It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does hydrogen turn into people?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
lol how ridiculous, god cant be proven, hydrogen can, so its more likely??? that is hilarious, bananas can be proven, so that makes it more likely to have created us than god, right? enough said




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Ok...

So, we can prove that hydrogen can be used to assemble other atoms, which can lead to molecules that lead to bigger molecules and so on, but it's crap to believe in evolution? But, we have no proof that a person can be made out of dirt, yet we are supposed to believe that?

I hear people say evolution is wrong because something alive came from something dead. Isn't that precisely what creationism says? Oh, right, you have the creator who was always there that can do this stuff. Gotcha.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boniouk06
lol how ridiculous, god cant be proven, hydrogen can, so its more likely??? that is hilarious, bananas can be proven, so that makes it more likely to have created us than god, right? enough said


but you would have people believe that there is this huge male guy somewhere, who is supposed to be everywhere all at once, who created a man from dust and a woman from 1 of his ribs. your only 'proof' of 'his' existance is a very contradictory collection of short stories, which read more like a horror story in places, and ignore you every other book written before it. you offer no proof whatsoever that 'he' exists and expect people to believe 'he' does based on 'faith'. thats not even funny, its insane!

so go ahead and laugh if it amuses you. by the way, how's the tooth fairy doing?



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
A strand of DNA by itself isn't alive in the same sense we are. It's a mass of chemical's. It's only after conception that two parent's DNA strands come together in a bio-chemical reaction that the strand of DNA starts producing the necessary protiens and amino acid's that bring forth the needed cell's for life. So in a sense, higher life forms do come from non living matter. Science has already shown that these very same chemical's exist in abundance through out the universe. Even in our own solar system. On astroid's, comet's, nebula. Those who don't adhere to evolution are the one's who don't even understand it, yet they'll accept one aspect of it, that of adaptation, but they forget or don't realize that adaptation IS a proccess of evolutionary advancment. The formation of the first chemicals isn't necessarily evolution in and of itself, evolution is what happened after those first strands of RNA and DNA started to reproduce and change in it's initial enviroment.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
A strand of DNA by itself isn't alive in the same sense we are. It's a mass of chemical's. It's only after conception that two parent's DNA strands come together in a bio-chemical reaction that the strand of DNA starts producing the necessary protiens and amino acid's that bring forth the needed cell's for life. So in a sense, higher life forms do come from non living matter.

Baloney. Biological polymers exist in a single context only... in the presence of biological organisms. DNA is a product ONLY of biological organisms. There is no known instance in nature of DNA POLYMERS occuring outside of biological organisms.


Science has already shown that these very same chemical's exist in abundance through out the universe. Even in our own solar system. On astroid's, comet's, nebula.

Baloney. Science has shown nothing of the sort. Science has shown that the RAW MATERIALS for biological polymer formation exist in the solar system. But so what. There are no instances of DNA strands coming together spontaneously. The formation of biological polymers occurs in nature ONLY in the presence of enzymes. The formation of biological polymers spontaneously, without enzymes is inhibited by both entropic and enthalpic considerations.


Those who don't adhere to evolution are the one's who don't even understand it, yet they'll accept one aspect of it, that of adaptation, but they forget or don't realize that adaptation IS a proccess of evolutionary advancment.

BS times 3. I know more about evolutionary theory than you will ever know. Don't believe me... let's have at it.


The formation of the first chemicals isn't necessarily evolution in and of itself, evolution is what happened after those first strands of RNA and DNA started to reproduce and change in it's initial enviroment.


This statement clearly demonstrates that you've never even read an paper that's supportive of the 'RNA world' hypothesis. DNA and RNA strands don't produce spontaneously in nature... even Orgel and his cronies have only been able to synthesize maybe 10 or 20 mer's under even the best and most accomodating, and most importantly extremely artificial of laboratory conditions. If you were familiar with these experiments you'd never have posted this. This is not what these experiments show at all.

Your move.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
This thread reminds me of something I read once. In Hinduism, the story of creation according to the sage Manu describes the creation of the universe through the compilation of minute particles. Manu's Dharmashastra describes elementary particles as well as anyone could at this point in history, and uses it to describe how 'God' used them to create the universe.

Edit: Pay attention to parts 16-20 of chapter 1.


[edit on 1-3-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   


Baloney. Biological polymers exist in a single context only... in the presence of biological organisms. DNA is a product ONLY of biological organisms. There is no known instance in nature of DNA POLYMERS occuring outside of biological organisms.


So, your saying the cell came first then the DNA, which after then, the DNA then started to create the cells? DNA does exist outside of biological cells. They're called virus's.




Baloney. Science has shown nothing of the sort. Science has shown that the RAW MATERIALS for biological polymer formation exist in the solar system. But so what. There are no instances of DNA strands coming together spontaneously. The formation of biological polymers occurs in nature ONLY in the presence of enzymes. The formation of biological polymers spontaneously, without enzymes is inhibited by both entropic and enthalpic considerations.


www.newscientist.com...




BS times 3. I know more about evolutionary theory than you will ever know. Don't believe me... let's have at it.


1) The change in life over time by adaptation, variation, over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. 2) Descent with modification.




This statement clearly demonstrates that you've never even read an paper that's supportive of the 'RNA world' hypothesis. DNA and RNA strands don't produce spontaneously in nature... even Orgel and his cronies have only been able to synthesize maybe 10 or 20 mer's under even the best and most accomodating, and most importantly extremely artificial of laboratory conditions. If you were familiar with these experiments you'd never have posted this. This is not what these experiments show at all.


I've read about the 'RNA world' hypothesis, and your right, no experiment has seen RNA or DNA spontaneously appear. Then again, the experiment's are flawed as the exact condition's of pre-biotic earth aren't fully known as of yet. But stating that evolution doesn't deal with that particular aspect of life's origin's doesn't demonstrate my knowledge or lack of in that theory. Both are two seperate theories.

Why such hostility? Doesn't seem very ... christian. Or is it? *checks history books*



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
So, your saying the cell came first then the DNA, which after then, the DNA then started to create the cells? DNA does exist outside of biological cells. They're called virus's.

Not saying anything like that. I am saying that DNA doesn't exist outside of biological organisms. Viruses are included, loosely in this case, as 'biological organisms.' I never said 'biological cells;' don't misquote me.




Baloney. Science has shown nothing of the sort. Science has shown that the RAW MATERIALS for biological polymer formation exist in the solar system. But so what. There are no instances of DNA strands coming together spontaneously. The formation of biological polymers occurs in nature ONLY in the presence of enzymes. The formation of biological polymers spontaneously, without enzymes is inhibited by both entropic and enthalpic considerations.



www.newscientist.com...

Ummm... yeah amino acids = raw materials. Amino acids are not proteins, they are the raw materials of proteins as my original statement clearly indicates.



BS times 3. I know more about evolutionary theory than you will ever know. Don't believe me... let's have at it.



1) The change in life over time by adaptation, variation, over-reproduction, and differential survival/reproduction, a process referred to by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace as natural selection. 2) Descent with modification.



My gosh... geez... you're right, you DO know a lot about evolution. You can define it and everything.


Can I back out now before things get too intense?




This statement clearly demonstrates that you've never even read an paper that's supportive of the 'RNA world' hypothesis. DNA and RNA strands don't produce spontaneously in nature... even Orgel and his cronies have only been able to synthesize maybe 10 or 20 mer's under even the best and most accomodating, and most importantly extremely artificial of laboratory conditions. If you were familiar with these experiments you'd never have posted this. This is not what these experiments show at all.



I've read about the 'RNA world' hypothesis, and your right, no experiment has seen RNA or DNA spontaneously appear.

So you know that this isn't entirely relevant... certainly in the context that you've posted it, but you went ahead and posted it anyway...

What gives? A little misinformation to support your position, perhaps? Please explain.


Then again, the experiment's are flawed as the exact condition's of pre-biotic earth aren't fully known as of yet.

The experiments are flawed for a number of reasons besides this, including stereochemically, molarity-wise, etc. The conditions aren't really relevant anyway... if you can show that biological polymers can spontaneously form under ANY conditions, it would be a huge step forward for abiogenesis theories.


But stating that evolution doesn't deal with that particular aspect of life's origin's doesn't demonstrate my knowledge or lack of in that theory. Both are two seperate theories.

You brought it up, not me.

And I disagree with you. Evolutionary theory and the theory of abiogenesis are effectively married via the theory of common descent. Abiogenesis theory exists only as a function of extrapolation of the theory of common descent back to the original common ancestor.

Claiming that evolutionary theory and abiogenesis as origins theories are separate is disingenuous. The theory of common descent doesn't exist without abiogenesis... as long as you operate within the realm of metaphysical naturalism that is. What do you think the trunk in those evolutionary trees represents?


Why such hostility? Doesn't seem very ... christian. Or is it? *checks history books*

Hostility?... please. You've not seen me hostile. But it DOES tend to make me annoyed when speak authoritatively about a topic but flagrantly misrepresent the information.

Nice try on the Christian thing... not a Christian though.... probably more of a heathen than you are.

Then again I could ask you the same thing... your entire purpose on ATS appears to be bashing people who have different beliefs than you. Did you have a bad experience in church or something?


I mean hey, it's a free world, make fun of whomever you choose, but don't expect to earn a lot of respect for it. Furthermore... don't expect any sympathy when the heat gets turned back on you.

How old are you... my guess is 25 tops.... I could be wrong. There was a time when I thought I knew everything too.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Look at you, mattison.

You get on here and talk about how evolution can't work because of this and how it's wrong because of that. You say ID works better, but you never post any evidence of this. All you or Rren post is somebody talking about how this is too complex to have formed the way evolution states.

