Evidence for Design (3)

[createdtoworship]

We have given you the answer; we don't know and science is researching it. What is your explanation of how life began? (4th time I am asking this question).

It's designed at least I know that much, thats more than you apparently.

 

[Ursus scientia]

ok tell us more about your opinions on how RNA could start life, even without sources. Just in conversation.

I never said it started life, but it was undoubtedly involved in life's early stages. I really am not sure what you want from me, I've said several times we simply don't know enough about this stage of history to say anything conclusively.

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh, I know. But it's good practice, right? We all have to deal with people who aren't interested in listening to ideas they're uncomfortable with: may as well make them damn uncomfortable.

you shouldn't cuss in these forums:


I will report the next post that uses damn as a cuss word.


unfit for religious use, of which is this forum.


see second reply below the most popular opinion:
Is 'damn' a swear word?....im curious? - Yahoo Answers

 

[Ursus scientia]

I'll be...darn...sure to not use the word damn as a cuss word then.

 

[mzungu]

I'm aware of the idea of false dichotomy, argument from ignorance etc. ToE I'm guessing is Theory of Evo?

So far I'm a little disappointed there've been no serious counterpoints. Just wriggling. :/

Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

Oh, f'sure f'sure! But there are these weird arguments from evolutionnews and whatnot that I'd never even considered. Horizontal gene transfer in bacterial annulling all phylogeny, and things like that.

Gotta get me some exposure

Looking forward to learning how to talk to people who aren't interested in listening as well. 教えてください.

 

[createdtoworship]

Stay around long enough and you will realise that having a meaningful debate the way we are used to is practically impossible when dealing with creationists. Trust me; just play along. I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

keeping this one:

I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

 

[Ursus scientia]

keeping this one:

I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

QUOTEMINING!


*rings quotemining bell to summon the quoteminers back from the quotemines*

 

[mzungu]

you shouldn't cuss in these forums:


I will report the next post that uses damn as a cuss word.


unfit for religious use, of which is this forum.


see second reply below the most popular opinion:
Is 'damn' a swear word?....im curious? - Yahoo Answers

If it were a swear word it would have automatically been censored with "Bless do not curse". If you are so keen on pressing the button then nothing is stopping you.

Now threats aside; please tell me who is the designer you so fondly refer to all the time? We have a scientific theory (ToE) that has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and peer review and has extensive evidences and predictions on how life evolved after it appeared. We also have another scientific field which is not part of ToE called abiogensis which has no answers as of yet on how life began. This does not mean we will never learn. This is how science works.

Now I am curious who this designer is and how do you know it is he who did the designing? After all the world is abound with creation myths from all around the world. How do you know your myth is the one which is valid and what evidence do you have?

You really need to start answering some questions because this so called debate is getting to be very boring and one sided.

 

[createdtoworship]

If it were a swear word it would have automatically been censored with "Bless do not curse". If you are so keen on pressing the button then nothing is stopping you.

Now threats aside; please tell me who is the designer you so fondly refer to all the time? We have a scientific theory (ToE) that has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and peer review and has extensive evidences and predictions on how life evolved after it appeared. We also have another scientific field which is not part of ToE called abiogensis which has no answers as of yet on how life began. This does not mean we will never learn. This is how science works.

Now I am curious who this designer is and how do you know it is he who did the designing? After all the world is abound with creation myths from all around the world. How do you know your myth is the one which is valid and what evidence do you have?

You really need to start answering some questions because this so called debate is getting to be very boring and one sided.

ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.

We have CSI, and thats about it.

Very simple.


but on the other hand it has a vast network of antagonisms toward TOE.

so this is part of it, more importantly I might add.

Once people are informed on the cambrian explosion, on abiogenesis, on other issues they may make wiser decisions RE:TOE

 

[Ursus scientia]

ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.

We have CSI, and thats about it.

Very simple.


but on the other hand it has a vast network of antagonisms toward TOE.

so this is part of it, more importantly I might add.

Once people are informed on the cambrian explosion, on abiogenesis, on other issues they may make wiser decisions RE:TOE

Abiogenesis is not part of ToE. The cambrian explosion is a pretty easy concept to wrap your head around: loads of niches opened up over the course of FIFTY MILLION YEARS and so lots of new life forms emerged.

Anything else?

EDIT: BTW, niches in this sense mean various geographical places where some specialised organisms can thrive over others.

 

[mzungu]

QUOTEMINING!


