|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions") | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 197 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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: So you have nothing to do but pound the table.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6642 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Is this a forum on the behavior of lawyers or pop philosophy?
Hmm I don't think so.. lets stay on point shall we.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DominionSeraph Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 365 From: on High Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please quote the portion in any of Darwin's books that speaks about atomic structure.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please quote the portion in any of Darwin's books that speaks about atomic structure.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024