Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Examples of ID/Examples of Evolution

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 9:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?

Evolution has clear parameters. It is a mechanism of change in a population of organisms. Clearly it does not answer, explain, or even concern itself with the creation of life. just with the changes after life is made.

Intelligent Design is applied to people who think every species is designed and created. People who think every Every genus was created and now adapt (micro-evolve) or applied to people who think the original biological cells on Archeon Earth were designed and from then on evolve and adapt (macro+micro evolution)

What is one possible, plausible, likely natural event that could connect left-hand proteins to right-handed sugar-phosphate backbone for a length of (ridiculously small) 20 amino acids. That is to say this happen with out the careful guidance, inspection, refining, filtering, assembly, adjustment of of radiation exposure, drastic changes in temperatures, or any other series of events unlikely to occur in a realistic (yet still imaginary) Early Earth environment.

Can you explain an evolutionary path of how the structure of a lipid shell, gets encoded into protein amino acids? I understand that these chemical reaction are just doing what physical and chemical science says they are likely to do, such as seeking more stable energy levels. My question is how or why does this matter form into a string of Encoded instructions? This is quite different from a "mold" like a brick made in a wood box. This is also quite different than the fractal patterns expressed by crystals growing. And the line of encoded instructions is not random like an avalanche.

When ever we see an assembly of unlike, systematically changed, elements in an arrangement that expresses stored information through non-analogous record and write operations, the verdict is unanimously intelligently made.

Even if we never knew what a honey bee was, or a beaver, wasps... I would hope we as an intelligent race would not look at a bagworm cocoon, a beaver dam, a wasp nest, a honeycomb, a bowerbird nest.. and decide that they were created by weather, geological, astronomical conditions.

Given the simplisity of some things "created" I would expect that somewhere in nature there should be a bowernest made without the bird.

Certainly with as big as the universe is and as much time as it has been around, there is a viking sword embedded in a shale outcrop on some earth like planet produced by natural effects.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:22:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 9:33:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?

Evolution has clear parameters. It is a mechanism of change in a population of organisms. Clearly it does not answer, explain, or even concern itself with the creation of life. just with the changes after life is made.

Intelligent Design is applied to people who think every species is designed and created. People who think every Every genus was created and now adapt (micro-evolve) or applied to people who think the original biological cells on Archeon Earth were designed and from then on evolve and adapt (macro+micro evolution)

What is one possible, plausible, likely natural event that could connect left-hand proteins to right-handed sugar-phosphate backbone for a length of (ridiculously small) 20 amino acids. That is to say this happen with out the careful guidance, inspection, refining, filtering, assembly, adjustment of of radiation exposure, drastic changes in temperatures, or any other series of events unlikely to occur in a realistic (yet still imaginary) Early Earth environment.

Are you asking a question or are you giving an example of ID? This sounds like an argument from incredulity. (and I don't know the answer)

Can you explain an evolutionary path of how the structure of a lipid shell, gets encoded into protein amino acids?

Nope, can you? It seems to me, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then this cannot be an example/evidence of ID anymore than it can be an example/evidence of evolution.

I understand that these chemical reaction are just doing what physical and chemical science says they are likely to do, such as seeking more stable energy levels. My question is how or why does this matter form into a string of Encoded instructions?

I don't know. Do you?

This is quite different from a "mold" like a brick made in a wood box. This is also quite different than the fractal patterns expressed by crystals growing. And the line of encoded instructions is not random like an avalanche.

When ever we see an assembly of unlike, systematically changed, elements in an arrangement that expresses stored information through non-analogous record and write operations, the verdict is unanimously intelligently made.

Any examples made by THE intelligent designer? I was hoping you might point to something intelligently designed in nature that was not done by known living organisms.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:22:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:33:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?

Evolution has clear parameters. It is a mechanism of change in a population of organisms. Clearly it does not answer, explain, or even concern itself with the creation of life. just with the changes after life is made.

Intelligent Design is applied to people who think every species is designed and created. People who think every Every genus was created and now adapt (micro-evolve) or applied to people who think the original biological cells on Archeon Earth were designed and from then on evolve and adapt (macro+micro evolution)

What is one possible, plausible, likely natural event that could connect left-hand proteins to right-handed sugar-phosphate backbone for a length of (ridiculously small) 20 amino acids. That is to say this happen with out the careful guidance, inspection, refining, filtering, assembly, adjustment of of radiation exposure, drastic changes in temperatures, or any other series of events unlikely to occur in a realistic (yet still imaginary) Early Earth environment.

Are you asking a question or are you giving an example of ID? This sounds like an argument from incredulity. (and I don't know the answer)

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.


Can you explain an evolutionary path of how the structure of a lipid shell, gets encoded into protein amino acids?

Nope, can you? It seems to me, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then this cannot be an example/evidence of ID anymore than it can be an example/evidence of evolution.

An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.


I understand that these chemical reaction are just doing what physical and chemical science says they are likely to do, such as seeking more stable energy levels. My question is how or why does this matter form into a string of Encoded instructions?

I don't know. Do you?

Nature can not account for the encoding. Well some are beginning to think the universe with it's natural laws just naturally leans towards producing life. Which doesn't surprise me. Scientist find so many of the good answers from theist thought.

But when we look at designed things the encoding of information is understood to be there. Where as natural processes do not encode.


This is quite different from a "mold" like a brick made in a wood box. This is also quite different than the fractal patterns expressed by crystals growing. And the line of encoded instructions is not random like an avalanche.

When ever we see an assembly of unlike, systematically changed, elements in an arrangement that expresses stored information through non-analogous record and write operations, the verdict is unanimously intelligently made.

Any examples made by THE intelligent designer? I was hoping you might point to something intelligently designed in nature that was not done by known living organisms.

I just gave you 2 examples. The strand of RNA more than 10 molecules long (most estimates put life at needing 200 molecules long) and RNA/DNA arrangement of nucleobases to encode information.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:47:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:22:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:33:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?

Evolution has clear parameters. It is a mechanism of change in a population of organisms. Clearly it does not answer, explain, or even concern itself with the creation of life. just with the changes after life is made.

Intelligent Design is applied to people who think every species is designed and created. People who think every Every genus was created and now adapt (micro-evolve) or applied to people who think the original biological cells on Archeon Earth were designed and from then on evolve and adapt (macro+micro evolution)

What is one possible, plausible, likely natural event that could connect left-hand proteins to right-handed sugar-phosphate backbone for a length of (ridiculously small) 20 amino acids. That is to say this happen with out the careful guidance, inspection, refining, filtering, assembly, adjustment of of radiation exposure, drastic changes in temperatures, or any other series of events unlikely to occur in a realistic (yet still imaginary) Early Earth environment.

Are you asking a question or are you giving an example of ID? This sounds like an argument from incredulity. (and I don't know the answer)

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.


Can you explain an evolutionary path of how the structure of a lipid shell, gets encoded into protein amino acids?

