[quote]lucasa wrote:
When doing science, religion is best left at the door (ethics aside).[/quote]
Ethics and Religion can exist indepentently of each other.
Sorry, this is a peeve of mine.
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
… Any second year engineering student would be able to come up with a better design for an eye,…[/quote]
Soemtimes I think a civil engineer designed our sexual organs, because only a mud monkey would run a sewage pipe through a recreational area.
[quote]Miserere wrote:
lucasa wrote:
When doing science, religion is best left at the door (ethics aside).
Ethics and Religion can exist indepentently of each other.
Sorry, this is a peeve of mine.[/quote]
Right, I didn’t mean to imply that, but ethics can be and is influenced by religion, and the only way I can see religion intermingling with science in a beneficial manner is in the vehicle of ethics. My thinking:
Science-doesn’t necessarily concern itself with “right” and “wrong” in the sense of justice or morality.
Ethics-delineation of right and wrong based on cultural mores.
Religion-one or several sets of systems for deciding morally what is “right” and “wrong” (among other things).
[quote]DeepSouth wrote:
What I’d like to know, is what’s the research on how life began at all…from inorganic matter?
Does the earth (dirt) have a genetic makeup?
If its a possibility that life can evolve from non-life, then has this been observed yet?
Edit: Nevermind, the Miller-Urey experiment web page explained some things in detail, except the genetic code…[/quote]
This is from wikipedia:
This experiment (Miller-Urey) inspired many experiments in a similar vein. In 1961, Joan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.
BTW, lucasa, what does it say under Bad Science in your avatar?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In that experiment, what would have truly been spectacular and awe inspiring…is if there were mice eyes being grown on those flies. That wasn’t the case.
[/quote]
Well, that would certainly indicate that there is some measure of “specified complexity”, wouldn’t it? Mouse genes make mouse eyes… but that’s not what happened. There’s the complexity, sure, but it wasn’t specific. What we see here is that some genes are interchangeable.
Remember that movie “The Fly?” In reality, I guess Jeff Goldblum just goes on with life without mutating into some freakish half-human monstrosity. The specificity of function and design which the ID guys claim as the gold standard for their argument just isn’t there.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BTW, let me reiterate that, to my understanding, ID and evolution are not incompatible, though ID isn’t necessarily “science” either:
[/quote]
Actually BB, ID is an attempt to directly refute the Theory of Evolution. They are in no way compatible:
“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”
That is from my first post, the first link to intelligentdesignnetwork.org.
They reject Darwinism, natural selection, and basically anything that makes sense. 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I can’t understand how the concept of chaos fits in with the large amount of order that has created what we know of the universe. That is an amazing number of hits on “just right”. I wrote before it is like believing that if you are in enough car accidents, eventually one of those crashes will result in a brand new Beemer with 20" rims, an MP3 player in the dash and a brand new wax job.
[/quote]
Let me be of some assistance here, ProfX. A lot of people don’t realize what chaos is exactly. We have this fuzzy idea about randomness as it applies to our universe, but chaos isn’t like that… random. On a grand enough scale, the universe will appear like a carefully-woven tapestry. Seemingly chaotic and random things are just tiny slices of the big picture.
Your example of the car crash doesn’t apply in that you can roll a pair of dice at a craps table as many times as you want, but you will never get a 13. Some things are just not possible. But within the limits of probability, remarkable and unusual things can occur.
I just a heard a story about a 92 year old guy who just won ANOTHER multi-million dollar jackpot on the slots in Vegas. That’s right, his second big payoff. Nevermind the chances of doing such a thing once in a lifetime, but twice? Come on… that’s crazy! But it happened.
Are the chances of that happening close to the chances of some nucleotides coming together just right to make a self-replicating molecule, similar to an early protein? The Miller-Urey experiment showed us that it’s not only likely, but certain that prebiotic conditions made organic molecules out of inorganic ones.
Extend the Miller-Urey experiment to the entire planet, for trillions of years, and here we are, communicating over the internet about this. Not only likely, but certain.
And about the seemingly large number of “coincidences” surrounding our physical laws:
This is a perspective issue. It does seem like a a great many “hits” as ProfX puts it, and almost too many perfect conditions to think that there could be any other explanantion than a grand purposeful design to the universe… like the intelligence from ID.
Until you mentally change gears, and look at it this way: of course everything is lined up just right, there is no other way for it to be. Of course there is a tendency for patterns to form in chaotic processes, there is no other way.
So then you are left with the chicken or the egg question. Did intelligence come first, and make the pattern, or did the pattern come first, which gave rise to intelligence?
So far, all we can say for sure is that the pattern made US. If you try to look behind what we see, and guess at a “why”, then you will come up with all kinds of weirdness.
- The seemingly coincidental number of factors in the universe lined up just right to give rise to our existence because:
a) Our world is actually a computerized neuro-interactive simulation created by alien or robotic beings a la The Matrix.
b) This incarnation of our universe is just another iteration of a series of Big Bangs in which physical laws are “scrambled” a little, and this one just happens to work out for us this time.
c) Shut up and hand me another beer.
I always loved multiple-choice questions.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
And about the seemingly large number of “coincidences” surrounding our physical laws:
This is a perspective issue. It does seem like a a great many “hits” as ProfX puts it, and almost too many perfect conditions to think that there could be any other explanantion than a grand purposeful design to the universe… like the intelligence from ID.
Until you mentally change gears, and look at it this way: of course everything is lined up just right, there is no other way for it to be. Of course there is a tendency for patterns to form in chaotic processes, there is no other way.
So then you are left with the chicken or the egg question. Did intelligence come first, and make the pattern, or did the pattern come first, which gave rise to intelligence?
So far, all we can say for sure is that the pattern made US. If you try to look behind what we see, and guess at a “why”, then you will come up with all kinds of weirdness.
- The seemingly coincidental number of factors in the universe lined up just right to give rise to our existence because:
a) Our world is actually a computerized neuro-interactive simulation created by alien or robotic beings a la The Matrix.
b) This incarnation of our universe is just another iteration of a series of Big Bangs in which physical laws are “scrambled” a little, and this one just happens to work out for us this time.
c) Shut up and hand me another beer.
I always loved multiple-choice questions. :)[/quote]
Re your point (b) above: check out this article from Slate magazine http://slate.msn.com/id/2100715
[quote]sharetrader wrote:
Re your point (b) above: check out this article from Slate magazine http://slate.msn.com/id/2100715[/quote]
Fun article, thanks. What makes me smile about that is the fact that this was all done in a Marvel comic book years ago. As I recall, a guy from one of our children universes pops up and starts kicking everybody’s asses. I guess we had destroyed his home universe in a fission reactor or something like that. I can’t remember much else.
Has anybody else noticed how comic books are starting to become reality? I posted the thing about the regenerating mice a couple of weeks ago. Now we have alternate universes… how long until mutants start popping up and we have to build gigantic Sentinel robots and shit?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.”[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]
They reject Darwinism, natural selection, and basically anything that makes sense. :)[/quote]
They reject the above because it is completely unproven and highly improbable and therefore makes no sense.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
I’ll summarize it for you.
Intelligent Design is a Tube-Steak Boogie. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution should be hit over the head until they do.
Talk about religious fanatics.[/quote]
There is no more dogmatic, hyper- religious person on the face of the earth than a dyed-in-the-wool macro evolutionist. They will froth at the mouth and scream “Allah Akbar” with the best of 'em. However, their “Allah” is themselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
There is no more dogmatic, hyper- religious person on the face of the earth than a dyed-in-the-wool macro evolutionist. They will froth at the mouth and scream “Allah Akbar” with the best of 'em. However, their “Allah” is themselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.[/quote]
A Hahahah! We got one!
Hey throttle, I didn’t realize you were so kinky! So you are not only comfortable with the idea of ID being taught in science, you would like to roll back the dogmatic and completely false evolution thingy, too?
From your posts earlier, I will assume that you would answer yes. Cool. So instead of rational thought in science class, your substitution would be… ???
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
There is no more dogmatic, hyper- religious person on the face of the earth than a dyed-in-the-wool macro evolutionist. They will froth at the mouth and scream “Allah Akbar” with the best of 'em. However, their “Allah” is themselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.
A Hahahah! We got one!
Hey throttle, I didn’t realize you were so kinky! So you are not only comfortable with the idea of ID being taught in science, you would like to roll back the dogmatic and completely false evolution thingy, too?
From your posts earlier, I will assume that you would answer yes. Cool. So instead of rational thought in science class, your substitution would be… ???[/quote]
Loth,
I can hear your “Allah Akbar” all the way to here.
Yeah, we definitely differ on what is considered “rational thought”.
Now, you go ahead and try and convert me at the point of your sword, Meester Hernando Cortez. (Hey, don’t read anything “kinky” into that, bub LOL)
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
There is no more dogmatic, hyper- religious person on the face of the earth than a dyed-in-the-wool macro evolutionist. They will froth at the mouth and scream “Allah Akbar” with the best of 'em. However, their “Allah” is themselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.
A Hahahah! We got one!
Hey throttle, I didn’t realize you were so kinky! So you are not only comfortable with the idea of ID being taught in science, you would like to roll back the dogmatic and completely false evolution thingy, too?
From your posts earlier, I will assume that you would answer yes. Cool. So instead of rational thought in science class, your substitution would be… ???[/quote]
You’re making my point, Loth. Accuse your debating opponent of being kinky and irrational if he doesn’t agree with your completely unproven and highly improbable theory. Demean him as unsophisticated and imply that he is ignorant and uneducated. Like I said, you guys are sum-kinda rabid about your “religion”. I’ll bet you sing “Onward Darwin Soldiers” in the choir louder than most.
[quote]throttle132 wrote:
You’re making my point, Loth. Accuse your debating opponent of being kinky and irrational if he doesn’t agree with your completely unproven and highly improbable theory.[/quote]
I see what you’re getting at pal, but what happens when you realize that you ARE being irrational? I’m sorry that reality is not what you want it to be. We are little more than monkeys, throttle. Is that what bothers you? Maybe it’s because that we’ve discovered that the christian bible is not a 100% true-to-life historical account?
[quote]Demean him as unsophisticated and imply that he is ignorant and uneducated. Like I said, you guys are sum-kinda rabid about your “religion”. I’ll bet you sing “Onward Darwin Soldiers” in the choir louder than most.
[/quote]
I’m just another tenor in the Evolutionary chorus. And honestly, “kinky” isn’t a derogatory term in any way. Although I guessed you would take it as one.
So do you have any thoughts on supporting the ID thing which haven’t already been refuted, or are you going to continue to sling mud at me? I can always take a shower later, so sling away. This is supposed to be fun, ya know.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
I’ll summarize it for you.
Intelligent Design is a Tube-Steak Boogie. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution should be hit over the head until they do.
Talk about religious fanatics.
There is no more dogmatic, hyper- religious person on the face of the earth than a dyed-in-the-wool macro evolutionist. They will froth at the mouth and scream “Allah Akbar” with the best of 'em. However, their “Allah” is themselves.
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools”.
Yep, them folks have got themselves their own little church (cult) but they would be loathe to admit it.[/quote]
Push, You really can’t blame 'em. Once you reject the idea of a God and Intelligent Designer, where else are you gonna go? It doesn’t matter that their theory is completely unproveable. It doesn’t matter that it’s highly improbable. They’ve got nothing else. Ya gotta believe in sumthin.
They’re hypocritical in their condescending attitudes towards those who believe in I.D. in that they look down their noses at “those religious nuts” but hey, give 'em break, they ARE believers too… just got themselves their own little cult thing going on. And they REALLY do think their Kool Aid tastes good.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, them folks have got themselves their own little church (cult) but they would be loathe to admit it.[/quote]
This is something else which has been mentioned a few times a while back. Let me ask you something:
What kind of church is in a constant state of refining their beliefs, changing bibles as soon as it becomes apparent that the information they are preaching is wrong? What kind of church disregards the supernatural, and instead of saying “This is the answer to all of the mystery”, lives by the motto: “Take nothing by faith.”
That’s a pretty weird cult, huh? Take a look around you. My cult brought both the refinements and the horrors of the modern age.
Microwave oven? Atomic Bomb?
You’re welcome. The cool thing about being in my religion is that it’s real. We don’t have to pretend about anything, and in fact, it’s frowned upon. Too bad we’ll never have all the answers, but hey… life would suck if we knew everything. When you’re in my cult, you get used to saying the phrase “I don’t know… But we can try to find out…”
It’s fun. You should try it.