Intelligent Design?

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Well I know billions of years is a long time and I am not really sure that it is billions of years maybe millions of years, but either way it is hell of a long time. I think that I can form my own theory from my knowledge and knowing some of the greatest scientist in the world have not been able to create life. I don't know how many years their knowledge and the hundreds of years of knowledge they stand on, can make up for, maybe not millions of years but a bunch. A theory leaves room for the possibility of it happening by itself but most of the logic is on the other side.

They have been able to create simple life forms. I watched a documentry on it a few years back about scientists creating life from non-living materials. They were able to do so, but were having trouble making it reproduce on its own.

Also, here is this: USATODAY.com - Scientists create a virus that reproduces

It depends on how you define new life. Here is the website with information on the NOVA special I watched several years ago.

NOVA | scienceNOW | Let's Make a Microbe! | PBS

Originally Posted by NOVA

Such bubbles, called liposomes, likely were present on the early Earth and could have engulfed other molecules to form the first primitive life. In the past decade, scientists have coaxed liposomes into trapping genetic material in a way that might have occurred in ancient tide pools.

Starting with the pioneering work of Nobel Laureate Manfred Eigen in the 1970s, a number of research groups indeed have constructed evolving molecular systems. The trick remains, though, to create an evolving system that has all the essential properties of life—a "container," an "engine," "instructions," and a "scribe"— inherently linked together.

This is life in its most basic form, but they are pretty confident that it is only a matter of time before they can get the RNA to replicate itself completely.

Interesting stuff.

[Dumpy Dooby]

How does a virus reproduce? It isn't alive.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How does a virus reproduce? It isn't alive.

Replicating itself by infecting host cells; but you are right they are not "alive"

My main emphasis was suppose to be placed on the NOVA special, that article just popped up while I was trying to find the NOVA one. The PBS special was not about creating a virus.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

We couldn't have formed naturally, so we came from some sort of creator. The creator must have come from something, and that something could not have been anything supernatural, right? Or could it have? You're left with deciding whether or not our creator came from something natural or supernatural. Regardless of which one you believe, you're suggesting that you believe that there's something preventing us to have formed in the same in manner in which our creator was formed. Unless you can furnish some sort of evidence for that view, your sneaky little side-step diversive tactic is a psychological fallacy known as special pleading.

Maybe I got off track but I believe we were created by the supernatural. I personally believe the christian god created us, but that cannot be proven, but what I think is very proveable,to me, is that we were not created by ourselves out of warm mud soup. I have given my reasons in this thread already, and since we did not evolve by ourselves we were created by a creator. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How does a virus reproduce? It isn't alive.

I have said that life has never came from non life and we have never been able to create it ourselves.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Dylith

They have been able to create simple life forms. I watched a documentry on it a few years back about scientists creating life from non-living materials. They were able to do so, but were having trouble making it reproduce on its own.

Also, here is this: USATODAY.com - Scientists create a virus that reproduces

It depends on how you define new life. Here is the website with information on the NOVA special I watched several years ago.

NOVA | scienceNOW | Let's Make a Microbe! | PBS



This is life in its most basic form, but they are pretty confident that it is only a matter of time before they can get the RNA to replicate itself completely.

Interesting stuff.

All theoretical and we think we can do it. It is not life in its basic form it is something they think could possible be something that was in the formative stage of life or it could possible be a bunch of bull. They should give up only god can create life. To create DNA and put it in a live cell is like cloning it is not creating new life. They said at the end that it may never be possible and they are right it will never be possible.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

All theoretical and we think we can do it. It is not life in its basic form it is something they think could possible be something that was in the formative stage of life or it could possible be a bunch of bull. They should give up only god can create life. To create DNA and put it in a live cell is like cloning it is not creating new life. They said at the end that it may never be possible and they are right it will never be possible.

They should have just given up on that round earth business too, everyone knew it was flat and they were wasting their time

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

All theoretical and we think we can do it. It is not life in its basic form it is something they think could possible be something that was in the formative stage of life or it could possible be a bunch of bull. They should give up only god can create life. To create DNA and put it in a live cell is like cloning it is not creating new life. They said at the end that it may never be possible and they are right it will never be possible.

If you disbelieve evolution, fine, but at least offer something stronger than religious assumption if you intend to discredit it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

All theoretical and we think we can do it. It is not life in its basic form it is something they think could possible be something that was in the formative stage of life or it could possible be a bunch of bull. They should give up only god can create life. To create DNA and put it in a live cell is like cloning it is not creating new life. They said at the end that it may never be possible and they are right it will never be possible.

Less than two centuries of modern science and we already know what can never be done.

[ballz2wallz]

So there is a forum at MIT entitled "Science, Faith, and Technology", starting tonight that includes world-reknowned professors. Basically it's a forum suggesting a reason for belief in science. I had been getting flyers for it but unfortunately did'nt notice it was tonight and I didn't plan ahead for it, as the most interesting speaker is actually speaking tonight.

Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project. I think that if you such brilliant scientists believe in a reason for faith, why shouldn't you?

