As in the days of Noah.....

[This_person]

One is based on observed data.

One isn't.

They're both based on the same observations. They both have the same testability. They are different explainations of the same observations

I don't think that anyone disputes this.

The only reason I entered this thread at all was that abiogenesis was referred to as "bad science", and that it is based on faith alone. Nothing I've read since joining the discussion has led me away from believing that these two accusations are false.

ID has been deemed faith because there is no way to test it. "Not science", because it can't be tested, repeated, etc. I see no difference between that accurate criticism of ID, and that accurate criticism of abiogenesis.

 

[This_person]

With one glaring exception.

ID makes a huge baseless assumption. It assumes an intelligence, where there is no scientific data providing evidence of its existence.

I agree it's a baseless assumption. Where is the observable, repeatable, testable data for the assumption of life formation from ANY source, let alone an intelligent designer? This is where I do NOT see a difference. It's not that I think ID has better data, it's that I don't see the data for abiogenesis any more than I see the data for a single cell becoming so many different forms of life.

You told me before that I was misrepresenting evolution by saying that, but when I asked how that was a misrepresentation (of you then, of Xaquin, NS, Tommy, and many others over many threads with a similar comment), no one has been able to demonstrate how that's a misrepresentation.

Big bang and evolution theories do not assume anything. They take accumulated observable data and infers a theory based on those alone.

I agree. But, what I'm saying about the Big Bang is that the first bit of time of that "bang", the natural laws do not exist. If we can reasonably follow a scientific theory that has "super" natural laws in this, why can't we follow what would therefore be an equally scientific theory with "super" natural laws?

 

[baydoll]

Dear Everyone,

In response to Mr. Nuckle's recent request that I answer his past posts, I am going to have to lay aside any recents posts I have yet to answer. For the time being, anyway. I know, I know, you all just ADORE me and will be saddened to hear of this. BUT I must be brave and take on this new assignment in which I will bravely attempt to go where no man has gone before. YES, taking that daringest of all journeys, back into the dark primordial recesses of this thread in search of those allusive and wiliest of posts, The Great Unanswered Nuckle's Posts.

Wish me luck!


Sincerely,

Bay-Doll.

 

[tommyjones]

birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says

can you show me a pre-cambrian bird while you are at it?

 

[Toxick]

It's not that I think ID has better data, it's that I don't see the data for abiogenesis any more than I see the data for a single cell becoming so many different forms of life.

Abiogenesis simply means "life from non-life".

That's it.

Now, without assuming that there is a Creator, and also without assuming that life has existed for eternity past, there is going to be abiogenesis. This is a binary system. There either was intelligent design, or there was not (and therefore abiogenesis). Either/or. No other options.

And one of these options makes an assumption.


Now, I will give you that the theories in which the actual abiogenesis occured are arguable and are the subject of some debate - but the fact that something happened is given by our very existence. And without making baseless assumptions, that something must be abiogenesis.


(As I said, I believe in ID, but the above is an explanation of why I don't consider it Science).

You told me before that I was misrepresenting evolution by saying that, but when I asked how that was a misrepresentation (of you then, of Xaquin, NS, Tommy, and many others over many threads with a similar comment), no one has been able to demonstrate how that's a misrepresentation.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. When I said you were misrepresenting evolution, I was referring to the fact that you explicitly said "I should be able to take a sponge, and several generations later have a ficus" (or something similar), which is implicitly saying that a person should be able to watch evolution take place over the course of 25-30 years - at worst, within a lifetime.

Evolution encompasses billions or trillions of generations over hundreds of millions of years, and is so mind-bogglingly gradual that its undetectable within a lifetime - or many, many lifetimes.

It's measured in eons, eras and epochs.

I agree. But, what I'm saying about the Big Bang is that the first bit of time of that "bang", the natural laws do not exist. If we can reasonably follow a scientific theory that has "super" natural laws in this, why can't we follow what would therefore be an equally scientific theory with "super" natural laws?

