Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[xianghua]

No.

Why would I agree to something so ridiculous?

so a motor isnt evidence for design? ok.

 

[xianghua]

You are sorta right. It wasn't about if it was true or not. It was about whether ID could be legally taught in public schools as science. The judge found that it was only religious, with no scientific evidence for it. So, no, it could not be taught in public science classes.

since when a judge is a scientist?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

since when a judge is a scientist?

He doesn't need to be a Scientist to see no evidence presented in favour of an argument.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a motor isnt evidence for design? ok.

A mechanical motor is. It even says on the side "made in Taiwan".

 

[DogmaHunter]

since when a judge is a scientist?

He doesn't need to be a scientist. He just needs to be able to evaluate evidence and be able to tell valid evidence from invalid evidence.

Being a judge, I reckon he knows a thing or two about the nature and quality of evidence.

 

[tas8831]

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?

No, they were testing Oparin's hypothesis.

It is simple to find the truth when you do not rely entirely on propaganda from creationist organizations.

Structural Biochemistry/The Oparin-Haldane Hypothesis - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

"The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis is a hypothesis independently developed by two scientists: Russian chemist A.I. Oparin and British scientist John Haldane. Both independently suggested that if the primitive atmosphere was reducing (as opposed to oxygen-rich), and if there was an appropriate supply of energy, such as lightning or ultraviolet light, then a wide range of organic compounds might be synthesized."

and

"Miller-Urey Experiment
In 1953, two scientists set out to test Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis. "


Amazing - it took me a total of 11 seconds to find that.

How does it feel to be shown that your creationist sources are pulling your leg?

 

[tas8831]

so a motor isnt evidence for design? ok.

Not in the manner that you keep trying to use it as, no.

You keep trying, I guess, to use some perversion of the Socratic method to 'win' while avoiding having to admit how absurd your argument via analogy is.

Humans design motors. Motors are therefore human designs.
Humans define what a motor is by referring to its parts and function. Humans see a biological structure that superficially resembles a human contrivance and call IT a motor. Creationist comes along as says biological 'motor' is evidence that a supernatural entity Designed it because humans describe it using human contrivance terminology.

Creationist cannot understand why attempt to get reality-based people to agree that organic motors=Design=creation.

Give it a rest. Definition and analogy games are not evidence for your mythology.

 

[KWCrazy]

No, they were testing Oparin's hypothesis.
It is simple to find the truth when you do not rely entirely on propaganda from creationist organizations.

The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that life arose gradually from inorganic molecules, with “building blocks” like amino acids forming first and then combining to make complex polymers. SOURCE
Neither of my sources were creationist websites. Had you bothered to check the link you wouldn't have made yourself look as foolish as you have. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and the Miller-Urey experiments were both about life arising from inorganic molecules; abiogenesis.

You don't know what you're talking about. You aren't qualified to make judgments about things you do not understand.

 

[xianghua]

Not in the manner that you keep trying to use it as, no.

You keep trying, I guess, to use some perversion of the Socratic method to 'win' while avoiding having to admit how absurd your argument via analogy is.

Humans design motors. Motors are therefore human designs.
Humans define what a motor is by referring to its parts and function. Humans see a biological structure that superficially resembles a human contrivance and call IT a motor. Creationist comes along as says biological 'motor' is evidence that a supernatural entity Designed it because humans describe it using human contrivance terminology.

Creationist cannot understand why attempt to get reality-based people to agree that organic motors=Design=creation.

Give it a rest. Definition and analogy games are not evidence for your mythology.

so a flagellum that were made by a designer is a motor but a "natural flagellum" isnt?

 

[xianghua]

A mechanical motor is. It even says on the side "made in Taiwan".

so some motors arent evidence for design?

 

[Ophiolite]

Even if that doesn't happen in your lifetime, you WILL die and you WILL give an accounting for your life in front of God. If you have accepted Christ into your life you may be saved. If not, you will know the reason for your eternal separation from the Father. That's YOUR choice, not His. He sent people like me to warn you, so that in the end you will be without excuse.

If you turn out to be correct I shall certainly be questioning his Personnel Selection Policies.

 

[tas8831]

so a flagellum that were made by a designer is a motor but a "natural flagellum" isnt?

A flagellum that were made by a human designer is a human designed motor.

If a human could make a star, would that mean that all stars were made by humans?

Please consider the absurdity of your line of analogy-based argumentation.

 

[tas8831]

The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that life arose gradually from inorganic molecules, with “building blocks” like amino acids forming first and then combining to make complex polymers. SOURCE
Neither of my sources were creationist websites. Had you bothered to check the link you wouldn't have made yourself look as foolish as you have. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and the Miller-Urey experiments were both about life arising from inorganic molecules; abiogenesis.

You don't know what you're talking about. You aren't qualified to make judgments about things you do not understand.

I see what happened here.

You didn't like that I proved you wrong, so you just googled until you found a poor source and ran with it.

