Intelligent Design Question

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

  1. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    For one, we do not know what the exact environmental conditions were on Earth 4 billion years ago. Since we do not know: how can we reproduce them to possibly recreate. Second, even if we did know, do we have the capability and means to do so? Not yet. But we're getting pretty close.

    mountainhare: "Saying GOD DID IT doesn't answer anything... what mechanism did he use?"

    Why would you think that a "god" is what used a certain "mechanism"? What do you mean by "mechanism"? A mechanical process? Evolution is about random chance events, not a "mechanism." The pieces all fell in the right place at the right time under the right conditions to form what we have today.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Yes. How exactly did he create first life? Oh wait, let me guess, he just 'poofed' it into existence. Well, that sure explains everything!

    Wrong.

    Wrong.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I can't find this in this thread. Where is it?
    Taken out of context I would disagree with AlphaWolf. Within context, I don't know, because I can't find it.
    In science there is always an element of doubt. There are certain 'facts' that are taken as axiomatic. Certain mathematical and geometrical 'facts' fit this description.
    Observations, that have been repeated many times with flawless consistency are taken as 'fact'. Thus we observe the sun rise every day (though try spending a year in the Arctic and see what happens to your 'fact' then).
    Theories that arise out of attempts to explain observations will be treated as 'fact', once the theory accounts repeatedly, effectively and in the most simple manner imaginable for the observations.
    But in both of the last instances the 'facts' are always provisional; the proof always subject to modification.
    In scanning this thread for Alphas comments on 'proof' I did not spot any of his insults. I am not here to defend Alpha. I shall say that when I use those terms on a fellow poster it is out of frustration at their ignorance.
    Let me be precise. You do appear to be unaware of the huge volume of research that has been conducted into abiogenesis, and how this pretty well demonstrates that abiogenesis is a 'fact', though the details remain as yet undetermined. You are therfore, objectively ignorant.
    Now we are all ignorant in many fields. When I am aware of my ignorance in a field I do not go around making pronouncements that should only properly be made by someone with knowledge in that field. Instead, I try to acquire the knowledge, or I accept the interpretation of the knowledgeable person. If I do nto choose this reasonable approach I would expect to be called a child (because of the immaturity of my approach) and a retard (because of the lack of thought that went into it).
    It is 39 years since I was in high school. I never heard the term there. As I suggested earlier it is likely dealt with in the most cursory manner, because we do not yet understand the details. And I repeat the solution to the origin of life is known: it is abiogenesis. The precise path of many possible paths that was followed is not yet clear. That lack of clarity typifies a field that is on the fronteirs of science. That makes it exciting, intriguing, inspiring, tantalising, important, dramatic, and many like things. It does not make it unknown.

    I shall read your posts in the life of cells.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i await your reply
     
  8. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    God does not follow the laws of man ....it's the other way around!

    As to knowing how he did it, well, I'm not so sure that he'll ever tell us. And really, why should he?

    I'm not sure, but I think there's a passage in the Bible about how man shouldn't seek to know all that god knows ...it's a bad thing to do and it's fraught with peril, or something like that.

    Baron Max
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Which god are you actually talking about. I hope you know not all gods created life and the other stuff in a similar fashion. Which one are we going to pick as the right story? Let me guess...the one you currently believe in?!?

    I would like to see some proof however that your religious center of worshipping is the correct creator and not some con artist who is taking the credit of the result of a natural process or of some other deity or deities.
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Spurious, you can call him anything you'd like ...pick one.... ain't no skin off my nose! If you wish it to be Allah, fine with me. How 'bout "Old Whathisname"? That's also fine with me.

    Baron Max
     
  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    nonsense
    allah had no kids
    god had jesus
    they aint the same

    pfft! thats just YOUR opinion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Indeed, and some religions even dare to state that there are multiple gods each with their own powers. Is that also the same to you Max?

    Is it ok with you that we then teach your american children that the alternative to evolution or abiogenesis is the existence of the Dung Beetle God, who rolled the earth out of shit? And this earth is carried upon the backs of giant turtles? And life was created out of maggots forming in the dung ball?

    You wouldn't mind if that is being taught as an alternative to evolution in science class?
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    god didn't "have jesus" mary "had jesus"
     
  14. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    whoa whoa whoa... when did I call you a little boy? oh... I guess I did hint to it... nevermind.
    I already told you, it's not that. And you're showing you could be any of those with that reply since you're totally ignoring my replies again. Sigh, why do I bother anyway?
    BLOODY MARY!
    BLOODY MARY again! evolution is NOT about random chance events!!!!! first off, abiogenesis is not evolution. If it were, natural SELECTION says it all. it ain't random baby. (lol... i'm so crazy I dunno why i felt like saying that)
    secondly, abiogenesis is not really random either. It's chemistry, and chemistry is not random. Certain chemicals will react with certain other chemicals in a certain way. After that happened (say RNA came about), natural selection took over... and it was VERY early on.
    I can't remember exactly the context and whatever, and i'm lazy so I won't search, but I was basically making the case for theories. Theories are as close as science comes to call some idea a fact. I know you can't absolutely PROVE anything, but what I was saying is that through experimentation, observation, testing, etc. over a long period of time, theories are basicaly hypotheses that have been "proven".
    I won't deny I said that (except technically I never said "little boy", but I alluded to it)... but you're right on about why I said it... except i'd say stupidity and not ignorance. I don't mind ignorance much (unless it comes about because of stupidity), just stupidity.
    I posted three pretty long posts to inform him since he asked for evidence... I went as far as going for my bio book, reading half the damn chapter, and typing a bunch of it there, and he just took one little sentence of mine (BEFORE i went for the book), and totally dismissed the rest of my posts. I think anyone would be pretty frustrated at that.
    bloody mary! lol... everyone here is so much older than me! I figured pretty much everyone would be in their 20's or less... I shall create a poll! (here- http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=924373#post924373 )
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2005
  15. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Sure, why not? If that's what they believe, so be it. Why should you or anyone try to force them to believe as you (or whoever?) do? That ain't nice, is it? Or is that part of our Bill of Rights? ...like: "All people should be forced at gunpoint to believe as Spuriousmonkey believes." (Which amendment is that, anyway?)

    Well, an ADDITION to evolution ...no, I wouldn't mind at all. And especially if the parents and voters of that school district vote to have it taught in their schools. And just so you know, I think the operative words in that sentence is "...of that school district...". It's THEIR school - they pay taxes for it - they elected the school board - they have children in that school. Spuriousmonkey should have no say in it!!! None whatsoever!!

    As to the Dung Beetle God ...isn't that actually a belief/myth for some African tribe? And if it is, then, yes, I think teachers should teach that if the school board and the voters agree. (Why? Don't you like the Dung Beetle God??)

    Now, let me ask you a question: Why do you feel that you should have any say in what a people teach their kids in their own school system? What "right" is it that makes you think you have some kind of authority over what those people teach?

    Baron Max
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    alpha
    you should clarify who you are quoting in your replies. you qouted at least 2 different people but did not post the names with their quotes.
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what other process in nature is there besides random chance? please expound on this.
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I think it is your law who says that state and church should be separated.But don't sue me if I am wrong.
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Point 1: Evolution is constrained by the environment. Changes that occur will only be favoured, on average, if those changes are beneficial in that environment. In other environments they become a liablity, or at best are neutral. Thus we cannot have random changes occuring and being sustained. A random change to a heavier animal or a talller tree will only be favoured if, in that environment, a heavier animal or taller tree are more likely to survive.
    If those changes were truly random we would get creatures and plants and microbes branching off in all sorts of wierd and wonderful directions - a random evolution. But they do not, because they are constrained by the specific character of the environment in which they have to function.
    This point alone is sufficient to demonstrate that claims for the random character of evolution are false.
     
  20. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    don't you remember what YOU said?
    besides, if you want something to say just jump right in, who cares who it was adressed to? I do that, ophiolite does that (replying about evolution being random), etc.
    and about abiogenesis, chemicals abide by certain rules. If you have certain chemicals, they will react a certain way. It wasn't just a bunch of random atoms that just miraculously happened to fall into place to make a bacterial cell. It was certain chemical reactions (which are not random... for example you can make small lipid spheres by dropping certain chemicals through clay) making something (probably RNA and stuff) and then natural selection taking place.
    it's not random, it's chemistry. Saying that how life came about is random is like saying that all the mechanisms in cells today are random... That's simply not true.
     
  21. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    You still think that there had to have been a god. Why?

    "The pieces all fell in the right place at the right time under the right conditions to form what we have today."

    Yes. No God. It happened.
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Vallich, no I am not stalking you, I am just policing your inanities. What in all that's sacred makes you think that MountainHare believes God did it? Can't you read his posts and understand his viewpoint is diametrically opposite?
    You really have some serious cognitive difficulties. I have said before, if you will be good enough to share those with us in a limited way I shall be happy to back off. As long as you maintain your skills of comprehension and expression are normal I shall continue to point out when, as in this case, you are being bloody stupid.
    You persistently criticise others who disagree with you for wasting space on the forum. If you are like this in real life you are wasting space on the planet. At least have the courtesy to read and attempt to understand what others are saying, rather than posting this pointless crap based on gross misinterpretation.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2005
  23. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    No! You ARE stalking me! and yes, you ARE "policing" my posts: just like in police-ing. Who the hell do you think you are! You're an aggravating idiot who NEVER adds anything constructive to these forums: yet, always so eager to criticize, condemn, belittle, and police! This is your normal behavior pattern that you have exhibited on all of these posts over-and-over again. You most definitely have a psychological problem that you need to seek help with: psychological counselling. Your behavior detrimentally affects others, and that is wrong. Your behavior is destructive, and that it wrong. Your behavior adds absolutely nothing to the intellectual scientific content of these forums, and that is wrong. Your behavior is nothing more than a distracting hinderance to progress on these threads, and that is wrong.

    I did not criticize mountainhare on the above post: I asked him a question about it. But ONLY YOU criticized ME, and that is wrong.

    You are a crack-pot antagonistic nutcase that needs psychiatric help, and I sincerely hope that you get it. Until then, please stop interfering with these forum threads and impeding the progress of education. GET HELP!
     

Share This Page