Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 4:11 AM
35 online now:
frako, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,573 Year: 3,610/19,786 Month: 605/1,087 Week: 195/212 Day: 10/27 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 271 of 327 (506424)
04-26-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by cavediver
04-26-2009 4:52 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
cavediver writes:

And of course it is - our own DNA/RNA system is that trace And given when the transition is hypothesised, you are talking of the order of BILLIONS of years between that period and the first hard-body-part fossils. The advantages of the DNA world would have out-competed the RNA-world life millions of times over in that time.
But if you think that is unreasonable, lay out your logic please...

But don't you see, no I guess you don't, that the argument that you are presenting here is nothing more than just another case of circular reasoning after the fact.
What I mean by that is this:- and please correct me if I am wrong, but I get from your statement above that:-
BECAUSE we are here and BECAUSE we have the beautifully designed and highly complex DNA/RNA systems operating perfectly, then of necessity there MUST have been BILLIONS of years between that period and the first hard-body-part fossils, so THEREFORE we find no evidence in the world today of RNA based life because it was out-competed a long time ago.

You obviously have an a priori commitment to the idea that life has evolved from simple to complex, so your worldview is revealed here by the circular reasoning displayed, in this instance.

cavediver writes:

yes, because that is the level that us scientists discuss these things
I can never get over the extreme ignorance displayed by creationists regarding how science and scientists operate.
Yep, we just sit around and say - hmmm, not sure how that works, but it might be this. Everyone agreed? Yep? Ok, next problem... You need to get off the Discovery channel and talk to some real scientists. You're looking rather foolish here at EvC where many of us are scientists. Sadly, I have nothing to do with biology - I'm merely a mathematician/physicist, but even I can fumble my way through this abiogenetic study without making such an arse of myself.

You are full of compliments this evening!
Get over it, the fundamental laws of chemistry always apply, the point that I was making is that the fundamental laws of chemistry do not provide a solution to the problem of where the cellular energy came from, not how the mechanics of it operated.
What makes you think that Creationists aren't scientists? I have never watched the Discovery Channel nor do I wish to.
Your preconceptions and prejudices are very clear, without good basis perhaps but at least they are clear!!!

cavediver writes:

And here you miss the point completely. What are the correct "amino acids"? And if I'm not mistaken, what we saw in the video was life, and so I have to ask, which proteins exactly are required for life? Are you really so naive to think that we expect modern cells in all of their complexity to leap into existence the best part of four billion years ago? Again, you need to let go of your pre-school-level ideas of how scientists think and operate.

Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of ‘building blocks’ is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural conditions. The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.

The RNA/DNA base cytosine is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological ‘deep time’, as its half life for deamination is 340 years at 25°C.
No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.
Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.8 Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

But if you think that is unreasonable, lay out your logic please...

The remainder of your post doesn't warrant response as all it amounts to is the usual caustic derogatory rhetoric that for some reason flows so effortlessly from people who one would have hoped would know better.

Cheers.
NanoGecko


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 4:52 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-26-2009 8:49 AM NanoGecko has responded
 Message 286 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 6:37 PM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 272 of 327 (506426)
04-26-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by onifre
04-25-2009 2:03 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
onifre 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..." ?

A lot of activity in this thread last night, I've still got 20 messages to go and don't know what course this thread is now taking, but when I rhetorically asked back in Message 196 whether anyone had anything to say about physical evidence for the designer I wasn't trying to provide a clear characterization of the topic. I was just hoping to return the focus to evidence-based arguments. If we actually resume discussing the precise topic I'd consider that a bonus.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 2:03 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 273 of 327 (506427)
04-26-2009 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 6:34 AM


Re: The Central Point
You might consider the points made in the following lecture (on line video). It suggests that the mathematical models that "prove" evolution is impossible may be flawed.

I have used this analogy before: With 25 dice, your task is to come up with all sixes. Now, you can roll all 25 time and time again looking for all sixes, and you'll die of old age before you likely get your desired result. Or, you can roll the dice and keep the sixes, rolling just the others again. You'll be done in a couple of minutes.

