Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 256 of 327 (506365)
04-25-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by onifre
04-25-2009 2:32 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
r=(GM/a)1/2. M cancels out. If it's mass increases so does the force required to accelerate it.
I'm glad you picked up on the irony.
I am charter member of the Bourne Dick Association.
AbE:
Incidentally, earth is the only place known in the universe where liquid water exists. Liquid water is essential for life on Earth.
My left pinky finger nail is the only place in the known to me world with a spot of red paint on it. Not too convincing.
Edited by lyx2no, : Supply evidence for the 2nd paragraph.
Edited by lyx2no, : Missed taking the root.

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 252 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 2:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 4:07 PM lyx2no has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 257 of 327 (506366)
04-25-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 3:03 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Hi Gecko, - lol, a gecko from Australia, you wouldn't happen to sell auto insurance would you?
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.
Again, yes, it all seems, for now, to be hospitable for life. But also remember that at one point in the past it was not. In the early proto-planetary formation neither water, oxygen or life were found. Nor was the Earth in this particualr orbit.
Also, a major intersellar event could change all of that.
So too would the Sun's eventual death.
All of this would be part of the "design". You are simply picking a moment in it's history where conscious life has emerged, but this is not the complete history and not the only condition this planet and solar system have experienced.
I'm hoping that you are starting to get the picture about design.
No I do not. I do however see the picture for your personal beliefs.
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?"
Because, the point was to show evidence for the designer in the physical evidence. You pointed to these specific conditions being the evidence for the designer, so it follows that opposing conditions would NOT show evidence for the designer. Opposing conditions would be solar systems and planets that don't hold life. These planets and solar systems are, using your logic, not designed.
Maybe take a minute to try and understand what YOU are saying, so you can see how the logic is flawed.
Unless you are saying that everything, no matter what it's conditions are, shows evidence for design. Which is fine. But at that point all of your examples would be moot points since their specifics doesn't really show evidence for design, if every single thing is designed then every single thing shows evidence for design.
Your evidence supports living organisms, not design.
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 didn't just say other planets orbiting other stars, I also included the planets in this solar system. However, if there are other planets with life then that would be more of a case for Earth not being special at all. It is to us but not to the universe or other galaxies as a whole, if they too have the potential for life to emerge.
I also wanted to comment on this specifically:
ecko writes:
Liquid water is essential for life on Earth.
Why would water be a limiting factor to the designer?
Liquid water would be essential if natural processes required it and would be limited without it...Surely god/designer/creator/etc would not be limited by the lack of anything, right?
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"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 253 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 3:03 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 11:18 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 258 of 327 (506368)
04-25-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by lyx2no
04-25-2009 3:39 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
r=GM/a♁. M♁ cancels out. If it's mass increases so does the force required to accelerate it.
Lyx2no, this is for an increase to the current mass.
Of course, the force of gravity acting between the Earth and the Sun are directly proportional to the mass of the Earth, directly proportional to the mass of the Sun, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance which separates the centers of the Earth and the Sun. An increase to it's mass would do nothing to it's current orbit.
But, and this is what I was refering to, during proto-planetary formation is not the Earth's mass proportional to the Sun's mass directly influencial to what it's orbit will be?
I am charter member of the Bourne Dick Association.
I'm a card carring member of the Douche Bag Association, I believe it's a sister organization of the Bourne Dick's, so we share personalities.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : spelling and such

