|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total) |
| Aussie, Diomedes, DrJones*, Faith, GDR, Hyroglyphx, ringo, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 26 visitors)
|
Mikee | |
Total: 867,227 Year: 22,263/19,786 Month: 826/1,834 Week: 326/500 Day: 25/64 Hour: 0/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1040 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NanoGecko Junior Member (Idle past 3788 days) Posts: 20 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
Hi Percy,
fair enough! Cheers, For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Nano,
Your post is too long for me to respond to all of it whole-stock (the laptop I am working on dies every 2-3 hrs even when pluged in and am waiting on shipment of a new one) but here there are a few things I would like to comment on:
Yes, true with cellular organisms that exist today (and probably the last billion years). I am still uncertain whether this enzyme is necessary for all types of synthesis of DNA/RNA or just de novo type synthesis, I am still researching this. Perhaps a microbiology or similarly related researcher can help us out on this (I will continue to research this through this weekend). However, how do we know that this enzymic reactionary pathway did not evolve from simpler type reactions along with the evolution of DNA based life from RNA and even simpler self-replication organic molecular based life? I don't see anything preventing this? Do you?
True, present day organisms rely on cellular reproduction by means of DNA/RNA replication however the more simple viruses can replicate with the help of host cells by means of just a strand of RNA and a protein coat. So we have present day examples of how rather simple organic molecules can self-replicate. In addition scientists have been able to replicate RNA that can on its own self-replicate ad infinitim without any help from other enzymes or cellular components and which give an insight of how complex DNA based life could later evolve as shown here:
I disagree, why could early life not have been RNA based and later developed into the more complex DNA based life we see today? This is just another attempt for IDers (like Behe) to have "irreducible complexity" bought off by the scientific community. Just like at Dover, scientists have explained that natural selection allows less complex intermediate forms of cellular structures and processes i.e. RNA and other simple enzymes which themselves have vital and profitable functions in themselves and which are able to evolve into more complex cellular structures and processes i.e. DNA, as natural selection allows. To be continued Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 3059 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
What would "Crib Death Jesus Do?" Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar Edited by lyx2no, : Change "God" to "a designer" per onifre. Couldn't fix "Jesus", and anyway, we all know that's who "they" mean. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NanoGecko Junior Member (Idle past 3788 days) Posts: 20 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
HI & Thanks Bio-molecularTony of 77 Posts, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
In response to your post, I think that there are physical things that show evidence of the existence of God. There has been a loss of understanding within individual people to some degree about matters of perception; ironically in western cultures this has accelerated since the massive increase in knowledge and technology that has occurred in the last 50 years. Consequently, I could make a list of evidences of A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence, that I believe are very good examples, but which in all honesty wouldn't impress many people at all, simply because they are not seeing the facts in the same way that I am. I would expect that a range of reasons would be expressed as to why my evidences would be seen as nothing extraordinary at all, and many will more than likely just take them for granted, or explain them all away as just more intelligent design arguments that are not worth thinking about for no particular reason other than a label has been affixed namely ID, and the most common knee-jerk reaction protocol is to dismiss without further thought. The taking things for granted is a real concern. Things like the common statement, in evolutionary propaganda that life began. I have yet to see any compelling explanation as to how this incredibly complex feat just happened from the evolutionary camp. Indeed with all our knowledge and technology, utilising controlled environments etc.. this feat has not been replicated and I very much doubt that it ever will be replicated. Even the theoretical primitive evolutionary first cell could not have been "Simple", though this is the usual way that it is portrayed, no doubt to make it easier to swallow. For the first cell to have been able to survive in the theoretical primordial conditions and for it to be able to reproduce itself, it is very clear that using the word "Simple" to describe the first cell is an outright act of ignorance, based more on the principles of circular reasoning than on good science. It has been shown that even the simplest of stand alone organisms must have in excess of 375 protein coding genes and 43 RNA coding genes all having correct chirality and which comprise of about half a million bases. It must always be remembered that all you have is time and chance to create the first cell, nothing else qualifies. But for the record, I will name a few so that I hopefully keep my post somewhere in the general direction of being relevant to the title. * the seemingly fortuitous location of our solar system within the galaxy. There are thousands of other examples, but these should be enough to get the point across. I hope.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 1293 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
You can't be this hard up to prove a point about design - NOT god - can you? The point to this thread is for a designer, not one specific mythical character who's story you happen to follow. "It is said that only god existed...." isn't any kind of acceptable proof for anything other than people say dumb shit.
NO. After almost 250 posts it would seem like you would have understood what is being requested? No one here wants to talk about your mythical character. No one here is asking for proof to some god that you happen to believe in. What is being asked, which you continue to side step is, from the physical evidence - POST BIG BANG - what can we see that is consistent with a designer? You can pick the Sun, galaxies, the expansion of the universe, trees, mountains, a single cell, a particle, etc. Then you show how any of those things require a designer for them to exist. The point to that would be that if you could not explain why it requires design, in other words, if the physical evidence points to natural processes, then the "physical evidence" is NOT consistent with design. What would be consistent with a designer then would simply be faith that one exists. Of course, for the sake of your position it would be wise not to engage in such discussion because you will fail to prove your point and have to admit that there is NO physical evidence for design and you meerly have faith that what you see proves your mythical character true. If I'm wrong then show proof for design, NOT god.
