Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 207 of 302 (302364)
04-08-2006 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by John 10:10
04-08-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Substantiate your probability numbers.
Hi John,
Your arguments have been delt with many times in this forum, maybe I can sum it up (I'll try):
1. The very very complex bacteria argument:
Deducting the "minimal requirements" from current life forms is a fallicy because bacteria evolve (even micro- I mean) and so the probability of the suvival of an organizm with these "minimal requirements" (whatever thay may be) is not very good. Think of todays airplanes (from the 747 analogy creos like to use): if we were to asses the liklyhood of an airplane being assembeled (even if it was humans who did it - thay have to learn about flight too) than it would seem very unlikely that they exist. But if we go back to the wright brothers time (or even michelangelo) than you can see that the first plane was far more "simple" than todays most simplest planes.
2. The probability of an amino acid chain:
This isn't even an argument, as current abiogenesis dosen't regard this as an option. If you want to attack abiogenesis go for self replicating, self ligasing RNA. Anyway, even if you did succeed in disprooving abiogenisis, it has nothing to do with the ToE, just like if you don't know how a car is assembeled(abiogenesis), dosen't mean you cant predict how it will behave(ToE) according to it's mechanisems (genetics).
Excuse my spelling, i'm not from an english speaking country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by John 10:10, posted 04-08-2006 10:06 AM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 240 of 302 (304434)
04-15-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by John 10:10
04-14-2006 9:36 AM


Mathe...what?
Hi John,
I have given you examples why I believe the simplest cell organisms or atoms could not have assembled themselves into compounds, DNA and living creatures by chance. Most who do not believe in ID recognize the infinitely small probability that chance could be the cause of our existence, and ask for proof that ID is the cause.
I think that your method of calculating the 'odds of evolution' are flawed, and I would like you (Just as an experiment) to do those same calculations on your 'act of creation':
ID Means exactly this, that an Intelligent Designer designed "the red shift and accelerating expansion." It also means an Intelligent Designer designed fully formed creatures to begin with, with ready made ability to reproduce other creatures after their own kind, according to the DNA designed within them.
and...
Those who believe in ID simply believe every life creature was a special creative act to begin with.
This doesnt mean I agree with your 'probability argument', just that I would like you to realize the error. If ID wants to 'explain many follies' then obviosly it has to stand against its own argument, or else its self-contradictory. If something is "irreducibly complex" then something else has to create it, right? This is indicative of ID, correct?(according to your opinion)
please show your calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by John 10:10, posted 04-14-2006 9:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 242 of 302 (304659)
04-16-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by John 10:10
04-16-2006 6:49 PM


R N A
Hi John,
1.
Since no one here believes that an Intelligent Designer brought our universe into existence and then created all life that exists on earth, and that this is the most reasonable explanation for why we exist,
{Bold mine}
How can you think this is the most reasonable explanation if you go on to ask:
just what do you believe is a better explanation?
You have been told that science has come up with a better, although still hypothetical, explanation for the beginning of life and that this is different from the ToE, it's abiogenesis, an still you assert that ID is the 'most reasonable', obviously without knowing anything about the RNA world. Here is some stuff from Wikipedia I'm sure you would have looked up if you were not busy posting this question.
RNA world - Wikipedia
Take a look at the links below, too. (Even creation links)
2.
Is there any chance you could reply to my Message 240, or shall I take this as a "I have no answer so I'll ignore it" reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by John 10:10, posted 04-16-2006 6:49 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 245 of 302 (304721)
04-17-2006 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 9:14 AM


Re: R N A
Oh wait, listing the possibilities and assigning each possibility as having equal probability isn't how it works.
Exactly.
Maybe you can show me your odds of abiogenesis occurring?
Just a moment...
4.1.6
In this way his team demonstrated enzyme-free replication of a six-base strand of nucleic acid by using it as the template for assembling and linking together two three-base fragments
{Bold mine}
From the bold above its easy to see that the odds are good. Even random experiments with RNA have given self-replication.
There are alot of factors to consider, but the fact is all you need is a few bases of RNA (if its six then the probability, if all else is equal [and its not] is 2^6 over the entire mix of nucleotides on earth), calculating the rest is very complex chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 9:14 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 1:36 PM kalimero has replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 249 of 302 (304782)
04-17-2006 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by John 10:10
04-17-2006 1:36 PM


Re: R N A
I don’t believe any serious molecular scientist would place the odds much higher than 50/50.
But for the sake of argument, let’s say the odds are 50/50 that abiogenesis can explain the cause of our existence. That means the ID should be given equal footing with abiogenesis as an explanation of how life came to be because the odds are certainly no worse than 50/50 that ID is the cause behind our existence, regardless of what the betting odds are in London.
Amazing - you have made the same mistake twice. (50/50?)
I think that (3) - replicating polymers - is where natural selection kicks in, or the start of evolution. The ability to, naturaly, 'pick the best one' from all those who have replicated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by John 10:10, posted 04-17-2006 1:36 PM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 264 of 302 (305313)
04-19-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


But teaching abiogenesis as proven science from the start to creature-hood is what I object to.
Nobody is teaching abiogenesis as a proven fact. Its the principals of evolution that should be taught as fact (tentatively). Even in my university abiogenesis it is not taught as fact, but as a hypothesis.
My room-mate is learning softwear engeneering, he is fairly educated and an inteligent person, and even he was stuned to hear that science never proves anything, but is tentative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024