Critique of Intelligent Design

[damocles]

___I beg to differ; everything is representable by crytalline geometry.Structure is everything; shape is everything; geometry is everything; relational interconnectedness is everything . Whether your first principle is physical or metaphysical, it has geometry...it has form...it has pattern. The pattern of 'proofs' of the existence of God is the pattern of irreproduceability.

___Here is a suggested experiment: You bring your intelligent creator & a can of gas & I'll bring my fire suit & a can of gas & we'll pour the gas on each other & strike a match. :)

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

1. I agree about geometry.

2. I think of monomers as "plastics", not as rigid as crystallline solids. so maybe my definition is a tad different when it comes to "plastic?"

 

monomer;

 

 

A single molecule that has the ability to combine with identical or similar molecules, a process also known as polymerization.

 

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0030547.html[

 

One of the things that characterize a monomer that allows it to have the "plastic" property is that it can usually form chains of sub-units instead of stacked three diomensional lattices of subunits(such as you might find in crystals) which causes stranding into polymers-such as DNA/RNA for example.

 

Crystal;

 

 

I know it is a slight distinction in definition, but it is a geometrical one.

 

I am puzzled that you would think I was silly enough to douse myself with gasoline and let myself be set on fire in support of the intelligent design hypothesis.

 

Especially since if I were to test the hypothesis to verify the claims for it, I know I could probably find some other means to test by negation the hypothesis.

 

Results cannot be reported if you kill yourself.

 

I'm on the rational side of that argument, here, I think... :hihi:

 

If you intend to hold the experiment you propose, I will be the one holding the fire extinguisher to put both you and your ID co-experimenter out after you set each other alight. :hyper:

 

Best wishes;

[Turtle]

2. I think of monomers as soluble plastics, not as rigid as crystallline solids. so maybe my definition is a tad different when it comes to "plastic?"

I know it is a slight distinction in definition, but it is a geometrical one.

Best wishes;

 

___Ahhh yes; defining plastic. I accept & understand the definition you adhere to in regard to chemical authorities. Nonetheless, a fire by any other name burns as hot. Got a match? :hihi:

:hyper:

[damocles]

___Ahhh yes; defining plastic. I accept & understand the definition you adhere to in regard to chemical authorities. Nonetheless, a fire by any other name burns as hot. Got a match? :hihi:

:hyper:

 

To be clear;

 

I don't support Intelligent Design as a hypothesis.

 

The burden of proof hasn't even begun to be met by the ID crowd in the form of a defined testable hypothesis beyond the "claim" that the universe is too complex to have formed by itself. There are no tests or observations to which they can point conclusively as evidence of a possible explanation verified by a fail test that the hypothesis has withstood. Nor have they run such a test-ever.

 

I'm one of those malcontents who asks the ID hypothesizers,"Where are the predictive hypothesis' conclusions tested to negation to see if the outcomes were as expected?"

 

I don't smoke.

[Turtle]

I don't smoke.

___My bad. :hihi: I concur with your conclusion finding it material, germain, & cogent in its aspects; everything is copasetic & the geese are flying at a resonable altitude. If I were drinking I might say ID is an oxymoron, however I'll go with the more reserved observation...no wait, I am drinking. Cigarette? :hyper: I have the matches. :)

[Turtle]

I am puzzled that you would think I was silly enough to douse myself with gasoline and let myself be set on fire in support of the intelligent design hypothesis.

 

___Merely a 'Gedanken' experiment. :surprise:

___I noticed that the illustration of a crystal lattice in post #18 appears cubic; without supporting memebers such a lattice is flexible/foldable. Much like ID, it only appears stable. :surprise:

[damocles]

___Merely a 'Gedanken' experiment. :confused:

___I noticed that the illustration of a crystal lattice in post #18 appears cubic; without supporting memebers such a lattice is flexible/foldable. Much like ID, it only appears stable. :surprise:

 

I just looked at it. You are correct.

 

Further proof of the polymorphism(flexibility) of crystalline structure can be found here.

 

http://www.accelrys.com/reference/cases/studies/an_ccdc.html

 

The subject molecular models tested were "organic" by the way.

 

And as you know(much better than I); there are more than one type of molecular lattice arrangement that results in crystals as seen in the models illustrated at the following link;(It depends on the "geometry" of "angle" of the chemical bonds. :confused: )

 

http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/lattice/lattice.html

 

Best wishes.

