GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-08-2013, 10:02   #451
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
Really? I have never seen any such evidence. Care to point me in the right direction? How would you conduct experiments, and what would those experiments be, to support creationism?



Nope. It is to say that there's not much on the side of abiogenesis and absolutely none on the side of creationism. None that I've seen, anyway, feel free to educate me.



I haven't made up my mind, though. I'm perfectly comfortable saying we don't know. I'm also perfectly comfortable saying abiogenesis is more likely, since we have physical, repeatable evidence of how it *might* have happened. Creationism has nothing more than mythology that wasn't even a new idea when the Christians wrote it down nearly two thousand years ago.



I have no idea what you're attempting to say here.



No choosing sides from me, just a realistic acknowledgement of which side of the argument has any actual evidence.

So, I'm just closer to the middle than you, I see it as roughly 50/50. Are you at around 70/30? 90/10?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:09   #452
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,340
So, no evidence of Creationism, CavDoc? I thought you said they had "roughly the same amount" of evidence?

Hard to calculate odds on a scenario that has zero evidence to back it up, no?

I have 0% confidence that unicorns or bigfoot exist, either, but I don't *know* that they don't.

I allow for their possibility, just like I do creationism, but I give no real thought to how likely any of them might be without one single piece of credible evidence.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 10:45   #453
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Roughly the same amount, which is about none. At some point in time, the first living cell came into being that was capable of maintaining homeostasis and replicating itself into another cell that could maintain homeostasis. There is a lot of speculation I've seen on both sides, but nothing I would call actual evidence for how that moment came to be.

That first cell on earth either arrived here from somewhere else, was made, or occurred as a natural process. All of those are remotely possible with the current evidence. But even if it came here from somewhere else, at some point life was either made or just happened. Whichever explanation is correct is 100% correct, or at least close to that.

So two basic possibilities, both hard to imagine with current evidence, and roughly equally possible with what I think is known.

The mythical creatures some keep bringing up are a diversionary tactic. I've often wondered how some people consider that a valid argument. It doesn't have anything to do with what we do know, life exists. We don't know how it started.

80/20? I know it's hard to assign a number to, but all I'm asking for is a gross estimate.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 10:48..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:01   #454
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Roughly the same amount, which is about none. At some point in time, the first living cell came into being that was capable of maintaining homeostasis and replicating itself into another cell that could maintain homeostasis. There is a lot of speculation I've seen on both sides, but nothing I would call actual evidence for how that moment came to be.
OK, so you don't consider self-replicating RNA to be evidence that supports the possibility of abiogenesis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That first cell on earth either arrived here from somewhere else, was made, or occurred as a natural process. All of those are remotely possible with the current evidence. But even if it came here from somewhere else, at some point life was either made or just happened. Whichever explanation is correct is 100% correct, or at least close to that.
Agreed, I think. What I read here is "Whichever one of the two options ends up being proven, is correct." Is that it? If so, that's not much of a leap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So two basic possibilities, both hard to imagine with current evidence, and roughly equally possible with what I think is known.
Do you know of any evidence of creationism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The mythical creatures some keep bringing up are a diversionary tactic. I've often wondered how some people consider that a valid argument. It doesn't have anything to do with what we do know, life exists. We don't know how it started.
It's not diversionary, it's an analogy. At least there are pictures some claim to be of a bigfoot. There isn't even that much evidence to support creationism, to my knowledge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
80/20? I know it's hard to assign a number to, but all I'm asking for is a gross estimate.
As close to 100/0 as you can be without disallowing for the possibility of creationism. Without *any* evidence to support it, I don't see any other logical position.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:10   #455
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
OK, so you don't consider self-replicating RNA to be evidence that supports the possibility of abiogenesis?
I think in reality he knows that it does... but his stance is that if we didn't actually see it happen and record it that it's just wild speculation.

And that limitation makes a creator (which hasn't a shred of evidence supporting it) just as likely.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-08-2013 at 11:11..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:23   #456
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan74 View Post
OK, so you don't consider self-replicating RNA to be evidence that supports the possibility of abiogenesis?
That's one small step toward a very complex structure. It opens the possibility, but no, it's not evidence.

