Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

[hrmwrm]

another hypothesis being flouted by a couple of physicists is that the speed of light as we know it is not absolute. expansion will continue and speed up.

at sometime the speed goes beyond that of einsteins absolute value. when the speed again finally drops, then that is when things happen. i understand it as kind of a condensing effect. but these are theories that are looking beyond the big bang and what came before. some thoughts are that this could be constant on about a trillion year cycle.

 

[fossten]

another hypothesis being flouted by a couple of physicists is that the speed of light as we know it is not absolute. expansion will continue and speed up.

at sometime the speed goes beyond that of einsteins absolute value. when the speed again finally drops, then that is when things happen. i understand it as kind of a condensing effect. but these are theories that are looking beyond the big bang and what came before. some thoughts are that this could be constant on about a trillion year cycle.

This post and your signature are at odds.

 

[hrmwrm]

This post and your signature are at odds.

how do you figure that.

 

[shagdrum]

I appreciate that, yet according to aeronautic principals, for a long time bumble bees were not supposed to be able to fly. We now know air behaves differently than we had assumed for small things such as insects.
Quantum physics shows many things we believe to be true are not necessarily cast in stone.
My point is it's a strange universe out there and we cannot perceive all of it with our senses and may not be able to comprehend "reality" because we would find it to be to bizarre.
While ID may seem to be founded in solid logic it may have a basic flaw we may forever be unaware of.

You seem to be functioning under the assumption that ID argues that due to the level of complexity in certain processes, they couldn't have come about through change. That is not what ID is arguing. Nothing is too complex to have originated by chance. to be able to infer design, you have to rule out chance and natural regularity.

An example of natural regularity would be the fertilizing of the egg in the womb due to sexual reproduction. The sperm does not get to the egg by chance but due to the natural instincts (natural regularity) of both the male and female of the species and the natural laws (natural regularity) that the sperm and egg work under.

So, to infer design, you have to be able to first rule out natural regularity, and second, you have to rule out chance. This is the basis of Dembski's "specified complexity" idea.

ID isn't simply based on a mathematical model that is only as good as it's ability to account for every variable (like you seem to be implying in post #67), but on empirical evidence and inferences made from that empirical evidence.

Your argument still seems to be a "Loki's Wager" type argument; "we cannot fully understand something, therefore we cannot make any conclusions about it."

 

[hrmwrm]

we already know dembsky's failed logic. post 88.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=40935&page=3

 

[KD00LS]

Assuming arguendo that they did, what are the chances that everything RANDOMLY happened in the perfect sequence being necessary to generate one RNA nucleotide?

This question is arguably impossible to answer and it does not necessarily prove the existence of God. For one to answer this question, they would have to account for an infinite universe to provide as the denominator in the fraction of "chance". You could also compare the concept of infinity to combat the idea of what is "complex" and what is "simple", considering we'd need to know all structures before we could label something either of the two.

 

[KD00LS]

Where did these membranes come from? I said COMPLETE nothingness. That means *nothing*

Nothingness presumes the fact that God wasn't there either, if there was even a location at such a point. The argument pertains to either...
1. God always existing and then creating the universe
2. Matter always existing and by infinite chance conscious life was formed.

 

[KD00LS]

I think there had to have been absolutely nothing at some point

Not necessarily. Matter (or God) cannot be created or destroyed. Think of real-world terms. If you destroy something, does it really vanish or does it turn into different states (Gas, Liquid, Solid) and disperse throughout the system?

 

[fossten]

This question is arguably impossible to answer and it does not necessarily prove the existence of God. For one to answer this question, they would have to account for an infinite universe to provide as the denominator in the fraction of "chance". You could also compare the concept of infinity to combat the idea of what is "complex" and what is "simple", considering we'd need to know all structures before we could label something either of the two.

It may not prove the existence of God per se, but it overwhelmingly casts crushing doubt on evolution, which as we know is taught as FACT in every government school in America. You're actually raising the burden of proof beyond just discrediting evolution and requiring PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. The very unlikelihood of evolution adds a preponderance of evidence which encourages one to turn to alternate theories, the most likely of which remaining is that there is a God.

 

[KD00LS]

Sorry for the post whoring, but essentially this is my premise on the topic of accepting and denying religion. I find no real reason to fully accept or fully deny either of the two spheres, so at best I'm an agnostic. Now would it be my fault if I didn't accept such theories as salvation? Couldn't I claim that the evidence for an omniscient (etc.) being wasn't laid out properly for me to understand or accept? So would the conditional situation that influenced my logic or beliefs be my fault? After all, I wasn't the one who created it, I am just a potential byproduct of such a theory.

 

[fossten]

Sorry for the post whoring, but essentially this is my premise on the topic of accepting and denying religion. I find no real reason to fully accept or fully deny either of the two spheres, so at best I'm an agnostic. Now would it be my fault if I didn't accept such theories as salvation? Couldn't I claim that the evidence for an omniscient (etc.) being wasn't laid out properly for me to understand or accept? So would the conditional situation that influenced my logic or beliefs be my fault? After all, I wasn't the one who created it, I am just a potential byproduct of such a theory.

How do you define 'accepting religion?'

Here's how the Bible answers your question.

From Romans chapter 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[KD00LS]

It may not prove the existence of God per se, but it overwhelmingly casts crushing doubt on evolution, which as we know is taught as FACT in every government school in America. You're actually raising the burden of proof beyond just discrediting evolution and requiring PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE. The very unlikelihood of evolution adds a preponderance of evidence which encourages one to turn to alternate theories, the most likely of which remaining is that there is a God.

