Intelligent Design New Evidence

[tosca1]

This is an explanation of how carbon chemistry can start to create life.

Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | Talk Video | TED.com

It's a good video.

You will need to define what exactly life is to progress this discussion though and that's very hard.

Well....actually, that supports design, believe it or not.



Martin Hanczyc manipulated and "designed" the environment to make that oil dance around and do whatever it does.



That's the key point.

It was manipulated.

It wasn't by accident, or by fluke,
or by chance.



HE ACTED AS THE DESIGNER!


That's the whole point, isn't it?


The world was fine-tuned "just right" to sustain life!

 

[Deuce]

Well....actually, that supports design, believe it or not.

Martin Hanczyc manipulated and "designed" the environment to make that oil dance around and do whatever it does. The key point is that:

HE ACTED AS THE DESIGNER!

Way to miss the point.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Well....actually, that supports design, believe it or not.

Martin Hanczyc manipulated and "designed" the environment to make that oil dance around and do whatever it does. The key point is that:

HE ACTED AS THE DESIGNER!

NO!!

Also you have not had the time to watch it!!!

The point is that carbon will do this in such circumstance as were about in the early Earth. It does not matter that these circumstance have to be replicated in the lab today. Life like things spring up almost instantly in the right environment. Get over it.

 

[iguanaman]

Well, creationism isn't in disguise at all if we're talking about design!
All one has to do is understand the full implication!

It'll just be a question of who....or what, maybe?

Of course, as a Christian I'll say my God is the Creator.

I gave you a what-if scenario and you didn't respond. Here, let me repost it and I'll wait for your response. This is related to that statement.


Suppose you went to Pluto and found a domed structure that's set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, the humidity, are just right. Water is abundant. There's even an oxygen recycling system, a system to have energy, and a whole system for the production of food.

Put simply, it is a fully functioning biosphere.

What logical conclusion would come to mind? That all these happened just by chance? By accident?

No one created it?


What is your logical conclusion if you find that on Pluto?

That we finally found a place we can put creationists. LOL
But seriously you cannot make up a new creation myth out of thin air. You are not God are you? The whole idea of "creation" comes from the Bible which supposedly came from God. Either you believe the entire myth or it is made up BS. There is no wiggle room as you seem to think.

 

[tosca1]

NO!!

Also you have not had the time to watch it!!!

The point is that carbon will do this in such circumstance as were about in the early Earth. It does not matter that these circumstance have to be replicated in the lab today. Life like things spring up almost instantly in the right environment. Get over it.

If you guys are saying we are a product of a fluke....or an accident....or by chance....then you can't use a manipulated environment since that no longer replicates an "accident." There's nothing spontaneous about that at all.

That method actually demonstrates design.


Are we a product of an accident/chance/fluke? Or not?

You guys make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Deuce]

If you guys are saying we are a product of a fluke....or an accident....or by chance....then you can't use a manipulated environment since that no longer replicates an "accident." There's nothing spontaneous about that at all.

That method actually demonstrates design.


Are we a product of an accident/chance/fluke? Or not?

You guys make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

You didn't even watch the video, don't try to talk about the conclusions we can draw from it.

 

[tosca1]

That protocell video reminds me of a joke:

A scientist defiantly announced to God that he can also create life. God says, "show me."

So the scientist took a lump of clay,

but God suddenly interrupted and boomed: "Hey, Hey....use your own materials!"

 

[Cephus]

And which one produces tangible results?

And which ones produce testable predictions? It sure isn't the religious ones.

 

[Deuce]

That protocell video reminds me of a joke:

A scientist defiantly announced to God that he can also create life. God says, show me.

So the scientist took a lump of clay,

but God suddenly interrupted and boomed: "Hey, Hey....use your own materials!"

You missed the purpose of the video.

Would you like to talk about the point here, or do you want to keep going off on your "THIS IS DESIGN" tirade?

 

[William Rea]

And there it is. You're not an ID-er. You're a creationist. ID is not incompatible with evolution, nor is evolution "pure speculation." You slipped up, chief. You gave away your real motivations. You're just another member of the anti-science religion crowd.

There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolution. You just have personally not been exposed to it. Somebody, under the color of religious authority, told you some things they think disprove evolution, and you bought them as, well, gospel. Do you want to talk about evolution or the origin of the universe? Why do you seem to think those are the same topic?

Who would have guessed? I had that pegged way back, hence this thread.

 

[William Rea]

This quite startling revelation deserves a thread of it's own because this would be Nobel Prize winning stuff and I want DP to be the place where it was first revealed.

So tosca1, present this strong evidence.

A reminder of the thread topic, you guys are giving the creationists a way out.

 

[Tim the plumber]

If you guys are saying we are a product of a fluke....or an accident....or by chance....then you can't use a manipulated environment since that no longer replicates an "accident." There's nothing spontaneous about that at all.

That method actually demonstrates design.


Are we a product of an accident/chance/fluke? Or not?

You guys make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

What you are saying is that a result that is arrived at in the test tube has no bearing outside that test tube.

It is 100% clear that the conditions on the Early earth were very good for carbon chemistry to almost instantly create life life stuff. Life is inevitable in those circumstances. No outside help needed.

 

[jimbo]

Before we proceed any farther, let's be clear that this will heavily involve science. Personal opinions wouldn't be taken on their own. If there are any rebuttals to science materials presented, the rebuts will have to be accompanied by supporting documentation from credible sources (with links).

Don't just present the link and expect the reader to rummage through the whole site. If the article is too long, cite where the rebuttal was supported for verification.

Just so I understand, you start with a premise which you label an argument, then claim that this argument is science, even though arguments are opinions, not science, then move on to 34 if/then statements from a site with the word God in the title, which appear unsupported, then demand that all rebuttal must be science, supported by facts, and in short sentences.

Did I miss anything?

The claim that the world is just to perfect too have been created by accident, and therefore must have been created by something intelligent, makes no sense.

Look at the situation as a lottery. The odds of winning the lottery by you on a given day is somewhere around 1/200,000,000, or near impossible. Yet the odds of someone winning the lottery sometime is 100%. All the other tickets get thrown away. IMO, the earth formed in the same way.

 

[tosca1]

And there it is. You're not an ID-er. You're a creationist.

I didn't know there's a difference? Tell me what's the difference between design and creation?

ID is not incompatible with evolution,

Did I say it is? Read again.

nor is evolution "pure speculation."

MACRO- evolution. Go ahead and check it out for yourself.

Big difference between that macro and simple evolution, you know.

You slipped up, chief. You gave away your real motivations. You're just another member of the anti-science religion crowd.

No, I didn't "slip up."

You did not understand what you were reading.



Perhaps if you'll concentrate more on what you're reading instead of distracting yourself with how you could "trip" me up....perhaps you'll be on the ball. :2razz:

And perhaps you shouldn't try to fit me into what you think defines me.....but rather, concentrate more on what is being said.

 

[tosca1]

Just so I understand, you start with a premise which you label an argument, then claim that this argument is science, even though arguments are opinions, not science, then move on to 34 if/then statements from a site with the word God in the title, which appear unsupported, then demand that all rebuttal must be science, supported by facts, and in short sentences.

Did I miss anything?

The claim that the world is just to perfect too have been created by accident, and therefore must have been created by something intelligent, makes no sense.

Look at the situation as a lottery. The odds of winning the lottery by you on a given day is somewhere around 1/200,000,000, or near impossible. Yet the odds of someone winning the lottery sometime is 100%. All the other tickets get thrown away. IMO, the earth formed in the same way.

Sounds like you're confused. Perhaps you should re-read.....or be specific and post what exactly is the problem.

 

[tosca1]

You missed the purpose of the video.

Would you like to talk about the point here, or do you want to keep going off on your "THIS IS DESIGN" tirade?

I didn't miss the purpose of the video.....but obviously you missed the fact that the purpose of the video turned out to be not what it was intended for.

Manipulating the environment (oh boy, and who knows how many trials he did)..... is replicating design.
There's nothing accidental about that!

 

[Deuce]

I didn't know there's a difference? Tell me what's the difference between design and creation?

Intelligent Design tries to pretend that it's based in science, and that it's not based on the Christian story of creation in which God poofed the universe into existence in 7 days.

Creationism does not try to hide the fact that it's just saying "Genesis is literal truth."

Did I say it is? Read again.

Yes, I'm well aware of what you said, and what you meant. And guess what? My statement still stands. There is plenty of evidence for "macro" evolution.

Big difference between that macro and simple evolution, you know.

No, actually. There isn't. That's just what creationists tell you because they know full-well that evolution is directly observed. So they try to draw this artificial line between "micro" and "macro" evolution so they can still pretend evolution is wrong.

You still haven't answered the question: what are you made of?

 

[Deuce]

I didn't miss the purpose of the video.....but obviously you missed the fact that the purpose of the video turned out to be not what it was intended for.

Manipulating the environment (oh boy, and who knows how many trials he did)..... is replicating design. There's nothing accidental about that!

Clearly you are not willing to discuss this on an actual, scientific basis. So stop pretending you are. If you can't even answer the simple question of what you are made of, how do you expect me to continue this discussion? Because that's what is needed if you want me to answer this particular line of criticism of yours. You want to discuss this, right?

 

[tosca1]

A reminder of the thread topic, you guys are giving the creationists a way out.

And I'm waiting for your rebuttal! You, of all posters here, should be doing some serious rebuttals since you're the one who started this thread.

Your personal opinion is not credible at all. You've shown that by your responses. You're all smoke and flashing lights. I've yet to hear a serious response from you. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

And I'm waiting for your rebuttal! You, of all posters here, should be doing some serious rebuttals since you're the one who started this thread.

Your personal opinion is not credible at all. You've shown that by your responses. You're all smoke and flashing lights. I've yet to hear a serious response from you. :lol:

There has been rebuttal. You just keep ignoring it.

Several of these universal constants were predicted mathematically before they were actually measured, because we weren't capable of measuring them yet. You say these are evidence that the universe was designed, I say there's no other possible way the universe could have been, designed or not. Physics is physics, fundamental laws of the universe can't be changed.

There's no evidence that either of us are correct. Something designing our universe, by definition, would have to exist outside it. Therefore, it's impossible for us to measure or test the existence of God. We are simply incapable of observing anything outside our universe. Therefore, ID has no evidence for or against it.

What. Are. You. Made. Of?

 

[tosca1]

Clearly you are not willing to discuss this on an actual, scientific basis. So stop pretending you are. If you can't even answer the simple question of what you are made of, how do you expect me to continue this discussion? Because that's what is needed if you want me to answer this particular line of criticism of yours. You want to discuss this, right?

No, you've got a serious dilemma here.

You believe that we're a product of infinite numbers of accidents. Your video wants to show that the first life can be created -

- boy, that term alone should've given you guys the red flag - since your video is trying to show this guy can create life.

You're a creationist like me. The only difference between us is that you don't even realize it! :lamo



Anyway, back to your dilemma, Mr. creationist-who-doesn't-know-he-is-one,

Are we a product of an accident or not?

How can you say that manipulation of the environment is replicating an accidental creation of life?

 

[Deuce]

How can you say that manipulation of the environment is replicating an accidental creation of life?

I've been trying to tell you that, but you can't answer a simple question that will help guide you to the answer. Being someone who teaches for a living, I realize it's not always enough to just tell people the answer. You need to guide them to it, so they understand the path that lead to it.

What are you made of?

 

[William Rea]

And I'm waiting for your rebuttal! You, of all posters here, should be doing some serious rebuttals since you're the one who started this thread.

Your personal opinion is not credible at all. You've shown that by your responses. You're all smoke and flashing lights. I've yet to hear a serious response from you. :lol:

I was waiting for you to present some strong evidence for ID. You didn't.

What you did present was pretty much what the Discotute and William Lane Craig have been making money from for quite some time.

Basically, you have nothing new, if you want a rebuttal, search the Internet.

I'm just disappointed that DP won't after all be getting the kudos of a Nobel Prize winner on its membership list.

 

[tosca1]

Intelligent Design tries to pretend that it's based in science, and that it's not based on the Christian story of creation in which God poofed the universe into existence in 7 days.

Don't give me that baloney! You're giving the same old cliché used by atheists!

Give an objective answer!

 

[Deuce]

Don't give me that baloney! You're giving the same old cliché used by atheists!

Give an objective answer!

The answer is that God would, by definition, exist outside of our universe in order to create it. Therefore God is not observable or measurable in any way. This is why there is no evidence that God exists, or that He doesn't exist.