|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 01/04/2003 : 21:52:10 [Permalink]
|
| Question regarding this award. If someone is to come up with the formula for the Origin of Life, wouldn't that imply that it took intelligence to figure out the formula which does not seem to be reoccurring in nature since the "Origin"? All creation of new life that we are aware of is a result of some type of procreation or dividing of existing life forms. The very fact that it is not reoccurring and that we cannot duplicate it is evidence that the design and designer was far more intelligent than we. The fact that the ability to procreate is given to living things is in itself a sign of complexity of design and therefore has the signature of intelligent design. If this were not true, all life that was chaoticly begun without the inbuilt design and ability of procreation, would have ceased after a short existence according to the laws of thermodynamics. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2003 : 22:11:09 [Permalink]
|
I think it is a presumption to believe that that the simplest of life forms (according to natural evolution theory)would automatically have the ability to reproduce as part of being alive. A living thing can exist, grow, feed, etc. without the ability to reproduce. Consider all species that that require a male and female counterpart. They are alive in and of themselves, yet without the existance of their respective counterpart and purposeful directive to copulate, they would cease to exist. Would it be safe to say that both the female and male of a species would have had to evolve at exactly the same time in order for the species to continue?
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 01:23:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Question regarding this award. If someone is to come up with the formula for the Origin of Life, wouldn't that imply that it took intelligence to figure out the formula which does not seem to be reoccurring in nature since the "Origin"?
I imagine so.
quote:
All creation of new life that we are aware of is a result of some type of procreation or dividing of existing life forms. The very fact that it is not reoccurring and that we cannot duplicate it is evidence that the design and designer was far more intelligent than we.
Question begging is so unbecoming.
quote:
The fact that the ability to procreate is given to living things is in itself a sign of complexity of design and therefore has the signature of intelligent design.
"Ability to procreate is given to living things"?? Do you mean replication? Because if you do, I can show you things that replicate that are not alive by most definitions.
quote:
If this were not true, all life that was chaoticly begun without the inbuilt design and ability of procreation, would have ceased after a short existence according to the laws of thermodynamics.
I'll say this once, and hope to Cthulu you don't bring it up again. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply universally to a system, like the earth, wherein an outside energy source, like the sun, provides a means by which local entropy can be overcome. Period. End of story. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 01:33:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I think it is a presumption to believe that that the simplest of life forms (according to natural evolution theory)would automatically have the ability to reproduce as part of being alive.
Good thing I don't presume this "automatically."
quote:
A living thing can exist, grow, feed, etc. without the ability to reproduce.
Good thing the living things that were ancestral to all life weren't like this.
quote:
Consider all species that that require a male and female counterpart. They are alive in and of themselves, yet without the existance of their respective counterpart and purposeful directive to copulate, they would cease to exist.
Good thing males and females co-evolved. There's literally tons of online material; check it out (have Adobe Acrobat ready):http://www.math.wm.edu/~smains/pekalski.pdf
quote:
Would it be safe to say that both the female and male of a species would have had to evolve at exactly the same time in order for the species to continue?
Sure, but it doesn't carry the implication you think it does.
quote:
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
Yes.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 04:12:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
I would think this is what's called common knowledge and does not take a biologist to know about.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 04:14:35 [Permalink]
|
I believe the logic behind the ID argument is porous. The original goes something like this.... This argument, when gussied up so that it is not circular, is best understood as having three parts.
Part one: For the existence of a designer of the universe.
P1. The universe is like a giant machine; each of its parts is like a lesser machine.
P2. Machines are due to intelligence(directed consciousness).
P3. Similar effects have similar causes.
-The universe is due to intelligence.
-There is an intelligent designer.
Part two: the argument for a supernatural designer.
P1. The universe has an intelligent designer (above conclusion).
P2. No human could make even a rock, let alone an eye or the eco-system.
-The designer is greater than any human, ie, it is superhuman.
(For all this argument asserts, this being could be an evil demon.)
Part 3: The argument for a perfect designer, viz., God.
P1. The universe has a supernatural designer.(above conclusion).
P2. The universe appears to be infinite and its parts appear to be perfectly ordered.
P3. The greater the artifact the greater must be the artificer.
-The supernatural designer must be infinite and perfect, ie., it must be God.
God exists....
Porous?
Or can one see God as ascending logic and fill in the gaps? |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 08:00:22 [Permalink]
|
@ Fireball: I've heard that argument "universe must be designed by intelligence" several times before and it is worth nothing.
If universe was a "gigantic machine, perfectly build by god" then why is there only one inhabited planet in the solar system? Only one solar system at all within the next 40 light years? A perfectly done universe would be filled with life all over.
And since God created what we call natural laws he could also have invented an earth without all that superficial universe-stuff around it. |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
| Edited by - riptor on 01/05/2003 08:03:05 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 08:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
DA, I already know what Dembski thinks. Tell me what you think. ID is a seriously fragmented notion: all these guys you quote ad nauseam don't always share the same idea of what ID entails.
