2
   

Intelligent Design is not creationism

 
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:34 am
You're not-so-unique talent of twisting around what is stated is an example of a mind full of cobwebs. You've been called on it but you are in denial. You're not thinking rationally when you post. Have another drink.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:42 am
real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:


You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?


I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.


So you are claiming that the scientists are trying to create life forms by using chemicals that wouldn't be in the proposed "chance environments"?


No, that is not what I said.


You are a very confusing individual. You admit that the lab environment mimicks the chance environment found in nature then say it wouldn't be proof of life forming in a chance environment but would prove intelligent design that presumably mimicks a chance environment like that in nature. How would do distinguish between design from chance in such a situation?

If I am completely off the mark on what you are trying to say then clear up the confusion. Please state, as unambiguously as possible, what you are claiming. You seem intent on making a point but for the life of me I cannot see what your point is or how you are arriving at that point.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 09:47 am
It means that in the case of the successes of the lab experiments to date and in the future that he can rationalize that man is the designer. I think he believe he is the "other" designer -- a delusion he should have looked after.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 01:58 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
No, that is not what I said.


You are a very confusing individual.... You seem intent on making a point but for the life of me I cannot see what your point is or how you are arriving at that point.


Welcome to the RL show Smile
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 05:18 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
megamanXplosion wrote:


You stated earlier "that dozens of PhD's expending countless hours of careful planning and putting together an experiment which mixes carefully selected chemicals in precisely measured amounts and exact amounts of energy applied at specified intervals... will not prove that life can happen by chance" but why do you say this?


I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.


So you are claiming that the scientists are trying to create life forms by using chemicals that wouldn't be in the proposed "chance environments"?


No, that is not what I said.


You are a very confusing individual. You admit that the lab environment mimicks the chance environment found in nature then say it wouldn't be proof of life forming in a chance environment but would prove intelligent design that presumably mimicks a chance environment like that in nature. How would do distinguish between design from chance in such a situation?

If I am completely off the mark on what you are trying to say then clear up the confusion. Please state, as unambiguously as possible, what you are claiming. You seem intent on making a point but for the life of me I cannot see what your point is or how you are arriving at that point.


No, the chance environment found in nature may (or may not) have the same chemicals. Ya takes yer chances. I did not say they would not be there.

One location may have 10% of the substances you need to make an amino acid, another location several miles away may have 5% of the substances you need, yet another location may have 100% of the substances needed, another may have 90% of the substances necessary, another may also have 100% of the needed components but also have substances that will immediately degrade any amino acids it encounters.

Even in the location with 100% of what is needed, they probably won't be found in the optimal proportions which a scientist will use in his attempted re-enactment of the 'chance' environment.

In the 100% environment, however you may never get the 'lightning strike' you need with just the right amount of electricity, in just the right place , at the right time when all the needed components are in very close proximity and are not chemically bonded to anything else, and are at the right temperature, and the surrounding area is conducive not only to their production but to their preservation afterwards, etc.

However in the 'chance' environment that will be set up in the lab, all of these variables and more are carefully controlled to produce the optimal result.

Therefore it probably does not represent any situation you would truly find in a natural environment that hasn't been jerry-rigged for success.

What you have in the lab is intelligence and design working to produce a specific result.

---------------------------

Even if a lightning strike in a chance environment billions of years ago DID succeed in producing some crude amino acids, you are going to need this repeated over and over to produce not only a few but many.

Then before these can be chemically degraded you will need..........well you get the picture.

What you believe in is mathematically so unlikely that it takes a great deal of faith to hold that it not only COULD HAVE happened , but that it CERTAINLY DID happen over and over.

As I mentioned earlier, once this first living organism forms itself by your accidental miracle, it must be immediately successful feeding itself, eliminating waste, repairing any damage to itself, reproducing itself etc before death (what is the life span of your proto? ) forces you to start all over again.

-----------------------

How did this critter which literally 'fell together' from pieces into a whole also manage to successfully and accurately encode information on it's structure (how it is built) AND it construction (how to build it, a very different thing) to insure accurate reproduction?

-----------------------

A while back (Long ago, in a thread far away Smile ), we also discussed issues such as the faint young sun paradox, and other barriers to your proposition. You've got a long way to go to put together a convincing case.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 05:25 pm
A show of lack of study of the subject and just plain ignorance.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 08:01 pm
rl
Quote:
You've got a long way to go to put together a convincing case.
Science readily admits that. We happily toil in the fields of ignorance. However, science doesnt presume to establish a root cause. It is neutral on all of this and you, by your evidence-free hokum, cant even cobble a good "lesson plan" for Creation.