Francis Collins
Author—The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is a physician-geneticist and currently serves as the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. In this capacity, he oversaw the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, and its landmark effort to sequence the entire human DNA code; the Human Genome Project. Building on the foundation laid by the Human Genome Project, Dr. Collins is now leading the NHGRI effort to ensure that this new trove of sequence data is translated into powerful tools and thoughtful strategies to advance biological knowledge and improve human health.

[ethyl]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So there is a forum at MIT entitled "Science, Faith, and Technology", starting tonight that includes world-reknowned professors. Basically it's a forum suggesting a reason for belief in science. I had been getting flyers for it but unfortunately did'nt notice it was tonight and I didn't plan ahead for it, as the most interesting speaker is actually speaking tonight.

Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project. I think that if you such brilliant scientists believe in a reason for faith, why shouldn't you?

Good to see prominent researchers discussing their faith. In undergrad, most of my professors seemed to be atheist. Mentioning anything religion related or it being revealed you're a Christian in some science based workplaces could lead to people looking down on you. Yet, it feels like the more detailed I learn certain sciences, especially molecular and microbiology, the more I become convinced of a "great engineer in the sky."

Things are a little different now that I'm in pharmacy school though. The professors have no problem dropping the "G" bomb during a lecture.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by ethyl

Good to see prominent researchers discussing their faith. In undergrad, most of my professors seemed to be atheist. Mentioning anything religion related or it being revealed you're a Christian in some science based workplaces could lead to people looking down on you. Yet, it feels like the more detailed I learn certain sciences, especially molecular and microbiology, the more I become convinced of a "great engineer in the sky."

I'm currently reading a book entitled "Darwin's Black Box" written by Michael J. Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. He nicely takes a look at the beginning of Darwinism (aka Darwinian Evolution) and dissects it scientifically, analyzing how strongly it will hold up now that we're able to analyze science (biology) at the molecular level (biochemistry), the smallest and most important level to determine the origins of life. Essentially he states many reasons, including Darwin's own admissions, of why his theory just isn't going to hold up on the biochemical level. Science changes, theories change as more is unwravelled, and the theory of evolution will also change as time progresses. He believes now is the time.

As a note, he's not religious.

[thomez]

Behe is a joke, I met that fool at Tulane once

they had an evolution "debate" with him and an ecology professor, Behe was basically laughed away after his "science" was torn apart again and again

he isn't religious, but he is quick to support Intelligent Design

[thomez]

let me guess, those little flagella are the key to his argument!

[ballz2wallz]

It's still a good book

[imind]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's still a good book

its not current, and has drawn much criticism (Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? )

Essentially he states many reasons, including Darwin's own admissions, of why his theory just isn't going to hold up on the biochemical level. Science changes, theories change as more is unwravelled, and the theory of evolution will also change as time progresses. He believes now is the time.

can you share these 'admissions' by darwin. i haven't read the book, but if behe's point is to discredit evolution by pointing the flaws in darwin's thinking, i don't know that i can respect the arguement. so much has changed since that time, goodness.

the theory of evolution has and will continue to change as the data arises, as is the case with any scientific theory. to suggest it is only happening now is erroneous.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

its not current, and has drawn much criticism (Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility?

You're right, it's a little over 10 yrs old. With the determination of the human genome, we've opened up an ever greater world of unknowns. Which is probably why the Director of the Human Genome project is at the present forum on faith. The ideas on the book have no changed since then.

can you share these 'admissions' by darwin. i haven't read the book, but if behe's point is to discredit evolution by pointing the flaws in darwin's thinking, i don't know that i can respect the arguement. so much has changed since that time, goodness.

I haven't gotten far in the book, but this is one that has struck me, from Darwin himself in his Origin of Species:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

This has yet to be demonstrated that complex systems can be made by successive, slight modifications, and the more we learn about biochemistry, the less this seems plausible.

Yes, evolution changes, and it's becoming more accepted that micro-evolution is more feasible than is macro-evolution. Macro-evoultion, however, is the essence of Darwinian evoution.

It really is an interesting book, you should pick it up. If you're at all knowledgeable in science, it's an easy understandable read. If you know nothing about science, some of it's gibberish, but then again you shouldn't be arguing evolution then

[imind]

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.


This has yet to be demonstrated that complex systems can be made by successive, slight modifications, and the more we learn about biochemistry, the less this seems plausible.

do you know what the next line of that quote by darwin is? its, "But I can find no such case."

your second statement is the definition of IC, and it has been shown that 'complex systems' could have evolved from smaller 'less complex' ones. see the article in my previous post on Irreproducible Irreducibility.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by imind

do you know what the next line of that quote by darwin is? its, "But I can find no such case."

Uh, are you seriously arguing that because Darwin knew of 'no such case' in 1859, then surely there must not be a case?

They hardly knew how anatomy worked...they didn't even consider the biochemical processes that work on the molecular level.

In the 1800s, they also called cells 'simple blobs', even bacterial cells. We know now that they are far from simple, and far more complex than 'blobs'.

Surely you can't take their word and understanding of science over what we know today?