Non-physical asspects? What are non-physical asspects? Besides, this is not the question. The question isn't about your mythical character. "The Physical Evidence" that we all agree exists, is it consistent with a designer? Does a galaxy require design? Does a star require design? Do particles require design? - or think of your own things that you believe require design. If you do think something does show a design quality, what evidence, from their physical nature, do you have that shows they are designed? The discussion is that simple. No need to bring Zues, Allah or Yahwah into any of this. Their characteristics are not part of the discussion.
Question: How many mushrooms do you have to take before you use a telescope to look for "non-physical realities"? Answer: 7
Yes we do. Heres what we've gathered: The universe is expanding from a micro scale and has been for about 13.7 By - What came "before" does not apply as a question. It was simply smaller, in fact, small to scales that we can't expalin yet. Now, extrapolating from that that a god had to exist to expand the universe is nothing more than faith based nonsense.
If you can't see it, and are not built to see it, well Tony, how do you know it's there? Are you just imagining this shit, as my kids do with their imaginary friends? You know they tell me the same thing, I can't see their imaginary friends but they are there, I'm a parent and am not supposed to see them, I'm not 'built" to see them. Kinda sad that your argument for a creator/designer/god(s) is the same as my 9 year olds for her imaginary friend(s) - I think there's more than one but I can't prove it.
Would you like to set up a play date with my 9 year old, I think you two would get along great!
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 3059 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 1293 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi NanoGecko,
I want to thank you for actually trying to make a point for "physical evidence" that you feel has a design quality. Since I feel most of the beginning protion of your post was for Tony I'll deal with the actual on-topic stuff.
What's so special about it? - This seems like you are making a point for organic life existing. And, does this mean that every other solar system in our galaxy was NOT designed since they don't hold life?
What's so special about it? Again, this seems like a point for organic life. And, does this mean that every other planet in our solar system was NOT designed since they don't hold life?
Would you not agree that the distance from the Earth to the Sun is determined by the Earths mass [in relation to the Suns mass]? - Had we been larger or smaller we would not be in this specific orbit, yes? And, does this mean that other planets of different distances were NOT designed?
What's so special about it? Alao, it's origin is from stars, right? - Once again it seems like a point for life not design. Would this mean that other elements were NOT designed?
How does that point to design? RNA is pretty badass too, right? Are both designed or just DNA?
How does that point to design? - this is another point for life
How does that point to design? - it's getting redundant
How does that point to design?
How does that point to design?
How does that point to design?
How does that point to design? Oxygen is an element created by stars, like carbon, that you mention above. Not designed by anything. That they came to be found on one planet is not that hard to imagine, there are lots and lots of planets. The points you make only support that life was the intention of everything being where it's at. Of course this point is moot in this thread, this thread is about design, not, "Is everything in the right place for life to arrise"? *Show us how planets are "designed" and not formed through natural processes. *Show us how galaxies are designed and not formed through natural processes. *Show us how every element, including oxygen and carbon, was not formed by solar fussion and was designed. *Show us how the distance of the Earth to the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth's mass and was designed to be where it's at. My conclusion, from your points, is that you feel because there is life on this planet, located in this solar system, in this particular galaxy, it makes the Earth, our solar system, and our galaxy designed by a designer for the purpose of life. The problem with that, as I see it, is that there are billions of galaxies, stars, planets, solar systems that don't hold life. So, using your argument, they are NOT designed by a designer, they were left to natural processes that placed them where they were/are. So, except for Earth, our solar system and our galaxy, everything else looks undesigned and part of a natural processes. Isn't it curious that one species on one particular planet feels that because he/she exists everything was designed with them in mind, YET, the evidence is overwhelmingly against them? I think your point was made with this statement:
You are right, we do not view the evidence in the same way because you already believe that a (god/designer) exists and that the evidence points to him/she. You are already bias and convince yourself. Ironically though, it was the evidence that changed everyones mind about designers/gods in the first place, you seem to be the few that still hold to this primative concept. Edited by onifre, : lyx2no called me on my shitty example "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NanoGecko Junior Member (Idle past 3788 days) Posts: 20 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
Hi DevilsAdvocate,
