Message 241 of 327 (506332) 04-25-2009 9:56 AM

Reply to: Message 240 by Percy 04-25-2009 9:31 AM

fair enough!
Whatever convention that you wish to employ to express it, a trillion years is a very long time to wait for DNA to synthesise.

Cheers,
NanoGecko

Message 242 of 327 (506335) 04-25-2009 10:13 AM

Reply to: Message 239 by NanoGecko 04-25-2009 8:37 AM

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:

The Immortal Molecule: Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology

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.

Message 243 of 327 (506342) 04-25-2009 10:51 AM

Reply to: Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony 04-25-2009 8:32 AM

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.

Message 244 of 327 (506347) 04-25-2009 11:46 AM

Reply to: Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony 04-25-2009 8:32 AM

In response to your post, I think that there are physical things that show evidence of the existence of God.
I haven't had the time to thoroughly look at all the previous arguments along this thread, but I will try and catch up as time allows.
As previously mentioned, it really comes down to ones worldview as to how data is interpreted.
I believe that there is a wealth of factual evidence in existence that very much indicates the existence of God.
Unfortunately, it also appears to me that many people have been de-calibrated in the way that they perceive the world around them.
I use the term de-calibrated because it sort of gets my meaning across. The saying that some people can't see the wood for the trees is another way of expressing this concept and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but rather as a statement that badly describes what is occurring and probably is in need of a better analogy.

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.
But many still hold that given just two things, time and chance, life can spontaneously arise.

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 just isn't going to happen by itself, no matter how much time you throw at it.

It must always be remembered that all you have is time and chance to create the first cell, nothing else qualifies.
Many evolutionist wrongly include natural selection with time and chance to create the first life, but before you can have natural selection operating reproduction must already be occurring.

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.
* the seemingly fortuitous location of our planet within the solar system.
* the seemingly fortuitous physical distance of the Earth from the Sun, making liquid water possible on Earth.
* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Carbon.
* the seemingly fortuitous physical storage capacity of DNA.Extremely dense information capacity doesn't do it justice.
* the seemingly fortuitous reaction acceleration properties of many enzymes discovered in living cells.
* the seemingly fortuitously efficient ATP Synthase Electric Motor in nearly all living cells. Spins at 10,000 RPM.
* the seemingly fortuitous properties of light, whereby photons are directed to P680 chlorophyll to knock out electrons
* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Ca & Mn that allow the storage of 4 photons for photosynthesis.
* the seemingly fortuitous refractive indices of Calcite & Chitin, essential parts of highly complex trilobite eyes.
* the seemingly fortuitous physical properties of Oxygen as Ozone, providing a radiation shield for Earth.

There are thousands of other examples, but these should be enough to get the point across. I hope.
Cheers,
NanoGecko

Message 245 of 327 (506350) 04-25-2009 12:39 PM

Reply to: Message 238 by Bio-molecularTony 04-25-2009 8:32 AM

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 never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Message 246 of 327 (506351) 04-25-2009 12:55 PM

Reply to: Message 245 by onifre 04-25-2009 12:39 PM

Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

Message 247 of 327 (506353) 04-25-2009 1:43 PM

Reply to: Message 244 by NanoGecko 04-25-2009 11:46 AM

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 never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Message 248 of 327 (506355) 04-25-2009 1:54 PM

Reply to: Message 242 by DevilsAdvocate 04-25-2009 10:13 AM

thanks for your response. My apologies for being too long winded, I'll try and keep it brief.

All types of DNA/RNA synthesis known to occur.

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.
Really, the argument that early life was simple and modern life is complex has it's origins in evolutionary belief, rather than in the testable and repeatable realm of empirical science. It is a form of circular reasoning that is not supported by the evidence at hand. For example so called early primitive aquatic creatures known to us today as the Trilobites had extraordinarily complex compound eyes, arguably among the most complex eyes of any creature that has ever lived. This does not fit well with the traditional simple to complex rhetoric that evolution is known for.

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:-
....."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"......

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.

Message 249 of 327 (506356) 04-25-2009 2:03 PM

Reply to: Message 246 by lyx2no 04-25-2009 12:55 PM

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 never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Message 250 of 327 (506357) 04-25-2009 2:10 PM

Reply to: Message 247 by onifre 04-25-2009 1:43 PM

AbE: Dick:).

Edited by lyx2no, : To save a post.

Message 251 of 327 (506358) 04-25-2009 2:23 PM

Reply to: Message 248 by NanoGecko 04-25-2009 1:54 PM

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
Us: yes, it could possibly happen naturally - here is one possible way
You: BUT you have no proof - you do not know that it happened that way
Us: quite so, we don't - but your argument that it *couldn't* happen naturally has been all but falsified. It *could* possibly happen naturally, we have shown a possible way, and thus your argument that it MUST be a god is nonsense. Note that this is not saying that it WASN'T a god...

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Message 252 of 327 (506359) 04-25-2009 2:32 PM

Reply to: Message 250 by lyx2no 04-25-2009 2:10 PM

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 never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Message 253 of 327 (506361) 04-25-2009 3:03 PM

Reply to: Message 247 by onifre 04-25-2009 1:43 PM

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.
The most obvious answer to this is temperature and all that follows from that.
* The temperature of the planet is crucial for liquid water to exist. Incidentally, earth is the only place known in the universe where liquid water exists. Liquid water is essential for life on Earth.

Further, there are a great deal of other factors that automatically follow from the distance between the Earth and the Sun, eg.
* proximity to solar flares,
* radiation flux across the frequency spectrum,
* gravitational effects directly proportional to the distance to the Sun,
* duration of orbit around the Sun. 1 year,
* shape of orbit around the Sun, combined with earth's axial tilt to provide four seasons per annum.

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?"
My answer to this is simply, we do not know whether other planets orbiting stars do have or don't have life, we can only speculate about this. I don't see any logical reason why you would assume from my brief one line mention of the seemingly fortuitous location of our solar system within the galaxy, that as a consequence of that statement, you ask the question does this mean that every other solar system in our galaxy was not designed.

I have to get some sleep, it's 5:08 am Sunday morning. Bye for now.

Message 254 of 327 (506362) 04-25-2009 3:14 PM

Reply to: Message 248 by NanoGecko 04-25-2009 1:54 PM

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.

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.