Nope, can you? It seems to me, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then this cannot be an example/evidence of ID anymore than it can be an example/evidence of evolution.

An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.


I understand that these chemical reaction are just doing what physical and chemical science says they are likely to do, such as seeking more stable energy levels. My question is how or why does this matter form into a string of Encoded instructions?

I don't know. Do you?

Nature can not account for the encoding. Well some are beginning to think the universe with it's natural laws just naturally leans towards producing life. Which doesn't surprise me. Scientist find so many of the good answers from theist thought.

But when we look at designed things the encoding of information is understood to be there. Where as natural processes do not encode.


This is quite different from a "mold" like a brick made in a wood box. This is also quite different than the fractal patterns expressed by crystals growing. And the line of encoded instructions is not random like an avalanche.

When ever we see an assembly of unlike, systematically changed, elements in an arrangement that expresses stored information through non-analogous record and write operations, the verdict is unanimously intelligently made.

Any examples made by THE intelligent designer? I was hoping you might point to something intelligently designed in nature that was not done by known living organisms.

I just gave you 2 examples. The strand of RNA more than 10 molecules long (most estimates put life at needing 200 molecules long) and RNA/DNA arrangement of nucleobases to encode information.

I don't understand why RNA longer than 10 molecules is extraordinary, and are we talking about very very basic life needing more than 200 molecules? (Who's estimate?)

Also, I have very limited knowledge of the "RNA/DNA arrangement of nucleobases to encode information". Can you put that into English? :-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 1:26:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:47:12 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:22:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/20/2014 9:33:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/20/2014 7:37:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you're an ID advocate, can you give an example of design in nature which is best explained by an intelligent designer? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by evolution?

If you prefer an evolutionary viewpoint, can you provide an example in nature which is best explained by evolution? Do you have any examples that cannot be explained by ID?

Evolution has clear parameters. It is a mechanism of change in a population of organisms. Clearly it does not answer, explain, or even concern itself with the creation of life. just with the changes after life is made.

Intelligent Design is applied to people who think every species is designed and created. People who think every Every genus was created and now adapt (micro-evolve) or applied to people who think the original biological cells on Archeon Earth were designed and from then on evolve and adapt (macro+micro evolution)

What is one possible, plausible, likely natural event that could connect left-hand proteins to right-handed sugar-phosphate backbone for a length of (ridiculously small) 20 amino acids. That is to say this happen with out the careful guidance, inspection, refining, filtering, assembly, adjustment of of radiation exposure, drastic changes in temperatures, or any other series of events unlikely to occur in a realistic (yet still imaginary) Early Earth environment.

Are you asking a question or are you giving an example of ID? This sounds like an argument from incredulity. (and I don't know the answer)

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.


Can you explain an evolutionary path of how the structure of a lipid shell, gets encoded into protein amino acids?

Nope, can you? It seems to me, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then this cannot be an example/evidence of ID anymore than it can be an example/evidence of evolution.

An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.


I understand that these chemical reaction are just doing what physical and chemical science says they are likely to do, such as seeking more stable energy levels. My question is how or why does this matter form into a string of Encoded instructions?

I don't know. Do you?

Nature can not account for the encoding. Well some are beginning to think the universe with it's natural laws just naturally leans towards producing life. Which doesn't surprise me. Scientist find so many of the good answers from theist thought.

But when we look at designed things the encoding of information is understood to be there. Where as natural processes do not encode.


This is quite different from a "mold" like a brick made in a wood box. This is also quite different than the fractal patterns expressed by crystals growing. And the line of encoded instructions is not random like an avalanche.

When ever we see an assembly of unlike, systematically changed, elements in an arrangement that expresses stored information through non-analogous record and write operations, the verdict is unanimously intelligently made.

Any examples made by THE intelligent designer? I was hoping you might point to something intelligently designed in nature that was not done by known living organisms.

I just gave you 2 examples. The strand of RNA more than 10 molecules long (most estimates put life at needing 200 molecules long) and RNA/DNA arrangement of nucleobases to encode information.

I don't understand why RNA longer than 10 molecules is extraordinary, and are we talking about very very basic life needing more than 200 molecules? (Who's estimate?)


Also, I have very limited knowledge of the "RNA/DNA arrangement of nucleobases to encode information". Can you put that into English? :-)

Okay. Here's a refresher on DNA.
http://www.garlandscience.com...

About the RNA or DNA chain 200 molecules long. refer to "RNA as an enzyme"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The ability to self-replicate, or synthesize other RNA molecules; relatively short RNA molecules that can synthesize others have been artificially produced in the lab. The shortest was 165-bases long, though it has been estimated that only part of the molecule was crucial for this function. One version, 189-bases long, had an error rate of just 1.1% per nucleotide when synthesizing 11 nucleotide RNA sequences from primed template strands.[22] This 189 base pair ribozyme could polymerize a template of at most 14 nucleotides in length, which is too short for self replication, but a potential lead for further investigation"

So I rounded to 200. But in my question i asked for a natural strand just more than 10. I think we have found chains around 8-12 in meteorites.

Now the amino acids don't like water. And to form chains they need an input of energy and peptides to make the bonds. All life we know uses left handed nucleotide bases. This is not hard to make. Different experiments have shown physical vectors like stirring can cause the amino acids to form nearly in all one homochirality.

now the back bone is sugar-phosphate. And all these are right handed. An aqueous solution can not spin in 2 different directions at the same time. So we have to intimately connected parts of RNA/DNA that come from mutually exclusive environments.

I can get more detailed but hope the link and brevity help. there are other such arrangements in a living cell that make a natural cause unlikely.

When you read some of the papers being published about science finding the building blocks of life. pay attention to if they are using alcohol. Alcohol only comes from biological life. So how does a solution of Alcohol explain making life, if the liquid only comes from life. It's such things like.

now the encoding question. Encoding is an abstraction of information. Take for instance a blueprint. the nature of the blueprint is totally different from the house. The information for building the house is encoded in flat lines. When properly interpreted the 3 dimensional house is built with lumber and nails.

that's the kind of encoding taking place in RNA/DNA. It is a string of 4 chemicals that alter and construct a 3 dimensional shape. With pause and play buttons. It is more akin to a magnetic head reading 0's and 1's from a hard drive platter than it is even like a needle vibrating to a vinyl record.

If it were like the vinyl record it would be more like a mold, an impression of the end product on a recording medium. that would be naturally plausible and possible. but it's not.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.


An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.

Sorry, but your invalid explanation completely ignores the concept of time and how small changes can have huge effects over vast periods of time. Argument from ignorance.


Nature can not account for the encoding. Well some are beginning to think the universe with it's natural laws just naturally leans towards producing life.

Absurd. The natural laws produce all kinds of things that are not living.

But when we look at designed things the encoding of information is understood to be there. Where as natural processes do not encode.