"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 256 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 3:39 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 5:06 PM onifre has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 259 of 327 (506373)
04-25-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by onifre
04-25-2009 4:07 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Opps! I didn't notice this post before I edited my failure to take the root.
But, and this is what I was refering to, during proto-planetary formation is not the Earth's mass proportional to the Sun's mass directly influencial to what it's orbit will be?
I don't see why it would. The Earth's particular orbit is the mean result of the chaotic velocities of all bits and pieces that preceded it.
We can also get there rewriting Kepler's 3rd law. r=(t/2π)2/3(GM)1/3. This has the advantage that the mass of the orbiting body was not considered from the jump; meaning, the orbit's radius is not reliant on the orbiter's mass.
I'm a card carring member of the Douche Bag Association, I believe it's a sister organization of the Bourne Dick's, so we share personalities.
I live in the town of Bourne. It's not so great. But I'm thinking it's better than where you live.
Sorry about off-topic, but I can't help it.
AbE: A note for the following post:
The only thing I'll state is that Newton's law of gravitation says that "every object in the universe attracts every other object along a line of the centers of the objects, proportional to each object's mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects"
Agreed. For our Earth (♁) - Sun (⊙) case Fg=GMM R-2 gives the force between the two bodies. As acceleration equals force over mass then multiplying both sides by M-1 will give the acceleration induced upon ♁. This gravitational acceleration has to be equal to the the centripetal acceleration, v2/r, for ♁ to be in ⊙ orbit. Once again, M is out or the game. This is applies to the center of mass weather it is dispersed in a cloud of debris or condensed into a body.
Edited by lyx2no, : Penultimate paragraph. The last paragraph's just came along for the ride.
Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.
Edited by lyx2no, : Disable Smilies.
Edited by lyx2no, : Save another OT post.
Edited by lyx2no, : M is out of the game, not mass. Stupid Smiles.
Edited by lyx2no, : Multiply by M-1

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 258 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 4:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 5:56 PM lyx2no has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 260 of 327 (506377)
04-25-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by lyx2no
04-25-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
This has the advantage that the mass of the orbiting body was not considered from the jump; meaning, the orbit's radius is not reliant on the orbiter's mass.
I have not seen it re-written with only (M) and not (m), but ok. But note that this is a formula to explain the observed orbiting of the planets, but does not help us in the formation of the orbit. This is out of my level of knowledge and I won't keep pressing further.
The only thing I'll state is that Newton's law of gravitation says that "every object in the universe attracts every other object along a line of the centers of the objects, proportional to each object's mass, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects" - thus my commitment to my original point. I stand corrected, if in fact you are correct.
I live in the town of Bourne. It's not so great. But I'm thinking it's better than where you live.
Depends, do you like dicks or douches? I live in Miami and we have our fair share of both.

"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 259 by lyx2no, posted 04-25-2009 5:06 PM lyx2no has not replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 261 of 327 (506388)
04-25-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by cavediver
04-25-2009 2:23 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
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?
NanoGecko writes:
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
cavediver writes:
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.
You are right here of course, I made the above statement not expecting that any example would be provided, either of the first cells or any descendant that operated with a totally RNA based chemical operating system. After all if the RNA world hypothesis was credible, and against all odds life came into existence in the hostile chemical soup environment proposed by RNA world supporters, though usually this is played down, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that their would be some traces of larger hard descendants of this type of operating system left either in the fossil record or the living world today.
The point is that the hypothetical 'RNA world' initially proposed by Crick is just about dead in the water, (metaphorically speaking), because of the major chemistry hurdles that this hypothesis must explain, which it hasn't, even come close to doing.
Questions like how does each amino acid become activated to enable bonding to other amino acids to form a protein. Where does the hypothetical RNA based living organism get its cellular energy from as obviously ATP and GTP cannot be players at this level. To then just simply say that the fundamental laws of chemistry provide this energy is not understanding the complexity of the situation, even at the pre-supposed "simple cell" level that you are talking about.
cavediver writes:
Watch this video presentation on one hypothetical - but extremely plausible - idea of what was behind abiogenesis:
If you follow the line of reasoning displayed in this video, (which incidentally makes a lot of unsubstantiated and convenient assumptions about chemical conditions on earth in the distant past), then you may as well say crystals that form out of aqueous solution provide an explanation for abio-genesis, which is obviously absurd. This is just another natural selection of the gaps type argument, usually promoted by Darwinian evolutionists that hinges on circular reasoning and really proves nothing about the actual origin of life. The specificity of the chemistry needed to combine the correct amino acids to form the proteins required for life is not addressed. How those proteins acquired the information necessary to reproduce a functioning self replicating organism is not addressed either, this is just smoke and mirrors again. Besides which there are far more ways for complex polymers to break down in a chemically contaminated environment than there are ways for them to form.
You may think that the CDK007 video is plausible, I don't.

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 251 by cavediver, posted 04-25-2009 2:23 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 4:52 AM NanoGecko has replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 262 of 327 (506394)
04-25-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by onifre
04-25-2009 3:48 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Hi onifre, by the way, no I'm not an insurance salesman are you?
onifre writes:
Again, yes, it all seems, for now, to be hospitable for life. But also remember that at one point in the past it was not. In the early proto-planetary formation neither water, oxygen or life were found. Nor was the Earth in this particualr orbit.
Also, a major intersellar event could change all of that.
So too would the Sun's eventual death.
All of this would be part of the "design". You are simply picking a moment in it's history where conscious life has emerged, but this is not the complete history and not the only condition this planet and solar system have experienced.
All of creation displays design, it is profoundly obvious everywhere, whether a person is able to comprehend that fact and see the design really depends on their worldview, nothing more and nothing less.
The tiny number of examples that I provided in relation to the location of Earth within the Solar system will either be recognized as evidence of a designer or regarded as nothing particularly unexpected depending on the philosophical position that the observer takes. It's as simple as that! There really is no point in continuing, because this is where the barrier to understanding each others position lies. And the barrier is philosophic in nature not scientific in nature.
I can say that the likelihood or probability of ALL of the conditions that we find here on Earth that make life possible, to have arisen by sheer random chance AT THE SAME TIME is vanishingly small, to the point that in other fields of science it would be deemed as being so improbable as to be to all intents and purposes impossible,
However,
on the other hand I expect from the position it would appear that you are talking from, you will most likely reply with something along the lines that everything is possible so this massive confluence of favourable conditions had to happen somewhere, and this just happens to be one of those instances. A just so happenstance scenario.
onifre writes:
Because, the point was to show evidence for the designer in the physical evidence. You pointed to these specific conditions being the evidence for the designer, so it follows that opposing conditions would NOT show evidence for the designer. Opposing conditions would be solar systems and planets that don't hold life. These planets and solar systems are, using your logic, not designed.
Maybe take a minute to try and understand what YOU are saying, so you can see how the logic is flawed.
Unless you are saying that everything, no matter what it's conditions are, shows evidence for design. Which is fine. But at that point all of your examples would be moot points since their specifics doesn't really show evidence for design, if every single thing is designed then every single thing shows evidence for design.
Your evidence supports living organisms, not design.
As you would be able to see from my response above, I believe that the evidence for design is profoundly obvious everywhere to a person with a compatible world view, which in my case is Biblical Christianity. Consequence, the logic is coherent!
After all, if the universe and everything in it was created by Jesus Christ as described in the Bible, then it would surely be reasonable to expect that design would be evident.
It is only if you have, for example a prior commitment to a materialist philosophy that precludes by definition any agent of creation outside that materialist philosophy, that you will have a great deal of trouble with my explanation for design and bio-genesis.
So well done onifre!
I think that you at least in principle have a fundamental grasp of where I am coming from, though I fully understand that you cannot understand why I believe that Jesus Christ of the Bible is the Designer and Creator of everything.

