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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have complex human-made things been designed?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 18 of 85 (480434)
09-03-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 11:43 AM


Re: many errors in your comments
AOkid writes,
All created by the code within the organisms DNA.
Right, but where did the DNA come from?
I've read your arguments before, you seem to suggest that DNA cannot be broken down into several components that naturally came to be, through a natural process, what we now call DNA.
Can DNA arrise from natural causes? From pre-existing natural chemicals? From pre-existing enviromental conditions? etc, etc..
Or can it only be explained through design?
A design that would have to come to be from nothingness mind you. In other words God, or the Designer(since that is the new bullshit euphemism for God), would have to have made DNA appear spontaniously, because if He/She used natural chemicals and brought them together, and took the enviromental conditions into consideration, then basically you are saying that God used natural processes and natural components to organize DNA.
At that point you are just invoking God because of pre-existing belief in a God.
As suggested by the OP, nothing comes from nothing, I think thats what andorg meant. So are all of the components for DNA found before DNA is known to have appeared?
If ALL of the components for it are available before DNA is known to have appeared, then a normal natural process can, and should be, assumed...unless you can prove otherwise.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 11:43 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 4:37 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 24 of 85 (480460)
09-03-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 4:37 PM


Re: many errors in your comments
AOkid writes,
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
Prove it.
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA.
I did not say that there IS, I said that you seem to suggest that there CANNOT be, a natural process...
What is known science is that there are NO supernatural processes ever found thru experiments and/or observations. Note that im not saying that there AREN'T any, im saying that none have been shown to exist using the scientific method.
There is no naturally occurring process to create DNA.
Again, I did NOT say there IS, however, you have absolutely NO evidence to support that statement. You have no idea if there are or aren't, you assume there aren't. I don't want to get into the details of abiogen since it is not the topic so lets stay focused. Pre-existing conditions for a natural process...thats what I am saying there IS.
but it can be explained through design.
Anything can be explained if your explanation is 'God-did-it', but you will fail when you attempt to show HOW 'God-did-it'.
If we have pre-existing chemical components, then we have what we need for a natural process to take place.
I think you have my faith confused with yours. You believe that everything we see came from nothing. I do not.
I think it came from nothing? WHAT??? I said the pre-existing components are there for a natural process, you said..
AOkid writes,
It came from the design of God as well as a myriad of other things did.
First, define 'a myraid of other things', cause that sounds like 'I don't know how God-did-it'.
Second, where did God get all of the components? Did He make the components first, then came back a few million years later to reorganize the components to create DNA, or what? Give me some kind of specifics here...
Spontaneous natural chemical reactions is what you believe in.
Are you suggesting that there are NO spontaneous chemical reactions???
Spontaneous process - Wikipedia
How about these,
Spontaneous abortion
Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis
Spontaneous combustion
Spontaneous emission
Spontaneous fission
Spontaneous generation
Spontaneous human combustion
Spontaneous Music Ensemble
Spontaneous order
Spontaneous process
Spontaneous remission
Spontaneous symmetry breaking
The planning and making may use preexisting items that you may label as natural.
Ok, then where did the pre-existing 'items' come from? And don't you dare say God spontaneously made them
According to the Bible, all of the components of DNA were present before God used them to create organisms.
Ok, so where did the pre-existing crap come from...other pre-existing crap? Come on man, don't give me this circular bullshit, explain what you mean.
You are saying God made DNA from pre-existing components that He 'planned' to put together as DNA. Ok, where did those pre-existing components come from? At some point something had to magically appear from nothing, or a magic hat, or some other demention, something. Explain that 'something'. Where does God get the components?
Why should a natural process be assumed, when I believe according to the scripture that God is involved with every natural process.
Because its wrong to think that. Just as it was wrong to think that God caused eclipses.
Now I may not agree with the BBT from a scientific standpoint, but both of us must agree that the universe didn't come from nothing.
Agreed.
I believe that what it did come from designed the universe, the earth, and life within it.
Yes, all the physical laws of the universe are required for life, Earth, galaxies etc, etc...Where does God come in?
Do you want me to list the concepts that science was wrong on?
Yes, and then give me a list of who discovered that certain things in science were wrong...I BET IT WAS A FUCKIN SCIENTIST
It is ever changing and ever correcting.
Yes by scientist.
That is a good thing.
Yes, it is a good thing when scientist can correct their mistakes. That way we continue to progress in our knowledge of nature.
That alone is evidence that I don't want to put my trust in science, because the probability of error is so high.
So let me see if I follow your reasoning.
1. You believe science makes mistakes.
2. You are happy to see when those mistakes are corrected using the scientific method.
3. You believe that it is a good thing to correct those scientific errors and get the right answers to problems that scientist work on.
4. You don't trust science.
Im sorry but im having trouble understanding your logic here. Who do you think makes the corrections to the scientifc problems?

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 4:37 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 37 of 85 (480577)
09-04-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid
09-03-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Spontaneous response
AOkid writes,
All of these processes tear apart DNA, but no processes are known which put it together.
You'll have to explain how, with evidence to support it because this statement doesn't make much sense when spouted out undetailed.
*You write,
1. Science suggests this.
Yet,
quote:
From wiki,
Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.
-SCIENCE SUPPORTS IT-
*You write,
2. The evidence suggests this.
Yet
quote:
From wiki,
Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a concentration of elemental 13C of about ’5.5, where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a 13C of between ’20 and ’30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[24] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 C. They estimate that the development of a 100 kilobase genome of a DNA/protein primitive heterotroph into a 7000 gene filamentous cyanobacterium would have required only 7 million years
-THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT-
*You write,
3. The law of biogenesis suggests this.
(This is not even an issue since we are discussing Abiogenesis, and not biogenesis.)
-THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS DOES NOT APPLY HERE-
*You write,
4. The presence of oxygen suggest this.
Yet,
quote:
From wiki,
The basic chemicals from which life is thought to have formed are:
Methane (CH4),
Ammonia (NH3),
Water (H2O),
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and
Phosphate (PO43-).
Molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) were either RARE OR ABSENT.
-OXYGEN IS NOT THOUGHT TO BE PRESENT-
*You write,
4. Hydrolysis suggest this.
Yet,
quote:
From wiki,
In polymer chemistry, hydrolysis of polymers can occur during high-temperature processing such as injection moulding leading to chain degradation and loss of product integrity. Polymers most at risk include PET, polycarbonate, nylon and other polymers made by step-growth polymerization.
NOT protiens!
-PROTIENS ARE NOT AT RISK-
You write,
5. Thermodynamic processes suggest this.
Yet,
quote:
From wiki,
The problem with most scenarios of abiogenesis is that the thermodynamic equilibrium of amino acid versus peptides is in the direction of separate amino acids. What has been missing is some force that drives polymerization. The resolution of this problem may well be in the properties of polyphosphates. Polyphosphates are formed by polymerization of ordinary monophosphate ions PO4’3. Several mechanisms for such polymerization have been suggested. Polyphosphates cause polymerization of amino acids into peptides. They are also logical precursors in the synthesis of such key biochemical compounds as ATP. A key issue seems to be that calcium reacts with soluble phosphate to form insoluble calcium phosphate (apatite), so some plausible mechanism must be found to keep calcium ions from causing precipitation of phosphate.
Without entertaining the rest of your post your original argument that "Science suggests that abiogenesis cannot accure through a natural process" seems to be completely unsupported by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Edited by onifre, : shits and giggles

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-03-2008 10:31 PM AlphaOmegakid 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