I have a question for those who hate creationism

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yes the thread was started in the science section but I (apparently rightfuly so) saw the thesis as being the conflict between what science cannot address or answer and why Creationism/ID can be rational as one possibility for answers that science cannot answer. An open mind allows for consideration of such a concept even as it is acknowledged that it is not science and should not be taught as science.

Also see this link: http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...nge-to-creationists-iders-12.html#post3777175

However, Foxfyre, ID is scientific. It's fundamental theory is predicated on the Pasteurian law of biogenesis, the first principle of biology.

As I have written elsewhere, distilling the matter down to the basics after having established the metaphysics of science and the metaphysical apriority for both evolution and ID:

Pasteurian biogenesis is the foundation of ID. The prevailing first principle of biology is omne vivum ex vivo, i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life. ID science proceeds from this maxim. More specifically, the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. ID theory 101.

This theory stands, and it is falsifiable . . . a circumstance that nearly sixty years of prebiotic research necessarily concedes. Indeed, proponents of abiogenesis had in the beginning quite casually expected to falsify it, only to reinforce its validity with their research instead.

ID is not concerned with the nature of the potential designer, but with the nature and order of living organisms, i.e., with the empirical data only and what they evince about origins.​

The methodological constructs of design detection, irreducible and specified complexity, are applied to active abiogenic research and the findings of that research: to the extent to which prebiotic components of biological systems were available to the primordial world and the degree to which they were self-assembling in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.

The evolutionists on this board, blinded by the intellectual bigotry of political rhetorical, do not grasp the real-world application of these constructs' to abiogenesis. The issue of whether or not there be a designer does not even arise at the prebiotic level of biochemical research.

The issue arises only at the post-biotic level of research, i.e., the speciation of extant biological systems, from the ID scientist‘s perspective with regard to the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable nature of the supposed common ancestry of evolutionary theory, and the nature of the potential designer is not pertinent, as the focus here goes to the conservation of transformational mutations, and the viability and number of transitory forms.

Are there any potential theological implications attending ID theory. Yes. But there are theological implications attending the underlying apriority of evolutionary theory, too! The evolutionist who claims otherwise is merely deluded, deceiving himself. But these implications are not immediately relevant to the science in and of itself in either case.

Creationism, of course, does not belong in the classroom under the banner of science, for it is a theological construct definitively identifying a supernatural Designer in the name of revealed religion. Except for biblical history and hermeneutics, biblical content mostly resides beyond scientific inquiry. Naturally, I do agree with your assertion that Creationism, properly understood and applied, does provide an explanation of ultimate origins that science cannot.

 

[edthecynic]

what creates gravity? Mass...where did the mass originate from? the big bang. where did the big bang originate from?

so many questions for those who are willing to ask .

Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

so how did energy come into existence. What are its origins?

What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?

 

[8537]

God created the big bang.

I think it's the other way around - The big bang created God. Go ahead, prove me wrong!

i think both those options would be fun to explore!

what created the big bang? god. what created god?

What created god? the big bang. what created the big bang?

What created the big bang? Not god. Ok it wasn't god so what created the big bang, what is its origin?

ZOMG im a blathering religious idiot for asking questions

it is readily apparent to anyone with eyes that Buddha created both.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Mass is Energy, and the FLoT has PROVEN through a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

so how did energy come into existence. What are its origins?

What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?

so you dont know how energy first came to be? Dont tell me you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy that just is.

 

[edthecynic]

so how did energy come into existence. What are its origins?

What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?

so you dont know how energy first came to be? Dont tell me you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy that just is.

"Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college.

If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology: omne vivum ex vivo; i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life implies design to no less degree. Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.

There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.

So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist. I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.

You're defining ID to be something that is not scientific and then—viola!—claiming it to be something that is not scientific. Once again, ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force, as that is beyond the kin of science and does not necessarily follow with regard to known life forms anyway. You're merely pretending not to understand that, for what else can it be attributed to?

