On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

[Subduction Zone]

What I really meant is that I posted it for those who believe in an ID but if anyone wishes to respond I appreciate it although I don't wish to debate. My apology if I gave that other negative impression. About the key points, there actually aren't any since the questions that he answers are so many. But my general impression of his key points were that the conditions on Earth were not conducive to abiogenesis because of ultraviolet radiation, and other harsh environmental factors such as entropy the presence of oxygen and the mathematical improbability of all necessary factors essential to life appearing at the same time. He also mentions that there are many unsubstantiated presuppositions needed for the abiogenesis idea as well as the required rejection of all others. One presupposition is that it occurred. That is the presupposition that engenders all other explanations and refuses to admit any alternate views. However, he as a scientist finds that assumption unwarranted.



I found his comments informative concerning:

1. Oxygen interference with abiogenesis

2. Unwarranted assumptions that there no oxygen was present.

And what did I tell you about misusing the word "assumption". The lack of O2 in the early atmosphere was not an assumption. Sometimes scientists will use the term when they rely on the work of another. If another scientist has done some work that touches on theirs they may "assume" that the work of the other scientist was correct. That there was little to no molecular O2 in the early atmosphere has been confirmed many times.

3. Miller Experiment result evaluation as non-biological

It was never meant to be. If you want to use that argument then you did not understand the point of it.

4. His evaluation of proteinoids as totally devoid of any potential life processes.

5. No mathematical chance of generating specific order or complexity for the formation of cell.

6. Major problem: No chemical pathway to acquire information needed for cell function as being discovered.

These three all sound like arguments from ignorance. Odds arguments have always been so when I have seen them.

7. No experimental indication of how matter could increase in functional complexity.

Is he talking about in existing life? We know how that happens. If he is talking about abiogenesis it is simply another argument from ignorance.

8. Problem RNA world concept. RNA would be destroyed ultra-violate radiation.

Only near the surface. How deep do you think that UV penetrates water?

9. His admission that an ID is the most logical conclusion

How is that an admission? It sounds like a bad conclusion to me.

10 Specified complexity explanation

Huge fail. Specified complexity is a nonsense claim.

11. Evolution’s Immunity to critical examination in schools .

The only reason that it seems immune is that it is essentially correct. It has been tweaked and tuned quite a bit since Darwin's time. You might as well complain about gravity's immunity to critical examination.

Yes, people that do not believe in gravity fail all of the time when they try to do a critical examination of it. So do people that don't accept the theory of evolution.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't view the atheistic arguments as either scientific or infallible. On the contrary, I find them unscientific and seriously flawed and my view far more scientifically valid.

Having opinions like this is easy. The real trick is demonstrating your faith in this matter relates to reality in any way.

 

[KCfromNC]

9. His admission that an ID is the most logical conclusion

Depends on when you're talking about. Before creationists lost a number of court cases he was advocating for creationism being the most logical conclusion. When they failed to get that religious doctrine taught in schools he switched over to trying to sneak it in using ID instead. Now that ID proponents have lost in court who knows what he'll make up next.

11. Evolution’s Immunity to critical examination in schools .

Someone sounds sore than they couldn't convince impartial judges to buy into their religious propaganda. Funny how much harder it is to promote ID when there are legal penalties for lying about it.

 

[Chriliman]

On the Origin of Life - An Interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon

On the Origin of Life, one main difference between creationists and atheistic evolutionists is that creationists will ask "who, what, where, when, why" and atheistic evolutionists will ask, "what, where, when, why" leaving out the possibility of a who.

Based on this observation, I'd give the edge to the creationists because they're more willing to entertain a broader spectrum of possibility by not leaving out the important question of who.

 

[HitchSlap]

On the Origin of Life, one main difference between creationists and atheistic evolutionists is that creationists will ask "who, what, where, when, why" and atheistic evolutionists will ask, "what, where, when, why" leaving out the possibility of a who.

Based on this observation, I'd give the edge to the creationists because they're more willing to entertain a broader spectrum of possibility by not leaving out the important question of who.

Not even close.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

8. Problem RNA world concept. RNA would be destroyed ultra-violate radiation.

'ultra-violent', surely?

Seriously Radrook, that list is nonsense.

 

[HitchSlap]

'ultra-violent', surely?

Seriously Radrook, that list is nonsense.

 

[Radrook]

'ultra-violent', surely?

Seriously Radrook, that list is nonsense.

I know what you are seeking but it isn't going to happen.
In fact, just the opposite is far more likely.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I lubbilubbed that sinny, o my brothers; horrorshow for the gulliver, my malenky droogs, and dobby for the yarbles...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know what you are seeking but it isn't going to happen.
In fact, just the opposite is far more likely.

I'm not actually seeking anything - the list is just nonsense.

 

[Radrook]

Having opinions like this is easy. The real trick is demonstrating your faith in this matter relates to reality in any way.

Faith has nothing to do with it. However, if it did, it need not conform to your subjective reality.

 

[Radrook]

On the Origin of Life, one main difference between creationists and atheistic evolutionists is that creationists will ask "who, what, where, when, why" and atheistic evolutionists will ask, "what, where, when, why" leaving out the possibility of a who.

Based on this observation, I'd give the edge to the creationists because they're more willing to entertain a broader spectrum of possibility by not leaving out the important question of who.

That is an excellent observation! The fanatical refusal to consider all possibilities is the hallmark of the unscientific mindset and makes their whole approach incompatible with the scientific method since it lacks objectivity.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is an excellent observation! The fanatical refusal to consider all possibilities is the hallmark of the unscientific mindset and makes their whole approach incompatible with the scientific method since it lacks objectivity.

Then please tell us what experiments scientists should be doing to test these other possibilities.

 

[Radrook]

Depends on when you're talking about. Before creationists lost a number of court cases he was advocating for creationism being the most logical conclusion. When they failed to get that religious doctrine taught in schools he switched over to trying to sneak it in using ID instead. Now that ID proponents have lost in court who knows what he'll make up next.



Someone sounds sore than they couldn't convince impartial judges to buy into their religious propaganda. Funny how much harder it is to promote ID when there are legal penalties for lying about it.

Your commentary doesn't address a single point that he mentioned in his interview. It is just another pointless ad hominem attack just like all the rest of the ones posted here by atheists.

 

[Radrook]

Then please tell us what experiments scientists should be doing to test these other possibilities.

What test did they use to conclude that something that needed to be called dark matter exists? They observed and concluded-right? Observation of the effects is sufficient to infer a cause. Now, you tell me why this same method doesn't apply to an ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

What test did they use to conclude that something that needed to be called dark matter exists? They observed and concluded-right? Observation of the effects is sufficient to infer a cause. Now, you tell me why this same method doesn't apply to an ID.

Show me how it does apply to ID. You are the one complaining that scientists aren't doing the science. So show us what science they need to be doing.

 

[Radrook]

Show me how it does apply to ID. You are the one complaining that scientists aren't doing the science. So show us what science they need to be doing.

No, you answer the question I asked you concerning the dark matter and why we can't use the same method in determining existence in reference to an ID.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you answer the question I asked you concerning the dark matter and why we can't use the same method in determining existence in reference to an ID.

How would looking at the distortion of starlight around galaxies evidence an intelligent designer?

 

[Radrook]

How would looking at the distortion of starlight around galaxies evidence an intelligent designer?

I never made that silly claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never made that silly claim.

Yes, you did.

"No, you answer the question I asked you concerning the dark matter and why we can't use the same method in determining existence in reference to an ID."--Radrook, post 37

You are the one claiming that scientists aren't doing the science to support an intelligent designer. So what science are they not doing?