Where are the experiments? You agree that "microevolution" has been experimentally determined, but when has IC been experimentally determined? How does ID account for the creation of proteins from AAs and nucleic acids from nucleotides? Oh, I forgot, you don't have to explain that with ID
. At least evolution supporters are trying to replicate the process.

All the ID people do is sit there and criticize evolution while babbling about IC and stuff. No peer reviewed papers for ID, no experiments for ID, but it's so much better than evolution. Even if evolution is totally wrong, how does that prove ID is right?

I invite you to post some comments in the "Which Theory Will be Next?" thread that I made. I'd love to hear from an ID supporter in this thread...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Not saying anything like that. I am saying that DNA doesn't exist outside of biological organisms. Viruses are included, loosely in this case, as 'biological organisms.' I never said 'biological cells;' don't misquote me.


DNA is biological in nature. It's not alive though by itself. Viruses are not living orginism's. Just some DNA covered with abit of protiens. So, DNA does exist outside of biological ORGINISMS. Orginism's being, living cells.




Ummm... yeah amino acids = raw materials. Amino acids are not proteins, they are the raw materials of proteins as my original statement clearly indicates.


www.spaceref.com...

They may not have found actual protien's as of yet, but just by finding the very thing's needed does strongly imply that all the needed materials for life are not that uncommon in our universe. You can scoff all you want, but we are finding this stuff just about everywhere now.





My gosh... geez... you're right, you DO know a lot about evolution. You can define it and everything.


Just restating that adaptation is a process of evolution. Tis all





So you know that this isn't entirely relevant... certainly in the context that you've posted it, but you went ahead and posted it anyway...


We can and have created the needed chemical's for life. No, we have'nt created the necessary condition's for the interactions required for life, but this doesn't rule out the possibility of these interaction's occuring under the correct circumstance's.




The experiments are flawed for a number of reasons besides this, including stereochemically, molarity-wise, etc. The conditions aren't really relevant anyway... if you can show that biological polymers can spontaneously form under ANY conditions, it would be a huge step forward for abiogenesis theories.


Under ANY conditions? And you claim to know this stuff ...
Science isn't god you know. We can't magicly allow protien's to exist in solution's where they wouldn't normally exist.




Truthseeka does have a rather good point. You do go on and on and on and on (think energizer bunny here) about ITD and all it's wonder's, yet ... nothing to show? Where's the experiment's for how life CAN NOT occur naturally on it's own and REQUIRE'S a creator? Why does IDT need to attack thing's science just hasn't discovered or fully explain yet? See, the thing with science is, WE DON'T KNOW. We may never have all the answer's, but the answer's we do get, we can apply to everyday thing's. Create new technologies, new medicine's etc. Now ... that's a big one up for scientific method's if you ask me. But ... what does the belief in a god bring us? So far ... holy war's, intollerance for another's belief's, ignorance etc. You may not be christian, but you do adhere to the belief in a diety of some sort's creating the universe and life within it right? You may not choose to follow a particular religous belief system, but in a way, IDT should be treated as a new religion, especially if the IDT crowd want's to work around thing's without mentioning god himself. IDT is nothing more then plain old creationism. Always has been, admitted by the very founder himself. Document's found proving IDT was created SOLEY to undermine our public schools and get a form of creationism taught to young children. I can send you a link to the document if you'd like.


And no, no bad church experience's. Just abit tired of having god shoved down my throat. Tired of the absolute truth's when they themselve's don't even have any verifiable proof in what they have faith in.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Look at you, mattison.

Yay! Look at meeeeeeee!!!!!!


You get on here and talk about how evolution can't work because of this and how it's wrong because of that. You say ID works better, but you never post any evidence of this.

Baloney. Please point out where I say 'evolution can't work, and ID works better.' I don't do this. All I've ever done is stop people like you from misrepresenting and otherwise overstating evidence that you quite obviously don't understand. I've never posted a single thing I can't back up.

Interestingly enough, it's YOU who run from any conversation we've ever had, not me.


All you or Rren post is somebody talking about how this is too complex to have formed the way evolution states.

Rren isn't here, so let's not drag him into the ridiculousness that this thread has de-evolved into.

The fact of the matter is that you don't know enough about IDT or Evolutionary theory to have a reasonable discussion about either. I know it's nice to be spoonfed information from websites that support your beliefs, but truthseeka (
), and we've discussed this before, you really ought try reading primary evidence with an open mind and see where it takes you.

With respect to discussing the evidence: Take your best shot, buddy... I'm here.


Where are the experiments? You agree that "microevolution" has been experimentally determined, but when has IC been experimentally determined?

IC isn't 'experimentally determined,' it's a hypothesis that one begins from. I know we've discussed this before... perhaps your short term memory isn't what it should be.