Evolution works more like the latter method than the former. The mathematicians who come up with the huge odds against evolution are ignorant of biology, and use the former method.

But see this lecture for more details:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=2513

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 6:34 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 274 of 327 (506433)
04-26-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 7:55 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
NanoGecko writes:

Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of ‘building blocks’ is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural conditions. The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.

The RNA/DNA base cytosine is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological ‘deep time’, as its half life for deamination is 340 years at 25°C.
No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.
Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.8 Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (–NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.

Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t½) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0°C. It’s even worse at high temperatures—73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100°C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.

Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.

Found here, verbatim: http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks written by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (CMI), formerly part of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a non-profit Christian Apologetics ministry specializing in Young-Earth creationism (as per Wikipedia).

You know it is dishonest to verbatim pass off other people's work as your own (unless of course you are Sarfati). This reveals your lack of credibility and honesty. And yes, I cite any articles or websites I refer back to (and no, I don't verbatim copy and past blocks of text into my post as if they are my own words). In academics this is called plagerism and is dealt with by a kick boot out the academic door (and often in college by expulsion). CITE YOUR SOURCES.

If you can't even put the information you are getting from these cites into your own words instead of pasting them into your posts as your own words, why should we waste our time with you explaining why these arguments are errant?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 7:55 AM NanoGecko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 9:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 275 of 327 (506434)
04-26-2009 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by cavediver
04-26-2009 5:08 AM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
cavediver writes:

do you have any comprehension of how many stars there are in just the Observable Universe alone? And given how many planets we have now discovered, do you have any appreciation for just how many planets that implies? Everything we see around us HAS to be compatible with life for reasons so damn obvious that we only give it a name (the Weak Anthropic Principle) because of the existence of people like you Not only are we not in the slightest bit surprised at the suitablility of Earth and the Solar System for life; given the numbers involved, we fully expect to find countless similar systems throughout the Universe. Even if there was only one such system in each galaxy, so say one for each 100 billion stars, that's still one hundred billion systems in the Observable Universe alone.

Sorry, but the nature of the Universe itself means that there is no evidence for design in looking at the Earth and our Solar System, other than the usual "evidence" from ignorance.

The Number of stars ? who really knows, if I stick within commonly accepted bounds then I'd guess somewhere above about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 give or take half a dozen zero's or so as far as current astrophysics goes. As for planets it's really anyone's guess but possibly some where between as many planets as stars and between 1 to 5 orders of magnitude more than that figure, would be my wild stab in the dark. What do you reckon ?

I wondered how long it would be before someone trotted out the old anthropomorphic argument. Not impressed!
No need to wonder anymore, you got the prize.

Of course you aren't even slightly impressed, it goes with your a priori position, you know how it goes, here we are in no particular part of the galaxy in no particu...etc. etc. so obviously you are not in the slighest bit surprised about anything as trivial as the millions of complex factors that make this little planet Earth suitable for life, because it goes with the territory that you have chosen to believe.

I really can't agree with your final statement that the nature of the Universe itself means that there is no evidence for design. I'd be interested to hear what you call "the nature of the Universe" and why those reason preclude design. Please enlighten me .....

Cheers,
NanoGecko


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 5:08 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 04-26-2009 3:39 PM NanoGecko has not yet responded
 Message 287 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 6:46 PM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 276 of 327 (506435)
04-26-2009 9:00 AM


Sorry thought this was appropiate here and would bring a little levity to this debate:

Enjoy :)

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Citation: Original cartoon © 2000, J. Blanchard found @ http://www.nmsr.org/Blanch4.gif


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
Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 277 of 327 (506439)
04-26-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
04-21-2009 6:53 AM


“Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint
We have all heard of the "carbon foot print" we all make on earth's environment. So in helping show "physical Evidence for a designer" I'm going to use the "intelligent design foot print" analogy.

Just as real foot prints on the moon is evidence of man's presence / existence so to God's presence is evident by his intelligent foot prints of superior technological designs. These are real and tangible, testable, seen, touched, and recorded artefacts of someone else more technologically advanced then our wildest dreams.

His technology is perceived to us as true "life", living creatures. That is in a nutshell the gap in intellectual supremacy contest, man verse God. In comparison our sticks and stones don't even qualify for any comparative measurements. Our existence is by his design and so we can not boast of individual achievements over and above the already building design structure for our individual intelligence.

So “intellectual supremacy” footprint is real and testable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 04-21-2009 6:53 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 12:09 PM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

  
NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 278 of 327 (506441)
04-26-2009 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate
04-26-2009 8:49 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
devilsadvocate writes:

....If you can't even put the information you are getting from these cites into your own words instead of pasting them into your posts as your own words, why should we waste our time with you explaining why these arguments are errant?

Fair call, it was not however my intention to pass this off as my own work, it was just an oversight, my error.
And before you imply otherwise, no I haven't made this type of oversight before. I have just checked my posts, in all other cases I have quoted my reference source.

Cheers,
NanoGecko


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-26-2009 8:49 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-26-2009 9:33 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 279 of 327 (506442)
04-26-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 9:26 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Nano writes:

Fair call, it was not however my intention to pass this off as my own work, it was just an oversight, my error.
And before you imply otherwise, no I haven't made this type of oversight before. I have just checked my posts, in all other cases I have quoted my reference source

Thanks for your honesty. Moving on, I will take a look at Dr. Sarfati evidence and get back to you in the next day or two on it. I have to take my daughter to Sunday School and will look at it this afternoon. Take care.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 9:26 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 280 of 327 (506449)
04-26-2009 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by anglagard
04-26-2009 1:44 AM


“Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint
Let's use an analogy to illustrate why life is an intelligent "creation".

The employer might remind the employee that the speed of the manufacturing process must be much faster then the decay rate of the materials. So if you work so slow as to make one car in just under a 20 year period the parts of the car that had to lay around for the last 20 years will have decayed (rust, etc.)to the point of rendering then useless to the final product and so the car is not able to start-up nor ever will.

Another illustration: If it takes 50 years to create a spaceship to fly 22 million light years to the next star system. When can you expect to get to that other star system? Answer: never!

Why? The decay rate of building materials in space is faster then on earth and 15 years is the useful life of most things built by man for space. Long before your half done the star ship the first half is useless and needs replacing already. Even if you cheated and did finish the star ship, it will never last the 22 million years of flight - if you could move at the speed of light.

The point is that the decay rate should not be faster then the construction building progress rate of the chemical reactions of a cell or any mythical simple primitive early forms of life, etc.

Bio-systems are by nature (intelligently designed) to be BIO-DEGRADABLE. The degrading factor of many bio-chemicals, etc., are part of the built-in molecular engineering design. Hormones have no off switches it is said, they just degrade and that is the end of the messenger. Many things degrade in seconds, minutes, hours, and days, etc. So the decay rate can not be faster then the useful function of the cellular systems – chemical reactions. Decay should not out strip the life of the cycle of a useful function.

In every "machine" with intelligent control systems there needs to be "logic gates" and so enzymes are part of such a logic control system.

Those chemical reactions that "NanoGecko" was referring to that would take about 1 trillion years are by default in the design of the system to never to take place. They are parts of the control - which one can depend on the fact these will never randomly happen, the chances are so remote that in the design it is considered as not able to happen. Then there is the intelligent control of the enzymes which will or will not cause a reaction. They work as a key and locking system for selectively choosing the desired pathway for creating an intelligent result.



Science is like people, if you torture it long enough, you can make it say anything!!!

Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : Some torture the sciences to force their views


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by anglagard, posted 04-26-2009 1:44 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by lyx2no, posted 04-26-2009 1:16 PM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded
 Message 284 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-26-2009 2:21 PM Bio-molecularTony has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 281 of 327 (506450)
04-26-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 4:25 AM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
It needs to be pointed out though, and I know that you will object, that we ALL have an a priori agenda through which we interpret information from anywhere. The fact is that you also hold to a priori assumptions about this subject. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what your assumptions are.

I only object because I don't have an a priori agenda, whatever that means. I look at evidence and don't assume anything outside of the natural until such time that objective evidence for me to think otherwise is shown to me.

Now, if only there was a thread where objective evidence for design could be shown to me.......

