Intelligent Design Theory Solution

farmerman wrote:

REAL LIFE
Quote:
Abiogenesis, if you will; which as I mentioned in another post is sold part and parcel along with Evolution to unsuspecting kiddies as one package of candy.
.
Unfortunately for your group, you have no comparable evidence based theory to present in opposition. Everything you spout is heavily dependent upon some bearded guy with a bedsheet, and by ignoring all scientific evidence, you keep your tale exciting.

Life either came into being by chance..........or it didn't.

Hoyle/Wickramasinghe and many others have addressed the likelihood of a living organism assembling itself by chance. The math doesn't look promising for those depending on Chance to do the trick.

If life did not spontaneously generate, then what is the alternative?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
REAL LIFE
Quote:
Abiogenesis, if you will; which as I mentioned in another post is sold part and parcel along with Evolution to unsuspecting kiddies as one package of candy.
.
Unfortunately for your group, you have no comparable evidence based theory to present in opposition. Everything you spout is heavily dependent upon some bearded guy with a bedsheet, and by ignoring all scientific evidence, you keep your tale exciting.

Life either came into being by chance..........or it didn't.

Hoyle/Wickramasinghe and many others have addressed the likelihood of a living organism assembling itself by chance. The math doesn't look promising for those depending on Chance to do the trick.

If life did not spontaneously generate, then what is the alternative?

Over billions of years, in tons and tons of soup, eventually a molecule came into existence which could replicate itself. Then natural selection took over. Show us the math for that, so we can decide for ourselves if it looks promising.

0 Replies

Hoyle and Wickramsinghe postulated an extra terrestrial start of life here on earth. That merely pushes the start point to some other quadrant of the Galaxy. Math, like statistics can never be used to PROVE anything , merely explain a concept. So your use of "The math doesnt look promising" contains no evidence nor anything else compelling.

Your above argument seems to be based upon "Fred Hoyle said this , so how can you deny it?" Easy, Fred Hoyle was opinionated in many areas that he was unfamiliar and he also had a strong extraterrestrial soft spot.
I could just as easily, by use of a factor expansion , show how, a humans genome, by a combination of generational mutation savings and bifurcation from common ancestors, would have appeared almost by necessity. But, like any of these "math derived" positions, they have no conceptual model from which to derive. Theyre just someones beliefs converted into partials.

0 Replies

Well if the only accepted belief is "intelligent design", and isn't it nice that devout believers have begun to use Madison Avenue type selling techniques, how do you explain all the breeds of dogs that supposedly all have one ancestor "the wolf", even Japanese Chins and those neat little hairless things with the white tuft of hair on their noggins. Or do you believe that mankind has been messing with God's plan.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
REAL LIFE
Quote:
Abiogenesis, if you will; which as I mentioned in another post is sold part and parcel along with Evolution to unsuspecting kiddies as one package of candy.
.
Unfortunately for your group, you have no comparable evidence based theory to present in opposition. Everything you spout is heavily dependent upon some bearded guy with a bedsheet, and by ignoring all scientific evidence, you keep your tale exciting.

Life either came into being by chance..........or it didn't.

Hoyle/Wickramasinghe and many others have addressed the likelihood of a living organism assembling itself by chance. The math doesn't look promising for those depending on Chance to do the trick.

If life did not spontaneously generate, then what is the alternative?

Over billions of years, in tons and tons of soup, eventually a molecule came into existence which could replicate itself. Then natural selection took over. Show us the math for that, so we can decide for ourselves if it looks promising.

How many tons and how many billion years and what kind of molecule, specifically?

And BTW before we bother, can you show any actual proof that tons and tons of soup existed for billions of years (other than someone's say-so) so that this actually means something?

0 Replies

Wait a minute. Why dont you ask yer own belief set whether it can stand up to such questioning first. The process of evolution and the concept of origins are two separate and distinct theories.

