"A scientific Dissent from Darwinism"

[Shermana]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=660

This here is a list of many scientists and PH.D.s of numerous subjects from Genetics to Molecular Biology to Marine Geology
Radiology, Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry, Nuclear Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bioengineering, Immunopharmacology, Geoscience, Neuroscience, Pharmacognosy, Physiology, Kineseology, Plant Pathology, Microbiology, Molecular Biophysics, Mathematical Physics, and more, who agree that:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.�
This was last publicly updated December 2011. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.

Are these scientists all frauds?

Are these people all motivated by personal beliefs over objective evidence?

Are they all being dishonest?

Is their view on the matter unscientific?

Do they have basis for their claim to reject the majority opinion?

Are they being more honest than the majority concensus who accepts that the Darwinian (or "Neo"-Darwinian) approach can assertively be used to define the characteristics of life?

Is there evidence that the majority concensus is using that these PH.D.s and scientists are unaware of or ignoring?

Are they evidence that there is plenty of dissent on the issue of whether Macro-evolution is a "fact"?

Can one just brush off their opinions if the majority disagrees with them?

Is it fair to conclude that their dissent might be based on an objective, empirical examination of the available data and findings?

Is it fair to conclude that those who believe that Neo-Darwinian views CAN assertively account for the diversity of life may be just as biased (i.e. coming from a "naturalistic humanism" viewpoint) in which they base their belief on their pre-determined conclusion?

Is it safe to say that "Macro-evolution" is not a 100% agreed upon fact upon Professional scientists even if the majority support such an idea?

[TheJackelantern]

So let me get this straight... Theists believe a ROCK, or even simply unconscious life must have been created by an intelligent source. 2 things not capable of intelligence at all, to which are not nearly as complex as something that is an emergent property of a cognitive system, would magically require an intelligent creator because this rock or basic unconscious life are argued to be too complex to exist without intelligent creation?

Anyone else see what's wrong with this picture?

Yep, its the argument that the less complex must be created by the higher complex because they are too complex to exist without requiring to be created by the higher complex.. Umm Fail anyone?... Especially when the higher complex requires the same system and reactionary base processes and mechanisms to even have the probability of existing at all. To say life can't emerge out of the same system is basically collapsing any conceptual hope for the existence of any sort of higher complex systems such as a cognitive system capable of even supporting the mind complexity of a flea.. And the answer we get is:

The universe is fined tuned to allow it

Come again? wha? .. Did this make any coherent sense at all? Well, it does if you realize that this statement is a self-refutation.. Hence, proving evolutionary principles and naturalistic law and governance do account for all the complexity of this world, or of existence entirely.. Yeah, Consciousness can't exist without cause, and thus is subject to require the same principles inherent in evolutionary theory to even be plausible. If anything that requires more cause to exist, it would be anything related to being a product of a cognitive system.. life on this planet will require far less cause to exist than some conscious being.. So to sit there and tell me that life couldn't self emerge on this Earth due to it's complexity is just utterly nonsensical...

Maybe one of them can explain to us how the complexity of sensory systems were created without any need of them.. Evolutio...err theist <place magic done it here>... never mind, no hope in that one. :/

[Goat]

So, Shermana, do you still dispute that Biologists regard humans as a species of ape?

I certainly do. I am a human being with a human nature, which is utterly different than an ape's nature. Most importantly, among all the creatures and plants on this planet, only human beings have a rational soul. Also, we are the only beings created in the image and likeness of God.

You can revert to being an ape if you want. I will continue to be a human being.

Could you please provide empirical evidence for the following.

1) We have souls
2) We have rational souls
3) We are the only beings that have rational souls
4) And, other than claims from a religious book, we are in the image and likeness of God. How you know, and what does that mean?

See? You constantly confuse religion and science to the point where you cannot differentiate between them. You ask me for empirical proof of my religious dogma but exclude yourself from having to provide empirical proof of your scientific dogma.

1, 2 & 3 are known through scholastic philosophy. They can be philisophically proven, but not empirically proven. 4 I know through divine faith.

Now, here is one for you.

Prove to me that you exist.

I suggest you read the rules. Read. specifically 'rule 5', which states your argument has to be supported by evidence.

And, 1 , 2 & 3 , as far as I can see, are not 'known through scholastic philosophy'. They are 'Unsupported claims by philosophy.. there is a difference.

AND, I have yet to see any reason to accept 'Divine Faith' as evidence. I can not find any difference between the statement of 'Divine Faith' and proclaiming 'Because I said so'.

I will note you continually avoid attempting to back up your claims.

[THEMAYAN]

RESONSE TO THE JACKELANTER




I have been asking you to show empirical evidence that physic and chemistry alone can account for life and you just continue to repeat the mantra and offer nothing more as if just saying makes it true.

Life is made of atoms son... And so is physical chemistry.. You can feel free to show us a living organism here on Earth missing their atoms, or functioning without electromagnetism. All living things are made of non-living matter..AKA Atoms.. Life is simply atoms, animated matter, or self-replicating molecules made of atoms. And I suggest you learn the periodic table and the reactivity between different atoms to understand why you are entirely wrong.

When did I say that living things were not made of atoms? If you don't understand by now after repeating myself over and over that I said that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life. Then you just don't get it. Airplanes and televisions are also made of atoms. Do you think this proves that airplanes and televisions can come about without purposeful planning? There is no such thing a simple life and the periodic table does not prove abiogenesis. Without a fine tuned universe we wouldn't even have these forces or complex chemistry.

I also think you forget we are talking about evolution and not abiogenesis... Behe was rejected because he didn't explain anything and made everything up with nothing other than assertions. You can't find any data supporting his asserted claims

.

No, I was talking about Intelligent design. This is an open and non restricted forum. If you can speak of chaos theory then I can speak of anything I want too. You keep ignoring your own citation agreed with me and you can repeat your mantra all you want.


I don't think even the most ardent advocates of this hypothesis believe this. The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually became RNA.

So what.. We know it would have to be a chemical reaction regardless for it to even work in the first place. Hello! ???

You do not know this. You assume this. Chemical reaction happen all the time. Show me one that can bring non life into life.


Quote:
Furthermore just to form the right semi permeable membrane to protect this RNA from external negative chemical reactions would have also taken time.

You here again are assuming things.. The environment might not include negative reactions.. For Petes sake, you have living organisms that can live in a nuclear reactor. Your argument assumes way to much. And it assumes no positive reactions can occur because you need to hold on to that belief.. Hence, you are trying to weasel out by playing the probability game to which is meaningless

.


Assuming? No it is you who is assuming the most perfect conditions necessary. There is no reason to believe that the primordial earth would have had controlled conditions and was able to select only the
positive chemicals required in an open and hostile environment.

Try creating a living thing in a nuclear reactor. Try creating a non racemic mixture of amino acids.

surrounding cell-like vesicles composed of semi-permeable membranes. (green). ...(Provided by Jack Szostak, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical. cont……
http://origins.harvard.edu/Brochure.pdf

The Origins of Cellular Life
. Jason P. Schrum, Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak
The Origins of Cellular LifeJason P. Schrum, Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1304506/
Irene Chen and Jack Szsostac..A kinetic study of Growth Fatty acid Vesicles.

Now show us the cell membranes without atoms or chemical reactions, or electromagnatism....Yeah, you can't!

Your just repeating yourslef
These membranes were created by intelligent agents in a lab under controlled conditions through trial and error and they still became unstable after time, and don't forget you accused me of making this up.


I wouldn't talk abut citations if I were you. As I said before, you said it was foolish to believe that physics and chemistry alone could not account for life. You then send me a video that speaks of a (chaos theory) that you support, and in that same video it also says that chemistry and physics cannot account for life.


Sorry again you are being entirely dishonest here... You are foolish to believe physics and chemistry can't account for life...News flash, learn the difference between physics formula and physics calculations in regards to this subject.. Chaos theory is still apart of physics, it's only the out come that can not be predicted by physics calculations simply due to feedback in the system that prevents certainty in predictable outcomes.. Your ignorance of this, and your intentional ignoring of it is getting rather annoying.. You continue to display dishonesty in your arguments. Example would be pressure waves to which are not a chemical reaction, bot something that can provide feedback in a system. Here physics can't predict the out come even if physics can tell you a formula for it, or how it works. Physics can't fully explain it in mathematics because the mathematics can't with certainty predict a chaotic system with feedback.. It's still apart of physics, you just can't use physics to predict an emergent pattern from a chaotic system.

The never ending "just so" mantra.

Your understanding of this seems limited, And I don't even know why I bother trying to explain it to you since you will only sit there and dishonestly quote mine the video out of context.

The video is still posted Why don't you watch it for yourself. Do you want me to give the minutes and seconds that it says that physics and chemistry cannot account for life? Why would I lie and humiliate myself when anyone reading this can view your chaos theory video and check for themselves


You said that 2 peer review articles were removed and you named them.

Find them for me on Nature and the other reputable journal sites.. And I already stated that it appears that the only site that has remained to have it is MPDI.com to which is like pretty must just about as rigorous as posting a message on a blog site. What does Nature have to do with you lying about them being removed The Journal Life is a prestigious and well respected Journal as is Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.

OK here you go…… http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 1062a.html The article states that ID is small but growing force on university campuses.

I've already stated the supposed journal still exists on the open access journal site.

Of course the Journal still exist. What does that have to do with you making things up?



You also sent me citation that said the Scott libel suit was thrown out of court but you cited the wrong court case. So again I say it is you who has not very consistent in providing evidence for your claims.

And? Are you attempting a credibility character attack on mistaken court-case?

This is an on going theme with you.

All I did was bring up the first case I found on the subject of her being sued.. And in the end, regardless if I made a mistake on which case you were trying to specify, your argument was rather a very hallow argument. Not to mention a very dishonest one.

You did not cite a case on her. You cited a case against the Roseville school district. Even after Iv'e explained it you still don't understand something as simple as a court case. Come on man there is just no excuse anymore and I wasn't making an argument I was citing a libel suit.

The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s)


So the atoms in the molecules are magic atoms? lol.. Tell us the difference between animate matter and supposed non-animate matter. Here, this video might help ya:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... -life.html

Yep, scientists managed to use chemistry to make the building block of RNA called Aribal(sp?) Nucleotide. We have a natural pathway to two of the 4 RNA code.
Scientist are intelligent agents who purposely manipulate chemistry for a desired effect. OOL is not supposed to plan ahead for a desired effect. Unless you believe in intelligent design.


As for your citation above, see my John D. Sutherland citation see below……..

SCIENCE NEWS

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,� Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.�

Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. "One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. "Whether we've done one across is an open question," he said. "Our worry is that it may not be right."
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277

Although Sutherland has shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules, objectors to the RNA-world theory say the RNA molecule as a whole is too complex to be created using early-Earth geochemistry. "The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University.

Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.� He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.�

"Ultimately, the challenge of prebiotic chemistry is that there is no way of validating historical hypotheses, however convincing an individual experiment," points out Steven Benner,

Again even the video you sent me said that physics and chemistry cannot account for life. Get your stuff straight.

Again your quote mining.. If you don't understand the subject, don't bother posting on it.

I'm quoting from your own video and within context.

You have a very bad habit of quoting from others and not citing or giving credit to them, and this is one of many hypothesis.

Quoting others is showing I am not taking credit.. It's just sharing information..

I don't ink you understood. The point was to not take credit for others. Thats why your supposed to cite your sources like I do and most everyone else does.