And, you know that how?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?



An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.

Sorry, but your invalid explanation completely ignores the concept of time and how small changes can have huge effects over vast periods of time. Argument from ignorance.

If it is an argument from ignorance than enlighten us with how this occured?

I'm not ignoring small changes or time. It does not matter how long it takes or by what changes if the end result is an encoding of information. Like I said equivalent to 0s and 1s (actually 0,1,2,3) in a digital code, and NOT like an impression of mold on a Vinyl record.

My assertion comes from the facts we DO KNOW. if your arguing for small changes over time then by all means enlighten us. If not:

Then your appeal to some unknown process is the IGNORANT side.



Nature can not account for the encoding. Well some are beginning to think the universe with it's natural laws just naturally leans towards producing life.

Absurd. The natural laws produce all kinds of things that are not living.

I forgot you have no understanding or reasoning.

What's absurd is you thinking what I wrote means natural laws always or is ever making life.

And the idea that the universal laws have an inclination to produce biological life is even discussed on Atheist websites. Saying that life is practically inevitable from the natural laws still says God does not exist.


But when we look at designed things the encoding of information is understood to be there. Where as natural processes do not encode.

And, you know that how?

I'll make that assertion more accurate.

There has been NO, NONE, NOWHERE observed natural process that has encoded information in abstract terms.

Is that clearer. Can you find some example anywhere of nature doing so?

Oh so this is another one of your arguments from ignorance.

You: I hope so hard that somewhere in the furthest reaches of space or the deepest oceans, at some point in the far far future, scientist will find this so I can be right about believing there is no god.

The funny thing is, that doesn't resemble reason.

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" - Hebrews 11:1

It resembles "Faith".
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.



An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.

Sorry, but your invalid explanation completely ignores the concept of time and how small changes can have huge effects over vast periods of time. Argument from ignorance.

If it is an argument from ignorance than enlighten us with how this occured?

I'm not ignoring small changes or time. It does not matter how long it takes or by what changes if the end result is an encoding of information. Like I said equivalent to 0s and 1s (actually 0,1,2,3) in a digital code, and NOT like an impression of mold on a Vinyl record.

My assertion comes from the facts we DO KNOW. if your arguing for small changes over time then by all means enlighten us. If not:

Then your appeal to some unknown process is the IGNORANT side.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 4:49:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.

If the elements to create an amino acid and other parts needed for anything an evolutionary process could control, could only be produced and assembled from mutually destructive environments and in arrangements near impossible for natural process, then yes I would say that is evidence of a creator. because that kind of arrangements, refinement, alteration of material, different environments making component pieces are only seen in manufacturing processes, intelligently controlled.



An intelligent designer, smart enough to understand the physical, chemical properties of these molecules and arranged them in a way to make a self replicating machine. More sophisticated than just a hardrive, reading head, and 3d printer.

Sorry, but your invalid explanation completely ignores the concept of time and how small changes can have huge effects over vast periods of time. Argument from ignorance.

If it is an argument from ignorance than enlighten us with how this occured?

I'm not ignoring small changes or time. It does not matter how long it takes or by what changes if the end result is an encoding of information. Like I said equivalent to 0s and 1s (actually 0,1,2,3) in a digital code, and NOT like an impression of mold on a Vinyl record.

My assertion comes from the facts we DO KNOW. if your arguing for small changes over time then by all means enlighten us. If not:

Then your appeal to some unknown process is the IGNORANT side.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."

Where did I say I don't know how it happened so oh-well God. One example I provided was the chirality of the elements used in long chains.

I'm saying life was created, designed, because there EVERY example we have of objects exhibiting these attributes are all intelligently made.

I'm saying Life is created, designed, because Life matches with all other examples of intelligently manufactured things.

This is a position arrived at from investigation of properties, plausibility, and construction. Supported by all experimental data, because when ever a biological component has been made in a laboratory it was made under ideal conditions, accurately and intelligently controlled by the scientist. Why did they do that? because if they did not filter the results washing away the impurities they did not want or control exposure ratings all the components would have broken apart.

Oh do not get me wrong the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is from evidence, is from what we know... God is not a synonym for I do not know.

Life was intelligently designer. Because that is where the evidence leads. not because there are no better options. Don't put such words into my mouth or straw-man my arguments by summing them up so.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:04:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 4:49:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.

If the elements to create an amino acid and other parts needed for anything an evolutionary process could control, could only be produced and assembled from mutually destructive environments and in arrangements near impossible for natural process, then yes I would say that is evidence of a creator. because that kind of arrangements, refinement, alteration of material, different environments making component pieces are only seen in manufacturing processes, intelligently controlled.

The arrangements of the material are not actually that refined or complex, the laws of chemistry and physics explain how they could be made. We do not know how the early earth was like, or where the first amino acids appeared, so we cannot answer the answer--for the moment, and perhaps for ever--of how the first amino acids were assembled. Still not evidence for a creator.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."

Where did I say I don't know how it happened so oh-well God. One example I provided was the chirality of the elements used in long chains.

I'm saying life was created, designed, because there EVERY example we have of objects exhibiting these attributes are all intelligently made.

Not true. Elements and atoms certainly look designed, but they are not.

I'm saying Life is created, designed, because Life matches with all other examples of intelligently manufactured things.

This is a position arrived at from investigation of properties, plausibility, and construction. Supported by all experimental data, because when ever a biological component has been made in a laboratory it was made under ideal conditions, accurately and intelligently controlled by the scientist. Why did they do that? because if they did not filter the results washing away the impurities they did not want or control exposure ratings all the components would have broken apart.

They did that in order to try to replicate what the initial conditions could have been like, and because it is a standard procedure in science (all experiments have to be performed under ideal conditions) but the experiments are not conclusive--and no one has claimed that they are--for precisely the reason I gave above: we don't, and perhaps can't, know how it happened.

Oh do not get me wrong the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is from evidence, is from what we know... God is not a synonym for I do not know.

Life was intelligently designer. Because that is where the evidence leads. not because there are no better options. Don't put such words into my mouth or straw-man my arguments by summing them up so.

What you are saying is essentially this: we do not know how amino acids could have bonded with sugar-phosphate molecules in nature, therefore it must have been an intelligent being who did it, and you jump straight to God.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:13:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:04:01 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:49:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.

If the elements to create an amino acid and other parts needed for anything an evolutionary process could control, could only be produced and assembled from mutually destructive environments and in arrangements near impossible for natural process, then yes I would say that is evidence of a creator. because that kind of arrangements, refinement, alteration of material, different environments making component pieces are only seen in manufacturing processes, intelligently controlled.

The arrangements of the material are not actually that refined or complex, the laws of chemistry and physics explain how they could be made. We do not know how the early earth was like, or where the first amino acids appeared, so we cannot answer the answer--for the moment, and perhaps for ever--of how the first amino acids were assembled. Still not evidence for a creator.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."