*rings quotemining bell to summon the quoteminers back from the quotemines*

 

[createdtoworship]

Abiogenesis is not part of ToE. The cambrian explosion is a pretty easy concept to wrap your head around: loads of niches opened up over the course of FIFTY MILLION YEARS and so lots of new life forms emerged.

Anything else?

EDIT: BTW, niches in this sense mean various geographical places where some specialised organisms can thrive over others.

ok good. Well lets repeat a post from old thread so you may have a chance to reply: (I already know what the others will say, but lets see what you have to say)

"From nothing we have almost everything, almost overnight (Geologically speaking). This remains mysterious. No body really understands how this happened."

"In Darwins theory, if you think of the branching tree. You would have one form to begin with. And it would gradually diverge into different forms. And gradually into more differences until you have the major differences appearing."
"The problem with the cambrian explosion is that all these major differences appear together at the same time. With no fossil evidence that they descended from this common ancestor."
"it's not a branching tree, it's a lawn with everything sprouting on it's own."
-Jonathan Wells - PhD molecular and cell biology - UC Berkley.

The whole interview is not in the video just excerpts but the guy from Berkley obviously thinks the explosion sceptically.

another guy is J.Y. chen leading paleontologist at some institute in chengjaing china.

"Darwinism maybe only telling a part of the story for evolution."

"Darwins tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way."

He is saying that the tree of life is actually inverted.

This guy is supposed to have some famous pieces of the cambrian era in HIs collection.

there are others that say the same thing.

 

[mzungu]

ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.

ToE is the scientific "test". What test does ID (creationism) have? Since Creationism is not science I am wondering what this test could possibly be?

We have CSI, and thats about it.

Very simple.

You mean overly simplistic?

but on the other hand it has a vast network of antagonisms toward TOE.

so this is part of it, more importantly I might add.

Once people are informed on the cambrian explosion, on abiogenesis, on other issues they may make wiser decisions RE:TOE

We already have more than enough information and as for abiogenesis we are slowly acquiring information. On the other hand creationism has nothing more than a few verses written during the bronze age and is basically taken from ancient Sumerian mythology.

 

[createdtoworship]

ToE is the scientific "test". What test does ID (creationism) have? Since Creationism is not science I am wondering what this test could possibly be?



You mean overly simplistic?


We already have more than enough information and as for abiogenesis we are slowly acquiring information. On the other hand creationism has nothing more than a few verses written during the bronze age and is basically taken from ancient Sumerian mythology.

redherring, strawman, poisning the well etc etc.

I never mentioned the Bible regarding Creationism, only ID

 

[Ursus scientia]

ok good. Well lets repeat a post from old thread so you may have a chance to reply: (I already know what the others will say, but lets see what you have to say)

"From nothing we have almost everything, almost overnight (Geologically speaking). This remains mysterious. No body really understands how this happened."

"In Darwins theory, if you think of the branching tree. You would have one form to begin with. And it would gradually diverge into different forms. And gradually into more differences until you have the major differences appearing."
"The problem with the cambrian explosion is that all these major differences appear together at the same time. With no fossil evidence that they descended from this common ancestor."
"it's not a branching tree, it's a lawn with everything sprouting on it's own."
-Jonathan Wells - PhD molecular and cell biology - UC Berkley.

The whole interview is not in the video just excerpts but the guy from Berkley obviously thinks the explosion sceptically.

another guy is J.Y. chen leading paleontologist at some institute in chengjaing china.

"Darwinism maybe only telling a part of the story for evolution."

"Darwins tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way."

He is saying that the tree of life is actually inverted.

This guy is supposed to have some famous pieces of the cambrian era in HIs collection.

there are others that say the same thing.

Briefly (I'm going to bed)

Precambrian life was for the most part bacteria: horizontal gene transfer was rife. Bacteria swap genes like crazy, this is responsible nowadays for the spread of antibiotic resistance including MRSA, multi and extremely drug resistant tuberculosis. Hence precambrian phylogeny is different from cambrian biology. This doesn't challenge evolution: in fact evolution explains this. Read!

The cambrian explosion occurred over a very long time (biologically) during a period of (comparatively) sudden geochemical change. Therefore evolution has a lot of new places (niches) and new conditions to work with. Large amounts of speciation is expected. I posted to this effect earlier, check it out.

Hope that helps.

 

[createdtoworship]

Briefly (I'm going to bed)

Precambrian life was for the most part bacteria: horizontal gene transfer was rife. Bacteria swap genes like crazy, this is responsible nowadays for the spread of antibiotic resistance including MRSA, multi and extremely drug resistant tuberculosis. Hence precambrian phylogeny is different from cambrian biology. This doesn't challenge evolution: in fact evolution explains this. Read!

The cambrian explosion occurred over a very long time (biologically) during a period of (comparatively) sudden geochemical change. Therefore evolution has a lot of new places (niches) and new conditions to work with. Large amounts of speciation is expected. I posted to this effect earlier, check it out.

Hope that helps.

maybe when you wake up you can post sources for your information, and a new rule, sources FOR your sources. (to avoid being dishonest apparently).

You are commiting a red herring here.

You changed subjects from cambrian to pre,

and as such are commiting a fallacy and changing the bars.

good nite.

also:how many years was the cambrian? Just curious

 

[createdtoworship]

are we chimps because we have similar chromosomes?

food for thought.

posted on another forum by :amcon

"I did some research on this, folks. I decided the more chromosomes you have, the more complex you must be because it is the most complex molecule in the universe; and so I arranged a bunch of animals and plants in order based upon the number of chromosomes they had. I discovered that penicillin has two chromosomes. Fruit flies have eight. There are a few missing links in there three, four, five, six, seven. I don't know where they went, but I do believe from this research that I could prove that penicillin slowly evolved into fruit flies. And then over billions of years, they got more chromosomes someplace and turned into either a housefly or a tomato. (They are twins, you know! Pretty tough to tell the difference.) They both have 12 chromosomes. And then very slowly over billions of years we got more chromosomes and became a pea. And then over billions of years they got two more chromosomes and turned into a bee. Pretty close, now: bee - pea, see the similarities? And then very slowly became lettuce. And then a carrot. And when we got to 22 chromosomes a miracle took place. Did you know the possum, the redwood tree and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes? Identical triplets. See, that's a possum; that's the tree and kidney bean. Hey! Got them right! Look at that! The average scientist can't tell the difference. They've got 22 chromosomes - all three of them. “Let's see: we've got tree, possum, kidney bean and huh, which one is which? I don't know.” Very slowly over millions of years we got enough chromosomes to become a human. Here we are folks: we have forty-six. And if we can just get two more we are going to be a tobacco plant! ....."

 

[OllieFranz]

ID has nothing on the designer, only the design. Only what our five senses can sense. Only what science can test.

We have CSI, and thats about it.

Very simple.

OK If ID is "what science can test" and CSI is "about it," then CSI must be testable. That means it must be quantifiable. How do you quantify CSI? Give me an example of something in the "average" range of CSI, something with half that much CSI, something with twice as much CSI. And give me a formulation that explains different CSI levels in related things.

Alternatively, explain why two things have the same amount of CSI, and another pair with a similar relationship don't

If you are personally unfamilliar with the math involved, that's OK. I'll even settle for a clear, layman's description of how you go about determining the level of CSI in a thing. Emphasis on clear. I am not going to settle for the equivalent of the Kent Hovind trick of placing three pictures of wildly different breeds of dog and a fourth picture of a banana, and asking a five-year -old which one is different.

 

[createdtoworship]

OK If ID is "what science can test" and CSI is "about it," then CSI must be testable. That means it must be quantifiable. How do you quantify CSI? Give me an example of something in the "average" range of CSI, something with half that much CSI, something with twice as much CSI. And give me a formulation that explains different CSI levels in related things.

Alternatively, explain why two things have the same amount of CSI, and another pair with a similar relationship don't

If you are personally unfamilliar with the math involved, that's OK. I'll even settle for a clear, layman's description of how you go about determining the level of CSI in a thing. Emphasis on clear. I am not going to settle for the equivalent of the Kent Hovind trick of placing three pictures of wildly different breeds of dog and a fourth picture of a banana, and asking a five-year -old which one is different.

okay how about peer reviewed ID literature, look some up and you can find CSI, half CSI, twice CSI and 1/3 CSI

lets start here:

http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=19279

reviewed here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/pro-intelligent_design_peer_re042211.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed_scientific_paper_1042221.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/scientific_paper_in_reviews_de042231.html

if thats what you want:


or this one:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/peer-reviewed_pro-intelligent042261.html
There are many more pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers listed at:

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

many listed here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7541282-24/#post58029153