I'm basically, in my own beliefs, denying that the burden of proof can actually be attained. My post wasn't intentionally bashing religion or evolution, I was just stating that such a concept can't be used in either's argument.

 

[KD00LS]

How do you define 'accepting religion?'

Not getting into specifics and staying within context, I'd say first starting out with accepting intelligent design rather than a meaningless situation.

 

[KD00LS]

Here's how the Bible answers your question.

From Romans chapter 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I understand the premise behind that it should be obvious, but it doesn't come as obvious to me. Would that be my fault? Apparently I would be disadvantaged in terms of recognizing such a theory, and the situation wouldn't be "fair" per say.

 

[fossten]

Not getting into specifics and staying within context, I'd say first starting out with accepting intelligent design rather than a meaningless situation.

Accepting ID isn't the answer. It's a beginning point, and really it's about being open minded to the possibility that all this didn't happen by chance. From there, it's about deciding whether or not you believe that you are accountable to God. Forget about organized religion; Jesus Himself hated organized religion. Seek God.

 

[fossten]

I understand the premise behind that it should be obvious, but it doesn't come as obvious to me. Would that be my fault? Apparently I would be disadvantaged in terms of recognizing such a theory, and the situation wouldn't be "fair" per say.

The part that says you are 'without excuse' clearly means that you have enough evidence around you to find God.

 

[KD00LS]

Accepting ID isn't the answer. It's a beginning point, and really it's about being open minded to the possibility that all this didn't happen by chance. From there, it's about deciding whether or not you believe that you are accountable to God. Forget about organized religion; Jesus Himself hated organized religion. Seek God.

I think of myself as pretty openminded. When I originally started to think about religion I considered myself a weak athiest. I think another problem could exist in nomenclature. Such as the "Big Bang" could be "God".

 

[KD00LS]

The part that says you are 'without excuse' clearly means that you have enough evidence around you to find God.

But would it be my fault that "enough evidence" doesn't register as the truth to me? If I were created this way, this would be considered unfair I suppose.

 

[fossten]

I think of myself as pretty openminded. When I originally started to think about religion I considered myself a weak athiest. I think another problem could exist in nomenclature. Such as the "Big Bang" could be "God".

I understand where you're coming from. My father was an atheist. Now he's a Christian.

 

[KD00LS]

I wouldn't want to accept for the wrong reasons either. I think of Pascal's wager as a false security, that if an omniscent being created the world in which one who accepts faith out of fear of damnation and not necessarily truth that the omniscient being would know, deeming such a decision futile. I suppose it would be considered greed rather than respect or belief. Just going through the motions rather than actually believing.

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Not getting into specifics and staying within context, I'd say first starting out with accepting intelligent design rather than a meaningless situation.

Just because you dont have some devine god having pitty on you, doesn't mean your situation is meaningless.

I wouldn't want to accept for the wrong reasons either. I think of Pascal's wager as a false security, that if an omniscent being created the world in which one who accepts faith out of fear of damnation and not necessarily truth that the omniscient being would know, deeming such a decision futile. I suppose it would be considered greed rather than respect or belief. Just going through the motions rather than actually believing.

You can be an agnostic. There's no timeline for religion.

I think the only way to get eternally damned in Christianity is to renounce the holy spirit.

 

[fossten]

Just because you dont have some devine god having pitty on you, doesn't mean your situation is meaningless.



You can be an agnostic. There's no timeline for religion.

I think the only way to get eternally damned in Christianity is to renounce the holy spirit.

Incorrect. You need to read Mark 16:16 and John 3:18.

 

[fossten]

I wouldn't want to accept for the wrong reasons either. I think of Pascal's wager as a false security, that if an omniscent being created the world in which one who accepts faith out of fear of damnation and not necessarily truth that the omniscient being would know, deeming such a decision futile. I suppose it would be considered greed rather than respect or belief. Just going through the motions rather than actually believing.

That's admirable as well. But Pascal's wager can be useful in determining whether or not to commence the search for God, yes? It doesn't have to be the deciding factor.

 

[KD00LS]

That's admirable as well. But Pascal's wager can be useful in determining whether or not to commence the search for God, yes? It doesn't have to be the deciding factor.

Perhaps, it's been a while since Philosophy 101.

 

[shagdrum]

we already know dembsky's failed logic. post 88.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=40935&page=3

So, now you are spamming your old "wall 'o' text" posts? Sorry, I still refuse to read through those petulant posts of yours. Can you spell out how Dembski's logic is "failed" in your own words?

The post you are spamming is nothing more then cut and paste clips of articles that are mostly smears directed at Dembski and/or ID (or mischaracterizations of them), with little substance to offer, but quite a few fallacies including; poisoning the well, various ad hominem smears, straw men, dishonest double standards, moving the goalposts, and others.

The first article (which you cut and paste almost in it's entirety) was a "review" by Massimo Pigliucci of a book written by Dembski. Here is an interesting article rebutting that review and I will quote the first paragraph of it for you here:

Massimo Pigliucci's review of William Dembski's The Design Inference puzzles me. What puzzles me most is lack of substantive comment about the book itself--Pigliucci's "review" reads for the most part like an extended diatribe against the intelligent design (i.e. creationist) movement. Do not misunderstand me--I am unsympathetic towards creationists of all stripes. But the style in which Pigliucci attacks Dembski's book is analogous to badmouthing the Principia Mathematica because Newton spent substantial time working on alchemy, or to trashing Dirac's Principles of Quantum Mechanics because many crackpots appeal to quantum mechanics to advance their personal pseudoscientific agendas.​

Then there is the experiment you cited as "proving Dembski wrong", which was countered in post #90 of that same thread.