Where did I say I don't know how it happened so oh-well God. One example I provided was the chirality of the elements used in long chains.

I'm saying life was created, designed, because there EVERY example we have of objects exhibiting these attributes are all intelligently made.

Not true. Elements and atoms certainly look designed, but they are not.

I'm saying Life is created, designed, because Life matches with all other examples of intelligently manufactured things.

This is a position arrived at from investigation of properties, plausibility, and construction. Supported by all experimental data, because when ever a biological component has been made in a laboratory it was made under ideal conditions, accurately and intelligently controlled by the scientist. Why did they do that? because if they did not filter the results washing away the impurities they did not want or control exposure ratings all the components would have broken apart.

They did that in order to try to replicate what the initial conditions could have been like, and because it is a standard procedure in science (all experiments have to be performed under ideal conditions) but the experiments are not conclusive--and no one has claimed that they are--for precisely the reason I gave above: we don't, and perhaps can't, know how it happened.

Oh do not get me wrong the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is from evidence, is from what we know... God is not a synonym for I do not know.

Life was intelligently designer. Because that is where the evidence leads. not because there are no better options. Don't put such words into my mouth or straw-man my arguments by summing them up so.

What you are saying is essentially this: we do not know how amino acids could have bonded with sugar-phosphate molecules in nature, therefore it must have been an intelligent being who did it, and you jump straight to God.

The only time anything like 200 long chain of amino acids, and dissimilar parts ever come together is through intelligent intervention.

You say, nay, it's natural we just don't know how. Argument from ignorance.

I say the argument from construction ends with intelligent designer. I do make a leap from intelligent designer to God.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:13:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:04:01 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:49:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.

If the elements to create an amino acid and other parts needed for anything an evolutionary process could control, could only be produced and assembled from mutually destructive environments and in arrangements near impossible for natural process, then yes I would say that is evidence of a creator. because that kind of arrangements, refinement, alteration of material, different environments making component pieces are only seen in manufacturing processes, intelligently controlled.

The arrangements of the material are not actually that refined or complex, the laws of chemistry and physics explain how they could be made. We do not know how the early earth was like, or where the first amino acids appeared, so we cannot answer the answer--for the moment, and perhaps for ever--of how the first amino acids were assembled. Still not evidence for a creator.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."

Where did I say I don't know how it happened so oh-well God. One example I provided was the chirality of the elements used in long chains.

I'm saying life was created, designed, because there EVERY example we have of objects exhibiting these attributes are all intelligently made.

Not true. Elements and atoms certainly look designed, but they are not.

I'm saying Life is created, designed, because Life matches with all other examples of intelligently manufactured things.

This is a position arrived at from investigation of properties, plausibility, and construction. Supported by all experimental data, because when ever a biological component has been made in a laboratory it was made under ideal conditions, accurately and intelligently controlled by the scientist. Why did they do that? because if they did not filter the results washing away the impurities they did not want or control exposure ratings all the components would have broken apart.

They did that in order to try to replicate what the initial conditions could have been like, and because it is a standard procedure in science (all experiments have to be performed under ideal conditions) but the experiments are not conclusive--and no one has claimed that they are--for precisely the reason I gave above: we don't, and perhaps can't, know how it happened.

Oh do not get me wrong the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is from evidence, is from what we know... God is not a synonym for I do not know.

Life was intelligently designer. Because that is where the evidence leads. not because there are no better options. Don't put such words into my mouth or straw-man my arguments by summing them up so.

What you are saying is essentially this: we do not know how amino acids could have bonded with sugar-phosphate molecules in nature, therefore it must have been an intelligent being who did it, and you jump straight to God.

The only time anything like 200 long chain of amino acids, and dissimilar parts ever come together is through intelligent intervention.

You say, nay, it's natural we just don't know how. Argument from ignorance.

That does not mean that it can only come about through intelligent intervention, it means that we don't know how it could have come about; inferring an intelligent designer from that is an argument from ignorance, it is saying "we don't know how it could have happened, therefore someone must have done it." What I am saying is that perhaps we will never know, and for the moment let's keep trying to find how it could have happened, let's keep the door open.

I say the argument from construction ends with intelligent designer. I do make a leap from intelligent designer to God.

Come on, don't be dishonest, we all know that ID is a way to get God back into science, I very much doubt that you think it was aliens who did it.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 5:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:19:40 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:13:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:04:01 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:49:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/27/2014 4:32:56 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:14:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/21/2014 10:48:15 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:35:35 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Yeah it's saying the arrangement of opposite handed amino acids to sugar-phosphate backbone in a lengthy chain is evidence of intelligent design.

It's evidence for intelligent design because only intelligently designed things have dissimilar elements from mutually exclusive environments joined together in meaningful ways.

LOL. The early oceans of earth were not mutually exclusive environments, that is a false premise. As well, your use of the term "meaningful ways" has not been defined. And, just because elements are dissimilar doesn't mean they can't join together.

Meaningful ways = In manner that is functional.

All sorts of things in nature are "functional" that does not imply that there is an intelligence behind them. Electrons and protons--and other sub-atomic particles--have functions but that does not mean they were intelligently designed.

And try to follow along. I'm not even discussing the chemical nature of the atoms in proteins or the sugars. I talking about one aspect. The left handed proteins and right handed sugars. Now ordinarily any chemical reaction will produce a racemic solution (50% Left-handed 50% right-handed) And both molecules will react the same in further chemical reactions. So it's IMPOSSIBLE to pull a chain of all left handed proteins out of a racemic solution of water. NOT to mention that the proteins hydrolyze or get shredded in water.

But there are vectors, like STIRRING that can make one hand of another. So when I say dissimilar environments. I am saying there is no way water can stir in one direction and the opposite direction at the same time. And the environment that produces the sugars would be DESTRUCTIVE to the proteins. And the environment making the proteins would be DESTRUCTIVE to the sugars.

Do you see how mutual destructive production processes would be "dissimilar environments"?

But this does not provide evidence for a creator of the first Amino acids.

If the elements to create an amino acid and other parts needed for anything an evolutionary process could control, could only be produced and assembled from mutually destructive environments and in arrangements near impossible for natural process, then yes I would say that is evidence of a creator. because that kind of arrangements, refinement, alteration of material, different environments making component pieces are only seen in manufacturing processes, intelligently controlled.

The arrangements of the material are not actually that refined or complex, the laws of chemistry and physics explain how they could be made. We do not know how the early earth was like, or where the first amino acids appeared, so we cannot answer the answer--for the moment, and perhaps for ever--of how the first amino acids were assembled. Still not evidence for a creator.

Actually, an appeal to a yet unknown process is far more reasonable than saying, "oh well, we don't know how it happened, so let's say God did it."

Where did I say I don't know how it happened so oh-well God. One example I provided was the chirality of the elements used in long chains.

I'm saying life was created, designed, because there EVERY example we have of objects exhibiting these attributes are all intelligently made.