Why would you assume that natural laws do not exist? And if that's not your assumption, I was unaware that the big bang theory imposed physical laws which are different from the laws we have now.

The theory of the big bang (notice it's still called a theory) is derived from the fact that the universe is noticably, detectably and observably expanding. Without making assumptions (such as Divine Involvement) it is reasonable to infer that it's expanding FROM somewhere. So you trace it backwards and backwards over billions of years and you have pinpointed where it all began. Since it's all still expanding billions of years later, some significant amount of force must have set it in motion. Perhaps some sort of explosion?

That's all I'm getting at - Intelligent design makes an assumption. Big Bang and evolution do not.

 

[This_person]

Abiogenesis simply means "life from non-life".

That's it.

Now, without assuming that there is a Creator, and also without assuming that life has existed for eternity past, there is going to be abiogenesis. This is a binary system. There either was intelligent design, or there was not (and therefore abiogenesis). Either/or. No other options.

And one of these options makes an assumption.


Now, I will give you that the theories in which the actual abiogenesis occured are arguable and are the subject of some debate - but the fact that something happened is given by our very existence. And without making baseless assumptions, that something must be abiogenesis.

I understand what you're saying here. I merely disagree that it's automatically baseless to consider creation. You say that the fact we're here is the given observation of abiogenesis. My argument is that the mechanism of abiogenesis being creation is no more baseless than any other mechanism, because it's based upon the same observation (we exist). It's merely a different and equally unprovable theory as all the rest of the theories of the mechanisms of abiogenesis. It takes the same observation (we're here), and researches the likelihood of us being here, and comes up with a theory of how it could have happened.

(As I said, I believe in ID, but the above is an explanation of why I don't consider it Science).

And, the above is why I consider it to be at least as good science as any other. It has the same testability, repeatability as any other theory of the mechanism of abiogenesis. If that's not science, neither is any other mechanism.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. When I said you were misrepresenting evolution, I was referring to the fact that you explicitly said "I should be able to take a sponge, and several generations later have a ficus" (or something similar), which is implicitly saying that a person should be able to watch evolution take place over the course of 25-30 years - at worst, within a lifetime.

Evolution encompasses billions or trillions of generations over hundreds of millions of years, and is so mind-bogglingly gradual that its undetectable within a lifetime - or many, many lifetimes.

It's measured in eons, eras and epochs.

And, the best we've been able to come up with researching certain insects (etc) with extremely short lifespans - where we can look at hundreds of thousands of generations, literally - is that for some unexplained reason a group can digest stuff other groups can't. We can't explain why, see the mechanism by which it occured, or reproduce it, but we see that anomoly. That's the type of experiment that is the basis of "proof" for evolution occuring. Millions of generations in, and no group began to become even even a little more complex (ie, advance to higher levels of life UP the food chain) let alone any significant changes.

And, the fact that we can't do any reasonable experiment suggests to me that we're going on conjecture to get from that sponge to anything more complex. We have NOTHING to go on other than that we have so many forms of life on the planet. That's really the only scientific observation we have. And, that ID has.

Why would you assume that natural laws do not exist? And if that's not your assumption, I was unaware that the big bang theory imposed physical laws which are different from the laws we have now.

Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.

As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.

After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.

After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.

Physicists believe that general relativity becomes incompatible with quantum mechanics at the Planck scale, so that the predictions of general relativity cannot be trusted before the Planck era when energies and temperatures reached the Planck scale, and that we need a theory of quantum gravitation before we can say anything about times before the Planck era.

The Planck epoch
Up to 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang
Main article: Planck epoch
If supersymmetry is correct, then during this time the four fundamental forces — electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation — all have the same strength, so they are possibly unified into one fundamental force. Little is known about this epoch, although different theories propose different scenarios. General relativity proposes a gravitational singularity before this time, but under these conditions the theory is expected to break down due to quantum effects. Physicists hope that proposed theories of quantum gravitation, such as string theory and loop quantum gravity, will eventually lead to a better understanding of this epoch.