Ill reiterate my desires in education within the sciences, we explain what we do know and attempt to provide a synthesis of all the available evidence and data. So far, nothing except decsent with modification explains evrything.

Now, as for root origins, thats not a part of evolutionary theory and you know it. No matter, the evidence is supportive of a " gradualistic resource limitation based(cf Shelfords Law of the minimum)" origin of life, rather than an "explosive- everything happens at once by some very busy deity" origin. All the supportive sciences and subdisciplines began their work as subareas of sciences that had no interests in, or much knowledge of evolution. By pure hapenstance do they support each other and underpin the story of change with modification.

As a geologist , Im amazed at how much actual "TRUTH" is locked up in the rocks and in the CMC of the earth. We know with great accuracy how the "resources " of the earth have made themselves available through time and we understand the consequences of these events quite well. Now, cn I totally exclude a deity's hand, no. However, even he had to follow the route that evidence reveals. Creationists and IDers have missed Einsteins observation
"Did God have any choices in his Creation?"
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 10:55 pm
farmerman wrote:
rl
Quote:
You've got a long way to go to put together a convincing case.
Science readily admits that. We happily toil in the fields of ignorance. However, science doesnt presume to establish a root cause. It is neutral on all of this and you, by your evidence-free hokum, cant even cobble a good "lesson plan" for Creation.

Ill reiterate my desires in education within the sciences, we explain what we do know and attempt to provide a synthesis of all the available evidence and data. So far, nothing except decsent with modification explains evrything.

Now, as for root origins, thats not a part of evolutionary theory and you know it. No matter, the evidence is supportive of a " gradualistic resource limitation based(cf Shelfords Law of the minimum)" origin of life, rather than an "explosive- everything happens at once by some very busy deity" origin. All the supportive sciences and subdisciplines began their work as subareas of sciences that had no interests in, or much knowledge of evolution. By pure hapenstance do they support each other and underpin the story of change with modification.

As a geologist , Im amazed at how much actual "TRUTH" is locked up in the rocks and in the CMC of the earth. We know with great accuracy how the "resources " of the earth have made themselves available through time and we understand the consequences of these events quite well. Now, cn I totally exclude a deity's hand, no. However, even he had to follow the route that evidence reveals. Creationists and IDers have missed Einsteins observation
"Did God have any choices in his Creation?"


Well, farmerman you know and I know that Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution are all taught together in one slick package in the public schools.

If you want to address the issues I raised in my most recent post to megaman, I'd be interested to hear your take.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 01:37 am
real life wrote:
In the 100% environment, however you may never get the 'lightning strike' you need with just the right amount of electricity, in just the right place , at the right time when all the needed components are in very close proximity and are not chemically bonded to anything else, and are at the right temperature, and the surrounding area is conducive not only to their production but to their preservation afterwards, etc.


"Just the right amount of electricity" would be practically any amount. It is said to have happened in the atmosphere. It is well known that electric charges spread out (that is what causes the light--and that's entropy for ya) so each lightning strike would present a gradient from 100% of the electricity to 0% the farther from the source one moves. It is much like saying "grey is needed in the picture" when you have a gradient from totally white to light grey to medium grey to dark grey to black. Practically every electric charge in the sky would be capable of providing the "right amount." The "right place" argument is absurd. No deeper explanation needs to be given besides "up there!" Lightning strikes occur all over the Earth. The chemicals required for the process, as used in the Miller-Urey experiment, were all gases except for water. Water, as I'm sure we are all familiar, can evaporate and become a part of the atmosphere--along with all of the other gases. So for the conditions to supply electricity in the "right amount" and at the "right place" is, to put it quite bluntly, "in the sky!" No deeper explanation is required. And the environment that needs to be conducive to the preservation of such chemical compounds is in the ocean--where the evaporated water would rain down with the chemicals inside the droplets of water. It seems like every debate we get into over science you try complicating it with your "information perspective." It is now, just as it was in the entropy argument, a desperate plea for esoteric gibberish.

real life wrote:
However in the 'chance' environment that will be set up in the lab, all of these variables and more are carefully controlled to produce the optimal result.

Therefore it probably does not represent any situation you would truly find in a natural environment that hasn't been jerry-rigged for success.


You are clearly ignorant of the tests that were done. You've probably been reading about them at the Discovery Institute or some other web site of frauds. Do a search on Google and look at how scientists were able to duplicate the results. Even under many different proportions of the chemicals the result still came out the same. There is no need for jerry-rigging like you suggest.

real life wrote:
Even if a lightning strike in a chance environment billions of years ago DID succeed in producing some crude amino acids, you are going to need this repeated over and over to produce not only a few but many.


The amount of lightning strikes over the course of a billion years over an ocean provides more than enough opportunities.

real life wrote:
Then before these can be chemically degraded you will need..........well you get the picture.


I got the picture. I'm just disappointed that it was a painting and not a polaroid.

real life wrote:
What you believe in is mathematically so unlikely that it takes a great deal of faith to hold that it not only COULD HAVE happened , but that it CERTAINLY DID happen over and over.


I don't believe it happened that way. I have clearly shown earlier that there are many possibilities for how life started. And because there hasn't been a reproduction of complete life forms the only position I can take is "I don't know but poofism is harder to justify." You have clearly misrepresented my position.

real life wrote:
As I mentioned earlier, once this first living organism forms itself by your accidental miracle, it must be immediately successful feeding itself, eliminating waste, repairing any damage to itself, reproducing itself etc before death (what is the life span of your proto? ) forces you to start all over again.


I've never heard anyone say that the organic compounds created in the lab would have a complete digestive system where they'd need to feed and crap. The picture you are painting is an imaginative one--and for you to approach this discussion honestly would be the miracle of all miracles. By the way, find the definition of miracle in a dictionary.

real life wrote:
How did this critter which literally 'fell together' from pieces into a whole also manage to successfully and accurately encode information on it's structure (how it is built) AND it construction (how to build it, a very different thing) to insure accurate reproduction?


Who said it "fell together" into a whole? Please tell me you won't be posting the "tornado in a junkyard" argument...

farmerman wrote:
Science readily admits that. We happily toil in the fields of ignorance. However, science doesnt presume to establish a root cause. It is neutral on all of this and you, by your evidence-free hokum, cant even cobble a good "lesson plan" for Creation.

Ill reiterate my desires in education within the sciences, we explain what we do know and attempt to provide a synthesis of all the available evidence and data. So far, nothing except decsent with modification explains evrything.


I agree.

Quote:
Well, farmerman you know and I know that Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution are all taught together in one slick package in the public schools.


What else would they teach in a science textbook? Large poofism and small poofism?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 04:40 am
real life wrote:
I'm reminded of the NBC Dateline segment many years ago.

The 'investigative' reporters were trying to 'ascertain the facts' concerning a certain model of GM pickup which was alleged to lend itself to horrendous fires when impacted in an accident.

The design and placement of the gas tank were among the 'flaws' discussed.

To prove the point, with the cameras rolling, NBC crashed one of the pickups and WHOOSH a fireball engulfed the truck, making a dramatic point and verifying the allegations.

A few days later NBC admitted they had placed explosives in the tank to discharge on cue so that the camera would capture a pleasing image confirming this 'scientific' investigation.

---------------------

The point is no doubt lost upon you, but I still enjoy telling the story.


So, what you're saying is that journalistic reporters, whom have no experience in scientific research at all, faked the results of their experiment?

Those people weren't scientists. Furthermore, they clearly didn't follow scientific protocols because they only crashed the one pickup truck. Science clearly states that the one test subject is not enough, that you need a lot more for the experiment to be statistically valid. Science requires results to be repeatable for the results to be valid.

I think the point of the story is completely lost on you, RL.

The guys that did those experiments repeated them and found the same results over and over again. You can repeat themself if you have the time, money and materials and get the same results. Not comparable.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 12:38 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I think the point of the story is completely lost on you, RL.

Much is lost on those who endorse the sort of propositions rl and ilk forward ... such as statistics, physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology, sound forensic practice, intellectual honesty, and logic. Their entire so-called "scientific argument" consists of nought but bad math applied to junk science, and their so-called "scientific objections" are but argument from ignorance. Predicate to their position are the substitution of belief for evidence and the acceptance of myth and legend in preference to science and history. There is little point in or profit to be had through employing reasoned persuasion and factual rebuttal when dealing with their absurdities; one cannot deal reasonably with the unreasonable, and facts are of no consequence to those determined to maintain themselves in error and denial.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 09:13 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I think the point of the story is completely lost on you, RL.

