davidylan:


1. I am actually a scientist and have actually done many of the experiments cited here... which is why i laughed when davien claimed that proteins were the building blocks of life. We buy proteins off the shelf all the time, without DNA you do not have a viable cell even if you dumped all the protein you can get into it. But of course, that is the caliber of "scientists" here that we have to deal with.

True and i guess the term "building block" does not apply when proteins are the catalysts involved in most of its operations...

2. To say the universe is a cocktail of natural mechanisms belies the point - so why is life seeded on earth only but not, say Mars?

How does that change things....another god of the gaps arguement...

3. I believe in God, i believe in science - infact that is my profession, however i dont believe in pseudo-science (which is basically all i have read here from the likes of davien and others).

All day you've not given one scientific notion of ID and you claim it's science...

davien:
He was not speaking on scientific points because ID doesn't have any....i've asked all day for one and all you've told me is that "human DNA can be held in a pin prick- therefore designed

you cant read and intelligently comprehend a point. i didnt say that ID is justified because DNA is held on a pin-prick (i never said that in the first place). What i said was that sometimes science forces us to think outside the box. The entire gamut of a human (looks, psyche, personality etc.) is held in DNA which is encased in a cell which is smaller than a pin prick. This level of complexity is somehow what you think that nature came up with on its own? at random? But somehow nature cannot create a simple metal pipe?

davidylan:



2. To say the universe is a cocktail of natural mechanisms belies the point - so why is life seeded on earth only but not, say Mars?

This comment alone can win you trophies

davien:
True and i guess the term "building block" does not apply when proteins are the catalysts involved in most of its operations...

Building block - a basic unit from which something is built up.

So what has catalysis got to do with "basic unit"? A cell cannot survive without oxidative respiration... so is the mitochondria now the building block of the cell?

davien:

How does that change things....another god of the gaps arguement...

Do you have anything else of value other than simply crying "god of the gaps" every 2 seconds?

davien:

All day you've not given one scientific notion of ID and you claim it's science...

And what scientific notion have you given all day?

davidylan:


Not really. i keep asking for the science behind your claims that we simply evolved out of nothing and on this planet along... which makes up an inconsequential portion of the universe.

"god of the gaps" may not be a valid argument... "science is still researching" isnt one either... and "just because i say so" is even worse.

science is still reaserching isn't an argument, its a temporary answer. It does better than filling the gaps with "the designer". The god of d gaps argument is intellectual laziness.

davien:
Contrasting and differentiating objects is how we understand the world....you claimed simplistic notions like this are funny...yet you're ahem allegedly a biologist who must have contrasted and differentiated a myriad of things...

@bold - you could also question Ben Carson's credibility as a neurosurgeon

davidylan:


I didnt say compare and contrast is simplistic... i simply asked you a question - if you believe that a car cannot just pop out of the ground then on what basis do you say a more complex human can? You sidestepped this by laughing at the Adam and Eve strawman you created. shame.

Everyone here can read this....you noted a human can't pop from the ground and i asked where adam came from...

davidylan:


Its funny how atheists laugh at cars popping out of the ground but have no problem believing (by blind faith of course) that the more complex human who designed that car simply popped out of the ground.

davien:
LMAO! please what was Adam made from? in a desperation to folly me you've made a mockery of your own belief...lol

And i then explained

davien:
Simplicity does not imply folly....and it's contrasted on grounds of naturally occurring....comparison is just another method....either-way it's the way humans classify things....is taxonomy not about contrasting features of organisms to differentiate them....it's simplistic and it works....not like the untestable "all things are designed" assertions ID'ers make

But i guess you missed all that

anicheibo:

science is still reaserching isn't an argument, its a temporary answer. It does better than filling the gaps with "the designer". The god of d gaps argument is intellectual laziness.

Actually i beg to disagree... there is no god of the gaps argument (unless when used by those who have no answers and have to resort to mockery)... what we have is a reasoned scientific basis for why nature does not explain the origin of life. Science provides no cogent answers for how life originated. Science provides no valid or logical hypothesis as to how life may have originated. Infact science still has no clue how to create the basic building block of life - the DNA... The very science of life and the cell suggests to us that it could not simply be a product of random chance (which is what you propose and is just statistically impossible)... so how on earth is it a god of the gaps argument? Or you're simply using big words you learnt somewhere? Just as an exercise... try doing this - if the universe is a cocktail of natural mechanisms, what is the statistical probability that life will be seeded on earth alone? That is basic mathematics... not god of the gaps...

"Science is still researching" is no answer at all... it is infact a speculative guess, a fig leaf for ignorance, perpetuated by people who have no clue since they cannot point to the scientific labs doing the searching they claim in the first place. When i get the chance, i read through the latest titles on the most prestigious scientific journals, i cant find any that is still doing the "searching" you claim.

KingEbukasBlog:


@bold - you could also question Ben Carson's credibility as a neurosurgeon

Dont bother... you really cannot reason with the close-minded.

davidylan:


you cant read and intelligently comprehend a point. i didnt say that ID is justified because DNA is held on a pin-prick (i never said that in the first place). What i said was that sometimes science forces us to think outside the box. The entire gamut of a human (looks, psyche, personality etc.) is held in DNA which is encased in a cell which is smaller than a pin prick. This level of complexity is somehow what you think that nature came up with on its own? at random? But somehow nature cannot create a simple metal pipe?

Dude i don't know how nature came up with it is an honest answer than your usual god of the gaps lazy arguement..

davien:
Dude i don't know how nature came up with it is an honest answer than your usual god of the gaps lazy arguement..

well, if you dont know then how do you know for sure that ID is wrong?

Its like saying i know 2+2 is not 5 but i have no clue what 2+2 actually is...i just know it cant be 5! that is the very height of illogicality.

davien:
Everyone here can read this....you noted a human can't pop from the ground and i asked where adam came from

Genesis 2:7

7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

form verb
1.bring together parts or combine to create (something).

2.make or be made into a specific shape or form.

If the above paints a picture of something popping out from the ground then you need to have your brain re- examined

davidylan:


Actually i beg to disagree... there is no god of the gaps argument (unless when used by those who have no answers and have to resort to mockery)... what we have is a reasoned scientific basis for why nature does not explain the origin of life. Science provides no cogent answers for how life originated. Science provides no valid or logical hypothesis as to how life may have originated. Infact science still has no clue how to create the basic building block of life - the DNA... The very science of life and the cell suggests to us that it could not simply be a product of random chance (which is what you propose and is just statistically impossible)... so how on earth is it a god of the gaps argument? Or you're simply using big words you learnt somewhere?

Since when did science offer merit to supernatural causation then?

"Science is still researching" is no answer at all... it is infact a speculative guess, a fig leaf for ignorance, perpetuated by people who have no clue since they cannot point to the scientific labs doing the searching they claim in the first place. When i get the chance, i read through the latest titles on the most prestigious scientific journals, i cant find any that is still doing the "searching" you claim.

just a few http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140929105349.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710081209.htm

KingEbukasBlog:


Genesis 2:7



form verb
1.bring together parts or combine to create (something).

2.make or be made into a specific shape or form.

If the above paints a picture of something popping out from the ground then you need to have your brain re- examined

from the dust of the ground so god would by you have to bring together parts of dust and mold a human being
So much for ID being science,lol...

davien:
Since when did science offer merit to supernatural causation then?


just a few http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140929105349.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710081209.htm

I was very cautious to list 3 of the most prestigious biological journals - nature, science and cell. Any serious biological advance of the last 30 years has come from anyone of them... of course you can find any fringe blog that will publish anything for a fee. Next you'll ask me to read wikipedia like anicheibo did... funny guy.

davien:
from the dust of the ground so god would by you have to bring together parts of dust and mold a human being
So much for ID being science,lol...

You're mixing two things - either because you really are that dense or you're just resorting to the usual mockery to escape the yawning deficit in the science you tout.

ID is not the same as the bible... there are many proponents of ID who are not christians and do not subscribe to the biblical notion of God. I think you devolve into the Adam strawman to detract from your difficulty in discussing the science.

I notice you avoid posts that question the science and prefer to traffic in those where you can quickly change the subject into another bible bashing exercise.

davien:
from the dust of the ground so god would by you have to bring together parts of dust and mold a human being
So much for ID being science,lol...

So much for the poor comprehension of creation story and life coming from inorganic matter

Isnt it funny that the dead body turns to mere dust after some time .

davidylan:


I was very cautious to list 3 of the most prestigious biological journals - nature, science and cell. Any serious biological advance of the last 30 years has come from anyone of them... of course you can find any fringe blog that will publish anything for a fee.

wow...so nothing else credible exists outside those...i can see an argument from authority here..

KingEbukasBlog:


So much for the poor comprehension of creation story and life coming from inorganic matter

Isnt it funny that the dead body turns to mere dust after some time .

Isnt this the time we insert another "god of the gaps" statement?

KingEbukasBlog:


So much for the poor comprehension of creation story and life coming from inorganic matter

Isnt it funny that the dead body turns to mere dust after some time .

dust or dead organic matter... try using dust as a fertilizer!

davien:
wow...so nothing else credible exists outside those...i can see an argument from authority here..

you've been using the same "science is researching" as an appeal to authority for the last 2 pages so it is quite rich for you to accuse me of doing what exactly amounts to the whole pillar of your argument against ID.

I have not said nothing credible exists outside of those... i certainly publish in other journals but these are the creme de la creme of biochemical research. Surely you are aware that any science that announces a breakthrough in how we understand the origin of human species would be big enough to get into one of the three right? Its just common sense and an idea of how scientific publishing has worked for years.

davidylan:


You're mixing two things - either because you really are that dense or you're just resorting to the usual mockery to escape the yawning deficit in the science you tout.

ID is not the same as the bible... there are many proponents of ID who are not christians and do not subscribe to the biblical notion of God. I think you devolve into the Adam strawman to detract from your difficulty in discussing the science.

I notice you avoid posts that question the science and prefer to traffic in those where you can quickly change the subject into another bible bashing exercise.

Did i claim every proponent of ID is a christian or you mixed up the context as usual...

davidylan:


Isnt this the time we insert another "god of the gaps" statement?

Still havent explain how

1 life came from inorganic matter

2 something came from nothing

3 Why the DNA isnt an intelligent design

You are really an artful dodger


Its obvious someone learnt a new term recently - "god of the gaps"

KingEbukasBlog:


Still havent explain how

1 life came from inorganic matter

2 something came from nothing

3 Why the DNA isnt an intelligent design

You are really an artful dodger


Its obvious someone learnt a new term recently - "god of the gaps"

lol i'm not Davien, i made that comment sarcastically. It seems the atheists use "god of the gaps" more as an insult when they themselves know they cannot explain the yawning gaps in the questions you pose.

davidylan:


you've been using the same "science is researching" as an appeal to authority for the last 2 pages so it is quite rich for you to accuse me of doing what exactly amounts to the whole pillar of your argument against ID.

I have not said nothing credible exists outside of those... i certainly publish in other journals but these are the creme de la creme of biochemical research. Surely you are aware that any science that announces a breakthrough in how we understand the origin of human species would be big enough to get into one of the three right? Its just common sense and an idea of how scientific publishing has worked for years.

okay then,here's some nature articles
http://www.nature.com/news/new-species-of-early-human-discovered-near-fossil-of-lucy-1.17644
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-wolf-genome-pushes-back-dawn-of-the-dog-1.17607
http://www.nature.com/news/dino-chickens-reveal-how-the-beak-was-born-1.17507
http://www.nature.com/news/homo-erectus-footprints-hint-at-ancient-hunting-party-1.17346
http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-of-darwin-s-strange-animals-solved-1.17138

let me guess,someone paid them?

@davidylan lemme explain how d god of d gaps argument works
my brother and I are arguing 'bout the origin of pasta. He says its chinese, I say its mexican. He looks it up and finds out its not mexican so he claims therefore that it is chinese, without proof that it is chinese. Thats how ID works and dats how you've been arguing. I wasn't trying to mock you, if I was I would have used the term 'argument from ignorance'.

davidylan:


lol i'm not Davien, i made that comment sarcastically

lmao ... sorry for the mistake ... the "d and "a" in your usernames tho . I'll look closer next time .

It seems the atheists use "god of the gaps" more as an insult when they themselves know they cannot explain the yawning gaps in the questions you pose.

Exactly !

davien:
okay then,here's some nature articles
http://www.nature.com/news/new-species-of-early-human-discovered-near-fossil-of-lucy-1.17644
http://www.nature.com/news/ancient-wolf-genome-pushes-back-dawn-of-the-dog-1.17607
http://www.nature.com/news/dino-chickens-reveal-how-the-beak-was-born-1.17507
http://www.nature.com/news/homo-erectus-footprints-hint-at-ancient-hunting-party-1.17346
http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-of-darwin-s-strange-animals-solved-1.17138

let me guess,someone paid them?

You dont seem to be thinking... all the articles above are strictly on the science of evolution, which as you know, is different from the topic on hand which is - does science provide a valid hypothesis as to the ORIGIN of species?

davidylan:


You dont seem to be thinking... all the articles above are strictly on the science of evolution, which as you know, is different from the topic on hand which is - does science provide a valid hypothesis as to the ORIGIN of species?

And isn't evolution about the origin of species?
In one article an hypothesis was verified...
http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-of-darwin-s-strange-animals-solved-1.17138

anicheibo:
@davidylan lemme explain how d god of d gaps argument works
my brother and I are arguing 'bout the origin of pasta. He says its chinese, I say its mexican. He looks it up and finds out its not mexican so he claims therefore that it is chinese, without proof that it is chinese. Thats how ID works and dats how you've been arguing. I wasn't trying to mock you, if I was I would have used the term 'argument from ignorance'.

Dear Friend , there are two options involved here in our arguments . In your analogy , there are many options involved

anicheibo:
@davidylan lemme explain how d god of d gaps argument works
my brother and I are arguing 'bout the origin of pasta. He says its chinese, I say its mexican. He looks it up and finds out its not mexican so he claims therefore that it is chinese, without proof that it is chinese. Thats how ID works and dats how you've been arguing. I wasn't trying to mock you, if I was I would have used the term 'argument from ignorance'.

Anichiebo, let me explain your own "science is researching" argument.

My brother and I are arguing about the sum of 2 and 3. I say the answer is 5, my brother says it cannot be 5. I ask him how he knows it is not 5, he says he has no idea but is sure it can never be 5, just because... i ask him for evidence, he says mathematicians are still trying to solve the problem but i should just believe that 2+3 is not 5. Now anytime i say that 2+3 = 5 because there is no rational basis for it to be anything else, he just chants "god of the gaps"...

Again let me repeat... your preconceived, but completely factless insistence that only science can explain the origin of the life is behind the constant use of the "god of the gaps" mockery. I asked you to do the math (which is still a form of science by the way)... what is the statistical probability that universal laws of physics and biology sparked life on earth and on no other part of the planet? You have a pen, paper and calculator... start working.

davien:
And isn't evolution about the origin of species?
In one article an hypothesis was verified...
http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-of-darwin-s-strange-animals-solved-1.17138

How does evolution explain how the species that allegedly evolved appear in the first place?