We can show that Bazillions of tons of methanogenic "soup" occured in pre Cambrian seas because of the presence of the specific Carbon isotopes and their layering in rocks . Until about 3.8 BY BP carbon ratios favored C13 instead of C12. Since ISua at 3.8 BY Carbon has been predominantley C12 which is favored by life. Of course its circumstantial , but ITS EVIDENCE (Something which, if we would wish to be nasty, we could insist that all you postings and pronouncements are entirely evidence free for even a remotest consideration of your supposed origin hypothesis)

We also can determine from zircon ages and stratigraphy about when, the actual amount of Oxygen on the planet became available from early plants or chemical reduction. The sediments of the Vendian show free oxygen because the banded iron deposits were deposited as Hematite not Magnetite (which is more magmatic).

Someones "say so" involved a number of good hard working geologists who were searching for minerals and were later , dating preCAmbrian deposits to see whether they could determine when (and if) any preCAmbrian Continental drift had occured that would match up the cleft zones where diamond pipes were found (such as in Africa, Australia, Southern US and now Canada and South America)
All this "say so" has had huge amounts of investor money associated with it and , just to clear things up, most of the treasrch began as applied economic geology for resource exploration. The interpretations came later.
Its the geologic equivalent of Penzias and Wilson spending an entire summer cleaning pigeon **** from an old radio telescope so that they could help clear up the staticky signals emanating from the Tel-Star.
They didnt succeed in cleaning all the pigeon **** or
They found the remnants of the Big Bang, you believe what you wish cause youll never be influenced by science at all. Of this Im almost convinced.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Its the geologic equivalent of Penzias and Wilson spending an entire summer cleaning pigeon **** from an old radio telescope so that they could help clear up the staticky signals emanating from the Tel-Star.

Farmerman,

Just as a side note, I had lunch with Bob Wilson (the "Wilson" part of Penzias and Wilson) and his wife Betsy just a few weeks ago. His son and I grew up down the street from each other and were best friends when I was very young. Us kids have moved away, but the parents still live in Holmdel.

My interest in astrophysics came from Bob, and my interest in fossils came from his son Phillip because when we were very young, we used to find fossilized sharks teeth in Ramanessin brook, at the end of the street from our house.

Ramanessin Brook in Holmdel

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
REAL LIFE
Quote:
Abiogenesis, if you will; which as I mentioned in another post is sold part and parcel along with Evolution to unsuspecting kiddies as one package of candy.
.
Unfortunately for your group, you have no comparable evidence based theory to present in opposition. Everything you spout is heavily dependent upon some bearded guy with a bedsheet, and by ignoring all scientific evidence, you keep your tale exciting.

Life either came into being by chance..........or it didn't.

Hoyle/Wickramasinghe and many others have addressed the likelihood of a living organism assembling itself by chance. The math doesn't look promising for those depending on Chance to do the trick.

If life did not spontaneously generate, then what is the alternative?

Over billions of years, in tons and tons of soup, eventually a molecule came into existence which could replicate itself. Then natural selection took over. Show us the math for that, so we can decide for ourselves if it looks promising.

How many tons and how many billion years and what kind of molecule, specifically?

And BTW before we bother, can you show any actual proof that tons and tons of soup existed for billions of years (other than someone's say-so) so that this actually means something?

My intended point was that the actual theory, involving a huge amount of ocean, and a very great amount of time, and something that may have been as simple as one molecule, doesn't seem that improbable at all.

If the math you claimed to have doesn't apply to that model, then it's of no significance that your probability came out very low.

And, by the way, my ability to specify the exact details of the evolutionary model, is not a pre-requisite for it being correct.

You, on the other hand, claimed to have access to some mathematics, which I now ask you to show.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
REAL LIFE
Quote:
Abiogenesis, if you will; which as I mentioned in another post is sold part and parcel along with Evolution to unsuspecting kiddies as one package of candy.
.
Unfortunately for your group, you have no comparable evidence based theory to present in opposition. Everything you spout is heavily dependent upon some bearded guy with a bedsheet, and by ignoring all scientific evidence, you keep your tale exciting.

