or the truth might get in......

[bradleym]

I just find it ironic that you cannot even state the most fundamental principle of the theory that you think is the only possible solution to a given problem.

 

I find it frustrating that people who engage in this issue from the ID side rarely seem to acknowledge the most fundamental recognition that science is a method, not a belief system. ID hucksters place scientists in an impossible position by requiring that they be able to posit an explanation for the entire mechanics of the universe. Scientific endeavor is founded on the assumption that "we don't know, but we have the means to find out". That intelligent designsters are able to point unequivocally to God because "this I believe" or "well, science can't explain it so..." is not a strength. It represents a failure in the desire to push the boundaries of human knowledge using the scientific method already at our disposal and a return to medieval systems of belief to explain the natural world. Not good. That ID seeks to discredit "science" because it can't explain the life in the first instance as it occurred some billions of years ago is patently absurd when human being didn't know what germs were 150 years ago.

 

 

if my post-graduate degrees taught me anything, it is the limits of human perception and the fallibility of human reason. the scientific method was invented as a way to press against those limitations, not in order to present absolute conclusions. there are few 'answers' in the scientific community that are not challenged in some way, which means it is working (as well as anything human can, i suppose). the lack of answers to someone's particular fundamental question is not a liability, and the way certain types frame the 'debate' illustrates that they do not get it.

[mkporwit]

Somewhat apropos given the discussion...

 

[tvashtarkatena]

If the scientific community cannot agree as a whole, I would humbly submit that I do not know.

 

Now, have you had time to formulate your answer as to where and how life began? Or would you rather keep asking diversion questions in the hopes that I might be distracted?

 

Actually, the scientific community has had a working definition for what constitutes being alive for quite some time.

 

You want short answer for a question that doesn't have one. I've asked a basic definitional question (which also doesn't have a short answer, but at least it has one) to assess your ability to meaningfully participate in a useful discussion. Otherwise, why waste our time?

 

Clock's ticking. Quit nickle and diming and poking at it. Either admit you don't know or let's hear the complete answer.

 

1) made of 1 or more cells

2) contain DNA as genetic material

3) respond to stimuli

4) metabolize (take in energy and carbon and make waste)

5) reproduce

6) evolutionary change

1 year ago

Source(s):

"Biology", 5th edition; Campbell, Mitchell and Reece

 

 

Pretty incomplete list, but good enough for discussion purposes. Under this definition, viruses are not alive, yet they are self-replicating organic structures. Nor are organelles, which were separate entities prior to being assimilated into single celled organisms during life's early phase of evolution. And then there's prions.

 

So, given this plethora of sub-cellular entities, isn't the definition of what is 'alive' just a human construct developed for scientific, definitional, organization purposes?

 

Yes. Religion has always bestowed God with the power of giving life, but being 'alive' is a purely human, arbitrary, mechanical and very recent definition that has nothing at all to do with God or religion.

 

Our current definition of 'life' (say, the one you presented...good enough) is just one more step in a continuum of hierarchical, replicating, organic structures that go from amino acids lodged in interstellar amorphous ice using super nova radiation as an energy source to idiots like us who waste their time on the interwebs arguing. There is no 'big magic leap' from what is 'alive', no 'divine spark of life'. After all, the definition of 'alive is ours, not God's.

 

So, how did life evolve? One tiny step at a time. Any undergrad can recreate the interstellar conditions and make their own amino acids. That's probably where the 'organic' part started. Or was it the creation of carbon in the first super novas? Or the Big Bang itself? And now researchers are poised to make cells, that is, 'living' organism, from scratch. Where, exactly, does the magic come in?

 

I think you get the idea by now. We're no different from amino acids, viruses, or cells; we're just bigger, more complex, and more hierarchical organic machines. Hit a virus with a hot enough flame; it stops working. Throw one of us into a bonfire, and we stop working, too.

 

Wonderful? Yes.

 

Mystical? Only if that's what you need to believe for your own reasons.

 

 

 

 

[akhalteke]

Its not magic. Some, not I, believe that God is the one who imposed the laws and limitations to the Universe making live an eventuality. You love making these sweeping generalizations about people. There is a whole spectrum of beliefs from outright evolution, to Pantheism. Gaia, ID, outright creation. Those that claim they know the precise truth in anything are quite mistaken. I would suggest you open your mind and allow others to do the same. You are arrogant and elitist and the jury is still out whether there is cause.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Its not magic. Some, not I, believe that God is the one who imposed the laws and limitations to the Universe making live an eventuality. You love making these sweeping generalizations about people. There is a whole spectrum of beliefs from outright evolution, to Pantheism. Gaia, ID, outright creation. Those that claim they know the precise truth in anything are quite mistaken. I would suggest you open your mind and allow others to do the same. You are arrogant and elitist and the jury is still out whether there is cause.

 

 

 

 

Whatever, AK. You're making up both sides of your argument now, and you're not quite as on it as I thought you might be at first, so I'm done with you.

Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[akhalteke]

Why? Because you don't have me pegged as a bible thumper with no education? OK, have fun man!

[tvashtarkatena]

No, I never assumed anything about you, but your postings, including this last one, have fallen pretty far short of what I thought you might be capable of.

[akhalteke]

So why would you think I was capable of something superior when my postings have been so meager?

[prole]

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs from outright evolution, to Pantheism. Gaia, ID, outright creation. Those that claim they know the precise truth in anything are quite mistaken. I would suggest you open your mind and allow others to do the same. You are arrogant and elitist and the jury is still out whether there is cause.

 

Let's add:

Cthulhu

Witch Dunkers

Hale-Boppers

Scientologists

Manson Family Members

Nazi Occultists

Alchemists

Lyndon LaRouchians

Subgeniuses

Islamic Fundamentalists

What-the-Bleepers

Spanish Inquisitors

Etc.

"It's all the same man. It's like, what I believe". This kind of spiritual relativist attack on the scientific method is just another sign of American decline. Embarrassing horseshit.

 

 

[mtn_mouse]

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs from outright evolution, to Pantheism. Gaia, ID, outright creation. Those that claim they know the precise truth in anything are quite mistaken. I would suggest you open your mind and allow others to do the same. You are arrogant and elitist and the jury is still out whether there is cause.

 

Let's add:

Cthulhu

Witch Dunkers

Hale-Boppers

Scientologists

Manson Family Members

Nazi Occultists

Alchemists

Lyndon LaRouchians

Subgeniuses

Islamic Fundamentalists

What-the-Bleepers

Spanish Inquisitors

Etc.

"It's all the same man. It's like, what I believe". This kind of spiritual relativist attack on the scientific method is just another sign of American decline. Embarrassing horseshit.

 

 

I saw a UFO once, went right over my freakin head.

[RuMR]

Somewhat apropos given the discussion...

already beat you to it...

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I saw a UFO once, went right over my freakin head.

 

Me too!

 

aatjerFCRP8

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Let's add:

Cthulhu

 

Yes, definitely!

 

xisIVhc64Ng

[mtn_mouse]

I saw a UFO once, went right over my freakin head.

 

Me too!

 

aatjerFCRP8

 

Cool, lets start a cult. Who is the leader?-*

[hafilax]

The difficulty in defending Evolution vs. Creationism is that there is a somewhat agreed on version of the theory of evolution whereas the defenders of creationism never really describe their theory in any fashion. I just assume they agree with what can be found at Answers in Genesis. I spent like an hour yesterday reading some of their stuff.

 

It is actually a pretty fair comparison of evolution and creationism in that they describe the assumptions of each. The fundamental differences are twofold IMO. The creationists take the Bible to be an eye witness account of the creation of the earth (which is a leap of faith I will never take). The other major difference (and how they defend the 6,000 year old earth) is what they call uniformism. Evolutionists believe that the age of the earth can be estimated using observed processes of rock formation and metamorphosis such that they are constant through time (uniformism) whereas creationists believe that god caused catastrophic events (such as the great flood) that short circuited the changes in the earth. Again I am a uniformist.

 

I can understand the willing skepticism of the faithful but really it is only faith that can make creationism seem at all logical. This is why all of these arguments are fruitless because you're not going to turn an atheist into a Christian or vice-versa through arguing about evolution. Creationism is very good at pointing out the predictions of Evolution that aren't 100% agreed on but their answer is always "Because that was the way god did it." which is fine for the believer but it doesn't really help the non believer.

 

Personally I think that having whales evolve from a land mammal is far cooler that god putting them in the ocean from the beginning.

 

As for teaching creationism in science class; that would require asserting that the Bible is a factual account of the creation of the earth which is not a part of the scientific method. Why not make it part of Sunday school? I really think that creationism will weaken faith in the long run because it is so far fetched. Come on, man living with dinosaurs? Having gone to church 5 days a week at an Anglican private school I can tell you nothing wrenched Christianity out of my life as effectively as listening to the stories of the Bible every day.

[prole]

That this is still being discussed in the 21st Century is grotesque.

[akhalteke]

That this is still being discussed in the 21st Century is grotesque.

 

That you have dismissed the possibility of the fallibility of the human mind is scary.

[tvashtarkatena]

Creationism also requires either

 

a) an ignorance of the science available or

 

b) an almost herculean disbelief of the science available.

 

Every creationist I've conversed with fell within group 'a'. Even the pro-ID scientists who acted as witnesses during the PA trial were woefully unaware of much of the science that had been done on the subject...at their own peril. Every one of their arguments were blown out of the water by their pro-evolutionist colleagues. It was sad and pathetic to see these researchers, who'd clung to and defended their highly filtered arguments so fiercely, so easily and completely dismantled in such a public way. Their typical behavior after cross examination was to sit quietly, dumbfounded, with nothing much more to say.

[tvashtarkatena]

Creationists have relied on using incomplete scientific sounding 'soundbite' arguments, neglecting, of course, the counter arguments that handily discredit them. This kind of filtering to a rapt, believing audience is an old trick, but it's not science. Within the followership, critical thinking is non-existent, so true peer review simply doesn't happen. It's nothing more than a self-reinforcing call and response cycle that unravels immediately when subjected to true scientific peer review involving 'outsiders', ie, the general scientific community.

[akhalteke]

I disagree and believe that anyone who believes that they "know" beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know exactly what happened and how is:

 

1) A narcissistic fool

 

2) Is afraid that their delicate views of the way things are would be shattered if they were to think for themselves and use all information available to formulate their idea of what life is, what the meaning of it is and why we are here.

 

This goes both ways. There are religious maniacs on both sides of the spectrum. Some religious maniacs choose God and some choose Darwin.

[tvashtarkatena]

One of my recent climbing partners, an Econ professor, recounted my favorite argument for ID, as told by one of his more religious acquaintances. It involved a banana. A banana fits perfectly in the human hand. It's almost a perfect food for humans (great for hangovers, with all that potassium). It comes in its own container, which keeps it fresh until it's ready to be eaten. Clearly, proof of intelligent design.

 

A banana.

 

Nuff said there.

[tvashtarkatena]

During the ID trial in PA, the ID folks' strongest scientific witness presented a molecular diagram of a flagellum, which rotates like a propeller to propel the organism. Truly a remarkable structure; basically a tiny electric motor. His argument was that if any part was missing, the thing wouldn't work; how could it have evolved? Why would nature come up with a simpler version (missing parts) that didn't do anything?

 

Which sounded great, until the evolutionists presented a molecular diagram of the exact same structure, missing one key component so that the whip no longer rotated. It didn't have to; it was an injector for the organism that causes malaria. No rotation required. Apparently, the ID scientist was unaware of it.

 

Oops.

 

That peer review will get you every time. And that's the difference between myths like ID, which are not tested and peer reviewed, and therefore are simply a matter of personal faith, and science. Scientific theories must withstand testing or they do not survive. Myths, protected from scutiny as they are by their adoring followership who, after all, have not interest in counterargument, can go on forever.

Edited September 10, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Some religious maniacs choose God and some choose Darwin.

 

Could you please provide some examples of the latter for our consideration?

[akhalteke]

There is much that surpasses the knowledge of science. There are things which science cannot explain. Maybe when the Particle Accelerator reaches full speed in a few months we'll know more.

 

I just think you are assuming a lot when you place all your stock in one idea; particularly when that idea is not complete.

 

Furthermore, denigrating others for their beliefs is not conducive to teaching them why they are wrong. I have worked with people with extremely different beliefs than I and have witnessed others using your tactics to try and secure victory. You may be right but you will convince no-one. You wonder why people don't adhere to your theory? Probably because pompous people like you are so condescending and rude.

 

Furthermore, countering one piece of evidence of a theory doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the theory. Nor does chit-chat about bananas.

[akhalteke]

Some religious maniacs choose God and some choose Darwin.

 

Could you please provide some examples of the latter for our consideration?

 

Tvash.