Science v Intelligent Design: Denyse O'leary to teach a pastoral class on ID

For a good text book, may I suggest Forrest and Gross's Creationism's Trojan Horse:
The Wedge of Intelligent Design

I hope she can find a suitable textbook which accurately describes Intelligent Design.

I wonder if Denyse is familiar with St Augustine when she presents her materialist versus non-materialist views

or worse, her claim that “reputable scientists are found on both sides”.

Mats: PvM

I hope she can find a suitable textbook which accurately describes Intelligent Design.

Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton's 1985 book, and specially the chapter "The Puzzle Of Perfection", gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference. Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

Mats: In fact, we who defend the existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

By the way, if Augustine was living today, on which side do you think he would be? On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design, or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton’s 1985 book, and specially the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

— Mats

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Oh great! The Augustine citation again. PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

To put it another way: you can’t assume that Augustine’s quote is valid against Darwin-skeptics just because you believe that evolutionism is true.

Augustine’s quote can be used against you, once we put ourselves on the other side of the fence.

Basically, both sides would agree with his words. In fact, we who defend the

existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

By the way, if Augustine was

living today, on which side do you think he would be?

On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design,

or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

It’s hilarious for you to use Augustine’s citation, when, if he were alive today, he would use that citation against you.

Well, reputable scientists are found on both sides.

For sure, the majority of scientists believe that things created themselves,

but not all of them. Unless if you have a weird “definition” of “reputable”, this shouldn’t even be an issue.

Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises.

[W]hile the materialism is prevalent in academia and the media, it is widely discredited in the population at large, including the professional classes.

Mats,

As you surely know, Denton has a later book, "Nature's Destiny," in which he rejected many of the claims of his 1985 book, especially the denial of common descent. Don't you think that that would be a more up-to-date reference? Even if you disagree with it, don't you think that students deserve "equal time" for it in that class?

All,

I hope that students drill O'Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with "Darwinism" or "materialism."

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Wrong. Pop quiz … who said the following?

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

So, what exactly IS this “evidence for real design in the living world”?

(Hint: Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory.)

Go on, then. I’ll bite. How about you summarise this “solid scientific standing” of the design inference for those of us who do not possess a copy of that book?

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

No, Mats, the scientific validity of MET is not the issue at hand.

Augustine’s quotation is entirely apt, because people like you, Mats, are causing rational people to ridicule the Christian fundies.

[Y]ou yourself have failed, despite numerous requests from other posters, to supply a description of the scientific theory of ID.

OK, Mats, supply us with some of this “testable, verifiable evidence” of design in the living world. This should at least be good for a few laughs.

Well, reputable scientists are found on both sides.

No, Mats, they aren’t. Name one reputable scientist with a relevant area of expertise who denies common descent.

Mats, As you surely know, Denton has a later book, “Nature’s Destiny,” in which he rejected many of the claims of his 1985 book, especially the denial of common descent.

Don’t you think that that would be a more up-to-date reference? Even if you disagree with it, don’t you think that students deserve “equal time” for it in that class?

I hope that students drill O’Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with “Darwinism” or “materialism.”

Better yet, he believes in evolution in a smaller scale (rightly named “variation”, not evolution), but in the book is seems to be very skeptical of the larger claims done in the name of Darwinism. In his view, if I recall correctly (if he reads this blog, he can correct me), Darwinism explains small changes, but not larger ones.

Mats: why should we take the word of someone like yourself, when you have already implicitly admitted you're a liar, tried to justify lying to us, and continue to spout well-known falsehoods about subjects you clearly have made no effort to understand?

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific.

Show us all those peer-reviewed scientific publications that say evolution is NOT scientific. We're waiting...

Mats wrote (a list he apparently thinks that it is hard for evolution to explain):

1. DNA
2. The highly sophisticaed bat sonar
3. Dolphin sonar
4. Giraffe’s neck and it’s internal system to regulate the flow of blood in the brain
5. Birds flying in a energy-saving “V” formation
6. Bombardier Beetle etc, etc
Don’t you just feel like laughing when you think of those systems coming into existence as the result mindless forces?!

No Mats, I don't. But I do feel like laughing when someone claims that there is no evidence that they in fact did. In each case, evidence does exist for exactly that. Go to the Talk Origins archive, every one of your examples is addressed there. Gee, I wonder how they knew which examples you would choose.

Let's just take the Bombardier beetle for example. How could such a complex system of interacting parts evolve? Certainly the intermediate forms could not be functional! But of course, when you look at the comparative data, not only do intermediate forms exist but they are indeed functional and adaptive. There are dozens of different species with different mechanisms. There is not just one species of beetle that popped out of nothing. And there is indeed a plausible pathway for even the most complex pathway to have formed by gradual steps. This conclusion is supported by molecular phylogenetics as well. How do you explain the genetic relationships between the species?

And of course the exact same thing is true of all of you other examples as well. When the copmparative data is examined in detail, the answer always becomes clear. Ignorance of the data never causes it to disappear. Now how could those birds possibly learn such a complex behavior by chance? Man how complex can you get? DNA, wow how could a molecule with four different building blocks ever evolve from the chemicals that are most likely to form under primitive earth conditions? I guess we'll never know for sure so better settle for GODDIDIT.

By the way Mats, I see you left eyes and whales off the list and switched instead to sonar. You never did answer my questions about vertebrate eye evolution or whale evolution. Did you finally look at the evidence or did you just run away? Just for the record, the data for sonar evolution is part of the story of cetacean evolution. There is a well documented series of intermediate forms that reveal how cetacean sonar evolved. Deal with it.

I hope that students drill O’Leary on what the designer did, when, and how, and how IDers plan to test it without any reference to problems with “Darwinism” or “materialism.”

Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?

I had a few tutorials on creationism and ID when I was at university. They were in the history of science department where they belonged.

Mats: I have read ETC (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) a while ago, but I don’t think Denton denies common descent therein. He denies that the present theory of evolution is responsible for that common descent.

Denton now maintains that the evolutionary development of life was the inevitable result of inherent conditions built into the universe. His is a deistic, mechanistic viewpoint that is decidedly at odds with the position of the vast majority of ID supporters in that he believes no direct intervention has occurred since the origin of the universe. He also believes that the regular operations of consistent, natural laws in this world are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of life. Thus while he disagrees that neo-Darwinian mechanisms are the whole story, he definitely agrees with materialistic, 'standard' scientific approaches to understanding the physical history of life. His notions of 'design' is along the lines of most theistic evolutionists and is fully compatible with methodological naturalism.