Quote:
Agreed, I think. What I read here is "Whichever one of the two options ends up being proven, is correct." Is that it? If so, that's not much of a leap.
. Proof and truth are often confused. Whichever way it actually happened is likely 100% correct. It depends on the level of evidence you consider proof. Some have argued that merely convincing themselves with their beliefs, that is proof.


Quote:
Do you know of any evidence of creationism?
Reasonable speculation is all I've seen on both sides, enough to make either possible to consider, nothing convincing either way.

Quote:
It's not diversionary, it's an analogy. At least there are pictures some claim to be of a bigfoot. There isn't even that much evidence to support creationism, to my knowledge.
It's not a very good analogy. If we were talking about the origin of a being we didn't know existed, that's only a mildly amusing argumentum ad absurdum, when talking about the origins of a known (life on earth) it doesn't fit at all.

There are no pictures of the moment of the first life on the planet.

Quote:
As close to 100/0 as you can be without disallowing for the possibility of creationism. Without *any* evidence to support it, I don't see any other logical position.
That us a pretty firm belief, no? But can you prove your belief to be true?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:45   #457
hooligan74
Senior Member
 
hooligan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 2,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That's one small step toward a very complex structure. It opens the possibility, but no, it's not evidence.
I said "evidence to support the possibility", not "evidence of". What evidence is there to support the possibility of creationism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Proof and truth are often confused. Whichever way it actually happened is likely 100% correct. It depends on the level of evidence you consider proof. Some have argued that merely convincing themselves with their beliefs, that is proof.
OK, that makes it even more redundant - "Whichever way it happened is the way it happened." Is that what you're saying? Please tell me I'm still misunderstanding you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Reasonable speculation is all I've seen on both sides, enough to make either possible to consider, nothing convincing either way.
Reasonable speculation? Speculation based on a supernatural being, that there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of, is reasonable to you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's not a very good analogy. If we were talking about the origin of a being we didn't know existed, that's only a mildly amusing argumentum ad absurdum, when talking about the origins of a known (life on earth) it doesn't fit at all.

There are no pictures of the moment of the first life on the planet.
OK, it's not a good analogy for the beginning of life on this planet. However, creationism dictates that the beginning of life on this planet was initiated by a sentient creative being. It is an excellent analogy of belief in that sentient creative being.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That us a pretty firm belief, no? But can you prove your belief to be true?
Nope. I've never claimed I could. Can you show me how belief in a sentient creative being is *more* logical? At least we've got solid scientific framework for the possibility of abiogenesis.
hooligan74 is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 11:46   #458
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,530
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence one way or the other. we have evidence of what occurred after life was here, but virtually none about how it started. There are quite a few contradictory theories.

It's easy to pick a side and declare you are convinced. For many, it's hard to simply state they don't know for sure. Testicles aren't really relevant. Many women scientists would agree.

We know life is what it is today, and there are some ideas of how it began, many different beliefs, but if one is honest, no knowledge of how it really began. The unknown is scary to many.
The unknown is not scary to scientists -- they face it head on in an attempt to change the unknown into known (or at least better understood).

While the origin of life cannot currently be reproduced in a lab by a chemist, there is a lot that is known.

From something that I've previously posted...
Urey-Miller demonstrated that within a few days in the lab, an inert mix could give rise to molecules of relevance and complexity. This experiment produced 4 of 20 amino acids needed to make proteins. Later experiments produced 12 of 20, and an experiment with dilute cyanide produced 7. Clearly it does not require more than a few days in the lab to create some basic building blocks of life.

Since Urey-Miller, 74 amino acids have been found in meteorites including all 20 found in living organisms. This further tells us that there are a variety of atmospheric conditions in the universe capable of producing this building block of life.

Then to get from amino acids to polymers (proteins)... Also in the 1950s Sidney Fox demonstrated that splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock instantly produced most of the proteins found in life. Lipids are easier to polymerize into protolife structures that, while not living, are able to mimic processes similar to bacteria -- feeding, excreting and metabolizing starch.