Miller-Urey Experiment
In 1953, two scientists set out to test Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis. Harold Urey and his student Stanley Miller tried to calculate the chemical constituents of the atmosphere of the early Earth. They based their calculations on the view that the early atmosphere was reducing. In order to do this, they simulated early earth atmospheric conditions by creating a closed system which contained water, methane gas, ammonia, and hydrogen gas. Urey suggested that his student, Miller should attempt to synthesize organic compounds in this type of atmosphere.
Miller carried out an experiment in which he passed a continuous spark discharge at 60,000 volts through a flask containing the gases identified by Urey along with water. Furthermore, this electrical current was run through the laboratory set up to simulate the catalytic source of lightning that was present in the early atmosphere.
Miller found that after a week, most of the ammonia and much of the methane had been consumed. The main gaseous products were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N2). In addition, there was an accumulation of dark material in the water. Few of the specific constituents of this could not be identified, but it was clear that the material included a large range of organic polymers. From the results of their experiment, they found that up to 15% of the carbon in the system was inorganic compounds that had formed in the system. This conclusion proved that organic molecules could be formed from inorganic molecules in Earth’s early atmosphere. In addition, out of the organic molecules produced, Miller and Urey showed that some of the organic compounds were amino acids, which are necessary for living organisms.
Analysis of the aqueous solution showed that the following had also been synthesized:
1. 25 amino acids (the main ones being glycine, alanine and aspartic acid)
2. Several fatty acids
3. Hydroxy acids
4. Amide products.​

EXOBIOLOGY: An Interview with Stanley L. Miller

Can you review with us some of the history and basic background of your original prebiotic experiments?

In the 1820's a German chemist named Woeller announced the synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate, creating a compound that occurs in biology. That experiment is so famous because it is considered the first example where inorganic compounds reacted to make a biological compound. They used to make a distinction between organic, meaning of biological origin, and inorganic- CO2, CO and graphite. We now know that there is no such distinction.

However, it remained a mystery how you could make organic compounds under geological conditions and have them organized into a living organism. There were all sorts of theories and speculation. It was once thought that if you took organic material, rags, rotting meat, etc, and let it sit, that maggots, rats etc. would arise spontaneously. It's not as crazy as it seems, considering DNA hadn't been discovered. It was then reasonable to hold those views if you consider living organisms as protoplasm, a life substance. This all changed in 1860 when Pasteur showed that you don't get living organisms except from other living organisms. This disproved the idea of spontaneous generation.

But spontaneous generation means two things. One is the idea that life can emerge from a pile of rags. The other is that life was generated once, hundreds of millions of years ago. Pasteur never proved it didn't happen once, he only showed that it doesn't happen all the time.

A number of people tried prebiotic experiments. But they used CO2, nitrogen and water. When you use those chemicals, nothing happens. It's only when you use a reducing atmosphere that things start to happen.


Who came up with the idea of the reducing atmosphere?

Oparin, a Russian scientist, began the modern idea of the origin of life when he published a pamphlet in 1924. His idea was called the heterotrophic hypothesis: that the first organisms were heterotrophic, meaning they got their organic material from the environment, rather than having to make it, like blue-green algae. This was an important idea. Oparin also suggested that the less biosynthesis there is, the easier it is to form a living organism. Then he proposed the idea of the reducing atmosphere where you might make organic compounds.

He also proposed that the first organisms were coacervates, a special type of colloid. Nobody takes that last part very seriously anymore, but in 1936, this was reasonable since DNA was not known to be the genetic material..

In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions.

​

Oh Karl, you haven't changed.

 

[tas8831]

since when a judge is a scientist?

Are you a scientist?

 

[mark kennedy]

-_- Nope, still missing the point... If ID had ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, Then it wouldn't matter that it was religious because the science part would actually be science, they could teach it at Dover Public Schools and every other public institution it could imagine itself in because it would actually be Science!

No you completely misunderstand, or are determined to misrepresent the legal issue here. Every time I post in here I end up chasing an argument in circles because your arguing something obviously wrong. This was a separation and establishment issue. Not that I'm surprised that you don't understand Constitutional law any better then you understand the life sciences. Just find a false or fallacious statement and argue it in circles. It's bad in some of the other forums but it's constant in here.

The court had no opinion because it the question was never whether ID is true or false. The question is if it was religious, specifically is the Designer God. That kind of blatantly false statement is what convinced me Darwinians lack the courage of their convictions.

It has no scientific evidence which is the only thing that could've saved it from being an entirely religious argument in the eyes of the court.

It's always no evidence but you never discus evidence. It's called begging the question of proof which means you got nothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

The had bo opinion because it was never they question.

Your typographical errors have rendered this statement incomprehensible for me.

It's always no evidence but you never discus evidence. It's called begging the question of proof which means you got nothing.

You never present evidence. Would you care to do so now.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your typographical errors have rendered this statement incomprehensible for me.

You never present evidence. Would you care to do so now.

The evidence was in the direct quotes from the decision and the reason the complaint was heard in the first place. As far as evidence you have your nerve.

 

[Ophiolite]

The evidence was in the direct quotes from the decision and the reason the complaint was heard in the first place. As far as evidence you have your nerve.

Your last sentence does not make any sense to me. The best I can make of it is you meant "As far as evidence goes you have a nerve." However, that makes no sense in the context of this thread unless you simply wished to be offensive. Could clarify?

 

[KWCrazy]

I see what happened here.
You didn't like that I proved you wrong, so you just googled until you found a poor source and ran with it.

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

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.

 

[mark kennedy]

The evidence was in the direct quotes from the decision and the reason the complaint was heard in the first place. As far as evidence you have your nerve.

Yea you got your nerve demanding evidence when you obviously don't have the slightest interest. It take a Google search and two minutes of your time to understand what Dover was about. If you want to talk about evidence for and against I'D try starting a thread on the topic.