Intelligent Design???

[shmogie]

Not a good idea. Scientists should always follow the objective verifiable evidence to falsify hypothesis, and not where they want to go.



You have not cited any evidence, and only negative assertions as to what you believe based on a religious agenda



Hypothesis do not represent evidence in and of themselves. If hypothesis are supported by objective verifiable evidence, than they may be falsified as true.



Abiogenesis is not a logical proposition.



This is the problem with your argument, personal anecdotal claims and assertions do not represent evidence, as defined in the English language, and not for the perspective of science.

Contradiction, above you stated it was not what you believe, and here you describe it as 'What you believe.'




Actually no. The many diverse and conflicting theological/philosophical frameworks based on personal, anecdotal and subjective claims, and not based on objective verifiable evidence, do not determine truth.

FACTS represent a sound argument, whatever you believe an agenda to be. Personal anecdotal claims ? Saying a cell requires Coded DNA read by RNA to operate and survive is a personal anecdotal claim ? Is it subjective ? Yes, to the claim of abiogenesis.

The "you" statements are always a dead giveaway. They usually appear in a discussion of this type when the statement maker cannot address the issue.

If I were wrong in my assertions, and you were able to refute them you would. Ditto for other posters.

Then , we would both research in depth, cite appropriate recognized sources, then post them.

This is how logic works, first a propoisition, THEN testing for soundness.

So, if you worried much less about motives, agenda's, et.al. (me) and concentrate on the issue, you would increase your credibility significantly.

Drive by personal comments do little in support of the cause for abiogenesis, they are illogical.

Actual, I think there is some emotion here.

Although the Christian world view is happily and gleefully attacked, and we are used to it, and cope with it, many of the " a natural cause for everything camp" aren't used to their particular world view being challenged, and some get very angry and resort to the "you" statements. Sorry

 

[shmogie]

I did not refute the quotes you provided. I refuted your claim that abiogenesis is not possible based on those quotes.

How can an organism that does not exist have complex, coded instructions? You tell me how that works. I cannot wait to here that.

You are just asking the same type of questions and then claiming that not knowing means that abiogenesis cannot have happened.

Did what leech out of rocks?

You're just throwing anything against the wall and hoping something will stick.

I just did. Again.

I nwver said abiogenesis was not piossible according to my assertions, I stated they we unsolved problems that make abiogenesis not possible till they are solved. My inference, is that they never would be, I could be wrong, it has happened before.

Lets see, the theory is that the rock of the earth, combined with the atmosphere were the source of life,

Therefore, the information required to operate a living organism had to have come from them.

Just state that abiogenesis today, is not understood, nor can it be explained. It has never been observed or replicated.

Facts we both can agree on

 

[Polymath257]

Chemical processes in a cell are the result of information. Chemical processes do not produce this information, except by replication from DNA.

And this is false. But let me put it this way. What do you think information is and how is it produced (in general)?

 

[shunyadragon]

FACTS represent a sound argument, whatever you believe an agenda to be. Personal anecdotal claims ? Saying a cell requires Coded DNA read by RNA to operate and survive is a personal anecdotal claim ? Is it subjective ? Yes, to the claim of abiogenesis.

You have not provided FACTS as evidence.

If I were wrong in my assertions, and you were able to refute them you would. Ditto for other posters.

The negative 'arguing from ignorance' based on anecdotal personal opinion cannot even be responded to, because it does not present a coherent argument with evidence..

Then , we would both research in depth, cite appropriate recognized sources, then post them.

I have, and you have not.

This is how logic works, first a propoisition, THEN testing for soundness.

Yes, but the hypothesis is not a logical proposition, and it is a proposed scientific hypothesis.

So, if you worried much less about motives, agenda's, et.al. (me) and concentrate on the issue, you would increase your credibility significantly.

I have focused on the scientific evidence for abiogenesis, and cited sources, which you have failed to do.

Although the Christian world view is happily and gleefully attacked, and we are used to it, and cope with it, many of the " a natural cause for everything camp" aren't used to their particular world view being challenged, and some get very angry and resort to the "you" statements. Sorry

Confirms the religious agenda as the basis of your argument and not science, which you have failed to present nor cite scientific references.

 

[shmogie]

And this is false. But let me put it this way. What do you think information is and how is it produced (in general)?

False ? Please tell me why ? Do you know of a chemical process that is capable of developing information sufficient to select two or more options based upon particular needs ?