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 257 by onifre, posted 04-25-2009 3:48 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 1:09 AM NanoGecko has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 263 of 327 (506398)
04-26-2009 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 11:18 PM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Hi onifre, by the way, no I'm not an insurance salesman are you?
My joke fell short. You don't have the Geico insurance commercials in Australia? Here in the US there's an insurance company who's spokes "person" is a Gecko, from Australia, hence my awful joke...sorry - lol.
All of creation displays design, it is profoundly obvious everywhere, whether a person is able to comprehend that fact and see the design really depends on their worldview, nothing more and nothing less.
I figured that would be your response, which I understand, once you view the evidence with an a priori assumtion that there is a god, then one would be compelled to assume nature displays a design quality.
But the point was to show evidence for design. If you simply say everything is designed, then why bother to pick specifics in nature. Just say "it's all designed because I believe it to be"...which it would then be fair to assume that you are not viewing the evidence objectively as is required by the scientific method.
And the barrier is philosophic in nature not scientific in nature.
Then there is no objective evidence creationist can point to to show what they mean, philosophy and science don't mix in that way.
Philosophical world views are plenty. Why you pick one specific one is beyond my comprehention IF one is being objective about the evidence. Even if nature points to design, that the designer is Jesus specifically does not make sense. Why Jesus? Why not any other god/metaphysical entity that has ever been spoken of?
This assumtion, that Jesus is the dude, is not logically derived at from any objective evidence, can you agree to that?
I can say that the likelihood or probability of ALL of the conditions that we find here on Earth that make life possible, to have arisen by sheer random chance AT THE SAME TIME is vanishingly small, to the point that in other fields of science it would be deemed as being so improbable as to be to all intents and purposes impossible,
However,
on the other hand I expect from the position it would appear that you are talking from, you will most likely reply with something along the lines that everything is possible so this massive confluence of favourable conditions had to happen somewhere, and this just happens to be one of those instances.
Even if it is small it doesn't matter, since life is here. It did arrise from any condition you are speculating was too impossible for it to arrise from. BUT, the point is, given the evidence that has been gathered, does it point to design by a designer, or does it show natural processes. If everything else within the universe, that has been agreed to have arrisen from natural processes, like stars, blackholes, planets, etc, is possible without devine intervention, then why does this particular process, abiogenesis, require a designer, and why do creationist hang on this point in time as their only argument for a designer?
Why not explain how the sun wasn't able to form without devine intervention? Why not explain how Earth couldn't form without devine intervention? Why is it just the cell that you guys seem to get hung-up on? - My thoughts are that this one particular area of science is new, hasn't been fully understood and is a god of the gaps position that you have a while with to present your incredulous opinions, what do you think?
After all, if the universe and everything in it was created by Jesus Christ as described in the Bible, then it would surely be reasonable to expect that design would be evident.
Equally, if the universe was designed by Zues, Allah or Vishnu, it would also be evident...why Jesus? What evidence in nature do you see that specifically points to Jesus? Or, do you just believe in Jesus, the Bible and ergo the stories presented in the Bible? If this is why, then you have an a priori assumtion, and not objectively derived at proof for anything.
It is only if you have, for example a prior commitment to a materialist philosophy that precludes by definition any agent of creation outside that materialist philosophy, that you will have a great deal of trouble with my explanation for design and bio-genesis.
We are born not knowing anything about a creator, you are indoctrinated into these philosophies. Whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, Janism, etc...non-materialistic philosophies are derived at from a faith based belief system, and not from objectively viewing the evidence. What nature seems to look like isn't always the correct answer to what is actually happening. Think solar eclipses 2000 years ago. Human assumtion was way wrong about what was happening in space with the sun and the moon, yet people were steadfast in their position about what a solar eclipse was and how it came came to be.
So well done onifre!
I think that you at least in principle have a fundamental grasp of where I am coming from, though I fully understand that you cannot understand why I believe that Jesus Christ of the Bible is the Designer and Creator of everything.
If you know and understand the counter positions to your arguments so well then I can only assume that nothing is going to be presented to you that you have not already heard, and rejected.
You are right, I don't understand how you arrive at Jesus, or how anyone arrives at their beliefs in any other deities existance.
I was hoping you could shead more light as to how, using objective evidence that we can all agree on, the universe and everything in it show purpose and design, and now due to your belief, how it is Jesus and not any other deity. If you cannot show evidence that anyone with any world view can agree upon then you have not done a good job at explaining your position. Likewise, if it was up to me to show anyone of any world view how stars form, there would be no shortage of physical, objective evidence that I could point to that everyone would agree on. Like what Galileo did with planetery orbits - or Kepler if you want to get technical.
They presented their evidence to people with a different world view and changed everyones mind. Why can't you do the same? Why does your world view not disagree with Galileo? Why does your world view, in the case of "living" cells, come into play, but not with planetery orbits? Is it because everyone now agrees upon it? Where will your argument go when abiogenesis is fully understood?
If you limit yourself to your specific world view then you will fall victim to the illogical reasoning that people who disagree with Galileo used, and were shown was wrong. Just food for thought in this final point.
*Note, if you do not wish to continue the discussion because you feel we'll just talk circles around each other then cool.
- Oni
Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling of Geico.

