Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

**jah_yout** · 09-24-2010, 11:29 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let's stick with the supposition that there are irreducibly complex structures, from which we must necessarily infer design.

please name one. </div></div>

i don't understand your question...what type of structures do you speak of?

living or non-living?

**rudemonk** · 09-25-2010, 12:32 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let's stick with the supposition that there are irreducibly complex structures, from which we must necessarily infer design.

please name one. </div></div>

i don't understand your question...what type of structures do you speak of?

living or non-living? </div></div>

well you can submit any example that necessarily infers it could only be created by God.

since we're discussing evolution, i would like to see some biologic structure which definitely could ONLY have come to exist due to a divine creator having designed it.

should be simple, if evolution is not true, there must be countless examples you can present.

on top of that, it would be great if you could explain the process by which they achieved their position from long ago to now.

**jah_yout** · 09-25-2010, 03:09 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well you can submit any example that necessarily infers it could only be created by God.
</div></div>

'god' is a tricky word...let's go with 'intelligent design' for right now whenever dealing with the concept of a creator or fashioner---designer---manipulator..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since we're discussing evolution, i would like to see some biologic structure which definitely could ONLY have come to exist due to a divine creator having designed it.
</div></div>

this is subjective since no one knows how it all came into existence...we simply use whatever information is available and make educated guesses...
but i would point to the basic unit of life- the cell---and i would point to the dna molecule as examples so unimaginably complex that their origin boggles the mind; the probability that these things developed on their own out of pure chance is a huge stretch for my imagination...
they are infinitely more advanced than any computer humans have ever created...a cell is microscopic yet is run like a factory...
"if you could unwrap all the dna you have in your cells you could reach the moon 6,000 times"....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">should be simple, if evolution is not true, there must be countless examples you can present.</div></div>

i won't need countless examples...the cell is enough; until they can produce a cell (proof), their stories about 'evolution' are just glorified theories...'evolution' is a broad word but it usually accompanies a theory that life came about by a remarkable accident/ coincidence...
in my opinion i am not willing to accept that the super complex cell & gene structure came about by accident...an intelligent fashioning seems more plausible---keeping in mind that i do not have the answer & i do not have proof (nor does anyone else)...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on top of that, it would be great if you could explain the process by which they achieved their position from long ago to now.</div></div>

i think the idea that all living creatures had a common ancestor that divided & mutated into completely different life forms is questionable...
it would be impossible to say how they achieved their position from long ago since i believe the answer to all questions on that is---- <span style="font-style: italic">how exactly did life begin.</span>..
this will answer the question of how all life forms developed..
until then, every single person is only offering guesses...educated or otherwise

**rudemonk** · 09-25-2010, 05:13 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well you can submit any example that necessarily infers it could only be created by God.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
'god' is a tricky word...let's go with 'intelligent design' for right now whenever dealing with the concept of a creator or fashioner---designer---manipulator..
</div></div>

whatever. so i take it then you would be comfortable with the idea of aliens having created life.

let's simply grant that supposition. so what created them. according to your logic, we can't even infer design because we don't know the origin.

you don't know what created that which created life, but you assume that everything we see must be created by something intelligent. how does this follow, considering that your issue with evolution is that it doesn't tell us how life began.

now please look at your statements. You can't imagine. Unimaginable.

Actually these things which you find unimaginable don't need to be imagined, because we can make predictions off of observations, run experiments and make tests, and we can see how- we can't say yet definitely- but we can see how it might be plausible for simple cell structures over time to become more complicated and self replicate and for that to happen spontaneously.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since we're discussing evolution, i would like to see some biologic structure which definitely could ONLY have come to exist due to a divine creator having designed it.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
this is subjective since no one knows how it all came into existence...we simply use whatever information is available and make educated guesses...</div></div>

okay so please educate your guess!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
but i would point to the basic unit of life- the cell---and i would point to the dna molecule as examples so unimaginably complex that their origin boggles the mind; the probability that these things developed on their own out of pure chance is a huge stretch for my imagination...
they are infinitely more advanced than any computer humans have ever created...a cell is microscopic yet is run like a factory...
</div></div>

can you provide me with concrete evidence that a cell is more advanced than any computer and how you are judging what is advanced?

