Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Hughes
_Emeritus
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Hughes »

Some Schmo wrote:Something else you should be aware of, Hughes, is that scientists don't think DNA was first. They think the ultimate ancestor was RNA.

If you'd like to see a bit of what you're looking for, check out this article called Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory.


Yes, I understand that is their theory/model.

Notice a quote from your article, "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA..."

Too bad it doesn't just happen like it did in the beginning eh? Man, we keep proving that it takes an intelligence to make this stuff...
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Buffalo »

Hughes wrote:
Then please demonstrate for me the age of the earth and the fact of evolution. I won't hold my breath.

As for your CFR. Many of the early scientists were Christian. And in fact used that philosophical bent, to base their scientific experiments on. The thinking goes like this. God created the Universe to operate based on natural laws. Therefore, such as Newton, when one drops an apple in Europe it falls with the same speed and force in Africa or North America as it does there. This whole philosophy that these early scientists used was based on their Christian world view.


The fact that some important early scientists were Christian is not in question - the relationship of the scientific method to Christianity is what's in question, which you have yet to demonstrate.

As far as the age of the earth and the fact of evolution go, these are very large subjects. There is a mountain of evidence for both, as you'd know by even taking an introductory college course on either. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to fill this gap in your education in a single post. Might as well ask me to demonstrate the efficacy of algebra complete with proofs. There are many resources available if you actually wish to learn. Might I suggest that you stay away from amateur Christian crank sites offering disinformation from the fringe, and seek academic sources only.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Buffalo »

Hughes wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Something else you should be aware of, Hughes, is that scientists don't think DNA was first. They think the ultimate ancestor was RNA.

If you'd like to see a bit of what you're looking for, check out this article called Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory.


Yes, I understand that is their theory/model.

Notice a quote from your article, "Researchers synthesized the basic ingredients of RNA..."

Too bad it doesn't just happen like it did in the beginning eh? Man, we keep proving that it takes an intelligence to make this stuff...


No "design" was used - they merely replicated natural conditions from the time frame. Did you even bother to read the article?

“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.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. 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.”
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Hughes
_Emeritus
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Hughes »

Buffalo wrote:
Hughes wrote:While I agree that science has done great things. I'd love to know how you think it's different to believe that science will eventually come up with a "plausible natural explanation" and believing that an intelligence source is the cause of Earth's life/intelligence/information.

I'm curious how you think one is magic and one isn't.


The very concept of god is inherently magical. The only difference between a miracle and magic is the source of power.

Science, by the way, already has plausible natural explanations for the origins of life. What it doesn't have yet is a solid theory. By contrast, the religious don't even have a plausible explanation, as "god did it" has no explanatory or predictive powers, and furthermore, there exists no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as a god exists.

All throughout history, believers have pointed to humanity's ignorance about something as evidence for god, including the regular motion of the planets, the diversity of species on earth, the existence of the earth and stars, the complexity of the body, earthquakes, storms, etc. All of these have crumbled one by one as science has found natural, non-magical explanations. God is shrinking. Science is growing. It doesn't take a fortune teller to see where things are headed.


I see. Seems to me that the more we learn about this life/existence, the more we have questions. For example, Darwin thought that evolution of simple cells was well simple. Small meant simple. Yet, the more we learn the more we find that "simple" Cells aren't so simple are they? Which is why some scientists have abandoned the "naturalistic" origins model.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Some Schmo »

Hughes wrote:Maybe I was being too simplistic when I said, "as found in the DNA."

What I mean is similar to an encyclopedia, or a dictionary. The type and amount of information in the DNA is on a magnitude of millions larger than that found in a pane of glass.

But it didn't start out that way. You keep thinking in terms of a POOF! moment when it was all created at once, but that's not what happened. We're talking about extremely humble beginnings that evolved over millions of years to the DNA models we see today.

Hughes wrote:If you honestly think that natural causes are enough to produce what we find in the cell and DNA, then it shouldn't be so hard to produce such experimental results that show it coming from non-living sources.

I don't see how one follows from the other. That's like saying, "If you honestly think that natural causes are enough to produce black holes, then it shouldn't be so hard to produce such experimental results that show black holes coming from non-living sources."

How does my inability to reproduce something indicate one way or the other whether it's naturally possible? The premise is ridiculous.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Some Schmo »

Hughes wrote:Too bad it doesn't just happen like it did in the beginning eh? Man, we keep proving that it takes an intelligence to make this stuff...

Dude... this is blatantly disingenuous. Like Buffalo, I wonder if you really read that article.

This is the kind of thing that makes people level the "willful ignorance" charge against theists/creationists.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Some Schmo »

Hughes wrote:I see. Seems to me that the more we learn about this life/existence, the more we have questions. For example, Darwin thought that evolution of simple cells was well simple. Small meant simple. Yet, the more we learn the more we find that "simple" Cells aren't so simple are they? Which is why some scientists have abandoned the "naturalistic" origins model.

Ugh...

“F” it. Not even going to bother with this one.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Buffalo »

Hughes wrote:
I see. Seems to me that the more we learn about this life/existence, the more we have questions. For example, Darwin thought that evolution of simple cells was well simple. Small meant simple. Yet, the more we learn the more we find that "simple" Cells aren't so simple are they? Which is why some scientists have abandoned the "naturalistic" origins model.


I can't think of a single credible scientist (read: not a crank) who has abandoned the "naturalistic origins model."
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _EAllusion »

Likewise, if you think the motion of the planets is caused by "natural processes" and not invisible turtles, it shouldn't too hard to reproduce a solar system in experiments. Should be a cinch.
_Hughes
_Emeritus
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:53 pm

Re: Why aren't we designed better if there is an ID?

Post by _Hughes »

Buffalo wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Then please demonstrate for me the age of the earth and the fact of evolution. I won't hold my breath.

As for your CFR. Many of the early scientists were Christian. And in fact used that philosophical bent, to base their scientific experiments on. The thinking goes like this. God created the Universe to operate based on natural laws. Therefore, such as Newton, when one drops an apple in Europe it falls with the same speed and force in Africa or North America as it does there. This whole philosophy that these early scientists used was based on their Christian world view.


The fact that some important early scientists were Christian is not in question - the relationship of the scientific method to Christianity is what's in question, which you have yet to demonstrate.

As far as the age of the earth and the fact of evolution go, these are very large subjects. There is a mountain of evidence for both, as you'd know by even taking an introductory college course on either. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to fill this gap in your education in a single post. Might as well ask me to demonstrate the efficacy of algebra complete with proofs. There are many resources available if you actually wish to learn. Might I suggest that you stay away from amateur Christian crank sites offering disinformation from the fringe, and seek academic sources only.


What you stated was that they were facts, as if you could demonstrate their veracity... I guess not.

As for the origins of modern science and Christianity. Here's one example:

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science4.htm

The British Association for the Advancement of Science was formed in 1832. Clergymen were active in its formation and provided three of its presidents during the first five years. At a meeting of the Association in 1865, a manifesto was drawn up and signed by 617 men, many of whom were of the highest eminence, in which they declared their belief not only in the truth and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, but also in their harmony with natural science. The original document is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
Post Reply