Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
554 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 550 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,212 Year: 4,324/6,534 Month: 538/900 Week: 62/182 Day: 34/16 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 46 of 146 (661697)
05-09-2012 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Thank you
First, thank you for the instructions on using quotes!
Second, I am on holiday using my husband's IPad, which takes too long to type. Also I prefer to be out seeing the sights.

You're welcome. Don't waste your time on vacation posting here. I'd rather have your full participation anyways.

You argue that life was much simpler when it first formed. I think you mean that it wouldn't have been too difficult to happen. But that presupposes we know what life is.

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.

We don't {know what life is}.

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 did not say the universe is completely deterministic. Does anyone?

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.

Man has the gift of self determination. Everyone knows that.

Nobody knows that And even self determination could be pre-determined.

The argument against a designed intelligent universe, but definition, must claim that it arose by fortuitous accident. By accident I mean no intention, no plan, like a car hurtling through a copse of trees, it will gather leaves, smash it's windscreen, puncture a tire - all arbitrary. I believe that is the position of current evolutionary theory.

Yes, it was an accident in the sense that it wasn't planned.

The gestation of a baby once embedded in the uterine wall is only possible because a system of growth predates the egg's arrival. I argue it is the same for life on Earth, a system of development is in place before the first cells on Earth first formed.

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.

I hold up Nature as evidence. Nature develops life through predetermined systems. You say it isn't necessary, do you have an example do support this claim?

Wait, what am I saying isn't necessary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 10:52 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 47 of 146 (661707)
05-09-2012 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 11:17 AM


i argue there is a natural system in place before life formed on Earth. I hold up Nature as my proof. Nature develops life through predetermined systems. If you know of any life that came about without any predetermined system please tell me.

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.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 11:17 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Vanessa
Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 05-06-2012


Message 48 of 146 (661709)
05-09-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
05-07-2012 8:53 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Hello Taz

You 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 05-07-2012 8:53 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 05-09-2012 3:44 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 146 (661710)
05-09-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
05-09-2012 7:43 AM


Percy writes:

For those of us with limited time, is there a minute mark in the video where we should begin watching to see an example of mutual deference.


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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-09-2012 7:43 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 2527 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 146 (661711)
05-09-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 3:33 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Vanessa writes:

You 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.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 3:33 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(3)
Message 51 of 146 (661720)
05-09-2012 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Thank you
We can not create the simplest life form, so it is premature to say it is simple.

You might want to think about that one for a moment. Where do you think babies come from?

The argument against a designed intelligent universe, but definition, must claim that it arose by fortuitous accident. By accident I mean no intention, no plan, like a car hurtling through a copse of trees, it will gather leaves, smash it's windscreen, puncture a tire - all arbitrary. I believe that is the position of current evolutionary theory.

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

The gestation of a baby once embedded in the uterine wall is only possible because a system of growth predates the egg's arrival.

Yes, a system that evolved through random mutations and natural selection.

I argue it is the same for life on Earth, a system of development is in place before the first cells on Earth first formed.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 10:52 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8491
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 52 of 146 (661722)
05-09-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Thank you
Vanessa writes:

We can not create the simplest life form, so it is premature to say it is simple

Hi Vanessa

Life 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."

http://www.science20.com/...enome_may_save_our_energy_future

The 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.]


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 10:52 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 53 of 146 (661738)
05-09-2012 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 10:52 AM


Re: Thank you
I did not say the universe is completely deterministic. Does anyone? Man has the gift of self determination. Everyone knows that. The argument against a designed intelligent universe, but definition, must claim that it arose by fortuitous accident.

And yet no-one ever does claim that, which should tell you something.

By accident I mean no intention, no plan ...

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 10:52 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 54 of 146 (661750)
05-09-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
05-07-2012 3:42 PM


Total time to type this: 2.5 minutes.

Five days of debunking down the drain. Laughable.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2012 3:42 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 6:44 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1728 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(3)
Message 55 of 146 (661754)
05-09-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by foreveryoung
05-09-2012 6:31 PM


I cannot possible conceive

Pretty much sums up your entire problem


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by foreveryoung, posted 05-09-2012 6:31 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 05-09-2012 7:21 PM Nuggin has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 754 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 56 of 146 (661761)
05-09-2012 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Nuggin
05-09-2012 6:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 6:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nuggin, posted 05-09-2012 7:22 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1728 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 57 of 146 (661762)
05-09-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by foreveryoung
05-09-2012 7:21 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by foreveryoung, posted 05-09-2012 7:21 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by foreveryoung, posted 05-11-2012 12:20 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 58 of 146 (661790)
05-10-2012 8:05 AM


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

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 59 of 146 (661792)
05-10-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 11:17 AM


Vanessa writes:

Sorry I can't quote with an IPad.

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.

I believe your definition of naturalism is incomplete - 'all phenomenon can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws'. It should add 'and came about by accident.'

Can you think of any accident that didn't follow the laws of nature?

The definition you gave presupposes the natural laws were in place and came from nothing.

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.

Nature develops life through predetermined systems. If you know of any life that came about without any predetermined system please tell me.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 11:17 AM Vanessa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 12:48 PM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 146 (661801)
05-10-2012 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 6:18 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
I don't know whether you are being serious when you say you don't believe there is any evidence supporting ID. Do you mean you are not persuaded by the evidence you've researched or simply that you've never looked? I believe you're being facetious, forgive me if I am wrong

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.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:18 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022