The theory of the big bang (notice it's still called a theory) is derived from the fact that the universe is noticably, detectably and observably expanding. Without making assumptions (such as Divine Involvement) it is reasonable to infer that it's expanding FROM somewhere. So you trace it backwards and backwards over billions of years and you have pinpointed where it all began. Since it's all still expanding billions of years later, some significant amount of force must have set it in motion. Perhaps some sort of explosion?

That's all I'm getting at - Intelligent design makes an assumption. Big Bang and evolution do not.

This is where we'll have to disagree. The only difference I see is that ID assumes and intelligence behind how it all started, and science ASSUMES there's not. There's no fundamental difference in each assumption from a provability standpoint. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the questions regarding time before the Big Bang/Creation, one must accept that we're presented with the observation of, reasonably, something beyond the universe which could present us with the source material for the universe. At least ID has a theory on that

 

[Toxick]

The other stuff looks like interesting reading. I am pretty busy today, so I'll have to go over it some other time.

I'll address this point, however:

The only difference I see is that ID assumes and intelligence behind how it all started, and science ASSUMES there's not.

One cannot assume a negative. Much as one cannot prove a negative. By virtue of the scientific method, the one making the assertion carries the burden of proof.

I cannot prove that an invisible weightless unicorn is not taking a dump on your head right now. You can't prove it either - however if I were to insist that there was one, you may politely disagree, but inside you'd think I was a damn fool.

Science does not assume that God did not create the universe. It merely states that there is no proof that He did, and therefore no theorums may rely on the assumption that He did.

There's no fundamental difference in each assumption from a provability standpoint.

One difference. You don't prove a negative. Saying "There is no intelligent design" is not an affirmative sentence, and therefore does not require affirmation.

 

[baydoll]

I'm back!

Okay, I've decided to answer Turnin's (?) post first:

I asked:

Where the first DNA came from

He (she?) answered:

Earlier genetic material, such as RNA and replicating protein strains

And where did those earlier genetic material come from?

(more to come....)

 

[baydoll]

I asked Turning where this vast amounts of information in animal/human DNA comes from to which he/she quiped:

From the earlier, lesser amounts of information in other DNA. Compare to creatures with the smallest amount of DNA

Smallest amounts of DNA? Which would be what, exactly?

 

[baydoll]

More...

Me: how molecular machines evolved,

Turnin:

From other molecular machines, some of which are naturally occuring even today.

Like I said before, a non-answer.

OBVIOUSLY they are naturally occurring even today. If they weren’t none of us would be on this forum discussing molecular machinery in the first place.

Ever heard of an Irreducible Complex System? An irreducible complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Every living thing are literally filled with molecular machines that perform numerous functions of life. These molecular machines are irreducible complex, meaning all the parts of each machine are completely formed, in the right place, the right size in operating order at the same time for the machine to work.

I like this example of what irreducible complex system looks like and how it works and will use it here:

"A car engine is an example of irreducible complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling systems, engine compartment and other systems, or the new engine will not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like the car engine. Every functions in the human body-such as blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organisms) and vision requires irreducible complex systems that could not have been developed in the gradual Darwinisian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would NOT BE FUNCTIONAL.

As with a car engine ALL the parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be ANY function at all.

You can build an engine part by part (and even then the engine doesn’t just ‘build’ itself over a long period of time….) but you can’t drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nor could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.

If Darwinism is to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times because living things cannot survive if, say, their vital organs do not perform their usual function during the slow trail and error Darwininian transitions."

 

[tommyjones]

More...

Me: how molecular machines evolved,

Turnin:

Like I said before, a non-answer.

OBVIOUSLY they are naturally occurring even today. If they weren’t none of us would be on this forum discussing molecular machinery in the first place.

Ever heard of an Irreducible Complex System? An irreducible complex system is "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

Every living thing are literally filled with molecular machines that perform numerous functions of life. These molecular machines are irreducible complex, meaning all the parts of each machine are completely formed, in the right place, the right size in operating order at the same time for the machine to work.

I like this example of what irreducible complex system looks like and how it works and will use it here:

"A car engine is an example of irreducible complex system. If a change is made in the size of the pistons, this would require simultaneous changes in the cam shaft, block, cooling systems, engine compartment and other systems, or the new engine will not function. Living things are irreducibly complex, just like the car engine. Every functions in the human body-such as blood clotting, cilia (cell propulsion organisms) and vision requires irreducible complex systems that could not have been developed in the gradual Darwinisian fashion. Why? Because intermediates would NOT BE FUNCTIONAL.

As with a car engine ALL the parts must be in place in the right size at the same time for there to be ANY function at all.

You can build an engine part by part (and even then the engine doesn’t just ‘build’ itself over a long period of time….) but you can’t drive to work with only a partial engine under the hood. Nor could you drive to work if one essential part of your engine were modified but others were not. In the same way, living systems quickly would become nonfunctional if they were modified piece by piece.

If Darwinism is to be true, functionality must be maintained at all times because living things cannot survive if, say, their vital organs do not perform their usual function during the slow trail and error Darwininian transitions."

ok, i'll play....

what about the appendix?

it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?


Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed?

 

[This_person]

One cannot assume a negative. Much as one cannot prove a negative. By virtue of the scientific method, the one making the assertion carries the burden of proof.

I more or less agree. However, before proof, all is negative.

So, abiogenesis is life from lifelessness. This is the observation to justify that: we exist, as do gazillions of other life forms, and direct and indirect evidence that the current state of life on Earth is about 1% of all life that's ever been on Earth. From that, hypothesis have to be made as to how life came from lifelessness.

Suppose certain chemical elements came together in just the right fashion, at just the right time, with just the right energy influence, etc., etc. This is one supposition, completely unsupported by any fact, any proof, any empiracal data, anything at all. But, it's considered a scientific supposition.

Now suppose that an intelligence beyond our four dimensions put those chemical elements together in just the right fashion, at just the right time....... This is a supposition completely unsupported by any fact, any proof, any empiraclal data, anything at all. But, it's considered a non-scientific supposition. Why? In the randomness of all the universe, if we can create new laws when we can witness things on the subatomic level that don't follow current laws and when we can presume the first 10E-43 seconds of universal existance can have different than our currently understood natural laws, why can't we accept yet another possibility of different natural laws (a supernatural entity)? It's just a supposition, with the same facts supporting it - we exist.

We don't know the conditions under which life first came from lifelessness. Any test we would perform would be tainted by our very existance into that test - contaminating the lifelessness from which we would be testing life. It's pure fiction to imagine any test that could reasonably prove any theory. Because we cannot show any reasonable explaination of life from lifelessness, the mere concept would have to ALSO be considered supernatural. Does that mean we no longer exist?

I cannot prove that an invisible weightless unicorn is not taking a dump on your head right now. You can't prove it either - however if I were to insist that there was one, you may politely disagree, but inside you'd think I was a damn fool.

Science does not assume that God did not create the universe. It merely states that there is no proof that He did, and therefore no theorums may rely on the assumption that He did.

One difference. You don't prove a negative. Saying "There is no intelligent design" is not an affirmative sentence, and therefore does not require affirmation.

There's no observation of the unicorn. There is an observation of life.

George Carlin did a line in one of his appearances on Carson (with Flip Wilson, they were newsmen and it was hillarious ((mostly))), where he said that a new disease was discovered. It has no symptoms, does not effect the body in any way, has no known cause, and no known cure. I think it's the unicorn!

I agree science cannot assume there's a God. But, when brainstorming the initiating factor of the universe, or of life itself, it's idiotic to rule out any potential answer when no answer without it comes any closer than an Intelligent Designer. I don't seek everyone to agree that there's a Creator, just don't dismiss one of the potential answers, and claim it's not science to think beyond our four dimensions.