Several mechanisms have been demonstrated for assembling short polymers into longer chains. Zeolites, clay and pyrite are all capable of lining up amino acids which could lead to longer proteins. Pyrite is found in black smokers which are home to some of the most primitive life on earth -- sulfide-reducing Archaebacteria. This suggests to many scientists that life arose not on the surface of the primordial pond, but in a deep-sea hot spring.

Endosymbiosis can take us from here to eukaryotic cells -- I'm getting tired of typing so I'll try to wrap up. This process is supported by some of today's living transitional forms such as Pelomyxa and Giardia.

So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that this is how life arose from the inert. I'm merely pointing out that while this cannot be replicated today, there is nothing to suggest that it will not be replicated one day.


I understand that you hold on to your middle ground with ardor and faith, but perhaps we can get some clarification on why you seem to give Creation claims as much credence as scientific explanations.

Are there any supernatural claims made by religion that you currently accept as true? Existence of miracles, angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, Devil? Do you currently accept that man, animals, plants, earth and universe were created by a god (or gods)? These are pretty simple "yes" or "not yes" questions. Any answer other than yes must be interpreted as a no. That is not to say that you have concluded that they do not exist, merely that you do not yet accept the claims.

Now, do you accept science has explained anything? Behavior of gravity (even if not the specific mechanism)? The number of probes that have conducted flybys of comets, launched an impactor into a comet traveling 23,000 miles an hour, and possibly landing a probe on a comet by the end of next year, suggests, to me, that we have some level of understanding.

What about Neil Shubin, discoverer of tiktaalik roseae. He and his team analyzed gaps in the fossil record, and understanding that lobe-finned fish could be found 380 million years ago, and the first tetrapods appeared 363 million years ago, they predicted that the transition between them would have had to occur between 380 and 363 million years ago. Then studying maps based on where the earliest tetrapods were found around freshwater sites they identified the Canadian Arctic as the location for their expedition. On their 5th year they found tiktaalik, (transitional species between fish and land animals) just where evolution predicted they would find it.

It seems to me that while not perfect, science has a bit of a track record behind it.

This is your chance to play Devil's Advocate (actually God's Advocate), and present what evidence Creationists have that would warrant placing them on an equal footing in a science class.

-ArtificialGrape

I don't fear or have an issue with Creationism being taught, but it should be taught in a theology, bible study, or even comparative mythology class. But please make the case for why it has earned a place to be taught in a science class.
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:11   #459
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I think in reality he knows that it does... but his stance is that if we didn't actually see it happen and record it that it's just wild speculation.

And that limitation makes a creator (which hasn't a shred of evidence supporting it) just as likely.
I'm sure you believe a lot of things to increase your own personnal comfort level.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 12:16   #460
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
The unknown is not scary to scientists -- they face it head on in an attempt to change the unknown into known (or at least better understood).

While the origin of life cannot currently be reproduced in a lab by a chemist, there is a lot that is known.

I have to point out I have no definite characteristics of a designer if there was one. Omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and worthiness of worship may not be present at all.

From something that I've previously posted...
Urey-Miller demonstrated that within a few days in the lab, an inert mix could give rise to molecules of relevance and complexity. This experiment produced 4 of 20 amino acids needed to make proteins. Later experiments produced 12 of 20, and an experiment with dilute cyanide produced 7. Clearly it does not require more than a few days in the lab to create some basic building blocks of life.

Since Urey-Miller, 74 amino acids have been found in meteorites including all 20 found in living organisms. This further tells us that there are a variety of atmospheric conditions in the universe capable of producing this building block of life.

Then to get from amino acids to polymers (proteins)... Also in the 1950s Sidney Fox demonstrated that splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock instantly produced most of the proteins found in life. Lipids are easier to polymerize into protolife structures that, while not living, are able to mimic processes similar to bacteria -- feeding, excreting and metabolizing starch.