Life either came into being by chance..........or it didn't.

Hoyle/Wickramasinghe and many others have addressed the likelihood of a living organism assembling itself by chance. The math doesn't look promising for those depending on Chance to do the trick.

If life did not spontaneously generate, then what is the alternative?

Over billions of years, in tons and tons of soup, eventually a molecule came into existence which could replicate itself. Then natural selection took over. Show us the math for that, so we can decide for ourselves if it looks promising.

How many tons and how many billion years and what kind of molecule, specifically?

And BTW before we bother, can you show any actual proof that tons and tons of soup existed for billions of years (other than someone's say-so) so that this actually means something?

My intended point was that the actual theory, involving a huge amount of ocean, and a very great amount of time, and something that may have been as simple as one molecule, doesn't seem that improbable at all.

If the math you claimed to have doesn't apply to that model, then it's of no significance that your probability came out very low.

And, by the way, my ability to specify the exact details of the evolutionary model, is not a pre-requisite for it being correct.

You, on the other hand, claimed to have access to some mathematics, which I now ask you to show.

I've referred you to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on this. If you are interested, I'd recommend you read them.

I am not going to attempt to quote their whole book.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I've referred you to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on this. If you are interested, I'd recommend you read them.

I am not going to attempt to quote their whole book.

We could just refer you to Darwin's book also. But instead, we've been trying to explain our points.

If you have a particular point to make from those books you cited, I wish you would just make it and then debate it, instead of giving us all a homework assignment.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I've referred you to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on this. If you are interested, I'd recommend you read them.

I am not going to attempt to quote their whole book.

We could just refer you to Darwin's book also. But instead, we've been trying to explain our points.

If you have a particular point to make from those books you cited, I wish you would just make it and then debate it, instead of giving us all a homework assignment.

Most of us have read Darwin in school already so we are familiar with his work.

It won't hurt you to read an opinion other than your own. I promise.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I've referred you to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on this. If you are interested, I'd recommend you read them.

I am not going to attempt to quote their whole book.

We could just refer you to Darwin's book also. But instead, we've been trying to explain our points.

If you have a particular point to make from those books you cited, I wish you would just make it and then debate it, instead of giving us all a homework assignment.

Most of us have read Darwin in school already so we are familiar with his work.

It won't hurt you to read an opinion other than your own. I promise.

I love opinions other than my own. But I don't like wasting my time. Since evolution is the only scientific explanation for the development of life on this planet it was well worth my time to understand it.

Given that my time is so limited (I don't want to cut into my time required to post on A2K) I need to be convinced that something is worthy of my attention before spending too much time on it. So far, you haven't convinced me that it's worth my time exploring the information you've recommended.

Sorry Charlie.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
I've referred you to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's work on this. If you are interested, I'd recommend you read them.

I am not going to attempt to quote their whole book.

We could just refer you to Darwin's book also. But instead, we've been trying to explain our points.

If you have a particular point to make from those books you cited, I wish you would just make it and then debate it, instead of giving us all a homework assignment.

Most of us have read Darwin in school already so we are familiar with his work.

It won't hurt you to read an opinion other than your own. I promise.

I love opinions other than my own. But I don't like wasting my time. Since evolution is the only scientific explanation for the development of life on this planet it was well worth my time to understand it.

Given that my time is so limited (I don't want to cut into my time required to post on A2K) I need to be convinced that something is worthy of my attention before spending too much time on it. So far, you haven't convinced me that it's worth my time exploring the information you've recommended.

Sorry Charlie.

