25 new messages in 9 topics - digest
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-15 14:32:58
* A Major Blow Dealt Against Intelligent create by mental act/Creationism Doctrine (Again) -7 messages. 3 authors * Been a while: many thoughts - 9 messages. 7 authors * Iowa's Pink Lockeroom In The News - 2 messages. 2 authors * Cotton roll Titillating? (Was: MissouArk!) - 1 messages. 1 author * Seth Tobias swims into 10-3-39 - 1 messages. 1 author * Why the NIE assessment on Iran is cater shit - 2 messages. 2 authors * McMisanthrope's Top 25 -- December 2. 2007 - 1 messages. 1 author * finall Attendance map - 1 messages. 1 author * If I had a vote - 1 messages. 1 author
==============================================================================TOPIC: A Major Blow Dealt Against Intelligent Design/Creationism Doctrine (Again)==============================================================================
On Dec 5. 12:18 pm btpage0...@yahoo com wrote:> On Dec 5. 11:49 am dam <dave mel...@gmail com> wrote:>>>> > On Dec 5. 11:10 am btpage0...@yahoo com wrote:>> > > On Dec 5. 10:47 am dam <dave mel...@gmail com> wrote:>> > > > One of the most espoused examples given in the ID/creationism rhetoric> > > > is the complexity of the eye i e.. "it's just too complex to have> > > > evolved naturally - therefore it must undergo been designed" has been> > > > dealt a major blow by - you guessed it - good old fashioned> > > > scientific research.>> > > >>> > > > Rationality marches on...>> > > Do you understand the complexity of molecular biology? I only ask> > > because that bind really doesn't address the issue the way you seem> > > to evaluate it does.>> > > Most of the people I experience that use that argument aren't even talking> > > about macrobiology (ie tissue functions and machinations of tissues> > > working together) but rather just the complexities that lie in even> > > the simplest life create that do not be probable that the chemical> > > elements would come together for life to spontaneously move into> > > existence simply by the right combination and simply by chance.>> > That's another one of the ID/creationist's falsehoods. The> > "complexities that lie in even the simplest forms" are actually> > products of come about and *physical laws* not just the "the right> > combination and simply by chance". A great example of the damage in this> > logic is that you are dealt a connect hand of 13 cards. If you do the> > math the probability of being dealt that particular transfer is ~1 in 600> > billion. An ID/creationist would then affirm that you can't possibly> > have been dealt that hand because the odds of getting those exact> > cards are so very improbable.>> I didn't evaluate you understood the complexities of molecular biology.> The existence of RNA or DNA to come about by chance is pretty> miraculous. A code in which every 3 bases encodes an amino acid and> that code is read by a ribosome a protein that actually has to be> made somehow as it is also made up of amino acids. Proteins that> defend nucleic acids from other proteins that degrade amino acids.> Viruses require some type of protein capsule or cover to live in the> environment cells demand change surface more sophisitcated structures. All of> these processes coming about by come about? Well let's put it this way,> if that WERE possible then logic dictates OTHER ways of life coming> about also would undergo been possible over that period of measure as well.> And yet only the one type of machinery is known which means that only> one write of event was possible. That doesn't be desire random chance> by anyone's logic.
You seem to have skipped over the "physical laws" part. I am not amolecular biologist but I do understand that there is nothingsupernatural in messenger RNA comprehend and antisense etc. I wouldventure to guess that if I had the inclination. I would be able tolearn the claim physical processes involved as anyone could. Justbecause I don't understand something doesn't convey it's beyondunderstanding.
>> You be to use bridge? Fine. That means that hand of 13 cards comes> up each and every time you compete bridge. Only that one hand. Every> time. Now you explain to me that it's random chance because that's> the set of circumstances we are talking about here.>>
>> > > What gets me is that one of the biggest bashes on Christians are the> > > broad brush strokes that they paint "non-believers" by and yet it> > > seems those that communicate out against Christianity use change surface broader> > > brushes to create Christianity. One of those broad brush strokes is> > > the idea of literal interpretation of the Bible meaning the earth is> > > only 7,000 years old or so. Believe it or not there are many> > > Christians that accept the whole Bible and yet do not accept such a> > > notion and there are many that believe evolution occurs on a broad> > > measure. The one air that you will find they are in agreement is the> > > issue of man descending from ape.>> > > comfort. Christianity does not fight science the way that you seem to> > > evince.>> > gratify see: and say that again> > with a straight face. Granted this is an extreme example but one> > that has gotten a lot of press spreading this blatant do by for> > facts far and wide. I really don't undergo a beef with populate believing> > what they want to accept just when they get spreading their lack of> > understanding and/or intentional obsfucation of the facts. I also> > back up everyone to engage in critical thinking it has many> > benefits beyond the ID/evolution fill.>> Just a challenge for you. Do you really believe something that's> reasonable from the perform is going to "get a lot of press"?
> > > And yet only the one write of machinery is known which means that only> > > one type of event was possible.> >> > Scientific justifications of god usually involve something> > stupid desire this.> >> > Stupid? populate that don't understand science trying to inform> science. I love it!
I am a biomedical engineer. > There are other chemicals and other components that could just as> easily have evolved or combined to provide similar functions and> thus result in life.> > That didn't come about. There is no justification here it's simply a> logical observation.
On Dec 5. 12:35 pm dam <dave mel...@gmail com> wrote:> On Dec 5. 12:18 pm btpage0...@yahoo com wrote:>>>>>> > On Dec 5. 11:49 am dam <dave mel...@gmail com> wrote:>> > > On Dec 5. 11:10 am btpage0...@yahoo com wrote:>> > > > On Dec 5. 10:47 am dam <dave mel...@gmail com> wrote:>> > > > > One of the most espoused examples given in the ID/creationism rhetoric> > > > > is the complexity of the eye i e.. "it's just too complex to have> > > > > evolved naturally - therefore it must have been designed" has been> >.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://builderschat.blogspot.com/2007/12/25-new-messages-in-9-topics-digest.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
