|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2003 : 13:55:14 [Permalink]
|
| This entire ID "theory" seems to me to be nothing more than Pareidolia. Seeing a pattern and making the assumption that it is caused by magic. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 14:47:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
This entire ID "theory" seems to me to be nothing more than Pareidolia. Seeing a pattern and making the assumption that it is caused by magic.
Huh? I'm trying to put some intelligent reason behind this statement, but can find none. How is magic any part of this discussion? A little help? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/05/2003 14:50:42 |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 15:36:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Question regarding this award. If someone is to come up with the formula for the Origin of Life, wouldn't that imply that it took intelligence to figure out the formula which does not seem to be reoccurring in nature since the "Origin"?
So if we can't figure out how life has started that is proof of an creator. And if we can figure out how life has started that also is proof of an creator?
quote:
All creation of new life that we are aware of is a result of some type of procreation or dividing of existing life forms. The very fact that it is not reoccurring and that we cannot duplicate it is evidence that the design and designer was far more intelligent than we. The fact that the ability to procreate is given to living things is in itself a sign of complexity of design and therefore has the signature of intelligent design.
That has more to with our definition of life than anything else. We don't really have any good definition of life, but think that the ability to reproduce itself should be one of the main criteria.
You can't say that the ability to reproduce is a sign o intelligent design, when the only things that are capable of it are by definition alive.
quote:
If this were not true, all life that was chaoticly begun without the inbuilt design and ability of procreation, would have ceased after a short existence according to the laws of thermodynamics.
You misunderstood the whole of idea behind thermodynamics. It only works for closed systems. Earth is not a closed sytem we get lost of energy from the sun. This works the same way that I can regionally 'break' the 2nd law of thermodymaics for my fridge, by plugging it in.
quote:
I think it is a presumption to believe that that the simplest of life forms (according to natural evolution theory)would automatically have the ability to reproduce as part of being alive. A living thing can exist, grow, feed, etc. without the ability to reproduce.
No it can't. The ability to reproduce is one of the prime criteria to determine whether something is alive. Lots of non alive things can exist, grow and feed without being alive.
The first of lifeforms already head the ability to reproduce, because that is how we determine that it was one.
quote:
Consider all species that that require a male and female counterpart. They are alive in and of themselves, yet without the existance of their respective counterpart and purposeful directive to copulate, they would cease to exist. Would it be safe to say that both the female and male of a species would have had to evolve at exactly the same time in order for the species to continue?
That is the general assumption, yes. Sexual reproduction was first accidentally committed by some primitive organism. Then differences between genders evolved.
The thing about the evoultion of species is that it is a gradual process even with punctuated equilibrium and stuff. We determine species by figuring out if things can interbreed. So we only have a new species if there are enogh of them to breed.
quote:
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
This I always thought was common knowledge. We have most of our DNA in common with everything else. The difference between human and chimpanzee DNA is only about 1.6%. It gets less from there for other primates, mamals, vertebrate, multicelled organism and single celled ones. That is what genetics is all about: inherit it from your ancestors and the closer you are related to something the more similar you DNA will be. |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
| Edited by - Lars_H on 01/05/2003 16:01:12 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 21:07:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I'll say this once, and hope to Cthulu you don't bring it up again. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not apply universally to a system, like the earth, wherein an outside energy source, like the sun, provides a means by which local entropy can be overcome. Period. End of story.
So then I should discard this law? Do you have a proof paper of this new revelation? I'd like to see it. Remember, a postulation of this probability is insufficient to discount a law of nature proven through science.
It seems to me that the Sun is one of the very facets in nature that affects the 2nd Law. After rereading these laws, they, indeed include the entire universe.
Who said anything about the entire universe? Local entropy can be overcome by a mechanism that provides a level of energy at least equal to the energy lost by part of a system. You do realize your 2LoT objection means that development from a fertilized egg into a mature animal can't happen, don't you? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 21:11:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
P.D restated and replied:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a question for the biologists among us: Is there any DNA link between humans, apes, birds, frogs, fish, insects, trees, grass, and, of course, Amebas, considering all are "brothers"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
Okay. Let's have it....link or something?
I'm moderately aghast that you need even ask, but if you'll take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes for just a moment, you might find this interesting: http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/dna_virus.html |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 21:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said:
Consider all species that require a male and female counterpart. They are alive in and of themselves, yet without the existance of their respective counterpart and purposeful directive to copulate, they would cease to exist.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your reply:
Good thing males and females co-evolved. There's literally tons of online material; check it out (have Adobe Acrobat ready):http://www.math.wm.edu/~smains/pekalski.pdf
The point of the matter is that evolutionists have no explanation of why this happened or why there is Asexual Reproduction and Sexual Reproduction. They just see that there is. They have absolutely no idea why, yet presume this doesn't matter in their theory when, in fact, such explanation is crucial in understanding the Origin of the species.
Well, I guess that makes me smarter than "evolutionists." I can think of at least one reason: sexual reproduction provides a vastly superior mechanism for genetic diversity and increased chances for point-mutations.
quote:
The paper at the link you gave admitted this on page one.
"No definitive answer" =/ Godmustadoneit
Please try harder to understand the method that is science and exactly why you aren't entitled to claim victory when your "I want an answer and I want it now!" queries go largely unheeded.
quote:
The extreme complexity of reproduction is discussed without thought to how such intricate design could have begun "by accident".