also, what are the odds? do you believe that say, a cell of today is as complicated as it was when cells first came to be?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"if you could unwrap all the dna you have in your cells you could reach the moon 6,000 times"....
</div></div>

if i put 6000 pieces of spaghetti end to end they reach L.A. I actually have no idea, but this shows that what you have is something interesting to be sure, but in the end, so what. it says a lot about nothing when you get right down to it, it's simply an appeal to awe and wonder. Like a cro mag having fire and neanderthal a bone weapon.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">should be simple, if evolution is not true, there must be countless examples you can present.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i won't need countless examples...the cell is enough; until they can produce a cell (proof), their stories about 'evolution' are just glorified theories...'evolution' is a broad word but it usually accompanies a theory that life came about by a remarkable accident/ coincidence...
</div></div>

So what? I mean besides that you don't want to accept the very real possibility that it was chance. What if they do produce abiogenesis. What will you say then.

what if I told you that scientists have recreated a DNA structure, an entire genome out of lab chemicals. And it works. Maybe even goes to the moon 6000 times and back.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in my opinion i am not willing to accept that the super complex cell & gene structure came about by accident...an intelligent fashioning seems more plausible---keeping in mind that i do not have the answer & i do not have proof (nor does anyone else)...
</div></div>

Why does the cell start as something super complex?

Why can't it have gotten that way from simpler forms?

Do you have any evidence that cells were super complex? and What do you mean by 'Super Complex'. What does this cell contain?

I ask this because we do have proof that cells became complex over time, and we can show how they may have formed spontaneously while they were not so complex.

From simple semi-permeable membranes right on through.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on top of that, it would be great if you could explain the process by which they achieved their position from long ago to now.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i think the idea that all living creatures had a common ancestor that divided & mutated into completely different life forms is questionable...
</div></div>

Ok, you question evolution as the mechanism for speciation. What do you then propose is the reason why we all have such common traits (many only inheritable) why do we show such an insanely high- i mean you want to use odds, okay let's use them- so why is there sooooooooo much order in the fossil record which clearly shows mutation in forms over time, why would an intelligent designer design things like painful child birth for humans relatively painless for many lower animals, our esophagus, a heart susceptible to issues of disease, birds with flightless wings and about a gazillion other flaws and "stupid" non intelligent design. why would a designer make animals whose sole purpose is to procreate then die. or make a pig whose boar tusk eventually kills it because it keeps growing. what is so intelligent about that, or why design bees with stingers attached to their guts, but wasps can tag you over and over again.

all these questions are answered by evolution being true.

not so much answered by argument to design.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
it would be impossible to say how they achieved their position from long ago since i believe the answer to all questions on that is---- <span style="font-style: italic">how exactly did life begin.</span>..
this will answer the question of how all life forms developed..
until then, every single person is only offering guesses...educated or otherwise </div></div>

again, you are blending. again, you don't know the origin or how the pyramids were made. but you know they were made by men. this is because we have a quality of evidence. we don't need to know their exact means of manufacture to know a lot about them.

if i asked you to right now, make me a wristwratch, and gave you all the pieces you need, you wouldn't have the first idea where to begin or how to proceed. and yet, you know watches tell time, you know they are made up of springs and levers you know all sorts of things. All without knowing the origin. So something's exact origin is not needed to know other things about it. We can make guesses though, as to somethings origin, according to the evidence. And right now, there is little to no evidence for intelligent design. All the evidence stacks that what life we observe is NOT intelligently designed or guided.

What intelligent designer would give a human an ability to regenerate a limb, but then design it so that while we have the gene, we also have a broken switch and can't use it.

What intelligent designer would purposefully include in our genome, incontrovertible evidence we share inherited genetic material with our fellow primates, would they do that for shytes and giggles? An epic prank? That is what you are actually asking someone to believe.

I hope I have shown you that you really need to stop saying that we have to know the origin of life before we can prove how life speciated and use evolution to do things in our real world. Because we ARE using what we have found out about evolution to DO things in our real world. And if evolution were not true, many aspects of our modern world, many of our advances, would not be here.

**jah_yout** · 09-29-2010, 05:54 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=monk]well you can submit any example that necessarily infers it could only be created by God.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
'god' is a tricky word...let's go with 'intelligent design' for right now whenever dealing with the concept of a creator or fashioner---designer---manipulator..
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">whatever. so i take it then you would be comfortable with the idea of aliens having created life.</div></div>

if by 'alien' you mean some force not originally from this globe known as earth - then yes...it is entirely possible

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">let's simply grant that supposition. so what created them. according to your logic, we can't even infer design because we don't know the origin.</div></div>

we don't know what would have ushered them into being...
the universe is beyond our present comprehension...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you don't know what created that which created life, but you assume that everything we see must be created by something intelligent. </div></div>

i have not assumed anything...i have never stated that 'everything we see' was intelligent design...i am going from experience & intelligence..i have never known any complex departmentalized intelligent operating system such as living organisms to appear out of thin air or from mishmosh raw materials...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how does this follow, considering that your issue with evolution is that it doesn't tell us how life began.</div></div>

the difference is that i don't purport to know how life began, while another set claim they know how life began...well not exactly how it began, but they are sure chemicals & substances received a catalyst that caused them to "come alive" due to a spectacular spark which caused the first cell to "form"...this force then went about expanding from there into more & more complex organisms...
they even make it seem like once this force came into being, it voluntarily adapted to conditions & altered its makeup according to these conditions...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">now please look at your statements. You can't imagine. Unimaginable.

Actually these things which you find unimaginable don't need to be imagined, because we can make predictions off of observations, run experiments and make tests, and we can see how- we can't say yet definitely- but we can see how it <span style="font-weight: bold">might be plausible</span> for simple cell structures over time to become more complicated and self replicate and for that to happen spontaneously.</div></div>

yes those words again- 'might'...'plausible'...
well they can run a million tests...until they can reproduce a working cell from the elements available in the universe, then they certainly don't have any proof of anything...yet their main argument against creationists is that they can't prove it...seems to me they are in the same boat...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since we're discussing evolution, i would like to see some biologic structure which definitely could ONLY have come to exist due to a divine creator having designed it.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
this is subjective since no one knows how it all came into existence...we simply use whatever information is available and make educated guesses...</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">okay so please educate your guess!!</div></div>!

i have a few theories myself-- but they are only theories; we are still a ways off from attaining the knowledge of life; i would not be so arrogant as to claim i know the source of the life force...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
but i would point to the basic unit of life- the cell---and i would point to the dna molecule as examples so unimaginably complex that their origin boggles the mind; the probability that these things developed on their own out of pure chance is a huge stretch for my imagination...
they are infinitely more advanced than any computer humans have ever created...a cell is microscopic yet is run like a factory...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">can you provide me with concrete evidence that a cell is more advanced than any computer and how you are judging what is advanced?</div></div>

although the cell & the computer are very similar in their functions, the cell is more advanced than any computer simply by means of its size- it does all this while being microscopic in size; and it is superior to any computer in that it can reproduce itself independently...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">also, what are the odds? do you believe that say, a cell of today is as complicated as it was when cells first came to be?</div></div>

there is no difference between a cell of today and a cell from the beginning of life;
there are still amoebas in existence all the way up to human beings & other complicated organisms with trillions of cells

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"if you could unwrap all the dna you have in your cells you could reach the moon 6,000 times"....
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if i put 6000 pieces of spaghetti end to end they reach L.A. I actually have no idea, but this shows that what you have is something interesting to be sure, but in the end, so what. it says a lot about nothing when you get right down to it, it's simply an appeal to awe and wonder. Like a cro mag having fire and neanderthal a bone weapon.</div></div>

aaah but genes are far more complicated than spaghetti...
is it not amazing how these little genes can give the instruction to sculpt your facial flesh & bones to look exactly like your parents?
wow- this little gene a master sculptor...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">should be simple, if evolution is not true, there must be countless examples you can present.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i won't need countless examples...the cell is enough; until they can produce a cell (proof), their stories about 'evolution' are just glorified theories...'evolution' is a broad word but it usually accompanies a theory that life came about by a remarkable accident/ coincidence...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what? I mean besides that you don't want to accept the very real possibility that it was chance. What if they do produce abiogenesis. What will you say then.</div></div>

i accept any possibility...i just accept chance-origins as the least likely of all possible explanations

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what if I told you that scientists have recreated a DNA structure, an entire genome out of lab chemicals. And it works. Maybe even goes to the moon 6000 times and back.</div></div>

i would say "so what"?
until they can produce a working cell it is meaningless...all the materials of life are all around us...but to put it all together into one working cell-- well that has not been done--that is the key; if they do that i will bow and salute..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
in my opinion i am not willing to accept that the super complex cell & gene structure came about by accident...an intelligent fashioning seems more plausible---keeping in mind that i do not have the answer & i do not have proof (nor does anyone else)...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does the cell start as something super complex?

Why can't it have gotten that way from simpler forms?</div></div>

well we don't know how it started- this is the great riddle---considering how all the parts of the cell function it would be interesting to know how all these parts came together & decided who-what would perform each function-- it's like a little town;
it's design is rather intelligent if i do say so myself...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you have any evidence that cells were super complex? and What do you mean by 'Super Complex'. What does this cell contain?</div></div>

The Nucleus
The nucleus is the control center of the cell and dictates what all of the other organelles do. The nucleus also stores the DNA.
Endoplasmic Reticulum
The endoplasmic reticulum is where most chemical reactions take place. The cell makes lipids and other chemicals, and it sometimes has ribosomes attached.
Ribosomes
Ribosomes are the only organelle that every cell has, including bacteria. Ribosomes take information from the DNA and use it to make proteins.
Golgi Apparatus
The golgi apparatus is essential in packaging different products from the endoplasmic reticulum and the ribosomes into their final form. If a product needs to be sent to other cells, the golgi apparatus packs it and sends it out.
Mitochondria
Mitochondria are often referred to as the powerhouses of the cell. Mitochondria take in sugar and create ATP, the type of energy your cells need to function.
Plasma Membrane
The plasma membrane, or cell membrane, is not just the covering of the cell. It also plays a vital role in getting nutrients into the cell and sending waste products out.

Read more: List of Cell Organelles & Their Functions | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5340983_li...#ixzz10x1LDOXf

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I ask this because we do have proof that cells became complex over time, and we can show how they may have formed spontaneously while they were not so complex.

From simple semi-permeable membranes right on through.</div></div>

well if they were not so complex, all i ask them to do is produce one--
it should be easy by the way you describe it; if they can produce a cell then i will take their word for it about how easy it all is..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: monk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">on top of that, it would be great if you could explain the process by which they achieved their position from long ago to now.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i think the idea that all living creatures had a common ancestor that divided & mutated into completely different life forms is questionable...
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, you question evolution as the mechanism for speciation. What do you then propose is the reason why we all have such common traits (many only inheritable) why do we show such an insanely high-</div></div>

what do you mean by "we all"?
do you mean we humans or we animals (humans & animals alike)...
if you mean humans- well we are the same species so we will be very similar-- and we can reproduce with any other human;
if you mean the similarity between humans & animals--- animal life has a certain design to it...just like motor vehicles have a certain design...
this does not mean or imply that one organism became different species anymore than a model-t ford became a space ship...a manufacturer can produce an aircraft in one area and a bus in another...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i mean you want to use odds, okay let's use them- so why is there sooooooooo much order in the fossil record which clearly shows mutation in forms over time,</div></div>

says you;
i have seen no fossils that have convinced me of darwin's theory...if there are so many why have i not seen any good ones? what i have seen are now-extinct animals & apes---none a clear intermediate breed...
and by theory i would not need to see fossils; there should be countless living things in
transition, including apes...they should be everywhere...with intact observable transitional organs to match

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">would an intelligent designer design things like painful child birth for humans relatively painless for many lower animals, our esophagus, a heart susceptible to issues of disease, birds with flightless wings and about a gazillion other flaws and "stupid" non intelligent design. why would a designer make animals whose sole purpose is to procreate then die. or make a pig whose boar tusk eventually kills it because it keeps growing. what is so intelligent about that, or why design bees with stingers attached to their guts, but wasps can tag you over and over again.

all these questions are answered by evolution being true.

not so much answered by argument to design.</div></div>

i would not call the design unintelligent unless i could duplicate it and also improve on it...
if it is not intelligent, yet i am unable make one-- then what does that make me?
yep- less than unintelligent...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
it would be impossible to say how they achieved their position from long ago since i believe the answer to all questions on that is---- <span style="font-style: italic">how exactly did life begin.</span>..
this will answer the question of how all life forms developed..
until then, every single person is only offering guesses...educated or otherwise </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">again, you are blending. again, you don't know the origin or how the pyramids were made. but you know they were made by men. this is because we have a quality of evidence. we don't need to know their exact means of manufacture to know a lot about them.</div></div>

you have stated many times that you do not know how life originated...so we are in the same boat

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">if i asked you to right now, make me a wristwratch, and gave you all the pieces you need, you wouldn't have the first idea where to begin or how to proceed. and yet, you know watches tell time, you know they are made up of springs and levers you know all sorts of things. All without knowing the origin.</div></div>

yes but life is infinitely more complex than a wristwatch;
yet i could not put a wristwatch together without expert training & knowledge;
and even then i would not be able to create a wristwatch that can reproduce itself..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So something's exact origin is not needed to know other things about it. We can make guesses though, as to somethings origin, according to the evidence. And right now, there is little to no evidence for intelligent design. All the evidence stacks that what life we observe is NOT intelligently designed or guided. </div></div>

the evidence as you see it...i see it completely differently--- i see it as all evidence points to life as we see it was NOT the result of blind chance...
life is not a "thing"...
it is a force that defies your knowledge or neat explanations...
life is no wristwatch or stone pyramid...
it is on a whole other pay scale

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What intelligent designer would give a human an ability to regenerate a limb, but then design it so that while we have the gene, we also have a broken switch and can't use it.</div></div>

but you guys describe evolution as if it is voluntary...
so why after all these millions of years have we not evolved that useful trait?
if fish could walk out of the water & gain lungs, why are we humans- so much more complex- not able to trigger our limb regrowth gene?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What intelligent designer would purposefully include in our genome, incontrovertible evidence we share inherited genetic material with our fellow primates, would they do that for shytes and giggles? An epic prank? That is what you are actually asking someone to believe.</div></div>

evolutionists are mesmerized by the existence of primates...they think our resemblance to apes somehow means that we have a common ancestry---
but we share genome with many other animals as well--and even plants;

i consider that a faulty argument because it assumes similarity in biological creatures implies common ancestry which is simply a flawed argument...you can apply that same argument to evolution theory...it says we are related to fish & bacteria as well- not just apes

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope I have shown you that you really need to stop saying that we have to know the origin of life before we can prove how life speciated and use evolution to do things in our real world. Because we ARE using what we have found out about evolution to DO things in our real world. And if evolution were not true, many aspects of our modern world, many of our advances, would not be here. </div></div>

it's ying & yang because you have shown me no proof of evolution..
you stating repeatedly that these things are 'fact' does not make them true...
you claim irrefutable truth yet you admit ignorance on the origin...i maintain my stance that it is necessary to know how the first life came into being & what its form was before we can go validating a theory as outrageous as darwin's...

even on scientific basis your arguments fall flat-- since proof is the only way to present a theory as fact, evolutionists are unable to prove that life appeared spontaneously unless they can produce life from the raw materials which are necessary for life...

i don't claim creation or intelligent design to be irrefutable fact...
but you are way over your head claiming evolution to be unchallengeable fact...

**f0rTyLeGz** · 10-01-2010, 01:17 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

In natural science, <span style="font-weight: bold">abiogenesis</span> (pronounced AY-bye-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Link
.................................................. .................................

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

<span style="font-style: italic">At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. </span>At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Citations: Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.

“Systems chemistry on early Earth.” By Jack W. Szostak. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009. Link

**johnnycakes** · 10-05-2010, 10:34 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Fact: Humans share 25% of their genetic structure with BANANAS.
So the big guy in the sky evidently had some bugs to work out before he came up with humans. That would account for Adam on the sixth day no doubt.
Some of the arguments put out by creationists/intelligent design believers indicates to me that many of us are still a little bananas.

Monk,
Thanks for all your intelligently designed posts on the subject.
I wouldn't have the patience (or your knowledge ) you have to argue with creationists.

**jah_yout** · 10-06-2010, 12:59 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact: Humans share 25% of their genetic structure with BANANAS. </div></div>

does that mean that a creator would have had to make sure that we shared no genetic material with any other substance on earth or in the universe to be efficient?
a car and a spacecraft share metal, rubber, glass, plastic & other things in common...
this only proves that certain elements & compounds are more suitable for certain creations...it does not imply they were built on the same assembly line or at the same time..nor that these things just appeared out of disorder & evolved into order spontaneously...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the big guy in the sky evidently had some bugs to work out before he came up with humans. That would account for Adam on the sixth day no doubt.</div></div>

you are making an argument based on an assumption of 'a creator' & dismissal of the genesis biblical creation story...i also dismiss that story as being literal, so the bible is not relevant to every opposition to darwinian theory

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of the arguments put out by creationists/intelligent design believers indicates to me that many of us are still a little bananas.</div></div>

the theories put forth by darwinists prove we are still fish..in the sense that we are creating fantastic stories to explain how we got here-- this is no different than the religious tales...you simply believe something & have faith that it is so...you are actually every bit as religious as a biblist; you have no clue how life got here but have faith in a theory that has not been proven; fantastic stories about bacteria changing into fish becoming animals becoming human

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Monk,
Thanks for all your intelligently designed posts on the subject.
I wouldn't have the patience (or your knowledge ) you have to argue with creationists.
</div></div>

i have seen no definitive knowledge...
evolutionists can not prove their hypothesis yet claim it to be 'fact'...since when can there be 'fact' which is not proven...& since you consider your take on it to be the correct one- where are your facts to support your view?
any absence of that is simply faith-- you are more religious than you realized

**jah_yout** · 10-06-2010, 01:01 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In natural science, <span style="font-weight: bold">abiogenesis</span> (pronounced AY-bye-oh-JEN-&#601;-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Link
.................................................. .................................

A fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth has been replicated in a laboratory.

Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA, a molecule from which the simplest self-replicating structures are made. Until now, they couldn’t explain how these ingredients might have formed.

“It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior,” said organic chemist John Sutherland of the University of Manchester, co-author of a study in Nature Wednesday.

RNA is now found in living cells, where it carries information between genes and protein-manufacturing cellular components. Scientists think RNA existed early in Earth’s history, providing a necessary intermediate platform between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA, its double-stranded, more-stable descendant.

However, though researchers have been able to show how RNA’s component molecules, called ribonucleotides, could assemble into RNA, their many attempts to synthesize these ribonucleotides have failed. No matter how they combined the ingredients — a sugar, a phosphate, and one of four different nitrogenous molecules, or nucleobases — ribonucleotides just wouldn’t form.

Sutherland’s team took a different approach in what Harvard molecular biologist Jack Szostak called a “synthetic tour de force” in an accompanying commentary in Nature.

“By changing the way we mix the ingredients together, we managed to make ribonucleotides,” said Sutherland. “The chemistry works very effectively from simple precursors, and the conditions required are not distinct from what one might imagine took place on the early Earth.”

Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherland’s team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earth’s primordial ooze.

They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

<span style="font-style: italic">At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. </span>At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials.<span style="font-weight: bold"> And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”</span>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

</div></div>

amusing really;
they are bursting their brains trying to reconstruct the genesis of life-- they have been unsuccesful; yet they claim it is not intelligent-- what does that make them?

answer: buffoons

**jah_yout** · 10-06-2010, 01:30 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

the smallest unit of life- the cell- has digital coding transcription--extreme intelligence;

i need an abiogenesis to evolution subscriber to explain to me how materials managed to come together to form this entity;
if it came about by blind chance they should be able with their intelligence, to reproduce whatever chance occurence created these little factories which make up life

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fiJupfbSpg&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1fiJupfbSpg&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

**jah_yout** · 10-06-2010, 01:40 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

they say this is un-intelligent origin?

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4PKjF7OumYo&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4PKjF7OumYo&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

**Wahalla** · 10-06-2010, 01:45 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

ah wish mi did ha dat when mi did ah learn microbiology.. dat is some powerful informatiuon....

**f0rTyLeGz** · 10-06-2010, 07:16 PM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">amusing really;
they are bursting their brains trying to reconstruct the genesis of life-- they have been unsuccesful; yet they claim it is not intelligent-- what does that make them?

answer: buffoons </div></div>
I see that you believe that the careers of countless thousands of scientists over the last 150 years have been a meaningless waste of time, because they have missed a simple truth that you know. Isn't it possible your insight may have been considered?

**rudemonk** · 10-07-2010, 01:20 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
i have seen no definitive knowledge...
evolutionists can not prove their hypothesis yet claim it to be 'fact'...since when can there be 'fact' which is not proven...& since you consider your take on it to be the correct one- where are your facts to support your view?
any absence of that is simply faith-- you are more religious than you realized </div></div>

actually you have. you have introduced lots of biologic examples and tried to imply how wondrously complex they are, they can't be duplicated by man, etc etc etc, but bredren, EVERY single one I have shown you how man would and has improved on the original to make it better. Like new heart valves grown from stem cells.

Now you are trying to say that there is no evidence that cells <span style="font-style: italic">became</span> more complex over time from more simple structures? REALLY? You haven't seen different cells compared with one another, from simpler, earlier organisms, dating back further, to more recent more complex forms? if what you say is true, we would see examples of the same organisms from the dawn of the record until now. We do not see that though at all. What we DO see, is that older life appears as simpler forms and structures, and while these simple forms remain in existence, enough members of any given population EVOLVE and become more complex.

I mean, I have shown you repeatedly incontrovertible proof of evolution. And I know for a fact that you would rely on the fact of evolution in a heart beat in any number of hypothetical situations despite your protestations or 'belief'.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you right, it just makes you remaining in ignorance. I don't know how many times I have to explain this, but EVERY FOSSIL IS A TRANSITIONAL form. YOU are a transitional form, *I* am a transitional form. You don't see how humans are changing over time? Even amongst modern humans? You can't see any significant changes over time? Really? I think you are being purposefully obtuse JY.

I don't understand how you can look at simple genetic facts of inherited traits- traits which can only be shared through inheritance, and STILL claim you have not seen evidence of evolution.

I mean it is literally like you are jumping up and down and yelling at the top of your lungs that because you have never seen the earth from space, there is NO WAY it can be round. Until YOU see it.

This is an interesting statement:

<span style="font-style: italic">does that mean that a creator would have had to make sure that we shared no genetic material with any other substance on earth or in the universe to be efficient?</span>

Can you please define for us what you think 'intelligent creator' means.

What is the signifier that we have been created intelligently.

Because we have some glaring errors which on their face would show we have been created rather unintelligently and very inefficiently, to use your word.

Can you explain, through your model of intelligent creation, why are we no longer able to regenerate limbs?

I can explain this very easily through evolution, and I am dying to hear your explanation as to why an intelligent creator would give us the same set of genes as frogs but then turn off our protein switch. That would be like building a space ship and including a car with no fuses so that it <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> work, but doesn't. Still, it is part of the spaceship.

So what gives.

**rudemonk** · 10-07-2010, 01:28 AM

Re: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: johnnycakes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fact: Humans share 25% of their genetic structure with BANANAS.
So the big guy in the sky evidently had some bugs to work out before he came up with humans. That would account for Adam on the sixth day no doubt.
Some of the arguments put out by creationists/intelligent design believers indicates to me that many of us are still a little bananas.

Monk,
Thanks for all your intelligently designed posts on the subject.
I wouldn't have the patience (or your knowledge ) you have to argue with creationists.
</div></div>

I try. I try. One day it will sink in and I'll get through to him.

I imagine flat earthers were similar to our friend JY. And when it does finally dawn on him, he'll be greatful.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads