anicheibo:

Its sad you just called intelligent design a theory. ID is just a fancy name for creationism and most of its (known) proponents are conservative christian americans (tells you a lot). I'll honestly like to see d predictions or postdictions it has made. Kindly post them here.

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many
parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information
will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without
similar precursors.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and
other functional parts will be re-used in different and
unrelated organisms.

(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform
valuable functions.

For more explanation check here. ID is not creationism since it's not based on. A Biblical presupposition.

thehomer:


This is incorrect. Natural factors actually can produce the compounds seen in living things. The current unavailability of starting materials doesn't necessarily mean that these things couldn't have happened naturally. It could simply mean that given the age of the earth, the conditions found in the early earth simply are no longer available.

No, they can't. Even when they do (such as amino acids found in meteorites) they are useless. For instance, life uses left-handed amino acids the amino acids found in meteorites contain a mixture of left and right handed amino acids.

thehomer:
What biochemicals do you have in mind?

Proteins.

thehomer:
Actually, the items you listed aren't comparable to organs like the heart and brain. I still don't see the justification for that inference in the last line. You're saying humans make pumping machines, humans can understand something about human hearts therefore some God created humans? How exactly do these things follow?

They are. The brain computes and hearts pump blood. I make the inference to God since intelligent humans build systems analagous to living things.

thehomer:
You've not actually made an argument against evolution. And that first argument is simply an argument from ignorance until you actually say how life began.

I have. If natural processes can't make life they can't evolve it. I did say the first argument was a negative one. It's the second argument the positive case for design rests on.

thehomer:
There are several hypothesis about how DNA arose. I can of course post a few links but I don't know how DNA actually arose. It still doesn't mean your God did it.

If you don't have evidence showing how DNA naturally arose then your stance that DNA and life came about naturally falls apart.

anicheibo:

notice how I said proponents not adherents... kindly google Intelligent design and read it up... try wikipedia... intelligent design is psuedo-scientific at best and isn't accepted by any unbiased peer reviewed journal

You're trying to split hairs... in fact it seems to me that you have no understanding of what "proponent" and "adherent" means... throw both words into google and this is what you get:

Proponent - a person who advocates a theory, proposal, or project.
Adherent - someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas.

So what's the difference between advocating an idea or supporting it?

Secondly, no one has ever said that intelligent design is science... its simply the conclusion of a myriad of facts that clearly show that the earth is completely incapable of creating life as we know it purely by chance.

davien:
Please explain to me what is magical in any gene that goes against the laws of physics...

I suggest you read posts more clearly before asking questions that expose your vapidity.

What do you mean by genes going against the laws of physics? My post asked a simple question, if you believe that nature created human life purely by chance... then why is it difficult for you to believe that nature should be able to create an oil rig, purely by chance of course? Last i checked, the human cell is thousands of times more complex than an simple inanimate metal pipe.

wiegraf:


Serious question. Are you friends with that lagosian scientist that asserted that because like poles of magnets repel homosexuality is bad?

Are you guys the standard our nation produces?

This post is the real deal as far as folly is concerned, ray comfort would be well and truly proud. There's far, faaaaar too much wtf here to handle in a single session. Not that I really care to. I will however point out one little thing; that isn't the atheist position. That is the position real scientists hold. A few of them are even xtian. (Actually it's the position of anyone with a brain that's been exposed to the evidence and hasn't been brainwashed, but that's another story)

You see this as an xtian vs atheist thing, take the harebrained xtian stance then claim to be a scientist. Hmmm

You'll then claim one can be both xtian and a scientist whilst doing your hardest to disprove that notion.

Hmmmmm

In fact the truth is the other way round. I was VERY careful to avoid any discussion of God or religion and i made that clear several times to thehomer who simply wanted to talk about God all day. All i wanted was a discussion centered purely around the science. So, no i see this as an absence of evidence to support the scientific speculation of how the earth and life was formed. The only reason God keeps getting dragged into these topics is because you and your ilk would have zero to say, because you do not understand the science.