"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 262 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 11:18 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 4:25 AM onifre has replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 264 of 327 (506402)
04-26-2009 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 8:37 AM


The Central Point
NanoGecko writes:
The point of the examples that I chose is that the sheer time required for a cell to complete vital reactions for it's survival are far too great without the enzymes being in existence to speed things up to a massive degree!
The point you are making, realize it or not, is that such enzymes are irreducibly complex, and the point I am making is that neither you, nor Behe, nor all the citations you have brought up provide direct evidence that any enzyme is irreducibly complex. In fact, I believe that it has been shown in cases such as Dover where the bacterial flagellum was asserted to have the quality of irreducible complexity, it was shown upon examination that it failed as an example. Additionally each enzyme, or structure such as the eye, or process such as hemoglobin carrying oxygen, which Behe asserted to be irreducibly complex, has been shown upon examination, to be false.
It is really that simple.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 8:37 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 6:34 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 11:56 AM anglagard has not replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 265 of 327 (506413)
04-26-2009 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by onifre
04-26-2009 1:09 AM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
onifre writes:
I figured that would be your response, which I understand, once you view the evidence with an a priori assumtion that there is a god, then one would be compelled to assume nature displays a design quality.
Well I'm glad that we agree on that!
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.
onifre writes:
Even if it is small it doesn't matter, since life is here.
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.
onifre writes:
It did arrise from any condition you are speculating was too impossible for it to arrise from. BUT, the point is, given the evidence that has been gathered, does it point to design by a designer, or does it show natural processes. If everything else within the universe, that has been agreed to have arrisen from natural processes, like stars, blackholes, planets, etc, is possible without devine intervention, then why does this particular process, abiogenesis, require a designer, and why do creationist hang on this point in time as their only argument for a designer?
I don't recall ever saying to anyone that it is only biogenesis that was created out of nothing by the action of God.
I do recall stating that I believe that ALL of creation ie. EVERYTHING and that includes Black Holes etc. was created by the action of God. Now I would have to consider myself a Creationist, no doubt about it! So why do you make this baseless accusation that Creationists hang on this point as their only argument for a designer.
Surely the very short list that I posted last night (Australian time), that listed for example that the distances between some bodies in our Solar system as evidence of design. I could add to that list for hours, take the distance between the Earth and the Moon as another evidence of brilliant mathematical balance and design, which also provides a multitude of benefits for life on this planet, both in a biological sense and in a practical sense for things such as tidal movements of the oceans to name just one. This also raises the point of multiple design facets of the created objects of the universe, the design that I see as being so evident, also has multiple applications that make the likelihood of them arising by chance even more minuscule. The fact that the design factors often cross a broad range of unrelated applications is further evidence.
onifre writes:
Why not explain how the sun wasn't able to form without devine intervention? Why not explain how Earth couldn't form without devine intervention? Why is it just the cell that you guys seem to get hung-up on? - My thoughts are that this one particular area of science is new, hasn't been fully understood and is a god of the gaps position that you have a while with to present your incredulous opinions, what do you think?
I think that you have completely missed the point again.
Oh and the Cell is just one tiny area, (excuse the pun), that could be looked at with regard to design.
The fact that we are thinking humans beings discussing this subject whilst we live on this little planet tends to assist the discussion into the area of Biology to look at some big questions of all time like; How did life begin?
I think that this is because it is an area that we both physically can relate to, there is plenty of living organic material around to look at for real scientific study, and there is an enormous amount of real quantifiable information stored in every biological organism that isn't found in rocks or within material of a non living origin.
