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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
There you go lying again.

You say your assumption has some basis in reality. You're lying again. Why don't you tell me when I posted something that clearly showed a lack of knowledge of evolution. Really. Then, you go on assuming that I don't think a non-Christian with a PhD can support ID. I only assumed this because you made an assumption on me; it's not a stretch of the imagination that non-Christians can support ID. It's too bad that they are few and far in between, if you don't count Muslims, Jews, or other religious peeps.

So, what, do you have some kind of evolution/ID hybrid thing going? If, for you, ID didn't give rise to the human eye, what did? Was this too complicated a task for the designer?

I still want evidence for ID. No proof, just evidence.




posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Well, mattison that appears to be a decent paper.

I read the abstract, and, honestly, I am not surprised. All they did was attack Darwinian evolution. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but I am looking for a paper about ID itself, not an attack on evolution.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Okay... lots of nothing here...


Originally posted by Produkt
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?

You're certainly both welcome to your opinion... that's what makes ATS such a great place.

As I mentioned Behe's opinion about the eye is Behe's opinion about the eye. Nothing in the definition of ID states that you must believe the human eye to be IC. If I don't believe the human eye is IC, I can still support ID.

Even if every supporter of ID believes this about the eye, it doesn't make it so. Much like the recent find of a swimming mammal millions of years earlier then originally believed... science changes, theories are not subject to absolutes. Evolutionary theory didn't break down because of this discovery. If they're wrong about the eye, so? Scientists are wrong all the time.

Behe's opinion, and any other IDTist's opinion about IC structures iis nothing more than that.

It doesn't necessitate belief in ID meaning you believe everything Behe says, therefore the you believe the eye to be IC.

It's really not that difficult guys.



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

Oh yes... I see now the retinal detachment that occurs primarily from

  1. injury
  2. "extreme nearsightedness" no specific rate of occurence provided.
  3. and surgery.

It doesn't sound like this happens in an otherwise ordinary eye without some sort of injury... doesn't sound like a bad design to me. As long as your eye is injured, operated on, or subject to malformation via extreme nearsightedness... no big deal.

The blind spot.... you mean the blind spot that is totally compensated for by having both eyes? THat is to say a blind spot that appears from the info you've provided to only affect individuals with loss of sight in one eye.




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

ID doesn't necessitate Divine or other supernatural means. Obviously ET's can design. Simply because some can't conceive of other IDer's doesn't marry the theory to supernatural explanations.



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."

And how does this relate to anything we've been discussing? So you're saying you've read about Behe in another forum... well whoopdefrickindo!

I'm talking about actually reading behe's stuff. Yes that Behe.




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

I'm sorry, are you claiming to have written that refutation of Behe,

Otherwise...
????



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.

ID can start with the Original Common ancestor... or in fact anywhere before that. After that... depending on what structures, genes, etc, are present in the OCA, the rest is debatable. Technically... any form of creationism falls under the broad heading of ID, so really ID could be assumed to start with the OCA or with each species... it just depends on your metaphysical presuppositions, and the evidence you are familiar with, etc. This is not to say that the assumptions of YEC's, etc are reasonable, or scientific. There is a certain amount of flexiblity inherent in this theory, just like any other.

Again, if you'd read say DBB, you'd be familiar with the idea that Behe doesn't think the Hemoglobin system need to have been designed; IOW, the Hb system evolved pretty much the way scientists say it did, and fits in with existing evolutionary theories.... same thing with Darwin's finches. These examples are very explicitly laid out in the book.... you couldn't have missed it... unless you'd not read it.



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...

Still the same guy.

That link you provided does NOTHING, ZERO, to demonstrate that Behe doesn't support the idea of common descent of apes and man... something clearly stated in DBB.

Not sure what gives with all the irrelevant links... is this some weak attempt at literature bluffing?



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?


Ummm.... yeah... that's the basis of the theory... an IDer exists. If you've got a way to postulate the ID theory, without an IDer, you should write to Behe... you guys can write a book.


Abiogenesis assumes naturalism is responsible for life with no evidence to suggest this is so, ID assumes an IDer exists. So?


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.

This is BS, and a total cop out... I'm sure Behe, Dembski, and other would LOVE to be able to get a grant to study this stuff...

If I thought it wouldn't ruin my career, I'd actively support ID, and even write some grants since I am an expert on a couple of allegedly IC systems. I'd never do it until tenured though... and then only if I thought I could still get grants.



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!


What's a more reasonable assumption is a matter of personal opinion, and nothing more.

The cloud analogy is weak and not even close to appropriate. What about a cloud would suggest design? That's a really bad analogy...

In what way does a cloud resemble a molecular motor?

Okay... my turn: Is comparing the ATP Synthase to a turbine generator in a hydroelectric dam an unreasonable analogy?

[edit on 1-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
There you go lying again.

Call it what you will *Shrug*


You say your assumption has some basis in reality. You're lying again. Why don't you tell me when I posted something that clearly showed a lack of knowledge of evolution.

If I recall, not too long ago I called you on something you'd posted re: antibiotic resistance... you never responded.... there have been other similar incidents.

Honestly, I wouldn't do it if I felt like your posts were more respectful in general, and I DO believe it's an effective way to get people to really discuss things. Emotion... especially anger is a powerful thing.


Really. Then, you go on assuming that I don't think a non-Christian with a PhD can support ID. I only assumed this because you made an assumption on me;

Okay... okay... assumptions all around are a bad thing...

and my apologies for immediately taking such an adversarial tone with you.


it's not a stretch of the imagination that non-Christians can support ID. It's too bad that they are few and far in between, if you don't count Muslims, Jews, or other religious peeps.

Yeah... I think we're all closeted.


So, what, do you have some kind of evolution/ID hybrid thing going? If, for you, ID didn't give rise to the human eye, what did? Was this too complicated a task for the designer?

To be completely honest with you, I don't spend much time thinking about the eye. I am a molecular and cellular biologist. I am pretty much into molecular motors, enzyme systems, cascades, etc.

Check out this post if you're interested in the origins of my interest in IDT.


I still want evidence for ID. No proof, just evidence.

Ummm... I think everyone does.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Well, mattison that appears to be a decent paper.

I read the abstract, and, honestly, I am not surprised. All they did was attack Darwinian evolution. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but I am looking for a paper about ID itself, not an attack on evolution.


Really... you've judged this paper by just the abstract...

Man... I've read this paper probably 25 times, sat down looked at the calculations, read the rebuttal, the re-rebuttal...

I am still at a loss... I'll figure it out sooner or later and decide how I feel about it.

Honestly... though... I hate this kind of stuff... while I don't agree with your assessment per se... it could be argued that this paper is 'fact free science' in that it doesn't have any hard, experimental data...

but you asked for peer-reviewed papers with ID implications. Voila.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   


ID doesn't necessitate Divine or other supernatural means. Obviously ET's can design. Simply because some can't conceive of other IDer's doesn't marry the theory to supernatural explanations.


So your saying your one of those IDTers who don't believe in god, but think ET's created everything? And, I really don't see how obvious it is ET could do any of this. We've never met a civilization that has made it that technologically far enough to utilize the necessary energies needed to give birth to a new universe. So really, it doesn't seem obvious at all. We can't even say a civilization could even make it that far. We're more then likely going to destroy our own civilization or possibly push it back before we even reach outside the solar system.

But let's entertain the thought for a second. If ET did design the universe there's two possibilities 1) they destroyed themselve's in creating this universe and 2) they discovered some mechanism to contain an entire universe within their own using energies we can't even concieve of. 1) seems more probable to me but 2) implies their universe works on a different model of physics compared to this universe, one we can't even begin to understand. We then have to continue assuming that they also have the technology to enter this universe from within their own in order to initiate the spark of life. But life by who's standards? It can't be thier's can it? Perhaps on their computer systems they designed a form of life completly different from their own and this is all an experiment to test if that form of life could exist under those universal condidtions different from their own. But, if they can build a computer to do such, why create a physical universe and develope the technology to enter it, go to earth, run a physical experiment when a computer that powerfull can just run simulations proving the same much more quickly? It's cheaper running a simulation rather then expending all this energy and time to run a physical experiment. But let's say we aren't physical and just appear that way and really do live in an advance ET simulation model, which would be even more probable if we're going to use ET's to define ID. How can we test that we're living in a simulation? But then, what of ET? Was he designed himself as well? Or did he come about through natural means? Where does it all end? If we assume ET was born through natural process's, then we know it is possible and could be possible for our own universe to have gone the same route, only to appear as if it were designed due to our own stupidity and lack of knowledge, seeing thing's as too complex or too perfect because we simply don't understand all the underlying principle's behind the universe. Which is definatly the most likely scenario. Human ignorance has been used to explain where/how alot of thing's happen, only to have science to prove a more natural cause for thing's.



[edit on 2-3-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
So your saying your one of those IDTers who don't believe in god, but think ET's created everything?

Not saying that at all... said it's one of the many possibilities.


And, I really don't see how obvious it is ET could do any of this. We've never met a civilization that has made it that technologically far enough to utilize the necessary energies needed to give birth to a new universe. So really, it doesn't seem obvious at all. We can't even say a civilization could even make it that far. We're more then likely going to destroy our own civilization or possibly push it back before we even reach outside the solar system.

Oh... you mean sort of like abiogenesis?

Like there's no basis in reality for assuming that the chemicals required for life can naturally and spontaneously come together; despite that there's NO precedent suggesting this might be true, pretty much an entire field of research is devoted to finding the answer to a question that may or may not exist.

So, not everything in science is so obvious.


But let's entertain the thought for a second. If ET did design the universe there's two possibilities 1) they destroyed themselve's in creating this universe and 2) they discovered some mechanism to contain an entire universe within their own using energies we can't even concieve of.

Why are these the only possibilities? This topic has again left the realm of science for philosophy... or some other discipline that is not science.


1) seems more probable to me but 2) implies their universe works on a different model of physics compared to this universe, one we can't even begin to understand. We then have to continue assuming that they also have the technology to enter this universe from within their own in order to initiate the spark of life. But life by who's standards? It can't be thier's can it? Perhaps on their computer systems they designed a form of life completly different from their own and this is all an experiment to test if that form of life could exist under those universal condidtions different from their own. But, if they can build a computer to do such, why create a physical universe and develope the technology to enter it, go to earth, run a physical experiment when a computer that powerfull can just run simulations proving the same much more quickly? It's cheaper running a simulation rather then expending all this energy and time to run a physical experiment. But let's say we aren't physical and just appear that way and really do live in an advance ET simulation model, which would be even more probable if we're going to use ET's to define ID. How can we test that we're living in a simulation? But then, what of ET? Was he designed himself as well? Or did he come about through natural means? Where does it all end? If we assume ET was born through natural process's, then we know it is possible and could be possible for our own universe to have gone the same route, only to appear as if it were designed due to our own stupidity and lack of knowledge, seeing thing's as too complex or too perfect because we simply don't understand all the underlying principle's behind the universe. Which is definatly the most likely scenario. Human ignorance has been used to explain where/how alot of thing's happen, only to have science to prove a more natural cause for thing's.


I'm sorry this rant does nothing to demonstrate that ID isn't scientific or can't be scientfic on the level that NDT and ET are.

Did you actually want to discuss the science of this, or are you just going to make more stuff up, and ignore the concrete issues?





[edit on 2-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Ok, let's discuss the requirement's for a universe. How much energy would need to be produced and expended to create a universe and confine it within another universe? Or, how much computing power would be required to simulate a universe and what, if any limitation's are there for the size of such a computer, memory storage, processing power, power distribution, computing speed's etc. The econimic feasabilities or cultural requirement's of any being creating a universe. Or we could discuss, that thing's just appear to be designed through our own ignorance of the underlying principle's of the universe.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Ok, let's discuss the requirement's for a universe. How much energy would need to be produced and expended to create a universe and confine it within another universe? Or, how much computing power would be required to simulate a universe and what, if any limitation's are there for the size of such a computer, memory storage, processing power, power distribution, computing speed's etc. The econimic feasabilities or cultural requirement's of any being creating a universe. Or we could discuss, that thing's just appear to be designed through our own ignorance of the underlying principle's of the universe.


Again, my question was do you want to talk about science or made up stuff?

Apparently... I have my answer.

This quote:

The econimic feasabilities or cultural requirement's of any being creating a universe.
Classic... not a complete sentence, but classic nonetheless



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Which part's are made up? If an ET intelligence designed/created the universe either in a physical sense or a simulated sense, these question's are very valid. The only other posibility I can think of would be a divine godly being creating the universe and life, but that's in the realm of religous creationism and faith. With the ET route, we can, in a way theorize on these issue's and possibly even experiment on them ourselve's. The computer simulation being the most easier scenario in my opinion. It's all within the realm of science. I still hold to the idea that we're still just to ignorant of the underlying principle's of the universe to even begin to fully understand it's birth and that it only appear's to have been designed for life because life exist's within it. I know you mentioned the jedi 'force' as another possibility, but the force is just a form of energy of sort's the jedi and sith use for either good or evil purpose's, it doesn't contain any intelligence of it's own. The force would be the ... made up part. But the other two possibilities, a god or an ET can be tested for. if IDT can show beyond a resonable doubt and provide undeniable evidence that life can not occur naturally and requires a designer/creator of sort's, then ID would have more of a foundation to stand on. Simply attacking the fact that we haven't observed organic chemical's merge together to initiate the spark for life and calling that proof is just plain ignorant. We already know and have proven that the base chemicals for life DO occur naturally, what we haven't done is determin what condition's are required for these chemicals to succesfully merge to initiate the begining's of what we define as life on this planet. The ET question's I provided are very valid question's in the realm of ID as you yourself admited ET is one possibility, and yet, now your going to call it made up and not scientific. Determing possible way's ET could have created the universe either physically or simulated would either prove or disprove the ET aspect of ID, and as a result, either give more evidence leaning towards or away from a more divine supernatural designer/creator. Just as we're trying to figure out the begining's of the universe through the big bang and other lesser model's and how life orginated through abiogenesis, why should ID be done any different? Why shouldn't ID have to discover and question and experiment on these issues? All ID is doing and has been doing is saying, well thing's are too complex. Rather then just stating it's too complex or IC, prove it. Don't prove it through lack of knowledge, I mean actually show that it's undeniably IC. If I recall, there have been numerous thing's claimed to be IC, but then proven not to be IC. All that was proven was ignorance in the ID department. The same exact ignorance I'm talking about. Too ignorant (not knowledgable) of the underlying principle's of the universe, thus making it only APPEAR to be designed.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
And just to retouch another statment made by you.




This is BS, and a total cop out... I'm sure Behe, Dembski, and other would LOVE to be able to get a grant to study this stuff...




www.nytimes.com

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.


I'll leave you to interpret that yourself ...

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 2-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Which part's are made up? If an ET intelligence designed/created the universe either in a physical sense or a simulated sense, these question's are very valid. The only other posibility I can think of would be a divine godly being creating the universe and life, but that's in the realm of religous creationism and faith. With the ET route, we can, in a way theorize on these issue's and possibly even experiment on them ourselve's. The computer simulation being the most easier scenario in my opinion. It's all within the realm of science.

Look if you're so hung up on the designer, start your own movement. As it exists now, the ID movement is interested in inferring design via the scientific method' end of story. The ID movement isn't interested in exploring this aspect of the question. Insisting that they should or whatever it is your insisting is irrelevant. It's like complaining that your car can't fly you Europe. ID wasn't conceived to detect the designer, and cars weren't made to fly.


I still hold to the idea that we're still just to ignorant of the underlying principle's of the universe to even begin to fully understand it's birth and that it only appear's to have been designed for life because life exist's within it.

Yeah, well welcome the world... where people subscribe to a variety of different opinions.


I know you mentioned the jedi 'force' as another possibility, but the force is just a form of energy of sort's the jedi and sith use for either good or evil purpose's, it doesn't contain any intelligence of it's own. The force would be the ... made up part.

Yeah... like I've been saying speculation about the designer is distinctly not scientific.


But the other two possibilities, a god or an ET can be tested for.

Well this is news to me. We can test for a god. Holy cow. We need to alert Dembski, Johnson, Behe, and Rren too!

What?



if IDT can show beyond a resonable doubt and provide undeniable evidence that life can not occur naturally and requires a designer/creator of sort's,

I'm not sure how many times we've discussed this now... but one more time for the record: There is no such thing as 'evidence that life cannot occur naturally.' There is evidence of design or not, you don't seek negative results in experimental science. It's oxymoronic.


Simply attacking the fact that we haven't observed organic chemical's merge together to initiate the spark for life and calling that proof is just plain ignorant.

Again, my suggestion would be to actually read some ID. This is distinctly not what ID does.

That's where this thread has gone because that's the idea you were postulating: scientists have worked out the basic chemistry that would allow life to form. That's total BS, but distinctly separate from IDT... though I'm sure IDTist's like to point out the difficulties with origin of life scenarios with respect to basic organic chemistry.

And you can call my attack on your claims re: organic molecules, ignorant, but rest assured that my understanding and experience in the field of organic chemistry far exceeds yours, and that my position is anything but ignorant.

How many times have you synthesized nucleic acid strands? How much organic synthesis have you done, period? What do you know about chirality, organic synthesis, and nucleic acid synthesis. How much RNA have you worked with in the lab? Ever tried to synthesize even a short strand under the best of laboratory conditions?

Ignorant... please.


We already know and have proven that the base chemicals for life DO occur naturally, what we haven't done is determin what condition's are required for these chemicals to succesfully merge to initiate the begining's of what we define as life on this planet.

You've missed the point entirely again. How many times have I pointed out in these threads the enthalpic and entropic constraints that preclude biological polymer formation in the absence of enzymes... like a dozen maybe.

How many times has anyone responded with something intelligible... none.

This is just more of the same. Stating that "what we haven't done is determin what condition's are required for these chemicals to succesfully merge to initiate the begining's of what we define as life on this planet."
is a TOTAL cop out and puts fantasy in place of the very real constraints that I mentioned.

It's equivalent to saying that humans can fly unaided, we just haven't figured out the conditions under which it's possible. Both statements completely ignore fundamental laws, the flight analogy ignores fundamental laws of physics, and your cop out ignores pretty much all of basic experimental organic chemistry as well as the known laws of free energy.


The ET question's I provided are very valid question's in the realm of ID as you yourself admited ET is one possibility, and yet, now your going to call it made up and not scientific.

The ET question isn't relevant with respect to ID for a big reason... why...

For the millionth time: ID isn't concerned with the id of the IDer. I know you're having a tough time with this. Repeat the sentence after the colon like a mantra... you'll get it eventually.

And your statement... especially the economic and cultural implications of creating a universe is unscientific... and pretty silly too.

I am still waiting for your description of how to test for a designer, ET or otherwise... you're set to revolutionize ID.


Determing possible way's ET could have created the universe either physically or simulated would either prove or disprove the ET aspect of ID,

Still waiting for how you test for the designer.

Also... for like the 10th time. issues in origins science are not proven. Hypotheses are supported or not, the nature of retrodiction doesn't lend itself to absolute proof.


Just as we're trying to figure out the begining's of the universe through the big bang and other lesser model's and how life orginated through abiogenesis, why should ID be done any different?

Hmmmm... I don't know why... you tell me you're the big ID basher, not me.



Why shouldn't ID have to discover and question and experiment on these issues?

You mean why shouldn't it have to experiment on issues that it isn't concerned with... gosh I don't know... I can't imagine why someone wouldn't perform experiments on something they've explicitly stated is not part of the question they are interested in... nope... can't figure that out for the life of me.




All ID is doing and has been doing is saying, well thing's are too complex.

And.... yessssss.... we've done it. Another full circle.

I know it's lots of fun to avoid the real issues, but don't you think it looks kind of weird that you keep bringing up the same arguments that aren't true. Don't you think it just confirms what I've been saying.

It's so obvious, that you've never cracked open a book about ID it's ridiculous. It's like your even trying to act like you know anything about this.

ID isn't saying "things are too complex..." this is another total cop out on your part. Complexity is a huge aspect of the theory. But the equivalent statement about ET would be "Darwinism says it's all an accident," part of the theory maybe, but ridiculously and deliberately underdescriptive, like I said a total cop out.


Rather then just stating it's too complex or IC, prove it.

Ummm... I think that's the goal.


If I recall, there have been numerous thing's claimed to be IC, but then proven not to be IC. All that was proven was ignorance in the ID department.

Where's your examples? Until you provide some examples this is just unsubstantiated drivel. BTW... I'd check the threads around here.... many of these 'debunkings' have been addressed at some length in the threads, including:
  1. Matzke's description of NS mechanism for the flagellum.
  2. The whale or dolphin blood issue

I'm sure others have too.


The same exact ignorance I'm talking about. Too ignorant (not knowledgable) of the underlying principle's of the universe, thus making it only APPEAR to be designed.


Ummm... yeah... did you want to back any of this up, or did you want to do another circle and avoid the issues I've brought to light?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt


www.nytimes.com

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.


I'll leave you to interpret that yourself ...


I can only speculate... but I can imagine people didn't apply for the money for the same reason I wouldn't have applied for the money had I not missed the deadline: Quite simply accepting grant money from an institution whose stated goal is to reconcile science and religion is currently academic suicide. You can forget about ever getting a real research appointment after accepting that kind of money. You might as well take money from the DI; the effect on your science career would be the same: it would be essentially over.

Though working at Community colleges is an easy gig... just might get boring.

mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 2-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   

The whale or dolphin blood issue


It's a pity that behe doesn't "debunk" the criticisms himself then. That may help the situation. But he doesn't seem to know himself whether Factor 12 is important or not and admits knowledge of the cascade is vague but obviously he knows an IC system when he sees one...


KM:
So the point stands that a subset of these proteins is functional in a different context. Now that's the bacterial flagellum, let's look a couple of the other guys. Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails. Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed?

MB:
Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm...[laughter]

KM:
You don't have to have to do condolences they do fine. That's my point. It's the theory of irreducible complexity that needs condolences at this point, [laughter/ applause] because that's what's happening.

MB:
Well, if you read my book a little more closely, you'll see that I talk about both the intrinsic and extrinsic pathway, I say that they can use both of them. And, uh, you'll see that when I talk about irreducible complexity I say, the details of the pathway, beyond uh christmas factor and so on, are rather vague, so let's uh, so I said I'll, we'll confine my argument to those. But nonetheless...

KM:
Yeah but your own words are up here and you point out Hageman factor, factor 12 and so forth, so they're part of that system.

MB:
Well, um, nonetheless, let me point out that if you do delete prothrombin if you delete tissue factor, you end up with this.

KM:
I'm asking you about Hageman factor. I'm not deleting those. My question is straightforward. You said you couldn't delete them, nature's done the experiment, it deleted them, doesn't that disprove the hypothesis?... and you're talking about deleting other ones?


www.ncseweb.org/resources



And I would think you would be fine calling the ATP system a molecular machine, just like some describe the eye as a camera. Doesn't indicate intelligent design though - just complexity.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by melatonin]

mod edit to shorten link and add external quote tags




[edit on 2-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Put it this way, if this universe required a designer/creator in order for it to exist, then we're left with a big question. What of the designer/creator himself? Did it require a designer/creator itself? If yes, then what of THAT creator/designer ad infinitum. If the answer is no, and we assume the designer/creator came to be through natural mean's, then how can we have any doubt that this universe couldn't have come about through natural mean's? It's an extremly flawed concept. In one aspect, your left questioning if the desinger needed to be designed, and in the other your left with, well if he didn't need to be designed, then why do we. It still all boil's down to your own ignorance in not knowing all the underlying principle's of the universe and with the opinionated belief that thing's APPEAR to be designed due to your ignorance and the religous faith/pre-assumption of a designer's existance. It's not scientific and it's not even logical. It was born of creationism and it will die as creationism.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Ok...huh?

Antibiotic resistance is not evidence for evolution? Huh?


So, a population of bacteria changes over time due to the selective pressure of the antibiotic. The frequency of resistant individuals increases, along with the frequency of resistance alleles. What am I missing?

Take HIV. If you look at an HIV patient soon after infection, you will see one or a few strains of the virus. Then, when you look later, you see more strains of the virus. If you use AZT on the patient, the viral load drops fast, but then increases again.

Here, the AZT resistant viruses were outcompeted in the absence of AZT. Now, in the presence of AZT, they have a selective advantage over their previous competitors. But, if you remove AZT, the frequency of the resistant strain drops as their former competitors begin to outcompete them.

What am I missing here? Please let me know; I am still learning about evolution, but I know something about it already.

I guess this is ID. I saw someone on here attack evolution, posting that the reason resistance occurs is that the drug itself changes, not the target of the drug.
Come on, at least I did better than that.

And, there's nothing wrong with reading an abstract of a paper and moving on. Like I said, I was expecting an experiment directly testing ID or one of its hypotheses, and this paper, fine as it is, does not do that.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok...huh?

Antibiotic resistance is not evidence for evolution? Huh?


Let me see if I can't help you out.


So, a population of bacteria changes over time due to the selective pressure of the antibiotic. The frequency of resistant individuals increases, along with the frequency of resistance alleles. What am I missing?


The population of bacteria doesn't change. The frequency of pre-existing alleles changes. The population is unchanged in and of itself. The relative frequencies of each allele already present has changed, nothing more.

Bacteria, do acquire resistance genes from other bacteria via horizontal gene transfer... but in reality all that's happening here is that the frequency of resistance alleles is increasing in the collective genome. Nothing new has been created. Antibiotic resistance genes generally come from antibiotic producing organisms.

Antibiotic resistance is the result of a change in allele frequencies within any given population of bacteria. In this case, population doesn't mean 'pure culture;' the flora of your intestines are a population, etc.


Take HIV. If you look at an HIV patient soon after infection, you will see one or a few strains of the virus. Then, when you look later, you see more strains of the virus. If you use AZT on the patient, the viral load drops fast, but then increases again.

Here, the AZT resistant viruses were outcompeted in the absence of AZT. Now, in the presence of AZT, they have a selective advantage over their previous competitors. But, if you remove AZT, the frequency of the resistant strain drops as their former competitors begin to outcompete them.

Exactly... merely changes in population dynamics.



And, there's nothing wrong with reading an abstract of a paper and moving on. Like I said, I was expecting an experiment directly testing ID or one of its hypotheses, and this paper, fine as it is, does not do that.

Depending on what you want to get out of an article, maybe not. Me personally, I like to understand things, but that's just me.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Put it this way, if this universe required a designer/creator in order for it to exist, then we're left with a big question. What of the designer/creator himself? Did it require a designer/creator itself? If yes, then what of THAT creator/designer ad infinitum. If the answer is no, and we assume the designer/creator came to be through natural mean's, then how can we have any doubt that this universe couldn't have come about through natural mean's? It's an extremly flawed concept. In one aspect, your left questioning if the desinger needed to be designed, and in the other your left with, well if he didn't need to be designed, then why do we. It still all boil's down to your own ignorance in not knowing all the underlying principle's of the universe and with the opinionated belief that thing's APPEAR to be designed due to your ignorance and the religous faith/pre-assumption of a designer's existance. It's not scientific and it's not even logical. It was born of creationism and it will die as creationism.


Okay for the million and oneth time... the question is totally irrelevant to design theory... like I said maybe you should start you own movement.

On a completely philosophical note... no we don't have to assume the designer was created. Furthermore we are under no obligation that a designer came to be by natural means. To answer a philosophical question from a scientific perspective: Time is a construct of the big bang... spacetime didn't exist before the big bang, thus time didn't exist before the big bang. If some being were responsible for the creation of the universe, it would NOT be subject to time as we understand it, and would likely not have had a beginning.

Though I do love your circular acrobatics in this post... you've been pretty much repeating the same post for about the last three posts. Your sort of like one of those really cheesy pop groups... I once heard one of them say that they looked for ways to write the same song over and over again...

Is that your goal... post the same stuff over and over again? In the hopes that eventually people will just accept it.

Are you one of those guys who believes that if you ask every girl you see to sleep with you eventually one of them will?

That would appear to be your strategy here... repeat the same stuff over and over again, hope that people don't notice and eventually accept it.

To answer your next post ahead of time.
  1. ID is not concerned with the designer... though you seem to be. Maybe you should start your own movement.
  2. I know, I know my belief in intelligent design can only be because I am ignorant... the ironic thing is that the person whose credentials were unaware of is calling the scientist with a Ph.D. in a field relevant to the topic.... I'm sorry your credentials were what again... you've been studying this stuff for how long?
  3. And yes... finally... your grand finale will be: ID is nothing more than creationism... profound. How did you come up with that one?


Have you thought about a career in a boy band? You've got what they're looking for... the ability to repeat the same information over and over again. You've also got the cool hip name... maybe everyone in your band can have a similar handle... I don't know what part you sing, but perhaps... Merchandize, can sing soprano... You can have Gross-reez on bass.... to bad truthseeka doesn't fit in with your band... you guys get along so famously... maybe he can change his handle to fruitseeka and fit in. He's already got the ice cream thing in his mood... you know parfaitin'

woops... my mistake it says parlayin'

[edit on 2-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Well... I see we have some time to 'play' again... welcome back.

Behe could be wrong about IC of every system, and it wouldn't necessarily mean that ID was wrong per se. Things change in science... I don't see everyone freaking out that a swimming mammal was found millions of years before ET says it should be there.

Interestingly enough, I believe it was you who recently said such evidence, admittedly a more extreme circumstance than this, but this variety of evidence would disprove Darwinism.

What does this do to the theory of common descent, and all of our currently existing assumptions about mammals?


And I would think you would be fine calling the ATP system a molecular machine, just like some describe the eye as a camera. Doesn't indicate intelligent design though - just complexity.
Well that wasn't really the analogy I was asking about. Whether or not something in conjunction with other evidence indicates design is a matter of personal opinion, depending pretty much on your presuppositions going into the question.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Wouldn't be constrained by it entirely depending upon the condition's it lived in. The question is very valid. In order for this universe to have been designed you must also prove that there was indeed a designer. You assume spacetime and time itself didn't exist prior to the universe. Fact is, we DO NOT KNOW the condition's prior to the big bang. Space and time could have very well always existed in some other form and model of physics that we haven't even concieved of yet, allowing for the natural birth of a universe. Thing is we do not know. Science doesn't even claim to know what the condition's were, all science is doing is trying to discover what those condition's possibly were, and there are a few model's floating around that do fit with observable prediction's within our universe. What does ID have? Nothing. Literally nothing of it's own, but more and more of this BS IC garbage, which some get's debunked, and some we simply don't fully understand yet. Thing's we do not fully understand yet is not evidence of design. The ancient greek's did not understand the mechanics behind lightening, does this imply that lightening, from their understanding was indeed created by an angry god? IDT is not scientific in the slightest respect, it pre- assume's an absolute truth without any verifiable evidence of that pre-assumption, that being the designer himself. Not even a single theory of the nature behind the designer itself or theories for how the designer could even design such a complicated universe. No, the excuse is, we don't care about that, we're just going to attack concept's that science has no answer's to yet and claim that as our own evidence because we're unable to conclude our own theories and experiments. And yes, those people were given the oppurtunity for grant's given if they provided proposals for actual research. They failed to show up and provide those proposal's, so enough of the woe is them not getting a grant BS. Truth is, you haven't provided a single shred of this ID nonesense. You've been doing that same thing as the rest. Attack that which science hasn't answered yet. Very scientific. And not only that, but your getting off on the idea that insulting me is going to make me stop arguing these point's. Think again.

[edit on 2-3-2006 by Produkt]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join