[questor]

if life started by abiogenesis and arose from a primordial soup, why do we have no evidence of new forms of life coming on board? have we lost the soup? when did we have the last specific creature appear, and why do we not have new ones constantly being formed?

[damocles]

if life started by abiogenesis and arose from a primordial soup, why do we have no evidence of new forms of life coming on board? have we lost the soup? when did we have the last specific creature appear, and why do we not have new ones constantly being formed?

 

1. Original conditions have ceased on Earth for which original amino acid and assorted protein molecule formation occurs.

2. Current life is intrinsically hostile to evidence of abiogenesis since that abiogenefied product is FOOD for the rest of us.

 

Best wishes.

[TRoutMac]

1. Original conditions have ceased on Earth for which original amino acid and assorted protein molecule formation occurs.

2. Current life is intrinsically hostile to evidence of abiogenesis since that abiogenefied product is FOOD for the rest of us.

 

Well, that's mighty convenient, isn't it? Structure the "theory" so that it cannot be tested. I thought you were the one that's big on testing things and not letting assumptions replace empirical observation and testing. Now, suddenly, you're okay with just taking someone's word for it.

 

If those conditions favorable for such fairy tales never existed during a time during which humans were present to test them, then how do we know (that means empirically, no assumptions, no extrapolations) that it ever existed or that those conditions, if they existed at all, were ever able to produce life?

 

Secondly, what's holding up the turtle? In other words, where did the primodial soup come from?

[questor]

Damocles, i think you just generated a pile of B.S. SHAME ON YOU!

[C1ay]

if life started by abiogenesis and arose from a primordial soup, why do we have no evidence of new forms of life coming on board? have we lost the soup? when did we have the last specific creature appear, and why do we not have new ones constantly being formed?

Can you prove there are no new lifeforms coming on board? We keep finding life in the strangest places and maybe some of it has no genetic pedigree that we know of. In short there are no absolute answers to your questions. Science is looking for them. Some may never be answered. You can bet though that science will keep looking for them.

[C1ay]

1. Original conditions have ceased on Earth for which original amino acid and assorted protein molecule formation occurs.

2. Current life is intrinsically hostile to evidence of abiogenesis since that abiogenefied product is FOOD for the rest of us.

 

Best wishes.

Or maybe the conditions never existed on Earth in the first place. Maybe life on Earth is the result of panspermia...

[TRoutMac]

Or maybe the conditions never existed on Earth in the first place. Maybe life on Earth is the result of panspermia...

 

Or, maybe it's "turtles all the way down".

 

It astounds me that such intelligent people can't see the abject futility of always handing the problem off to yet another "turtle". (as in "panspermia")

 

If your "natural explanation" that microorganisms or chemical precursors present in space were able to initiate life (the natural phenomenon being explained) on this planet, then suddenly the microorganisms and chemical precursors become the natural phenomenon that needs a natural explanation. And on it goes… and you're all quite satisfied with that "snipe hunt".

 

Simply amazing.

[C1ay]

Or, maybe it's "turtles all the way down".

 

It astounds me that such intelligent people can't see the abject futility of always handing the problem off to yet another "turtle". (as in "panspermia")

 

If your "natural explanation" that microorganisms or chemical precursors present in space were able to initiate life (the natural phenomenon being explained) on this planet, then suddenly the microorganisms and chemical precursors become the natural phenomenon that needs a natural explanation. And on it goes… and you're all quite satisfied with that "snipe hunt".

No, there are some that are actually open minded enough to realize the possibilities are endless on how life began and that no one has the answer.

 

Then there are the close minded with the tunnel vision that only their view can be the right one and everyone else is wrong. They can't prove it but everyone is just supposed to accept it as the gospel truth anyhow.

 

There is no evidence to conclude that any theory is the one and only theory at this point and open minded scientists know that. Are you one of them?

[questor]

did we need the soup, or did we need the'' panspermia'' ? this of course indicates life existed somewhere else in the universe and fertilized our ''soup''. since life here is so fragile, how did the sperm survive their light years of passage or the heat of penetrating our atmosphere? if the DNA came with the panspermia, wherever it came from only had one celled organisms.

