Intelligent Designs Public Claim

NJ again: Wow, first hit in Google using "number of galaxies" and came up with this:Number of Galaxies in the Universe - The Physics FactbookA few more than thousands.ABE - I am also concerned that in this thread the habitable zone jumped from this solar system to galaxies as the habitable zone usually refers to that around a given star as opposed to a given galaxy. I hope everyone here understands that this galaxy consists of billions of stars, and that other galaxies, separate from this one, also usually consist of billions of stars. To put it simply, I hope that everyone understands the difference between a solar system and a galaxy.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

The term habital zone has been used to refer to galaxies too.Too close to the core and the steller density is considered to be too great for the environment to be hospitible.As I recall there is also a suggestion that too far out is scarce in heavier elements but I'm not sure about that.

I'm having trouble making sense of that. Are you asserting that God is incapable of creating evolving life? Whatever happened to omnipotence? I usually think of a machine as having moving parts. By themselves, proteins are just parts. It isn't a machine until there is something to get them moving. There you go, making light of the "fact" that life without intervention or support is exceedingly likely
Your statement is bogus (as is my response). There are no settled facts on the likelihood that life could arise without invervention. I happen to think it quite likely. I am underwhelmed by the creationist arguments that claim to show otherwise. I have never been able to make sense of creationist arguments about the moon. If you are able to defend it, perhaps you could start a thread. I'm not sure where that comes from. The origin of elements is pretty well explained by astrophysics.

nemesis_juggernaut "We have not even the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells."This is the first statement of the man in clip one concerning origin of life. The arguement of ID is that an intelligent designer put this altogether. Leaving aside that the chemical basis for evolution is not at issue you are left with a problem.The introduction of intelligent design is a hollow idea until and unless you establish that there is an intelligent desiggner. Failing this you are less capable of supporting your own hypothesis because if you cannot establish a means by which an intelligent designer accomplished life that can be tested and demonstrated.And as for the quote's position that there is not even a slight chance for this I would refer you to a 1962 copy of the book The Genetic Code by Isaac Asimov in which he details the then known chemicl basis for life from chemical elements and their properties on up through chemical bonds of carbon based life, simple molecules,amino acids, proteins, RNA, DNA, etc..
And this was 44 years ago.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Hi obvious child, I do not remember ever seeing the following

Because? Some primitive bacteria use RNA exclusively.

While I know that this is true for a number of viruses, I am unfamiliar with any bacteria that are soley RNA, even archaeobacteria.However, this does not invalidate your point. Both YE creationists and the ID crown fall into the same error, their statistical calculations always assume equal probability of events. This is a false assumption as, just as in any basic chemistry, not all events are equiprobable. One good example is the handedness of polynucleotide strands. I can not remember the exact reference (it's buried somewhere in my library) but self associating polynucleotides have a tendency to form greater numbers of homochiral strands relative to heterochiral. The numbers are small but real. The basis for the split appears to be due to the stability of the homochiral strands once formed (probably due to base stacking and increased van del Walls forces holding hte nuvleotide strand together by and improved efficiency at excluding water). Plotted out using a log plot (as this is the kinetics that the formation of these strands will follow) the homochiral strands easily out-strip the heterochiral strands. This is only one example of how the equiprobable outcomes assumed by the ID and YEC crowd are false. The have a tendency to concentrate on the thermodynamics or a reaction (although the YEC crowd ignores Gibbs free energy in their 2LOT garbage) and ignore the other aspects such as kinetics.One intersting thing about ID that I have been discussing with people recently who are on the fence is the fact that they spout that they will perform "scientific research" yet they never do. In fact Philip Johnson (Johansen, I can never remember the spelling) founder of the movement has stated publicly (documented in "Creationisms Trojan Horse") that the SCIENCE is less important then the POLITICAL message. I wont even get into the philosophical issues with (i.e. reasons for rejecting) ID.So much for ID being science.

---

"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

Thanks for more wasted time. It doesn't do that either.All the first video demonstrates is an argument from incredulity gussied up to appeal to gullible people.It doesn't SHOW a thing other than what currently exists in nature with the ASSERTION that it couldn't have evolved.The second video is just the Post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - another logical fallacy -- also gussied up to appeal to gullible people.It blatantly assumes that any life bearing system must be exactly like ours. That has not been demonstrated.Neither one presents any information that proves that life absolutely could not have occurred, either here or elsewhere, they have just made assertions to that effect.In both cases they also use the argument from authority -- another logical fallacy -- nor do they present any evidence that these opinions are representative (although they try to give that impression by the total omission of dissenting views).Neither one presents any evidence that would in any way indicate that intelligent design has a valid concept. They claim it, but they don't show it.There is no evidence here, no substance. It's not even good science fiction.I agree with obvious Child that these are a complete waste of time.Enjoy.

---

{abe}I thought I remembered "Illustra Media" from somewherehttp://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm
The North Texas SkepticIt's a scam group trying to pretend to be something it isn't. Like honest.From the second link:

quote:

---

UML presents itself as a well-crafted, purely scientific documentary, while it is factually misleading in many respects, and its main purpose is propaganda for a pseudo-scientific movement known as Intelligent Design Creationism. UML has its (strategically concealed) origins close to religious fundamentalist and Creationist circles, and displays a pattern of poor scholarship, including misrepresentation/omission of key scientific evidence. Ultimately, these result in a misleading picture of the facts and of current scientific knowledge, as well as of the ultimate goals of the documentary itself.2

---

In otherwords it is a pack of lies in a pretty package designed to fool gullible people. It doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.Enjoy.{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : added end

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.