Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Alhamdolila

If your praise is as bad as your spelling, you got it all wrong...

Poor Allah!

Since life has been estqablished for about 3.8 Billion years, the Pasteurian "Law of Biogenesis" has difficulty in not being demonstrated in the present world, since itd be nigh on impossible to provide an abiotic surface somewhere without the use of a "claen room". Actually, to science , PAsteurs "Law" is not a law at all, just a demonstration of how infested this planet is with life.Its almost an oxymoron.

As far as experiments are concerned, we have to consider SChrodingers question about the definition of life itself. SInce its fairly easy to understand that life is a process of organic chemistry (even the Creationists and IDers try to use the findings of organic chemistry to show us their "irreduceably complex forms". SO, the search for proto life (WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION ) has involved three basic focii.

1.Life was introduced onto our planet ("panspermia") of Hoyle and others

2The basic chemicals of life were introduced onto the planet by repeated meteorite strikes in the early earth atmosphere

3Life developed here on earth by several possible chemical/geological interactions.

Most modern chemistry considers numbers 2 and 3. The latest, novel, experiments are Venters "Top down" search for the origins of life, where he and colleagues have sequentially removed components from prokaryotic cells (those with no nucleii) and are trying to establish a base level where, below which, a cell is no longer living, that is , the major responses to the environment and self regulation are no longer noted (These include replication, metabolism, tropic responses etc). This has been going on for less than a year or so , Im not sure where theyre at as of Oct 17, 2010.
But , in a capsule, there are quite a few actual investigations ("experiments") on the search for how life began.

A. Work in the 1970's had successfully produced protenoids having several characteristics of life (FOX), and these protenoid searches have stimulated more modern woprk into the roles of lipids, phospholipids, proto nucleics etc.

B, SOme have looked at syntheizing specific life related (left handed) amino acids and nucleotides (Rodgers)

C. Theres been success in extracting metalize porphyrins out of a formaldehyde proto atoshere under specific geochemical conditions (Baker)

D.STudies about complex organics seen in districts of outer space(Belloche)

E.PAH's and nucleotides have been studied and identified from meteorites (Jura)

F.Spectral analyses showing several nucleotides(at least half of the 20 needed for life) all from cometary bodies (NASA)

G The ratios of L v D amino acids and uracil and xanthine in meteorites (Breslov,Cooper, Cronin)

H. Prebiotic reactions oin sepecific geochemical environments (Martins)

I.Autocatalysis of adenosine esters into one of the key energy compounds in the cell (SCRIPPS)

J Substitution of other organic chemicals that act as pre RNA compounds in replication and metabolism (Schuster)

K. There are at least 10 different mechanisms proposed for the first production of a living cell, and all are based upon different key catalysis means (Sulfur/ iron reducing environments, The "Clay /surface reaction hypotheses) etc
ALl these have key workers and research work being done

WHile no one has yet been successful in the creation of a living cell, each has been key in providing some key chemicals and organic molecules that perform the basic activities that a living cell performs. It all gets back to answering what SChrodinger thought was a game stopper, when all he did was awaken scientific minds to this event and fill them with a mission.

SO, were either directly made of "Star stuff" or we have been molded and formed by routine geochemistry here on the planet. I dont have any answers (Anyway, its not my area) but I can wait,since we find out new things each day, so whose to say that some things will NEVER be found out?


. You seem to be stuck in the early Rennaissance. Science doesnt have all the answers whenever you need them. BUT, it does have much better ideas as to how to get them than does some worldview that defaults to the concept that "Then a miracle occurs". I find that outlook terribly boring .

I love it when folks with worldviews such as yours preach what science is or is not capable of doing. THEN, on top of it, you conveniently ignore the fact that your entire worldview is based upon institutionalized Moogah Boogah. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY PART OF YOUR WORLDVIEW IS EVEN POSSIBLE.

No, give me some simple science. We can proceed along and have to change our routes of investigation should they prove inappropriate. You seem, on the other hand, to be stuck in the groove of a tired old pile of myths and legends with an embarrasingly poor record of any possible application in the REAL WORLD.

I could shred that post fm from beginning to end. It was nothing but an attempt to browbeat with half-statements, pseudo science, brilliantine words, and persistance.

If I had the time I would. The idea that all your heroic scientists are wasting their time and know it and are blinding the public with science to provide themselves with salary cheques, reserved car parking and the key to the scientists bathroom does not enter your innocent noggin.

Show fm some big words he can drop into conversation to assert his intelligence and superiority and he will oooww and aaahh and kiss your ass from now to when he carks it.

The post which follows it is pure claptrap.

If you could, you would. I will give your cottage cheese corpus some time to author up a few irrelevant inconsistencies. I need a good laugh today.


Your attempts at interconnected thoughts are always constructed to get me chuckling

Im still waiting for someone to pose a subject for which you and I pose our own written summaries and allow the folks to decide whos more succinctly creative.

None of that means anything. Hoyle was a steady statist. No Big Bang.

How can anybody be expected to deal with sources you get up into what you think is an impressive list. None of which means anything either. Nothing but speculation to sell to you mugs. I bet none of you understand any of it or can prove any of it. It's just words.



I provided a subject. Succinct creativity can be applied to any subject. So you're not waiting for a subject. There is one on the table. Is it on Ignore. Again.

You ducked it. I expected you to do. You ran away and now you're trying to save your face with more foam from the mouth.

Sell your Sat Nite act to the Geezer's committee. I'm in my corner. Ready and willing. All I can see is a towel being thrown in. 200 words. Go fm.

To those who say that panspermia means nothing and that Fred Hoyle wasnt a proponent. Heres aquote from Wiki on the subject

Anybody can think up panspermia if they gaze at the night sky for a while. Inter-Galactic Jism Shot or IJS. Peter North sort of thing. Never beginning and never ending. Or any of the other explanations. Where else is there if God didn't poof it up? They have all the options covered except any others they haven't thought of yet. The real problem with God having done so is that it puts the wrong guys in charge from the scientific researcher's point of view. (And don't quote a part of that sentence to get a laugh.)

After that it's a battle about which gang drives us the least barmy. I'm betting on the priests. They've not done so bad and we all know what rookies are like. They are rookies at this game fm. I've seen them close up. I know an astrophysicist who flipped his lid looking through a telescope on a couple of spliffs. He's about 35 and a virgin. Have you ever seen a scientist on a 125 BSA sit-up-and-beg in Air Raid Warden helmet, Chubby Brown goggles and chugging up the road at 15 mph on benzene which had been used to extract some ******* smelly **** with an octuplet-barrelled name with numbers here and there in it and extracted from the leaves of some bushes, in the pissing rain blowing horizontal in a gale, from some other **** that was meant to **** folk over to see if it would do properly. Watching a priest officiating when a man hands his beloved virgin daughter over to a young, lusty swain in order to improve his family's fortunes and then smiling benevolently at the piss up afterwards when the laides see the happy couple off singing She's Coming Round the Mountain, is a far more dignified and stylish example of how to move one's body about. The Ministry of Funny Walks and all that. We all know who it is who wants us all to move in nervous, fast and jerky motions. Instead of it taking three guys five minutes to light the incense burner and swing it about to get it smoking you could have an electronic spark and a compressed oxygen cylinder, a small one. Eh?

Are you going with Hoyle on it. Or saying you can't be sure?

spendi, You have no sense of logic; it is you who must prove there is a god. All else are either unknown or there are possibilities they can become known - through science. Your god and religion doesn't explain anything; it's all mirrors and invisible objects. That man still haven't found the source for life doesn't mean it will remain a mystery forever. Your god, on the other hand, has never proved anything, because myths are man-made hokey-pokey.

What puzzles me Spendius is," if there is a God do you think that he may ask the type of questions that atheists and agnostics ask? Something like this! If I am god do I have a god that created me? Should I be greatfull that I am God? How did I {God} Come about? How could all of this magic {creativeness} come into being, " in one being ," me. {God}

That's easy rl. God can do anything.

Can't you ask some harder questions than that?

How can science explain Selenium having a half-life measured in seconds, as fm suggested, the number of which is beyond all human minds to get a handle on, which conducts juice better in the dark than in the light, or the other way round, and what causes some of it to very, very slowly turn into Krypton, which is a television programme designed to catch the eye of the afficionadoes of science fiction but is stuck with human beings.

If you asked God how that was done He would smile benevolently and say "stick to blood clotting in chiclids son or the circuitous route the larynx nerve takes in the higher organisms" which, if decibel and pitch are taken into account, makes a different detour in females than it does in us poor, suffering sods.

spendi, Your imagination is only exceeded by your ignorance.

I can think of kinder words for Spendius but I do have to agree that he did not explain the questions in a format that anyone of us are able to understand.
I am not trying to put down anyone," because I find it to be unproductive,"to put people down!
Do not get me wrong because someone out there may be able to understand his concept but they have not yet shared this understanding with the rest of us!
If you do not have a laymen's term type of aproach Spendius you may very well be the only one among us that understands this concept of yours!
Thanks for sharing with us any ways.

When spendi can tell us what god would say, his ability to win any respect from people who has a brain can't be too many.

I was merely demonsrtating that the anthromomorphic, not to say overweening, arrogance of the teleological explanations of blood clotting in chiclids and larynx whatsits is all very well in a courtroom where the judge is being flattered all to **** concerning his scientific understanding and the others are gawping in fake emulation of him is really not that big a deal. It is a simpler, and thus more readily graspable, example of why irreducible complexity is a load of bullshit.

You do seem to be speaking logical but how can we get others to be logical too if we put them down? Do you think that they will consider what we say if we are putting them down? They may but I think that we may be lowering are statistical odds!
But then again who am I to know how to communicate with others as I get it wrong quite often myself!

I'm not bothered about being put down rl. Being clapped on the back in congratulation by any of you lot would have me down at the quacks to find out if there was something wrong with me.

Are you suggesting that we as humans do not have mental problems? I am not afraid to say that I lack in areas that others do not!

One of spendi's strengths is that he knows how to roll with the punches; it's the game we play on a2k.