[C1ay]

did we need the soup, or did we need the'' panspermia'' ? this of course indicates life existed somewhere else in the universe and fertilized our ''soup''. since life here is so fragile, how did the sperm survive their light years of passage or the heat of penetrating our atmosphere? if the DNA came with the panspermia, wherever it came from only had one celled organisms.

Recently microbes have been awoken after more than 30,000 years of sleep in the deep freeze of the north. We cannot rule out a tranference of life or the materials of life from afar. It is also possible that this occured prior to the conditions presented by the atmosphere we have today. Then again, some would likely claim that our planet was seeded with life from afar by other intelligent life. Who knows, maybe they're right...

[damocles]

questor

 

Damocles, i think you just generated a pile of B.S. SHAME ON YOU!

 

You asked a sensible question. I gave you a sensible evidence grounded answer.If you don't like it. I suggest you explain why instead of resorting to the response you gave.

 

Well, that's mighty convenient, isn't it? Structure the "theory" so that it cannot be tested. I thought you were the one that's big on testing things and not letting assumptions replace empirical observation and testing. Now, suddenly, you're okay with just taking someone's word for it.

 

<snip>

 

That is supposed to be a serious rebuttal?(derision)

 

Actual conditions present now are not convenient to observe abiogenesis in situ here on Earth. (the protoatmosphere has long since changed due to life. One more evidence datum of the time needed for life to affect its surroundings.)

 

How do yoiu test for conditions like those in the interior of the sun? Or on Mars? Or for high energy particle collisions where you need bubble chambers to photograqph the collisions to see if the tracks match theoretical predictions? The same way you test for the proto atmosphere conditions that lead to life. You model the conditions!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

 

Paleoclimatology is the study of climate change taken on the scale of the entire history of the earth.(Read the rest.....D.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

 

The Miller-Urey experiment (or Urey-Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth and tested for the occurrence of chemical evolution (the Oparin and Haldane hypothesis stated that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors; the Miller-Urey tested this hypothesis). The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.(Read the rest.....D)

 

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2005/156.html

 

CU Study Shows Early Earth Atmosphere Hydrogen-Rich, Favorable To Life

April 6, 2005

 

Note to Editors: Contents embargoed until 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, April 7.

 

A new University of Colorado at Boulder study indicates Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.

 

Published in the April 7 issue of Science Express, the online edition of Science Magazine, the study concludes traditional models estimating hydrogen escape from Earth's atmosphere several billions of years ago are flawed. The new study indicates up to 40 percent of the early atmosphere was hydrogen, implying a more favorable climate for the production of pre-biotic organic compounds like amino acids, and ultimately, life. (Read the rest....D.)

 

Don't they(in the schools) teach the scientific method, hands on, anymore? Do students or ANYONE actually anyone as a student take a field problem to which the answer is not automatically supplied as the expected result and actually go out and INVESTIGATE and then check and see if their results duplicate the (unknown to them at the time of testing) experimental result that they test to verify?

 

I rememmber learnining doing this in simple mechanics, chemistry, biology, my mathematics courses, the physics courses I had and I WAS A SCHMUCK student. Simple educated man. Not a scientist to be sure, but I was educated to solve problems by asking questions and testing my results and comparing results with my peers to cross check for mistakes in observation and errors in my methodology. I certainly didn't resent it when I was proved wrong and I was shown the source of my error by evidence.

 

Tantrums don't lead to the truth.

Blissful ignorance doesn't lead to the truth.

 

Maybe better men than me lead the way into the unknown. But I have sufficient skill to see BS when I read it or see it. That some cannot see that the Earth we have now is not the Earth that was, has never seen a volcanoe up close, never learned the photosynthesis cycle or even such simple chemistry as carbon/hydrogen based polymerization.

 

Such ignorance is simply shocking and makes me fear for the stupidity(yes stupidity) of those people; who will be asked to deal with the future ecological impact humans wil have as our induced chemistry subtly alters basic atmospheric gas ratios, as we pump heat into the atmosphere, from our thermal differential energy systems and as we refine more and more poisonous elements out of their trapped minerological states.

 

If you want a nature made laboratory to se if CHON polymerization is possible, may I suggest IO and TITAN if you don't want to build gas chambers to model the geologically supplied evidence here on Earth of past atmospheric gas mixes??

 

As for the emotional commentary in the rebuttals?(contempt)