I can cite others. In fact the most current is they are of extraterrestrial origins but that just puts the question on another planet or part of space. The fact remains as of to date, we still don't know how nature was able to select left handed amino acids from right handed amino acids which is required in the assembly of complex proteins.

No, we don't know exactly how it did it in exacting detail. We know the answer isn't going to be magic, and will consist of natural evolutionary pathway.

You're the one who believes that these bio systems can come together on their own. So not only is it you who believes in magic, but since you cannot demonstrate it with empirical evidence then you also have great faith that it happened that way.

Umm.. we don't control the reactions themselves. Hence, the chemicals do the work, we only see how they do the work by playing with them to see how they can do it.

Really so we just sit there while the experiment performs itself. Why need scientist? Just let the chemicals do it themselves?
And people don't shoot people, guns do. Just like people don't drive cars. Cars drive people.

All atoms are non-living.. Only when do they form self-replicating molecules do they become something we call a living organism.

I thought you said All living things are made of non-living matter..AKA Atoms.
Quote:

As for cognitive systems the universe is fine tuned to allow for intelligent creatures like ourselves, hence cognitive systems? In fact many cosmologist have come to the understanding that not only is the universe fine tuned but that is fine tuned to allow intelligent life to actually observe the universe as it is.

How does a cognitive system create cognitive systems so itself can exist? Your reply did not answer my question or address the complexity problem of cognitive systems... It was a poor attempt to avoid it.

Cognitive systems is what you would expect with ID. It is more of a problem scientific naturalism believing that animated stardust should have the ability for thought.

Tell us, what's more complex.. A plant that forms and operates on a reactionary system with feedback, or a being reliant of cognitive systems that can't exist without first basic reactionary systems, or the same systems with feedback, or furthermore, highly more complex sensory systems that would be required to support even the most primitive cognitive system capable of producing a fully conscious state?? What do you think is required to even support a fleas level of awareness and intelligence? Your the one claiming a flea, an example of life, can't exist without magical intelligent design right?... I love how theists talk about the complexity of cognitive systems, and the sensory systems magically needing a GOD. I just about fell over when you said the Universe was fine tuned to support it when knowing I was nut just referring to this Universe, but to reality itself. That is just an utter fail...

All life is complex and according to C Value enigma there is no correlation to genome size and complexity. The lowly ameba can have more genetic information on orders of magnitude. The fine tuning argument was not put forth by Christian creationist. It was put forth by secular scientist and many of its proponents are atheist. It matters little what you believe because this ia empirical observation that can be measured.

Basically theists are stating that their GOD can create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist, so itself can exist.

I have never heard any Christian say that. Please cite your source.

Probability theory is used in science all the time.

Not in dealing with this context Probability arguments on chaotic systems is worthless, or when used to assume something can't ever happen..Especially when it's all made up with nothing actually to base it on in terms of measurable empirical statistical value. But I can say more empirically that the probability of the existence of consciousness is fare less likely than the existence of a self replicating molecule. Or I could say 100^100 billionth power.. So under your logic, it's impossible for any conscious being to exist.

Probability theory is also used with and along side chaos theory. Look it up.

[Bust Nak]

I didn't say you did, and that wasn't the point. Again why would biologist use the aid of design theorist if biologist know that the appearance of design is only illusory? Don't avoid the question.

I gave you an answer the first time round: Evolution works as a mechanism to generate the appearance of design. There is knowledge to be gained by studying that aspect of evolution. Nothing about being duped.

How do you know that your common sense is wrong in this case?

Because I've personally tested and varified that variation + inheritance + selection can indeed generate "specific complexity."

I have to disagree. There are many scientist who believe in a designer and they are still doing science. The modern sciences themselves were first taught in universities financed and founded by the church and taught by theologians. Many of the first men of science were theologians and creationist and they didn't let their faith get in the way of scientific discovery. We stand on the shoulders of these men who laid down some of the fundamentals and principles which are still used till this day. In fact the motto was that God showed us how to get to heaven, but man shows us how the heavens are made.

Exactly, these men didn't let their faith get in the way of scientific discovery. They answered how the heavens are made without invoking the supernatural. So in what way are you disagree with me?

As for the why question you can also simply say evolution did it just as easy as you can say a Creator did it.

Sure I could just say it, but I am not simply saying evolution did it, there is also how evolution did it.

That has nothing to do with the comment. The point is that scientist who defend neo Darwinism disregard something that is apparent and have to tell themselves that it is illusory. This is the only theory I know of that does this and I'm speaking of scientist not the average laymen who might not understand the subject fully.

No, many scientific theories don't make common sense, and scientists who studies them have to disregard the apparent. Classic example being a heavier object falls at the same speed as a lighter object.

I asked you, and please cite your source. The whole RNA world hypothesis is based on the premise that RNA was the first self replicating molecule. Again please cite your source.

There you go. Would this do?

Thats a non sequitur and that wasn't my point. ... My point was that not all chemical reactions happen instantly and at some point there had to have been non living non replicating matter to start with. Lets not play word games.

The point was chemical reaction do happen instantly - at the moment two molecule meet each other.

Again your speaking in riddles. Please lets speak plainly.

Let me rephase - I know there are RNA world hyprothesis that have steps that involve pre-RNA self replicating molcules. I don't know there are pre-RNA self replicating molcules. Is that clearer?

If it isn't here by chance then it must be here by purpose...

What about it is the only possible way something is? What about it is that way natually?

No that means if it varied by as little as 1:10^59.

What do you mean no? How is this different to if it "is 1/10^59 times heaver or lighter?"

This is the maximum deviation. Do you know how minute that number is? And this only represents just one example.

That doesn't answer how you got from a minute number to a probability.

It doesn't need to be tested. These constants are already well known and have been for many years. Thats like saying let me measure my kitchen and then asking….how do I test measuring my kitchen?

