Intelligent Design?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No we haven't.

We created life from life in a test tube.

From this article...
Did life begin in space?

In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here. But the discovery of biologically significant molecules in interstellar clouds of gas and dust could push life's history much, much farther back in time and out into space. "When you look at these clouds, it's almost like looking back into history," Hollis says. Molecules like these, traveling on interplanetary dust, meteorites, or comets, "could give life a jump-start on an early planet."

[Rouger2]

I know that we have no real idea what billions of years can do. It is I believe beyond our grasp but wouldn't nature always be producing life if it happens by itself from warm, mud, soup as evolutionist believe.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I know that we have no real idea what billions of years can do. It is I believe beyond our grasp but woundn't nature always be producing life if it happens by itself from warm, mud, soup as evolutionist believe.

I guess lucky for evolutionists, that's not what we believe.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Reality. Please show me any evidence at all for a supernatural phenomenon that gave life an extra "push", coincidentally, this force describes exactly what science can not explain at this moment in time. Any. Evidence. At all. (besides anecdotal)

Reality. Please show me any evidence at all that natural phenomenon gave the rise to life from non-organic material....please don't use the miller experiments in the hopes of this being the proof, as the conditions they created were A.) artificial - against nature, did not represent early earth conditions at all, and ultimately contained fail safe systems, isolated chambers,etc....requiring the intervention of, yup you guessed it: INTELLIGENCE.... it made amino acids through the brilliant intelligence of man....AND even that is a very basic compared to a simple cell.

Science explains many physical things, but supernatural phenomenon is merely beyond it's scope.

So concerning life from non-life... Any. Evidence. At all.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

I think this is clearly the case of religious views clouding reason. Here is the thing. This theory, Intelligent Design, describes a supernatural phenomenon, that can not be explained by us. You use this as evidence for a God, and don't say you don't because any supernatural force that could and would create life would have to be some form of deity, with free will and intelligence. This is your evidence for a god, but by definition, your faith in god must be without any evidence. If you cite real life examples of god, it takes all the faith out of the belief. It becomes knowledge, in your mind, and this knowledge is what lets one life their life safe and sound in the "knowledge" they have a chance to go to heaven. Its religion grasping for straws.

You need to read the posts here more closely...I'm not arguing that ID is a science or should be positioned as such, merely that's a valid source of knowledge with those who have faith and a spiritual interest in life. Intelligence is clearly seen to be a creative force capable of creating all of the complex things containing information that you seem to be attributing to minerals and magical soup conditions of which you have no proof is even capable of creating complex information.

Regardless of what YOU constitute as VALID knowledge, I could care less, I'm content with my own knowledge and beliefs and I feel they explain things better and more rationally then your own materialist ideas, even if I can't weigh it on a scale for you.

Also I don't believe knowledge gets you to heaven, or even belief in so and so. I don't believe in FREE WILL. In fact I don't believe anyone "goes to heaven" as such, and faith doesn't have to be blind, it can be BASED ON KNOWLEDGE that doesn't have to come from a test tube, like you seem to only believe in.... you are arguing right now against a caricature you created in your mind.

* EDIT: And you didn't answer my first question to you.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

Has it ever occured to you our knowledge and technology is limited? And that trying to create what took nature BILLIONS of years to produce is easy?

That's a valid point, but it could also be a convenient cop-out....how can this statement/belief be falsified either? Wait a billion years?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Regardless of what you constititute as VALID knowledge, I could care less, I'm content with my own knowledge and beliefs and I feel they explain things better and more rationally then your own materialist ideas, even if I can't weight it on a scale for you.

This is exactly why I tend to dismiss other methods of knowledge. I cannot even trust my own experiences, so I cannot accept another's personal experiences as a valid method of gathering knowledge that should be applied to society

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Kytro

This is exactly why I tend to dismiss other methods of knowledge. I cannot even trust my own experiences, so I cannot accept another's personal experiences as a valid method of gathering knowledge that should be applied to society

You rightfully should dismiss it at this point....this sort of knowledge can not be given to you by another person or in a church or by debating on forums against other views....if God doesn't bring the circumstances in your life to fulfill this sort of transformation IN YOU, it won't happen.

