Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 241 of 300 (286016)
02-12-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:54 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design.
Nonsense. Repetition and plagarism are what is found in the natural world; there's almost no biological novelty. Living things rarely exhibit any traits but those derived by slight modification to existing features.
But even then, nothing is more creative than randomness - the randomness that is a feature of mutation.
There is definite plan and purpose and a Designer.
You must not work in biology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:54 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 7:55 PM crashfrog has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 242 of 300 (286021)
02-12-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:54 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Anything new requires intelligence. Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design
Have you been reading posts in reply to you for the last several days? It has been demonstrated very thoroughly that newness does NOT require an intelligence.
It takes lot more faith on my part to believe that everything self assembled( like proteins) than to believe in an intelligent designer who invents.
Here you exhibit an inability to separate biological evolution from the chemistry required to get to the first life-like forms. Please remember to keep them separate.
Biological evolution can take very simple imperfect replicators to what we see today. Getting the first replicators is, as has been noted, a subject of some study today.
If you wish to believe that those studies will never answer the question because your intelligent designer did it you are, to a limited degree, free to believe that for now. It isn't a very safe position to adopt but you are free too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:54 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 243 of 300 (286028)
02-12-2006 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:48 PM


Re: No creator, but science
In reply to the question, "How do you determine whether something 'cannot self assemble or self synthesize'?" you say:
inkorrekt writes:
Amino acids do not self assemble and synthesize proteins. Chances of this occuring is less than 1 in (10 X 42) which is a statistical improbability.
I have somewhat the same response as Parasomnium, but I'll phrase it differently. The origins of life community does not claim to have reconstructed the process by which pre-life became life. They do not know whether proteins came first, or RNA came first, or something else came first, or how many intermediate steps there were, or what those intermediate steps were. One can't calculate a probability for an unknown process. Your 1 in 1042 figure is made up.
We all understand that the odds of pouring a mixture of amino acids into a beaker and having them spontaneously form proteins is small. No one is proposing that that's how it happened. Most origins of life researchers believe that life arose through a long sequence of small steps whose details we may never tease out of the sparse evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:48 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 02-12-2006 7:39 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 244 of 300 (286030)
02-12-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:54 PM


Re: No creator, but science
inkorrekt writes:
Anything new requires intelligence. Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design.
This is false. For example, any new mutation, which is just a copying error during cell division, can produce a new allele, thereby increasing the amount of information in the population's gene pool. Mutations require no intelligence.
This principle is also demonstrated by genetic algorithms. We can get into the details if you like. They demonstrate true originality and creativity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:54 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 8:15 PM Percy has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 300 (286031)
02-12-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Percy
02-12-2006 7:24 PM


Re: No creator, but science
We may not ever know the precise process, but we are getting new evidence rapidly. Here is a link to yet another possible step in the process showing one method where peptides could be built up.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 02-12-2006 7:24 PM Percy has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 246 of 300 (287996)
02-18-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by nwr
02-06-2006 12:46 PM


Re: No creator, but science
The analogy between ID and Steve Jobs is simple and is obvious. The word "INVENTION" must make lot of sense. If you can imagine the processes involved in inventing a computer out of microprocessors and electronic components, then you have the answer. Any invention requires extra intelligence. I cannot make this much simpler for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by nwr, posted 02-06-2006 12:46 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by nwr, posted 02-18-2006 12:05 PM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 247 of 300 (287998)
02-18-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by jar
02-06-2006 12:09 PM


Re: Obviously
So what? I do not have to use the first apple computer in order to understand Steve's invention. I use the latest version of the IBM PC. Whether it is Apple or IBM, it is the basic computer. What we are discussing here is the Intelligence of Steve Jobs with which he Designed the first Apple computer. It is not the version of the computer at discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 02-06-2006 12:09 PM jar has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 248 of 300 (287999)
02-18-2006 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
02-02-2006 6:18 PM


Re: Missing links
Verywell said. This is why frogs stay as frogs and do not evolve into anything else. Thanks for proving that macroevolution does not occur..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Omnivorous, posted 02-18-2006 12:56 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 02-18-2006 1:23 PM inkorrekt has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 249 of 300 (288077)
02-18-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by inkorrekt
02-18-2006 2:43 AM


Re: No creator, but science
The analogy between ID and Steve Jobs is simple and is obvious.
Indeed, it is quite obvious that there is no analogy there at all. That Steve Jobs might have invented the apple has no relation as to whether biological organisms are invented or have evolved. All of the evidence is that they have evolved.
The source of the first life form on earth is as yet unknown, but ToE does not deal with that issue. It deals only with accounting for the observed biological diversity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by inkorrekt, posted 02-18-2006 2:43 AM inkorrekt has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 250 of 300 (288094)
02-18-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by inkorrekt
02-18-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Missing links
Verywell said. This is why frogs stay as frogs and do not evolve into anything else. Thanks for proving that macroevolution does not occur..
Don't be intentionally thick. It isn't necessary.
The evidence for evolution lies in tracing how frogs came to be frogs, not in speculation about whether speciation will produce something else.

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by inkorrekt, posted 02-18-2006 2:52 AM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Chiroptera, posted 02-18-2006 1:21 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 300 (288100)
02-18-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Omnivorous
02-18-2006 12:56 PM


Re: Missing links
inkorrekt's response to crashfrog is a non sequitur. In fact, even as sarcasm it doesn't make sense as a response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Omnivorous, posted 02-18-2006 12:56 PM Omnivorous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 252 of 300 (288101)
02-18-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by inkorrekt
02-18-2006 2:52 AM


Re: Missing links
Verywell said. This is why frogs stay as frogs and do not evolve into anything else. Thanks for proving that macroevolution does not occur..
Complete non sequitor. Now, how about you actually address my point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by inkorrekt, posted 02-18-2006 2:52 AM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 253 of 300 (289893)
02-23-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


God is God, is God ,is God
If God created everything, then God was not created. Otherwise, God becomes one of the creations which has no power to create. God was never created. But, He always existed. This is hard for me to understand.But, thi smakes lot of sense to me. Who am I to question my creator?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 02-24-2006 8:30 AM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 254 of 300 (289894)
02-23-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by crashfrog
02-12-2006 6:17 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Millions of mutations were carried out on Drosophila Melanogaster. So far they have never identified one useful mutant.Randomness cannot produce any order. Biological evolution does not occur without chemicals. Chemical evolution cannot occur. Therefore biological evolution is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2006 6:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by ramoss, posted 02-23-2006 8:44 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 02-24-2006 8:48 AM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 255 of 300 (289896)
02-23-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
02-06-2006 12:21 PM


Re: No creator, but science
How do you determine whether something "cannot self assemble or self synthesize"?
This is plain and simple. We have all built some models. What happens when we buy them from the store? They are all well packed. We bring them home, follow the instructions and put different components in the proper place. They do not self assemble themselves. This is asimple analogy. Even the basic components of a model do not self assemble.
The answer to your question is that when you want to make something involving assembly and it does not assemble itself, then you determine that that particular product does not self assemble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 02-24-2006 9:16 AM inkorrekt has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024