Intelligent Design Question

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mathman, Nov 24, 2005.

  1. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    God does NOT follow any of those silly-assed rules of science!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    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
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Because there is no god. God is dead.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    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.
     
  8. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    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?

    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
     
  10. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    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.
     
  11. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    We prove it daily. Would you like to accompany me to the lab to see evolution in action? No god present!
     
  12. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    Watch your mouth, okay?

    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.
     
  13. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    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.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    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
     
  15. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    well, technically you're right, but just to clarify abiogenesis does have a lot of evidence supporting it.
     
  16. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> 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.
     
  17. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    "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:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I don't think most modern creationists belief that. What made you or anyone think that? Most creationists believe that life and evolution was/is "guided intelligently", and not spontaneously as you've suggested.

    Baron Max
     
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    ID isn't mentioned in the bible. It says life is individually created.
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Modern creationists.????
    Modern......Creationists!!!!!!!!

    Whatever next?
     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    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.
     
  22. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,426
    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.
     
  23. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    translation of above's post: ID is for idiots.



    lol
     

Share This Page