IDT is a new and highly contested theory. It could be some time before the data is in the books.... that's how new theories work. NS wasn't supported the day Darwin released his book. I know that TV and Video Games has made your generation impatient, but you'll just have to wait...

If you want to talk papers that aren't from a Design perspective, but seem to support design, well plenty of those exist. I could post them, but I'd be wasting my time, because YOU wouldn't read them, chances are you'd turn tail, retreat, and start another 'ID bashing' thread.

Truthseeka remember that little tidbit of advice I gave you a while back about actually being familiar with the theories you're trying to refute... well it still applies.


How does ID account for the creation of proteins from AAs and nucleic acids from nucleotides? Oh, I forgot, you don't have to explain that with ID
. At least evolution supporters are trying to replicate the process.

ID doesn't 'account' for this. As you've stated, this isn't what ID is about. So... let me see if I get this straight, you're criticizing ID for not being able to do something it wasn't conceived to do.... what am I missing?

If you were familiar with abiogenesis theories and experiments, the methodology utilized, and how it well it co-incides with basic organic chemistry... you'd never say this.

But yes... you're sort of right, abiogenesis employs a 'by any means necessary' approach to prove that life arose from non-living chemicals. ID doesn't do this... it works with only what we know and observe... it doesn't design experiments around impossible conditions in an effort to prove itself. It doesn't make any presupposition about the ability of life to arise spontaneously from non living matter.


All the ID people do is sit there and criticize evolution while babbling about IC and stuff.

Untrue... you've obviously STILL not read any ID... again... it's easier to refute things you're familiar with.


No peer reviewed papers for ID, no experiments for ID, but it's so much better than evolution.

Untrue. THe papers exist... in fact I know I've linked you to two papers before.... one of which is a Behe paper in protein science. Again, if I was discussing this with someone else I probably provide a link, but since I think I provided you the link before, and I KNOW you won't read it as it doesn't support your world view... so why bother.


Even if evolution is totally wrong, how does that prove ID is right?

Ummm... it doesn't, and no one thus far, has stated that it does...


I invite you to post some comments in the "Which Theory Will be Next?" thread that I made. I'd love to hear from an ID supporter in this thread...

Thanks for the invite, but I'll decline. I have no need to participate in your ID bashing threads...

And honestly, that thread is a joke. If you were familiar with the long history of 'design hypotheses vs. materialistic hypotheses' arguments, you'd know this. The argument goes back at least as far as the Greeks. The 'design vs. materialism' argument is nothing new. IDT and ET are just the most modern spins that exist on an age old argument. The argument is not new, has a long history, and there is in fact no reason to assume that any 'theory will be next.' It's just a dumb idea made into an even more pointless thread.

Honestly, don't you have better things to do than poke fun at religious people? You could actually be learning something, instead of just espousing random, venom-filled accusations at people you don't understand. You could actually try to learn something about people you don't understand instead of belittling them... that would seem to be more in line with your ATS handle.

[edit on 1-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
DNA is biological in nature. It's not alive though by itself. Viruses are not living orginism's. Just some DNA covered with abit of protiens. So, DNA does exist outside of biological ORGINISMS. Orginism's being, living cells.

My definition of biological includes viruses. BTW where do viruses get their nucleic acid? OH yeah... that's right the enzymes in living cells.

DNA is not found outside of biological organisms.




They may not have found actual protien's as of yet, but just by finding the very thing's needed does strongly imply that all the needed materials for life are not that uncommon in our universe. You can scoff all you want, but we are finding this stuff just about everywhere now.

It doesn't strongly imply this. It clearly shows that raw materials for biological organisms are found all over nature. That's it... nothing more.

If you'd care to discuss the enthalpic and entropic parameters that would allow those nucleic or amino acids to form in to a polymer then let's do it. But don't say amino acids and nucleotide in space implies that biological polymers can be spontaneously created.




So you know that this isn't entirely relevant... certainly in the context that you've posted it, but you went ahead and posted it anyway...


We can and have created the needed chemical's for life. No, we have'nt created the necessary condition's for the interactions required for life, but this doesn't rule out the possibility of these interaction's occuring under the correct circumstance's.

The chemicals is not the meat of the argument, if it was... the argument would have been over when whatshisname synthesized urea. The mechanism by which chemicals come together is everything.... without this, the theory says nothing.




The experiments are flawed for a number of reasons besides this, including stereochemically, molarity-wise, etc. The conditions aren't really relevant anyway... if you can show that biological polymers can spontaneously form under ANY conditions, it would be a huge step forward for abiogenesis theories.



Under ANY conditions? And you claim to know this stuff ...
Science isn't god you know. We can't magicly allow protien's to exist in solution's where they wouldn't normally exist.

Who said 'science was God?' I said that if experiments could show that biological polymers form under ANY conditions, it would be a huge step forward for abiogenesis theories. Who said anything about proteins existing where they wouldn't normally exist? And by the way, where is that? Proteins are pretty much contaminating every conceivable surface of the Earth.