thanks for your response. My apologies for being too long winded, I'll try and keep it brief. DevilsAdvocate writes:- ....."Yes, true with cellular organisms that exist today (and probably the last billion years). I am still uncertain whether this enzyme is necessary for all types of synthesis of DNA/RNA or just de novo type synthesis, I am still researching this. Perhaps a microbiology or similarly related researcher can help us out on this (I will continue to research this through this weekend)"..... All types of DNA/RNA synthesis known to occur. DevilsAdvocate writes:- ....."However, how do we know that this enzymic reactionary pathway did not evolve from simpler type reactions along with the evolution of DNA based life from RNA and even simpler self-replication organic molecular based life? I don't see anything preventing this? Do you?"..... Obviously, there is no absolute way to prove or disprove anything that supposedly happened in the distant past, because there is no way of testing physical specimens that we don't possess. There is however no particularly compelling reason that suggests that the supposed first forms of life as seen in the fossil record and determined to be so by evolutionary scientists, should be interpreted as possessing any characteristics that would lead one to the conclusion that the DNA/RNA is substantially different from that found in present day cells. DevilsAdvocate writes:- ....."True, present day organisms rely on cellular reproduction by means of DNA/RNA replication however the more simple viruses can replicate with the help of host cells by means of just a strand of RNA and a protein coat. So we have present day examples of how rather simple organic molecules can self-replicate. In addition scientists have been able to replicate RNA that can on its own self-replicate ad infinitim without any help from other enzymes or cellular components and which give an insight of how complex DNA based life could later evolve as shown here: The Immortal Molecule: Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology"..... This research though interesting is certainly not an accurate representation of the pre-biotic world with all it's hostilities to the formation of complex protein chains by themselves. The experiments conditions were carefully controlled, so that real world type hostile reactions did not occur or contaminate the homo-chiral amino acid type sub-unit building blocks. It is unreasonable to make the massive jump from a highly controlled invitro experiment to an assertion that actual self replicating life forms could have arisen in the same way. The complex nucleotide chains that are necessary to make this experiment work could not have existed freely in a contaminated atmosphere, let alone in water as the chains would be broken down within nanoseconds upon exposure to the realistic environment, furthermore it is a huge leap of faith to get from these chemicals to an actual living life form capable of self reproduction. DevilsAdvocate writes:- Well if what you say is true, then arguably it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a real world example, given the billions of fossils specimens that are now housed in research institutions around the globe and the huge range of life still surviving and being meticulously studied on this little planet of ours hurtling through space as we write. By the way I am not an I.D'er per se, but I most certainly am a Creationist, lock, stock and barrel. Boots and all!!! My apologies for getting long winded again, I started off short and to the point, and just got out of hand from there, then remembered and pulled myself back into line for a succinct finish.
Edited by Admin, : Replace asterisks with horizontal rule. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 1293 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Percy in message 196 writes:
I took that to mean the same as "is the physical evidence consistent with a designer". My bad if I misunderstood. Btw, shouldn't what you wrote read "I think we're looking for a designer consistent with the evidence rather th(a)n evidence consistent with a designer..." ? Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 3059 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
AbE: Dick:). Edited by lyx2no, : To save a post. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 1986 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hmmm, I think you are not quite appreciating the type of life that is hypothesised to be possibly RNA based. It is certainly not the type to be leaving fossils. We are talking about primative cells.
Watch this video presentation on one hypothetical - but extremely plausible - idea of what was behind abiogenesis: The problem with your argument is this: You: it couldn't possibly happen naturally, so it must be a god Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 1293 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Yes, of course we could get deeper into the effects of mass density and thoroughly go through it, using the Suns mass effect on spacetime with it's orbiting planets and properly educate the "Gecko", but I don't think "plain" wrong is just. Are you saying, plainly, that the Earths orbit is not determined by the mass denisty of both the Earth and the Sun? Maybe I could have worded it differently but shit, I was just making a point.
:laugh: I'm glad you picked up on the irony. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NanoGecko Junior Member (Idle past 3788 days) Posts: 20 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
Hi onifre,
thanks for your interest. As it is very late here at the moment I will just answer your first question for now. * the seemingly fortuitous location of our solar system within the galaxy.
You are correct about making a point for life existing here on Earth. Further, there are a great deal of other factors that automatically follow from the distance between the Earth and the Sun, eg. I'm hoping that you are starting to get the picture about design. I don't understand how you make the jump to the question that you posit, "does this mean that every other solar system in our galaxy was NOT designed since they don't hold life?" I have to get some sleep, it's 5:08 am Sunday morning. Bye for now. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12653 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 3.0 |
Hi NanoGecko,
Instead of a row of asterisks or underscores, please use HTML's horizontal rule, <hr>, like this: This is a line followed by a horizontal rule. This is a line preceded by a horizontal rule. The horizontal rule automatically adjusts to the width of the browser page. Even better, when quoting text use dBCodes. Put [qs] at the beginning of the quote, and [/qs] at the end. Thanks! Edited by Admin, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NanoGecko Junior Member (Idle past 3788 days) Posts: 20 From: NSW Australia Joined: |
Hi Admin,
thanks for the tip, I just saw the link about dBCodes On and used it for my previous response. I'll continue to utilise this method as it sure beats the other ungainly method that I was using. Bye from Australia, I'm tired! For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019