Uh Me thinks I already have or else what are we doing at this thread? Think about it .ID is a seriously fragmented notion: all these guys you quote ad nauseam don't always share the same idea of what ID entails. So are you telling us that there are no disagreements between Evolutionist??? Whats with "all these guys you[me DA] quote ad nauseam...."First I only "quoted" ONE ID proponent,Dembski,the others are your guys(the one from the NY Times is from a cite YOU recommended on another thread).Second, If you don't like what your guys are saying then take it up with them.  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 09:08:36 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
Finally, I would direct your attention to the consistent unwillingness of ID proponents to attempt to explain structures and mechanisms that have rock-solid evolutionary explanations already in place. Witness ConsequentAtheist's wonderful observation here.
You are joking right? Your basing your case for Evolution because CA scared his grandson? |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 09:55:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
Phd: DA, I already know what Dembski thinks. Tell me what you think. ID is a seriously fragmented notion: all these guys you quote ad nauseam don't always share the same idea of what ID entails. Uh Me thinks I already have or else what are we doing at this thread? Think about it.
No, you haven't. For instance, I don't know if you think ID is:
1. An indicator that certain irreducibly complex structures within living things were created or manipulated by a greater intelligence within the larger framework of evolution.
2. An indicator that the human being was designed and created from whole cloth; a vehicle for special creation.
3. Something else.
quote:
ID is a seriously fragmented notion: all these guys you quote ad nauseam don't always share the same idea of what ID entails. So are you telling us that there are no disagreements between Evolutionist???
The fundamentals are undisputed. I know of no "evolutionists" who do not think genes can undergo beneficial or neutral mutations. I know of no "evolutionists" who do not think such mutations can confer varying rates of reproductive success.
quote:
Whats with "all these guys you[me DA] quote ad nauseam...."First I only "quoted" ONE ID proponent,Dembski,the others are your guys(the one from the NY Times is from a cite YOU recommended on another thread).Second, If you don't like what your guys are saying then take it up with them.
I do not recall citing anything from the NY Times. I don't even have a membership.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 10:45:04 [Permalink]
|
I'll say this once, and hope to Cthulu you don't bring it up again. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply universally to a system, like the earth, wherein an outside energy source, like the sun, provides a means by which local entropy can be overcome. Period. End of story.
So then I should discard this law? Do you have a proof paper of this new revelation? I'd like to see it. Remember, a postulation of this probability is insufficient to discount a law of nature proven through science.
It seems to me that the Sun is one of the very facets in nature that affects the 2nd Law. After rereading these laws, they, indeed include the entire universe. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/05/2003 11:11:47 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 10:46:53 [Permalink]
|
P.D restated and replied:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
Okay. Let's have it....link or something? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 11:33:20 [Permalink]
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said:
Consider all species that require a male and female counterpart. They are alive in and of themselves, yet without the existance of their respective counterpart and purposeful directive to copulate, they would cease to exist.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reply:
Good thing males and females co-evolved. There's literally tons of online material; check it out (have Adobe Acrobat ready):http://www.math.wm.edu/~smains/pekalski.pdf
The point of the matter is that evolutionists have no explanation of why this happened or why there is Asexual Reproduction and Sexual Reproduction. They just see that there is. They have absolutely no idea why, yet presume this doesn't matter in their theory when, in fact, such explanation is crucial in understanding the Origin of the species. The paper at the link you gave admitted this on page one. The extreme complexity of reproduction is discussed without thought to how such intricate design could have begun "by accident". It is the deletion of this very thought in the minds of evolutionists that amazes me. Claiming to be scientists, they make huge presumptions at the beginning of their theory that are never explained. And thus, evolutionism is falling into disrepute as more and more scientific evidence contradicting it appears every year. It is a belief system, more than a scientific hypothesis. As a hypothesis, the evidence has disproven its value years ago. The failure to discover the so called "missing links" and the discovery by modern science of the faults of previous link relics seems to have little effect on the believers. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/05/2003 11:35:51 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 12:24:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doormar:
And thus, evolutionism is falling into disrepute as more and more scientific evidence contradicting it appears every year. It is a belief system, more than a scientific hypothesis. As a hypothesis, the evidence has disproven its value years ago. The failure to discover the so called "missing links" and the discovery by modern science of the faults of previous link relics seems to have little effect on the believers.
You know why I don't get involved with these arguments anymore? The above statement sums it up for me. No matter how much evidence you show these guys, they fall back on the same clichés gleaned from ICR publications or such. The good news is the crap spouted above comes from a small group of fundamentalists that no light will ever reach. The bad news is they are very vocal about their objections to evolution and they have to be fought in the public arena (schools) all the time.
What really gets me is how they think that ID or Scientific Creationism (the supernatural) would be the default winner if the theory of evolution ever fell. It wouldn't be. The winner would be an equally naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life. These guys bore the crap out of me and I am tired of pissing into their wind....
Have fun.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 13:28:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
P.D restated and replied:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
Okay. Let's have it....link or something?
And how about the above Kil? Creationists expect us to dig up proof they should have picked up as freshmen in high school. Information that is easily obtainable and when it's something so basic like this I just scratch my head because really...anyone older than 15 or 16 sgould know this or be in high school learning it.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
