RE: IC does not support ID

RE: IC does not support ID (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

unclemonkey -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 8:24:55 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: So do you support his claim that the theory of spontaneous generation is exactly the same as abiogenesis? What is identical is the basic dogma: “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”. quote: he was being dishonest by trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation... all of us would agree of course, that spontaneous generation is quite absurd and has no scientific merit. The only difference is the package. Put poison in a shiny new bottle and it is STILL poison. The ONLY dishonesty in this discussion is the claim that abiogenesis has scientific merit. It has NEVER been observed nor is it demonstrable. quote: lets be honest here and not pretend they are the same, or even remotely similar “Given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise” is not even remotely similar to “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”?????????? Let’s be honest. If abiogenesis does not claim “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise” just what does it claim about the origin of life?

unclemonkey -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 8:34:19 PM)
ORIGINAL:drj11 quote: The claims of spontaneous generation have been totally falsified. Since abiogenesis makes the exact same basic claim, i.e. given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise, how can abiogenesis not also be falsified? Please explain how a falsified claim in one theory be a valid claim in another theory?

Real_Solitude -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 4:11:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey What is identical is the basic dogma: “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”. The problem in conflating the two is not the basic tenant, that life can arise naturally. The problem is that one says "Dirty rags at night will make rats by morning." while the other says "Over a vast span of time, given the right chemical conditions, simple replicating molecular chains can form." If you can't see the difference between the magical "poof" of SG and the proposed slow chemical processes of Abiogenesis, then you have nothing of interest of value to contribute about the subject. Even if you disagree with both of them, conflating the two is deserving of ridicule. quote: The only difference is the package. Put poison in a shiny new bottle and it is STILL poison. The ONLY dishonesty in this discussion is the claim that abiogenesis has scientific merit. It has NEVER been observed nor is it demonstrable. More correctly, comparing abiogenesis and spontaneous-generation is like throwing out the poison, giving someone a bottle of Aquifina, and then informing them that they're still going to die... but in 50 years, and of natural causes. The end result is still the same; the person is going to die. However, you're completely changing the mechanism by which it happens. Abiogenesis and SG certainly both say that life arises by natural means. It's the difference between rags popping out complex creatures and simple replicating molecules forming due to natural chemical processes. The result is the same (natural life), but the mechanism is completely revised. To say that they are the same thing is intellectually bankrupt. I will agree that abiogenesis has never been observed. However, saying that it is not demonstrable is ignorant, as you can't know if it is possible for it to be demonstrated or not. It is fair to say that it has not been demonstrated, but you already said that when you said it hasn't been observed. quote: “Given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise” is not even remotely similar to “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise”?????????? Let’s be honest. If abiogenesis does not claim “given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise” just what does it claim about the origin of life? <sarcasm>Let's be honest, the Holy Bible claims that people have an incorporeal existence known as 'souls', right? Let's be honest, Scientology claims that people have an incorporeal existence known as "theatans", right? "People have an incorporeal existence" is not even remotely similar to "people have an incorporeal existence"? Obviously the two things must be the exact same, because they make a similar claim. That must make them both equally invalid. That's a good argument, right?</sarcasm> EDIT: Added sarcasm tags, for fear of being taken literally.

capellaslight -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 9:16:54 AM)
Uncle Monkey, I think Real Solitude has a good point. The theory of spontaneous generation is a straw man arguement for the real enemy, evolution. I've seen your posts you are sharp witted and learned, please help this newbie defeat the real enemy. BVZ, I read your link and all I see Miller doing is showing how the flagellum is not a IC. It appears the flagellum can be reduced to a TTSS. Given still the complexity of a TTSS and the flagellum I don't see how this can stilll evolve by mutations , natual selection and random chance. Can a TTSS be further reduced?(before being reduced to proteins) What other building blocks could be used for the flagelluum? According to the article the random chance of assembly for the whole flagellum is 10 E - 1170 , would your chances really improve if the process could be broken down to 2 or 3 parts? (remember you have to improve to 10 E -150 to be called scientifically possable.) As an Engineer I have observed that complex systems only degrade. The systems only change when they are redesigned. But the most interesting part of the article was when Miller quoted Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante to try to give an explaination of how the **ellum did evolve the last part was this: "The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design** than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996) Wow amazing! except one word, evolution didn't create it God did.