Not true. Elements and atoms certainly look designed, but they are not.

I'm saying Life is created, designed, because Life matches with all other examples of intelligently manufactured things.

This is a position arrived at from investigation of properties, plausibility, and construction. Supported by all experimental data, because when ever a biological component has been made in a laboratory it was made under ideal conditions, accurately and intelligently controlled by the scientist. Why did they do that? because if they did not filter the results washing away the impurities they did not want or control exposure ratings all the components would have broken apart.

They did that in order to try to replicate what the initial conditions could have been like, and because it is a standard procedure in science (all experiments have to be performed under ideal conditions) but the experiments are not conclusive--and no one has claimed that they are--for precisely the reason I gave above: we don't, and perhaps can't, know how it happened.

Oh do not get me wrong the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is from evidence, is from what we know... God is not a synonym for I do not know.

Life was intelligently designer. Because that is where the evidence leads. not because there are no better options. Don't put such words into my mouth or straw-man my arguments by summing them up so.

What you are saying is essentially this: we do not know how amino acids could have bonded with sugar-phosphate molecules in nature, therefore it must have been an intelligent being who did it, and you jump straight to God.

The only time anything like 200 long chain of amino acids, and dissimilar parts ever come together is through intelligent intervention.

You say, nay, it's natural we just don't know how. Argument from ignorance.

That does not mean that it can only come about through intelligent intervention, it means that we don't know how it could have come about; inferring an intelligent designer from that is an argument from ignorance, it is saying "we don't know how it could have happened, therefore someone must have done it." What I am saying is that perhaps we will never know, and for the moment let's keep trying to find how it could have happened, let's keep the door open.

I infer intelligent designer, because when ever we see attribute A, B, C it is from intelligently designed things.

If i SEE attribute A, B, C in the structure and construction of LIFE then I infer Life is intelligently designed. this conclusion is not from ignorance or a last resort to I do NOT know how it was done.,

THIS STEMS DIRECTLY FROM A CIRCULAR LOGIC OF YOURS!!@! You can not accept any explanation that is not "nature" so you reject all other conclusion as being from ignorance. BUT it is you not seeing the evidence for anything else and praying so hard to the gods of science and biology for an explanation that concludes with random natural process.

I have stated now 3 freaking times this is from the construction of biological elements and I gave the example of amino acids to phosphorous backbones,

That in a natural process these parts are from mutually exclusive environments and the parts are in finer purity i.e. length than observed from natural processes. When something exhibits these attributes the subject is designed.

YOU want to rebuttal that directly instead of your bare assertions then show

1. the attributes are present in some natural processes
3. the attributes are non sequitur from design
4. life does not exhibit the attributes.

Come on, don't be dishonest, we all know that ID is a way to get God back into science, I very much doubt that you think it was aliens who did it.

They said the same thing about Big Bang Theory.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 6:01:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:40:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I infer intelligent designer, because when ever we see attribute A, B, C it is from intelligently designed things.

If i SEE attribute A, B, C in the structure and construction of LIFE then I infer Life is intelligently designed. this conclusion is not from ignorance or a last resort to I do NOT know how it was done.,


THIS STEMS DIRECTLY FROM A CIRCULAR LOGIC OF YOURS!!@! You can not accept any explanation that is not "nature" so you reject all other conclusion as being from ignorance. BUT it is you not seeing the evidence for anything else and praying so hard to the gods of science and biology for an explanation that concludes with random natural process.

I'm sorry, but ID does not provide us with any falsifiable and scientific hypothesis, in fact, ID would put an end to any scientific investigation about the origin of life. I am not "praying" to the gods of science to come up with an explanation; I think that the problem will probably remain unsolved, and that if it is solved it will be solved by science. You're engaging in projection.

I have stated now 3 freaking times this is from the construction of biological elements and I gave the example of amino acids to phosphorous backbones,

That in a natural process these parts are from mutually exclusive environments and the parts are in finer purity i.e. length than observed from natural processes. When something exhibits these attributes the subject is designed.

YOU want to rebuttal that directly instead of your bare assertions then show

1. the attributes are present in some natural processes

Atoms as well as complex molecules do indeed feature an appearance of "design" but they are the result of natural processes. Cliff faces on the ocean coast, as well as certain rock formations, also appear "designed"--if you are looking for design in nature--but they are also the products of natural processes; which are not random, by the way, they can be used to make predictions.

3. the attributes are non sequitur from design

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you reformulate the point? at the moment I don't know whether you are asking me to refute the idea that the attributes represent design, or that designed things do not require the appearance of design.

4. life does not exhibit the attributes.

Well, I am sorry to say it, but it doesn't seem to. DNA mutations which result in new characteristics are random; the survival of certain species is also the result of--usually--random events.

Come on, don't be dishonest, we all know that ID is a way to get God back into science, I very much doubt that you think it was aliens who did it.

They said the same thing about Big Bang Theory.

Who did? And what has that got to do with ID? an unfalsifiable and unscientific speculation? The Big Bang could be observed--or at least its effects--and it was a falsifiable theory.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:28:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 6:01:01 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:40:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I infer intelligent designer, because when ever we see attribute A, B, C it is from intelligently designed things.

If i SEE attribute A, B, C in the structure and construction of LIFE then I infer Life is intelligently designed. this conclusion is not from ignorance or a last resort to I do NOT know how it was done.,


THIS STEMS DIRECTLY FROM A CIRCULAR LOGIC OF YOURS!!@! You can not accept any explanation that is not "nature" so you reject all other conclusion as being from ignorance. BUT it is you not seeing the evidence for anything else and praying so hard to the gods of science and biology for an explanation that concludes with random natural process.

I'm sorry, but ID does not provide us with any falsifiable and scientific hypothesis, in fact, ID would put an end to any scientific investigation about the origin of life. I am not "praying" to the gods of science to come up with an explanation; I think that the problem will probably remain unsolved, and that if it is solved it will be solved by science. You're engaging in projection.

ID would not end investigation. This is a non sequitur from atheist that the answer god did it would some how end anymore inquiry or use of science. but in reality investigation into the origins of life would still continue. And an investigation into HOW? god did something would advance humankind making designer drugs and animals.

It's falsifiable by any evidence showing that a natural process can account for the presence and arrangement of biological elements.

Do you want to present such evidence that does that?


I have stated now 3 freaking times this is from the construction of biological elements and I gave the example of amino acids to phosphorous backbones,

That in a natural process these parts are from mutually exclusive environments and the parts are in finer purity i.e. length than observed from natural processes. When something exhibits these attributes the subject is designed.

YOU want to rebuttal that directly instead of your bare assertions then show

1. the attributes are present in some natural processes

Atoms as well as complex molecules do indeed feature an appearance of "design" but they are the result of natural processes. Cliff faces on the ocean coast, as well as certain rock formations, also appear "designed"--if you are looking for design in nature--but they are also the products of natural processes; which are not random, by the way, they can be used to make predictions.