I'll state it again the spontaneous formation of a biological polymer under any conditions would be a huge step forward for abiogenesis theories.


Truthseeka does have a rather good point. You do go on and on and on and on (think energizer bunny here) about ITD and all it's wonder's, yet ... nothing to show?

I do not do this. All I've ever done is defend ID as being able to operate in the realm of methodological naturalism, being capable of making predictions, being capable of being falsified, and being capable of generating usable data.
It can do this. Sorry that you're unwilling to wait for ID to make any progress experimentally. Science operates very slowly... why do you think it takes so long to develop new drugs, etc. Science isn't done overnight, and ID shouldn't be any different.

The IDTists have exactly what Darwin had when he postulated his theory... a bunch of observations and unanswered questions. If the theory ever gets the opportunity to be explored, I am sure that it will generate meaningful data, even if all it was disprove itself. ID experiments in theory could reveal a naturalistic mechanism by which allegedly IC systems come to be... that is if the press and every body else would stay out of the labs.


Where's the experiment's for how life CAN NOT occur naturally on it's own and REQUIRE'S a creator?

You can't make experiments that look for negative results.... perhaps someone needs to retake science 101.


Why does IDT need to attack thing's science just hasn't discovered or fully explain yet?

So it would make more sense to you if IDT attempted to explain things we already understood?


Please see the suggestion about science 101 above.


See, the thing with science is, WE DON'T KNOW. We may never have all the answer's, but the answer's we do get, we can apply to everyday thing's. Create new technologies, new medicine's etc. Now ... that's a big one up for scientific method's if you ask me.

Oh geez, thanks for telling me what science is all about. I'll be sure to include your description in my grant applications, and I'll think of it while I'm doing my DNA extractions. Would you mind if I quote you in the classes that I teach?

And yes, much to your horror, I DO teach biology... at the college level....


But ... what does the belief in a god bring us? So far ... holy war's, intollerance for another's belief's, ignorance etc. You may not be christian, but you do adhere to the belief in a diety of some sort's creating the universe and life within it right?

This thread isn't about religion, nor is it about my personal belief system... so whether or not horrible things have happened in the name of religion, and even if I was a bible thumping baptist would make any of my arguments less relevant, nor would it make you correct.


You may not choose to follow a particular religous belief system, but in a way, IDT should be treated as a new religion, especially if the IDT crowd want's to work around thing's without mentioning god himself. IDT is nothing more then plain old creationism.

This is BS. ID isn't a religion anymore than evolution is.

There's no 'working around' the identity of the designer distinctly lies outside the realm of methodological naturalism, ie: it's not scientific, but testing for design certainly can be...

I have the same advice that I do for Truthseeka (
)
It helps if you're familiar with the theories you're trying to refute.

I guess when you've got nothing substantial to add the 'ID is just creationism' argument is a good one to fall back on. It's likely to earn you scores of applause from the people who know nothing about ID, and makes you look ridiculous to the people who do.

Always has been, admitted by the very founder himself. Document's found proving IDT was created SOLEY to undermine our public schools and get a form of creationism taught to young children. I can send you a link to the document if you'd like.

The DI isn't IDT. The DI may be the main think tank where IDTists meet, but they aren't IDT... the theory has proponents outside of the realm of the DI, myself included. Furthermore, the wedge doesn't say it was created solely to undermine public schools. That's your personal interpretation of their goals.

Thanks for the offer of the link. But I've got a copy of the wedge right here on the computer.

If you were familiar with my posts, you'd know my position on teaching ID in schools.


And no, no bad church experience's. Just abit tired of having god shoved down my throat. Tired of the absolute truth's when they themselve's don't even have any verifiable proof in what they have faith in.


IDT doesn't shove God down your throat. If you don't like it don't read it, don't donate money to IDTist causes, but how does it affect you if someone working in a lab does experiments that are conceived from a design perspective?

BTW... faith is about not having or needing proof.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Who says hydrogen turns into people if you wait long enough... a room full of hydrogen would never turn into people


Sunmatrix... i've seen you postin for a while... dont think your ideas are up to much... but who knows, maybe you'll convert me in the long run.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Why is it that when a thread comes up as to the origins of the universe, it always ends up in a brawl. I've seen so many threads turn into a melee between evolution and IDT (big ups to evolution). OF course it's all or nothing, side A and side B, no in between.