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 9:49:14 AM)
quote: The problem in conflating the two is not the basic tenant, that life can arise naturally. The problem is that one says "Dirty rags at night will make rats by morning." while the other says "Over a vast span of time, given the right chemical conditions, simple replicating molecular chains can form." If you can't see the difference between the magical "poof" of SG and the proposed slow chemical processes of Abiogenesis, then you have nothing of interest of value to contribute about the subject. Even if you disagree with both of them, conflating the two is deserving of ridicule . Actually, you have perfectly highlighted the difference between the two, and that difference is time! So it remains basically ‘magical’, it’s just that in the case of abiogenesis, the magic takes longer. quote: More correctly, comparing abiogenesis and spontaneous-generation is like throwing out the poison, giving someone a bottle of Aquifina, and then informing them that they're still going to die... but in 50 years, and of natural causes. The end result is still the same; the person is going to die. However, you're completely changing the mechanism by which it happens. Abiogenesis and SG certainly both say that life arises by natural means. It's the difference between rags popping out complex creatures and simple replicating molecules forming due to natural chemical processes. The result is the same (natural life), but the mechanism is completely revised. To say that they are the same thing is intellectually bankrupt. I think you are missing the basic point; there is no more evidence that abiogenesis occurred than that spontaneous generation occurs. And as you have admitted above, the only real difference is time. quote: I will agree that abiogenesis has never been observed. However, saying that it is not demonstrable is ignorant, as you can't know if it is possible for it to be demonstrated or not. It is fair to say that it has not been demonstrated, but you already said that when you said it hasn't been observed. Do you think spontaneous generation is demonstrable? How could you say this as you can’t know if it is possible for it to be demonstrated or not?

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 10:11:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: capellaslight Uncle Monkey, I think Real Solitude has a good point. The theory of spontaneous generation is a straw man arguement Especially so, since, when it was a respected idea, creationists often appealed to it as evidence of God's creative hand at work. In the 19th century, creationists saw the science disproving spontaneous generation as an attack on God. How times change. quote: for the real enemy, evolution. What makes evolution an enemy? Are you sure you are not confusing evolution with atheism? quote: As an Engineer I have observed that complex systems only degrade. The systems only change when they are redesigned. An engineer. I might have guessed. For some reason engineers seem to have special problems understanding biology. I get the impression that biology is too messy for them. It seems to offend and engineer's sense of order. Engineers seem to want life to be as neat as a machine. So it is fascinating to them that we find molecular machines in a cell. But that life self-organizes and self-repairs is hard to grasp. I don't mean to generalize, but lists of anti-evolutionists often seem top-heavy with engineers. So I get the impression that for some reason engineers have a special distaste for evolution that may have something to do with their professional training and perspective. quote: Wow amazing! except one word, evolution didn't create it God did. But there is no difference. To be created by evolution and to be created by God is one and the same thing.

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 10:30:49 AM)
quote: Especially so, since, when it was a respected idea, creationists often appealed to it as evidence of God's creative hand at work. In the 19th century, creationists saw the science disproving spontaneous generation as an attack on God. How times change. Evidence that you didn't just make up this assertion all together?

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:23:30 PM)
quote: But there is no difference. To be created by evolution and to be created by God is one and the same thing. Drum roll, please...Well there it is folks - the new NUMBER 1 most preposterous statement ever made on these S&O threads! Evolution is now God. Come to think of it, a cocky poster called Aristocrat used to make such bizarre assertions. Anybody around here kept up with him?

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:29:04 PM)
quote: Come to think of it, a cocky poster called Aristocrat used to make such bizarre assertions. Anybody around here kept up with him? Actually, it was little known that Aristocrat was a she. And she has apparently been busy at the thread from which she came.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:35:18 PM)
quote: Actually, it was little known that Aristocrat was a she. Thanks for the update. May it never be said that I am not an equal-gender evolution basher!

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:43:52 PM)
quote: Thanks for the update. May it never be said that I am not an equal-gender evolution basher! Yes, sound reason is gender neutral.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:45:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: But there is no difference. To be created by evolution and to be created by God is one and the same thing. Drum roll, please...Well there it is folks - the new NUMBER 1 most preposterous statement ever made on these S&O threads! Evolution is now God. Come to think of it, a cocky poster called Aristocrat used to make such bizarre assertions. Anybody around here kept up with him? Don't be silly. Evolution is a process. God is a Being. When a carpenter uses a hammer to pound a nail into a piece of wood, it is equally correct to say the hammer drove the nail in and to say the carpenter drove the nail in. But it would be silly to say the hammer is the carpenter.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Especially so, since, when it was a respected idea, creationists often appealed to it as evidence of God's creative hand at work. In the 19th century, creationists saw the science disproving spontaneous generation as an attack on God. How times change. Evidence that you didn't just make up this assertion all together? Give me a few days. I have to dig out some past reading.

