1221 replies to this topic

[serp777]

 

Can someone please lock this dumb thread and shut this idiot up? Spare the forum his endless gibbering that no one listens to or cares about. 

 

And what do you call this?    What about the multiverse?
 

 

 

I call it reality. You've killed this debate by ignoring evidence and the points that many people have made here. You've ruined any form of reasonable discussion. Do you even have a life? Do you just sit at home typing up this endless posts and threads that no one cares about? Seriously you must have spent hundreds of pitiful hours in the religion and spirituality section.

[shadowhawk]

You have no debate except logical fallacies and name calling.  The proof?  Read the posts.

[serp777]

You have no debate except logical fallacies and name calling.  The proof?  Read the posts.

 

You have nothing besides denials and lies. Plenty of proof has been shown to you like the evolutionary computer system, RNA synthesis papers from amino acids, and much more--that life likely emerged by itself. Your debate is pathetic and consists of nothing.

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

More name calling.  You seem to claim:

 

1 That the Evolutionary Computer system has been shown to be evidence against ID.  Doesn't it take ID to design a computer system?

2.  RNA synthesis papers. 

 

Where and when were these presented showing ID is not a part of science?  I hope this not just a smoke screen.

[serp777]

More name calling.  You seem to claim:

 

1 That the Evolutionary Computer system has been shown to be evidence against ID.  Doesn't it take ID to design a computer system?

2.  RNA synthesis papers. 

 

Where and when were these presented showing ID is not a part of science?  I hope this not just a smoke screen.

 

1. Again you've forgotten all the arguments showing how wrong this logic is. Just because a computer simulates physics or a sun, or any other system, doesn't mean that system being simulated was intelligently designed. The fact that intelligent design created a computer means nothing.

 

2. Complicated RNA strands, which constituted the first life forms, emerge from amino acids and energy sources like geothermal vents and lightning strikes; given that many combinations of amino acids occur, it's possible to generate a self replicating molecule from randomness, which means you don't need intelligent design for life to emerge. Read back through the thread and you will find it. I'm not going to recite the paper that people have posted several times.

[shadowhawk]

You made a couple of claims and completely ignored them when I asked for a source.  Then you brought up more unrelated examples that do not make the case for the exclusion of ID from science.

[serp777]

You made a couple of claims and completely ignored them when I asked for a source.  Then you brought up more unrelated examples that do not make the case for the exclusion of ID from science.

 

Are you not capable of looking back through the thread? These are not unrelated example. Do you even know what unrelated means?

 

They make the case that you don't need ID for life to spontaneously emerge.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ary_computation

 

http://evolution.ber...dyorigins.shtml

 

not only that but a simple google search would reveal the evidence.

 

 

"By studying the basic biochemistry shared by many organisms, we can begin to piece together how biochemical systems evolved near the root of the tree of life. However, up until the early 1980s, biologists were stumped by a "chicken and egg" problem: in all modern organisms, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are necessary to build proteins, and proteins are necessary to build nucleic acids - so which came first, the nucleic acid or the protein? This problem was solved when a new property of RNA was discovered: some kinds of RNA can catalyze chemical reactions — and that means that RNA can both store genetic information and cause the chemical reactions necessary to copy itself. This breakthrough tentatively solved the chicken and egg problem: nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) came first — and later on, life switched to DNA-based inheritance.

Another important line of biochemical evidence comes in the form of surprisingly common molecules. As you might expect, many of the chemical reactions occurring in your own cells, in the cells of a fungus, and in a bacterial cell are quite different from one another; however, many of them (such as those that release energy to power cellular work) are exactly the same and rely on the exact same molecules. Because these molecules are widespread and are critically important to all life, they are thought to have arisen very early in the history of life and have been nicknamed "molecular fossils." ATP, adenosine triphosphate (shown below), is one such molecule; it is essential for powering cellular processes and is used by all modern life. Studying ATP and other molecular fossils, has revealed a surprising commonality: many molecular fossils are closely related to nucleic acids, as shown below."

 

Read more on the berkely website, it's fascinating evidence.

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 09:57 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Smoke, smoke and more smoke.

[serp777]

Smoke, smoke and more smoke.

 

hahahahaha this is what i'm talking about. When the debate gets too complicated for you you give up. Typical, typical, typical. You've done this so many times now to so many people. This is why people are disgusted by your debate tactics. This is why your rep is in the crapper. Someone shows your arguments to be completely wrong and you just give up like this. You should stop embarrassing yourself.

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 10:01 PM.

[shadowhawk]

No, it is too foolish.  Nothing you presented or said defeats ID.  You are just blowing smoke.  ID is science, prove it is not.

[serp777]

No, it is too foolish.  Nothing you presented or said defeats ID.  You are just blowing smoke.  ID is science, prove it is not.

 

 If it's so foolish then defeat it with an argument instead of making mindless assertions.

 

Again i've shown evidence numerous times that you don't need ID and that life can emerge on its own. Show counter evidence that it can't please. There's no reason to pursue intelligent design when there's no evidence and you don't need intelligent design to explain anything.

[shadowhawk]

You are the one making the assertions.  No evidence at any time.  You haven't shown how life started nor that it can emerge on its own.     I am not interested in repeating the debates on this thread.  There have been many.  Read them.  One thing is sure, You have not produced a defeater for ID

[serp777]

You are the one making the assertions.  No evidence at any time.  You haven't shown how life started nor that it can emerge on its own.     I am not interested in repeating the debates on this thread.  There have been many.  Read them.  One thing is sure, You have not produced a defeater for ID

 

One thing for sure is that you're a moron. The link to the Berkeley page shows all the evidence of how life likely formed through RNA synthesis and the connection between biochemical reactions and the formulation of life. I understand that you're not smart enough to understand it but that doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

Edited by serp777, 22 November 2014 - 11:39 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Name calling is all you can muster up.  Says more about you than me. 

[serp777]

Name calling is all you can muster up.  Says more about you than me. 

 

Well blatant lying is all you can muster up. It actually only says more about you.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

http://intelligentde...T09_50_18-08_00

[serp777]

Moving on with more evidence that you don't need intelligent design for the emergence or evolution of life:

 

 

Biochemical evolution II: Origin of life in tubular microstructures on weathered feldspar surfaces

 

"Mineral surfaces were important during the emergence of life on Earth because the assembly of the necessary complex biomolecules by random collisions in dilute aqueous solutions is implausible. Most silicate mineral surfaces are hydrophilic and organophobic and unsuitable for catalytic reactions, but some silica-rich surfaces of partly dealuminated feldspars and zeolites are organophilic and potentially catalytic. Weathered alkali feldspar crystals from granitic rocks at Shap, north west England, contain abundant tubular etch pits, typically 0.4–0.6 μm wide, forming an orthogonal honeycomb network in a surface zone 50 μm thick, with 2–3 × 10⁶ intersections per mm² of crystal surface. Surviving metamorphic rocks demonstrate that granites and acidic surface water were present on the Earth’s surface by ∼3.8 Ga. By analogy with Shap granite, honeycombed feldspar has considerable potential as a natural catalytic surface for the start of biochemical evolution. Biomolecules should have become available by catalysis of amino acids, etc. The honeycomb would have provided access to various mineral inclusions in the feldspar, particularly apatite and oxides, which contain phosphorus and transition metals necessary for energetic life. The organized environment would have protected complex molecules from dispersion into dilute solutions, from hydrolysis, and from UV radiation. Sub-micrometer tubes in the honeycomb might have acted as rudimentary cell walls for proto-organisms, which ultimately evolved a lipid lid giving further shelter from the hostile outside environment. A lid would finally have become a complete cell wall permitting detachment and flotation in primordial “soup.” Etch features on weathered alkali feldspar from Shap match the shape of overlying soil bacteria."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....icles/PMC28015/

[shadowhawk]

I read the above article and it does not describe either the cell membrane or the origin of life.  Certainly this is no ground for ruling out ID.

[serp777]

I read the above article and it does not describe either the cell membrane or the origin of life.  Certainly this is no ground for ruling out ID.

 

No, you didn't read it. You missed the first sentence.

 

"Mineral surfaces were important during the emergence of life on Earth because the assembly of the necessary complex biomolecules by random collisions in dilute aqueous solutions is implausible. Most silicate mineral surfaces are hydrophilic and organophobic and unsuitable for catalytic reactions, but some silica-rich surfaces of partly dealuminated feldspars and zeolites are organophilic and potentially catalytic. Weathered alkali feldspar crystals from granitic rocks at Shap, north west England, contain abundant tubular etch pits, typically 0.4–0.6 μm wide, forming an orthogonal honeycomb network in a surface zone 50 μm thick, with 2–3 × 10⁶ intersections per mm² of crystal surface."

 

Again you don't need ID for the origin of life. Mineral surfaces are catalysts for the formation of complex tangles of molecules that resemble early RNA or proteins. Good grounds for ruling out ID.

 

As for the cell membrane it's complex but given that evolution has explained quite a bit it's very likely the cell membrane will be explained. We go with the theory that's most likely--with an intelligent designer you're then left with who designed the intelligent designer which leads no where. I also refer back to UC berkeley for more evidence that you claimed was smoke but provided no reasoning at all as for why that was.

[shadowhawk]

No I read the entire thing and It does not describe the membrane or cell contents nor does it describe life.  It does not defeat the role of Intelligence no matter what the process.  If it is so easy let them repeat the process.

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 November 2014 - 09:05 PM.

[serp777]

No I read the entire thing and It does not describe the membrane or cell contents nor does it describe life.  It does not defeat the role of Intelligence no matter what the process.

 

Well then you're having eye problems because it literally talks about how to make complex molecules using mineral catalysts which can lead to the formation of life. It again shows that you don't need intelligent design. We go with the theory that is most likely and is less complex than a spontaneously emerging magical intelligent designer from nothing.

 

Furthermore still waiting on an explanation for who or what designed the intelligent designer.

 

Your kind of argument is the intelligent designer of the gaps. Something gets explained, the intelligent designer moves to a different place that hasn't been explained yet.

Edited by serp777, 24 November 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Prove it.  You can't.

[serp777]

Prove it.  You can't.

 

I provided good evidence; we go with the theory that is most likely, not the fringe crackpot theories. Most of the scientific community and papers are supporting the emergence of life through proliferation of complex organic materials generated through a variety of means, and I provided a number of valid examples which you have ignored without providing counter evidence.

 

You haven't posted any . All you've tried to do is note some gaps in evolution and chemistry, and say "INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN FILL THE GAPS." That's completely useless; all it would due is inhibit the real science that tries to find the natural explanation for the emergence of life.

Edited by serp777, 24 November 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Prove it.  You can't.

 

I provided good evidence; we go with the theory that is most likely, not the fringe crackpot theories. Most of the scientific community and papers are supporting the emergence of life through proliferation of complex organic materials generated through a variety of means, and I provided a number of valid examples which you have ignored without providing counter evidence.

 

You haven't posted any . All you've tried to do is note some gaps in evolution and chemistry, and say "INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN FILL THE GAPS." That's completely useless; all it would due is inhibit the real science that tries to find the natural explanation for the emergence of life.

 

You provided evidence that weathered rock can form cracks close to the same dimensions as a cell.  So?  Proof.  You are the one with the crackpot theory.  No evidence why ID should not be includede.  No evidence for life can be found in your well spun tales either.  You provided examples of nothing.

I have done far more than you claim.  I have given many examples of design which I am not going to repeat.  Perhaps you have an example.

 

[brianjakub]

 

Prove it.  You can't.

 

I provided good evidence; we go with the theory that is most likely, not the fringe crackpot theories. Most of the scientific community and papers are supporting the emergence of life through proliferation of complex organic materials generated through a variety of means, and I provided a number of valid examples which you have ignored without providing counter evidence.

 

You haven't posted any . All you've tried to do is note some gaps in evolution and chemistry, and say "INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN FILL THE GAPS." That's completely useless; all it would due is inhibit the real science that tries to find the natural explanation for the emergence of life.

 

It seems to me there are huge gaps in both theories.  Serp 777 accuses Shadowhawk of pointing out the gaps without providing evidence of how an intelligent designer filled it, but Serp 777 can't provide a logical explanation how this gaps are filled by evolution either.  I've read theories like puncuated equilibrium by Gould but all he does is name the gaps and a mechanism for filling them, but does not explain how the mechanism works, and just assumes it will fill the gaps, without providing evidence beyond consensus among scientists that they have "faith" the gaps can be filled without complete evidence.  Consensus is not a fact or evidence, nor does it provide a definite basis for settled science.

 

• 2.5 Species selection and selection at higher taxonomic levels

Species selection and selection at higher taxonomic levels[edit]

It remains controversial among biologists whether selection can operate at and above the level of species. One particular defender of the idea of species selection was Stephen Jay Gould who proposed the view that there exist macroevolutionary processes which shape evolution that are not driven by the microevolutionary mechanisms that are the basis of the Modern Synthesis.^[3] If one views species as entities that replicate (speciate) and die (go extinct), then species could be subject to selection and thus could change their occurrence over geological time, much as heritable selected-for traits change theirs over generations.

For evolution to be driven by species selection, differential success must be the result of selection upon species-intrinsic properties, rather than for properties of genes, cells, individuals, or populations within species. Such properties include, for example, population structure, their propensity to speciate, extinction rates, and geological persistence. While the fossil record shows differential persistence of species, examples of species-intrinsic properties subject to natural selection have been much harder to document.

[serp777]

 

 

Prove it.  You can't.

 

I provided good evidence; we go with the theory that is most likely, not the fringe crackpot theories. Most of the scientific community and papers are supporting the emergence of life through proliferation of complex organic materials generated through a variety of means, and I provided a number of valid examples which you have ignored without providing counter evidence.

 

You haven't posted any . All you've tried to do is note some gaps in evolution and chemistry, and say "INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN FILL THE GAPS." That's completely useless; all it would due is inhibit the real science that tries to find the natural explanation for the emergence of life.

 

It seems to me there are huge gaps in both theories.  Serp 777 accuses Shadowhawk of pointing out the gaps without providing evidence of how an intelligent designer filled it, but Serp 777 can't provide a logical explanation how this gaps are filled by evolution either.  I've read theories like puncuated equilibrium by Gould but all he does is name the gaps and a mechanism for filling them, but does not explain how the mechanism works, and just assumes it will fill the gaps, without providing evidence beyond consensus among scientists that they have "faith" the gaps can be filled without complete evidence.  Consensus is not a fact or evidence, nor does it provide a definite basis for settled science.

 

• 2.5 Species selection and selection at higher taxonomic levels

Species selection and selection at higher taxonomic levels[edit]

It remains controversial among biologists whether selection can operate at and above the level of species. One particular defender of the idea of species selection was Stephen Jay Gould who proposed the view that there exist macroevolutionary processes which shape evolution that are not driven by the microevolutionary mechanisms that are the basis of the Modern Synthesis.^[3] If one views species as entities that replicate (speciate) and die (go extinct), then species could be subject to selection and thus could change their occurrence over geological time, much as heritable selected-for traits change theirs over generations.

For evolution to be driven by species selection, differential success must be the result of selection upon species-intrinsic properties, rather than for properties of genes, cells, individuals, or populations within species. Such properties include, for example, population structure, their propensity to speciate, extinction rates, and geological persistence. While the fossil record shows differential persistence of species, examples of species-intrinsic properties subject to natural selection have been much harder to document.

 

The reason my position is far more reasonable is because science is an ongoing process. SH expects me to answer all scientific questions which are being worked on, and claiming quite foolishly that I have the burden of proof to show that intelligent design is not reasonable by answering all the questions he asks . He constantly argues from ignorance and fails to show why or give any evidence for unintelligent design. We have a working theory of evolution and biochemistry which have been remarkably successful in explaining so many areas of the natural world. Evolution is often the basis of modern medicine too. Thus it becomes likely to propose that evolution and biochemistry will eventually explain the origins of life as well as the other minor gaps in the theory. SH seems to think that if there is one gap in the theory, that means it has a good chance of being wrong. Science would never get done if this were true.

 

When you suggest an arbitrary unintelligent designer, what you get is questions like: who designed the designer, and what designer would this be, and whether life needs a designer in the first place even if life on our planet was designed? Unintelligent design offers nothing ultimately. SH asks me all the advanced questions regarding evolution and biochemistry but is unwilling to address difficult questions with respect to unintelligent design. It simply does not help science to propose unintelligent design without any kind of theory or hypothesis based on evidence. Until he can make predictions or do an experiment it isn't worth spending research money or grants on investigating further. Science will keep exploring biochemistry on the other hand because it offers real practical benefits, predictions, and of course a non magical cop out answer of addressing the emergence of life.

 

Furthermore, he has failed to address my points on numerous occasions and many others have debunked his reasoning; they provided sophisticated models which shows that it is likely complicated organic molecules can arise in a variety of conditions seen on earth and in space, which can lead to forms of simple RNA that have the potential to self replicate. We accept the probability is low in an instant, but given the vast size of the universe and the time scales we're talking about it becomes quite likely that a simple RNA molecule is able to get started and self replicate. He claimed that this logic was similar to monkeys on a type writer--well it is in many ways but SH fails to even be able to argue against probability and huge durations of the universe as being conducive to life. His cop out response to this was in fact "nonsense." When the argument became too challenging for him to deal with, this was often his response which has earned him such a poor reputation on this forum. He is also good at ignoring most of your points, and then responding to one minor detail with a red herring or straw man. Its littered throughout this thread and even worse in the evidence for Christianity thread.

 

SH has made other foolish claims too, such as the fact that new information cannot be generated by evolution. When we brought up computer simulations which use principles of self replication and mutation to generate new programs that compete for memory and cpu cycles, he would not accept it because he wont accept any evidence that would defy him. He has NEVER conceded any point whatsoever, even in the face of undeniable evidence. This is partially why his rep went down to negative 18. You simply cannot reason with a person like this.

 

Just once I would like to see actual evidence for intelligent design.

 

Edited by serp777, 23 February 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[shadowhawk]

All he can do is call people names.    Let's go on.

[brianjakub]

What does evidence of an intelligent designer look like, Serp777?  I would accept evolution as a fact if the gaps in the fossil record were smaller , and maybe some day they will be.  Till then, it's just a plausible theory that most scientists have faith in becoming a law.  They have faith in the gaps being filled, or some yet unknown natural mechanism being discovered to help evolution leap across the gaps.  Scientists are real good at speculating some characteristics of that mechanism, but speculation is just a hypothesis.  Anyway that is what I think the scientific evidence that would change the theory of evolution to the Law of Evolution would look like.  If there is an intelligent designer, what would the evidence look like, Serp777?    

[platypus]

What gaps are you talking about? Even without looking at the genomes evolution was pretty darn evident and now that it's possible to look at the genomes things are exactly as evolutionary theory has predicted. Where's the need for a designer, i do not see it?