Damn. And it's being offered at a Canadian university too.

I'm so embarrassed. Now I'll have to go eat some poutine and drink some maple syrup to make myself feel better.

There are many, but bringing it to your own territorry, The total absense of any mindless able to generate living forms, coded information, and interdependet functional structures.

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he's never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

PvM, Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

So Mats, will you finally explain the definition of 'design'?

[Chirp Chirp]

The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe.

So let's see... Mats is asked to provide the evidence of ID, and comes up with a list of creationist claims that were refuted years ago. So this means:

1) The DI were lying when they said ID is not creationism, and still Mats supports them.

2) There is no evidence for ID - just gaps in scientific knowledge that can be explained by the existence of intelligence.

Sheesh, don't you guys learn? Do you think we just bandy about the words 'false dichotomy' because it sounds cool?

But let's take your definition of ID at your word, Mats. How is 'an intelligence did it' a better explanation for animal sonar than 'it evolved via inherited mutations'? Clue: one of those is testable, the other is childish bullcrap.

And mindless processes can produce complexity, by the way. Don't forget that.

Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?

— Mats

I reckon Mats doesn't care about truth at this point - just about promoting his religion. He's already admitted that he sees no reason why the ungodly should care about truth, and thus has no reason to speak it to us (never mind that people tend to find honesty a positive quality, and that he should follow his own morals, not the ones he feels other people have). He knows that the people behind ID were lying when they claimed ID wasn't creationism, so he clearly doesn't care much about honesty himself. He hangs out on a blog where dissent is forbidden and silenced, so he must know ID can't stand up to free discussion. And he still goes on supporting it. Good for you, Mats.

In fact, we who defend the existence of real design in nature would more correctly use it against people who claim to believe in God but say that there is no scientific (testable, verifiable, etc) evidence for real design in the living world.

Because the two sides proceed from different assumptions, they do not agree, as Thomas Kuhn would say, on what would constitute a falsification of their premises

Not only does she not understand science, she doesn't understand the philosophy of science, either. Thomas Kuhn talked about paradigm shifts, NOT falsification. Falsiciation was Karl Popper, someone who ardently disaggreed with Kuhn. If you're going to name drop, she could at least get the right name.

Stanton said: Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

Reputable scientists can be found on both sides.

gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

the majority of scientists believe that things created themselves, but not all of them

what natural force is able to generate the systems we see in the world.

Mats the Dense Troll said: Even though the book is not endorsing or promoting ID, Denton’s 1985 book, and specially the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.
Inferences can be made about almost anything in this universe. That they are rooted in reality and fact is an entirely different concept. IDCreationism is one of those inferences rooted in BS and stupid ignorance to hook doles like you. Mats you would be very entertaining if not for your complete lack of a brain.

OK, Mats, supply us with some of this “testable, verifiable evidence” of design in the living world. This should at least be good for a few laughs.

Ok. Here are some things for you to laugh about: 1. DNA 2. The highly sophisticaed bat sonar 3. Dolphin sonar 4. Giraffe’s neck and it’s internal system to regulate the flow of blood in the brain 5. Birds flying in a energy-saving “V” formation 6. Bombardier Beetle etc, etc Don’t you just feel like laughing when you think of those systems coming into existence as the result mindless forces?!

I'm actually disappointed. I always assumed the ID chaps had something really good up their sleeves... what else could they be talking about at UD all the time? But for them to be clinging to the most trivial creationist claims after all this time breaks my heart. What a waste.

Venus Mousetrap: I'm actually disappointed. I always assumed the ID chaps had something really good up their sleeves... what else could they be talking about at UD all the time? But for them to be clinging to the most trivial creationist claims after all this time breaks my heart. What a waste.

The thing is people like Mats don't even understand what an arguement from ignorance even is. He/they don't comprehend it since their worlview is based on faith it doesn't bother them that they don't understand the subject matter and instead say "it's complicated, I don't get it, therefore it was designed" and such a position does not bother them in the least. His kind doesn't need or even understand evidence. After all, in spite of the evidence, they have the bible and jeebus on their side.

But Mats gives at least some of us a good belly laugh. It's the ONE time in life where laughing at the mentally ill is not in bad taste or mean spirited because people like Mats choose to be mentally ill (live outside of reality in a self-imposed ignorance).

Mats, keep 'em comin', you've almost got me convinced.

Remember how life changing it was to get a really switched on teacher, even if it was some "totally useless" subject? How sad is it, then, that kids will be wasting their time parked in front of a dingbat like Denyse.

"The thing is people like Mats don’t even understand what an argument from ignorance even is"

Mats doesn't understand much of anything. I skip over arguments with Mats now, because he is consistently incapable of incorporating relevant points into his understanding or conceding anything (hint to mats: if you watch two intelligent people arguing, you will see this happening all the time). He already knows he's right, and he thinks an argument is like a boxing match: if he keeps inventing sentences, eventually one of them is going to hit a soft spot and his opponent will give in to his undeniable superiority. His opponent's blows have no meaning except as things to be deflected

Mats: SWT said

Denton correctly says that even thought the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Wrong. Pop quiz … who said the following?

Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

How does that quote invalidate what I said above?

Mats:

So, what exactly IS this “evidence for real design in the living world”?

There are many, but bringing it to your own territorry, The total absense of any mindless able to generate living forms, coded information, and interdependet functional structures. Obviously, you, realizing the problem, quickly say:

(Hint: Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory.)

Sure it is. Either things created themselves, or Someone created them. Evidence against one is evidence for the other. Like I said previously, that "either-or" mindset is the foundation for the "panda principle", or BDA ("Bad Design Arguement"). You don't seem to have a problem with that aproach when it seems to favor evolutionism. It only becomes "invalid" when it moves in favor of the competing theory.

the chapter “The Puzzle Of Perfection”, gives us solid scientific standing to make a design inference.

the design inference has religious implications, it is not based on religious assumptions.

Augustine’s citation can be used against Darwin skeptics if evolutionism is scientific. But that is the issue at hand!

By the way, if Augustine was living today, on which side do you think he would be? On the side of those who say that nature shows no evidence for intelligent design, or on the side of those that nature shows plenty and sufficient evidence for real, Mindful design?

Much as I enjoy a good creationist roasting, I'm getting a bit bored with Mats monopolising the comments section. Think of all the real useful work you could all be doing, rather than pointing out (for the 358th time), that Mats knows nothing and has no clothes on.

