Origins of Life Researcher Explains How Intelligent Design Is Proven

[Graffight]

Pretty Interesting Stuff

 

[creativedreams]

Pretty Interesting Stuff

I'm sure this guy would be arguing that the world is flat if he was back in the day!:roll:

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'm sure this guy would be arguing that the world is flat if he was back in the day!:roll:

Yea because you're god and all-knowing. :roll:

 

[MrFungus420]

First of all,. he is not an "origins of life researcher". His specialities, according to the European Leadership Foundation, are "(1) issues in the relationship between science and faith, and (2) the history and philosophy of science."

Then there is the point that his argument about "specified complexity" only holds water if you first make the assumption that any, and every, possible naturally occuring example of specified complexity cannot occur naturally.

He is making the assumption that, since humans make things with specified complexity, everything with specified complexity must be made by an intelligence.

In other words, his argument can be summed up thusly:

Wow, this looks complex. I don't see how it could have come about naturally. Therefore, godditit.

 

[SWM]

Unrestrained natural processes producing specified complexity...the trick he's pulling here is neat. There are, of course, any number of examples of specified complexity in the natural world: The atom, any galaxy, the (relative)stability of our solar system and innumerable other solar systems in the universe, the periodic table, any atmospheric planet. However, caught under the net of the internal logic in this gentleman's theorem, these examples are irrelevant, because they are all things also made my God. It comes down to this: Using his own logic, his theorem is disprovable under any circumstances, because anything not made my man is made by God. Pretty sneaky, bearded guy.*

*His beard is almost the same as mine, dude has good taste in beards.

 

[rathi]

That is not an argument. He utterly fails to explain either 1) Why life couldn't arrive out of inorganic molecules combining into life 2) Evidence supporting the existence of intelligent life other than us. He also fails to mention the problem that if life can only be made by other intelligent creatures, who made the first intelligent life form? Finally, he starts talking about natural selection, which has nothing to do with the origin of life. If aliens, god or random molecules first created life on this earth, that doesn't change the mountain of evidence supporting evolution. This you tube clip portrays only a small piece of this guys argument, but he manages to destroy his credibility in only 6 minutes.

 

[Graffight]

First of all,. he is not an "origins of life researcher". His specialities, according to the European Leadership Foundation, are "(1) issues in the relationship between science and faith, and (2) the history and philosophy of science."

and your point is? Origin of life research couldn't possibly be conducted as a part of either of those two specialities? ah...refute something and everything becomes refutable....got it.

Then there is the point that his argument about "specified complexity" only holds water if you first make the assumption that any, and every, possible naturally occuring example of specified complexity cannot occur naturally.

Well...when have you seen any new specified complexity happen naturally...the only new specified complexity has been created by intelligence...show me where a strand of DNA popped into existence of it's own accord.

He is making the assumption that, since humans make things with specified complexity, everything with specified complexity must be made by an intelligence.

If you look for evidence to the contrary have we found it? So uh...when you talk about logic you say all evidence points points to there not being a higher intelligence, but any time we see complex design...a building, a car, a watch...intelligence made it....i wonder, why if things occur naturally only organic complex design happens...why did random rocks not evolve into machines with fully functional electrical systems that compute data? or why not some other equally complex thing that's not living that we just haven't thought of yet?

In other words, his argument can be summed up thusly:

Wow, this looks complex. I don't see how it could have come about naturally. Therefore, godditit.

more like...wow this is extreeeeeeeeemly complex...in all my observation i've never seen anything new that's even a little complex come into existence of it's own accord...it's probably safe to assume that this got here the same way other new complicated things get here....it's probably safe to assume something intelligent made it...

 

[Graffight]

That is not an argument. He utterly fails to explain either 1) Why life couldn't arrive out of inorganic molecules combining into life

I'll tell you what...when you see that happen naturally we'll try to explain it...until then let's worry about reality.

2) Evidence supporting the existence of intelligent life other than us.

Actually that's all he talked about...the evidence is that fact that we have never seen any complex thing pop into existence of it's own accord. Here i'll tell you what I'll do, I'll give you all the components of a TV, you know all broken apart n stuff, but it's all there, then i'll put it into a big box...i'll let you shake that box for a few million (shoot you could have a few hundred trillion) years and you get back to me when a working television comes out...don't shake it too hard you might break something. here's the problem i'm running into with things happening randomly by chance...chaos never creates order, it generally creates more chaos, not complicated working systems like DNA, or computers.

This is because a law called entropy part of the second law of thermodynamics...

entropy - The degree of disorder in a system. As energy is transferred from one form to another, some is lost as heat; as the energy decreases, the disorder in the system&emdash;and thus the entropy&emdash;increases.

He also fails to mention the problem that if life can only be made by other intelligent creatures, who made the first intelligent life form?

who knows...

Finally, he starts talking about natural selection, which has nothing to do with the origin of life. If aliens, god or random molecules first created life on this earth, that doesn't change the mountain of evidence supporting evolution.

you have a few million missing links to find before you have said "mountain of evidence"

This you tube clip portrays only a small piece of this guys argument, but he manages to destroy his credibility in only 6 minutes.

i mean if you say so...i haven't seen the whole thing yet though.

 

[Graffight]

Unrestrained natural processes producing specified complexity...the trick he's pulling here is neat. There are, of course, any number of examples of specified complexity in the natural world: The atom, any galaxy, the (relative)stability of our solar system and innumerable other solar systems in the universe, the periodic table, any atmospheric planet.However, caught under the net of the internal logic in this gentleman's theorem, these examples are irrelevant, because they are all things also made my God. It comes down to this: Using his own logic, his theorem is disprovable under any circumstances, because anything not made my man is made by God. Pretty sneaky, bearded guy.*

*His beard is almost the same as mine, dude has good taste in beards.

hmmm...so do you have contrasting logic that may refute what this guy is saying? is it only sneaky because it makes sense?

by the way, your beard sounds really cool...wish i could grow one like that:mrgreen:

 

[rathi]

I'll tell you what...when you see that happen naturally we'll try to explain it...until then let's worry about reality.

We can already assemble amino acids and other organic structures. Furthermore, assembling life using inorganic molecules is possible. The theories around the origin of life are not particularly strong, and probably will be revised and altered as new evidence rolls in. However, intelligent design doesn't even meet the qualifications for a theory, and thus is even less credible.

Actually that's all he talked about...the evidence is that fact that we have never seen any complex thing pop into existence of it's own accord. Here i'll tell you what I'll do, I'll give you all the components of a TV, you know all broken apart n stuff, but it's all there, then i'll put it into a big box...i'll let you shake that box for a few million (shoot you could have a few hundred trillion) years and you get back to me when a working television comes out...don't shake it too hard you might break something. .

Let me explain to you the way probability functions. If you have a large enough sample size, the odds of success for really really bad odds actually becomes quite high. For example, the chance of 1 person winning the lottery sucks, but if you have 1 million people, its likely that one of them will win. If monkeys typed on a keyboard for 100 trillion years, they would actually create a real manuscript.

chaos never creates order, it generally creates more chaos, not complicated working systems like DNA, or computers
This is because a law called entropy part of the second law of thermodynamics...

entropy - The degree of disorder in a system. As energy is transferred from one form to another, some is lost as heat; as the energy decreases, the disorder in the
system&emdash;and thus the entropy&emdash;increases.

You simply fail to understand the way entropy works. The general tend toward equilibrium has no bearing on the possibility of specific events as part of the system. The second law of thermodynamics is applied to a closed system, which earth is not. Furthermore, fluctuation theory states that the second law doesn't always apply, as shown by the non-zero probability of cold molecules transferring energy to hot molecules.

who knows...

You do realize that ID is refuted as a hypothesis unless you can answer that question.

you have a few million missing links to find before you have said "mountain of evidence"

Lets compare it to your evidence of gods or aliens. Evolution is a mountain by comparison.

i mean if you say so...i haven't seen the whole thing yet though.

I would suggest watching it. Trying to defend a man's arguments when you haven't heard them is rather tricky.

 

[obvious Child]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Intelligent Design is Aninism.

Don't know = Goddidit.

It's sad that people have reverted to essentially ignorance for why God exists.

 

[The silenced majority]

Obviously this guy has a skeleton or two in his closet.

Perhaps a gay-sex scandal?

We must set out to discredit him at all costs...

 

[MrFungus420]

and your point is? Origin of life research couldn't possibly be conducted as a part of either of those two specialities? ah...refute something and everything becomes refutable....got it.

My point was that I was correcting the misrepresentation of his credentials.

Well...when have you seen any new specified complexity happen naturally...the only new specified complexity has been created by intelligence...show me where a strand of DNA popped into existence of it's own accord.

Why does it have to be new?

And, why would a DNA strand have to pop into existence of it's own accord?

If you look for evidence to the contrary have we found it? So uh...when you talk about logic you say all evidence points points to there not being a higher intelligence, but any time we see complex design...a building, a car, a watch...intelligence made it....

No, a HUMAN made it, not just an "intelligence".

Therefore, the ONLY conclusion that can be made is that if it isn't natural, then HUMANS did it.

i wonder, why if things occur naturally only organic complex design happens...why did random rocks not evolve into machines with fully functional electrical systems that compute data? or why not some other equally complex thing that's not living that we just haven't thought of yet?

Biological systems evolve. Rocks don't.

It's very simple.

more like...wow this is extreeeeeeeeemly complex...in all my observation i've never seen anything new that's even a little complex come into existence of it's own accord...it's probably safe to assume that this got here the same way other new complicated things get here....it's probably safe to assume something intelligent made it...

Why are you so hung up on it being something new? Unless it is because you realize that the level of complexity to which he is refering is something that occurs on such a long timescale that the entirety of recorded human history is not even a significant percentage.

It is still just an argument from incredulity.

So, again, the only way that he might have a point is after first assuming that everything that is complex doesn't occur naturally, and then try to use that as the basis to argue that complexity can't occur naturally.

 

[MrFungus420]

This is because a law called entropy part of the second law of thermodynamics...

Wow, a complete misunderstanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

First of all, the Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to closed systems.

Secondly, they are about the movement of heat (thermo-heat, dynamics-movement).

Finally, the Second Law is that the overall available energy (heat) in a closed system cannot spontaneously increase.