[cleverest]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Well how would you validate knowledge? It depends on what you are seeking, I suppose - science is hands down the best of breed for getting useful knowledge for society as a whole to progress - I doubt anyone can deny the impact it has had.

Kytro,

I appreciate your responses. You don't just seek to "bash" what you don't understand, but seek to understand it on the level of those who believe these things. I appreciate that sort of exchange. It's pretty rare.

Science does serve as a great tool and method of learning the physical world and explaining things to the society as a whole, and therefore progressing it as a whole, but it is inadequate for a personal level of understanding reality at large, in my opinion. I don't embrace scientism as a philosophy though so I guess I just don't agree with certain assumptions many scientists make.

Originally Posted by Kytro

If you want something more personal, perhaps some sort of inner understanding about something you have a number of options. You cannot expect others to take personal truths seriously though.

I agree, that's fine....people's opinions of my beliefs are interesting and it allows me to grow and learn new perspectives, but they don't really bother me if they are in conflict...these truths I've taken to heart must be THEIR personal truths for me to hope to have them taken seriously....I don't need that....I just don't try to convert anyone, I merely share what I have learned if I see a spark of interest only. Without that spark first, there is no chance of fire in my opinion. This applies to many disciplines, not spiritual searching.

Originally Posted by Kytro

We have understood complexity that we know resulted from intelligence. In fact just about all complex things we understand fully have.

This means we naturally see complex things and assume intelligence. This isn't validation on a level that can help - at least from a usable knowledge perspective.

I understand that it doesn't PROVE it. I'm not interesting in strict emperical proof that intelligence created anything biological, I don't need that sort of proof to validate my beliefs... the evidence that is present in intelligence all around me and in this world are enough for me to take it seriously. If science manages to find a truly natural explanation, (devoid of intelligence being a factor) that doesn't require me to wait a billion years to "see it"....GREAT. I'm still waiting and always will be... for about 80 years or so.

Originally Posted by Kytro

As for a God, who am I to question the behavior /motivations of such an entity.

Indeed and I'm sure that such a being wouldn't REQUIRE you to either, but you do have important questions no doubt. Many of those questions can be answered in a serious spiritual quest, but in all honesty they will just lead to more different questions, I guess that's just the way it is. How much can a human really KNOW given the nature of his finite existence?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Kytro,

I appreciate your responses. You don't just seek to "bash" what you don't understand, but seek to understand it on the level of those who believe these things. I appreciate that sort of exchange. It's pretty rare.

Anything less and would be dismissing ideas without considering them, and that may mean I miss something important.

Originally Posted by cleverest

Science does serve as a great tool and method of learning the physical world and explaining things to the society as a whole, and therefore progressing it as a whole, but it is inadequate for a personal level of understanding reality at large, in my opinion. I don't embrace scientism as a philosophy though so I guess I just don't agree with certain assumptions many scientists make.

Science is indeed a tool, a way of figuring things out. It does not really answer philosophical questions, and certainly perspective is part of reality. I am comfortable with science and what it's limitations are.

Originally Posted by cleverest

I agree, that's fine....people's opinions of my beliefs are interesting and it allows me to grow and learn new perspectives, but they don't really bother me if they are in conflict...these truths I've taken to heart must be THEIR personal truths for me to hope to have them taken seriously....I don't need that....I just don't try to convert anyone, I merely share what I have learned if I see a spark of interest only. Without that spark first, there is no chance of fire in my opinion. This applies to many disciplines, not spiritual searching.

I agree with that idea, I discuss things mainly in order learn, not to convince others.