Several mechanisms have been demonstrated for assembling short polymers into longer chains. Zeolites, clay and pyrite are all capable of lining up amino acids which could lead to longer proteins. Pyrite is found in black smokers which are home to some of the most primitive life on earth -- sulfide-reducing Archaebacteria. This suggests to many scientists that life arose not on the surface of the primordial pond, but in a deep-sea hot spring.

Endosymbiosis can take us from here to eukaryotic cells -- I'm getting tired of typing so I'll try to wrap up. This process is supported by some of today's living transitional forms such as Pelomyxa and Giardia.

So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that this is how life arose from the inert. I'm merely pointing out that while this cannot be replicated today, there is nothing to suggest that it will not be replicated one day.


I understand that you hold on to your middle ground with ardor and faith, but perhaps we can get some clarification on why you seem to give Creation claims as much credence as scientific explanations.

Are there any supernatural claims made by religion that you currently accept as true? Existence of miracles, angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, Devil? Do you currently accept that man, animals, plants, earth and universe were created by a god (or gods)? These are pretty simple "yes" or "not yes" questions. Any answer other than yes must be interpreted as a no. That is not to say that you have concluded that they do not exist, merely that you do not yet accept the claims.

Now, do you accept science has explained anything? Behavior of gravity (even if not the specific mechanism)? The number of probes that have conducted flybys of comets, launched an impactor into a comet traveling 23,000 miles an hour, and possibly landing a probe on a comet by the end of next year, suggests, to me, that we have some level of understanding.

What about Neil Shubin, discoverer of tiktaalik roseae. He and his team analyzed gaps in the fossil record, and understanding that lobe-finned fish could be found 380 million years ago, and the first tetrapods appeared 363 million years ago, they predicted that the transition between them would have had to occur between 380 and 363 million years ago. Then studying maps based on where the earliest tetrapods were found around freshwater sites they identified the Canadian Arctic as the location for their expedition. On their 5th year they found tiktaalik, (transitional species between fish and land animals) just where evolution predicted they would find it.

It seems to me that while not perfect, science has a bit of a track record behind it.

This is your chance to play Devil's Advocate (actually God's Advocate), and present what evidence Creationists have that would warrant placing them on an equal footing in a science class.

-ArtificialGrape

I don't fear or have an issue with Creationism being taught, but it should be taught in a theology, bible study, or even comparative mythology class. But please make the case for why it has earned a place to be taught in a science class.

Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 12:21..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:02   #461
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
Are you saying that if we can create life with nothing supernatural, that it would be evidence of life being created by something supernatural?
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...
Syclone538 is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:27   #462
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I'm sure you believe a lot of things to increase your own personnal comfort level.
If I've misstated your stance let me know. But you seem to imply that a creator is just as possible as abiogenesis. I maintain that one is far more probable as it has massive amounts of evidence supporting it and the other has none as of yet.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:32   #463
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
The carefully controlled conditions are to replicate what a pre-life earth environment would be like. Not the environment of a lab. That's why they're carefully controlled, as not to give results that don't answer the question at hand.

