• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

Tawn

Active Member
I started looking at that last link.. amusing..:biglaugh:

Evolution's view - "An unsupervised, unpredictable natural process, a random undirected working without either plan or purpose."
No thats clearly wrong.

All of life, by chance?? The intricacy of DNA by chance?? The balance and harmony of the univers, the simpler things like the food chain and our eco-balance, by chance?? Do the math, it's impossible.
Show me the math and ill accept impossibility.

Darwin himself said his theory is null and void
The guy is putting words in Darwins mouth. He didnt say that at all.

Sorry but what ive read so far only suggests to me me one thing.. this guy is an idiot.. fallacy after fallacy.. :rolleyes:
 

Passerbye

Member
this guy is an idiot
He may be just too "special" for you to comprehend.

What do you think of this one?
Another example from the anthropic principle can be seen in the atom: everything in the universe is made of atoms - whether they be the stars or the cells of the human body. Colson notes that "Within the atom, the neutron is just slightly more massive than the proton, which means that free neutrons (those not trapped within an atom) can decay and turn into protons. If things were reversed - if it were the proton that was larger and had a tendency to decay - the very structure of the universe would be impossible" (p. 63). The reason for the above explanation is that a free proton is really a hydrogen atom; if free protons had a tendency to decay, then everything made of hydrogen would also decay.

http://www.thehomechurch.org/memos/evolution.htm

Interesting...

 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Passerbye said:
What do you think of this one?
I think if hydrogen didn't form hydrogen bonds water could not form. But it does and water does form. What in the name of Bob has this got to do with ID?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
not all free protons are hydrogen first off :boink:
Hydrogen is an atom... it is a single proton with an electron in 'orbit'. Not a naked proton.
In fact the truth is that free unattached protons are a hot commodity in the chemical world. Everyone wants to grab them up. They attach freely to anyone who has an open chemical space, filling atoms and molicules to make them 'happy'.

The idea of revercing the postion of protons and neutrons is silly... if a proton acted like a neutron and vice versa then it would not be proton it would ba neutron.

wa:do
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
Alright, here's some:

Furthermore, research has documented that "unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
As Levy and Miller explain, "the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth" (p. 7933).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html

Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

According to this, there is absolutely no chance that the chemicals created by "random chance occurences" could even exist long enough to aid in the production of DNA.
Right.. my challenge was to prove natural occurance absolutely impossible.
>>>"unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine"
>>>According to this, there is absolutely no chance...
Straight away you are jumping to impossible from statements of improbability.

I dont want to debate here the specifics of this line of enquiry.. since this is the evidence FOR ID thread.. and pah will get angry.. however it seems to me that base assumptions are being made which are not questioned.
>>>cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C
>>>Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.
Think about this logically. DNA contains cytosine. DNA can exist at 0
ºC. The cytosine is not unstable when it is part of DNA. Therefore cytosine is not unstable at 0ºC under certain conditions. Are such conditions limited to only being part of DNA? I highly doubt it.
The assumption seems to be that DNA came together all at once from entirely disparate parts.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Passerbye said:
You avoided the question.
...
That should not be a surpise to you, if it is in fact so with Deut. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. Tap dancing doesn't answer it
kidnic said:
Just because you choose to not answer me? ...
I guess that applies to you too!
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
Deut. 32.8 said:
In brief, the quote is, unsurprisingly, a despicable distortion. How interesting that you would propagate it.
- in response -
Passerbye said:
Thank you.
WOW!! You posted a quote that was attributed to Carl Sagan, that you got from some website that is clearly biased toward disproving evolution. Knowing that your source was biased, you did not even attempt to research the context in which the quote was made, or if the quote was even accurate. You simply posted it here, as if it were beyond reproach.
Deut then took the time and effort to research the quote, and showed that it was both a misquote, and that it was taken out of context.
After being shown that your post was, at best, misleading and ill conceived, you reply with a simple "Thank you".
I would not expect a full blown apology for being intellectually lazy, but to dismiss the entire episode in this manner is revealing. It would have been nice to see a reply to Deut along the lines of "I apologize that I didn't have the time to check my (obviously biased) source". Or, "I probably should have realized that quoting from a site without questioning my source was a mistake - I apologize". Either one would have been the minimum response to be expected.
We ALL make mistakes from time to time, but to blatantly play it off, as if it were no big deal....
Lastly, now that Deut has shown the quote for what it is, I would hope that you would notify the owner of said website, to inform him that his material is suspect (if not outright deceit). I fear that somehow, this will not occur - rather, it will be much easier to continue to allow this nonsense to be spread among the intellectually lazy.

TVOR
 

kidnic

Member
Tawn said:
Right.. my challenge was to prove natural occurance absolutely impossible.
>>>"unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine"
>>>According to this, there is absolutely no chance...
Straight away you are jumping to impossible from statements of improbability.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. I'm not arguing probability at all right now.

How long would it take to form life spontaneously? Obviously not 100 years... so therefore there is no chance.

No, it is utterly laughable that you argue that I'm am arguing probability just because it says the words, "no chance."

100% = true
0% = false

0%-100% exclusive = Probability....

The words "no chance" are commonly accociated with the word "impossible."
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
How long would it take to form life spontaneously? Obviously not 100 years... so therefore there is no chance.
No not obvious. You have no basis on which to state that assumption as fact. It might for all you know have taken only an instant.
You also ignored half my response..
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
kidnic said:
How long would it take to form life spontaneously? Obviously not 100 years... so therefore there is no chance.
What nonsense. I'd say that the moment that life came to be lasted no more than a few seconds.

TVOR
 

kidnic

Member
The Voice of Reason said:
What nonsense. I'd say that the moment that life came to be lasted no more than a few seconds.

TVOR
Aha! But, the essential building blocks, the ones that must be used in this "spontaneous" creation of life, must already be around for this to happen. The ingredients must all be there, and in enough quantities to make anything substantial...

Hopefully you understand this little leap of reasoning...
 

Tawn

Active Member
kidnic said:
Aha! But, the essential building blocks, the ones that must be used in this "spontaneous" creation of life, must already be around for this to happen. The ingredients must all be there, and in enough quantities to make anything substantial...

Hopefully you understand this little leap of reasoning...
Yes, but who said they had to be there for long? ..and the second part of my response suggested that these base building blocks could have survived by forming into larger non-life components..

Think of it like this.. lets say a 'thing' has 10 parts. Now you are trying to consider the chances of all 10 separate parts being in the same place at once and forming this thing at once. Im suggesting to you that pice 1 might connect to piece 2 long before the 'thing' is created.
 

The Voice of Reason

Doctor of Thinkology
kidnic said:
Hopefully you understand this little leap of reasoning...
Oh, I understand this "little leap of reasoning". That is why I am more willing to embrace this than the "large leap of faith" that is required by the preposterous (and totally unevidenced) idea of Intelligent Design.

TVOR
 

Passerbye

Member
What in the name of Bob has this got to do with ID?
Who said it had something to do with ID?
WOW!! You posted a quote that was attributed to Carl Sagan, that you got from some website that is clearly biased toward disproving evolution. Knowing that your source was biased, you did not even attempt to research the context in which the quote was made, or if the quote was even accurate. You simply posted it here, as if it were beyond reproach.
Deut then took the time and effort to research the quote, and showed that it was both a misquote, and that it was taken out of context.
After being shown that your post was, at best, misleading and ill conceived, you reply with a simple "Thank you".
I would not expect a full blown apology for being intellectually lazy, but to dismiss the entire episode in this manner is revealing. It would have been nice to see a reply to Deut along the lines of "I apologize that I didn't have the time to check my (obviously biased) source". Or, "I probably should have realized that quoting from a site without questioning my source was a mistake - I apologize". Either one would have been the minimum response to be expected.
We ALL make mistakes from time to time, but to blatantly play it off, as if it were no big deal....
Lastly, now that Deut has shown the quote for what it is, I would hope that you would notify the owner of said website, to inform him that his material is suspect (if not outright deceit). I fear that somehow, this will not occur - rather, it will be much easier to continue to allow this nonsense to be spread among the intellectually lazy.
My question was simply "What do you think of this statement that I found? "
No more. I did not offer it as proof of anything. I simply offered a statement that was made at one time and wanted to know the evolutionist side of it. I looked for the same statement to see if I could find a more credible site with that information or an evolutionist side of the story and I came up with nothing so I posted it here simply hoping that the statement would be cleared up. I saw no reason to post the reference since I myself saw it as bias.

The second one was the most interesting of all. I have my own theories and such on how a neutron is the way it is but I simply saw this statement and wished to get an evolutionist opinion on it. The statement it self was less important than the site it came from.
The statements:
"I apologize that I didn't have the time to check my (obviously biased) source". Or, "I probably should have realized that quoting from a site without questioning my source was a mistake - I apologize".
I cannot give since they do not fit in this situation. I do apologize that I did not post my full reasoning to why they were posted, I also apologize if I have waisted any of your time. I even apologize if I have posted such links on the wrong topic thread.
Lastly, now that Deut has shown the quote for what it is, I would hope that you would notify the owner of said website, to inform him that his material is suspect (if not outright deceit). I fear that somehow, this will not occur - rather, it will be much easier to continue to allow this nonsense to be spread among the intellectually lazy.
I found no way on the actual site to contact them. I found the web sites of the moderators and I could try to find their email addresses from there if you wish. If you donot think I will or that I would not properly express the issue I could give the email addresses directly to you. What ever you decide. I don't like false information on the internet any more than you do.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
Who said it had something to do with ID? My question was simply "What do you think of this statement that I found?" No more. I did not offer it as proof of anything.
Passerbye, you wade into a debate forum as an ID advocate, propagate a pro-ID distortion that you took no time to verify, and then say: "Well, gee, folks. I did not offer it as proof of anything." Your audience deserves greater respect.
 

Passerbye

Member
Passerbye, you wade into a debate forum as an ID advocate
Correct
propagate a pro-ID distortion that you took no time to verify"
I took some time to look up the person that was quoted, the number in the quote, and some other parts of it that might be relevent, even including variables that could effect the search. I could not find anything else on it, so I simply posted it here to see what was thought of it.

and then say: "Well, gee, folks. I did not offer it as proof of anything."
I would not go so far as to say I have "proof" of anything. I simply posted some information from a site. Would that be considered proof? No, just statements. I probably should have posted it on another part of this site first so that it would be cleared up without being posted for this discussion. I am not trying to propagate incorect information. I am simply trying to clear things up. Unless something is brought up how is it supose to be cleared up? I posted the information from a questionable site. The information it self was questionable. So... I questioned you about it. Is that wrong?
Your audience deserves greater respect.
I respect my audience enough to know that they will be able to clear up incorect data. I would not dare post a lie here if I knew that is what it was. I am sorry if it sounded like I was trying to misinform anyone, or brodcast a lie.
 

Tawn

Active Member
Passerbye said:
I probably should have posted it on another part of this site first so that it would be cleared up without being posted for this discussion. I am not trying to propagate incorect information. I am simply trying to clear things up.
I think you probably should have.
Placing links in the middle of a heated debate which you arent sure bear relevance to isnt exactly helpful towards clearing things up.. its going to be assumed to be an argument you are putting forth.
If you find an interesting article, create a new thread to discuss it... (though I suggest you do share your own opinions.. I can post links to interesting things ad infinitum) then if that thread produces some interesting comments and statements which you agree with, use them here by all means. Just be prepared to defend them. :)
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Passerbye said:
I am sorry if it sounded like I was trying to misinform anyone, or brodcast a lie.
I don't think you were attempting any such thing, nor do I think you sounded as if you were attempting any such thing. On the other hand, it is outrageous to suggest that you were not offering the quote as support for your position. Enough said ...

With regards to the topic at hand, could you suggest your criteria for distinguishing between Intelligent Design and unintelligent design?
 
Top