Nature belongs to ID

You're welcome. Don't waste your time on vacation posting here. I'd rather have your full participation anyways. Not necessarily. We don't have to know everything to know some things. We can know that life was simpler when it emerged without being able to define life down to the gnat's ass. But we have a pretty good idea. And there's good theories on how abiogenesis might have occured.From the wiki page on abiogenesis:

quote:

---

• Some theorists suggest that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent.
  ​
• In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller—Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953.
  ​
• Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane.
  ​
• A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as "proteins first" and "nucleic acids first".
  ​
• The principal thrust of the "nucleic acids first" argument is as follows:
  1. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules might have resulted in self-replicating ribozymes (RNA world hypothesis)

  ​

  2. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity might have resulted in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins), since oligopeptides complex with RNA to form better catalysts. The first ribosome might have been created by such a process, resulting in more prevalent protein synthesis.

  ​

  3. Synthesized proteins might then outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer, relegating nucleic acids to their modern use, predominantly as a carrier of genomic information.

---

I didn't mean to imply that you had, I was just providing a conditional statement. Some people do hold the universe to be completely deterministic. Nobody knows that And even self determination could be pre-determined. Yes, it was an accident in the sense that it wasn't planned. Obviously, the Earth had to be able to support the emergence of life before life emerged. But that just pushes the same quesiton of design back in time. Wait, what am I saying isn't necessary?

Yes and no magic or magic men needed to make life or evolve it.Now if your saying a magic man had to make those "laws" i say to you if we lived in an universe where such "laws" where not in place we would not be asking questions like this because we would not be here.

Hello TazYou said: 'why can't it be Zeus? What about Vishu? ... Would you be happy if tomorrow we find out that the designer behind ID is actually the flying spaghetti monster?'I have no problem with Zeus (the grandson of Gaia, the female creator of the world, who is then governed by her grandson - one of many God stories of a male God coming from or within the female) or Vishnu (blue immortal representing the energy of creation). Spaghetti monster is not so strange, there is a Spiderwoman in the Hopi culture, who is really a Christ figure - she comes to lead her people when a web covers the Earth.There are apples in almost every country in the world, though they differ in appearance, taste and name. But they are all apples. Their diversity is wonderful and everyone has their favourite. Such is the same with God - many versions, many names and forms but they all expressions of a guided, purposeful creation - God.Edited by Vanessa, : I'm a sloppy writer.

It happens throughout the whole video. Richard would say "this is way out of my league" and at other times Tyson would say "I don't know anything about this..."In fact, at the beginning, Dawkins asked Tyson right away about the nature of the expansion of the universe and that Dawkins has a hard time wrapping his mind around it. But it really comes out during Q&A time. People would ask about something pertaining to physics or biology and the two would say "I don't know..."The point is real scientists aren't afraid to say I don't know. They know where their boundaries are.I have never seen a creationist or IDist say something like that. Usually in a debate, creationists know everything. That's probably why they impress the crowd a lot more. Bunch of ignorant idiots...

Next time you attend one of these conferences, make sure you ask the speaker(s) my question. My bet is they will infer that the ID has to be the judeo-christian god.There are those of us who have been keeping track of ID's record since they first made the scene.

You might want to think about that one for a moment. Where do you think babies come from? In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, you aren't even wrong.First, accident implies that one outcome was intended, but another occurred. For example, when you accidently drop you keys you intended to hold on to them, but didn't. "Accident" is a very poor term to use when discussing nature and evolution because there is no intention.What we see now in nature is just one outcome of many possible outcomes."Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale; let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay."--Stephen Jay Gould Yes, a system that evolved through random mutations and natural selection. The same system that developed Earth also developed Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, etc. All of those places do not have life. Obviously, this system you talk about is not designed to produce life. If these systems were in place to produce life sustaining planets then why does it appear that life is so rare? In fact, I would wager that black holes are more common than planets with life.

Hi VanessaLife is anything but simple. I think what was meant is that when it was first formed it was necesarily simpler than say, a dog or a geranium. That much seems obvious.But don't be too quick to suppose that we're not able to create new life yet."Scientists have developed the first cell controlled by a synthetic genome which may allow them to probe the basic machinery of life and engineer bacteria specially designed to solve environmental or energy problems.
The research team, led by Craig Venter, has already chemically synthesized a bacterial genome, and transplanted the genome of one bacterium to another. Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they call a "synthetic cell," although only its genome is synthetic."Is Synthia Life From Scratch? No, But A Cell Controlled By A Synthetic Genome May Save Our Energy Future | Science 2.0The first life would be even simpler than a bacterium, very much simpler in fact - just a bundle of chemicals. Our knowledge of bio-engineering is only just beginning, you can expect an awful lot of prgress in the next 20 years or so.Btw, I'm typing this on an iPad, you can do quotes - just takes a bit of jiggerypokery. [squrae brackets can be found by pressing the .?123 key, bottom left, then the #+= key. Slash - / - is .?123.]

And yet no-one ever does claim that, which should tell you something. But as that is not what everyone else means by "accident", perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.An accident is only possible when there is an intention and a plan, and events turn out contrary to the intention and the plan. If I fall off a cliff, that's an accident, because I had the intention not to do so. If scree falls off a cliff as a result of mass wasting, that isn't an accident, because there was no intention on the part of the scree, or the cliff, or the force of gravity, that it should stay up.Really, do you say (for example) that raindrops fall down rather than up "by fortuitous accident", just because no-one is guiding them down?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The anti-creationist mind is arrogantly insane; So much so that, I cannot possible conceive how any of vanessas points were debunked by your ramblings that you choose to call arguments.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Pretty much sums up your entire problem

Or......It could possibly sum up YOUR entire problem.

Yes, as far as this "argument" goes, your inability to conceive is my entire problem.If you were able to comprehend the subject, there would be no basis for argument. There are no educated creationists.

Could I request that those wanting to engage in off-topic verbal jabs take it to the Chat Room or use PMs or email?

Sure you can, I do it all the time. I grant that it's tedious compared to a normal keyboard. You can find the square brackets by click on the ".?123", then on the "#+=" key. Can you think of any accident that didn't follow the laws of nature? Employing the laws of nature to figure things out no more presupposes where they came from than building a house presupposes where the lumber came from. So just for example, you believe that the process of placental development and birth existed before mammals evolved?I understand that you believe processes were designed before they were employed, but no evidence exists of this, and things that actually happened usually leave evidence behind. The evidence that is available indicates a process of gradual change over time, and that processes develop through a process of random mutation and selection of the more advantageous mutations by a process of natural selection.--Percy

I'm quite serious. What I mean is that ID has been discussed here any number of times, and I haven't seen any evidence supporting ID. I have not done my own research. But since you spent five days hearing evidence, I thought I would ask you to share.My definition of evidence is putative facts, which if established, make it more likely that a given proposition is true, than if the putative facts are established not to be actually factual. So facts that are merely consistent with ID among other things such as the theory of evolution, would not be evidence for ID.