No it is not like saying that at all. I am asking them how to test for a designer, not to test what those constants are.

As for formulating it into a hypothesis, you ask yourself, what are the probabilities of this happening on its own without guidance.

I have no idea how one would work that out, all I am getting are really small numbers being quoted.

Again think of what the chances of having a house or radio being built on its own. What are the odds that all these parts would come together on there own? How many coincidence would it take?

Now that probability I have some idea how to work out. I can look at the distribution of timber after a storm and compare that to a house for example.

Literally not even a fraction as the numbers involved with fine tuning. As Hoyle once said "you would have a better chance of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and creating a 747"

Would you really though?

[pax]

So, Shermana, do you still dispute that Biologists regard humans as a species of ape?

I certainly do. I am a human being with a human nature, which is utterly different than an ape's nature. Most importantly, among all the creatures and plants on this planet, only human beings have a rational soul. Also, we are the only beings created in the image and likeness of God.

You can revert to being an ape if you want. I will continue to be a human being.

Could you please provide empirical evidence for the following.

1) We have souls
2) We have rational souls
3) We are the only beings that have rational souls
4) And, other than claims from a religious book, we are in the image and likeness of God. How you know, and what does that mean?

See? You constantly confuse religion and science to the point where you cannot differentiate between them. You ask me for empirical proof of my religious dogma but exclude yourself from having to provide empirical proof of your scientific dogma.

1, 2 & 3 are known through scholastic philosophy. They can be philisophically proven, but not empirically proven. 4 I know through divine faith.

Now, here is one for you.

Prove to me that you exist.

I suggest you read the rules. Read. specifically 'rule 5', which states your argument has to be supported by evidence.

And, 1 , 2 & 3 , as far as I can see, are not 'known through scholastic philosophy'. They are 'Unsupported claims by philosophy.. there is a difference.

AND, I have yet to see any reason to accept 'Divine Faith' as evidence. I can not find any difference between the statement of 'Divine Faith' and proclaiming 'Because I said so'.

I will note you continually avoid attempting to back up your claims.

Alrighty.

Here is a section of the Summa Theologica which might be helpful to you.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum100.htm

[THEMAYAN]

RESPONSE TO BUST NAK

I gave you an answer the first time round: Evolution works as a mechanism to generate the appearance of design. There is knowledge to be gained by studying that aspect of evolution. Nothing about being duped.

Again if "there is knowledge to be gained by studying evolution" then why are they using people who study design? You see your just avoiding the question by giving an answer that does not pertain to the question. If biology only appears to be designed then it still does not answer why design theorist are now used since the design is supposed to be illusory.

This paradigm is also inconsistent with some of the same biologist who say that biology is bad design. For example Kenneth Miller of Dover and many others said when referring to Junk DNA that an intelligent designer would not waste his time designing a bunch of mindless scribble. He was wrong. Much of this so called Junk is now known to be very important in gene regulation and serve many other important functions. For many years Francisco Ayala said that the human eye was wired backwards therefore bad design, yet we now know that it is wired exactly the way it should be and for many reasons.

How do you know that your common sense is wrong in this case?

Because I've personally tested and varified that variation + inheritance + selection can indeed generate "specific complexity."

Really, how did you do this? I'm curious because specified complexity already exist within the every life form from the bacterium to man. In fact the lowly ameba which is supposed to be a primordial organism can have more specified genetic information than humans and by orders of magnitude. This is called C Value enigma and its discovery was another failed prediction of the theory. For this reason we now know that there is no correlation to genome size and an organisms complexity. I hope you don't think I was speaking of breeding or inheritance. Again even the so called lowest life forms (if we can even use the word lowest on a genetic level) has an abundance of specified and integrated complexity.

I have to disagree. There are many scientist who believe in a designer and they are still doing science. The modern sciences themselves were first taught in universities financed and founded by the church and taught by theologians. Many of the first men of science were theologians and creationist and they didn't let their faith get in the way of scientific discovery. We stand on the shoulders of these men who laid down some of the fundamentals and principles which are still used till this day. In fact the motto was that God showed us how to get to heaven, but man shows us how the heavens are made.

Exactly, these men didn't let their faith get in the way of scientific discovery. They answered how the heavens are made without invoking the supernatural. So in what way are you disagree with me?

I believe this was in reference to you implying that ID is a science stopper. The analogy is that based on the history of science, it is not.
Again these men were creationist. Galileo until his death was a deeply religious man in spite of his beef with the Pope. Newton believed that everything was designed by the hand of God. Copernicus was a monk. Mendel was a monk. René Descartes, Robert Boyle, Isaac Barrow and the list goes on. This historical evidence shows that you can believe that God created the universe and still be a great scientist

As for the why question you can also simply say evolution did it just as easy as you can say a Creator did it.

Sure I could just say it, but I am not simply saying evolution did it, there is also how evolution did it.

The same thing can be said of ID. As I said before, there are many scientist even today who are men and women of faith and they still do great science. Remember "how the heavens are made" fits just as well with biology.
You have created a false premise in your mind thats not based on the historical evidence.


That has nothing to do with the comment. The point is that scientist who defend neo Darwinism disregard something that is apparent and have to tell themselves that it is illusory. This is the only theory I know of that does this and I'm speaking of scientist not the average laymen who might not understand the subject fully.

No, many scientific theories don't make common sense, and scientists who studies them have to disregard the apparent. Classic example being a heavier object falls at the same speed as a lighter object.

Why wouldn't it take common sense to believe that? In a vacuum they would both fall at the same rate. Maybe you should speak for your own sensibilities, because if you think this example challenges a common sense interpretation of physics, then I can assure you, your own sensibilities are an exception to what I would regard as common sense.