Further, the muckraking fascists in the politics of science and education, the acolytes of metaphysical/absolute naturalism, are calling that which is currently beyond dispute to be unscientific and that which has never been observed, demonstrated or coherently explained to be scientific. Insanity! If and when you jackasses demonstrate that prebiotic precursors in racemic mixtures under natural conditions, a sea of abiotic contaminants unremittingly vying against conservation and polymerization, can produce a living organism wake me from my slumber. In the meantime, shut the hell up.

That's why you don't want to go to prebiotic chemistry, because we may see the political rhetoric of materialists for what it is and we may begin to see why the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable mechanisms of evolutionary theory's supposed common ancestry runs right in to the very same wall.

Ya know, geauxtohell, you keep trying to make ID out to be a monolithic system of thought. There's a whole world of ID thinkers out there who do not ascribe to Behe's hackneyed version of irreducible complexity, for example, and never have. We begin with first principles. Many of us are quite a bit more exacting when it comes to our criticism of the Darwinian notion of an incremental complexity in the absence of any discernibly coherent account for the conservation of transformational mutations or the number of viable transitory forms.

It is the constructs of the Darwinian paradigm that are the weak sisters in the real world. Beyond the natural selection of microspeciation, I say they are the stuff of mere philosophy, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

How ya like me now?

 

[edthecynic]

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.

Sir, what I'm talking about has not been falsified. We're not talking about the same thing. You're suggesting that life can spring from non-living material, more specifically, from racemic, monomeric mixtures of such material, that this has been demonstrated. The Nobel Prize to top all Nobel Prizes has not been given for this accomplishment just yet, and it's not something you should expect anytime soon.

Please explain.

 

[Montrovant]

M.D., you speak of irreducible complexity as valid scientific testing, but I do not see where (other than ID) it is actually used, or what formula might be used for testing. Could you please, if you know, direct me to where I can find such information? To me it sounds unscientific, because I find it hard to think of a repeatable test to determine it, but I am happy to admit my scientific knowledge is far from vast. If you can show me that irreducible complexity is accepted within the scientific community and not simply a construct of ID, I'll look. TIA.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

M.D., you speak of irreducible complexity as valid scientific testing, but I do not see where (other than ID) it is actually used, or what formula might be used for testing. Could you please, if you know, direct me to where I can find such information? To me it sounds unscientific, because I find it hard to think of a repeatable test to determine it, but I am happy to admit my scientific knowledge is far from vast. If you can show me that irreducible complexity is accepted within the scientific community and not simply a construct of ID, I'll look. TIA.

You just asked the $64,000 question.

Behe's rendition of irreducible complexity:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. —Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pg. 39​

The majority of scientists do not accept the construct, at least as it is defined by Behe, not because it's not scientific in nature. It is. It's falsifiable. The problem is that it has been arguably falsified. But Behe's rendition of irreducible complexity is not the classical version nor, in my opinion, is it even directed at the right problem. From the very beginning, prior to the subsequent research that refuted it, it has always intuitively struck me and many others within the ID community that Behe's rendition of the construct was false, as it failed to anticipate the possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions, or the potentialities of redundant complexity.

The classical version of irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. It entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

When we apply the classical version of the construct to prebiotic chemistry, its specified, practical expression certainly appears to be straightforwardly scientific and irrefutably sound. When it's applied to biological systems, the matter becomes staggeringly complex, if not inscrutable scientifically, yet science is compelled to scrutinize this one. But, once again, in this case, we're talking about the classical, Kantian version, not Behe's.

The fact of the matter is that the scientific community does apply the classical version to post-biotic research in simulation studies all the time, albeit, as a means of trying to decipher a definitive distinction between the potentialities of natural mechanisms and those of sentient interference. In my opinion, the matter is only cut-and-dry for those who stubbornly cling to Behe's rendition of the construct, on the one hand, or for those who dogmatically presuppose, most of them unwittingly, a metaphysical/absolute naturalism for science, on the other.

Obviously, I'm alluding to things that would require further discussion and thought, things that would have to be more precisely defined or spelled out.

Is your mind open? Do you have seatbelts. It's a bumpy ride, and I honestly don't know if my inclination is ultimately right or wrong.

 

[konradv]

Claims of irreducibitlity need to be taken with a grain of salt. They said the same thing about the eye and flight, but they've been shown to be slowly developed traits. If it's not taking the scientific community by storm, it's probably because those in the know can see right through the IDers' claims and have rejected them.

 

[edthecynic]

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Which has been shown to be false by valence electrons.

Sir, what I'm talking about has not been falsified. We're not talking about the same thing. You're suggesting that life can spring from non-living material, more specifically, from racemic, monomeric mixtures of such material, that this has been demonstrated. The Nobel Prize to top all Nobel Prizes has not been given for this accomplishment just yet, and it's not something you should expect anytime soon.

Please explain.

We may not be talking about the same thing only because you have changed what you said that I highlighted!

The the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!

Well, yes, I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering. But you changed the nature of my statement first. No big deal, but are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties" with regard to valence electrons are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms? Please explain the process or what you have in mind. That's all.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What part of "can neither be created nor destroyed" don't you understand?

so you dont know how energy first came to be? Dont tell me you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy that just is.

"Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college.

If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.

How did this energy first come into existence though? Im not asking if you can create it or destroy it, im asking how it came to be in the first place.

I have yet to see that answered, unless you can answer it with irrefutable proof then the rest lies on faith in an assumption.

 

[geauxtohell]

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology: omne vivum ex vivo; i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life implies design to no less degree. Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.

There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.

So again, I am not claiming that I.D. doesn't exist. I am claiming that it is not a scientific theory.

You're defining ID to be something that is not scientific and then—viola!—claiming it to be something that is not scientific. Once again, ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force, as that is beyond the kin of science and does not necessarily follow with regard to known life forms anyway. You're merely pretending not to understand that, for what else can it be attributed to?

Further, the muckraking fascists in the politics of science and education, the acolytes of metaphysical/absolute naturalism, are calling that which is currently beyond dispute to be unscientific and that which has never been observed, demonstrated or coherently explained to be scientific. Insanity! If and when you jackasses demonstrate that prebiotic precursors in racemic mixtures under natural conditions, a sea of abiotic contaminants unremittingly vying against conservation and polymerization, can produce a living organism wake me from my slumber. In the meantime, shut the hell up.

That's why you don't want to go to prebiotic chemistry, because we may see the political rhetoric of materialists for what it is and we may begin to see why the tautologically stochastic and unquantifiable mechanisms of evolutionary theory's supposed common ancestry runs right in to the very same wall.

Ya know, geauxtohell, you keep trying to make ID out to be a monolithic system of thought. There's a whole world of ID thinkers out there who do not ascribe to Behe's hackneyed version of irreducible complexity, for example, and never have. We begin with first principles. Many of us are quite a bit more exacting when it comes to our criticism of the Darwinian notion of an incremental complexity in the absence of any discernibly coherent account for the conservation of transformational mutations or the number of viable transitory forms.

It is the constructs of the Darwinian paradigm that are the weak sisters in the real world. Beyond the natural selection of microspeciation, I say they are the stuff of mere philosophy, pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.

How ya like me now?

Nice try. If:

the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.

Is your mantra, then what is your explanation? In other words, if it can't happen naturally, then how does it happen?

The only other option is a supernatural force.

Which can't be quantified or falsified which puts us back at the beginning.

You can't bury the massive wholes in your theory with bandwidth.

 

[FA_Q2]

I.D., with it's fundamental assumption that a supernatural force guides natural selection, is not a scientific theory (can you disprove that a supernatural force guides natural selection? No.)

Gibberish. ID science does not assume or assert a supernatural force. It merely holds that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate under natural conditions the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms. In scientific terms that is the classical rendition of irreducible complexity. By nature, that is a falsifiable theory.

Pasteurian biogenesis, the prevailing first principle of biology: omne vivum ex vivo; i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life implies design to no less degree. Yet that is an indisputable axiom of biology, which you recognize to be scientifically valid.

There's a disconnect in your mind spring, geauxtohell, a psychological disassociation from reality when it comes to ID.

Fail. This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science. Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN. That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET. To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence. Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID. What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer. In science, B must stand on its own weight. The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know. Not ID.

As a philosophy, proof is not needed and it is an interesting philosophical idea. Just one that has no grounds in science as of this point.

 

[geauxtohell]

Fail. This is where your preconceived notion of ID distorts the practice of science. Assuming the first statement to be 100 percent true dealing with irreducible complexity and that the systems are not in nature to create life then the jump IS NOT TO ID BUT TO AN UNKNOWN. That is, such a system ahs simply not been found in nature YET. To make the jump to ID and make it scientifically you would need some sort of evidence. Not evidence against evolution like irreducible complexity or the issues with abiogenesis but actual evidence FOR ID. What you did with this statement was say that because A is false B must be the answer. In science, B must stand on its own weight. The proper response to what you are proposing is that we do not know. Not ID.

As a philosophy, proof is not needed and it is an interesting philosophical idea. Just one that has no grounds in science as of this point.

Yes. I have some questions about this jump as well.

First, if Behe's notion of irreducible complexity is bunk, then who is another published scientist that has a better notion?

Secondly, if novel phenotypes are two complex to evolve de novo, then who or what guides the process? Trying to slip away from the arguement by saying "ID isn't about God!" makes the issue even more confused. So now we are going to claim and unknown supernatural power guided the process?

Third, what kind of logical arguement (not to mention scientific) arguement rests simply on "your theory is too complicatead to have happened on it's own!". That's simply an opinion piece. As an arguement, it doesn't even introduce a competing idea to fill the hole it pretends to have created. As you noted, saying "A is false" doesn't equate to "B is true".

Finally, what is the point in trying to co-mingle natural selection with abiogenesis? Is it simply to slip Pastuer's name in there to "smarten up" the theory? Pastuer's work doesn't support intelligent design anymore than any other scientific theory from the 1800s.

 

[edthecynic]

The the various organic precursors of biological systems DO possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties based on the valence electrons!!!

Well, yes, I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering. But you changed the nature of my statement first. No big deal, but are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties" with regard to valence electrons are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms? Please explain the process or what you have in mind. That's all.

You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do. The various organic building blocks of all biological systems are self-ordered by the number of electrons in their outer shell. These electrons are called valence electrons. That is why only certain specific atoms and molecules combine in certain specific ways. All life is made up of these natural organic compounds. There no designer building blocks of life that have combined contrary to the number of electrons in their outer shell suggesting an intelligent designer.

 

[edthecynic]

so you dont know how energy first came to be? Dont tell me you have faith that there has always been a set amount of energy that just is.

"Faith" has nothing to do with it!!!! There is a repeatable experiment that proves that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, an experiment I repeated myself in studying physics in college.

If energy cannot be created then energy can't increase, and if energy can't be destroyed then energy can't decrease. If energy cannot increase or decrease then energy is a CONSTANT!!! That means there is exactly the same amount of total energy in the universe today as there was in the past and as there will be in the future. This is a proven fact, you need only to repeat James Prescott Joule's experiment to CONFIRM it for yourself.

How did this energy first come into existence though? Im not asking if you can create it or destroy it, im asking how it came to be in the first place.

I have yet to see that answered, unless you can answer it with irrefutable proof then the rest lies on faith in an assumption.

It has been answered many times, you simply have closed your mind to it. Since energy can't be created, it didn't "come to be" it always was. And since energy can't be destroyed it always will be. And energy will always remain the same total quantity.

You have no problem with that concept when it comes to God, something that can't even be proven to exist, but you can't conceive of it being possible for energy, which can be proven to exist and can be measured. All you have done is give energy a personality and called it God and then suddenly the concept of something always existing becomes a possibility to you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You are claiming that the "VARIOUS ORGANIC PRECURSORS of biological systems do not possess an inherent self-ordering chemical property" when in fact they do.

I claimed no such thing. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that "I know about basic valence-electron infrastructural gathering."

What I said was "that the various organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them to formulate, under natural conditions, the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.

That's a dramatically different idea! This statement goes to a number of complex factors well beyond the basic infrastructural capacities of valence electrons, including availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on.

Do not change the meaning of my statement again.

Now. Are you saying that these "self-ordering chemical properties", i.e., valence-electron structuring, well known me, are the essence of or can build the specified complexity of living organisms?

Yes or no? If so, please explain the process to us.