I have made absolutely NO christian stance. I have quoted NO bible verse, i have not attributed anything so far to any god whatsoever. If at all there is a "harebrained christian stance", you most likely imagined it... because you would have nothing else to contribute otherwise. For you, its all about science vs. religion... when the truth is we should be digging deeper than the superficial nonsense that populates this threads. Lets get the physics and chemistry textbooks out and discuss... you cant... you'd rather whine about christianity while blaming others for dragging God into the matter.

thehomer:

I am not quite literally my DNA. My DNA cannot type on a computer. This sort of absurd statement really baffles me. Are you confused about what words mean or are you confused about how to use words?

I think you are being unreasonable here because, as Anony said, you are quite literally your DNA. DNA may not be able to type on your computer but DNA is the reason you have the ability to type on your computer at all! The fact that you cannot comprehend such a simple fact is evidence of the closed nature of your mind.

Your DNA is what dictates what you look like, whether you are male or female, whether you will be fertile or not and whether you will develop the intelligence to type on a computer. Your DNA is constantly making proteins that ensure you are alive to type on a computer. If you are in doubt... please try a simple experiment... eliminate all your DNA and see if you can still write anything on a computer.

davidylan:


I suggest you read posts more clearly before asking questions that expose your vapidity.

What do you mean by genes going against the laws of physics? My post asked a simple question, if you believe that nature created human life purely by chance... then why is it difficult for you to believe that nature should be able to create an oil rig, purely by chance of course? Last i checked, the human cell is thousands of times more complex than an simple inanimate metal pipe.

And so is the fusion reaction that powers our sun,yet you see it everyday....how is complexity a margin in considering the possibility of these things?...

UyiIredia:




(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many
parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a
specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information
will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without
similar precursors.

(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and
other functional parts will be re-used in different and
unrelated organisms.

(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform
valuable functions.

For more explanation check here. ID is not creationism since it's not based on. A Biblical presupposition.

nice intelligent design website with the name evolutionnews.org... I expected to see scientific american or nature or at worst wikipedia.... just another ID site, never an unbiased peer reviewed article. Try again

anicheibo:

nice intelligent design website with the name evolutionnews.org... I expected to see scientific american or nature or at worst wikipedia.... just another ID site, never an unbiased peer reviewed article. Try again

Thats what they do now,add "evolution,scientist" or "Phd" to their names to give a false sense of credibility..

anicheibo:

nice intelligent design website with the name evolutionnews.org... I expected to see scientific american or nature or at worst wikipedia.... just another ID site, never an unbiased peer reviewed article. Try again

Im sure you have a brain , smart enough to detect a spectacular design as seen in a DNA, or are you here for some merry-go-round ? . As simple as it is , if you think the DNA is not a design , state with cogent reasons why

davien:
And so is the fusion reaction that powers our sun,yet you see it everyday....how is complexity a margin in considering the possibility of these things?...

I'm not sure why you're asking me the question... i asked a simple one - why would you think that nature should not be able to create an oil rig (as you say, it was able to create the sun quite by chance no?)? It requires a simple answer... not a myriad of obfuscating questions.

KingEbukasBlog:


Im sure you have a brain , smart enough to detect a spectacular design as seen in a DNA, or are you here for some merry-go-round ? . As simple as it is , if you think the DNA is not a design , state with cogent reasons why

is that not the job of people making the claim that it's a "design"?
You haven't changed a bit intellectual-wise....

anicheibo:

nice intelligent design website with the name evolutionnews.org... I expected to see scientific american or nature or at worst wikipedia.... just another ID site, never an unbiased peer reviewed article. Try again

What is telling is that you make absolutely no attempt to think about the 4 issues UyiIredia raised. Those are SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS not simply ID questions. It is easy to dismiss his points simply because you dont like the title of the website, but i think what you're doing is really trying to dodge the real issues by simply calling them ID.

For example... if there was no intelligent design behind the creation of life and we are simply a product of chance... then how do we explain the intricate and complex nature of the way the cell processes information? How do we explain genetic convergence and the issue of "junk DNA"? These are legitimate science questions... you can start by tackling them rather than playing musical chairs while claiming to be all about science.

davien:
Thats what they do now,add "evolution,scientist" or "Phd" to their names to give a false sense of credibility..

and you do what on the other hand? Obfuscate, project, speculate, copy/paste the ideas of others that you have not taken the time to intelligently think through... then insult others, play musical chairs with the issues then run away... all the while appealing to authority to give yourself a veneer of credibility.

What's the difference?

KingEbukasBlog:


Im sure you have a brain , smart enough to detect a spectacular design as seen in a DNA, or are you here for some merry-go-round ? . As simple as it is , if you think the DNA is not a design , state with cogent reasons why

I've learnt enough to not rely on what I detect when its not proveable and its against scientific concensus . That my friend is called ignorance.

davien:
is that not the job of people making the claim that it's a "design"?
You haven't changed a bit intellectual-wise....

That is ridiculous. You're making the claim that science explains the creation of life as we know it... perhaps it is your job to provide the evidence to support such a claim?

I mean you think it is the job of the ID proponent to explain why ID is true and also explain why the science is wrong? So what are you putting on the table? Just the usual mockery, vapid responses and uneducated guesses?

davien:
is that not the job of people making the claim that it's a "design"?
You haven't changed a bit intellectual-wise....

If then , why are we having this argument

And you are still good at digressing .... someone else has seen that today

anicheibo:

I've learnt enough to not rely on what I detect when its not proveable and its against scientific concensus . That my friend is called ignorance.

The fundamental problem is many of you really speak about DNA, the cell, science in general from an abstract position. These are topics you read on blogs or google but have no comprehension of it at all. If you've ever had to work with DNA in the lab, yourself, perhaps you can start to understand the enormity of what you think random chance created.

The DNA, the very basis of your existence, is delicately compacted into the nucleus of a cell that is smaller than the head of a pin... if i took that DNA and injected it into an empty egg, i can create a life that is an EXACT REPLICA of the individual from whom the DNA was taken from in the first place... but all these happened by random chance, from random chaos, by a universe that cannot create a car out of sheet metal in the crust of the earth? And somehow you think you're the rational individual... lol

davidylan:


I'm not sure why you're asking me the question... i asked a simple one - why would you think that nature should not be able to create an oil rig (as you say, it was able to create the sun quite by chance no?)? It requires a simple answer... not a myriad of obfuscating questions.

It's a stup.id question to be honest...and i didn't say the sun is "created" nor "chanced"...

Nature doesn't create oil-rigs for the same reason it doesn't create cars...they are human-driven constructs that aren't naturally feasible..

davien:
It's a stup.id question to be honest...and i didn't say the sun is "created" nor "chanced"...

Nature doesn't create oil-rigs for the same reason it doesn't create cars...they are human-driven constructs that aren't naturally feasible..

Well as i said... when you cant do the science, turn to false mockery.

Its not a stup.id question, its a very vital question that if answered, would have put paid to all the talk of intelligent design today. Essentially your position is - ID is wrong, because i say so and if you dare ask me to share the scientific alternative, i'll just call you stupi.d and walk away. Quite mature and scientific...

davien:
It's a stup.id question to be honest...and i didn't say the sun is "created" nor "chanced"...

Nature doesn't create oil-rigs for the same reason it doesn't create cars...they are human-driven constructs that aren't naturally feasible..

So explain how human life is naturally feasible... and only on this tiny speck of the galaxy?

The raw materials for a car (sheet metal) exist in abundance in the earths crust... the raw material for life did not exist at the big bang (and we know this because it just does not exist anywhere else... unless you claim that the big bang miraculously, randomly created something biological on earth only but no where else)... wouldnt it make sense for nature to find the creation of a car much easier than a two legged human?

davidylan:


What is telling is that you make absolutely no attempt to think about the 4 issues UyiIredia raised. Those are SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS not simply ID questions. It is easy to dismiss his points simply because you dont like the title of the website, but i think what you're doing is really trying to dodge the real issues by simply calling them ID.

For example... if there was no intelligent design behind the creation of life and we are simply a product of chance... then how do we explain the intricate and complex nature of the way the cell processes information? How do we explain genetic convergence and the issue of "junk DNA"? These are legitimate science questions... you can start by tackling them rather than playing musical chairs while claiming to be all about science.

The fact that d theory of evolution cant (yet) answer those questions doesn't mean you should infer that intelligent design is the answer. That is just using the god of the gaps argument, and that isn't good at all. And if the universe was designed then its designer must be a cosmic prankster, cuz he/she gives us so much evidence pointing to evolution and the big bang.

davidylan:


That is ridiculous. You're making the claim that science explains the creation of life as we know it ... perhaps it is your job to provide the evidence to support such a claim?

I mean you think it is the job of the ID proponent to explain why ID is true and also explain why the science is wrong? So what are you putting on the table? Just the usual mockery, vapid responses and uneducated guesses?

Please point to the post i made regarding science explaining the "creation of life"...the only claims held in science are those that are testable...the origins of life are still under research....can you tell me who's researching the notions of "intelligent design" and where x designer came from or manifested?

anicheibo:

I've learnt enough to not rely on what I detect [s]when its not proveable and its against scientific concensus[/s] . That my friend is called ignorance.

Lol ... you still dont understand the basis of this argument

BTW the theory of evolution doesn't explain d origin of life, but rather the origin of the SPECIES. To the other questions I hav no shame in saying I dont know. It serves better than slotting psuedoscientific work.

anicheibo:

The fact that d theory of evolution cant (yet) answer those questions doesn't mean you should infer that intelligent design is the answer. That is just using the god of the gaps argument, and that isn't good at all. And if the universe was designed then its designer must be a cosmic prankster, cuz he/she gives us so much evidence pointing to evolution and the big bang.

This is an unintelligent response and i'll tell you why...

1. If the theory of evolution cannot answer the germane questions of life, as you admit, then on what basis are you inferring that ID is not the answer? Just because you dont want it to be so?

2. Your first and last sentences are bizarre together... in the first sentence you say that evolution cannot answer the question of life, but in your last sentence, you infer that evolution and the big bang has provided the evidence that life was created by nature itself... which is it? Evolution has the answer or not?

3. Just because you have the benefit of hindsight to try to use pseudo-science as an excuse to explain away life as it is today, does not mean that we now have evidence for evolution and the big bang - what we have is pointless speculation.

davien:
Please point to the post i made regarding science explaining the "creation of life"...the only claims held in science are those that are testable...the origins of life are still under research....can you tell me who's researching the notions of "intelligent design" and where x designer came from or manifested?

..... because we cant explain the existence of this designer therefore the life creations such as the DNA ,etc are not intellectual designs .... arrant nonesense ...

anicheibo:
BTW the theory of evolution doesn't explain d origin of life, but rather the origin of the SPECIES. To the other questions I hav no shame in saying I dont know. It serves better than slotting psuedoscientific work.

that is pointless... why do the species exist in the first place? That is the whole point of the ID argument in the first place.

davidylan:


So explain how human life is naturally feasible... and only on this tiny speck of the galaxy?

The building blocks of life-i.e proteins,are naturally feasible...even DNA is held by nothing more than hydrogen bonds...the only thing unknown is how said proteins became self-reproducing chemistry and began evolving...that's it...

davien:
Please point to the post i made regarding science explaining the "creation of life"...the only claims held in science are those that are testable...the origins of life are still under research....can you tell me who's researching the notions of "intelligent design" and where x designer came from or manifested?

Researched by who? Last i checked, serious labs moved on from wasting their time on this long ago. How many papers on the origin of life do you see in nature, science or the cell journals today? I think that phrase in highlights has basically become a crutch for people like you who have no idea and need something as an excuse.

davien:
The building blocks of life-i.e proteins,are naturally feasible...even DNA is held by nothing more than hydrogen bonds...the only thing unknown is how said proteins became self-reproducing chemistry and began evolving...that's it...

How are proteins the building blocks of life? Are you aware how proteins are formed at all?

DNA is transcribed to mRNA which then uses tRNA to translate these to amino acids which are then rearranged in the ER to functional proteins.

Why have you skipped process 1 and 2 to claim that proteins are the building blocks of life? Do proteins create DNA now?

Proteins are not self-replicating... they have never been self-replicating and will never be self-replicating... the fact that you get such a significant point completely wrong makes me worry about the quality of "science" you folks spout here.

KingEbukasBlog:



..... because we cant explain the existence of this designer therefore the life creations such as the DNA ,etc are not intellectual designs .... arrant nonesense ...

The notion are things are designed correct?...then what tests are done on this notion...that's it....and what margin makes x designed and y not designed...what does or would an undesigned object be like?...these are questions you'd expect from a legitimate stance if intelligent design is a science..