I asked you, and please cite your source. The whole RNA world hypothesis is based on the premise that RNA was the first self replicating molecule. Again please cite your source.

There you go. Would this do?

Would what do?

Thats a non sequitur and that wasn't my point. ... My point was that not all chemical reactions happen instantly and at some point there had to have been non living non replicating matter to start with. Lets not play word games.

The point was chemical reaction do happen instantly - at the moment two molecule meet each other

.

Your just playing games. You know that according to this hypothesis that you had to start off with non living non organic matter. To believe that you just add a couple of chemical together and you have instantaneous self replicating molecules or life, is beyond anything ever achieved even under controlled conditions and it violates a fundamental principle of biology. E.g. that living things only come from other living things and anything else has to be imagined because it does not pass empirical observation and cant be observed or repeated even though we have state of the art equipment and know every chemical in the cell.


Again your speaking in riddles. Please lets speak plainly.

Let me rephase - I know there are RNA world hyprothesis that have steps that involve pre-RNA self replicating molcules. I don't know there are pre-RNA self replicating molcules. Is that clearer?

Fair enough so then please don't pretend you do.


If it isn't here by chance then it must be here by purpose...

What about it is the only possible way something is? What about it is that way natually?

Of course this is the way thing are, but thats not saying anything and still does not answer the fine tuning ratios. This a common arguments concerning the anthropic principle, and even some of the most vocal anti theist have admitted that this is not a very intellectual satisfying argument.

What do you mean no? How is this different to if it "is 1/10^59 times heaver or lighter?"
That doesn't answer how you got from a minute number to a probability.

I believe the number was purposely under estimated and a value of 1 in ten was given for the chance of how probable each constant was. Hey listen do you don't have to believe me. Do some serious research. A simple five minute google search wont cut it. Read as much as you can about it, and get both sides. Learn about Mtheory and ask yourself if this is a valid solution to fine tuning. Just remember to be intellectually honest with yourself.


It doesn't need to be tested. These constants are already well known and have been for many years. Thats like saying let me measure my kitchen and then asking….how do I test measuring my kitchen?

No it is not like saying that at all. I am asking them how to test for a designer, not to test what those constants are.

The fine tuning observation has already been tested and measured. Whether you want believe this magnitude of exquisite fine tuning had a telic origin, or happened completely on there own, is complexity up to you.

Again think of what the chances of having a house or radio being built on its own. What are the odds that all these parts would come together on there own? How many coincidence would it take?

Now that probability I have some idea how to work out. I can look at the distribution of timber after a storm and compare that to a house for example.

Literally not even a fraction as the numbers involved with fine tuning. As Hoyle once said "you would have a better chance of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and creating a 747"

Would you really though?

Again, does it sound silly?

[Goat]

So, Shermana, do you still dispute that Biologists regard humans as a species of ape?

I certainly do. I am a human being with a human nature, which is utterly different than an ape's nature. Most importantly, among all the creatures and plants on this planet, only human beings have a rational soul. Also, we are the only beings created in the image and likeness of God.

You can revert to being an ape if you want. I will continue to be a human being.

Could you please provide empirical evidence for the following.

1) We have souls
2) We have rational souls
3) We are the only beings that have rational souls
4) And, other than claims from a religious book, we are in the image and likeness of God. How you know, and what does that mean?

See? You constantly confuse religion and science to the point where you cannot differentiate between them. You ask me for empirical proof of my religious dogma but exclude yourself from having to provide empirical proof of your scientific dogma.

1, 2 & 3 are known through scholastic philosophy. They can be philisophically proven, but not empirically proven. 4 I know through divine faith.

Now, here is one for you.

Prove to me that you exist.

I suggest you read the rules. Read. specifically 'rule 5', which states your argument has to be supported by evidence.

And, 1 , 2 & 3 , as far as I can see, are not 'known through scholastic philosophy'. They are 'Unsupported claims by philosophy.. there is a difference.

AND, I have yet to see any reason to accept 'Divine Faith' as evidence. I can not find any difference between the statement of 'Divine Faith' and proclaiming 'Because I said so'.

I will note you continually avoid attempting to back up your claims.

Alrighty.

Here is a section of the Summa Theologica which might be helpful to you.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum100.htm

So, your 'evidence' is a bunch of writings from some guy from 2000 years ago.

Who basically made 'arguments' that we could not test either the premisses or the conclusions, and made arguments up with a predetermined conclusion.

That is evidence for the belief in the soul. He is starting with the ASSUMPTION that the soul exists..

Since he is starting with that assumption, and it can not be shown that his assumption is true, then, no, his musings are not evidence that the soul exists.


All in all, your 'evidence' that the soul exists ends up to "some old guy from way back when assumed so'.

[pax]

So, Shermana, do you still dispute that Biologists regard humans as a species of ape?

I certainly do. I am a human being with a human nature, which is utterly different than an ape's nature. Most importantly, among all the creatures and plants on this planet, only human beings have a rational soul. Also, we are the only beings created in the image and likeness of God.

You can revert to being an ape if you want. I will continue to be a human being.

Could you please provide empirical evidence for the following.

1) We have souls
2) We have rational souls
3) We are the only beings that have rational souls
4) And, other than claims from a religious book, we are in the image and likeness of God. How you know, and what does that mean?

See? You constantly confuse religion and science to the point where you cannot differentiate between them. You ask me for empirical proof of my religious dogma but exclude yourself from having to provide empirical proof of your scientific dogma.

1, 2 & 3 are known through scholastic philosophy. They can be philisophically proven, but not empirically proven. 4 I know through divine faith.

Now, here is one for you.

Prove to me that you exist.

I suggest you read the rules. Read. specifically 'rule 5', which states your argument has to be supported by evidence.

And, 1 , 2 & 3 , as far as I can see, are not 'known through scholastic philosophy'. They are 'Unsupported claims by philosophy.. there is a difference.

AND, I have yet to see any reason to accept 'Divine Faith' as evidence. I can not find any difference between the statement of 'Divine Faith' and proclaiming 'Because I said so'.

I will note you continually avoid attempting to back up your claims.

Alrighty.

Here is a section of the Summa Theologica which might be helpful to you.

http://sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum100.htm

So, your 'evidence' is a bunch of writings from some guy from 2000 years ago.

Who basically made 'arguments' that we could not test either the premisses or the conclusions, and made arguments up with a predetermined conclusion.

That is evidence for the belief in the soul. He is starting with the ASSUMPTION that the soul exists..

Since he is starting with that assumption, and it can not be shown that his assumption is true, then, no, his musings are not evidence that the soul exists.


All in all, your 'evidence' that the soul exists ends up to "some old guy from way back when assumed so'.

Saint Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century. He is probably the most brilliant mind that has ever been created by God.

Anyways, I have given you my proof as to why I believe what I believe -- and a mighty fine proof it is! But, of course, you reject it, as you reject every proof that does not conform with your predisposed beliefs.

So, I think I will just put you on ignore like I did with Heresis and Joey, as conversing with you is a pointless waste of time.

God bless you, my friend, and may you find your way out of your darkness and into His glorious light.

[Bust Nak]

Again if "there is knowledge to be gained by studying evolution" then why are they using people who study design? You see your just avoiding the question by giving an answer that does not pertain to the question. If biology only appears to be designed then it still does not answer why design theorist are now used since the design is supposed to be illusory.

If life has the appearance of designed, what exactly is wrong to ask people who studies design for insight? For example to predict which way evolution will go? I don't know what study you are talking about, I can only give you vague answers.

This paradigm is also inconsistent with some of the same biologist who say that biology is bad design. For example Kenneth Miller of Dover and many others said when referring to Junk DNA that an intelligent designer would not waste his time designing a bunch of mindless scribble. He was wrong. Much of this so called Junk is now known to be very important in gene regulation and serve many other important functions.

Non-coding DNA have important functions. Junk DNA is still junk with no (currently known) function. Miller and other might be wrong about junk DNA with future discoveries, they are right about junk DNA as far as we know as of right now.

For many years Francisco Ayala said that the human eye was wired backwards therefore bad design, yet we now know that it is wired exactly the way it should be and for many reasons.

So why one way in some animals and backwards in others? Which way is the "way it should be?" Why are there trade offs in the first place at all?

Really, how did you do this? I'm curious because specified complexity already exist within the every life form from the bacterium to man.

With a computer simulation.

In fact the lowly ameba which is supposed to be a primordial organism can have more specified genetic information ... lowest life forms (if we can even use the word lowest on a genetic level) has an abundance of specified and integrated complexity.

You are wasting your time. Life is complex, I am not disputing that.

I believe this was in reference to you implying that ID is a science stopper.

Invoking the supernatural is a scientific show stopper.

This historical evidence shows that you can believe that God created the universe and still be a great scientist.

Sure. As none of them let their faith interfere with their work. However this is not evidence that you can use God in your theories and still be a scientist.

The same thing can be said of ID.

No, it can't, ID boils down to science can't explain this feature therefore it is designed. There is no mechanism what so ever.

Remember "how the heavens are made" fits just as well with biology.

Sure, hence theistic evolution.

Why wouldn't it take common sense to believe that? In a vacuum they would both fall at the same rate. Maybe you should speak for your own sensibilities, because if you think this example challenges a common sense interpretation of physics, then I can assure you, your own sensibilities are an exception to what I would regard as common sense.

Is it not obvoisly that a feather falls slower than a rock? Is it not common sense that it falls slower because it is lighter?

Would what do?

The paper. Would that paper do as a source that RNA world hypothesis that suggested pre-RNA self-replicating molecule.

Your just playing games. You know that according to this hypothesis that you had to start off with non living non organic matter.

No problems there, I've already acknowledged this, earlier I referred to this as precursor to the precursor of life - simple chemical.

To believe that you just add a couple of chemical together and you have instantaneous self replicating molecules or life, is beyond anything ever achieved even under controlled conditions...

Granted. As I said, it's no secret scientist don't know much about the origin of life.

and it violates a fundamental principle of biology. E.g. that living things only come from other living things and anything else has to be imagined because it does not pass empirical observation and cant be observed or repeated even though we have state of the art equipment and know every chemical in the cell.

You are referring to Louis Pasteur's disprove of biogenesis. No scientists accept biogensis any more. That has been replaced by abiogenesis which doesn't violate Pasteur's work.

Of course this is the way thing are, but thats not saying anything and still does not answer the fine tuning ratios. This a common arguments concerning the anthropic principle, and even some of the most vocal anti theist have admitted that this is not a very intellectual satisfying argument.

Granted. Neither is design intellectually satisfying. I want to know the "how."

I believe the number was purposely under estimated and a value of 1 in ten was given for the chance of how probable each constant was.

That never made any sense to me. Lets say a constant have to be between 9 and 11 for life to exist. The constant have a value of 10. How does one generate a probability from these premise? Well quite simply, you can't. Put it another way. You can't tell me what the odds of rolling a '6' is until you know what dice I am rolling.

Hey listen do you don't have to believe me. Do some serious research. A simple five minute google search wont cut it. Read as much as you can about it, and get both sides. Learn about Mtheory and ask yourself if this is a valid solution to fine tuning. Just remember to be intellectually honest with yourself.

Well, I did more than five minutes on Paul Davies, but it goes back to a quote and a reference to his book.

The fine tuning observation has already been tested and measured. Whether you want believe this magnitude of exquisite fine tuning had a telic origin, or happened completely on there own, is complexity up to you.

So fine tuning is measured and tested, but the next step isn't, going from low odds to designed.

