Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 292 (231572)
08-09-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Yaro
08-09-2005 6:05 PM


Re: Just a reminder...
I didn't lose it; my insults were very well controlled. Nonetheless, I was surprised that I didn't get an admin warning. But everyone seems better behaved now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Yaro, posted 08-09-2005 6:05 PM Yaro has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 272 of 292 (231575)
08-09-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Talking Points
Evopeach writes:
(Emphasis mine)
It is apparent that the designer used a unique and particular component for creating every form of life and that the component is not reducable itself if it is to continue its function and idenity.
Since such systems cannot arise in any steps where carbon is not present in every functioning part and since no substitutionary subsystem has been identified regardless of how much less complex the system may be in consideration of time,place or circumstance then by darwins words the theory is falsified.
One minor problem -- carbon is frackin' everywhere. You can't take it out of the Earth to see if life could've arisen without it, since there's no time when the Earth was without carbon. If you want to posit that the Earth started with no carbon, and needed it seeded; then you have to do the same with the carbon that's everywhere else. The position that the Earth was given carbon so that life could exist doesn't explain why the other planets have carbon as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 3:51 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:28 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 273 of 292 (231576)
08-09-2005 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Chiroptera
08-09-2005 6:01 PM


Re: Talking Points
Already have just read the original hypothesis and then the other posts showing that darwins falsifiibility statement is satisfied by the removal of carbon atoms from any living system or life form because it is then non-life and cannot be produced from a previous "simpler" version that uses another type of atom and functions just as well, no other atom can substitiute functionally for the carbon atom and achieve life. The life system cannot be achieved by a series of gradations leading up to a carbonless living entity or one in which carbon is not absolutely necessary to life function.
Thus the life system is irreducibly complex since it cannot function when its various subsystems are rendered carbonless by removing all carbon from the system.
It falsifies darwinian theory using his definition and since it cannot be achieved by any non evolutionary process it is the product of design... ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 6:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2005 6:28 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 277 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:28 PM Evopeach has replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 274 of 292 (231581)
08-09-2005 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:05 PM


Re: Talking Points
Evopeach writes:
That strengthens the hypothesis .. there are five such subsystems which if removed result in utter failure of the life system.. not just one.
Why don't you just remove all baryonic matter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:05 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:35 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 275 of 292 (231585)
08-09-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by DominionSeraph
08-09-2005 6:16 PM


Re: Talking Points
I am debating in terms of evolution from the time of the first form of life until now...darwinism as defined herein to specifically exclude original seedings from aliens.. comets or whatever.. Nothing related to abiogenesis is permitted in discussing evolution .. those are the guidelines very clearly stated by the posters herein.
Now if there are 1 to 5 elements that are vital to life carbon in particular, so vital as to make life irreducibly complex in Behe's terminology considering subsystems like carbon items which themselves are irreducubly complex, then that would leave only ID solutions to the issue of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-09-2005 6:16 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 292 (231586)
08-09-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:17 PM


Re: Talking Points
quote:
...darwins falsifiibility statement is satisfied by the removal of carbon atoms from any living system or life form because it is then non-life and cannot be produced from a previous "simpler" version that uses another type of atom and functions just as well...
Actually, that doesn't satisfy any falsifiability criterion of the statement of evolution. All known living cells contain carbon, therefore it may be assumed that the first living cells contained carbon.
Edited to add:
All living cells also use DNA. Remove the DNA and no cell will remain alive. But since the common ancestor of all known life probably used DNA this also doesn't falsify evolution; it simply means that the use of DNA, like being made from carbon, is the evolutionary heritage from the common ancestor.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 09-Aug-2005 10:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:17 PM Evopeach has not replied

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


Message 277 of 292 (231587)
08-09-2005 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:17 PM


Re: Talking Points
Already have just read the original hypothesis and then the other posts showing that darwins falsifiibility statement is satisfied by the removal of carbon atoms from any living system or life form because it is then non-life and cannot be produced from a previous "simpler" version that uses another type of atom and functions just as well, no other atom can substitiute functionally for the carbon atom and achieve life.
Please quote the portion in any of Darwin's books that speaks about atomic structure.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:17 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:45 PM jar has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 278 of 292 (231591)
08-09-2005 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by DominionSeraph
08-09-2005 6:23 PM


Re: Talking Points
Because baryonic matter,if you mean stuff made of protons, electrons, neutrons, would include non-organic, never living forms of matter and that would have nothing to do with the evolution of life.
It would even include non-organics which contain carbon atoms but have nothing to do with life.
It is not necessary illustrate the falsification of darwins theory by his own definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-09-2005 6:23 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-09-2005 6:54 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 284 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:57 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 279 of 292 (231597)
08-09-2005 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by jar
08-09-2005 6:28 PM


Re: Talking Points
"Origin..."" speaks of organisms (which are made of atomic structured subsystems) which exhibit life functionality being built up by mutation and natural selection from ever simpler forms each of which is alive all the way back to the first lifeform.
It is his position that if any such form were shown incapable of being built up by those processes as above then his theory would be falsified.
You are now diverting to a red herring, the carbon atom itself, which no one argues is by itself alive in any sense but is a subsystem absolutely necessary to life and of course is dependent on the way it is organized with other matter to achieve that which is functionally life... and not as it appears in many non-organics which have no life.
The fact that carbon is in all history of life means that no matter where one steps into the stream my hypothesis stands and is again falsifying prima facia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:57 PM Evopeach has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 280 of 292 (231601)
08-09-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 2:08 PM


Re: Fish or cut bait
I am so content to let you demonstrate the character asassination and ranting about these people
I did not assasinate anyone's character. I merely pointed out that you are a liar, and presented the evidence as to exactly what your lies are. No ranting, no character assasination. But, you know the old saying:
quote:
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
So you have nothing to do but pound the table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 2:08 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:52 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 282 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:54 PM JonF has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 281 of 292 (231602)
08-09-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by JonF
08-09-2005 6:49 PM


Re: Fish or cut bait
I will research the list and see if there are a preponderance of Phds therein, any heads of departments therein and any majkor universities including MIT and Rice represented therein.
I'll be back

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 08-09-2005 6:49 PM JonF has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 282 of 292 (231606)
08-09-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by JonF
08-09-2005 6:49 PM


Re: Fish or cut bait
Is this a forum on the behavior of lawyers or pop philosophy?
Hmm I don't think so.. lets stay on point shall we.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by JonF, posted 08-09-2005 6:49 PM JonF has not replied

DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 283 of 292 (231607)
08-09-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Talking Points
Evopeach writes:
It is not necessary illustrate the falsification of darwins theory by his own definition.
Doesn't matter. It's a heck of a lot easier.
You're taking stuff away, and looking for the point where life wouldn't work. If there is such a point, then, according to you, the ToE is disproved. Now, instead of bothering with the process of taking one thing out, seeing if life would work; and if not, seeing if there's something else that could be used as a replacement; and if there's a replacement, removing that replacement, etc.; it's much simpler to just remove everything. If life doesn't still work after you've removed all the components, then by your reasoning, the ToE is disproved. And it's pretty easy to show that you wouldn't have life if you have nothing at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:35 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 7:03 PM DominionSeraph has replied

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


Message 284 of 292 (231610)
08-09-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:35 PM


Re: Talking Points
Please quote the portion in any of Darwin's books that speaks about atomic structure.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:35 PM Evopeach has not replied

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


Message 285 of 292 (231611)
08-09-2005 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Evopeach
08-09-2005 6:45 PM


Re: Talking Points
Please quote the portion in any of Darwin's books that speaks about atomic structure.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Evopeach, posted 08-09-2005 6:45 PM Evopeach 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