 

[baydoll]

ok, i'll play....

what about the appendix?

it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?

Even so, Tommy, that still doesn't explain the rest of the body's amazing ability to function. These complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly. If only one component is missing, the irreducible complex machine will not work.

Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed

It's not really 'one little thing'. It's LOADS and LOADS of big 'things' that disproves Darwinism.

Name one thing that disproves the Bible.

 

[tommyjones]

Even so, Tommy, that still doesn't explain the rest of the body's amazing ability to function. These complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly. If only one component is missing, the irreducible complex machine will not work.





It's not really 'one little thing'. It's LOADS and LOADS of big 'things' that disproves Darwinism.

Name one thing that disproves the Bible.

I'm glad you came back, but its a shame you are going to act ignorant of the numerous things that are inaccurate in the bible now. Its not good for a debate. A few of the little things have been listed again and again. you know, the mustard seed, bats being birds etc.


also i find it amusing that you now claim that the "complicated systems cannot have been evolved in gradual steps as the evolution model claims because the system works only if all components are present and connected correctly" when i just showed you that homans may very well have an organ that is in the process of being evolved or 'discontinued' Obviously the appendix existing gives credence to the theory that humans are evolving, and that this happens gradually enough that your "irreducible machine" theory is discredited.

 

[foodcritic]

ok, i'll play....

what about the appendix?

it is an organ that we either needed before and not so much now, or is something we may evolve into using in the future. doesn't this "sleeping ability" destroy the pure funtionality rethoric you are prescribing to?


Also, if one little thing can disprove darwinism, can't the same be said for the bible? if we find one thing that is demonstrably not true, then the whole thing must be tossed?

Because the gradual effect is so absent evidence...
Scientists had adopt more "theories" such as Punctuated Equilibrium which is sort of lake having your cake and eating it to.

Because they could not find it in the fossil record, things must have had times of rapid evolution in a relatively short time frame. This is makes the pieces come(forced) together.

However I suspect that while the fossil record is important why not what is observable NOW? Why can't we find, what I believe, should be millions of transitional species alive now? Anyone, Anyone?

 

[tommyjones]

Because the gradual effect is so absent evidence...
Scientists had adopt more "theories" such as Punctuated Equilibrium which is sort of lake having your cake and eating it to.

Because they could not find it in the fossil record, things must have had times of rapid evolution in a relatively short time frame. This is makes the pieces come(forced) together.

However I suspect that while the fossil record is important why not what is observable NOW? Why can't we find, what I believe, should be millions of transitional species alive now? Anyone, Anyone?

how do you know YOU aren't one?

 

[xusnret]

my GF's priest and i were talking aout this the other day. we both had a big laugh about the fact there are people who actually believe that the devil put fossils in the gound jsut to discredit the bible and to make people question its integrity. The priest and i agree that fossils (we were talking aout dinosaurs) dont necessarily discredit the bible, but believing the DEBIL did it is just.... well.... you got to be pretty gulible

This just about sums it up: Dinosaurs in the Bible - Video

 

[foodcritic]

Thanks Mr Dawkins or should I say Knucklehead!

Yeah good luck on getting her to address that. But then according to Penn, pointing out an example of something she asked for makes me a Thug

(figure that one out)

Dont forget the blind cave salamanders (if you do a search in this you'll find references)

The vestigial eyes, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?[/QUOTE]

I know your big on accurate quotations and citations etc...your comment above seemed oddly familiar.....


Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?

How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

At least you could give credit instead of tying to pass it off as your own thought.

 

[foodcritic]

Retard, the quote is a quote from a previous quote of a Thread, but we dont expect you to follow along

Sure....You could still have cited the reference...I could care less, your the quote police

 

[foodcritic]

Ok...and

Retard, the quote is a quote from a previous quote of a Thread, but we dont expect you to follow along

I did read it ......guess what the first 2 paragraphs are quoted as Hitchens. But HELLO the remainder of the wording is not quoted and is typed to look like your own.....


I suggest you look at it.