95
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 03:54 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Cmon why wont you debate me about your own recommended book about the "God Hypothesis"??
.

We did that already. You told a bald faced lie about it and I showed it up for what it was.

But if you want another go, pick another part of it and we’ll have at it if you dare.

And here's my protein argument again since you asked.

Quote:
Farmerman claimed:
yeh, all it takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .

Leadfoot replied:

Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe it's 'almost a given'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though amino acids can potentially form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins are made of only 20 of them and all are left handed. This creates a problem for 'naturally occurring' proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.
Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 01:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Just an observation for future reference Leadfoot …..in philosophy…….the 2 off fools “caged logic” which makes use of 0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1 logic (and not just 0,1…1,0 HALF logic) results in mirror imaging just like amino acids.

We can no longer say that electromechanical systems are not a fundamental part of the cosmos/physical body make up.They are.

Electromechanical systems produce the full logic outputs by “toggling” +/- charges or digitally “toggling” 0,1 outputs..This is why we also have/observe/ can measure sinusoidal waveforms which are produced due to this process.

Electromechanical digital systems produce full logic as I say and not just half logic.

How modern day science can claim that digital systems only produce 0,1…1,0 logic outputs and this is the basis for accurate science is beyond me….what shouod we do? …just ignore the 0,0…1,1 digital outputs and pretend that they don’t occur?

Jasper10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 01:33 am
@Jasper10,
Modern day science is not recognising fully or accepting the fundamental part electromechanical systems play in the construction of the cosmos and our physical bodies.

The gravity theory is the main reason for this and the fact that modern day science is so hung up on it.It therefore remains blind to the obvious.
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2021 03:59 am
@Jasper10,
We do know after all that generally philosophy and science does not fully consider in their calcs/ideas/ assessments/theories the “toggling” effect that electromechanical systems produce.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 07:16 am
@Leadfoot,
OK I cn ctually see your point. The chemistry within protinaceous structures have to come from somewhere. When you look at the chemistry of the bases in all these protinaceous moleculs, they are all the same. Im not as impressed in your subtended argument to be " we can easily see See that a designr was involved"

You r so crtain that its all about nucleic acids where life began (An then you stop thinking that volution continued through all the big 5 (an soon to be big 6) EXTINCTIONS
Talking about the ribosom, the structural ribosomes within Woes's everal kingdoms of life are all different but show us that there is a Last Common ANcstor among em (just different chemistry beyond the bases.

Im totally convinced that the evidence does NOT support esign because when I look at proteins and amino acids we have to ask, whered they come from. Iv given you, ovr and ovr, food for thought through biochem (Which you consistntly ignore)
I told you that most all of the builing block of life were created in the labs and can be simplifies into the molecules that we know were in the early earth (Liquid contnts within Archean zircon are quit clear (unlss you care to deny that).
In microbiology, its common in todays undergrad labs to crate each of the 4 bases and 22 of the 20 of lifes amino acids from very simpl reactions in nature(like all the A's can be created from 5 CN molecules reactinginto amides ,formic acid, folic acids in hot acidic water. (such as in black smokers)
If you wish to add a chef to the mix, Ill grant you that but I find your arguments totally unconvincing since I can keep going back in the chemical structure to simpler an simpler "bricks" whereas you need to bgin with proteins because they sound "Complex enough to make your case"
Youre actually a budding Dr Behe Smile I think Ive spent too many years in chem an geochem to be impressed by chemical structures as a "proof" of life ( except in forensic senses where it can be used in proofs of death and entropic decay)


lso, you seem to stop at lifs chain of vents as if ":Ive proven my point so lets forget about evolution totally"

WHEN id you think that yoou got me re your "God Hypothesis " book. Ive ansere you an you changed the subjest and then quit the whole thing,Iv been the on poking YOU to spk up if you are that impressed with the Discovery Instituts "Faculty"

My lat pointwas that there isnt a spot pf ral scinc going on in that place. Its just a bd of reactionary Religious types with Fundamnta blifs but dont wish to soun lik Holy Rollers


Last thing, where in the hell do you know of any real research going on in ID.
I think it was Phillip Johnon who stated back in AD 2000 that W"e will have many research paprs showing the obvious fact of :Design" in the universe by 2005. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PROMISE"

All I see is a flashy piece of evangelical propaganda called EVOLUTION printed by the Institute.

I always got a kick whn they changed their Evolution logo from "Th HAND OF GOD CREATING ADAM" from Michalangelo's SISTINE CHAPEL CEILING to a mRNA and DNA with a teeny ribosome on the bottom (all within th same clouds that Mihelangelo painted.

Im glad they caught that one

So when you state that ID is becoming more and more obvious to resarch I really would like to see some of it >
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 07:18 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is


In summary try not to start an argument in the middle and then stop here it really gts interesting. You lave yourself open at both ends
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 01:10 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
WHEN id you think that yoou got me re your "God Hypothesis " book. Ive ansere you an you changed the subjest and then quit the whole thing,Iv been the on poking YOU to spk up if you are that impressed with the Discovery Instituts "Faculty"

My lat pointwas that there isnt a spot pf ral scinc going on in that place. Its just a bd of reactionary Religious types with Fundamnta blifs but dont wish to soun lik Holy Rollers


As I said, you told a bald face lie in your first criticism of ‘Return of the God Hypothesis'

Here is a copy of our first real discussion of it.

Quote:


Farmer said:
Quote:
your argument is specious. id love to see some evidence to make the arguments that meyer pumps out.
like his "fine tuning argument"(p263)

Leadfoot replied:
Here’s a snippet from that chapter in the book.

Quote:
“The Oxford physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who collaborated with Stephen Hawking in proving cosmological singularity theorems and later calculated the exquisite and hyper-exponential fine tuning of the initial entropy of the universe. Penrose determined that getting a universe such as ours with highly ordered configurations of matter required an exquisite degree of initial fine tuning—an incredibly improbable low-entropy set of initial conditions.”

— Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe by Stephen C. Meyer
https://a.co/ghTw3qt

There was no religious mumbo- jumbo there. I’ll let farmer argue that point with sir Roger Penrose.

I have to say that I am shocked by farmer's ignorance of the scientific underpinnings of the fine tuning argument. The general outlines of the argument are known by anyone with an interest in origins of life. But maybe he really has none.


You followed that up by implying Roger Penrose is not qualified to speak on that.

Quote:
Farmer said:
Are you certain that Penrose "proved anything"?


When you blow off a Nobel laureate in Physics like that, it shows me you are willing to say anything, including lies, in an effort to 'win'.

You are the one who walked away. It would not seem to have any point under those conditions but I’m bored, do you want to start at that point and continue in honest debate?

Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 01:46 pm
@Jasper10,
Once one is aware and more accepting of the “toggling” effect that is clearly happening all the time in the cosmos at the macro/micro levels which includes our own physical make up (which is due to electromechanical processes) then new philosophical/scientific ideas open up……
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 02:00 pm
@Jasper10,
and yer brains spill out??
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 02:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
people "blow off" other people all the time and its the way of science.
Im curious as to what Pnrose has added. I am probably much more familiar with his hypotheses on magnetism and the UMT.
You fucked up in failing to recognize that My rl comment as with Meyer at DI.
Pnrose has rally no creds in evolution, and origins of LIFE.

Oh well/
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 02:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
I reiterate, I think Im mor familiar with Penros; work (as well as Myer)
You call it a lie (my criticism). I say that your basic problem is reading comp.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 04:25 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
people "blow off" other people all the time and its the way of science.

I must have overestimated you farmer.

Consider yourself blown off.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Dec, 2021 08:00 pm
@Leadfoot,
I shall lose quanta of sleep .









not
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2021 09:22 pm
@farmerman,
Why is Intelligent Design even relevant?

There are some theists who think creation somehow restricts the notion of evolution, and and go out of their way to present an idea that we more or less started out in our current forms. But I don't see why theists can't just ignore the subject in favor of theological things. It's a scientist's business.

