infections; muscle proteins allow contraction, etc. So, indeed proteins are essential to life!

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

proteins are essential to "Todays life. We dont know the makeup of early life and we cant make up an argument necessarily by invoking aUNIFORMITARIAN doctrine.
We know that the original cell walls had an isoprene structure (Strings v fatty acids.) . Anyway, as I said before, amides , amines, amino acids, polypeptides, and proteins arent impossible to manufacture in prebiotic "soups"

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know