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 12:53:49 PM)
quote: Give me a few days. I have to dig out some past reading. Well, I can already tell you it's not that simplistic.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 1:37:53 PM)
quote: Don't be silly. Evolution is a process. God is a Being. I'm not the one who equated creation by God with creation by evolution, which by the way is oxymoronic. So, please show us one Bible verse or passage that even remotely suggests the "process" of evolution has "created" anything. I can share 50+ references to the "Being of God" performing such activity.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 1:47:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Don't be silly. Evolution is a process. God is a Being. I'm not the one who equated creation by God with creation by evolution, which by the way is oxymoronic. So, please show us one Bible verse or passage that even remotely suggests the "process" of evolution has "created" anything. I can share 50+ references to the "Being of God" performing such activity. Why would you expect to find a discussion of evolution in the bible? It is not a modern science text. It doesn't discuss chemistry either or electromagnetism or internal combustion engines. Trying to stuff modern science into the bible is a fool's task.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 1:59:09 PM)
quote: Why would you expect to find a discussion of evolution in the bible? Because you yourself stated that "To be created by evolution and to be created by God is one and the same thing." Now, my recollection is that the entire first chapter of Genesis is devoted to a rather detailed discussion of how the world and its lifeforms came about. In addition, there are dozens of references outside Genesis that specfically refer to this topic. So, if such an emphasis is placed on this subject, would it be unreasonable to assume that the sole written revelation of God would contain just one verse about this allegedly equal to God process of creation? So why do you not expect to find a single reference to evolution in the Word of God given your understanding of the importance of evolution (as a "process of creation", of course)?

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 2:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Why would you expect to find a discussion of evolution in the bible? Because you yourself stated that "To be created by evolution and to be created by God is one and the same thing." Now, my recollection is that the entire first chapter of Genesis is devoted to a rather detailed discussion of how the world and its lifeforms came about. In addition, there are dozens of references outside Genesis that specfically refer to this topic. So, if such an emphasis is placed on this subject, would it be unreasonable to assume that the sole written revelation of God would contain just one verse about this allegedly equal to God process of creation? So why do you not expect to find a single reference to evolution in the Word of God given your understanding of the importance of evolution (as a "process of creation", of course)? I don't presume to judge what God found relevant to reveal to ancient peoples.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 2:11:42 PM)
quote: I don't presume to judge what God found relevant to reveal to ancient peoples. But you do "presume to judge" what God reveals to modern day scientists about the origins of biodiversity. Interesting dichotomy, gluadys.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:00:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I don't presume to judge what God found relevant to reveal to ancient peoples. But you do "presume to judge" what God reveals to modern day scientists about the origins of biodiversity. Interesting dichotomy, gluadys. Scientists don't need revelation. They rely on evidence.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:05:18 PM)
quote: Scientists don't need revelation. They rely on evidence. No, they interpret evidence. One last time - there is no evidence for one kind of organism evolving into another, or you would have found something more substantive than changing guppy colors!

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:27:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: Scientists don't need revelation. They rely on evidence. No, they interpret evidence. One last time - there is no evidence for one kind of organism evolving into another, or you would have found something more substantive than changing guppy colors! Again you display that when it comes to evolution you do not know what you are talking about. P.S. The bible is also interpreted.

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:45:38 PM)
quote: P.S. The bible is also interpreted. Then please share a Scripture passage which you interpret to support the creative process of evolution.

gluadys -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: P.S. The bible is also interpreted. Then please share a Scripture passage which you interpret to support the creative process of evolution. I would have to first find a way to stuff the theory of evolution into the scriptures. And I already called that a fool's task. The point of scripture is to reveal God as creator. Science has provided us an insight into his methods.

Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/28/2008 3:59:39 PM)
quote: I would have to first find a way to stuff the theory of evolution into the scriptures. And I already called that a fool's task. The point of scripture is to reveal God as creator. Science has provided us an insight into his methods. Just out of curiousity, what do you make of evolutionists like Dawkins who claim evolution makes 'God's methods' an unnecessary aspect of the conversation?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI