Loved the Book - Puzzled By Your Stance on ID

order now!

Loved the Book - Puzzled By Your Stance on ID

Unread postby lou1355 » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:48 pm

Dear Bernie: It seems to me you bought into the evolutionists' common smear of the ID movement--that it is just "gussied up creationism."

This website does a good job of explaining why ID is a scientific movement motivated by observed facts--not religious philosophy:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

Bottom line: the structure and information carrying nature of the DNA molecule could not have occured randomly. There is nothing in nature that would produce that molecule randomly. Asserting otherwise is like saying the sculpture on Mount Rushmore is the result of sandstorms and time. You don't have to be religious to know that isn't so.

Also, "natural selection" implies "nature" has a choice. The fact is rivers don't "choose" their course--natural laws dictate them. Chemicals do not combine by choice--again, they combine based on natural law. There is no known natural law that explains how non-living matter transforms into life. It has never been observed by science--ever. Unguided, random physical/chemical processes never could produce the beauty, complexity, functionality and vitality of the DNA molecule--and that's a fact.

When I conclude that an intelligent being (or beings) with the power to arrange matter into living forms must be responsible for the advent or placement of life on this planet, I am not making a religious statement nor am I suggesting that such beings are "supernatural." Extra-terrestial perhaps, but not necessarily "supernatural." I'm also not trying to make a statement about who should have sex with whom--I'm just making an informed observation and reaching a common sense conclusion.

If there is a body of thought unsupported by empirical observation and reproducible processes, protected by a high priesthood of experts and enforced by a bigoted orthodoxy it has to be "evolutionary science."

If the evolutionists were so secure in there beliefs, they wouldn't experience apoplexy every time someone points out the obvious fact that all they have created is a body of speculation and wishful thinking with no basis in scientific fact. They love to talk about how species adapt to their environments over time, but they seem very uncomfortable when asked how non-life became life.

But then, maybe Stonehenge really is just an interesting collection of rocks once spewed by a volcano, eh?

Most respectfully,

Lou1355
lou1355
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Loved the Book - Puzzled By Your Stance on ID

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Sorry to disagree

Unread postby banjobkp » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:38 am

Being passionate about the truth shouldn't be regarded as an apoplectic response. Just another method of ridiculing those who don't agree with your religious based viewpoint. So the gloves are off!

Personally, what is obvious is that you don't have a clue what science is about. So how can you then make statements that scientists don't have any clue and have produced no real evidence of evolution.

Even though practically every American gets to lounge in the luxury that science provides, religious types like yourself like to pretend that science doesn't matter when it comes to thing you like to think about.

Bottomline, why do you need to believe that GOD Created MAN?

Why do think life goes on after death?

Why are you afraid that there is nothing after death?

These are the questions I like to ask those who can't accept that the universe is billions of years old and think that Jesus walked the earth with dinosaurs. ID is just making stuff up to push a religious not scientific viewpoint. You gotta get real and let go of these crazy rationalizations.
...speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money...-- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect - Wm. F. Buckley Jr.
banjobkp
Media observer
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:02 pm

Intelligent Design

Unread postby lou1355 » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:34 am

Science is about making and testing deductions concerning observable phenomena.

Too often, science becomes a personal "passion" to disprove annoying superstitions that one holds in contempt.

I purposely stated that in my post that I was not making a religious statment--and I in fact did not, despite your aspersions regarding my state of "cluelessness."

You don't have to have faith in God or in any false religion to observe the DNA molecule and rationally conclude that it is not the product of any known, random natural processes--that is unless you are "passionate" about ruling out any possibility of an intelligent cause for the advent of life on this planet. Why is that so important to you? I could speculate that you either have contempt for "silly superstitions" or deep down you just don't want to be accountable to anyone or anything for your behavior and attitudes--but out of courtesy, I won't.

If life occurred spontaneously on this planet via "natural" processes, what exactly are those processes and why are they not obervable in nature nor reproducible in any lab? The fact thay they are neither observable nor reproducible means they are simply the product of speculation and wishful thinking, as I have suggested--just a bunch of "passionate" intellectuals sitting around saying: "Given that the notion of God is a silly superstition not worthy of our consideration, THIS is how it must have happened."

That is not science, friend, that is personal philosophy "gussied up" to sound scientific--not by what it proves, but by what it is "passionately" trying to disprove.

Think about it.
lou1355
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Unread postby banjobkp » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:58 pm

Science is about making and testing deductions concerning observable phenomena.

....> I would say that science is a bit more than that. It is the collection of knowledge and verifiable information that continually creates new insights to the function of the physical universe. From the time MAN developed language, we began to explain how the world worked and throughout history continue to expand our understanding of the universe. The scope of science is ever expanding like the universe. And whether its partical physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, Astronomy, medical sciences, electrical sciences, climatology, botony etc etc etc, science is expanding our world and creating the world we live in today. It really wasn't that long ago that we didn't have voicemail, email, personal computers, satellites, supersonic transport, cell phones, the Internet. If I'm a fan of science, its because you can depend on it! Unlike people.

Too often, science becomes a personal "passion" to disprove annoying superstitions that one holds in contempt.

----> interesting how you draw this conclusion. The scientist I know are honest hard working interesting people who are curious about the world. They are hardly driven to destroy, they are on a mission of discovery.

I purposely stated that in my post that I was not making a religious statment--and I in fact did not, despite your aspersions regarding my state of "cluelessness."

-----> Then what statement were you making? This posting has made some rather harsh commentary about scientists, and I have a feeling that in reality you are anti science, cos you don't trust it, because you really don't understand it. Its ok, most people don't. Trying to deal with the world of advanced mathematics, molecular biology, physics requires special people. While I was considered "gifted" in mathematics, the best I could aspire too is an engineer and computer analyst. Besides, I'm making three times what the average research scientist makes. I'm not kidding, the academic life isn't full of huge financial rewards to a majority of scientists. Most are in fact dedicated scholars working on a passion, because there usually isn't much in the way of financial reward.


You don't have to have faith in God or in any false religion to observe the DNA molecule and rationally conclude that it is not the product of any known, random natural processes--that is unless you are "passionate" about ruling out any possibility of an intelligent cause for the advent of life on this planet. Why is that so important to you? I could speculate that you either have contempt for "silly superstitions" or deep down you just don't want to be accountable to anyone or anything for your behavior and attitudes--but out of courtesy, I won't.

----> Just as easily you don't have to have faith to see that evolution can provide just as easily as GOD. If you choose to see GOD behind the creation of man, well, I see that as an excersize of ego. Additionally, you drawing conclusions that my life is based upon unaccountability, well you'll just have to accept that I'm a pretty well like and honest individual that goes out of my way to help others. Not because God tells me too, I don't need to have a rational for that, because its the way I wish to lead my life. Really, being without god is not a license to be a criminal or unethical. I would dare say that most atheists are in fact so in awe of life and respect for the living, that unlike some religious zealots who use god to justify violence upon his fellow man, athiests actually value life more and act accordingly. That is a pretty harsh conclusion you draw, and I assure you is a product of your imagination of what life is without a religious center.

If life occurred spontaneously on this planet via "natural" processes, what exactly are those processes and why are they not obervable in nature nor reproducible in any lab? The fact thay they are neither observable nor reproducible means they are simply the product of speculation and wishful thinking, as I have suggested--just a bunch of "passionate" intellectuals sitting around saying: "Given that the notion of God is a silly superstition not worthy of our consideration, THIS is how it must have happened."

----> you know it is really an advantage to be ignorant, so you can pretend that there is no science to the actual formation of life from essentially a primordial soup of ingredients. Look it up. I assure you it is not a vacant space. (if you recall Carl Sagan performing an experiment on television, essentially, mis up all the stuff together, add a bit of lightening and zap......

Additionally, just look at the deep sea vents and the life that surrounds the high sulfur and heat spewed by these vents. Amazing stuff.


That is not science, friend, that is personal philosophy "gussied up" to sound scientific--not by what it proves, but by what it is "passionately" trying to disprove.

Think about it.

----> Sorry, to disagree, however you equate the arguments I'm putting forth, your living more in a philosophical world than I. Seeing GOD behind existence is an act of philosophy. You really shouldn't pretend it is otherwise.

If you find an atheist like myself who is in wonder and awe of the world, who loves life and enjoys living, is that somehow an conundrum for you. Our minds have evolved, and the things that promote tribal harmony is simply a survival mechanism. Successful tribes out competed less successful one. Unfortunately, the remnants of that evolution now is in the idlel hands of modern man. Where survival is no longer really dependent on how we can keep the tribe in line so that we can eliminate the competition, so to speak. But we carry on as if our little groupings based upon religion, party affiliation, race, or even a social or sports group, always has to built on an us against them mentality.

Anger, embarrassment, shame, all useful emotions to help the tribe compete now are baggage we have to deal with, often with unpleasant results.

Where others see god, I see man creating social systems to survive.

Where you see unaccountability, Likewise, I tend to see someone who cannot surmise nothingness after existence, and the distortions regarding reality that it creates.
...speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money...-- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect - Wm. F. Buckley Jr.
banjobkp
Media observer
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:02 pm

Intelligent Design

Unread postby lou1355 » Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:44 am

I'd bet good money I out-test you on any science test, but back to the point...

Ocean vents and Sagan TV shows have never produced life from non-life. Period. If I'm wrong, give me a specific cite--not some vague assurance that "it's there."

You make assumptions about my religiousity with totally insufficient knowledge about me. When I say there is no way the DNA molecule "just happened" it's the same thing as me saying there is no way Mount Rushmore "just happened." No religion involved--just observation and deduction. The only known source of "information" on this planet is intelligence. The DNA molecule is full of information. You figure it out.

Science is observation, deduction and testing. That's it. No need to expand on that. It is wonderful enough.

The problems arise when humans use junk science to bolster their false assumptions and faulty tests in order to serve political or other agendas.

nuff said.
lou1355
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Unread postby steve1633 » Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:51 pm

You're main problem, and the main problem the ID argument suffers from, is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. There is absolutely no reason to assert that 'the structure and information carrying nature of DNA could not have occured randomly'. You say that because it has never happened in the presence of a human witness but all that proves is that it is very rare. Mt. Rushmore could very well be created by a sand storm (and in fact definitely would be) given an infinite number of sand storms and cliff faces, the real reason you know Mt. Rushmore isn't random is because it was well documented when it was produced by humans.

For all we know the universe existed as a field of infinite probability for infinitely long until one day the very rare and complex circumstances required for life suddenly slipped into alignment and the rest is cosmological history.

You also, like all of your ID brethren, misunderstand the term 'natural selection'. You rightly notice that it is not a conscious decision by nature but after this you fall into another anti-science trap. The term refers to the genetic characteristics of a particular species that are 'selected' by the natural environment by a process of procreation. Nature 'selects' by not killing, therefor the best suited organisms for any environment are the ones who will survive and have children who will bear their genetic traits and thus over time the less successful traits will die out.

Science is not anti-religious, however it is important to scientific process that scientists never use 'god' as an explanation. Religious people are often offended by this, but it is not an act of aggression it is simply the fact that if you're willing to say 'god did it' then you are not exhausting every other provable possibility and thus may be missing the natural cause. ID is creationism at it's worst or the laziest form of science at its best, in either case it's not something that should be taught in any public school.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby banjobkp » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:41 pm

If your testing so well on science tenants, then I cannot phathom how your are formulating some of these positions and then bandying about terms like Junk Science.

I like to look for definitions to understand what is really being discussed.

From Wikipedia:
----------
The term "junk science", as used in political and legal disputes in the United States, brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives.

The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science.

The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

----

Sir, calling evolutionary science "junk" is purely a political view. And I dispute your assertion that evolutionary science is politically driven.

I also dispute your knowledge of science as it apparently is clouded by your political and religious views.

Just because you don't like the message, doesn't mean your politicization of the science has really any merit. If your going to dispute science based principles, you had better be able to show the science behind the opposing view. ID isn't science, perhaps your application of Junk is misdirected.

As usual, these types of discussions don't really serve much of purpose except to allow me/us to vent a bit about how we view the misguided paths of America and its citizens. For that I'm grateful. And I know that this isn't about changing minds.

But I would say that I'm pretty sick of a certain segment of the punditry out there whose reason for existence is to offer rationalizations to those out there who are not critical enough to appreciate what is real and what is just political. And then to hear just the same talking points as a mantra as if all us partisans are "good" soldiers, out to convince the weak to be afraid so afraid how Liberals are ruining this country. Geez, makes me wish for the commies of the USSR to come back in power so that we can return to cold war focus and not constantly degrading each other in that cycle of self destruction and mockery. Mockery is not an argument, its just name calling. Are we just Devolving into a childlike state of name calling?

oh well.
...speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money...-- yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect - Wm. F. Buckley Jr.
banjobkp
Media observer
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:02 pm

Unread postby INTJ » Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:55 pm

steve1633 wrote:You're main problem, and the main problem the ID argument suffers from, is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. There is absolutely no reason to assert that 'the structure and information carrying nature of DNA could not have occured randomly'


please correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that probability works against the naturalist. if i remember right anything with a probability of less than one chance in 10-to-the-80th power is considered statistically impossible.

i think i have read somewhere that the chance assemblage of a dna molecule is around around twice as unlikely.
User avatar
INTJ
New Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: Hesperia, CA

Unread postby steve1633 » Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:21 pm

"Statistically impossible" doesn't mean impossible. It only means that it is so far beyond the human conception of possible that we no longer include it. The fact is that the universe (i.e. everything that exists) could be infinitely old and seems like it will exist infinitely, given this inifinite environment all life on earth is inevitable since in a random sequence that goes infinitely everything will happen. The point is that there is no evidence to indicate that random creation of DNA is impossible.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby INTJ » Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 pm

steve,
don't most people agree that the universe had a beginning and will have an end? how can you argue that there are an infinite number of trials to chance assemble a dna molecule? and if the universe had no beginning, then what about entropy?

i disagree that the number of trials available to chance assemble a dna molecule is unlimited and i think that the science is on my side.


anyone else?
User avatar
INTJ
New Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: Hesperia, CA

Unread postby steve1633 » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:34 am

There could easily have been a billion universes before ours the point is there is no limit to time and the size of the universe is large enough to allow for life arising on huge numbers of planets. So, given the potential sites for life to arise and then the infinite scope of time you cant possibly say there is a limit to the number of chances life has had.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby INTJ » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:49 pm

sounds more like a re-packaged new age eastern religion than natural science. :)
User avatar
INTJ
New Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: Hesperia, CA

Unread postby steve1633 » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:44 pm

Natural sciences best guess right now is that our universe began some 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event that propelled a single point outward into our ever expanding universe today. The next logical question would be what was there before that singularity that sparked our universe? And from there you can easily suppose that maybe it was another universe that had collapsed back in onitself (which is one idea the natural sciences proposes for the death of our own universe) and maybe this process has been going on for an infinite amount of time.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Unread postby INTJ » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:47 pm

sure, i've heard all of the naturalists arguments, some sound plausible some sound inane. one point that needs to be agreed upon is that origins cannot be proven. AND at some point when discussing origins, science gives way to philosophy. the problem that i have with the naturlaist is that he has already discounted 1/2 of the possible conclusions before he looks at any evidence. sounds closed minded to me.

i just finished "there is a God" by antony flew. have you heard of him?
User avatar
INTJ
New Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: Hesperia, CA

Unread postby thinkaboutit » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:27 am

steve1633 wrote:Natural sciences best guess right now is that our universe began some 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event that propelled a single point outward into our ever expanding universe today. The next logical question would be what was there before that singularity that sparked our universe? And from there you can easily suppose that maybe it was another universe that had collapsed back in onitself (which is one idea the natural sciences proposes for the death of our own universe) and maybe this process has been going on for an infinite amount of time.



If that was the case, then people can't use the premise that time and infinite opportunity eventually gave rise to life....remember, the last universe collasped which would mean that everything started over from scratch again. You can only go back to the beginning of this universe and start the clock from that point.
Sector 8023 is stuck on Ground Hog day.
"I will wait for the truth to find me but I will never leave it to you." - Versant
thinkaboutit
Media pundit
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Alabama

Next

Return to Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron