Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Lmao...who made GOD?

I don't know why you are going here. I could just as well ask you what started the Big Bang. Neither can be answered.

When I said beginning, I meant the beginning of organic life. Organic life is composed of mostly six main elements: Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, potassium, oxygen, and sodium, with a smattering of a few other elements in the mix. ( I would add that the formation of carbon in the universe was quite remarkable in itself, but that's another issue).

Now you would agree that atoms are just atoms, right? That they in themselves have no inherent intelligence in them. And it was shown in experiments like the Miller Experiments that certain amino acids could form under certain conditions. But while amino acids form the basis for protein and subsequently DNA, that is as far as those experiments would go, at least for the present time. The problem is that amino acids are step one in a very long process to get to a viable living cell.

Even in the most fundamental and primitive of cells is a complexity that goes far beyond the rutimentary behavior of organic elements and molecules. Just pick up a college biology textbook and you will see a jump from this primordal pool of chemicals to a fully functional, albeit primitive cell.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Lmao...who made GOD?

I don't know why you are going here. I could just as well ask you what started the Big Bang. Neither can be answered.

When I said beginning, I meant the beginning of organic life. Organic life is composed of mostly six main elements: Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, potassium, oxygen, and sodium, with a smattering of a few other elements in the mix. ( I would add that the formation of carbon in the universe was quite remarkable in itself, but that's another issue).

Now you would agree that atoms are just atoms, right? That they in themselves have no inherent intelligence in them. And it was shown in experiments like the Miller Experiments that certain amino acids could form under certain conditions. But while amino acids form the basis for protein and subsequently DNA, that is as far as those experiments would go, at least for the present time. The problem is that amino acids are step one in a very long process to get to a viable living cell.

Even in the most fundamental and primitive of cells is a complexity that goes far beyond the rutimentary behavior of organic elements and molecules. Just pick up a college biology textbook and you will see a fantastical jump from this primordal pool of chemicals to a functional, albeit primitive cell. These cells are extremely complex, like miniature factories. It is organized and efficient. And if that isn't enough, this first cell to supposed to happen spontaneously, not only did so, but at the same time, gave itself the ability to replicate. This against astronomical odds in even forming the basic DNA molecule. Something is missing here.

My question is why and how would atoms and molecules behave far beyond their inorganic properties to form a living cell. Maybe this will be discovered through scientific means. But you have to admit, it is daunting be any stretch of the imagination that mere chemical reactions could produce life.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

...Now you would agree that atoms are just atoms, right? That they in themselves have no inherent intelligence in them...

uh oh, nope, can't agree with that I can't.

[Dondi]

If you are not kidding, wil, can you please explain?

[wil]

I don't believe we know everything we don't know about atoms. While I don't currently believe they think for themselves, I do believe they may be part of a larger thinking machine and their actions are not simply predicated on outside input.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

I don't believe we know everything we don't know about atoms. While I don't currently believe they think for themselves, I do believe they may be part of a larger thinking machine and their actions are not simply predicated on outside input.

But you are making that assertion on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

But you are making that assertion on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.

So, did atoms not exist before we thought they were there?

I was told electrons flew in these little valance circles and the outer electrons were shared. That was a scientific assertion. Now electrons pop in and out of existence, move from one space to another and are shared at various valences.

Did gravity or calculus not exist prior to Newton? Does it act any different now that he 'discovered' it?

Just because I cannot prove something scientifically does that make it not so? And of course it doesn't mean it is so either. Time will tell, but with the whole wave, particle arguments and everything else going round. I believe in time we'll find out that they are part of a bigger picture.

That little 2 gig thumb drive, sure can remember a lot can't it. What would it take 10 years ago to contain the same amount of information, and how long would it take to access it? How about 20, 50, 100 years ago? Did science change? Did reality change? Did philosophy change? Think about it, no moving parts, is it organic? or is the memory stored in and retrieved by atoms?

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by wil

So, did atoms not exist before we thought they were there?

I was told electrons flew in these little valance circles and the outer electrons were shared. That was a scientific assertion. Now electrons pop in and out of existence, move from one space to another and are shared at various valences.

Did gravity or calculus not exist prior to Newton? Does it act any different now that he 'discovered' it?

Just because I cannot prove something scientifically does that make it not so? And of course it doesn't mean it is so either. Time will tell, but with the whole wave, particle arguments and everything else going round. I believe in time we'll find out that they are part of a bigger picture.

That little 2 gig thumb drive, sure can remember a lot can't it. What would it take 10 years ago to contain the same amount of information, and how long would it take to access it? How about 20, 50, 100 years ago? Did science change? Did reality change? Did philosophy change? Think about it, no moving parts, is it organic? or is the memory stored in and retrieved by atoms?

I'm sorry, I think you've misunderstood me, wil. You stated that you believe that atoms are a part of a larger thinking machine. From this I get that there is something esoteric about atoms. But in my response to Tao, I was waiting for something tangable to discuss. You may in fact be right, but how is that demonstated in terms that we can discover?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I'm sorry, I think you've misunderstood me, wil. You stated that you believe that atoms are a part of a larger thinking machine. From this I get that there is something esoteric about atoms. But in my response to Tao, I was waiting for something tangable to discuss. You may in fact be right, but how is that demonstated in terms that we can discover?

No worries Dondi, you are correct, I have nothing tangible, knowledge that exists in this regard may be currently studied contemplated by esoteric groups, scientific, philosophical and spiritual.

Current demonstrations? Prayer changing health, thought cleaning arteries, intention modifying reality.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi guys....are we going there again!!

As Bob pointed out clearly abiogenesis is a separate question to that of evolution and one we discussed at length on the abiogensis thread, so I will leave that alone except to say that it did happen.

But Wil took the tangent of calling into question the essence of atoms and that is one I can pick up and run with. And i suppose in doing it answers the question of abiogenesis. I think unlike Wil, however, I will decline from apportioning any divinity to that which makes atoms "alive". But I do believe every single sub-atomic partical in our universe is in some sense a lot more than we may give credit. And i believe that everyone of them is inter-connected outwith what we would call our standard laws of physics. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into a long discourse on it. And Wil, well i know you know where I will take it. You would ascribe a little more "sentience" than I would to it however.

So instead I will leave you with a question Dondi. What do creationists have to say about Quantum states?

Tao

[Dondi]

Tao,

For some reason I didn't see bob's post. I fail to see how abiogenesis is a separate issue from naturalistic evolution. As bob defines it, the theory of evolution is compatable with the first cell occuring naturally or with some supernatural force. My contention is whether or not it did happen naturally. You might claim that I'm trying to toss the "god of the gaps" into the equation. I'm not really, I'm just trying to establish that something unusual occurred, if indeed the first cell sprang into life through natural means. Nor am I trying to box anyone in a corner and say, "Aha!" But abiogenesis is only scratching the surface in this evolution thing. I'm not so dogmatic in clinging to the biblical model of creation that I won't allow for the possibility that the process occurred as as evolutionist say. But there are just things that cannot be explained by that model as being presented in the schools. There are fundamental flaws that ought to be addressed and not just pumped into the minds of children as if they are bare fact. The political process has stymied even questioning the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by bob x

You reference "fantastic" numbers: these are derived from ludicrous pretenses at calculation based on false assumptions.

See, I'm willing to learn about these false assumptions. If this has been hashed out elsewhere, please direct me to another thread. Or else, point to a reference that explains how these calculations are ludicrous. I'm open to it.

Originally Posted by Tao

But Wil took the tangent of calling into question the essence of atoms and that is one I can pick up and run with. And i suppose in doing it answers the question of abiogenesis. I think unlike Wil, however, I will decline from apportioning any divinity to that which makes atoms "alive". But I do believe every single sub-atomic partical in our universe is in some sense a lot more than we may give credit. And i believe that everyone of them is inter-connected outwith what we would call our standard laws of physics. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into a long discourse on it. And Wil, well i know you know where I will take it. You would ascribe a little more "sentience" than I would to it however.

I'm listening.

Originally Posted by Tao

So instead I will leave you with a question Dondi. What do creationists have to say about Quantum states?

I am familiar with quantum mechanics. I don't know what creationists say in general about it, but I have no objections in exploring any relevant avenues in the current discussion. What is your point on the matter?

[Tao_Equus]

Well if you have an opinion on it then exp-lain "spooky action at a distance", (quantum etanglement), for example in terms of creationist theory. The fact is they have not mentioned it...because they are so busy de-evolving back to primitive concepts.
As for other issues you raise... well I will address certain issues tomorrow, wont have time till then, and I defy you to explain them in creationist terms and make sense. Till then...try not to get too entangled

Tao

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Well if you have an opinion on it then exp-lain "spooky action at a distance", (quantum etanglement), for example in terms of creationist theory. The fact is they have not mentioned it...because they are so busy de-evolving back to primitive concepts.
As for other issues you raise... well I will address certain issues tomorrow, wont have time till then, and I defy you to explain them in creationist terms and make sense. Till then...try not to get too entangled

Tao

I dunno, you're talking particle physics here whem you speak of quantum phenomena. But evolution isn't observable at the quantum level, but at the classical level of physics. Unless you are implying that there is a quantum information exchange at the particle level and thus atoms communicate in this fashion, through non-locality, and therefore are "alive". Perhaps you could clarify what you are getting at. Are you of the CI camp or many-worlds camp?

At least one article from a creationist website seems to favor what's known as the hidden-variables model. I, myself, haven't delved heavily into quantum mechanics, but from what I have read doesn't detract from any views I might have concerning creation or evolution. Actually, the whole quantum thing gives the univesre a profound mystery. If there is an afterlife and a heaven, one would expect it not to be viewable in the dimensions we have. Quantum mechanics at least allows the possibility that we haven't seen everythijg there is to see.

[bob x]

At least one article from a creationist website seems to favor what's known as the hidden-variables model.

Which was proven not to work decades ago.

[China Cat Sunflower]

I like the idea of teaching intelligent design. Find a way to take the creationist propaganda out of it and I'm all for it. Make it about the ergonomics of nature. That would be great.

Chris