"By Design or By Chance? An Introduction to the Intelligent Design Controversy"

I'd like one of the intelligent design insiders to give their version of how the intelligent design fiasco developed. That would seem to be the only meaningful ID controversy left. Meyer would likely be the one to be able to do the best job. The intelligent design creationist scam may have started out as an honest effort, but the book Panda's and People would tend to argue aganist that. When the ID scam artists decided to drop ID and go with the replacement scam (turning the effort into a classic bait and switch scam), what went on behind the scenes? This seems to have happened around 1999, so what were the thoughts then?

How did they intend to ease the creationist rubes onto the replacement scam and off of the teach ID scam? Did they intend to run the bait and switch scam and just hope enough rubes took the switch to make the ID scam worthwhile? I'd expect that they had a plan to make the transition, but weren't able to impliment the plan or complete it in time. Ohio obviously hit them before they had accomplished the transition, and since then they have tried to run the bait and switch scam on all the creationist rubes that didn't get the message from Ohio that the switch was in, but Dover didn't take the switch, hit them in the face, and ran over them like a freight train. They continue to run the bait and switch on any school board or legislator that wants to teach ID. Can any ID advocate deny that? What do they give these people instead of anything to teach about ID?

Even Philip Johnson admitted that they had nothing equivalent to teach after the Dover fiasco, so they must have had a plan. My first guess is that they were not planning to run the obvious bait and switch that the ID scam turned into, but the only ones that know aren't talking.

The Discovery Institute's Teach the Controversy replacement scam was obviously being discussed by 1999:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=58

If you want to put as good a face on the ID scam that you can you might claim that they believed that they had something to teach in the science class, at first. Some ID advocates might still be incompetent enough to believe that there is something that they can teach. Once the reasonably competent ones realized that they didn't have anything, they looked for alternatives, and started things like ARN and ISCID in the hopes that something might turn up that was worth teaching. No one can deny that they still claimed to be able to teach something, so by this time they probably knew that they were fibbing about having anything to teach about intelligent design. The moment of truth came in Ohio when they were forced to run the bait and switch in public because nothing worth teaching had turned up. After that it would have to be all down hill and lame excuses.

The scenario could be worse than that. For example, what if ARN and ISCID were not just hail Mary attempts to stumble over something worth teaching, but were meant as propaganda organs to fool the rubes into thinking that there was some "controversy" that they wanted to teach, just smoke to support the bait and switch Teach the Controversy replacement scam? How little integrity was involved in this effort?

So when will this intelligent design controvery be laid to rest? When did intelligent design become an inexcusable creationist scam? Before or after Ohio in 2002? Do I have to add that they ran and are running the bait and switch on their own supporters? If the creationist board members in Ohio that wanted to teach the science of intelligent design were not ID supporters, what were they? Instead of ID what did they get to teach? Who sold them ID? Who sold them the replacement scam instead of the science of ID? Didn't the replacement scam come from the same guys that used to claim that ID was their business over at the Discovery Institute?

Ron: ARN seems to have a lot of clips on Youtube, under the name AccessResearch. As far as I can tell almost every one is a God-channel-style lecture-with-powerpoint. I went looking through for a description of ID theory or research - unfortunately, all the clips are only a few minutes long, which is a shame, because I really want to know this theory they keep getting censored over. It must be terribly difficult to pass that information over such a limited and enclosed system like the world's largest video sharing website.

Also, a little hint to ARN: if you don't want to lose another Dover, stop talking about theism and God in your videos.

Also, a little hint to ARN: if you don’t want to lose another Dover, stop talking about theism and God in your videos.

Venus, ARN is one of the reasons that I wish that the Ohio boneheads had continued to push the replacement scam. If they hadn't dropped the scam we might be looking at the court test of Teach the Controversy, Critical Analysis, or whatever they are calling the new scam by now. ARN was one of the "science" web links that was recommended to teachers in the model lesson plan that they cooked up. Trying to claim any science for the site would have been worth reading in the court transcripts. Trying to deny the links to the ID scam would have been interesting with guys like Meyer on the ARN board. It would have been difficult to distance the new scam from the ID creationist scam since it was Meyer that gave them the new scam in the bait and switch that was run on the Ohio board. Everyone knows that the Ohio board wanted to teach ID, so what is the new scam that they are trying to run? Who could they possibly fool?

What the creationist scam artists need is a pristine group of creationists that are careful to not mention ID or creationism when they try to impliment the ID replacement scam. So far, such a group hasn't appeared. They have all blown the game by claiming to want to teach intelligent design or by displaying their religious motives. It will be interesting to see how the courts treat the historical record of how the Critical Analysis creationist scam got started, and has floundered around since. Once they do find a group with enough on the ball to effectively lie in order to run the new scam how believable could they possibly be? I doubt that there is a single informed creationist that believes that such a group would not be lying and dishonestly running the scam. How could they not, when all the creationists know why they themselves want to run the scam? Why is this such a big deal? What good is running a scam if you can't tell anyone why you are running the scam? If creationists really wanted to challenge the laws the last thing that they should be doing is lying about what the are doing. Even if they win the lie wins and not what they want. Even if they do something unexpected like win a dishonest effort in court that wouldn't be a moral victory and who is claiming the moral high ground?

This past month a few critics of ID announced they would be focusing on other things because ID and UD were withering away.

HEY! Can someome tell me what "MET" stands for???

Modern Evolutionary Theory.

(Hint: Evidence against a competing theory is not evidence for your theory.)

Mats replies:

"Sure it is. Either things created themselves, or Someone created them. Evidence against one is evidence for the other."

Argument of False Dichotomy.

Here's a video to help you out.

Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9MdYU0S7CQ

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

"The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe." Do you agree with that Mats?

If so, then it seems to be clear that ID is not as much a scientific controversy but a philosophical one.

"Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?" Please reread my comment. I did not say that they can’t do that in the class. I only said that they should be able to state, and propose tests for, what the designer did, when and how, without any reference to to those “problems.”

You are the one making an “either-or” argument, by setting up a false dichotomy between MET and some vague concept of design.

Consider a historical example that I suspect most of us would consider settled science. For quite a long period of time, humans viewed the universe as a geocentric system. A few years ago, a new vision for how the solar system operated was forged – let’s call it ESST (Enlightenment Solar System Theory) – which posited that the sun was at the center of the solar system, the planets revolve around the sun, etc., and that the motions of these bodies were governed by Newtonian mechanics. The direct application the approach you use biology to celestial mechanics must lead us to formulate the statement “Geocentrism OR ESST” and would lead us to accept problems with ESST as evidence for Geocentrism. Thus, your line of reasoning would lead to the false conclusion that significant relativistic effects (problems with the Newtonian mechanics portion of ESST) are evidence of Geocentrism.