Originally Posted by cleverest

I understand that it doesn't PROVE it. I'm not interesting in strict emperical proof that intelligence created anything biological, I don't need that sort of proof to validate my beliefs... the evidence that is present in intelligence all around me and in this world are enough for me to take it seriously. If science manages to find a truly natural explanation, (devoid of intelligence being a factor) that doesn't require me to wait a billion years to "see it"....GREAT. I'm still waiting and always will be... for about 80 years or so.

Science is really quite recent, so it may take some time before it can attempt to explore these issues in detail.

Originally Posted by cleverest

Indeed and I'm sure that such a being wouldn't REQUIRE you to either, but you do have important questions no doubt. Many of those questions can be answered in a serious spiritual quest, but in all honesty they will just lead to more different questions, I guess that's just the way it is. How much can a human really KNOW given the nature of his finite existence?

It used to frustrate me, the lack of knowledge, and the corresponding lack of control. Now I realize there is a limitation to what people can comprehend and that control is mostly an illusion

[Solberger0127]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Why should science dignify ID with a response at all? Should science also hold serious discussions with the Flat Earth Society?

Yes, for there is nothing wrong with correcting the Flat Earth Society.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

From this article...
Did life begin in space?

In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here. But the discovery of biologically significant molecules in interstellar clouds of gas and dust could push life's history much, much farther back in time and out into space. "When you look at these clouds, it's almost like looking back into history," Hollis says. Molecules like these, traveling on interplanetary dust, meteorites, or comets, "could give life a jump-start on an early planet."

I have to laugh when I read that. I'm sorry, but do you seriously find anything important in what you just read?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I have to laugh when I read that. I'm sorry, but do you seriously find anything important in what you just read?

"In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here."

[Simius]

There is a scientific law but you don't even have to know the law to know it is true, where has non life produced life. I know that science with all their knowledge and equipment have not even been able to produce one simple live cell.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

"In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here."

No, we haven't created life. We created some of the stuff that makes up life. Some organic compounds were formed and amino acids were formed. It was a good first step. But it wasn't life and it wasn't even close to being a simple living cell.

That doesn't mean life can't form from non-life naturally. It just means we haven't been able to do it ourselves.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

There is a scientific law but you don't even have to know the law to know it is true, where has non life produced life. I know that science with all their knowledge and equipment have not even been able to produce one simple live cell.

No, we haven't created life. We created some of the stuff that makes up life. Some organic compounds were formed and amino acids were formed. It was a good first step. But it wasn't life and it wasn't even close to being a simple living cell.

That doesn't mean life can't form from non-life naturally. It just means we haven't been able to do it ourselves.

wtf? Do you people even understand the significance of amino acids?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

wtf? Do you people even understand the significance of amino acids?

Yeah, they are the building blocks to make proteins required for life. IIRC they got most of the amino acids required to make proteins... which is pretty cool. You've basically got a pile of boards and you are calling it a house.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

"In the famous Miller-Urey experiment of the 1950s, researchers produced a rich soup of amino acids by running an electric current through flasks containing elements of a primitive Earth, thus showing how precursor chemicals could have formed here."

Uhhh... please. It's generous that I'm even wasting my time posting in this thread, since the religious ones can't be dissueaded no matter what logic tells them.

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs... 50 simple arguments for the idea god is imaginary... and if any ID backer will truly tell me they don't believe in a conventional, theologic god, then we can talk.


It is amazing how people can take the immense scope of human knowledge regarding evolution and disregard it in favor of the explanation: "some unexplainable force (maybe god) did it"...

the worst part is, my roommate is an ID'er!

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by cleverest

Reality. Please show me any evidence at all that natural phenomenon gave the rise to life from non-organic material....please don't use the miller experiments in the hopes of this being the proof, as the conditions they created were A.) artificial - against nature, did not represent early earth conditions at all, and ultimately contained fail safe systems, isolated chambers,etc....requiring the intervention of, yup you guessed it: INTELLIGENCE.... it made amino acids through the brilliant intelligence of man....AND even that is a very basic compared to a simple cell.

You wish to be shown an experiment that is not artificial, but representing billions of years of immense space?