When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi crash, Why should I believe one of your holy books? You tell me mine are a bunch of fables.Just because a bunch of people believe something that does not make it true.The majority of people on earth believe in a god but you don't. So a majority of any group does not rule. And any information produced by the Earth has to be interperted by mankind. Which is subject to the worldview of the person doing the interpertation.But if the conditions could be determined as you say they have. Then someone would have reproduced those conditions and then produced life.Fact is nobody knows what those conditions were and probably never will. Then what was they looking for?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi, Buzsaw. Obviously, "almost life" is not alive.The definition of "life" includes a number of different attributes. So, in order to be considered "life," an entity must have, for example, A, B, C, D and E.Something that has A, B, C and D, but not E, is thus not "life." But, Ringo could rightly call it "almost life," because it fills all the requirements except one.-----Let me try this again.Think of abiogenesis as the point at which a proto-organism becomes essentially self-sufficient.Before that point, some of the organism’s life-like functions were done by the environment (e.g. the environment controlled when the membrane divided, or proteins from the environment were used to replicate DNA).After that point, all of the organism’s life-like functions were done by the chemistry contained within itself. Thus, the chemicals to replicate DNA (or RNA) or to orchestrate membrane division, were produced within the organism, rather than out in the environment.It’s the same chemistry happening in both situations: it’s just that, before abiogenesis, the chemistry is happening out in the medium, and after abiogenesis, it’s happening inside the cell, and is being regulated and synchronized directly by the cell.So, there isn’t the big leap here that you want it to be. The chemicals could self-replicate, and the self-replication of the organism was thus only the ability to synchronize the replication of all the parts such that the whole was replicated together.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi crash, Sure they have a job.It is to reproduce and destroy.It can not reproduce without a host cell.They can and do destroy cells.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi jay, DNA is information.Where did that information come from?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It's not a holy book. It's a fully-sourced science textbook, as you might find used to teach a graduate-level course on geochemistry. It's authoritative. The evidence that leads scientists to the conclusions they hold is part of that textbook. As we've seen over the years, there's a limit to how much a worldview can bend the evidence. If a worldview is in factual error holding it in the face of the contradictory evidence simply becomes untenable, until one has only two choices - stop exposing oneself to the evidence, or give up the worldview.If the evidence really was in favor of creationism creationists wouldn't have to play games to ignore it, as you're doing. Exactly what they found - that organic biomolecules could have an inorganic origin under the conditions likely to be found on the early Earth.

No. DNA is a molecule, like water or hydrogen. Molecules are composed of atoms and functional groups which allow them to do various reactions. DNA is a bit more complex than hydrogen or water, so it's capable of a wider variety of reactions but the chemical principles are the same.The only "information" contained in molecules is their structure, how the atoms and functional groups are arranged. The only "code" in DNA is a kind of shorthand that scientists use to talk about that structure. There is certainly no need for any intelligence to "put it in".

---

I rode off into the sunset, went all the way around the world and now I\'m back where I started.

From: Origin of Life - A. G. Cairns-Smith - references So, just how curious are you Granny? Curious enough to get your own lazy ass to do a little research and actually read a book yourself before you start throwing around all your rabid baseless claims about things you don't even know? Or are you too dumb (or is it ignorant, or perhaps stupid) to actually comprehend that he put it in his own book because he must hold some validity to the notion.Secondly, since you apparently are not as well read on the subject of evolution as you claim, let me explain to you that many Darwinian evolutionary theories paint a picture of life beginning perhaps in the sea, spreading to a land reptile type of creature (is a turtle an amphibian or a reptile, I can never remember-oh, right, it's a reptile), which then lead to the first mammals. From these first shrew like mammals came bigger ones, some that started to look like a cat (what is a Tiger again, hell who can remember all these biology class facts) and then life began developing larger mammals, some which look a lot like monkeys, and then......well no nevermind. This is baby talk isn't it. I mean is baby talk the level I need to talk things with you, since you are either as dumb (imbecilic, ignorant, stupid, moronic, take your pick) as a reptile, or did you in fact know exactly what I was saying, and you are actually just as intellectually dishonest as a snake?But the whole point of that explanation, which obviously went right over your head is that it doesn't matter what Tree of Life you choose, because that's one of the problems with the supposed ToE-there is no tree of life that can be shown to be true, there are just so stories. And that's why you can't point to a book that has any empirical proof of the origins of life. So instead you hide from your own demands of providing evidence, by simply saying.."Oh, well, go read Why Evolution is True".So maybe you can go start reading a few books, try Richard Dawkins for a start-you can perhaps learn just how full of shit he is, and how much you two have in common. Then you can read some philosophy books, if you can find some in a language you understand, then you can try some books on logic. That should keep you busy for a while.But keep it classy Granny, let me know if you find any spelling mistakes.

Hi BD, still letting yor lack of understanding hang out for us all to see huh? Your continued personal abuse aside, you have failed to comprehend what is being said here. For starters, these considerations are speculation, they are not held as gospel. Indeed they are rather outdated. That is why the only reference to them that you can find in Dawkins is from his older work. You do understand the difference between discussing an idea and believing it don't you?

quote:

---

If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace of them remains in modern survival machines.

---

quote:

---

If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role.

---

We are not descended from these silicates. Even if the hypothesis is true, which is widely doubted these days, we are descended from the organic chemistry that piggy-backed onto them. Big difference.Also, sand is not clay. You mentioned sand. This is about clay. Sand is made of grains that are far too large for the sort of thing you're talking about here.So all round... triple fail. Nice try though. It doesn't matter how widely read one is. What matters is understanding. This is not what you originally said. It is a big improvement though. Congratulations on finally writing something that is within a stone's throw of what evolutionists actually think. Any time you feel like growing up and engaging in an adult conversation, you just let us know BD. Bluejay has repeatedly tried to draw you into a more meaningful discussion, but you have rebuffed him. Don't pretend that you crave meaningful discussion when you repeatedly reject it in favour of childish name-calling. This is of course utter nonsense. The tree of life must be compatible with both the fossil record and with the genetic evidence. Any version that doesn't fit those (like your turtles/tigers bit) can be considered falsified. If you were to actually read that book, you would find plenty of empirical evidence discussed therein, as you would do in any high school biology textbook. Your unwillingness to look is not my problem.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

OK you "win". I shake the dust off my feet.

As your quote shows, Dawkins never said that we are descended from silicon or sand. He said there is a hypotheses out there that postualtes this. Thank you for proving us right. Well, since Granny was right in her claim, I hardly see why she should do more research. You of course, were wrong in your claim. So, when are you going to start reading a book or two? So? You said that he said we were descended from silicon. He never did, as your quote clearly shows. That he thinks the idea is interesting is far from him claiming that we descended from silicon. Again, since what Granny said was actually the case, and what you said is clearly wrong, I wonder how you came to this conclusion. A turtle is a reptile, yes, but not all reptiles are turtles. Again, not all cats are tigers. And yet you got it wrong. Not all reptiles are turtles, and not all cats, or even cat-like creatures, are tigers. Granny knew what you were saying (we desended from monkeys that desended from tigers that descended from turtles), and what you said was completely wrong. So are you all the things you called Granny above? Remember, she was right and you were wrong. Except of course there is evidence that every tree you take, whether it was built up from genetic data alone, from morphology alone. from enmbyonic development alone, they all overlap. Meaning that if they are all wrong, they still overlap, which would be an amazing coincidence. And I know you ID people aren't a big fan of coincidences. The origin of life has nothing to do with the tree of life. Which you would've known would you have studied a bit about evolution, or abiogenesis. Clearly, you didn't. Evolution is a demonstrated fact. If you don't want to learn about that, fine, but don't come on here screaming "evolution is false!", when in fact you know nothing about it. Since everything you have quoted from Richard Dawkins in this thread so far shows him to be absolutely right (there is an interseting hypotheses out there about the origins of life), I'm not so sure he's that full of shit really. Which, interestingly, he does have that in common with Granny, no shit there either. Again, since what Granny said was right, and what you said was wong, I wouldn't be so condescending towards her. I didn't spot any. About everythigng else was wrong though, which I think is rather worse.

No Granny, in an HONEST discussion, when you say. "Again, Dawkins has never said that we are descended from silicon or sand or any such thing." those words have meaning, that you can't try to weasel out of by saying its old, or by saying that he discussed it but doesn't believe it. That is just pure horseshit debating, and shows just what lengths you will go to to be dishonest.I think anyone with even a shred of honesty who reads what you wrote, and the evidence I provided which proves you utterly wrong can see the truth. Do I expect you to admit you were wrong, and apologize? Of course not. Because you do not display the character to do so (nor does Huntard).But when someone writes in a PUBLISHED book, discussing the exact possibility of such a scenario (that you claim they never believed), you do not have the intellectual right to say they 'never said any such thing"..and to call someone a liar! Your slimy tactics to worm your way out of of the case is there for all to see. You even have the temerity to now say, "We are talking about clay not sand!" Were you drinking when you wrote that or is it another case of your English language comprehension skills? Did you see where I wrote the word silicon? Did you see where the articles mention the word silicon? Coincedence???!!!!So yea, I may engage Bluejay, when I have more time to consider his points, but that has nothing to do with you, so don't go telling me about not understanding things, or obedient civil discourse and personal abuse. Everything I said to you was taken directly from your choice of debate style. I never begin a conversation with anyone in the rude manner that YOU choose. Sorry if I find it necessary to shove it back in your face.

First off, Jar, I want to welcome you back to EvC.The fact is that all ID need answer to explain all of the wonderful highly complex systems in the universe is that there is indeed a designer powerful, intelligent and eternal so as to effect it all. That nicely and sensibly explains it all. There's loads of corroborating observable data for verification, but alas, so many do not want to be held accountable to such a being, for after all, such a creator necessarily implies accountability by the intelligence created after his own imag.On the other hand, the secularist answer Message 111 leaves all questions essentially unanswered by admission by my source which appears to be a whole lot more rational and forthright than how you people are trying to convey. You people want to make it ever so simple and just wave off the unanswered aspects of it all which the link admits would be required.For example I'm claiming it had to be done relatively quickly. These people, in question 2 admit as such, explaining in detail why but you people seem to be denying what your own science link is admitting and you whine that the ole man refuses to learn. Again, this source is not creationist. It is evolutionist. Am I to believe you or to believe what these science authorities are admitting, that it will take years of research to answer these complex questions?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Actually, him not saying that is exactly what he did. He never said we were descended from sand. No matter how much you misunderstand him, that's just not what he says. Actually, it's you who are completely misunderstanding it. And with a level of that miscomprehension, I don;t find it weird you get so much wrong. So, Granny was right, you were wrong. No weaseling is invovled, it's apparently your comprehension skill that is lacking. Again, this is not our fault. Let's test that, shall we? Everyone who thinks Bolder-Dash is right, say so. Everyone who think Granny is right, also say so.My vote? Granny was right.So, it's Granny 1 - 0 Bolder When someone isn't wrong, it's indeed rare for them to admit they are wrong. Interestingly, you seem to bewrong all the time, but don;t admit that either. And just saying everyone that doesn;t agree with you "doesn;t have the character" to admit they were wrong is just stupid. Once more I will point out to you that Granny never claimed he didn't discuss the possibility. Granny claimed he never said we descended from sand. He didn't, your quote clearly shows this. As is your behaviour. I've got a sneaking suspicion to which way this vote will turn out. You'll undoubtedly claim bias, so you can continue in your deluded persecution fantasy, but other readers will find it quite clear. Your quote never once mentions the word "silicon". Now you're even imagining words that aren't there. This type of style was employed in your very first post in this thread. So yeah, I think we can see who wants to debate civilly here or not.

"Your quote never once mentions the word "silicon". Now you're even imagining words that aren't there."ARTICLE, you stupid wanker, ARTICLE. Not quote! You have to actually read the articles!! I can't sit here and teach you every new word, now can I??Are you the new surrogate babysitter for Granny now? What, Dr. A was busy? If you are going to argue for her too, you ought to do a little better job.

Ok, article then I admit I was wrong. However The article never mentions the word silicon in relation to Dawkins. So once again, you're wrong. First of all, I'm doing just fine, your raving reactions to all my posts, which as you can see are composed in a calm and non-swearing setting show that I, unlike you, have no problem keeping my calm.Rant on dude, I haven't had this much fun in a long time! With every post you write your position is more and more undermined, you're doing our job for us.