And yes, it does illustrate that it's possible for life to be created... by beings as simple as us. Doesn't require a deity. However... there still is no evidence that such a being has ever or does exist. As far as we know we are the only beings in the universe with the power attributed to God. But that's not surprising since man most likely invented the concept of God.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:45   #464
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syclone538 View Post
Are you saying that if we can create life with nothing supernatural, that it would be evidence of life being created by something supernatural?
Yeah, if anything it illustrates that it's quite possible we were created from organic beings just like us if anything. I think we've most definitely learned it doesn't require magic or wizardry. Just organic materials and the right conditions.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:54   #465
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
If I've misstated your stance let me know. But you seem to imply that a creator is just as possible as abiogenesis. I maintain that one is far more probable as it has massive amounts of evidence supporting it and the other has none as of yet.
Ok, please provide this massive amount if evidence, you might just convince me.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 13:55..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 13:56   #466
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Yeah, if anything it illustrates that it's quite possible we were created from organic beings just like us if anything. I think we've most definitely learned it doesn't require magic or wizardry. Just organic materials and the right conditions.
If life was created by other beings, wouldn't intelligent design be something that could be taught in a science class.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:10   #467
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If life was created by other beings, wouldn't intelligent design be something that could be taught in a science class.
Sure, but first we'd need at least some tiny basic evidence that such a being existed before it could be considered science. Without that... it's a fairy tale. We're fairly confident life can be created by beings just like us with the right technology. But that still doesn't imply a design really. Perhaps planting a seed understanding the nature of how it will evolve. But design... eh... that might be pushing it. However... a race of beings far more advanced than us might have the technology not only to create life but structure its evolution. But as of yet there is nothing to support such a claim so we go with what we do know.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 14:12   #468
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Ok, please provide this massive amount if evidence, you might just convince me.
Read anything you like on abiogenesis. I don't have the evidence in my back pocket. It's available. We aren't going to start playing the "Believers" game that if I can't link you to the wealth and mankind's scientific knowledge then it doesn't exist.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 15:43   #469
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,530
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
You seem to have missed the crux of my post (which admittedly was longer than intended), which is what evidence do the Creationists have, that you have accepted, that would cause you to place their claims on an even footing in a science class with science which has evidence of many things?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 15:47   #470
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
You seem to have missed the crux of my post (which admittedly was longer than intended), which is what evidence do the Creationists have, that you have accepted, that would cause you to place their claims on an even footing in a science class with science which has evidence of many things?

-ArtificialGrape
Honestly, it's just about as scant. The complexity and interdependent relationships of organelles, cells, organs, and organisms are complex enough to open the possibility of a design, hence a designer. It's not that either case is convincing, it's that both are not convincing. We know a lot about life, but really not much about how it started.

Also, we are talking about a paragraph in a large book admitting that we really don't know. Then other time on what we do know.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-08-2013 at 15:50..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 15:57   #471
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Read anything you like on abiogenesis. I don't have the evidence in my back pocket. It's available. We aren't going to start playing the "Believers" game that if I can't link you to the wealth and mankind's scientific knowledge then it doesn't exist.
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.

Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing. Boyle suggested randomly creating a 747, even a tricycle would be difficult to believe.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 16:29   #472
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, I'm just closer to the middle than you, I see it as roughly 50/50. Are you at around 70/30? 90/10?
Can you explain why you're 50/50 though? Seems there is so much more evidence to support one over the other. I don't understand why you give one possibility with no supporting evidence as much credence as one that does.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 16:31   #473
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.
The evidence is available for all. It's not hard to come by. I refuse to keep educating people in this forum. Especially when every time I turn around they still deny the information exists. You're not a stupid man. You can find it if your're truly interested.

Quote:
Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing.
Which part?
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-08-2013, 17:30   #474
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,530
Blog Entries: 1
You demonstrate a few things in the following 2 quotes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Honestly, it's just about as scant. The complexity and interdependent relationships of organelles, cells, organs, and organisms are complex enough to open the possibility of a design, hence a designer. It's not that either case is convincing, it's that both are not convincing. We know a lot about life, but really not much about how it started.

Also, we are talking about a paragraph in a large book admitting that we really don't know. Then other time on what we do know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Seems that you used to get upset at similar answers, something about not being able to back it up.

Lets cut to the chase, I have read quite a bit about abiogenesis, and it's just not convincing. Boyle suggested randomly creating a 747, even a tricycle would be difficult to believe.
In the 1st quote you demonstrate that you don't know enough about logic fallacies to avoid making an argument from incredulity. We're not talking about opening the possibility of a design/designer, we're talking about evidence appropriate for a science class. What evidence for this design/designer would you care to present?

As a medical provider you have experienced first hand many of the examples of poor (or unintelligent) design. If there was a designer I think we can clearly rule out an intelligent one.

Within the framework of evolution, all these examples of poor design make sense. Evolution cannot start from scratch. It can only work by adapting, repurposing, etc. existing anatomy, and many features are far from optimal. All the examples of poor design do more to discredit an Intelligent Designer than examples of efficient design does to support an Intelligent Designer.

This leads into your 2nd quote above which demonstrates that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of how evolution operates (or you do, but you still feel compelled to repeat well dismantled Creationist claims).

Paley's watchmaker was explained away by Darwin's Origin over 150 years ago, but regurgitated later as Fred Hoyle's (not Boyle's) junkyard 747. Nothing about evolution claims that a complex organism randomly appeared in its current, complex form. Organisms have slowly moved from simple to complex through mutations. Some mutations are injurious to a organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those die off in future generations. Other mutations are beneficial to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those then exist in future generations in higher and higher numbers. Evolution explains how natural processes can lead to efficient features that would have an appearance of design.

So again I must ask, what evidence for a Designer would you care to put forth that would earn it a place in a science class?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-09-2013, 05:21   #475
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,072


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
You demonstrate a few things in the following 2 quotes.



In the 1st quote you demonstrate that you don't know enough about logic fallacies to avoid making an argument from incredulity. We're not talking about opening the possibility of a design/designer, we're talking about evidence appropriate for a science class. What evidence for this design/designer would you care to present?

As a medical provider you have experienced first hand many of the examples of poor (or unintelligent) design. If there was a designer I think we can clearly rule out an intelligent one.

Within the framework of evolution, all these examples of poor design make sense. Evolution cannot start from scratch. It can only work by adapting, repurposing, etc. existing anatomy, and many features are far from optimal. All the examples of poor design do more to discredit an Intelligent Designer than examples of efficient design does to support an Intelligent Designer.

This leads into your 2nd quote above which demonstrates that you don't have even the most rudimentary understanding of how evolution operates (or you do, but you still feel compelled to repeat well dismantled Creationist claims).

Paley's watchmaker was explained away by Darwin's Origin over 150 years ago, but regurgitated later as Fred Hoyle's (not Boyle's) junkyard 747. Nothing about evolution claims that a complex organism randomly appeared in its current, complex form. Organisms have slowly moved from simple to complex through mutations. Some mutations are injurious to a organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those die off in future generations. Other mutations are beneficial to an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, and those then exist in future generations in higher and higher numbers. Evolution explains how natural processes can lead to efficient features that would have an appearance of design.

So again I must ask, what evidence for a Designer would you care to put forth that would earn it a place in a science class?

-ArtificialGrape
It's only a fallacy if it's false. Given the possibility of natural phenomena creating very complex structures, where minor defects are incompatible with life, and an intelligence creating it, both are rather hard to believe. Recognizing the extrapolations and assumptions made on both sides of the issue, whether philosophers and logicians agree or not, it seems logical to withhold judgement until such time as enough evidence is present to decide. I also recognize that on both sides there is bias. Some Theists really want to believe they can prove life was designed and created. Some Atheists really want to prove that it was not created and just a natural phenomena.

Your example of an Unintelligent Designer is an example a lack of perfection is not a lack of inteligence. Just figuring out how difficult it is to make a cell work is very complex, figuring out how to make it replicate, differentiate within a mamal, the positive and negative feedback loops between relatively distant tissues within the body to handle small details that without which, it all stops working. I think you are trying to rule out a perfect design, and assuming a perfect designer must make a perfect design, and that you would understand the big picture much better. First, I make no assumptions about the characteristics of a possible designer, not even sure there is one let alone what the characteristics would be. The human body is very complex, homeostasis is a constant and active activity, it's very easy for one defect to stop it all from working pretty quick. To assume if there was a designer that the design isn't good enough is comical. After all, if there were a designer, the design has lasts millipns of years and led to you being able to complain about it. What would happen if animals did not grow up, grow old and die naturally, I see problems with that. We all get to die at least once. It is what it is. BTW: wouldn't arguing that it could not have been designed because the design is uninteligent also be an argument from incredulity?

It is what it is. It was probably either made or just a result of natural phenomena. Both possibilities are incredible. Was life made? Some say yes, some say no, I say maybe.


Can I ask if you've noticed how much information I have proposed putting in front of a science class?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,253
381 Members
872 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42