10 Categories of Evidence For ID

Greetings all,I would like to compliment the posts offered up thus far regarding origins. Far too many forums concerned with similar topics are much less civil and fair minded. As a lay enthusiaste of the origins debate, I submit the following video created by Illustra Media. It contains some high level (relatively general, yet interesting) material on the Intelligent Design movement. Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.Edit by AdminNosy-

This choked my firefox be cautious

part1
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2536&f...part2
http://www.kaneva.com/checkout/stream.aspx?assetId=2538&f...This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-27-2006 12:29 AM

Hi eevans, welcome to EvC.As a "debate" board, we generally do not debate videos or websites. If you want to describe the general ideas found in these videos and offer them as support to your discussion...that would be great.Otherwise, please do not start spamming our board.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

From what I see, there are some problems with the videos. First of all, the science that is mentioned is 40 years out of date. Behe's oncepts and Demski's have been analysise repeated here. When ti comes to the formation of protiens, the video was using science 40 years out of date.There have been plenty of work about how early protiens formed from amino acids since the guy who wrote that book got it wrong. The leap of logic from "I can figure it out" to "It must have been 'an intelligent designer , (i.e. god)' is the logical fallacy known as personal incredibilty.It also uses the 'flagellia moter' claim. That has been shown to be totally false also. It repeats falsified claims that bahe made, it uses the logical fallacy of 'personal incredibilty' and science that is 40 years out of date. It was very slickly produced, but it gave false information... a lot of this information that even a little bit of research on their part they would have KNOWN is incorrect. Considering the debates they have all been though, it would have been
practically impossible for them NOT to know this information.It was nicely produced, and will convince the people who are ignorant of the science behind it. However, the arguements do not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I couldn't find where this was already mentioned at EvC Forum, so I'm posting it here.The Vatican newspaper LOsservatore Romano ran an article on January 17th of this year by Fioenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna. I can't find the entire text of the article, perhaps someone else can. There's an online English language version of the vatican paper, but it doesn't have an archive that I could find. Here's what I could turn up on the net: --Percy

Jerry, thank you for the information. I want to add this to your explanation. Miller and Urey tried to synthesize life int he lab. All that they found was amixture of basic amino acid Glycine.Problems with this mixture: 1) They were able to synthesize only Glycine. In nature we have 20 different amino acids which form peptides to make proteins. Protein is incomplete without other amino acids. 2) this mixture also contained a racemic mixture having biologically active L-form and biologically incative(poison) D-form. In a mixture of 50/50 D and L forms, no further activity will occur. No reaction proceeded any further. This is the only experiment that was done.Chemical evolution is next to impossibility. Why? For protein synthesis to occur, a preformed complete cellular architecture is a prerequisite. So, far, no one has been able to synthesize a living cell. Why? To transform a mixture of chemicals into a functional living cell, life is necessary. We still do not understand what is life. Life is not simply a bunch of chemicals. Evolution does not explain this. Chemcical Evolution cannot occur as Chemcial and physical laws do not facilitate Evolution.For amino acids to self assemble into proteins, the chances are 1 in more than 10 raised to the power of 42. Such a process is a statistical improbability. The only other option is the cells were designed all at once and life processes began at once. This cannot occur without an Intelligent designer. Protein sysnthesis is very complex. To say that proteins self evolved is nothing but arrogance and pride with no proof in Science.

quote:

---

Miller and Urey tried to synthesize life int he lab.

---

This is false. Miller and Urey were not trying to synthesize life in the lab. This is so important that I am going to repeat it: Miller and Urey were not trying to synthesize life in the lab.What they were trying to show was that it was possible for certain complex chemical compounds associated with life to form through completely abiogenic means. And they succeeded at this. Their experiment formed many (not just glycine!) amino acids and other complex organic molecules.-

quote:

---

For amino acids to self assemble into proteins....

---

Actually this happens all the time in laboratories.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hmmmm. I wonder if Miller, Orgel, Szostak, Woese,....and their hundreds of colleagues over the last half century are aware that they've been sitting on their hands doing nothing all this time? If you really want to make assertions like this one, Inkorrekt, I fear that your screen name will fit you very well.

Thanks for mentioning these names. I will look into their work.

Don't forget to look into the work of Urey and Miller. You will find that they were not trying to create life in a laboratory.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

First of all, I never claimed to know everything. If I said, I will be a fool. I am still learning. From everything you write, I see where you are coming from. I studied the Urey Experiment and what I wrote is correct. If you have any other information on this, can you post it here?This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-09-2006 10:07 PM

I would be perfectly happy to say to the IDists "Yes, fine. We don't know enough about the bacterial flagellum to state with absolute certainty whether it was designed. If you want, you can say it was designed. Now go away."A deck of cards do not organize. Pieces of any puzzle do not self organize. When we look at the nature, we have the ecological balance. Why should we have it? How did it come into existence? Each species is dependent on the other one or many more. Where is the need for such a balance if random choice and survival of the fittest apply?

Inkorrekt, you have to understand that any analogy which doesn't include imperfect replication and selection is meaningless in comparison to evolution.The only issue is leaping the hurdle from non replicators to a somewhat life like replicator (however simple). The rest can follow through evolutionary processes.Once you stop throwing up silly strawmen about modern life coming into existance on it's own then the real issues of abiogenesis can be discussed.You may not think that the interrelationships we see in nature can arise through evolutionary processes but that is for two reasons:
1) you don't want to
2) you have no knowledge about the scienceOther than your incredulity you have offered no nothing to support your assertions. You are wrong.

Seems you resort to just saying this a lot...without any substantiation I might add.

So they managed to produce L- and D- Glycine? That's pretty impressive seeing as how Glycine isn't chiral.If you really do think what you wrote is correct prehaps you can explain this discrepancy or provide a source for this claim.TTFN,WK

Oh my freaking god! This just gets better and better.So let us sum up inkorrekt's post. Inkorrekt's incorrect claims are:1) The intention of Urey and Miller's work was to produce life. (It wasn't.)2) The experiment produced only glycine. (Much more was produced.)3) Glycine is exhibits chirality. (It doesn't.)4) No further experiments were done in this line. (This was and remains a very active area of research.)

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt