RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   
  Topic: Molecular motors = intelligent design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,12:13   

Dan If a frog had wings he would not bump his butt on the ground... so what.

There has not been after 100 years of effort by your best people a single demonstration of abiogenesis that remotely resembles the situation you describe and you know it.

Why else has Crick, Hoyle, Morowitz and many many others including Shapiro gave up on abiogenesis years ago and started panspermia and other science fiction.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,13:01   

Evo,

I would like to know what you think of what I said about Irreducible Complexity.  Because you seem to be hanging alot of what you say on it's explanatory power.  Is what I said wrong?  If so, why?

"Our best people"...  Are you just making this stuff up as you go?  Only a few curious scientists have been studying abiogenisis.  Most of the efforts in the biological disciplines are directed at understanding the current situation, not primordial happenings.  Things like protein pathways, cycles, and regulation in our living cells are difficult enough to keep biologists busy for over 100 more years, too.  If your argument is that "scientists have tried and failed, clearly supernatural means are the cause of life."  It surely is a weak one.

A common theme is for creationists to point out a few examples of scientists that have given up/changed fields/converted as proof that the other hundreds of thousands of scientists are wasting their time.  I'm not suprised you chose that well worn path as well.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,03:18   

The literate and the bookshelves are replete with hundreds of papers and chronicles on the millions spent on origin of life experiments.

Do you consider Kornfield, Crick, Hoyle, Cairne-Smith, Chaisson,Fox, Miller, Prigorine and a plethora of otheres many Noble prize winners for their research in origin of life theories as just run of the mill odd balls?

See this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty by evos.. rewriting history in the case of abject failure absolutely in the face of empirical and documented facts then having the unmitigated gaul to claim it never happened and to the small degree that it did it was and is unimportant. You people have a disconnect from reality.

Yes abject failure after millions of dollars and 100 years of effort with every mathmatical calculation made by your own camp admitting to near statistical impossibility for the reational world would indicate one is on a worthless, impossible and unmeaningful quest.

I know of no way to falsify any theory like evolution because no result of any kind could ever dissuade evos its so plastic and undefinable circular tautalogical and soft. If events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities have zero effect on the theory then its simply a mythology.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,10:22   

Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:22   

One hundred days ago I started the post on Intellectual Honesty based on the book by Shapiro wherein he showed the utter failure of every theory of how life could have started  and thus made evolution even possible in the first place. Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings... it is just a troubled at best, highly implausible just so story which flies in the face of any approach people in any industry, task or activity take to real accomplishment.. no one would ever use random processes to accomplish their lifes work.

A significant number of people have discovered the absolute fruitlessness of even engaging in this Quixotic venture true enough .. why .. because its already proven to be absolutely barren of  any believable chance of success. So yes there are fewer people engaged in the field because the hordes of the past were utter failures, money for fairy tale adventures is scarce these days.

As to impossibilities you might read Herbert Yockey, Morowitz, Shapiro, Denton, Zuckercandl,Crick,Hoyle,Grasse, Schutzenburger, Eden. Wouse,Monod; but the real problem is you're just committed, no matter what, to your theory.

In statistics any probability that is less likely that 10**-50 will never occur .. its impossible .. I believe mathmaticians and scientists are in agreement there.

Yet the chance of life starting and many aspects of early evolutionary event are far less likely accoring to the authors listed.

At least I attribute my theories to processes that occurred once, never to be repeated and were supernatural in origin and documented as such.

Once that occurs I don't need natural law miracles to understand the universe and its operations like you do.

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:43   

Quote
At least I attribute my theories to processes that occurred once, never to be repeated and were supernatural in origin and documented as such.

Once that occurs I don't need natural law miracles to understand the universe and its operations like you do.


Food for thought:

A Universal Philosophical Refutation

A philosopher once had the following dream:

First Aristotle appeared, and the philosopher said to him, "Could you give me a fifteen-minute capsule sketch of your entire philosophy?" To the philosopher's surprise, Aristotle gave him an excellent exposition in which he compressed an enormous amount of material into a mere fifteen minutes. But then the philosopher raised a certain objection which Aristotle couldn't answer. Confounded, Aristotle disappeared.

Then Plato appeared. The same thing happened again, and the philosophers' objection to Plato was the same as his objection to Aristotle. Plato also couldn't answer it and disappeared.

Then all the famous philosophers of history appeared one-by-one and our philosopher refuted every one with the same objection.

After the last philosopher vanished, our philosopher said to himself, "I know I'm asleep and dreaming all this. Yet I've found a universal refutation for all philosophical systems! Tomorrow when I wake up, I will probably have forgotten it, and the world will really miss something!" With an iron effort, the philosopher forced himself to wake up, rush over to his desk, and write down his universal refutation. Then he jumped back into bed with a sigh of relief.

The next morning when he awoke, he went over to the desk to see what he had written. It was, "That's what you say."

(Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies. St. Martin's Press, 1983)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,12:05   

I couldn't agree more so we have the choice of believeing either the thoughts , actions, words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth or those of Charles Darwin a man who was known to be a diagnosed manic depressive whose episodes were so severe tha he could not communicate with anyone in his familty or circle of friends for weeks on end.

to Christ,A person who has convinced some billion or more people in two thousand years to commit themselves to His philosophy of selflessness, compassion and humility in return for eternal rewards and relationship with Him.

Or to Darwin whose advocates promote mans centrality in the universe, the denial of eternal matters, deny God as a reality, power, survival of the fittest, claw and tooth and the abolition of the ignorant cult of Christians from any participation in public policy.

I know who I believe and I feel really good about it.

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,12:37   

Quote
In statistics any probability that is less likely that 10**-50 will never occur .. its impossible .. I believe mathmaticians and scientists are in agreement there.


Really impossible?

Also, I think we could safely agree that the probability of life occurring (at least on Earth, as far as we know) is rather greater than 10**-50...more in the line of...1 (irrespective of cause)?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,16:06   

What if there are 8*10**67 events of equal probability, exactly one of which is certain to occur? In that case it is certain that an event of probability 8*10**-67 will occur. That sort of undercuts the notion that a 10**-50 probability event can't occur. (Note- 8*10**67 is 52 factorial rounded to 1 digit.)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,05:02   

Henry the moron speaks,

An event that is certain to occur will occur. Egads the Genius Henry speaks!!!  Its about on par with the premise of evolution the "the fittest will survive because they are the most fit".

The reason math people and all intelligent people say 10-**50 is an event that will not have occurred over the history of the universe is because the number of possible trials and the rate of trials is insufficient to reach any remote possibility of success in the context of abiogenesis and early stage evolution. Again I won't do your homework the calculations have been donw many times by your own peop[le so read it yourself.

For a 10**50 side unbiased coin the expected number of flips to get the number x is greater than the number of flips performed in 12 billion years... it dubbed as impossible.

If you have an infinite amount of time you might get the chance formation of a so called simple DNA/RNA etc replicator but not in 3 billion years or 12 for that matter.

If you want to base your world view and your lifes work on believeing such... have a party.. just don't claim its a dead certainty and any other explanation is unscientific etc.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:39   

Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 07 2005,15:22)
Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

Still waiting...

C'mon Evo, you clearly have the free time to address my issues.

By the way, what does "scientific" mean to you?  This isn't a trap question, just an honest question.

-Dan

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,13:56   

Re "Henry the moron speaks,"

This from the clown who insists that helium - which is formed from the fusion of hydrogen nuclei - could appear before the particles from which it is formed?

A point that btw isn't even critical to his supposed argument - what he presented as if it were an argument would work just as well (or as badly) had he said "hydrogen to..." instead of "helium to...", and wouldn't distract from the intended argument by causing people to talk about the choice of element instead.

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,16:04   

You're exactly right, Henry.  But, I like to think of the Helium discussion Evo makes as representative of his ignorant braggadocio.

-Dan

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,04:56   

Quote
Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings...

Um, life did start.  I think we can be sure of that since we are both alive.

If you meant to say that we need to demonstrate abiogenesis before evolution can make sense, consider this:

I just traveled from New York to Los Angeles and told you about my trip.  But, I never told you about how I got to New York in the first place.  Should you tell me that my story of the trip from NY to LA has no basis and is a bunch of made-up lies and distortions?

Also, perhaps you could tell us how exactly you are coming up with your probabilities?  The weakness that Creationist probability arguments have is that they can't accurately define what the distribution is, so therefore we have no way of actually figuring out how probable the event was or was not.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:18   

GCT,

Suppose you said I am in charge of designing all of the classes and training for the student population on the Theory of Intercontinental air travel from which all aeronautics and related activities will preceed.

The you said I just flew in from New York to LA using my new improved non-melting Icarus wings.

NOOOOOOOOOOTTTT

The you said actually I hopped from rock tower to rock tower in incremental steps and the towers were only six feet apart. The I went out and looked and couldn't find any rock towers that were closer than 50000 feet apart.

Then you said all of the intermediate rock towers were destroyed by vicious space pumas since your trip.

NOOOOOTTTTTTTTT


Finally you claimed to have flown in from New York on a jet designed by a team of engineers imposing their intellect and their conscious plans onto inanimate matter to develop a plane, etc.

I looked over the blue prints, the flight simulation studies, the dynamic similitude wind tunnel test results, the flight test recordings and concluded that it was indeed possible and consistent with all human experience to design, plan, test and activate complex pieces of equipment using the intelligent design model since every act of progress ever made by mankind had been done exactly and precisely that way.

Suddenly the great team of scientists from the diceo rouletteo school of chaotic random results academy arrived and immediately tore your scientifice credentails deploma into shreds, branded yoiu a traitor to chaos and took your application for tenure and put it next to the latrine.

Well I think its clear enough.....


Yes a theory which cannot demonstrate the plausibility of its underlying logical imperative does not deserve to be considered as more than a just so fairy tale with more holes in it than Clyde Barrow.

AS to probability...one more time their not creationist numbers the're numbers by evos such as Rhapiro, Fox, Miller, Hoyle, Morowitz and a whole raft of others.

As to distribution I would imagine at the most basic level a uniform equilikely assumption is being made since the entire random mutation theory on point mutations in a string of possible mutable sites is just
that.

Nice try but no bananas

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:50   

Evopeach

Your alternative theory is...

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,00:37   

Evopeach,
My point still holds.

Every example you come up with to counter my story about traveling to LA is about the trip and the likelyhood of my account of how I got to LA, not how I got to NY in the first place.  Can I take it from your inability to counter my argument that you agree that abiogenesis is separate from evolution?

I doubt that all your examples of evos that came up with impossible probabilities are correct.  Support your assertion.  Show me where they came up with those numbers.  Additionally, I would say that even if they did, they are most likely wrong for the same reason that I enumerated above.  Whether a creationist does bad probability or a real scientist does it makes no difference.  Bad calculations are bad calculations no matter who does them.  I'd like to see what they did, however, to see if maybe they could change my mind.  So, let's see the references.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,04:46   

GCT,

No your arguments, all of them, are destroyed by my posts and you change your arguments like every good evo.

You say I came from New York but all I see is you at LAX. You want me to assume you came from New York but you have no ticket that says you were ever in New York, you have no evidence of transitional intermediate stop over cities ( like a Chicago or Atlanta or Dallas piece of memorabilia .. not a pennent or a coke cup.),
you have no luggage with NYC tags or any other evidence.

You draw a map of the USA showing every possible air route from NYC to LA and state that because there are such it proves you took one of them. Most of them land in the gulf of Mexico or Lake Micigan, crash in the desert , etc. but one of them actually makes it to LA though the flight distance exceeds the world supply of jet fuel by 2,000,000 percent since it requires each stop to spin a wheel and randomly go to the indicated city.

You call over five of your compatriots and ask them to tell you about how you all flew together from NYC to LA but they have zero evidence as well.. even though they firmly believe your story.

The logic you propose is that since you flew from NY to LA you obiously were in NYC and thus I am to assume that you were in NYC and even though there is no evidence you ever were in NYC I am to accept that you were and that it doesn't matter how you got there whether from a space ship, a meteor, created there or what.

Actually the possibility your story is correct is much much more likely than the evo story.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:18   

Evopeach, if you see me get off the plane that just flew in from New York, you can take it for granted that I was in New York, correct?  But, you would toss all of that out because I haven't told you how I got to New York in the first place?  That's what I'm asking you.  The route that the plane took to get from NY to LA is completely independent of the how and why I was in NY to begin with, is it not?  That's why we can divorce abiogenesis from evolution.  You are still arguing about the trip, not the beginning of the trip.

Let's try another example.  I wake up from an accident and I have amnesia.  I can't account for how I got into this world at all.  I can't remember my parents, where I was born, who I am, etc.  There's no record for me to account for all of that because I have no way to look up anything.  Do I now assume that I don't exist?  That I haven't lived some sort of life up until whatever age I am simply because I can't account for my birth?

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:37   

Hmmm.. well, no.  You can assume you are suffering from Intelligent Amnesia.  DNA testing and fingerprint analysis have no weight to prove otherwise.  Besides, most of America believes that those methods are full of holes anyway.

  
rimby



Posts: 15
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,14:41   

It's interesting that if we applied evopeach's "NOOOOOTTTTTTTTT" logic to the Bible, we would have to conclude that it is also a "fairy tale with more holes in it than Clyde Barrow".

  
  50 replies since May 04 2005,21:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < 1 [2] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]