Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 702 (569468)
07-21-2010 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Logical Answer
We IDists need to know how the first organism allegedly survived long enough to get complex enough to reproduce more life etc.
We just told you. It could reproduce before it was life.
Replication predates life. The ancestors of the first living things were nonliving chemical replicators.
Did you not understand that the first time I said it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 107 of 702 (569469)
07-21-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Logical Answer
We IDists need to know how the first organism allegedly survived long enough to get complex enough to reproduce more life
For fucks sake Buz are you senile or just an idiot? It has been explained to you several times in this thread that without the ability to replicate it wouldn't be"life".

It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 108 of 702 (569470)
07-21-2010 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 9:41 PM


Re: Logical Answer
We have explained that to you many, many times Buz. But as usual, what you post is also totally irrelevant.
ID, even if it was corroborated is totally irrelevant, worthless and unimportant.
The question you ask. "how the first organism allegedly survived long enough to get complex enough to reproduce more life" is not answered by pretending there is some designer. Designer of no, what is needed to have any knowledge about the question you ask is being perused by science not be Creationists or Intelligent Design marketers.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 702 (569471)
07-21-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 9:03 PM


Re: Logical Answer
It had to live long enough to take on nourishment, injest/process the nourishment and to reproduce itself for survival of the organism.
Sure, but since no living thing had previously existed, the first living organism was certainly not all that much more complicated than its nonliving energy sources.
It would have had to had multiple complex processes in place rather suddenly.
Not really. Viruses are alive and they have almost no complex processes whatsoever. Like the first living organism they offloaded much of that complexity into the environment.
The biochemical environment at the dawn of life was a lot different than it is today. It's been lean pickings for life for millions of years; organisms have had to evolve to take advantage of such thin gruel as sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, gaseous nitrogen, and of course - each other.
But for the first organism, barely more complex than the things it formed from, the raw materials for reproduction were all around. Nowadays as soon as such rich fare is formed inorganically, something organic snatches it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 9:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 110 of 702 (569476)
07-21-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 9:03 PM


Re: Logical Answer
Buzsaw writes:
We're talking, the first life, Ringo. It had to live long enough to take on nourishment, injest/process the nourishment and to reproduce itself for survival of the organism. It would have had to had multiple complex processes in place rather suddenly.
No. As people have been trying to tell you, there is no fine line between "almost life" and life. We have viruses and prions today that may or may not be "alive" depending on your precise definition of life.
As I said, there would have been, for a long time, "almost alive" molecular structures that injested and processed nourishment. If they disassembled ("died") without leaving offspring, they were just gone. At some point, after assembling and nourishing and processing and disassembling for thousands or millions of years, if they developed a system to reproduce themselves, only then would they be considered life.
There's nothing sudden about it. It's a slow development of processes, a slow accumulation of processes.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 9:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:38 PM ringo has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 702 (569477)
07-21-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 6:36 PM


Re: Logical Answer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crashfrog writes:
No, it's likely that the first unambiguously living things were descended from ambiguously maybe-living things that could reproduce, which were themselves descended from unambiguously non-living chemical self-replicators.
Honesty, Buz, this isn't that hard. Life didn't "evolve the ability to reproduce"; chemical structures that could self-replicate evolved life.
There's a whole science of this stuff, Buz. You've been talking about these things for how long, now? Seven years?
At any point are you going to actually learn the science you need to talk about the science? Just curious.
The first living things would not have been cells, and it's absurd to say that a bacteria like E. coli is "primitive." E. coli is the result of millions of years of evolution and has a number of highly advanced features. The first living things would not have been anything at all like E. coli. E. coli is not even close to being the "minimal organism."
Your link even says that. Did you read it? Frequently I've gotten the impression that you don't understand half of what you read.
Crashfrog, yes, I've been here over 7 years and for seven years I'm still waiting for science to answer the three questions to a satisfactory degree,
For many years you've been here too. When are you going to wake up to things creationists have said about ID? You see, it works both ways. Join the need club.
We all think we need to know, but alas neither ideology has a corner on truth, to use a commodity term. I can't no more explain the details of how ID works than, as per the link, science can answer the three questions.
Something of a chain had to have progressed a very long time to produce the living cell. Science can no more explain for sure how that happened than I can explain ID. It's all conjecture. You allege you have sufficient corroborating data and IDists do as well. The debate goes on. The OP asks at what point ID. IMO, my answer makes more sense than your denial.
link segment writes:
Most likely, it will be many years before research can completely answer any of the three questions mentioned here. Given that DNA was not discovered until the 1950s, the research on this complicated molecule is still in its infancy, and we have much to learn. ...........
Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information?
Question 2: How Can Evolution Be So Quick?-
Question 3: Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?
Edited by Buzsaw, : remove word

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 6:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 10:25 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 113 by DrJones*, posted 07-21-2010 10:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 10:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 112 of 702 (569479)
07-21-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Logical Answer
Buz writes:
Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information?
Mutations.
There, that takes care of one. I don't expect you to ask it again. (Yeah, right.)

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 113 of 702 (569480)
07-21-2010 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Logical Answer
Question 3: Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?
Answer 3: it evolved from a previous life-form
There you go Buz, 2 down.

It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:19 PM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 114 of 702 (569481)
07-21-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:19 PM


Re: Logical Answer
When are you going to wake up to things creationists have said about ID?
I have. I used to be a creationist, remember Buz? Not here, ever, but I was. I've been through all the creationist arguments. I used to make them.
It's amazing how creationism doesn't evolve at all; it's the same Gish Gallop of denial, indifference, waiting a week and then launching the same old PRATT's.
Question 1: How Does Evolution Add Information?
Mutation.
How Can Evolution Be So Quick?
Natural selection.
Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?
Simpler living precursors.
It's honestly not that difficult. If there are aspects of the science you don't yet understand - why not ask questions about them? You must have questions. Why not ask a few to learn something instead of asking them to try to trap us?
Why does this have to be so adversarial? Over on our side there's an astounding degree of training in the natural sciences. The equivalent of perhaps fifty years of college and graduate-level study. Why not put some of that learning to work for you? People are falling all over themselves to try to teach you something.
Why not take them up on it? I can think of few things more worthwhile than trying to educate someone of your intellectual caliber in the biological sciences.
Science can no more explain for sure how that happened than I can explain ID.
I think it can. For instance, in your view what are the shortcomings of the RNA world hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 702 (569482)
07-21-2010 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ringo
07-21-2010 10:16 PM


Re: Almost Life?
Ringo writes:
No. As people have been trying to tell you, there is no fine line between "almost life" and life.
This nutty almost life aliby makes no sense at all. It's either alive or not. Once it has any life in it at all, it must be nourished to survive and must be in perfect environs or whatever life in it dies. To nourish itself takes design complex enough to make it want to live. That takes time; lots of it. How's it going to live long enough to develop, etc, etc, etc?
These are the questions science needs to answer to overcome the advantages ID affords for explaining complex things like life.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 07-21-2010 10:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 10:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 118 by DrJones*, posted 07-21-2010 10:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 119 by jar, posted 07-21-2010 10:42 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 07-22-2010 12:16 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 137 by Blue Jay, posted 07-22-2010 1:32 AM Buzsaw has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 702 (569483)
07-21-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Almost Life?
It's either alive or not.
Are viruses alive? Are prions alive?
Why or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2010 11:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 702 (569484)
07-21-2010 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
07-21-2010 10:34 PM


Re: Logical Answer
Crashfrog, for every IDist who becomes an evolutionist there's likely an evolutionist who becomes and IDist.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 10:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2010 10:47 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 118 of 702 (569485)
07-21-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Almost Life?
To nourish itself takes design complex enough to make it want to live
So E. Coli bacteria have a desire to live Buz? Tell me, when did you get so learned in the motivations of single-celled organisms?
ID affords for explaining complex things like life
Really? then how does ID explain the most complex thing of all?

It\'s not enough to bash in heads, you\'ve got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it\'s Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I\'ll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 119 of 702 (569486)
07-21-2010 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:38 PM


Re: Almost Life?
Buz writes:
To nourish itself takes design complex enough to make it want to live.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
It certainly does not have to want to live.
Buz writes:
These are the questions science needs to answer to overcome the advantages ID affords for explaining complex things like life.
Even more nonsense. ID explains nothing.
That's about the most important thing you can learn Buz, even if ID was true it explains NOTHING. It leaves us as ignorant about how anything happened as we were before.
Edited by jar, : left out a word

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 07-22-2010 8:10 AM jar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 120 of 702 (569487)
07-21-2010 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
07-21-2010 10:39 PM


Re: Logical Answer
Crashfrog, for every IDist who becomes an evolutionist there's likely an evolutionist who becomes and IDist.
The amazing thing is - no, there's not. Creationism never convinces anybody but Christians. And they're never convinced by the scientific evidence, they're convinced by the argument that evolution can't be reconciled with the Bible.
Evolution is convincing because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. When people are convinced to become creationists it's because they find the religious arguments overwhelming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 07-21-2010 10:39 PM Buzsaw 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