So, make your positive argument for design. Be sure to include examples where we’ve observed personal, mindful forces (or whatever you want to call them) create living organisms from simple chemicals.

Given as how you have not dropped any names of these alleged maverick biologists, nor have you I have come to the conclusion that you are lying in order to support your own pathetic argument. The only biologist with a PhD that rejects the 150 years worth of evidence that I know of is the creationist Kurt Wise, and that's only because he refuses to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the King James' translation of the Bible.

Furthermore, by implying a "designer," you have to know what the "designer" had in mind, otherwise, saying "this is designed" is a worthless non sequitor without any scientific merit whatsoever. How many scientific experiments have the Discovery Institute put out? How does saying "mesonychids are designed" or "oreodonts were designed" explain anything Mats? Can you demonstrate with these two examples?

Are you saying that there are no PhDs biologists who reject common descent? ….….…. PvM said

— Mats

“The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe.” Do you agree with that Mats?

If so, then it seems to be clear that ID is not as much a scientific controversy but a philosophical one.

Would you say the same about Darwinism, since Darwinist use another philosophy in their interpretation of the evidence?

— Mats

Would you say the same about Darwinism, since Darwinist use another philosophy in their interpretation of the evidence?

What is funny is that ID is still focusing on a concept called Darwinism, when science in fact has moved significantly in understanding that selection is but one of the processes of evolution.

From an ID perspective such a focus is illogical since ID has to deal with any and all scientific explanations before it can conclude design. Thus the conclusion seems logical that ID's opposition to Darwinism is not based on ID's foundational principle but rather on motives which follow from the steps outlined in the Wedge Document.

ID's inability to evolve is one of the reasons why it will likely go extinct.

If ID's job is not to understand the mind of the creator, then how is it an explanation for anything? It's a vacuous statement.

...

Also, this is a good thread. Usually results from good trolls, like Mats.

Of course, ID may 'survive' through drift as long as the population remains small enough :-)

"A bystander" points out why ID cannot explain anything since it explains anything we do not yet understand by calling it 'designed'. Note that ID proponents are mostly unaware of this definition of design and thus easily confuse it with Design.

ID thrives on persisting this ignorance.

I know ID people have problems with evolutionary algorithms (thanks a lot to Dembski, who has done stirling work in casting doubt upon them - who can forget the stunningly dumb pronouncements of DaveScot and Sal Cordova when faced with Dave Thomas' very real examples of simulated evolution?), but can't we just show them simulated evolution producing complexity, and shut them up?

I.D. = a proposed explanation in search of something that it might eventually be useful in actually explaining.

Henry

Mats: "ID is not in the job of 'getting into the Mind of the Creator'"

A "science" that studies the design of artifacts but rules off limits any investigation into who designed them, how that designer worked or what its intentions were for the artifacts.

Hm.

That would be a busy lab. I'm beginning to suspect that ID is actually a covert training program for online poker.

Mats: “ID is not in the job of ‘getting into the Mind of the Creator’”

But ID isn't religious. Nope. Not a bit of it.

What is funny is that ID is still focusing on a concept called Darwinism, when science in fact has moved significantly in understanding that selection is but one of the processes of evolution.

Would you say the same about Darwinism, since Darwinist use another philosophy in their interpretation of the evidence?

The only philosophy that science hinges on is a specific epistemology, not an ill-defined metaphysic.

Mats,
You're really have problems with this 'false dichotomy' thing, aren't you?
Logic is not your strong point.

Never mind. I forgive you.
Now go back to your Liberty University course work.

Do you require, as evidence, that natural forces change dinosaurs into birds in front of you, in order to believe in them? Do you require that land mammals become marine mammals in front of you, in order to accept it?

Mats said: Are you saying that there are no PhDs biologists who reject common descent?

One group of people (Darwinists) believe that the natural/mindless forces of nature are able to explain the design in the living world, whereas ID scientists and creation scientists say that natural forces are not able to generate the systems we see in the living world.

Would you say the same about Darwinism, since Darwinist use another philosophy in their interpretation of the evidence?

...ID is not in the job of “getting into the Mind of the Creator...

However, you and other Darwiniacs gladly point to the panda’s thumb, and the vertebrate eye being “wired backwards”, as evidence for “bad design”. THe reason you do this it’s because by pointing out bad design, and assuming things about the Nature of God (Perfect, Good, etc, etc) you conclude that God wouldn’t have done it like this, therefore it must have evolved.

Is that the standard of evidence you require for evolutionism? Do you require, as evidence, that natural forces change dinosaurs into birds in front of you, in order to believe in them? Do you require that land mammals become marine mammals in front of you, in order to accept it?

Seems to be that you demand a lot for the opposition, but you yourself are very looose on the standard of evidence you accet for Darwininsm.

Secondly, please, bear in mind what is the point of the debate. We know that minds can create mechanisms with inter-dependent systems.

Therefore since what you believe goes against what we see hapening in front of our eyes, you have to provide the evidence for the magical powers of mindless forces.

We have never seen mindless process generate simple things like words on the beach sand. Therefore since what you believe goes against what we see hapening in front of our eyes, you have to provide the evidence for the magical powers of mindless forces.

— Mats

We have never seen mindless process generate simple things like words on the beach sand. Therefore since what you believe goes against what we see hapening in front of our eyes, you have to provide the evidence for the magical powers of mindless forces.

— Nigel D

Oh, boy, you really are as thick as two short planks, aren't you, Mats?

Circular argument constructed with a non sequitur. There’s got to be some kind of prize for that.

Mats: Stanton said

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

"Are you saying that there are no PhDs biologists who reject common descent?" You mean like Jonathon Wells? I'm sorry but the dueling scientist gambit is played by those who don't have the ability to argue cogently on their own. So how many biologists who don't suppport evolution are named Steve? ............ PvM said

"The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe." Do you agree with that Mats?

"In general terms, yes. One group of people (Darwinists) believe that the natural/mindless forces of nature are able to explain the design in the living world," Well mindless forces of nature like garvity design planets, solar systems, galaxies etc. Can't think of a good idea why mindless forces can't design other complicated stuff. "whereas ID scientists and creation scientists say that natural forces are not able to generate the systems we see in the living world. It's one interpretation of the evidence against the other interpretation of the evidence." Um no. Its simply the projection of religous beliefs. Design has no evidence in support of it and no mechanism. It is much like the expanding earth enthusiasts; no evidence that the earth's circumference has changed, and no mechanism for how the Earth can gain mass and expand either. No evidence, no theory, no teachie it in the classroom. Your so called examples of design were simply cheap attempts to exploit the fog of ignorance. A fog which has been staedliy lifting I might add. Design theory is a failure. It failed thousands of years ago. It fails today. 3000 years ago, nobody knew why it rained, why the Sun set or the moon went through phases. So they developed a panopoly of designers to explain what was occuring before their eyes. Modern day IDers aren't any better. ID failed as an explanation for meteorology and astronomy. It fails for biology today.

If so, then it seems to be clear that ID is not as much a scientific controversy but a philosophical one.

"Would you say the same about Darwinism, since Darwinist use another philosophy in their interpretation of the evidence?" Darwinist use the methodology of science. I'm not sure what philosophy your using. ............ Frank J said

"Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?" Please reread my comment. I did not say that they can’t do that in the class. I only said that they should be able to state, and propose tests for, what the designer did, when and how, without any reference to to those “problems.”

"Well, since ID is not in the job of "getting into the Mind of the Creator", I don't see the relevance of that." How do you propose we test ID? Stuart

Mats writes:
"We have never seen mindless process generate simple things like words on the beach sand."

Indeed. Why we see mindless processes generate much more complicated stuff like dendritic drainage
patterns. And that is on a much larger canvas than your beach. Why, even whole mountain ranges are generated by mindless processes.

Doesn't it just bake your noodle?

"Therefore since what you believe goes against what we see hapening in front of our eyes, you have to provide the evidence for the magical powers of mindless forces."

But evolution is happening in front of our very eyes, just as mountain building is
happening in front of our very eyes.

"What you are trying to do is the shift the burden of proof as if you have in anyway refuted what we can see happening in front of us."

Heck, what we are trying to do is get you to annuciate a testable theory of ID.

If you're not up to the task, just say so.

Stuart

A designer produces designs that someone else may, or may not, use to make actual objects. If God was the Designer, who or what was the Fabricator?

Actually, I am far from convinced that Mats takes himself seriously. He so consistently twists other people's words and repeats the same nonsense time after time, while avoiding giving real answers, that I think what he writes is motivated more by the response that he expects to get than by what he believes.

that I think what he writes is motivated more by the response that he expects to get than by what he believes.

a rose by any other name...

finally! somebody who at least knows what the definition of "troll" really is.

mats, realpc, Bond, are the very definition of the damn word.

it's truly pathetic to see people arguing with them over and over again.

Anyone else notice that Mats has mentioned that he knows of reputable biologists, with PhDs no less, who reject the evidence of Common Descent, yet, he’s never once mentioned who these alleged sympathetic biologists are?

"The intelligent design controversy is best understood as a conflict between materialist and non-materialist views of the origin and nature of the universe." Do you agree with that Mats?

If so, then it seems to be clear that ID is not as much a scientific controversy but a philosophical one.

"Why can’t they make reference to the problems of materialism and its brainchaild, Darwinism?" Please reread my comment. I did not say that they can’t do that in the class. I only said that they should be able to state, and propose tests for, what the designer did, when and how, without any reference to to those “problems.”

I agree with Ichthyic-- Mats, especially, is getting really boring. (But I can't resist pointing out that mindless, natural forces create, not only the beach sand itself, but wave patterns in the sand that are far more beautiful and elaborate than letters scrawled with a finger.)

Mats is now curiously absent from this thread.

How do you propose we test ID?

Mats is now curiously absent from this thread.

recent

??

been going on for months now.

and the same ones, besides.

One can always discuss whether it is good to reply (stimulates threads, informs bystanders) or bad (destroys threads, stimulates trolls).

But seeing such answers as say Science Avenger’s or Bobby’s above I think we have ample examples of non-kneejerkism.

The only way to stop vociferous trolls like Mats from derailing threads is to ban them.

Ichthyic, PG and others:

I would once have disagreed with you. A few months ago, I would have said that we should respond to the trolls so that the less informed visitors to PT won't think that the trolls have even one argument that makes sense.

Having recently spent a certain amount of time attempting to get Mats (or Neal, or realpc) to engage in some kind of rational debate, I am now much more inclined to agree. Mats asks questions to which he does not wish to know the answers. He repeats the same claims and assertions over and over, no matter how many times they have been shown to be empty / unsupported / illogical. He raises points that demonstrate that he has not done even the simplest bit of research on the subject. If you supply links to essays, all he does is scan them for quote-mining opportunities, rather than actually trying to understand them.

I think that, in future, it would be good if we could have a "spin-off" thread every time something that needs to be refuted gets posted as a comment to a PT blog entry. That way, the creos still get to have their say (although I am sure Neal will still claim he is being censored), but we all won't end up filling the entire discussion with repeating refutations just because Mats (or whomever) is determined not to learn anything.

Icthyic:

months.

If you say so - it is hard to remember specifics on a mass of repetitive content free comments, and I'm not going to bother to check. (To nitpick, technically recent has an expect of relativeness as well, the recent mass extinction was ~ 65 Ma ago. :-)

PG:

So what?

So those specific responses aren't pathetic.

Btw, I agree on the software. Blogs are a derived taste compared to the ease and focus that threading gives.

On some blogs a combination of blog owner repeated insistence that troll should be ignored, combined with technical advice on browser filters for those who are psychologically unable to ignore trolls, have served to stop them when they have been more bothersome than valuable as example of denialist psychology and vacuous argumentation, or simply as sideshow enjoyment. While the blog owner rightly can point to non-moderation of his or her blog.

[I'm not sure how that works. Self conditioned trolls would hypothetically wait as long as it takes to get their reward in the form of a recognizing comment. That would only serve to increase the experience of reward and raise the bar for the next round of behavior vs stimulus. Compare to other stalkers.

So I guess most trolls are actually not as mind-blowing sick as it seems but in it for the satisfaction of interfering in activities they find distasteful (read: science and science education), or as a clumsy psychological defense mechanism against religiously troublesome facts. Which is even more mind-blowingly sick. :-\ ]

Nigel,

That is interesting and probably worth pursuing.

How do you envision that would work? Who should initiate the thread / sub thread and where? How do you formulate the header, seeing that for example Mats Gish gallop, in a loop, any comment or quote mine he gets his hands on?

The Index to Creationist Claims and the Quote Mine Project are intended to answer the later behavior of course. Could we fit that in?

Concerning answering the trolls. I guess I have found some of the back and forth instructive, as I am new to paying attention to this non-controversy. I also find it entertaining. But too much is too much and Mats got more intellectual energy in return for his somewhat lame provacations.

I am concerned from learning about the ID strategy as it seems now to be employed in the area of physics. They have failed so miserably in Biology, now are they moving onto Physics? Seems Einstein is an easier boogy man for them than Darwin. And when this fails will they move onto Mathmatics?

So hearing how these folks argue is somewhat helpful.

And when this fails will they move onto Mathmatics?

I, until recently, was an evolutionist. No one I knew doubted it, I grew up in an atheist household, and untill a couple of years ago had no idea there even was a controversy.
However, after reading Mr. Behe's book, I became a "doubter".

Before I pick a side in the argument, however, I want to make sure I understand the theory first.

As soon as the earth sufficiently cooled, lightning struck and many amino acids were made in pools of water. It is not known if actual conditions on earth at that time mimiced lab conditions, but maybe. They started joining together randomly, and for some reason the newly formed proteins did not degrade (I believe conditions that prevent degradation (dry?)are different from conditions needed for amino acids to join).

Some of the randomly formed proteins had catalytic properties, happened to be close enough to each other, and have enough water to do the following: synthesize nucleotides, and then form RNA molecules. (What are the odds of that happening?) Many RNA molecules formed. The most stable survived. Luckily, one of the stable ones also happened to have such a sequence of nucleotides, that one of randomly formed proteins could use it to synthesize other kinds of proteins. (IS such a protein possible? Don't they work in "teams"?)

Again, the conditions are such that molecules don't degrade, and yet can react with each other to form new molecules. (Is it known what such conditions could be?)
Some of the newly formed proteins happen to have useful properties. Maybe they aggregate together and form the first protein coat, thus stabilizing the RNA molecule captured inside, preventing degradation when conditions become wetter, maybe. Other stable RNA/protein complexes happen to have useful properties as well. Somehow, and we don't know how, or that it is even probable all these RNA strands and the useful proteins they accidentally code for merged together. As a result of this coincidence, or may be some other set of coincidences, the first self-replicating proto-cell was born.

A lot of the "details" above, are a product of my faulty memory and imagination. But no matter how I turn the idea around in my head, numerous coincidences are required. Conditions that may be needed are highly improbable, and even considering that this process took a long time doesn't seem to improve matters much, since more time makes degradation more likely, I would think.

I need chemical details, mathematical odds, amd possible physical conditions to be enlightened. I know I can do my own research, but if soomeone took pity upon me and chose to fill in the blanks, and tell me why they think life can self-assemble without some "outside" help, I would greatly greatly greatly appreciate it.

I, until recently, was an evolutionist. No one I knew doubted it, I grew up in an atheist household, and untill a couple of years ago had no idea there even was a controversy. However, after reading Mr. Behe's book, I became a "doubter".

— Anna

Before I pick a side in the argument, however, I want to make sure I understand the theory first. As soon as the earth sufficiently cooled, lightning struck and many amino acids were made in pools of water. It is not known if actual conditions on earth at that time mimiced lab conditions, but maybe. They started joining together randomly, and for some reason the newly formed proteins did not degrade (I believe conditions that prevent degradation (dry?)are different from conditions needed for amino acids to join).

Some of the randomly formed proteins had catalytic properties, happened to be close enough to each other, and have enough water to do the following: synthesize nucleotides, and then form RNA molecules. (What are the odds of that happening?) Many RNA molecules formed. The most stable survived. Luckily, one of

the stable ones also happened to have such a sequence of nucleotides, that one of randomly formed proteins could use it to synthesize other kinds of proteins. (IS such a protein possible? Don't they work in "teams"?)

Again, the conditions are such that molecules don't degrade, and yet can react with each other to form new molecules. (Is it known what such conditions could be?)

I think that everyone would like you to explain, Anna, why all of life looks as if it is related through descent, and why the rational designs expected from designers do not occur in life (except where humans have manipulated life).

The fact is that evolutionary theory takes care of providing an explanation for what we see in the fossils, in taxonomy, in homologies, and in the DNA evidence. This is both intellectually satisfying, and of practical benefit to humanity. If you have some kind of alternative theory that explains the evidence as well or better than the current theories do, Anna, we might be interested in what you have to say.

As far as the gaps go, they are a part of science. If you really care about explanations for what happened prior to well-evidenced evolution, try getting the answers out of the IDists. We haven't been able to get any explanations from them at all, so if you can, good for you.

Otherwise, most of us have no trouble admitting that abiogenesis remains a problem for honest science theories. Quit trying to avoid the essential value of evolution all because you're too lame to question the utter lack of science in Behe's book. We're interested in what can be explained, and in the dishonesty of people like you who harp on the gaps, when ID has nothing other than gaps.

Try for once to understand the importance of explanatory models that work, instead of inveighing against science where it does not have the answers. If you would do that, you'd quit bringing up mindless tripe fed to you by dishonest pseudoscientists, and instead you'd fault them for not being able to explain anything at all, from life's origins, to the evolution of malarial parasites (P. falciparum). Your monotone blather against the explanatory model only makes you look weak and incapable of addressing the utter banality and total void of ID.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/

Anna wrote:

"Before I pick a side in the argument, however, I want to make sure I understand the theory first."

By all means, please, familiarize yourself with the claims of the real theory of evolution and the evidence before drawing any conclusions. Look at the last 150 years of research and learn what has been discovered. What you absolutely should not do is construct a straw-man argument regarding abiogenesis, attack it using an argument from personal incredulity and then claim victory before you have supposedly even chosen a side. So far you have not made even one accurate statement about the theory of evolution, so it is easy to see that you do not really understand it.

If you are serious in your stated desire, I would recommend reading the Talk Origins archive for a start. There is information in there about real scientific theories of abiogenesis if you really want to understand them. After that you can read about the theory of evolution as well. Of course to really understand it you should take several college-level courses, or at least read the textbooks. While the basic theory is quite simple, the details can get wuite complicated.

On the other hand, if you are just another lying troll who has already made up their mind without bothering to examine the evidence, you are wasting your time here.

Ok, to the best of my knowledge, I did not deliberately insult anyone. So why is it that I am being (mildly)insulted?
Pvm: what is a troll? I assume its a bad thing, but I don't know what it is, even thou I saw the term on blogs many times, no one actually called me one, so I didn't care.
To: Glen Davidson. The way you think and the way I think is very different. That may actually be a compliment to you. I have no confidence in my own intellectual abilities, but I do the best I can. Calling me "lame" and calling my words "mindless tripe" does not help me, though apparently it does something for you.
Re: abiogenesis. I think about it because to me it is Chap 1 in the evolutionary process. I don't understand why many other people view abiogenesis as something separate from the evolutionary theory. Even Darwin, to the best of my knowledge discussed abiogenesis, and inspired all current research on the topic.
Re: common descent: why assume I doubt it? I never said I did. That does not mean that I have no questions, but I do presently consider the evidence for common descent to be strong. BTW, Behe doesn't doubt it either. What he doubts is the mechanism, as far as I can recall (I read his book some time back, so I am not 100% sure)
Re: why I don't challenge ID. I do, but not here, since this is a pro-evolution blog, so I satisfy my curiosity on evolutionary theory.
Re: why I discuss "gaps" in the knowledge. What else is there to discuss? If something is already known, then that settles the discussion, I would assume.
Ok, I was defensive long enough. My reason for being on this blog is to learn something.
To pvm: autocatalysis of RNA. Do nucleotides form and self-assemble into RNA without proteins? When they do, and autocatalyze, do you mean that they produce exact replica's of themselves, or do they form complementary strands, which then separate from the original "mother" strand?
I am aware that my questions sound stupid to you, but as someone said, the only stupid question is the one that isn't asked. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer. You have no way of knowing it, but I am truly grateful.

autocatalysis of RNA. Do nucleotides form and self-assemble into RNA without proteins? When they do, and autocatalyze, do you mean that they produce exact replica’s of themselves, or do they form complementary strands, which then separate from the original “mother” strand?

An important new research avenue has opened with the discovery that certain molecules made of RNA, called ribozymes, can act as catalysts in modern cells. It previously had been thought that only proteins could serve as the catalysts required to carry out specific biochemical functions. Thus, in the early prebiotic world, RNA molecules could have been "autocatalytic"--that is, they could have replicated themselves well before there were any protein catalysts (called enzymes). Laboratory experiments demonstrate that replicating autocatalytic RNA molecules undergo spontaneous changes and that the variants of RNA molecules with the greatest autocatalytic activity come to prevail in their environments. Some scientists favor the hypothesis that there was an early "RNA world," and they are testing models that lead from RNA to the synthesis of simple DNA and protein molecules. These assemblages of molecules eventually could have become packaged within membranes, thus making up "protocells"--early versions of very simple cells.

Anna,

I suggest you find a copy of Stuart Kauffman's book At Home In The Universe. It includes a good explanation of autocatalytic systems and how order can appear spontaneously.

Also, you stated that "Before I pick a side in the argument, however, I want to make sure I understand the theory first." One of the consistent problems in discussions here has been the failure of those who support intelligent design to articulate what exactly that theory is and what evidence there is for ID (as opposed to evidence against other theories).

Anna, it's not that you said anything 'wrong', it's just that your claims sound so familiar to those who are daily exposed to creationist nonsense so I apologize for jumping to a conclusion that you may be a troll.

Abiogenesis is irrelevant to evolution, once a self replicator arose, evolution took over. However, there is an extensive research on abiogenesis and much is quite recent. I do not mind walking you through some of this but I also expect you to do your homework.

Agreed?

Re: abiogenesis. I think about it because to me it is Chap 1 in the evolutionary process. I don’t understand why many other people view abiogenesis as something separate from the evolutionary theory.

Re: common descent: why assume I doubt it? I never said I did. That does not mean that I have no questions, but I do presently consider the evidence for common descent to be strong. BTW, Behe doesn’t doubt it either. What he doubts is the mechanism, as far as I can recall (I read his book some time back, so I am not 100% sure)

Re: why I don’t challenge ID. I do, but not here, since this is a pro-evolution blog, so I satisfy my curiosity on evolutionary theory.

Re: why I discuss “gaps” in the knowledge. What else is there to discuss? If something is already known, then that settles the discussion, I would assume.

My reason for being on this blog is to learn something.

Re: abiogenesis. I think about it because to me it is Chap 1 in the evolutionary process. I don’t understand why many other people view abiogenesis as something separate from the evolutionary theory.

Re: common descent: why assume I doubt it? I never said I did. That does not mean that I have no questions, but I do presently consider the evidence for common descent to be strong. BTW, Behe doesn’t doubt it either. What he doubts is the mechanism, as far as I can recall (I read his book some time back, so I am not 100% sure)

Re: why I don’t challenge ID. I do, but not here, since this is a pro-evolution blog, so I satisfy my curiosity on evolutionary theory.

Re: why I discuss “gaps” in the knowledge. What else is there to discuss? If something is already known, then that settles the discussion, I would assume.

My reason for being on this blog is to learn something.

Ok, to the best of my knowledge, I did not deliberately insult anyone.

Ok, to the best of my knowledge, I did not deliberately insult anyone.

Re: abiogenesis. I think about it because to me it is Chap 1 in the evolutionary process.

— Anna

I don’t understand why many other people view abiogenesis as something separate from the evolutionary theory.

Even Darwin, to the best of my knowledge discussed abiogenesis, and inspired all current research on the topic.

They have failed so miserably in Biology, now are they moving onto Physics? Seems Einstein is an easier boogy man for them than Darwin. And when this fails will they move onto Mathmatics?

I think about it because to me it is Chap 1 in the evolutionary process. I don’t understand why many other people view abiogenesis as something separate from the evolutionary theory.

I need chemical details, mathematical odds, amd possible physical conditions to be enlightened.

IANAB, but I should also add that I don't think anyone have much of a handle on any involved probabilities or likelihoods, nor does it seem to be terribly important to do actual research.

I need chemical details . . .

— Anna

...and before you point it out, Anna, there's a BIG difference between

1) distinguishing between evolution and abiogenesis

and

2) inferring design, and then saying identifying the designer is a separate issue.

The difference:

in 1), both investigations are the purview of science, and scientific research -- you know, actual work -- is being done in both.

in 2), the former is an empty scam, the latter is religion.

Hello. I posted before this, spending a lot of time on a reaaally loooong posting. But I don't see that post. So, I will repeat some questions.
To PVM: thanks for info. I will look into ribozymes. I heard about them before, but I forgot them when I ran through a possible abiogenesis scenario. Also. What is a troll? I assume it's not that cute/ugly doll with big feet and funky hair. I look nothing like that. (Except maybe the hair)
To Nigel: I know some chem. I can learn more. Don't let fears of my ignorance stop you, if you want to talk about abiogenesis. I would enjoy it.
To Tobjorn: I get your point about low probability being different from impossiblity. Another point you made about difference between evolution and abiogenesis is very clear. My reasons for tying the two together is not due to inability to see that distinction for myself, but because one of the claims of many evolutionists (though I now realize not of the theory itself) is that evolution allows them to be certain that there is no higher "power". Untill abiogenesis is actually demonstrated, how can they be certain, though? And unlike macroevolution, we can actually "rig" the proto-cell self-assembly so that it can happen quickly under lab conditions. This would circumvent the probability/possibility issue, since "rigged" RNA could be made to have just the right code to start things.

A troll is someone who posts for the sole purpose of provoking heated debate; someone who throws the monkey wrench not because the machine is offensive, but just to see the sparks.

To PVM: thanks for info. I will look into ribozymes. I heard about them before, but I forgot them when I ran through a possible abiogenesis scenario. Also. What is a troll? I assume it’s not that cute/ugly doll with big feet and funky hair. I look nothing like that. (Except maybe the hair)

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

My reasons for tying the two together is not due to inability to see that distinction for myself, but because one of the claims of many evolutionists (though I now realize not of the theory itself) is that evolution allows them to be certain that there is no higher “power”.

Hello. I posted before this, spending a lot of time on a reaaally loooong posting. But I don’t see that post.

but because one of the claims of many evolutionists (though I now realize not of the theory itself) is that evolution allows them to be certain that there is no higher “power”

Anna wrote:

"Do nucleotides form and self-assemble into RNA without proteins? When they do, and autocatalyze, do you mean that they produce exact replica’s of themselves, or do they form complementary strands, which then ..."

In short, yes. It has been demonstrated that under the supposed conditions of the primitive earth environment nucleotides can form spontaneously and can polymerize into long molecules which are capable of autocatalyzing their own replication. In terms of making an exact replica or a complementary strand, there is no difference between the two. If single stranded RNA serves as template, of course a complementary single stranded RNA results. If that strand then serves as template, then yes, what you get is an exact copy of the first RNA molecule. Replication errors can give variation on which a kind of selection can act and there you go. Once the process begins it is difficult to stop. Of course this is somewhat conjectural, but there is at least some evidence that it is a reasonable scenario.

Sorry about the harsh tone. If you are really here to learn then I commend you. There are easier ways to learn, but at least this is a start.

By the way, no one I know of claims that if evolution is a fact that it proves that there is no God. That would be a logical fallacy. For example, if I say that I can make a tire without rubber, that in no way implies that rubber does not exist. The same reasoning applies to abiogenesis.

Now, did you take my suggestion? Did you go to the Talk Origin archive and read up on current theories of abiogenesis? If you really are here to learn I would highly recommend it. If you just plan on asking questions until you stump someone and then claim no one knows anything, you are just wasting your time. Of course we don't know everything. Religion is the realm of certainty, not science.

How do you envision that would work? Who should initiate the thread / sub thread and where? How do you formulate the header, seeing that for example Mats Gish gallop, in a loop, any comment or quote mine he gets his hands on?

— Torbjörn Larsson

Again, thank you. Now that I know what a troll is, I am no longer offended (not that I really was before, since we are all virtual strangers to each other, and any type of emotional response would be silly)

However, if a troll is a sort of a Devil's Advocate, then isn't it a good thing? I mean, it sort of makes people think about their own position, if nothing else, and without someone starting a verbal fight, these threads would be less entertaining to people.

I did not do any research yet, and I did not go to TalkOrigins yet. I have maybe 30 min a week of time on the internet(my life sucks)and I spend it all on you people.

Dawkins is the scientist who says that Evolution Theory is what makes him a confirmed atheist. He is not alone, though my memory did not retain any other names. I was such a person myself not too long ago, until a horrible personal tragedy made me wish (no yearn) for some evidence of an afterlife. I read up on out-of body experiences, but that failed to convince me. Behe's book, however, gave me a shred of hope, and that's why I am following up on that. I am still an atheist, though a very miserable one. I can't suddenly, for no apparent reason believe in God, though I want to, hence my examination of whether or not abiogenesis is possible, major genetic transformation through mutation/natural selction is possible, etc.

However, if a troll is a sort of a Devil’s Advocate, then isn’t it a good thing?

— Anna

I mean, it sort of makes people think about their own position, if nothing else, and without someone starting a verbal fight, these threads would be less entertaining to people.

I did not do any research yet, and I did not go to TalkOrigins yet. I have maybe 30 min a week of time on the internet(my life sucks)and I spend it all on you people.

Dawkins is the scientist who says that Evolution Theory is what makes him a confirmed atheist. He is not alone, though my memory did not retain any other names.

I was such a person myself not too long ago, until a horrible personal tragedy made me wish (no yearn) for some evidence of an afterlife. I read up on out-of body experiences, but that failed to convince me. Behe’s book, however, gave me a shred of hope, and that’s why I am following up on that.

I am still an atheist, though a very miserable one. I can’t suddenly, for no apparent reason believe in God, though I want to,

hence my examination of whether or not abiogenesis is possible, major genetic transformation through mutation/natural selction is possible, etc.

I can’t suddenly, for no apparent reason believe in God, though I want to, hence my examination of whether or not abiogenesis is possible, major genetic transformation through mutation/natural selction is possible, etc.

Dawkins is the scientist who says that Evolution Theory is what makes him a confirmed atheist.

one of the claims of many evolutionists (though I now realize not of the theory itself) is that evolution allows them to be certain that there is no higher “power”.

Dawkins is the scientist who says that Evolution Theory is what makes him a confirmed atheist.

we can actually “rig” the proto-cell self-assembly so that it can happen quickly under lab conditions. This would circumvent the probability/possibility issue,

to have every comment having the ability to spawn off a separate thread

Torbjorn, that may take a while. After all, they've only recently changed the coding for the web page anyway. And now we want them to change it again! :-)

Yes, I was jesting a little bit. But as far as I'm concerned it is a great idea. I believe Popper's Ghost has lamented the absence of threading in blogs vs usegroups, and this is one (more) reason to reinstate them.

The technology can be implemented for (larger) blogs, and I have seen it elsewhere. I believe it was a wise decision by software providers for blogs to simplify the blog interface as much as possible. But large threads, or sites with persistent trolls, would profit from some form of structural device.