Intelligent Design???

[gnostic]

That is some big feet.

Yeah. My shoe size is 8. Thorpe is double my size, and you would think he is a giant!

 

[Ellen Brown]

It is not a matter of opinions, Ellen.

It is the way science works.

The falsification, the formulation of hypothesis, scientific method, the scientific evidence, the peer review, all the process that make science “science”, is that any theory and any hypothesis must follow these minimum requirements.

Creationism don’t follow such process. Intelligent Design don’t follow this process or requirements.

I was merely explaining those process and requirements that are already in place.

I certainly didn’t invent falsifiability or scientific method or peer review, but I am trying to offer you some help.

What you are doing is merely opinions.

Opinions are personal views, which would include personal belief.

I would defend your freedom to express your opinions, but science isn’t about opinions.

Science is a method of acquiring knowledge, by testing the explanations, be they through evidences or by lab experiments.

Any scientist who write his or her paper on a specific phenomena, but ultimately decide if his or her hypothesis is true and correct, are empirical evidences and the peer review, not because of his or her desire or want. A scientist must be able to accept his or her hypothesis failed under rigorous and repeated testings.

This is a thread about Intelligent Design, not about Evolution, and ID has failed repeatedly each and every requirements.

Michael Behe, for instance, is a qualified biochemist, but his paper on Irreducible Complexity is a falsifiable hypothesis, and none of his explanations have been testable, and it has never undergone peer review.

And it is the same with his book, Darwin’s Black Box, as well as his contribution to updated edition Of Panda and People. They weren’t peer review.

The problem with Behe is that he won’t accept his conjectures on Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design have failed. That he won’t give it up, just showed his lack of integrity.

Whether you call your Creator, “God” or “Designer”, neither of them are falsifiable, because you cannot observe or detect God, you cannot measure or quantify God, and you cannot test God.

And scientific evidences require it be either observable or detectable, measurable, quantifiable, testable or verifiable...it can be combination of these, or ideally all of them.

Your mind is closed, and I am sorry. I am 72 and retired, and am no longer in the habit of obeying presidence. I write fantasy filled Science Fiction and that is enough for my amusement.

 

[gnostic]

Your mind is closed, and I am sorry. I am 72 and retired, and am no longer in the habit of obeying presidence. I write fantasy filled Science Fiction and that is enough for my amusement.

Perhaps I am younger than you, but only b 20 years.

And I have enough experience and knowledge of my life to know the differences between science nd science fiction, between reality and fantasy.

You don’t know me, but for 14 years of my life, I did believe in the Bible and in Jesus and in the afterlife, even though I had never joined any church. But in the last 18 or almost 19 years of my life, I have been agnostic. I simply just outgrew the myths in the Bible.

And it all started in 2000, when I reread Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, where I had to rethink my view on this sign, and see that the author of Matthew was wrong.

My view changed, not because of this creation vs evolution fight, but I had to rethink the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and that the church teaching about the messiah was wrong.

I’d didn’t know anything about evolution, until 3 years later, when I joined my first forums, Free2Code. I know of Genesis creation, but i didn’t know anything about creationism or those people who called themselves, “creationists”, until 2003.

The more I learned about creationism and evolution, the more I realised how irrational the concept of creationism really are, and later the more dishonest group who sprouting Intelligent Design.

I did believe in creation and flood as narrated in Genesis BEFORE 2003, but when I learned both sides of the arguments, I came to realisation that Genesis is merely allegory, like Jesus’ parables, not to be taken as literal or as historical, but as a teaching tool, to demonstrate right and wrong.

From my experiences at these forums, I don’t find any of Creationists’ arguments or views to be convincing or learned. Their mistakes were treating the Bible like a science book or history book, because it has nothing to with the former, and the later have very few actual history.

I don’t think I have closed mind, Ellen. If anything, I think I had epiphany 18 years ago. And 15 years ago, only reinforced my agnosticism that creationism is what it cut out to be, if you look deeper at Genesis 1-2, 6-8, and see no science, no history in those chapters. If anything, the epiphany made me more of realist than dreamer.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Perhaps I am younger than you, but only b 20 years.

And I have enough experience and knowledge of my life to know the differences between science nd science fiction, between reality and fantasy.

You don’t know me, but for 14 years of my life, I did believe in the Bible and in Jesus and in the afterlife, even though I had never joined any church. But in the last 18 or almost 19 years of my life, I have been agnostic. I simply just outgrew the myths in the Bible.

And it all started in 2000, when I reread Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23, where I had to rethink my view on this sign, and see that the author of Matthew was wrong.

My view changed, not because of this creation vs evolution fight, but I had to rethink the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and that the church teaching about the messiah was wrong.

I’d didn’t know anything about evolution, until 3 years later, when I joined my first forums, Free2Code. I know of Genesis creation, but i didn’t know anything about creationism or those people who called themselves, “creationists”, until 2003.

The more I learned about creationism and evolution, the more I realised how irrational the concept of creationism really are, and later the more dishonest group who sprouting Intelligent Design.

I did believe in creation and flood as narrated in Genesis BEFORE 2003, but when I learned both sides of the arguments, I came to realisation that Genesis is merely allegory, like Jesus’ parables, not to be taken as literal or as historical, but as a teaching tool, to demonstrate right and wrong.

From my experiences at these forums, I don’t find any of Creationists’ arguments or views to be convincing or learned. Their mistakes were treating the Bible like a science book or history book, because it has nothing to with the former, and the later have very few actual history.

I don’t think I have closed mind, Ellen. If anything, I think I had epiphany 18 years ago. And 15 years ago, only reinforced my agnosticism that creationism is what it cut out to be, if you look deeper at Genesis 1-2, 6-8, and see no science, no history in those chapters. If anything, the epiphany made me more of realist than dreamer.

Don't confuse me for some staunch religionist. The religious have cured me of that, and I have my own reasons for doing what I do and am unapologetic about it. I can never be entirely acceptable in any arena, though I tried so hard for such a long time. I'm quite odd. Now I'm just a hardened old ***** who will walk away from you if you get too pushy.

I think that books like "The Foundation Trilogy", and some of Arthur C. Clarke's work have an element in truth, however I retain the right to believe what I want to about the existence of a Creator. I'm mostly Muslim because I like the Modesty and devout prayer. The Role of Jesus Christ is still open for me, and I'm not apologetic about it at all. I do not have to prove I am right to be pleased with what I think.

Somewhere around here is a little book of some <200 pages, called "The Late Great Planet Earth", which is about end times theology. It made lots of sense to me back in 1974. I'll see how I feel about it the second time around.

From my own study of Psychology, I know that those who are unsure of their own position on an issue, sometimes try very hard to convince others they are right. That would be a waste of time with me.

 

[exchemist]

That is some big feet.

More like flippers, in fact. No wonder he was a good swimmer. They say he lived on raw herrings and could twirl a beach ball on the end of his nose, too.....

 

[gnostic]

Don't confuse me for some staunch religionist. The religious have cured me of that, and I have my own reasons for doing what I do and am unapologetic about it. I can never be entirely acceptable in any arena, though I tried so hard for such a long time. I'm quite odd. Now I'm just a hardened old ***** who will walk away from you if you get too pushy.

I think that books like "The Foundation Trilogy", and some of Arthur C. Clarke's work have an element in truth, however I retain the right to believe what I want to about the existence of a Creator. I'm mostly Muslim because I like the Modesty and devout prayer. The Role of Jesus Christ is still open for me, and I'm not apologetic about it at all. I do not have to prove I am right to be pleased with what I think.

Somewhere around here is a little book of some <200 pages, called "The Late Great Planet Earth", which is about end times theology. It made lots of sense to me back in 1974. I'll see how I feel about it the second time around.

From my own study of Psychology, I know that those who are unsure of their own position on an issue, sometimes try very hard to convince others they are right. That would be a waste of time with me.

My point in my last post that despite being agnostic for nearly 19 years, it doesn’t mean I have forgotten what I had learned over the years when I did believe. So I know religion works, and I used to be open to belief.

The thing is I understand the lure of belief, but I preferred honesty and reality, over wishes (or beliefs of god(s), of miracles, of afterlife).

But if I can understand the basic concept of religion as well as understand the basic concepts of physics and biology, then I can give explanation in either areas.

But so far, you may be able to provide your expertise or knowledge in religion, I don’t think you can tell us what is evidence and what isn’t evidence.

If you understood science, you would know that religious belief of god isn’t falsifiable, nor of any scripture.

That’s was my points in my first reply to you.

 

[shmogie]

In nature no process begins purely by chance. All processes begin and end based on the laws of nature.



. . . 'fair to say' is not the criteria for abiogenesis in science.

In nature no process begins purely by chance. All processes begin and end based on the laws of nature.



. . . 'Good so far. Lets see, regarding abiogenesis the laws of nature are what ?

 

[shmogie]

What hurdles are those?

Watch this thread.

 

[shmogie]

There is no reliable evidence that Bigfoot exists. All that can be said is that the existing evidence related to the claims of Bigfoot is weak and undetermined and there is nothing supporting the conclusions of popular culture regarding the existence of Bigfoot.

There is little evidence that the precursor first reproducing, functioning organism existed, there is significant evidence that it could not, thus, the claims that it did lacks support by evidence

 

[shmogie]

No, it does NOT begin purely by chance. It begins because the laws of physics and chemistry dictate how the atoms and molecules interact to form the structures that become life.

Do the laws of chemistry and physics determine the environment, atmosphere, temperatures, proportions and mixtures of chemicals to support life ? The answer is yes, so your statement is irrelevant, the laws of the universe determines that things happen, blindly. The laws of the universe ensure that many things happen by chance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do the laws of chemistry and physics determine the environment, atmosphere, temperatures, proportions and mixtures of chemicals to support life ?

Yes.

The answer is yes, so your statement is irrelevant, the laws of the universe determines that things happen, blindly. The laws of the universe ensure that many things happen by chance.

Your misusing the 'blindly,' and attributing anthropomorphic attributes to nature, and that is a no go. The laws of nature ensure things happen, but not by 'chance.' 'Chance' as you are using it would not determine whether things happen, but the level of possibility that something will happen. The cause is laws of nature, and that is what determines that abiogenesis and evolution will happen given time.

No, chance has no causative effect on the outcome of cause and effect events. There is a natural diversity in universes, solar systems, planets and environments on the planets. Naturally some are suitable for life to form. If the environment suitable for life to form exists, life will likely form over time. There are millions of years for life to form by the laws of nature given a suitable natural environment.

You are assuming not 'chance,' but that there is 'no chance' for abiogenesis and evolution to happen. Laws of nature determine this, not chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is little evidence that the precursor first reproducing, functioning organism existed, there is significant evidence that it could not, thus, the claims that it did lacks support by evidence

Such claims indicate that you do not understand the nature of evidence. But go ahead, tell us some of this evidence that tells us that abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[shunyadragon]

Watch this thread.

Hurdles are for Track Sports. You have not provided any coherent responses concerning reasons abiogenesis and evolution cannot take place caused by the laws of nature in a suitable environment.

 

[Polymath257]

Do the laws of chemistry and physics determine the environment, atmosphere, temperatures, proportions and mixtures of chemicals to support life ? The answer is yes, so your statement is irrelevant, the laws of the universe determines that things happen, blindly. The laws of the universe ensure that many things happen by chance.

This actually shows that these things have more structure to them than most people recognize (and are hence not matters of chance).

 

[shmogie]

Hurdles are for Track Sports. You have not provided any coherent responses concerning reasons abiogenesis and evolution cannot take place caused by the laws of nature in a suitable environment.

Lets begin doing that right now.

We have made a valiant effort to determine what would constitute evidence regarding scientific theories, lets see how it goes re abiogenesis.

I am not concerned at this point regarding the evolution of living organisms.

The issue is the living, functioning, reproducing first organism that existed as a result of some combination of non living chemicals and/or matter.

You use the term, ¨ suitable environment¨. Could or did that suitable environment exist for the alleged process of abiogenesis to take place ?

The common belief by most who ascribe to abiogenesis is that it began in a sea containing simple organic molecules.

From the molecules, polymers were created. These would by necessity have had to include amino acids, proteins or perhaps RNA.

¨ Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored ¨ National Academy of Science, the limits of organic life in planetary systems, p. 60, 2007

Put simply, water destroys the required chains of chemical components for life

Dr, Miller, one half of the Miller-Urey experiments on abiogenesis of the 1950ś, which have been pretty much abandoned on experimental environment grounds, said this in an interview.

¨ The first step, making the monomers, thatś easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self replicating polymers. Thatś easy, just like itś easy to make money in the stock market, just buy low and sell high.¨ Miller laughs, ¨nobody knows how it is done¨. Discover magazine, quoted by Peter Radzky, How Did Life Start ?

¨ The origin of life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic earth, How ? I have no idea. George M. Whitesides, Chemical and Engineering news March, 2007.

Next installment, the deal breaker, information

 

[Ellen Brown]

My point in my last post that despite being agnostic for nearly 19 years, it doesn’t mean I have forgotten what I had learned over the years when I did believe. So I know religion works, and I used to be open to belief.

The thing is I understand the lure of belief, but I preferred honesty and reality, over wishes (or beliefs of god(s), of miracles, of afterlife).

But if I can understand the basic concept of religion as well as understand the basic concepts of physics and biology, then I can give explanation in either areas.

But so far, you may be able to provide your expertise or knowledge in religion, I don’t think you can tell us what is evidence and what isn’t evidence.

If you understood science, you would know that religious belief of god isn’t falsifiable, nor of any scripture.

That’s was my points in my fist reply to you.

I don't feel the need for support of others in the way I think. Thinking that scientists would be most open minded was a mistake on my part. I did not miss your not so subtle put down.

 

[Polymath257]

Lets begin doing that right now.

We have made a valiant effort to determine what would constitute evidence regarding scientific theories, lets see how it goes re abiogenesis.

I am not concerned at this point regarding the evolution of living organisms.

The issue is the living, functioning, reproducing first organism that existed as a result of some combination of non living chemicals and/or matter.

You use the term, ¨ suitable environment¨. Could or did that suitable environment exist for the alleged process of abiogenesis to take place ?

The common belief by most who ascribe to abiogenesis is that it began in a sea containing simple organic molecules.

From the molecules, polymers were created. These would by necessity have had to include amino acids, proteins or perhaps RNA.

¨ Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored ¨ National Academy of Science, the limits of organic life in planetary systems, p. 60, 2007

Put simply, water destroys the required chains of chemical components for life

Dr, Miller, one half of the Miller-Urey experiments on abiogenesis of the 1950ś, which have been pretty much abandoned on experimental environment grounds, said this in an interview.

¨ The first step, making the monomers, thatś easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self replicating polymers. Thatś easy, just like itś easy to make money in the stock market, just buy low and sell high.¨ Miller laughs, ¨nobody knows how it is done¨. Discover magazine, quoted by Peter Radzky, How Did Life Start ?

¨ The origin of life. This problem is one of the big ones in science. Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic earth, How ? I have no idea. George M. Whitesides, Chemical and Engineering news March, 2007.

Next installment, the deal breaker, information

Polymerization of amino acids does happen, though, in the repeated drying and re-hydration that happens in tidal ponds. The current thought is that the initial polymerizations happened there.

Once again, we do not, at this point, have anywhere close to a complete description of what it takes for life to initially form. We do not know the conditions under which it happened. We do not know the conditions that existed on the early Earth. That is, partly, what current research in abiogenesis is attempting to figure out.

I'd point out that at one point it was though that the formation of monomers would be hard. That turned out not to be the case, if the proper conditions hold.

 

[shmogie]

Polymerization of amino acids does happen, though, in the repeated drying and re-hydration that happens in tidal ponds. The current thought is that the initial polymerizations happened there.

Once again, we do not, at this point, have anywhere close to a complete description of what it takes for life to initially form. We do not know the conditions under which it happened. We do not know the conditions that existed on the early Earth. That is, partly, what current research in abiogenesis is attempting to figure out.

I'd point out that at one point it was though that the formation of monomers would be hard. That turned out not to be the case, if the proper conditions hold.

Of course I haven yet adressed the additional environmental factors of UV light and ozone and oxygen.

 

[gnostic]

I don't feel the need for support of others in the way I think. Thinking that scientists would be most open minded was a mistake on my part. I did not miss your not so subtle put down.

I will let this reply be my last, to you. So you don’t have to reply, because clearly you don’t anyone who disagree with you, and you’ve responded by being rude.

I don’t think you can properly debate what is “conclusive” “evidence” until you actually know what you are talking about.

Everyone (not just me) who have replied to you, have tried to explain those basics to you, but you kept knocking back and away, and you have been terribly rude to them, because you believed they have insulted you, when they haven’t.

The explanations to you so that you don’t make that mistake again. The benefits of the explanations were for you, but clearly you don’t want help.

Why are you here, in this debate thread, if you don’t want people to talk to you, whether they agree or disagree with your posts?

No, don’t bother to answer that question, because it is now rhetorical question.

Well, fine, I won’t bother you anymore. If you don’t want to learn from your mistakes, then I will let you continue to approach science from the side of ignorance. That’s what you want, so I won’t waste anymore of my time writing to you.

 

[exchemist]

Of course I haven yet adressed the additional environmental factors of UV light and ozone and oxygen.

This seems to be just flailing about, looking for difficulties. We all know it's difficult: that is why there is no theory of it yet. (As it happens there has in fact been recent interesting research on the ability of the "bases" found in DNA to act as stabilisers of molecules exposed to UV. There is also a hypothesis that dissipation of UV into heat by these bases may have even been the driving force behind the development of life - that UV was thus necessary, rather than an obstacle.)

But all this misses the basic point: originally there was no life and now there is, so it happened somehow, and the task of science is to look for natural , not supernatural, explanations. That is what it will continue to do, like it or not. It is futile to argue that it was somehow "impossible", because it has happened. Science will never have recourse to a supernatural miracle as an explanation, because that would ipso facto not be a scientific explanation.

So we have an impasse: on the one hand, science, doggedly trying to disentangle the biochemical steps by which life could have arisen by means of the laws of nature, and on the other the creationists, driven by a particular reading of the bible that is not shared by most mainstream Christian denominations, claiming that it was impossible without a supernatural miracle.