In stark contrast it is very difficult for your average researcher to study a black hole, likewise the Sun or other stars, galaxies etc.
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. 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.
So contrary to your assertion that I present a "god of the gaps position" rather I would respond to you that as more is known about the amazing complexities of life, our understanding of the amazing design features and built in redundancy protections push the equation in the other direction. I put it to you that the sheer quantity of design features, engineering principles, exquisite uses of the laws of nature and comprehensive back up systems that are only recently being discovered make it harder to swallow the same old Darwinian story as each year goes by.
As an example of the Laws of nature such as those that govern van der Waals (vdW) forces that allow Geckos to run across ceilings without falling to the ground.
See:- Just a moment... for Evidence for vdW in Gecko setae
The authors are evolutionists, but the facts are still the facts, it's just the interpretation that differs.
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 263 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 1:09 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 5:08 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 281 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 12:06 PM NanoGecko has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 266 of 327 (506415)
04-26-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 10:01 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that their would be some traces of larger hard descendants of this type of operating system left either in the fossil record or the living world today.
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...
To then just simply say that the fundamental laws of chemistry provide this energy is not understanding the complexity of the situation
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.
Much as I hate Wiki, here's the closing paragraph of the RNA World article:
quote:
In 2001, the RNA world hypothesis was given a major boost with the deciphering of the 3-dimensional structure of the ribosome, which revealed the key catalytic sites of ribosomes to be composed of RNA and for the proteins to hold no major structural role, and be of peripheral functional importance. Specifically, the formation of the peptide bond, the reaction that binds amino acids together into proteins, is now known to be catalyzed by an adenine residue in the rRNA: the ribosome is a ribozyme. This finding suggests that RNA molecules were most likely capable of generating the first proteins. Other interesting discoveries demonstrating a role for RNA beyond a simple message or transfer molecule include the importance of small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (SnRNPs) in the processing of pre-mRNA and RNA editing and reverse transcription from RNA in Eukaryotes in the maintenance of telomeres in the telomerase reaction.
Yep, really reads at the level of "the fundamental laws of chemistry provide this energy"
...is not understanding the complexity of the situation...
is you in a nutshell.
The point is that the hypothetical 'RNA world' initially proposed by Crick is just about dead in the water
Not looking so dead, is it?
Now, regarding CDK007:
which incidentally makes a lot of unsubstantiated and convenient assumptions about chemical conditions on earth in the distant past
Please list them
then you may as well say crystals that form out of aqueous solution provide an explanation for abio-genesis
Yes, becasue that is definitely of the level of details and explanation displayed in the video Please justify your comment
This is just another natural selection of the gaps type argument, usually promoted by Darwinian evolutionists that hinges on circular reasoning
What circular reasoning
The specificity of the chemistry needed to combine the correct amino acids to form the proteins required for life is not addressed.
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.
How those proteins acquired the information necessary to reproduce a functioning self replicating organism is not addressed either
Err, I think we saw in the video how we can get self-replicating organisms without any proteins and without any "information" being "aquired". And then we saw how random protein production coupled with selection could improve the process. And that is all we need. Sorry, designer simply not required - not at this stage at any rate. But I'm sure you'll find something else for him to do.
You may think that the CDK007 video is plausible, I don't.
Given the level of scientific knowledge you have demonstrated here, I would say that is one in the bag for CDK007.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 10:01 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 7:55 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 267 of 327 (506416)
04-26-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 4:25 AM