"Evolutionists" suggest no such thing. Please try to better understand what you think you're criticising.
quote:
It is the deletion of this very thought in the minds of evolutionists that amazes me. Claiming to be scientists, they make huge presumptions at the beginning of their theory that are never explained. And thus, evolutionism is falling into disrepute as more and more scientific evidence contradicting it appears every year.
Is this the same contradictory evidence that appears in ID/Creationist arguments on the Answers in Genesis website? You know, the ones they tell apologists not to use.
quote:
It is a belief system, more than a scientific hypothesis. As a hypothesis, the evidence has disproven its value years ago. The failure to discover the so called "missing links" and the discovery by modern science of the faults of previous link relics seems to have little effect on the believers.
That's probably because the only ones still hollering about "missing links" are creationists with hearing and reading comprehension problems. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:05:29 [Permalink]
|
| Ok, PhD. Ya got me, argh.... I really don't' think we are going to solve this question in our forum. I am just throwing out some ideas to provoke thought about some of these issues. I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce. The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic. Wow, how many billions of years for that to happen by accident and yet the asexual types still continue on as usual. Just too many leaps of logic for me, y'all. I don't have that much faith. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:07:22 [Permalink]
|
Lars said: So if we can't figure out how life has started that is proof of an creator. And if we can figure out how life has started that also is proof of an creator?
Heh, you got it, buddy! Very estute. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:11:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce.
And you probably never will because this has nothing to do with evolution. You think it's thought provoking but it's simply off topic.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:22:36 [Permalink]
|
Lars said: So if we can't figure out how life has started that is proof of an creator. And if we can figure out how life has started that also is proof of an creator?
Doomar, Lars is correct in stating that....argumentum ad ignorantium |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:47:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Ok, PhD. Ya got me, argh.... I really don't' think we are going to solve this question in our forum.
Depends on what you mean by "solve."
quote:
I am just throwing out some ideas to provoke thought about some of these issues.
Often appreciated, but I would ask you to choose thought-provoking issues that don't look exactly like the Discovery Institute's or the ICR's party lines that I've seen a quazillion times before.
quote:
I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce.
Assuming you are right, science may never explain this. And you are still completely unjustified in presuming a supernatural explanation where human efforts at a natural explanation fail.
quote:
The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic. Wow, how many billions of years for that to happen by accident and yet the asexual types still continue on as usual.
I truly hope you will pursue an honest education in the scientific principles of evolution.
quote:
Just too many leaps of logic for me, y'all. I don't have that much faith.
I no longer know how to respond to this sophistry with anything other than frustrated laughter. So...
 |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 22:49:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce.
Probably nobody brothered with an explanation because they take it pretty much as given.
To understand why you first have to understand how evolution works. It is a gradual process working over a very long time. You also ahev to understand how live is defined by scientist, i.e. not very well. We don't have a good definition of what constitues life and what does not. So even if the beginning of live happend right in fron of our eyes, (in high speed so we can actually see it) we would never be able to point at something and say this is the first living thing.
In most theories about how it went, we would have non-living reproduction of simple chemical patterns before we have actual live.
quote:
The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic. Wow, how many billions of years for that to happen by accident and yet the asexual types still continue on as usual.
Again it was a very gradual process. You did not have asexual reproduction one generation and then the next generation you had males and females organisms. There probably was some organism with a reproductive misfunction that had occured on accident. Over the generations this was turned more and more into an advantage and it descendants quit with the asexual reproduction alltogether. The differences between sexes came gradually over a long time.
quote:
Just too many leaps of logic for me, y'all. I don't have that much faith.
If you mak leaps it is not logic its is faith. Logic means not making any leaps, but having an unbroken connection between A and B. If you can make any statements that don't require faith, you are being reasonable and logical.
My suggestion:
You seem to misunderstand some basic concepts I suggest you read up on them so you know what the terms mean even if you don't agree wether what they mean is true.
Start with a dictionary if you must. Look up things like Logic, Science, Evolution, Species and Life. If you feel like talking about thermodynamics please take a physics text book and read what it is about. If you get any ideas you feel like throwing about to provoke thought, please check if anybody else had them before you and look what thoughts he provoked. For example check in places like
Answers in Genesis : Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. If even they have given up on it probably was not a very good idea in the first place. |
To any insufficiently advanced person technolgy becomes indistinguishable from magic. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 13:01:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic.
Huh? |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 13:03:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lars_H
[quote]Originally posted by Doomar
I honestly have not seen any explanation by evolutionists about how this first "gooey" form of life automatically had an ability to reproduce.
Probably nobody brothered with an explanation because they take it pretty much as given.
My point exactly, Lars. In science you can't take things as 'givens'. That's sloppy logic and sloppy science. It's all the slop in this theory that gives it less and less credence among many scientists. And people like myself with only basic college education who took physics and chemistry and learned basic scientific theory approach just can't figure how people treat this long standing theory like it was fact or something. Just too many holes.
Point of discussion was I.D. --intelligent design theory. It has merit in my opinion. Nuff said. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 13:13:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
The transition from asexual to sexual is another hugh leap of logic.
Huh?
There is no proof of any missing link in any stage of development in any part of the evolutionary theory of origin. Thus, the HUGE leap of logic. One form of reproduction is working fine, but another, more susceptible to elimination begins mysteriously as two seperate life forms. Now two life forms must now find each other, coexist and copulate in order to keep this species going. By Intelligent design, with inbuilt programming to do just that, surely. By accidental mutation with no inbuilt programming, and only simple chance to make it happen, forget it. Anybody want to do the odds on that one? |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