Much is lost on those who endorse the sort of propositions rl and ilk forward ... such as statistics, physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry, biology, sound forensic practice, intellectual honesty, and logic. Their entire so-called "scientific argument" consists of nought but bad math applied to junk science, and their so-called "scientific objections" are but argument from ignorance. Predicate to their position are the substitution of belief for evidence and the acceptance of myth and legend in preference to science and history. There is little point in or profit to be had through employing reasoned persuasion and factual rebuttal when dealing with their absurdities; one cannot deal reasonably with the unreasonable, and facts are of no consequence to those determined to maintain themselves in error and denial.


To be labeled an enemy of logic by you , timber, is a badge of honor.

You who argue in such perfect circles, please continue to reassure me that I'm not using your brand of 'logic'. Thank you. Smile
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 10:31 pm
rl, you're just diggin' your own hole deeper. Keep it up, though; its fun to watch you trying to play with the big kids.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 10:33 pm
Aw, timber, he's at least a quarter of the way to China. I understand global warming is really acute down there.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 11:27 pm
megamanXplosion wrote:
real life wrote:
In the 100% environment, however you may never get the 'lightning strike' you need with just the right amount of electricity, in just the right place , at the right time when all the needed components are in very close proximity and are not chemically bonded to anything else, and are at the right temperature, and the surrounding area is conducive not only to their production but to their preservation afterwards, etc.


"Just the right amount of electricity" would be practically any amount. It is said to have happened in the atmosphere.


Others say at the bottom of the sea near a vent in the ocean floor, still others in the shallow mud by the waterside.

If you think it coulda happened in the air, maybe you should address the problem of the faint young sun.

---------------------------

As for the notion that 'any amount' of electrical charge would be beneficial in jump starting life.........

.........maybe I shouldn't embarrass you by bringing too much attention to a statement like that. We'll just let it float down the laughing brook.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:18 am
RL, RL, you like to point to conclusions without discussing the evidence. Thats always a good fall-back for the terminally religious. What does your Creationist mind interpret from evidence such as

1from on balances in sediments , the earth ws a planet of excess Ammonia,methane and hydrogen. (There are several processes that we use in industrial chemistry to form more complex compounds from simple organics in an energy environment-Tropsch, Wohler etc) We see other similar planets and moons that contain "excesses " of these same compounds ( were we any different?)

2We see that, from Carbon isotope ratios, life appeared about 3.8-3.9 BY ago. The use of stable carbon isotopes has enabled us to develop th science of chemical biostratigraphy quite well. We can track planetary events and extinctions by the masses of C12/C13 released into sediments at those times

3about 2.5 BY life began to differentiate into eukaryotic cells that included bacteria that produced oxygen as a waste product.I recall, in another thread where you, similarly intractable in your non acceptance of evidence , were presented with a very good link by Timber on Cyanobacteria and the rise of stromatolite reefs as some of the first major O2 producers.

4 About 2.2 BY, the differentiation of life into many forms reached a frenzy within animals and plants that were "skeletally challenged". Oxygen played a major role since about this time the banded iron formations began to occur as preferred deposition of sedimentary iron oxides.
5 A series of vendian "mini explosions" occured as new forms rose with further increases in O2 concentrations (evidence is available from mineral formation in sediemnts)

6 The major diferentiation then occured at the 560 million year mark when "hard shelled" animalsls began to appear "suddenly". This also corresponded to another O2 spike

Weve got an abundance of chemical evidence that explains the paleontological evidence . The neat thing is that the paleo evidence was much older data. The chemical isotopic evidence wasnt available until the early 1990"s . Its neat how one batch of evidence supports the other without any pre conceived -knowledge.


As far as teaching Big Bang/abiogenesis/ and evolution together, I usually dont reccomend teching science like a program in the "Discovery Channel". Kids need to have a firm grounding in the science at hand so they get some basic skills and dont occupy sites like this with inane questions and propositions that theyve just acquired from a similarly ignorant and unsophisticated minister or agenda driven group.
When asked about origins of life, I think hat techers should honestly state that there are a number of good (opposing scientific theories ) out there. Noone seems to agree , but many of the theories are compelling on their own. Theres no firm agreement on any of these, with the exception that , there seems to be no evidence to support a Creationist event, data doesnt support it, in fact, it mostly refutes basic Creationism.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/31/2021 at 03:22:08