Similarly, couldn't a scientist simply say "This evolution thing is clearly an organized process. And that's all I'm gonna say on this outside of church"? Why is this discussion important to anyone? You're not going to ever believe otherwise, am I right? So it's just a moot point exercise.

Intelligent Design is important in that it expresses to scientists what they already know, that life in this world is organized. That we tend to evolve based on clear rules. Scientists know this, only choosing to deny it when people talk about its religious implications. So as long as atheist scientists have hardened their hearts to something resembling stone, this discussion more or less isn't relevant.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 05:00 am
@bulmabriefs144,
most science loving people (pros and amateurs) gt annoyed when IDers post thei"similies" to actual facts, or try to "Fit" their psudoscientific beliefs to science,

Actually Intelligent Design is a beautiful worldview and, if it could ever be evidenced, scientists would probably love to be diverted to 'hunt for the ider" So far there has been NO EVIDENCE presnted .The believers merely present arguments why they feel science is wrong but never present any alternatives.

When somone has no idea about what thyve criticized, , it taks away any credibility they wish to have/.

All the ID agencies have promised undeniable facts and evidence ever since the modern ID belief system had been "invented" by Phillip Johnson in the US.

The Australians are even worse. Theyve begun "Answers
in Genesis" shortly fter the US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching Creationism in public school science is favoring one religion and that is unconstitutional according to our Amendment 1.

I could easily ignore Creationism and ID re they not so aggressively trying to replace teaching evolution ith their religion. Theyve instituted an entire science of biology and geology based on no facts and no evidence

The US cnter for ID taching is in the Sattle Area baring the title of the "DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" The Institute had promised convincing wvience from their own rsearch back in 2001 and, to ate, theyve produced nothing but volumes of word salads and many of their publications (Not per reviewed) ARE PRESENTED HEREIN.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 05:03 am
@bulmabriefs144,
evolution theory, cements the basis of biology and drives thedirection of research, ID has no way of doing any research.Hnce it just a lot of psudiscince which tri to invalidat what we already know
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 06:41 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Here's the situation bulma. Study this farmerman quote carefully.

Quote:
The believers merely present arguments why they feel science is wrong but never present any alternatives.


In my case at least, not once have I claimed 'science is wrong'.
I have challenged him time and again to quote where I stated some scientific fact in my argument that was wrong.
I have challenged him to point out any error in logic applied to those facts in my argument.

Not once has he been able to so. And yet passionately believes that he has seen me do that.

There is no scientific answer or explanation for such a thing, excluding mental problems, which I do not think is the case.

Here is a mystery. How is it possible for an obviously intelligent man to violate his own principal of insisting on facts and evidence and not see that he makes a claim for which there is none.


bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 07:10 am
@Leadfoot,
Oh yeah, with me, The Cobbler keeps insisting I'm a Trump fan and that I have ton of evangelical fans.
Actually while I did vote for Trump, I have no "evangelical friends" (the few friends I have are more across the board theologically than even Christian), and I don't like the direction Trump decided to head with vaccines on Operation WarpSpeed. Plus, thinking back on it, Trump pushed the idea of prosperity gospel. Whether you're happy or things are oppressive, the key is to keep your eye on God, not on whether God make things great or not in this world.

I'll do yours and you'll do mine? Criss Cross.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hEDqeakv-eE
Except that's silly because I'm not a science major.

Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 07:41 am
@bulmabriefs144,
First laugh of the day, tnx

Now I’m sorry I didn’t see that one.

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2021 09:58 am
@Leadfoot,
when I request some evidence to underpin your beliefs and you are unable to present even one,AND, who invokes a worldview that has no provable basis of support,besides a few bumper stickers like (":the world is too complex") I see no scholraship therein. And then you call me a mental case??

Ill insist on your facts and evidence and youll probably keep ignoring me I suppose. Thats a goodIDer., where" signals in the cell" happen before the components are even assembled, and there exists an ID's denial that such things as pyrimidines and purines do occur in space.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:23:23