Ya know, Ros, if Wickramasinghe's qualifications :

Quote:

Jointly with the late Sir Fred Hoyle he was awarded the International Dag Hammarskjold Gold Medal for Science in 1986, and in 1992 he was decorated by the President of Sri Lanka with the titular honour of Vidya Jyothi. He was awarded the International Sahabdeen Prize for Science in 1996. He holds the highest doctorate (ScD) from the University of Cambridge and an honorary doctorate from the Soka University of Tokyo, Japan, along with several other international distinctions. Formerly a Fellow of Jesus College Cambridge, he is now Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University of Wales and Director of the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology. He is an award-winning poet and the author or co-author of over 20 books and over 250 scientific papers. He has held visiting professorial appointments in a large number of Universities world-wide and has at one time been advisor to the President of Sri Lanka. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society.

and Hoyle's qualifications:

Quote:

He has held the position of Plumian Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, and was also the founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge. He was an Honorary Fellow of both Emmanuel College and St. John's College Cambridge and an Honorary Professor at Cardiff University of Wales.

Amongst the numerous awards and distinctions bestowed on him are the UN Kalinga Prize, 1968, the Royal Medal of the Royal Society and the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society. In 1997 he was awarded the highly prestigious Crafoord Prize by the Swedish Academy in recognition of outstanding basic research in fields not covered by the Nobel prize. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences. He published over 40 books.

cannot convince you that have at least SOME Rolling Eyes

credibility as scientists, then you are apparently not going to listen to anyone who does not agree with you.

As my teacher used to say:

Quote:

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

BTW Hoyle was a committed evolutionist to his dying day. Not a creationist. So if you're afraid you might get infected with the creation bug, you're probably safe reading him.

0 Replies

...and isn't contempt prior to investigation just ignorant prejudice? Bravo, real life.

0 Replies

Where do you see contempt snood?

0 Replies

there's not such thing as gravity, it's now called intelligent falling

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ya know, Ros, if Wickramasinghe's qualifications :

Quote:
blah blah blah

and Hoyle's qualifications:

Quote:
blah blah blah

cannot convince you that have at least SOME credibility as scientists, then you are apparently not going to listen to anyone who does not agree with you.

So just because I don't want to read something you tell me to read, I must be closed minded.

Your logic is fractured as usual RL. It's no wonder you don't understand science or evolution.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Ya know, Ros, if Wickramasinghe's qualifications :

Quote:
blah blah blah

and Hoyle's qualifications:

Quote:
blah blah blah

cannot convince you that have at least SOME credibility as scientists, then you are apparently not going to listen to anyone who does not agree with you.

So just because I don't want to read something you tell me to read, I must be closed minded.

Your logic is fractured as usual RL. It's no wonder you don't understand science or evolution.

Your earlier post stated you felt I should try to convince you that this was worth your time.

Now this, your latest post, is I suspect much closer to the truth.

rosborne979 wrote:

just because I don't want to

Not a prob. It reminds me of the guy who asked the girl for a date. She responded that she was unable to go out with him because the stock market had gone down the previous day.

Puzzled, the young man asked, "what does the stock market have to do with you going out with me?"

"Nothing" she replied, "but if I don't want to go out with you, then one excuse is as good as another."

0 Replies

We just need to teach our children critical thinking skills. Explain what science is and show the evidence to support it.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your earlier post stated you felt I should try to convince you that this was worth your time.

Sorry, I didn't mean that you should *try* to convince me, rather that you *hadn't* convinced me (and probably couldn't). Your posts don't contain much scientific substance, and your recite standard creationist dogma which has been dealt with and dismissed many many times before.

I've been in these types of discussions for over ten years now, and haven't seen anything new from you so far. Every now and then you seem to pop up a fairly decent question, but then you wander off topic.

However I do find your debating style very well formed even if your views are unsubstantiated by fact. Many of your debating tactics are right out of the creationist handbook, so much so that I wonder if you are practiciing to represent them in some way.

As I've said before, I think the creationist debater Duane Gish would be proud of you.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory Solution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know