Biloogically information is

You have not provided FACTS as evidence.



The negative 'arguing from ignorance' based on anecdotal personal opinion cannot even be responded to, because it does not present a coherent argument with evidence..



I have, and you have not.



Yes, but the hypothesis is not a logical proposition, and it is a proposed scientific hypothesis.



I have focused on the scientific evidence for abiogenesis, and cited sources, which you have failed to do.



Confirms the religious agenda as the basis of your argument and not science, which you have failed to present nor cite scientific references.

Please give me post numbers where you have cited sources re abiogenesis.

I will happily give you citations regarding the information problem in abiogenesis.

You know it is just busy work, if you have, as you say, researched abiogenesis, you know it is true.

Of course, you are assuming and hoping I will cite a source that you think, can then attack. Won´t happen.

I know the games lawyers play, and you are a tyro compared to them

 

[Polymath257]

False ? Please tell me why ? Do you know of a chemical process that is capable of developing information sufficient to select two or more options based upon particular needs ?

Irrelevant for abiogenesis. Once life gets going, natural selection is the obvious way.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, that isn´t my position.

Okay.

To scientifically state something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did, is dogmatic faith.

Who does that?

From the perspective of reason and logic, both alternatives are equally viable.

I thought you just said that wasn't your position? Anyways, given some of the work that's been done to date on the origin of the first life, where is the equivalent work on your alternative (i.e., supernatural creation by a god)?

 

[exchemist]

I never said that science says anything but that it could and did happen. How, science doesn´t know.

I simply am citing evidence, that makes the scientific task extremely difficult.

You wrongly state that by your faith these problems aren´t problems at all, with no evidence to back up the claim.

problems with this hypothesis are cumulative. they add up. They are adding up.

You tell me it happened, but haven´t a clue how. Slight glimmerings aren´t the final answer, not by a long, long shot

Your straw men are irrelevant

Well you did say in post 241 :"So, your position is it happened, though no one can demonstrate how, and in fact science itself in a large number of ways says it could not have happened."

The witness appears to have changed his story, M'lud. And a lawyer, too, tsk tsk.

I have never, that I can think of, stated there are no problems in unravelling the origin of life. If I have given that impression, please direct me to the offending statement.

In fact it is trivially obvious that there are problems to be solved, since a huge number of unsolved problems remain. It is a massively complex undertaking to unravel 3.5bn years of accumulation of biochemical processes, especially when we have no chemistry from earlier epochs to analyse directly, and must infer most of it from what we see in organisms today.

But a difficult or complex problem is not necessarily insoluble: it is just yet to be solved. And even if it were impossible for us to unravel the process, it would not then follow that life could not have had a natural origin.

You seem to ask science to give up, just when it is getting interesting. (I've posted a couple of examples of recent findings on the "Creator Did It" thread, if you are interested: posts 194, 218. But it may be that you need to be a chemist, rather than a lawyer, to understand why these are interesting.)

 

[shmogie]

Well you did say in post 241 :"So, your position is it happened, though no one can demonstrate how, and in fact science itself in a large number of ways says it could not have happened."

The witness appears to have changed his story, M'lud. And a lawyer, too, tsk tsk.

I have never, that I can think of, stated there are no problems in unravelling the origin of life. If I have given that impression, please direct me to the offending statement.

In fact it is trivially obvious that there are problems to be solved, since a huge number of unsolved problems remain. It is a massively complex undertaking to unravel 3.5bn years of accumulation of biochemical processes, especially when we have no chemistry from earlier epochs to analyse directly, and must infer most of it from what we see in organisms today.

But a difficult or complex problem is not necessarily insoluble: it is just yet to be solved. And even if it were impossible for us to unravel the process, it would not then follow that life could not have had a natural origin.

You seem to ask science to give up, just when it is getting interesting. (I've posted a couple of examples of recent findings on the "Creator Did It" thread, if you are interested: posts 194, 218. But it may be that you need to be a chemist, rather than a lawyer, to understand why these are interesting.)

Until science demonstrates how it happened, it is de facto stating it could not.

Give up, of course not, why would I want that ?

To be clear, I am not a lawyer, heaven forbid. I do however have a crimonology degree, and a criminal justice degree, both requiring many law classes, and lectured at the University level. I served through the ranks, from patrol officer, to 17 years as Director of Public Safety.

 

[shmogie]

Okay.


Who does that?


