Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[DogmaHunter]

so some motors arent evidence for design?

When you say "motor", this is what I picture:

 

[tas8831]

Or you could just admit that you shot off your mouth without checking the source.

I DID check the source, Lego-man (do you still use that 'argument'?).

That is how I knew that Miller-Urey were testing the reducing atmosphere=biologically relevant organics part. They never set out to create life.

Haldane envisaged that groups of monomers and polymers acquired lipid membranes, and that further developments eventually led to the first living cells. source

In the 1920s British scientist J.B.S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin independently set forth similar ideas concerning the conditions required for the origin of life on Earth. Both believed that organic molecules could be formed from abiogenic materials in the presence of an external energy source (e.g., ultraviolet radiation) and that the primitive atmosphere was reducing (having very low amounts of free oxygen) and contained ammonia and water vapour, among other gases. source

It was about whether life could form from inorganic chemicals; aka abiogenesis.
No creationist websites involved.

I didn't say you had used creationist sources.

But it seems that you have forgotten what your original charge was -

me: Does Bergman explain that Miller and Urey were not actually trying to 'create life'?

you: Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions. source

Oh, wait. They were just looking for a better tasting PB&J sandwich, right?

You had claimed that Miller was trying to create life (and used crazy Bergman as a source).

He (and Urey) were not, as I documented.

I get it, karl, you just have to save face, just like at NAIG... Not working here, either.

 

[KWCrazy]

You had claimed that Miller was trying to create life (and used crazy Bergman as a source).

Now I get it. You just don't read what people actually write.
I wrote, and you copied, "Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occurring chemical reactions."
The theory is that naturally occurring reactions formed proteins, which in turn became the first living organisms.
It's an abiogenesis theory, and Miller-Urey was an abiogenesis experiment.

 

[KWCrazy]

When you say "motor", this is what I picture:
View attachment 210933

Actually, that's an engine. The difference is the fact that "motors" run on electricity while "engines" run on combustion. For what it's worth.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, that's an engine. The difference is the fact that "motors" run on electricity while "engines" run on combustion. For what it's worth.

FWIW

mo·tor
ˈmōdər/
noun

1. 1.
   a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.

adjective

 

[Speedwell]

FWIW

mo·tor
ˈmōdər/
noun

1. 1.
   a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.

adjective

It may not be in the dictionary, but I've been around engineering enough to know that there is at least a colloquial distinction. KW is right: if it's got pistons, it's an engine.

 

[HitchSlap]

It may not be in the dictionary, but I've been around engineering enough to know that there is at least a colloquial distinction. KW is right: if it's got pistons, it's an engine.

Hey, you're preachin' to the choir.

General Motors | Official Global Site | GM.com

 

[Speedwell]

Hey, you're preachin' to the choir.

General Motors | Official Global Site | GM.com

But I so rarely get a chance to agree with KW about anything...

 

[KWCrazy]

• A motor is a machine that converts other forms of energy into mechanical energy and so imparts motion.
• An engine is a motor that converts thermal energy to mechanical work.
• Every engine is a motor. Not every motor is an engine.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Perhaps you're missing what @Motherofkittens is trying to highlight - the Court made no decision on the claims of ID because even were it to attempt it, there's no Scientific evidence in its favour to assess. Literally, the only thing ID had were religious underpinnings and denial of evidence based science already out there that support the theory of evolution.

Although the Court worded in its decision that 'ID arguments may well be true', it's actually more probable that ID arguments are false, especially given the ID movement had every chance to front any scientific evidence whatsoever which would have not only vindicated the ID movement, but would've meant that ID and all its claims were in fact science and therefore had every grounds to be taught everywhere as science, Including in Dover!

They'd have won this case, hands down!

Thank you, that is what I was trying to get across.