Complexity from simple formulas is fractal. Like snow flakes, or atoms. They exhibit a complexity in the variety of directions and lines that make them. this is different from when an intelligence takes a piece of rock and flints it into an arrow head. Or when glass made in a furnace is combined with a wire made in pressing to make a lightbulb.

Like CSI the observations can not deduce with a 100% certainty intelligent design, they are indicators of potential intelligent design. Look at the rock formations all shapes can be accounted from the coastline environment. This is not a multitude of different environments making a cliff face. it is not a combination of sandstone and lumber. the material is the same as well.

So same environment, same material, and at a drastically bigger scale than chemical interaction. I think your analogy fails on being similar.


3. the attributes are non sequitur from design

I don't know what you mean by this. Could you reformulate the point? at the moment I don't know whether you are asking me to refute the idea that the attributes represent design, or that designed things do not require the appearance of design.


refute the idea that the attributes represent design

4. life does not exhibit the attributes.

Well, I am sorry to say it, but it doesn't seem to. DNA mutations which result in new characteristics are random; the survival of certain species is also the result of--usually--random events.

Evidence of adaptation and/or evolution not abiogenesis. We are talking about the emergence of a living system from nonliving material.


Come on, don't be dishonest, we all know that ID is a way to get God back into science, I very much doubt that you think it was aliens who did it.

They said the same thing about Big Bang Theory.

Who did? And what has that got to do with ID? an unfalsifiable and unscientific speculation? The Big Bang could be observed--or at least its effects--and it was a falsifiable theory.

In 1931, Lema"tre proposed in his "hypoth"se de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" " what was later called the Big Bang. -- was a catholic priest He arrived at his ideas by examining Einstein's equations.

Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann, and then (privately) Lema"tre, out of hand, saying that not all mathematics lead to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lema"tre's theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.

Theologians are delighted that the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of Genesis"but curiously, astronomers are upset - Robert Jastrow

Under the state atheism espoused by the Soviet Union, atheistic communists irrevocably opposed the Big Bang as the origin of the universe since it contradicted their materialistic worldview

Kragh, Helge. Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Princeton University Press. 1999. pg 259. 'The atheist Bonnor rejected big-bang theory for largely the same reasons as Hoyle did; among these, that it lent support to divine creation. "The underlying motive is, of course, to bring in God as creator," Bonnor stated.'

Now back to the point of life and ID:
If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
"Fred Hoyle

So reread my example of left handed proteins and right handed phosphorous back bone. The chemistry and physical vectors likely to cause this stirring.

The proteins stirred in one direction the phosphorous stored in the other direction.

The proteins would need to be in liquid with little to no water, The sugar-phosphate backbone is negatively charged and hydrophilic, which allows the DNA backbone to form bonds with water.

Because these 2 elements come from mutually destructive environments it is an indication of design to be taken with consideration of other factors. there are other arrangements and molecules that exhibit this same same feature of being bond together despite coming from mutually destructive processes.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:17:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:13:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The only time anything like 200 long chain of amino acids, and dissimilar parts ever come together is through intelligent intervention.

Argument from ignorance.

Yes, yours is certainly an argument from ignorance as it is confirmation biased.

I say the argument from construction ends with intelligent designer. I do make a leap from intelligent designer to God.

Yes, that would be the confirmation bias.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 11:24:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 11:17:35 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:13:03 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

The only time anything like 200 long chain of amino acids, and dissimilar parts ever come together is through intelligent intervention.

Argument from ignorance.

Yes, yours is certainly an argument from ignorance as it is confirmation biased.

Your argument is from confirmation bias, anything to conclude no god, at the expense of any reasonable argument or evidence to the contrary.


I say the argument from construction ends with intelligent designer. I do make a leap from intelligent designer to God.

Yes, that would be the confirmation bias.

And how do you explain liking your favorite food. Huh huh do you have scientific evidence to support that? Do you have scientific evidence to show your ideas about time and space are correct? huh huh How do you know you are not a brain in some jar?

ooo you don't so everything from you might just be wrong... ooo

That's the atheist play book, I have seen your tactics before.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:02:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 11:24:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Your argument is from confirmation bias, anything to conclude no god, at the expense of any reasonable argument or evidence to the contrary.

And how do you explain liking your favorite food. Huh huh do you have scientific evidence to support that? Do you have scientific evidence to show your ideas about time and space are correct? huh huh How do you know you are not a brain in some jar?

ooo you don't so everything from you might just be wrong... ooo

That's the atheist play book, I have seen your tactics before.

You could have easily said, instead, "I have nothing of value to say" rather than writing all that bs.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:04:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 9:02:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/28/2014 11:24:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

Your argument is from confirmation bias, anything to conclude no god, at the expense of any reasonable argument or evidence to the contrary.

And how do you explain liking your favorite food. Huh huh do you have scientific evidence to support that? Do you have scientific evidence to show your ideas about time and space are correct? huh huh How do you know you are not a brain in some jar?

ooo you don't so everything from you might just be wrong... ooo

That's the atheist play book, I have seen your tactics before.

You could have easily said, instead, "I have nothing of value to say" rather than writing all that bs.

I didn't have anything of value to say.. all of it was paraphrasing your arguments.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 9:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 5:40:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I infer intelligent designer, because when ever we see attribute A, B, C it is from intelligently designed things.

If i SEE attribute A, B, C in the structure and construction of LIFE then I infer Life is intelligently designed. this conclusion is not from ignorance or a last resort to I do NOT know how it was done.,

Please tell us in detail what exactly is A, B and C and show how they are in nature and man made objects? This is crucial to your assertions.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 5:08:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
LOL, what a great thread, very entertaining.

I can't recall ever seeing an ID/Evolution thread where the ID crowd so thoroughly trounced the evolution crowd before...and before the evolution guys make that leap of faith to the expected agenda based conclusion, nope, I'm not an ID guy.

What I am is seeing an ID side that's rational and scientific, and an evolution side that's faith based and dogmatic, that just isn't something you see every day.

Well done ID guys :)
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 10:16:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 1:26:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


So I rounded to 200. But in my question i asked for a natural strand just more than 10. I think we have found chains around 8-12 in meteorites.


I enjoy all the walls creationists arbitrary place to stop any possibility of abiogenesis or evolution.

- Nature can make chains of 8 to 12 base codes of RNA but she surely can't put together 200.
- A birds beak can change shape and size but surely can't change more than that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 1:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 10:16:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:26:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


So I rounded to 200. But in my question i asked for a natural strand just more than 10. I think we have found chains around 8-12 in meteorites.


I enjoy all the walls creationists arbitrary place to stop any possibility of abiogenesis or evolution.

- Nature can make chains of 8 to 12 base codes of RNA but she surely can't put together 200.
- A birds beak can change shape and size but surely can't change more than that.

There are chemical reasons why chains that long with out a backbone do not exist. So we know longer do not exist with out a backbone and the backbone can not be produced in the same environment that produced the amino acids. Yeah that would be a wall on nature inferred from experimental data, chemical properties, and understanding... not as you insinuate no understanding.

Show me "hard evidence" (atheist want hard evidence) that a beak has changed more than shape or size... which funny enough I don't accept because beaks can have teeth. But if you show it change more than that I would change my avatar to saying Slo1 is awesome and God is dead.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:46:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 5:08:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
LOL, what a great thread, very entertaining.

I can't recall ever seeing an ID/Evolution thread where the ID crowd so thoroughly trounced the evolution crowd before...and before the evolution guys make that leap of faith to the expected agenda based conclusion, nope, I'm not an ID guy.

What I am is seeing an ID side that's rational and scientific, and an evolution side that's faith based and dogmatic, that just isn't something you see every day.

Well done ID guys :)

Really? I only see God of the Gaps theory mixed with some ignorance about what nature can produce. Nature can perfectly match a lot of our "intelligent design" and there"s no doubt that can effectively fool us with some of its "designs":

http://www.its.caltech.edu...
http://artsonearth.com...
http://www.crystalrockstar.com...
http://imageshack.us...
http://s3.amazonaws.com...
http://www.sampsoncc.edu...
http://geology.com...

Oh, and it also creates aminoacids, nucleotides, sugar, lipids, etc. So yeah, it creates all life"s components but, asembling them? no! that"s God. That"s like accepting nature could create batteries, wire, display, phonecards, etc. but the mobilephone itself? Oh no, that could never happen!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 8:07:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 6:46:48 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/29/2014 5:08:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
LOL, what a great thread, very entertaining.

I can't recall ever seeing an ID/Evolution thread where the ID crowd so thoroughly trounced the evolution crowd before...and before the evolution guys make that leap of faith to the expected agenda based conclusion, nope, I'm not an ID guy.

What I am is seeing an ID side that's rational and scientific, and an evolution side that's faith based and dogmatic, that just isn't something you see every day.

Well done ID guys :)

Really? I only see God of the Gaps theory mixed with some ignorance about what nature can produce. Nature can perfectly match a lot of our "intelligent design" and there"s no doubt that can effectively fool us with some of its "designs":

http://www.its.caltech.edu...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://artsonearth.com...

water vapor, winds, convection, all present in the same environment.

http://www.crystalrockstar.com...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://imageshack.us...

Rock, sand, wind all available in the same environment

http://s3.amazonaws.com...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://www.sampsoncc.edu...

Photoshop

http://geology.com...

unspecific to what you are pointing at.

If you have been paying attention to what example I have been given an example.

Nucleotide chains found in any natural setting have been no more than 10 molecules long and racemic. All chains found in biological systems are 200 longer and all right handed.

The chains can not support themselves for long lengths with out a back bone. in living systems this back bone is left handed.

What ever natural process you can devise that creates the nucleotides, Will destroy the phosphorous backbone. AND VICE VERSA

When ever 2 elements created in environments that would destroy each other, with no common natural environment, is by design.

This is why you don't find axe in nature. Take a mud brick. To make a mud brick is grass, sun light and mud. SO HELLO where are all the naturally made mud bricks?

Here's a thought.. how about all of you try to follow the argument instead of straw-manning it as design is determined by fancy shape.

NO, I'm saying design is from COMPOSITION, not fancy pattern, not cool looking clouds, COMPOSITION... hence the use of the word ARRANGEMENT!

SHOW me some natural made item that is the composition of 2 different materials, from 2 different environments, in one unit. Should be freaking simple. Just find a plant growing in a lava flow, or an ice berg in the Sahara.

Back to the example is explain how right handed proteins can in any natural environment join with left handed phosphate-sugar?

This is an argument for design FROM CONSTRUCTION, FROM COMPOSITION,

NOT from complex pattern or from complex looking shat.

If you can't even understand the argument, can't even understand the evidence, can;t even understand the inference being made please do not respond with pictures of snow flakes.

And if you can not understand the argument from construction, you certainly won't understand the argument from encoding of information.

Oh, and it also creates aminoacids, nucleotides, sugar, lipids, etc. So yeah, it creates all life"s components but, asembling them? no! that"s God. That"s like accepting nature could create batteries, wire, display, phonecards, etc. but the mobilephone itself? Oh no, that could never happen!

What a great defense for abiogensis. Nature makes Sugars.. All the sugar made is always made by a living system biological system. Same with lipids. And no nucleotide has been found in a natural non-biological system either.

You analogy sucks because batteries, display ect.. already show attributes of design. But what you are suggesting is stuff made by nature that does not show attributes of design assemble together to show such attributes. Your analogy concludes in design because the parts you list by themselves conclude in design.

Comments like this, just fill me with fear that a future like "idiocracy" is just around the corner.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 6:46:48 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/29/2014 5:08:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
LOL, what a great thread, very entertaining.

I can't recall ever seeing an ID/Evolution thread where the ID crowd so thoroughly trounced the evolution crowd before...and before the evolution guys make that leap of faith to the expected agenda based conclusion, nope, I'm not an ID guy.

What I am is seeing an ID side that's rational and scientific, and an evolution side that's faith based and dogmatic, that just isn't something you see every day.

Well done ID guys :)

Really? I only see God of the Gaps theory mixed with some ignorance about what nature can produce. Nature can perfectly match a lot of our "intelligent design" and there"s no doubt that can effectively fool us with some of its "designs":

I"d agree that God of the Gaps is typically implicit in the ID argument, but it certainly isn"t confined to it, and both sides are using it here anyway. "God of the gaps", "evolutionary advantage of the gaps", "complexity of the gaps", "hidden variables of the gaps", "emergent property of the gaps", they are all one and the same theory in principle. They are all only different forms of the argument from ignorance, illogical attempts to say that the lack of information supports my presumptions, and not yours, which is a logically invalid argument. All are fundamentally religious beliefs, with a subtext of omniscience, the certainty with which materialists and physicalists invoke the belief that these gaps will be filled in as science progresses is based on a belief in the eventual omniscience of science. Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have both referred to it as "promissory materialism", Sir John Eccles stated, "Promissiory materialism is a superstition without a rational foundation. It is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy".

http://www.its.caltech.edu...
http://artsonearth.com...
http://www.crystalrockstar.com...
http://imageshack.us...
http://s3.amazonaws.com...
http://www.sampsoncc.edu...
http://geology.com...

Pretty pictures, seriously?

Oh, and it also creates aminoacids, nucleotides, sugar, lipids, etc. So yeah, it creates all life"s components but, asembling them? no! that"s God. That"s like accepting nature could create batteries, wire, display, phonecards, etc. but the mobilephone itself? Oh no, that could never happen!