I thought you just said that wasn't your position? Anyways, given some of the work that's been done to date on the origin of the first life, where is the equivalent work on your alternative (i.e., supernatural creation by a god)?

The ¨work¨ must lead to a demonstrable conclusion, i.e. how life was created from non living matter.

Why is equivalent work required ? Is there an A for effort ?

 

[Jose Fly]

The ¨work¨ must lead to a demonstrable conclusion, i.e. how life was created from non living matter.

And that's certainly the goal.

Why is equivalent work required ? Is there an A for effort ?

You're claiming that supernatural creation by a god is on equal footing with the scientific hypotheses around the origin of life. That's quite a claim, so let's see if it holds up under scrutiny. The most obvious place to start is to ask....what work is being done into the notion that a god or gods created the first life?

 

[exchemist]

Until science demonstrates how it happened, it is de facto stating it could not.

Give up, of course not, why would I want that ?

To be clear, I am not a lawyer, heaven forbid. I do however have a crimonology degree, and a criminal justice degree, both requiring many law classes, and lectured at the University level. I served through the ranks, from patrol officer, to 17 years as Director of Public Safety.

Ah not a lawyer, OK that makes more sense now. (I trained as a patent agent and have a brother who is a lawyer so I was a bit surprised at your cavalier use of language.)

But I think you should make your mind up. One moment you claim science says life could not have arisen naturally, then you disavow having said that and now you re-assert that it does "de facto", on the ridiculous basis that if science cannot, today, show how it happened, then science is saying it is impossible. Which is patent nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

The ¨work¨ must lead to a demonstrable conclusion, i.e. how life was created from non living matter.

Why is equivalent work required ? Is there an A for effort ?

The effort of scientists is to falsify the hypothesis for abiogenesis, based objective verifiable physical evidence.. The hypothesis for a supernatural source lacks objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate Creation of life by a source outside nature.

 

[shunyadragon]

Until science demonstrates how it happened, it is de facto stating it could not.

No that is not how it works. You are equating unknowns with the impossible, ie 'it could not happen.'

To be clear, I am not a lawyer, heaven forbid. I do however have a crimonology degree, and a criminal justice degree, both requiring many law classes, and lectured at the University level. I served through the ranks, from patrol officer, to 17 years as Director of Public Safety.

OK, and apparently do not have the qualifications to draw the conclusion you are making concerning the science of abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

False ? Please tell me why ? Do you know of a chemical process that is capable of developing information sufficient to select two or more options based upon particular needs ?

Your asking questions without the knowledge of the sciences involved nor have you read the references cited, nor provided any of your own. I can guess you may cited the Discovery Institute with Dempski and Behe. All they do is cite phony statistics and not science, but give it your best shot.

Please give me post numbers where you have cited sources re abiogenesis.

Post numbers will follow

I will happily give you citations regarding the information problem in abiogenesis.

It depends on what you call 'problems.' Almost every theory and hypothesis in science has problems that are unresolved form physics, gravity, cosmology, biology, and whatever. Theories, theorems and hypothesis are pretty much works in progress with new research and information being available everyday.

You know it is just busy work, if you have, as you say, researched abiogenesis, you know it is true.

No I do no 'KNOW' it is true, that is over the top sarcasm. It is a hypothesis in progress with objective verifiable evidence. Abiogenesis is a relatively young science. Serious research only began after the discovery of RNA and DNA.

Of course, you are assuming and hoping I will cite a source that you think, can then attack. Won´t happen.

I know the games lawyers play, and you are a tyro compared to them

I am a scientist, and yes, defending science I am a tyro. Above you said you would cite sources, and now you say you won't ?!?!?!?

 

[Bear Wild]

I nwver said abiogenesis was not piossible according to my assertions, I stated they we unsolved problems that make abiogenesis not possible till they are solved. My inference, is that they never would be, I could be wrong, it has happened before.

Lets see, the theory is that the rock of the earth, combined with the atmosphere were the source of life,

Therefore, the information required to operate a living organism had to have come from them.

Just state that abiogenesis today, is not understood, nor can it be explained. It has never been observed or replicated.

Facts we both can agree on

No there is far more information than you are aware of. It is easy to tell when you make simple statements that the theory of rock combined with atmosphere. Are you even aware of the data so far?

 

[shmogie]

Irrelevant for abiogenesis. Once life gets going, natural selection is the obvious way.

Irrelevant for abiogenesis ?

No there is far more information than you are aware of. It is easy to tell when you make simple statements that the theory of rock combined with atmosphere. Are you even aware of the data so far?

A lot of it. Tell me, the volcanic earth developed an atmosphere, as it cooled, what else was there besides light ?

 

[shmogie]

Your asking questions without the knowledge of the sciences involved nor have you read the references cited, nor provided any of your own. I can guess you may cited the Discovery Institute with Dempski and Behe. All they do is cite phony statistics and not science, but give it your best shot.



Post numbers will follow



It depends on what you call 'problems.' Almost every theory and hypothesis in science has problems that are unresolved form physics, gravity, cosmology, biology, and whatever. Theories, theorems and hypothesis are pretty much works in progress with new research and information being available everyday.



No I do no 'KNOW' it is true, that is over the top sarcasm. It is a hypothesis in progress with objective verifiable evidence. Abiogenesis is a relatively young science. Serious research only began after the discovery of RNA and DNA.



I am a scientist, and yes, defending science I am a tyro. Above you said you would cite sources, and now you say you won't ?!?!?!?

I won´t post facts from sources that you blanket disregard because they are part of a worldview you reject, i.e ID/creation. I will ensure atheists are always the sources.

 

[shmogie]

No that is not how it works. You are equating unknowns with the impossible, ie 'it could not happen.'



OK, and apparently do not have the qualifications to draw the conclusion you are making concerning the science of abiogenesis.

Nonsense. Now you are playing the gnostic card, you can only understand this if you have special qualifications and unique qualifications. Witness nullification. I say again, nonsense.
You state you are a geologist and I am sure you are great with rocks, but does being a geologist prime facie qualify you as a bio chemist or biologist ?

Perhaps you are implying that I don´t have the required intelligence ? I don´t need to quote numbers, lets just say I have an adequate IQ.

I don´t know how many graduate biology classes you had, I had none myself, but I had undergraduate courses.

Once again, you choose to discuss me rather than a simple, provable, non refutable statement, the precursor organism would have to have had information to function, whether it be DNA or RNA based. No mechanism has been found for non living chemical reactions to develop this information to the extent required for abiogenesis.

My statement, but a fact. My atheist bio chemists will tell you so.

Argue with them, question their intelligence or qualifications.

BTW, lay people can understand conclusions, and they don´t really care if they are established by the scientific method, or the pick a card, any card method, as long as they are true, logical and reasonable.

 

[shunyadragon]

I won´t post facts from sources that you blanket disregard because they are part of a worldview you reject, i.e ID/creation. I will ensure atheists are always the sources.

My sources peer reviewed articles by scientists at major universities without regard to religious belief. Your emphasis falsely categorizing scientist as atheists reveals your religious agenda, is the fallacy of categoty. Not all scientists are atheists.

Nonsense. Now you are playing the gnostic card, you can only understand this if you have special qualifications and unique qualifications. Witness nullification. I say again, nonsense.


You state you are a geologist and I am sure you are great with rocks, but does being a geologist prime facie qualify you as a bio chemist or biologist ?

I have a strong background in biochemistry, biology, math

Perhaps you are implying that I don´t have the required intelligence? I don´t need to quote numbers, lets just say I have an adequate IQ.

No the required intelligence is minimal human intelligence. IT is your severe religious bias I question, and not your intelligence.

I don´t know how many graduate biology classes you had, I had none myself, but I had undergraduate courses.

I had graduate biology, paleontology genetics, and physiology courses.

Once again, you choose to discuss me rather than a simple, provable, non refutable statement, the precursor organism would have to have had information to function, whether it be DNA or RNA based. No mechanism has been found for non living chemical reactions to develop this information to the extent required for abiogenesis.

No, your are making assertions about what is necessary without a basic knowledge in the sciences related to abiogenesis. This is the common all or nothing clain by fundamentalist Creationists.

My statement, but a fact. My atheist bio chemists will tell you so.

Bad English, and not citing scientific sources, 'arguing from vague ignorance of unknowns, based on a religious agenda.

Argue with them, question their intelligence or qualifications. [/quote[

Cite them specifically in a journal in context.

BTW, lay people can understand conclusions, and they don´t really care if they are established by the scientific method, or the pick a card, any card method, as long as they are true, logical and reasonable.

Yes, lay persons can, but it is your fundamentalist religious agenda, and not your literacy, reading comprehension, nor intelligence.