Re: Non-physical God - with non-physical evidence
Surely the very short list that I posted last night (Australian time), that listed for example that the distances between some bodies in our Solar system as evidence of design. I could add to that list for hours, take the distance between the Earth and the Moon as another evidence of brilliant mathematical balance and design, which also provides a multitude of benefits for life on this planet, both in a biological sense and in a practical sense for things such as tidal movements of the oceans to name just one.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 4:25 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 8:51 AM cavediver has replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 268 of 327 (506420)
04-26-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by anglagard
04-26-2009 1:44 AM


Re: The Central Point
anglagard writes:
The point you are making, realize it or not, is that such enzymes are irreducibly complex, and the point I am making is that neither you, nor Behe, nor all the citations you have brought up provide direct evidence that any enzyme is irreducibly complex. In fact, I believe that it has been shown in cases such as Dover where the bacterial flagellum was asserted to have the quality of irreducible complexity, it was shown upon examination that it failed as an example. Additionally each enzyme, or structure such as the eye, or process such as hemoglobin carrying oxygen, which Behe asserted to be irreducibly complex, has been shown upon examination, to be false. It is really that simple.
It would appear to be you who has failed to recognize the situation as it stands.
The point that I am making is not one of irreducible complexity.
It is really just an issue of time which brings strongly into play entropy that would work against enzyme complexity if any examples could be provided that substantiate the view that the enzymes are the end product of a gradual increase in information, which is what your a priori belief system demands if I have correctly perceived the place that you are coming from.
Biophysicist Dr L Spetner from Johns Hopkins University supports the concept that increasing complexity is not shown to occur.
Or as you have brought Behe into the debate then have a look at Behe's work on Plasmodium falciparum (in his book,'The Edge of evolution') mutating for anti-biotic resistance, and humans mutating to reduce susceptibility to this parasite, the salient point being that these examples are brought about by a net loss of complexity and prescriptive information in both species though to a lesser degree in the human population. So again as is usually the case, a loss of information and complexity has in fact provided a situation that is naturally selected as beneficial to each organism from environmental pressure. This is all heading in the wrong direction for Darwinian Evolution.

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 264 by anglagard, posted 04-26-2009 1:44 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by cavediver, posted 04-26-2009 6:45 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 273 by Coyote, posted 04-26-2009 8:20 AM NanoGecko has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 269 of 327 (506421)
04-26-2009 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 6:34 AM


Re: The Central Point
...a loss of information and complexity has in fact provided a situation that is naturally selected as beneficial to each organism from environmental pressure. This is all heading in the wrong direction for Darwinian Evolution.
I'm sorry? Wrong "direction"? What "direction" is there in Darwinian Eviolution other than local fitting to the local environment? You surely can't be arguing that "complexity" is some sort of "goal" for evolution, can you? I think you need to learn a bit about evolution before you sound so sure of yourself and your quotations...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 6:34 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 11:08 AM cavediver has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 270 of 327 (506423)
04-26-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by NanoGecko
04-25-2009 1:54 PM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Nano writes:
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.
Nothing in science is 100% "proven", whatever "proven" really means. Science is not religion with its concrete yet unverifiable absolutes. What science does cover are possible and plausible explanations of how natural phenomena such as life can occur.
Nano writes:
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.
Sure there is. Is the DNA sequence the same in a human as it is in a chimpanzee much less bacteria? There is a wide range of complexity and function of these organic molecules. The DNA in modern day bacteria are usually short circular sequences as opposed to the longer and linear strands found in eukaryotic cells. As one looks at the differences in the genomes of complex organisms such as humans to simpler genomes such as bacteria once can see somewhat of a progression of complexity of the genome. This is not a straightforward analogy though since bacteria have evolved lock step with the more complex eukaryotic organisms and thus there genomes have become more robust and complex as well.
Also your claim that there is no reason to believe that earlier life used different processes for building DNA/RNA, I believe is flawed. Here is an article which states that the synthesis process for one of the four nucleotides of DNA is different in bacteria and virus than it is in the rest of living organisms. In fact it outlines the process of synthesizing the intermediate structure deoxy-uridine monophosphate (mentioned in the article you posted earlier) using a much simpler transfer of a proton and two electrons (hydride) versus involving an amino acid via way of the TS enzyme used in more complex life. As shown here:
Scientists discover new chemical reaction for DNA production in bacteria and viruses
Unfortunately, you are so adamant about proving intelligent design correct that you have not done your background research to see if the ID articles you are quoting from are even keeping up with the latest scientific research much less correct in any degree. Keep trying though
Like Percy mentioned earlier, It would be nice to have conclusive evidence exactly how life originated and evolved to more complex DNA based life but science only has to determine if there are possible ways in which cellular life (and all of its component parts) could have originated to nullify ID's claim that there are certain parts of cellular life that are "irreducibility complex" and thus that an intelligent designer is necessary.
To be continued...

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 248 by NanoGecko, posted 04-25-2009 1:54 PM NanoGecko 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