I'm gonna chill in the grey area.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
So, with ID you do what ... look at a hand and say, yep that was designed so we could use tools? Or ... well the designer was just lazy when it came to human eye's byt made extra carefull he got the squid's done right? Exactly what does IDT have? So far, everything I've seen from ID is let's attack that and that and this right here so we can sound more plausible. And ID IS creationism, just without the mention of god. When you start fighting in court's to get that taught in our public school's that IS shoving it down our throat's. IDT doesn't explain anything, it attack's thing's we don't know and says this right here equals designer because you guy's can't explain it ... yet. Evolution isn't a religion, never has been. It's a theory with alot of strong evidence and proof's to back it up. So much so that it shouldn't even be considered a theory, but unfortunatly since it does have gaps here and there we do have to call it a theory still despite everything showing it's validity. Does ID have this same level of validity? No it doesn't. Like you said, you can't prove a creator. But if you can't prove a creator, then you can't prove a creator designed any of this. No matter how much thing's appear to be 'suited' to our species on this planet, or even the universe seemingly being 'suited' for life does not imply that some one created it, even if you refuse to name him god. We don't know what the conditions were pre-big bang, and we may never know. Science and those of faith alike. What we do know or can come to know is the conditions after the big bang that lead to life. ID is a religion, it's still the same old belief in a god, just without naming him as god or even giving him a name. All you've done is taken the glory away from him by not naming him.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
So, with ID you do what ... look at a hand and say, yep that was designed so we could use tools? Or ... well the designer was just lazy when it came to human eye's byt made extra carefull he got the squid's done right? Exactly what does IDT have? So far, everything I've seen from ID is let's attack that and that and this right here so we can sound more plausible.

I've already told you about what you do with ID; one more time for the record, it's a basis for hypothesis formation. You base a hypothesis from it and design experiments around it. Simply because you can't conceive of any experiments from this hypothesis, doesn't mean no one else can. These threads contain at least a few that I've described in some detail.

Nothing in ID says that the human eye was designed... something I wouldn't have to point out to you if you'd bother to read some for yourself.

Furthermore... this argument about 'imperfect design' isn't scientific; at best it's philosophical, but my personal opinion is that this is a pseudo-theological argument, but in the end it doesn't matter, it's distinctly not scientific.

BTW, this 'imperfect eye' design has to be one of lamest arguments I've ever heard. What is something about the retina becoming detached... how often does this happen? I don't think I've heard of it... I'll bet it happens less than say most other genetically inherited conditions. And what about the blind spot... apparently the design was perfected by the time it got to me, because I don't have a blind spot. I don't even know what this 'blind spot' argument refers to.


But again both the arguments are totally irrelevant, as nothing in ID necessitates that the eye is designed.

Though if you have a hypothesis about the eye being IC, I'd like to hear to hear it.


And ID IS creationism, just without the mention of god.

Okay... by your standard... evolution is a creation theory without god. In fact, it's very specfically a creation theory that excludes god.


When you start fighting in court's to get that taught in our public school's that IS shoving it down our throat's.

I'm not fighting in the courts, and this is more deliberate obfuscation of the real issue. I've never come out in support of ID being taught in school. Obviously, nothing is being shoved down your throat, unless you're going to public school in a very specific area. Additionally, nothing is forcing you to send your kids to public school. You could do what a lot of Christians do... home school. Finally, your children don't have to believe everything they're sold in school wholesale. I've had teacher put a republican spin on social studies and I didn't freak out about it.

Furthermore, origins theories as it is receive only a cursory mention in any general science class... ID would amount to less than 5 minutes of lecture time. Abiogenesis generally receives only a cursory mention... ID as an origins theory would recieve about the same. Again, this isn't support for IDT being taught in schools. In fact, I against politicization of any subject.


IDT doesn't explain anything,
Certainly not if you don't read it.


it attack's thing's we don't know and says this right here equals designer because you guy's can't explain it ... yet.

This is a misconception based on the fact the only thing you know about IDT you've probably read here, or maybe in your local paper, or maybe on the TO site. You wouldn't dare to crack open something that Dembski or Behe wrote and evaluate it for yourself... too much of a challenge to your world view.

You might not like what I have to say, but I am not full of s--t, I can back up everything I've ever written, and I've been studying this crap as a hobby... well pretty much forever. Furthermore, I started out pretty much feeling like you do... I wasn't skeptical of origins theories until grad school... ie: when I got educated about the theories.


Evolution isn't a religion, never has been. It's a theory with alot of strong evidence and proof's to back it up.

When did I say it was?


So much so that it shouldn't even be considered a theory, but unfortunatly since it does have gaps here and there we do have to call it a theory still despite everything showing it's validity.

This is such a crock... and furthermore isn't even relevant. ID operates perfectly well within the realm of certain evolutionary theories.

Like for example, you'd probably know that Behe supports the common descent of apes and man... that is if you'd bothered to open up a book.


Does ID have this same level of validity? No it doesn't.

Welcome to the world of new theories. I don't see you freaking out that M-theory isn't supported by a mountain of evidence. There seems to be no problem for you that the time before Planck time in BBT pretty much defies the laws of physics.... maybe you and truthseeka should start a thread against those theories as well.


Like you said, you can't prove a creator.

That's why ID doesn't attempt to do this.


But if you can't prove a creator, then you can't prove a creator designed any of this.

Well absolute proof is not a feature of ANY origins theory, abiogenesis and ET included. They are all speculation and inference. But you can find evidence suggestive of design, just like you can find evidence that suggests something needn't have been designed... the door swings both ways. Behe commented on systems that don't exhibit features of design in DBB.


No matter how much thing's appear to be 'suited' to our species on this planet, or even the universe seemingly being 'suited' for life does not imply that some one created it, even if you refuse to name him god.

No one says it does.

I don't refuse anything. I don't have any concept of what the designer is or might be. I wouldn't even ascribe the term deity to it, as Brahma isn't a deity, but certainly qualifies a 'god.' Furthermore... the jedi's could have it right...ie: the force. I cannot comment , as I am more or less without religious experience.


We don't know what the conditions were pre-big bang, and we may never know. Science and those of faith alike. What we do know or can come to know is the conditions after the big bang that lead to life. ID is a religion, it's still the same old belief in a god, just without naming him as god or even giving him a name. All you've done is taken the glory away from him by not naming him.


Ummm.... okay... yeah... did you want to talk about science or not?

[edit on 1-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Why is it that when a thread comes up as to the origins of the universe, it always ends up in a brawl.

Well I usually only feel compelled to reply when I see the misinformation gets completely out of hand. Then people get upset when I call 'em on it... weird.


I've seen so many threads turn into a melee between evolution and IDT (big ups to evolution). OF course it's all or nothing, side A and side B, no in between.

When you actually read ID theory, you realize that this is distinctly not true. ID is specifically an origins theory, and doesn't necessarily preclude most of evolutionary theory. In many ways, IDT competes more with abiogenesis than it does with ET.

As I mentioned, there is plenty of room for 'in between' ie: Behe supports the common descent of apes and man.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Mattison, you're lying.

Matter of fact, you just lied right here. First, you tell me that IC is a hypothesis that is not experimentally determined, then you turn around and tell Produkt that the hypotheses from ID are tested.
Which is it, man?

You like to assume, too. You assume I know nothing about evolution. That's fine, but let me assume as well. I'm going to assume that you are really a Christian using ID to push creationism.

Then, you imply that Produkt is young and immature while you make fun of my label like a 7 year old.
You're a complicated guy.


THEN, you say that the human eye was not designed.
I thought the vertebrate eye was one of the main things Behe used to argue for ID. Again, you're too complicated for me.

As for peer review papers, it seems Behe would disagree with you that they exist. I'll post a link later for you. Seems like someone is lying, either you or Behe. I'll assume it is you.


The problem with ID is that people say it is science. If people were using ID in a philosophical context, it wouldn't be as big as it is becoming. No one would criticize it as much. But, when you say it's science, you run into some problems.

The thing with ID is that the designer is fleetingly mentioned. If this is science, you can't just come up with a designer, then just abandon it. Even if the designer were aliens, you would eventually have to describe them. Bringing a designer into the equation is a big thing you gotta deal with. You just can't say nope, no need to describe the designer.

More later, I gotta run...



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Mattison, you're lying.

Matter of fact, you just lied right here. First, you tell me that IC is a hypothesis that is not experimentally determined, then you turn around and tell Produkt that the hypotheses from ID are tested.
Which is it, man?

IC is a hypothesis. The data from the test of this hypothesis either supports or doesn't support the hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested... it hasn't been 'experimentally determined.' Now if in 25 years, loads of experiments seem to demonstrate that a certain system is IC, then it might be reasonable to state that experiments suggest that system x is IC. But there is no conflict with what I am saying in either post.


You like to assume, too. You assume I know nothing about evolution.

Hmmm... I don't think I said you know nothing about it, I think I said you don't know enough about ID and evolution to talk intelligently about them. Most people know something about evolution... but very few can speak or write intelligently about the topic, as the O & C forum here perfectly demonstrates.


That's fine, but let me assume as well. I'm going to assume that you are really a Christian using ID to push creationism.

Fair enough, but at least my assumptions have some basis in reality. You only assume this because you can't conceive of a non-Christian with a Ph.D. supporting ID. That's cool... I know how protective you are of your world view.


Then, you imply that Produkt is young and immature while you make fun of my label like a 7 year old.
You're a complicated guy.

I don't think I implied he was young and immature. I just asked how old he/she was. Do you know how old he/she is?

I don't think a 7 year old would see the irony of your handle... I could be wrong though

The last time I pointed out the irony of your handle, I was pleased with the results, you posted some meaningful stuff, you had some documentation, we had a meaningful exchange for a post or two.

My bad for thinking you had it in you again.

And finally... you're one to whine and cry about being attacked. Isn't that your MO... attack and belittle people who feel differently than you. What's the matter can dish it out, but you can't take it?


THEN, you say that the human eye was not designed.
I thought the vertebrate eye was one of the main things Behe used to argue for ID. Again, you're too complicated for me.

Ummm... so? Behe's opinion is Behe's opinion. ID doesn't say that the eye must have been designed. Just like some people in ET think Archaeopteryx is a descendant of modern birds, and others think not. Some people in ID think the eye must have been designed others don't.

Sorry that this is so complicated for you. Read the above paragraph over and over... I think you'll get it. If not u2u me and I'll see if can offer further assistance.


As for peer review papers, it seems Behe would disagree with you that they exist. I'll post a link later for you. Seems like someone is lying, either you or Behe. I'll assume it is you.

No problem... You're pretty good with assumptions. I won't bother linking the Meyer paper... it's linked elsewhere in the threads, is well known, and not without it's own controversy. The Behe Paper however is here.
It's subscription only, but if you're going to read it, I can email you a .pdf. It's noteworthy that a later issue of protein science. Contains a rebuttal of this paper, and a rebuttal of the rebuttal. I don't know if a further rebuttal exists.

Anyway... your link must be out of date.


The problem with ID is that people say it is science. If people were using ID in a philosophical context, it wouldn't be as big as it is becoming. No one would criticize it as much. But, when you say it's science, you run into some problems.

The problem with ID is that the people who understand it the least are the most vocal about it. I'll say it's science on the same par with NDT, or ET.
    ID:
  1. Can Make Predictions.
  2. Can be falsified.
  3. Operates within the realm of methodological naturalism.
  4. Can yield quantifiable, positive results that reveal mechanistic info.


What's your definition of science, and how is ID lacking?


The thing with ID is that the designer is fleetingly mentioned. If this is science, you can't just come up with a designer, then just abandon it. Even if the designer were aliens, you would eventually have to describe them. Bringing a designer into the equation is a big thing you gotta deal with. You just can't say nope, no need to describe the designer.

This is what would make it not science. The Designer can't be dealt with scientifically. How many times do you need to have this explained to you? Perhaps you should start writing things down... it helps you to remember. Nobody abandoned the idea, it was never part of the theory.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   


Nothing in ID says that the human eye was designed... something I wouldn't have to point out to you if you'd bother to read some for yourself.


I have to agree with Truthseeka ... your a liar.

www.eyedesignbook.com...

Or perhaps there's another different version of IDT that you adhere to? Similar to how we've got jewish people and christian people?





BTW, this 'imperfect eye' design has to be one of lamest arguments I've ever heard. What is something about the retina becoming detached... how often does this happen? I don't think I've heard of it... I'll bet it happens less than say most other genetically inherited conditions. And what about the blind spot... apparently the design was perfected by the time it got to me, because I don't have a blind spot. I don't even know what this 'blind spot' argument refers to.


www.allaboutvision.com...
users.rcn.com...

Look what google can do





Okay... by your standard... evolution is a creation theory without god. In fact, it's very specfically a creation theory that excludes god.


Creation per chance, not divine supernatural mean's. Big difference. ID without mentioning god is still ... mentioning god. Wierd huh?




This is a misconception based on the fact the only thing you know about IDT you've probably read here, or maybe in your local paper, or maybe on the TO site. You wouldn't dare to crack open something that Dembski or Behe wrote and evaluate it for yourself... too much of a challenge to your world view.


You mean this behe?

www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...

"But [Behe] thinks that the development is too complicated, or as he puts it, irreducibly complex, to have evolved entirely on its own through a step-by-step process. As a result, Behe says it can only be the product of an intelligent designer, which, as a Catholic, he believes is God."

Yes ... way too much of a challenge to go up against behe.





ID operates perfectly well within the realm of certain evolutionary theories.


Now I'm sure your following a different version of IDT! Everything I've seen on IDT, and on IDT website's themselve's is that thing's are just to complicated and must have been designed. Not sure how that fit's in with evolution. Definatly must be worshipping a different form of IDT.




Like for example, you'd probably know that Behe supports the common descent of apes and man... that is if you'd bothered to open up a book.


This same Behe here?

www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk...




That's why ID doesn't attempt to do this.


But yet, IDT can get away with pre-assuming that a creator exist in order for IDT to work? IDT does nothing on it's own, just attacks that which we don't know. Atleast science is trying to figure out possible scenarios for the birth of the universe and life itself. IDT just pre-assume's the answer is already known, then attacks that which isn't known and tries to push that as evidence for a creator. All without proving that such a creator exist's.



Well absolute proof is not a feature of ANY origins theory, abiogenesis and ET included. They are all speculation and inference. But you can find evidence suggestive of design, just like you can find evidence that suggests something needn't have been designed... the door swings both ways. Behe commented on systems that don't exhibit features of design in DBB.


Was the universe designed to support human life? Or wouldn't it be more likely that durring our evolution we're still too stupid to realize that idk... we evolved in this universe and so being, it only APPEARS to be designed, especially those of faith looking for a designer? When you see shapes in cloud's or the man on the moon, do you infer a designer there? Hopefully not!



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join