Again, does it sound silly?

Sure, a house froming by itself randomly sound silly, also the universe formed by itself randomly sound silly, as does life formed by itself randomly. They all sound silly, what doesn't sound silly is there are other possibilities other than random and designed.

[Clownboat]

RESONSE TO THE JACKELANTER




I have been asking you to show empirical evidence that physic and chemistry alone can account for life and you just continue to repeat the mantra and offer nothing more as if just saying makes it true.

Life is made of atoms son... And so is physical chemistry.. You can feel free to show us a living organism here on Earth missing their atoms, or functioning without electromagnetism. All living things are made of non-living matter..AKA Atoms.. Life is simply atoms, animated matter, or self-replicating molecules made of atoms. And I suggest you learn the periodic table and the reactivity between different atoms to understand why you are entirely wrong.

When did I say that living things were not made of atoms? If you don't understand by now after repeating myself over and over that I said that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life. Then you just don't get it. Airplanes and televisions are also made of atoms. Do you think this proves that airplanes and televisions can come about without purposeful planning? There is no such thing a simple life and the periodic table does not prove abiogenesis. Without a fine tuned universe we wouldn't even have these forces or complex chemistry.

I also think you forget we are talking about evolution and not abiogenesis... Behe was rejected because he didn't explain anything and made everything up with nothing other than assertions. You can't find any data supporting his asserted claims

.

No, I was talking about Intelligent design. This is an open and non restricted forum. If you can speak of chaos theory then I can speak of anything I want too. You keep ignoring your own citation agreed with me and you can repeat your mantra all you want.


I don't think even the most ardent advocates of this hypothesis believe this. The current paradigm is the (RNA world) hypothesis, and even RNA would have had to take time through some kind of chemical evolution process before it eventually became RNA.

So what.. We know it would have to be a chemical reaction regardless for it to even work in the first place. Hello! ???

You do not know this. You assume this. Chemical reaction happen all the time. Show me one that can bring non life into life.


Quote:
Furthermore just to form the right semi permeable membrane to protect this RNA from external negative chemical reactions would have also taken time.

You here again are assuming things.. The environment might not include negative reactions.. For Petes sake, you have living organisms that can live in a nuclear reactor. Your argument assumes way to much. And it assumes no positive reactions can occur because you need to hold on to that belief.. Hence, you are trying to weasel out by playing the probability game to which is meaningless

.


Assuming? No it is you who is assuming the most perfect conditions necessary. There is no reason to believe that the primordial earth would have had controlled conditions and was able to select only the
positive chemicals required in an open and hostile environment.

Try creating a living thing in a nuclear reactor. Try creating a non racemic mixture of amino acids.

surrounding cell-like vesicles composed of semi-permeable membranes. (green). ...(Provided by Jack Szostak, Professor of Genetics, Harvard Medical. cont……
http://origins.harvard.edu/Brochure.pdf

The Origins of Cellular Life
. Jason P. Schrum, Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak
The Origins of Cellular LifeJason P. Schrum, Ting F. Zhu and Jack W. Szostak

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1304506/
Irene Chen and Jack Szsostac..A kinetic study of Growth Fatty acid Vesicles.

Now show us the cell membranes without atoms or chemical reactions, or electromagnatism....Yeah, you can't!

Your just repeating yourslef
These membranes were created by intelligent agents in a lab under controlled conditions through trial and error and they still became unstable after time, and don't forget you accused me of making this up.


I wouldn't talk abut citations if I were you. As I said before, you said it was foolish to believe that physics and chemistry alone could not account for life. You then send me a video that speaks of a (chaos theory) that you support, and in that same video it also says that chemistry and physics cannot account for life.


Sorry again you are being entirely dishonest here... You are foolish to believe physics and chemistry can't account for life...News flash, learn the difference between physics formula and physics calculations in regards to this subject.. Chaos theory is still apart of physics, it's only the out come that can not be predicted by physics calculations simply due to feedback in the system that prevents certainty in predictable outcomes.. Your ignorance of this, and your intentional ignoring of it is getting rather annoying.. You continue to display dishonesty in your arguments. Example would be pressure waves to which are not a chemical reaction, bot something that can provide feedback in a system. Here physics can't predict the out come even if physics can tell you a formula for it, or how it works. Physics can't fully explain it in mathematics because the mathematics can't with certainty predict a chaotic system with feedback.. It's still apart of physics, you just can't use physics to predict an emergent pattern from a chaotic system.

The never ending "just so" mantra.

Your understanding of this seems limited, And I don't even know why I bother trying to explain it to you since you will only sit there and dishonestly quote mine the video out of context.

The video is still posted Why don't you watch it for yourself. Do you want me to give the minutes and seconds that it says that physics and chemistry cannot account for life? Why would I lie and humiliate myself when anyone reading this can view your chaos theory video and check for themselves


You said that 2 peer review articles were removed and you named them.

Find them for me on Nature and the other reputable journal sites.. And I already stated that it appears that the only site that has remained to have it is MPDI.com to which is like pretty must just about as rigorous as posting a message on a blog site. What does Nature have to do with you lying about them being removed The Journal Life is a prestigious and well respected Journal as is Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.

OK here you go…… http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 1062a.html The article states that ID is small but growing force on university campuses.

I've already stated the supposed journal still exists on the open access journal site.

Of course the Journal still exist. What does that have to do with you making things up?



You also sent me citation that said the Scott libel suit was thrown out of court but you cited the wrong court case. So again I say it is you who has not very consistent in providing evidence for your claims.

And? Are you attempting a credibility character attack on mistaken court-case?

This is an on going theme with you.

All I did was bring up the first case I found on the subject of her being sued.. And in the end, regardless if I made a mistake on which case you were trying to specify, your argument was rather a very hallow argument. Not to mention a very dishonest one.

You did not cite a case on her. You cited a case against the Roseville school district. Even after Iv'e explained it you still don't understand something as simple as a court case. Come on man there is just no excuse anymore and I wasn't making an argument I was citing a libel suit.

The Molecular Origins of Life. Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s)


So the atoms in the molecules are magic atoms? lol.. Tell us the difference between animate matter and supposed non-animate matter. Here, this video might help ya:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ ... -life.html

Yep, scientists managed to use chemistry to make the building block of RNA called Aribal(sp?) Nucleotide. We have a natural pathway to two of the 4 RNA code.
Scientist are intelligent agents who purposely manipulate chemistry for a desired effect. OOL is not supposed to plan ahead for a desired effect. Unless you believe in intelligent design.


As for your citation above, see my John D. Sutherland citation see below……..

SCIENCE NEWS

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,� Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.�

Dr. Joyce said he had hoped an explanation for the one-handedness of biological molecules would emerge from prebiotic chemistry, but Dr. Sutherland’s reactions do not supply any such explanation. "One is certainly required because of what is known to chemists as “original syn

The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. "Whether we've done one across is an open question," he said. "Our worry is that it may not be right."
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=5277

Although Sutherland has shown that it is possible to build one part of RNA from small molecules, objectors to the RNA-world theory say the RNA molecule as a whole is too complex to be created using early-Earth geochemistry. "The flaw with this kind of research is not in the chemistry. The flaw is in the logic — that this experimental control by researchers in a modern laboratory could have been available on the early Earth," says Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University.

Dr. Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University, said the recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.� He said that cyano-acetylene, one of Dr. Sutherland’s assumed starting materials, is quickly destroyed by other chemicals and its appearance in pure form on the early earth “could be considered a fantasy.�

"Ultimately, the challenge of prebiotic chemistry is that there is no way of validating historical hypotheses, however convincing an individual experiment," points out Steven Benner,

Again even the video you sent me said that physics and chemistry cannot account for life. Get your stuff straight.

Again your quote mining.. If you don't understand the subject, don't bother posting on it.

I'm quoting from your own video and within context.

You have a very bad habit of quoting from others and not citing or giving credit to them, and this is one of many hypothesis.

Quoting others is showing I am not taking credit.. It's just sharing information..

I don't ink you understood. The point was to not take credit for others. Thats why your supposed to cite your sources like I do and most everyone else does.

I can cite others. In fact the most current is they are of extraterrestrial origins but that just puts the question on another planet or part of space. The fact remains as of to date, we still don't know how nature was able to select left handed amino acids from right handed amino acids which is required in the assembly of complex proteins.

No, we don't know exactly how it did it in exacting detail. We know the answer isn't going to be magic, and will consist of natural evolutionary pathway.

You're the one who believes that these bio systems can come together on their own. So not only is it you who believes in magic, but since you cannot demonstrate it with empirical evidence then you also have great faith that it happened that way.

Umm.. we don't control the reactions themselves. Hence, the chemicals do the work, we only see how they do the work by playing with them to see how they can do it.

Really so we just sit there while the experiment performs itself. Why need scientist? Just let the chemicals do it themselves?
And people don't shoot people, guns do. Just like people don't drive cars. Cars drive people.

All atoms are non-living.. Only when do they form self-replicating molecules do they become something we call a living organism.

I thought you said All living things are made of non-living matter..AKA Atoms.
Quote:

As for cognitive systems the universe is fine tuned to allow for intelligent creatures like ourselves, hence cognitive systems? In fact many cosmologist have come to the understanding that not only is the universe fine tuned but that is fine tuned to allow intelligent life to actually observe the universe as it is.

How does a cognitive system create cognitive systems so itself can exist? Your reply did not answer my question or address the complexity problem of cognitive systems... It was a poor attempt to avoid it.

Cognitive systems is what you would expect with ID. It is more of a problem scientific naturalism believing that animated stardust should have the ability for thought.

Tell us, what's more complex.. A plant that forms and operates on a reactionary system with feedback, or a being reliant of cognitive systems that can't exist without first basic reactionary systems, or the same systems with feedback, or furthermore, highly more complex sensory systems that would be required to support even the most primitive cognitive system capable of producing a fully conscious state?? What do you think is required to even support a fleas level of awareness and intelligence? Your the one claiming a flea, an example of life, can't exist without magical intelligent design right?... I love how theists talk about the complexity of cognitive systems, and the sensory systems magically needing a GOD. I just about fell over when you said the Universe was fine tuned to support it when knowing I was nut just referring to this Universe, but to reality itself. That is just an utter fail...

All life is complex and according to C Value enigma there is no correlation to genome size and complexity. The lowly ameba can have more genetic information on orders of magnitude. The fine tuning argument was not put forth by Christian creationist. It was put forth by secular scientist and many of its proponents are atheist. It matters little what you believe because this ia empirical observation that can be measured.

Basically theists are stating that their GOD can create that which itself is slave to require in order to exist, so itself can exist.

I have never heard any Christian say that. Please cite your source.

Probability theory is used in science all the time.

Not in dealing with this context Probability arguments on chaotic systems is worthless, or when used to assume something can't ever happen..Especially when it's all made up with nothing actually to base it on in terms of measurable empirical statistical value. But I can say more empirically that the probability of the existence of consciousness is fare less likely than the existence of a self replicating molecule. Or I could say 100^100 billionth power.. So under your logic, it's impossible for any conscious being to exist.

Probability theory is also used with and along side chaos theory. Look it up.

Please, please, please explain to me how you would account for the diversity of life we see on this planet, both now and throughout the fossil record. I really want to know.

So far, this thread reminds me of having a child complain about "x" to another child and saying "x" is wrong and "y" is actually correct. When asked to explain "y", they just continue to complain about "x".

WHAT IS "Y"!