I don't assume anything. How did stars form? Naturally. How did the earth form? Naturally. How did land masses form? Naturally. How did trees form? Naturally. I think you see where I'm going with that. Now, lets keep it simple between us so we don't get too overwelmed, do you agree with those 4 things forming naturally? If not, why? And, where is your evidence that goes against the current evidence that explains how these 4 things develop naturally?

However, if you do agree, then I'll keep asking about things found in nature til we get to the ones you feel ONLY a designer could have created it, and it didn't form naturally.

This is a good example of circular reasoning. This logic is fatally flawed no matter how you look at it.
You are saying that because life is here, it doesn't matter that the likelihood of non directed biogenesis occurring ever is as good as impossible, because hey, what do you know life exists, so undirected biogenesis must have happenned.
This is in fact an a priori position that you have adopted, though I doubt that you will recognise it for what it is.

In the spirit of good debating, when you point out that I'm wrong please try to give a clear discription as to how I'm wrong. You just repeated what I said and told me I'm wrong, wrong how?

Think about it, EVEN IF god did it, he still did it under the conditions that were preexisting in the "primordial soup" time. Life arrose from those conditions, whether god directed or not. Now, since neither you nor I, currently, has the full info for this time period, I asked you to use some logical reasoning. What do you know of in nature that can ONLY be explained by god did it?

The logical reasoning used to say god HAD TO direct it, just because all of the info isn't there, has been proven to be flawed in the past, do you agree with that?

In fact it has NEVER been right, unless again, you can point to an example of something (ie. stars, planets, trees, etc). Or give me an example of something found in nature that everyone thought arrose naturally but now is accepted that god had to create it - and is taught that way in mainstream science classes.

I do recall stating that I believe that ALL of creation ie. EVERYTHING and that includes Black Holes etc.

Let me get this straight, you believe that stars, planets, blackholes,etc, DO NOT form naturally? You believe that god has to create every single one of them? PLEASE, explain. I gotta admit I've never heard that one before.

The point is not that you believe in a god that created everything, the point is to show how these things didn't form natural LIKE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SEEMS TO SUGGEST.

In stark contrast it is very difficult for your average researcher to study a black hole, likewise the Sun or other stars, galaxies etc.

Really?

No. I believe the true reason is that none of you have any physics background and it would be completely impossible for any of you to mathematically explain how a blackhole doesn't form naturally. Also, because you would be laughed at since some of the greatest Nobel prize winning minds have explained this so accurately. You have no clue where to begin to deconstruct a blackhole, none of you do - nor do I - but then again, I'm not challenging it's origins.

The idea that you can objectively study how cosmic forces that acted creatively to form the cosmos in the distant past is just plain unscientific.

So the LHC is an unscientific venture? :laugh:

Sure you can think up theories and you can adjust and calibrate your figures till it all looks very pretty, but in the end it is just a lot of surmising, conjecture and straight-out guesswork that has been formulated according to the particular worldview of the one/body conducting or the one/body financing the study.

:laugh: Really? So Nobel prizes are given for "guesswork"? Get the fuck outta here, dude.

Do you own a GPS? Guess what, the scientist who "guessed shit" about spacetime made that cute little product possible for you to use. Maybe you've heard of him, Albert Einstein? - Guesswork Physicist

but the facts are still the facts, it's just the interpretation that differs.

The facts are interpreted differently by people who are not educated in these fields. Your 'opinion' of the facts does not change anything.

Edited by onifre, : clean up a bit


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 4:25 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 282 of 327 (506451)
04-26-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Bio-molecularTony
04-26-2009 9:18 AM


Re: “Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint
We have all heard of the "carbon foot print" we all make on earth's environment. So in helping show "physical Evidence for a designer" I'm going to use the "intelligent design foot print" analogy.
Just as real foot prints on the moon is evidence of man's presence / existence so to God's presence is evident by his intelligent foot prints of superior technological designs. These are real and tangible, testable, seen, touched, and recorded artefacts of someone else more technologically advanced then our wildest dreams.

His technology is perceived to us as true "life", living creatures. That is in a nutshell the gap in intellectual supremacy contest, man verse God. In comparison our sticks and stones don't even qualify for any comparative measurements. Our existence is by his design and so we can not boast of individual achievements over and above the already building design structure for our individual intelligence.

So “intellectual supremacy” footprint is real and testable.

Oh so the reason is, because you said so? Ok, shit I never saw it that way. Thanks Tony, great post......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 9:18 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2793 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 283 of 327 (506456)
04-26-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony
04-26-2009 11:56 AM


Re: “Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint
Let's use an analogy to illustrate why life is an intelligent "creation".
You offer arguments and analogy when evidence is the order of the day. Tony, what is required is to eliminate as a possibility that a system could have occurred naturally. Showing that it isn't known how it occurred is not enough. Ignorance of X is not knowledge of Y.

The decay rate of building materials in space is faster then on earth and 15 years is the useful life of most things built by man for space.
You are out of your cotton picking mind. Voyager will look better in fifty-thousand years than your '94 Yugo does now. If you're going to use an analogy you might want to try one that didn't originate inside of your butt.

Those chemical reactions that "NanoGecko" was referring to that would take about 1 trillion years are by default in the design of the system to never to take place. They are parts of the control - which one can depend on the fact these will never randomly happen, the chances are so remote that in the design it is considered as not able to happen.
You mean those chemical systems that aren't being used by biological system because they're, like, way too slow are too slow to be used by biological systems. Go figure; wonder why that is?

Is this the "scientific" method Creationists intend to abuse for the foreseeable future: when on set of misconstrued cut-n-pastes from science papers are, at a great waste of valuable time and resources, shown not to support IC a new set of misconstrued cut-n-pastes from science papers advance like the teeth of a shark? IC has yet to offer anything more. The details have gotten more sophisticated: harder for the layman to see through: more expensive for scientists to rebut; but they haven't gotten one bit more scientific.


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 11:56 AM Bio-molecularTony has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 284 of 327 (506458)
04-26-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony
04-26-2009 11:56 AM


Re: “Intellectual Supremacy” Footprint
Tony writes:

Why? The decay rate of building materials in space is faster then on earth and 15 years is the useful life of most things built by man for space. Long before your half done the star ship the first half is useless and needs replacing already. Even if you cheated and did finish the star ship, it will never last the 22 million years of flight - if you could move at the speed of light.p

???????????????? WTF, since when is the decay rate of material in space greater than that of Earth? Is space not a near vacuum? What is causing this material to decay? The only decay we could think about in space is that of nanoscopic amounts of radioactive isotopes (except the radioactive source of propulsion itself which is usually lead sheilded), the occasional bombardment by cosmic radiation and the decay of protons and neutrons themselves (longer than the age of the universe itself). While on Earth, material is whethered and corroded by the air in the atmosphere as well as biological life itself.

Tony, can you back up anything you say or should I just call you speak-out-of-your-ass Tony.

BTW, Nano, I am still doing some background research, sorry bare with me.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 11:56 AM Bio-molecularTony has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 6:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 285 of 327 (506472)
04-26-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 8:51 AM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
NanoGecko writes:

I wondered how long it would be before someone trotted out the old anthropomorphic argument. Not impressed!
No need to wonder anymore, you got the prize.

I wondered how long it would take you before you trotted out the old "not impressed" accompanied by sarcasm fallacy. I'm not impressed, either. Now what?

That's a rhetorical question. The point is that EvC Forum differentiates itself from other discussion boards by requiring that participants actually rebut arguments rather than just call them names, which is just a form of evasion.

Of course you aren't even slightly impressed, it goes with your a priori position..

And your position isn't a priori?

Again, that's a rhetorical question. The point is that what we're seeking here is the evidence and arguments you can muster for your position, not demonstrations of your skill with dismissive tactics.

...because it goes with the territory that you have chosen to believe.

And you don't have territory that you have chosen to believe?

That's another rhetorical question. What is the point of issuing accusations that you are just as guilty of as anyone else?

When you get a free moment, why not compose an actual rebuttal to what Cavediver said. (Yep, rhetorical again!)

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 8:51 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1718
19
202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019