Intelligent Design Question
- Thread starter mathman
- Start date
TheAlphaWolf said:
Well, they ain't so obvious to me! I.e., if lightning comes from electrically charge molecules in the atmosphere, where did the molecules come from in the first place? And where did the atmosphere come from? And where did the sun come from?
Obvious answers? No, I don't think so. Please explain more fully, including where everything came from in the first place ...before there was anything!
Baron Max
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
um... weren't we talking about evolution? The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.
Why can't peple stick to one topic? that one topic is huge enough by itself, there is no reason why to go off in tangents and make a living hell out of people.
I shouldn't have to go through all my ancestors from the very beggining of time, from human ancestors to other apes and to monkeys to other mammals to prokaryotes to atoms to the big bang in order to tell you that I exist!
how the others came about and stuff is totally irrelevant to what we're talking about.
valich said:
Since ye're so hot on science ....can you prove that? And if you can't, then perhaps you should seek out the science books again and check out the passages where it says that scientists should never make blanket statements as fact UNLESS they have proof or sufficent evidence to back it up.
Baron Max
TheAlphaWolf said:
Hmmm, but weren't you the one who said earlier that it was all so fuckin' obvious?!
Would there be any such thing as "evolution" if there'd been no beginning of life and energy?
TheAlphaWolf said:
I'm sure you can't understand it, but it's quite often that one topic leads in many and varied directions. And since this isn't exactly a "moderated" forum, you have to take the good with the bad! Live with it.
Baron Max
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
I sure was, and what I was reffering to sure IS obvious. (btw, I said so damn obvious not so fuckin' obvious)
first off, we were talking about the origin of life, not evolution.
and secondly, how that energy began, or whether we know how it began, is irrelevant to whether anything using that energy happened.
For example, in my ancestor analogy, whether we know who my grand grand grand grand parents were, (and at least I don't) is COMPLETELY irrelevant to whether I exist or not.
and I'm sure you can't understand it, but going up on random tangents that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand makes you look like you don't know shit and are just looking for a stupid excuse to say "aha you don't know so it's all false!". If you go on a tangent far enough, any topic can turn like that.
Watch your mouth, okay?TheAlphaWolf said:
I posted two threads under this Biology and Gentics subject category and no one replied. So here it is now under a different title. Reread my posts on page 2. We haven't the exact details yet, but we are darn well close to it. We've developed nucleotiides and amino acids under artifcial conditions: these are the ingredients for the origin of life. We've isolated replicative (reproducing) systems. We cannot simulate the original conditions for the evolution of life because we don't know what they were: they're long gone now.
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
what? I was clarifying what I DIDN'T say. He said I had said fuckin' obvious, I hadn't.
You don't really consider damn a bad word do you? would darn be better? lol
I'm a newbie, I didn't have time to read each thread and find out what was discussed before or not.
I'll read it in a sec.
after my discussion whith alpha wolf the other day i think 2 things need to be clarified.
1 evolution and abiogenesis is not the same thing.
evolution is change over time abiogenesis is how life arose.
2 proof and evidence is not the same thing.
evolution is a fact. abiogenesis has no proof
1 evolution and abiogenesis is not the same thing.
evolution is change over time abiogenesis is how life arose.
2 proof and evidence is not the same thing.
evolution is a fact. abiogenesis has no proof
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
That's a very vague definition, as with that definition you could include how the universe changed over time, and of course that has nothing to do with evolution.
Evolution is the fact that species have common ancestors and that they change over time through selective processes. That's not the best definition either, but whateve that's the best I can come up with
well, technically you're right, but just to clarify abiogenesis does have a lot of evidence supporting it.
>> God is dead.
yes personal gods are dead... sorry you can't pray for forgiveness anymore
But
Long live the Creator !!!
Religion is the curse of ignorance.... kill for it, and you defile LIFE.
But does LIFE care, no...... that's only you worms squirming in your own excrement
Rise out of the mud, and realise all that is alive is but one super-organism
( I call that organism, LIFE )
URI......IMU
But y'all are poisoned from the tops of your heads to your tiny toes.... clean up your act.... and let's have a world wide love in.
yes personal gods are dead... sorry you can't pray for forgiveness anymore
But
Long live the Creator !!!
Religion is the curse of ignorance.... kill for it, and you defile LIFE.
But does LIFE care, no...... that's only you worms squirming in your own excrement
Rise out of the mud, and realise all that is alive is but one super-organism
( I call that organism, LIFE )
URI......IMU
But y'all are poisoned from the tops of your heads to your tiny toes.... clean up your act.... and let's have a world wide love in.
"15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense"
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
"Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
"In modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler than even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria , but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself. Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further?
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2
"Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
"In modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler than even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria , but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms. The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide, or the self replicating hexanucleotide, or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself. Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.
Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further?
No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis:
Baron Max said:
ID isn't mentioned in the bible. It says life is individually created.
Valich,
Sigh.
I'm back with the foolish one.
Let me get this straight.
You're claiming that you, in your lab, have proved the inexistence of God. This is what you're claiming?
Let's see it then.
Valich doesn't like swear words. He thinks they're fucking stupid. I think only ignorant fucks equate profanity with inanity. And nothing I've seen so far invalidates my theory.
Sigh.
I'm back with the foolish one.
Let me get this straight.
You're claiming that you, in your lab, have proved the inexistence of God. This is what you're claiming?
Let's see it then.
Valich doesn't like swear words. He thinks they're fucking stupid. I think only ignorant fucks equate profanity with inanity. And nothing I've seen so far invalidates my theory.
NY Times today had an article about ID advocates problems. An excerpt that I thought might be interesting is as follows:
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.
"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges. Even at conservative schools, scholars and theologians who were initially excited about intelligent design say they have come to find its arguments unconvincing. They, too, have been greatly swayed by the scientists at their own institutions and elsewhere who have examined intelligent design and found it insufficiently substantiated in comparison to evolution.
"It can function as one of those ambiguous signs in the world that point to an intelligent creator and help support the faith of the faithful, but it just doesn't have the compelling or explanatory power to have much of an impact on the academy," said Frank D. Macchia, a professor of Christian theology at Vanguard University, in Costa Mesa, Calif., which is affiliated with the Assemblies of God, the nation's largest Pentecostal denomination.
TheAlphaWolf
Registered Senior Member
translation of above's post: ID is for idiots.
lol
lol