If that was a convincing valid argument I suspect I"d have some idea of what you are trying to say.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:46:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mhykiel's argument is actually irrelevant to the discussion. If we accept all his arguments the only thing we can reasonably say is that we don't know how life originated, there is no justification for imagining a creator who did it.

However, even if we say, like certain theistic evolutionists say, that God created the first cell and then let everything play out, we still don't have an argument against Evolutionary theory. Mhykiel's argument addresses Abiogenesis only, not Evolution.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 4:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 8:07:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:46:48 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/29/2014 5:08:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
LOL, what a great thread, very entertaining.

I can't recall ever seeing an ID/Evolution thread where the ID crowd so thoroughly trounced the evolution crowd before...and before the evolution guys make that leap of faith to the expected agenda based conclusion, nope, I'm not an ID guy.

What I am is seeing an ID side that's rational and scientific, and an evolution side that's faith based and dogmatic, that just isn't something you see every day.

Well done ID guys :)

Really? I only see God of the Gaps theory mixed with some ignorance about what nature can produce. Nature can perfectly match a lot of our "intelligent design" and there"s no doubt that can effectively fool us with some of its "designs":

http://www.its.caltech.edu...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://artsonearth.com...

water vapor, winds, convection, all present in the same environment.

http://www.crystalrockstar.com...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://imageshack.us...

Rock, sand, wind all available in the same environment

http://s3.amazonaws.com...

Homogenous, fractal pattern from crystallization all available in the same environment

http://www.sampsoncc.edu...

Photoshop

Funny thing is, you graciously point out every natural process creating apparently designed objects, but where you there to see all the processes? Oh sure geologic processes can be simulated at a micro scale in the lab, that's why no one is refuting micro geology, but macro geology? that's just a fairy tale! Oh and therefore: God exists.

And the reasoning would be even worse if we didn't know the processes, as I could be harassing you with idiotic ID questions based on my allmighty God of the Gaps theory.

http://geology.com...

unspecific to what you are pointing at.

It's not unspecific, it's a cross made purely by natural processes that clearly appears to be designed.

Nucleotide chains found in any natural setting have been no more than 10 molecules long and racemic. All chains found in biological systems are 200 longer and all right handed.

The chains can not support themselves for long lengths with out a back bone. in living systems this back bone is left handed.

What ever natural process you can devise that creates the nucleotides, Will destroy the phosphorous backbone. AND VICE VERSA

Source?

When ever 2 elements created in environments that would destroy each other, with no common natural environment, is by design.

This is why you don't find axe in nature. Take a mud brick. To make a mud brick is grass, sun light and mud. SO HELLO where are all the naturally made mud bricks?

Here's a thought.. how about all of you try to follow the argument instead of straw-manning it as design is determined by fancy shape.

NO, I'm saying design is from COMPOSITION, not fancy pattern, not cool looking clouds, COMPOSITION... hence the use of the word ARRANGEMENT!

SHOW me some natural made item that is the composition of 2 different materials, from 2 different environments, in one unit.

Should be freaking simple. Just find a plant growing in a lava flow, or an ice berg in the Sahara.

Back to the example is explain how right handed proteins can in any natural environment join with left handed phosphate-sugar?

This is an argument for design FROM CONSTRUCTION, FROM COMPOSITION,

NOT from complex pattern or from complex looking shat.


If you can't even understand the argument, can't even understand the evidence, can;t even understand the inference being made please do not respond with pictures of snow flakes.

And if you can not understand the argument from construction, you certainly won't understand the argument from encoding of information.

You clearly missed the fact that any sedimentary rock is already made of different materials mixed in one unit.... Oh, and also pretty much any heteronuclear molecule like ie water.

Oh, and it also creates aminoacids, nucleotides, sugar, lipids, etc. So yeah, it creates all life"s components but, asembling them? no! that"s God. That"s like accepting nature could create batteries, wire, display, phonecards, etc. but the mobilephone itself? Oh no, that could never happen!

What a great defense for abiogensis. Nature makes Sugars.. All the sugar made is always made by a living system biological system. Same with lipids. And no nucleotide has been found in a natural non-biological system either.

No. Ribose, glucose and fructose can be synthesized from formaldehyde in alkaline medium with inorganic catalysts. And formaldehyde was already synthesized by Miller and Urey half a century ago.

You analogy sucks because batteries, display ect.. already show attributes of design.

Sure, but sugar doesn't. Right? Ok. Can I have a cheesburger? And also the design detector please?

But what you are suggesting is stuff made by nature that does not show attributes of design

Sure, sure. Why don't you make a list of what shows attributes of design? Because we ddoers are incapable to intuit what you arbitrarily decide as designed objects.

assemble together to show such attributes. Your analogy concludes in design because the parts you list by themselves conclude in design.


Comments like this, just fill me with fear that a future like "idiocracy" is just around the corner.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:03:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/29/2014 1:49:42 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 12/29/2014 10:16:03 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/21/2014 1:26:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:


So I rounded to 200. But in my question i asked for a natural strand just more than 10. I think we have found chains around 8-12 in meteorites.


I enjoy all the walls creationists arbitrary place to stop any possibility of abiogenesis or evolution.

- Nature can make chains of 8 to 12 base codes of RNA but she surely can't put together 200.
- A birds beak can change shape and size but surely can't change more than that.

There are chemical reasons why chains that long with out a backbone do not exist. So we know longer do not exist with out a backbone and the backbone can not be produced in the same environment that produced the amino acids. Yeah that would be a wall on nature inferred from experimental data, chemical properties, and understanding... not as you insinuate no understanding.

lol, "understanding". Much like a strand of DNA you twist and turn information to fit your view of the world rather than remain open to possibilities.

The simple fact of the matter is that RNA and its backbone is so incredibly varied and different in all its uses in the cell that you can't possibly know which version of its different configurations may have been formed in the past or even how it may formed.
http://kinemage.biochem.duke.edu...

The perfect example is your "inference" that it is impossible to have to two spinning vortexes of water in different directions therefore it is impossible for rna to form on a backbone, like that is the only possible way base pairs could possibly attach to the backbone.

Here is study that looks at precursers to rna forming. Not everything needed to happen in such a liner fashion as you propose.
http://www.nature.com...


Show me "hard evidence" (atheist want hard evidence) that a beak has changed more than shape or size... which funny enough I don't accept because beaks can have teeth. But if you show it change more than that I would change my avatar to saying Slo1 is awesome and God is dead.

Whether God is dead or not is irrelevant. Determining the truth on how life began on this earth is more important. See how nice it is to nice it is to allow scientific discovery to happen when one is not bothered by trying to jam the data in a preformed metaphysical belief? You would do well to throw that yoke of oppression off and allow the truth to come out rather than trying to twist it to your means.

Let's both be honest. We don't know whether abiogenesis is viable as a mechanism that started life at this point in time. Not to mention, who do you think you are dictating to your God on how it may have started life?