I have a question for those who hate creationism

[konradv]

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.

You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless. How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen? At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position. We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless. How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen? At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position. We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.

So let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that the Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are worthless, based on thin air? A mere hypothesis based on what might be overthrows it? That is not how science works at all. You're the one asserting that science should accommodate faith!



That is the prevailing theory of biology, and it is falsifiable. You're merely revealing your ignorance about nearly sixty years of abiogenic research!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Prebiotic Chemistry​

Pasteurian biogenesis: omne vivum ex vivo; i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life. Indisputably, that is the prevailing axiom of biology, which replaced spontaneous generation after it was falsified by Pasteur's research.

Are you mad? Stupid or something?

The notion that the first living cell was formed by the assemblages of self-replicating chemicals within a variable medium of polymerization, albeit, in accordance with the physical laws of chemistry under uncertain primordial conditions is a mere hypothesis, one that might or might not be true. Until the hypothesis of abiogenesis is substantiated by experimental research, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis stands.

Currently, we do not know how life began; we only thing we know for certain in scientific terms is that all life is from life, not inanimate matter. Scientific theories are not expressed in hypothetical terms; they’re expressed as scientific facts until such time they are revised or falsified by new experimentally substantiated information.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis does not distort the practice of science. And the scientific expression that follows from it, the construct of irreducible complexity as applied to prebiotic research is by nature a valid, falsifiable theory, one that currently stands undisputed, namely: the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not a jump to anything. Current theory is predicated on the known facts of the matter. You and your cohorts are the only ones around here distorting standard scientific practice regarding the distinction between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories. SHUT UP! Theories, which are substantially predicated on current information, ARE asserted as truths. Hypotheses, which are guesses about how something or another might have occurred, are mere propositions. We do not replace theories with unsubstantiated hypotheses just because they might be true.

One can say anything might be true, Jackass! In this instance, what is currently known to be true, not what might be true, is that all life comes from life.

You're dismissed.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Post-Biotic Research in Simulation Studies​

Again:

The fact of the matter is that the [entire] scientific community does apply the classical version [of irreducible complexity] 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.​

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.

But that's not quite right, is it?

They've been hypothetically simulated by computer programs to potentially be such from this side of known outcomes. As natural processes would necessarily be mindless, stochastic and unquantifiable—such simulations do not necessarily show that these things developed by natural mechanisms, as among other things, the alternating pathways of infrastructural redundancy and simplification are assumed, a factor that does not universally prevail in the systems of extant organisms.

Environmental changes are random. Mutations are random. Natural selection is random. In reality, the steps in any given pathway and the direction of that pathway would not be predictable. But the parameters are known, beginning with the outcome, and the hypothetical jumping off point is calculated with the outcome in mind. These are inserted in the simulations from this side of experience. So scenarios that would be random in reality are simulated with a degree of sentient interference . . . which is not random Hmm.

So what do we have here?

What is, is; therefore, what was, was . . . in accordance with an incremental process of fortuitous accidents? Are you sure? And why presuppose an incremental model of alternating, redundant complexity and simplification for all time and for all structures of living systems in the first place but to see if it might lead to known outcomes? That’s a think about it for a while question.

These simulations do not necessarily show that the processes weren't synchronously instantaneous at all, and they do not prove that an intelligent designer was not involved or necessary.

Hello! That's what happens when you consider only one side of the equation, one that is monopolistically imposed on science education by persons presupposing a metaphysical/absolute naturalism, without giving a heads up, really, and as if the traditional apriority of science before Darwin—the methodological naturalism of classical empiricism—were not equally valid or as if these persons were not begging the question. Oops.

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.

It's not in the sense that you mean, but the classical version is necessarily applied to simulation studies all the time. "See right through the IDers' claims", eh? Really? I see right through the materialist's dogmatism and the fact that he may not be simulating what thinks he‘s simulating at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Irreducible Complexity as Applied to Prebiotic Chemistry​

Pasteurian biogenesis: omne vivum ex vivo; i.e., all [biological] life is from [biological] life. Indisputably, that is the prevailing axiom of biology, which replaced spontaneous generation after it was falsified by Pasteur's research.

Are you mad? Stupid or something?

The notion that the first living cell was formed by the assemblages of self-replicating chemicals within a variable medium of polymerization, albeit, in accordance with the physical laws of chemistry under uncertain primordial conditions is a mere hypothesis, one that might or might not be true. Until the hypothesis of abiogenesis is substantiated by experimental research, the Pasteurian law of biogenesis stands.

Currently, we do not know how life began; we only thing we know for certain in scientific terms is that all life is from life, not inanimate matter. Scientific theories are not expressed in hypothetical terms; they’re expressed as scientific facts until such time they are revised or falsified by new experimentally substantiated information.

The Pasteurian law of biogenesis does not distort the practice of science. And the scientific expression that follows from it, the construct of irreducible complexity as applied to prebiotic research is by nature a valid, falsifiable theory, one that currently stands undisputed, namely: the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms.

The Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not a jump to anything. Current theory is predicated on the known facts of the matter. You and your cohorts are the only ones around here distorting standard scientific practice regarding the distinction between scientific hypotheses and scientific theories. SHUT UP! Theories, which are substantially predicated on current information, ARE asserted as truths. Hypotheses, which are guesses about how something or another might have occurred, are mere propositions. We do not replace theories with unsubstantiated hypotheses just because they might be true.

One can say anything might be true, Jackass! In this instance, what is currently known to be true, not what might be true, is that all life comes from life.

You're dismissed.

All of which is completely meaningless as you ignored the main point.

Evidence that shows evolution to be false in no way, shape or form proves ID at all. Period. You need to come up with some actual evidence of ID. Now, sow me ONE scrap of evidence for id.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

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.

Though that's what I personally believe and that's what the research evinces, I never said, in terms of science, that abiogenesis couldn't be true. And with regard to known life, the supernatural is not the only option, Thick-as-Brick geauxtohell.

But even if the supernatural appeared to be the only alternative, so what? Theological implications are not part of the scientific equation. If they were, then the constructs of the evolutionary paradigm would not be valid science. You guys just pretend they don't exist as you deny the nature of the constructs' apriority. You know, the apriority whose name you will not speak.

Currently, as far as science is concerned, we do not know how life arose in the first place. Currently, as far as science is concerned, all we know is that all life comes from life. That theory has theological implications, too, but it cannot be credibly argued that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is not a scientific fact and will remain one until it is falsified, if ever. It currently stands. It has not been falsified.

Initially, Darwin, a Deist, supposed that God created the first living organism to get things rolling. He latter regretted that, supposing that the first viable cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm. Of course, that was the first hypothesis of abiogenesis to be falsified. The second to be falsified was the hypothesis that amino acids were the initial prebiotic precursors of life. Hence, the RNA-world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, or a synthesis thereof. Actually, both of these hypothesis are in trouble, too, for a long list of reasons.

On the other hand, it looks like we might be able to eventually engineer life under laboratory conditions using biopolymers harvested from extant cells. Naturally, that would not account for the origins of their monomeric precursors or the polymerization of the same, and would necessarily entail a directed process based on known biotechnology, namely, a process of intelligent design in accordance with a blueprint that appears to have been drawn out by an intelligent designer.

But materialists keeping hoping they will overthrow the Pateurian law of biogenesis, even though all the evidence just keeps backing it up.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

All of which is completely meaningless as you ignored the main point.

Evidence that shows evolution to be false in no way, shape or form proves ID at all. Period. You need to come up with some actual evidence of ID. Now, sow me ONE scrap of evidence for id.

Meaningless?



I ignored the main point?



The Pasteurian law of biogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are not the point, eh?



Dude, you're talking about the theory of evolution in regard to a post that's about abiogenesis.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

How did the universe come into being?

Opine and Educate me please.

I don't hate creationism, people can believe what they want to believe, there is no law against it. Scientifically they can theorize on a big bang, but not provide hard enough evidence to satisfy those who won't believe it anyway.

Let's face it, and be honest about it, there is no evidence I could provide that would make you believe anything but creationism. Your mind is made up and there is no changing it. That is the problem with debates like this one. All the facts in the world will not change the mind of someone who believes in a creator that cannot be proven exists.

The problem comes in when creationists want creationism taught in public schools. The church is the place to teach religion based creationism. The home is the place to teach religion based creationism. Public schools are not the place to teach religion based creationism.

And Darwin ? I mean they dont teach that he concluded that Woman and black's dont have the mental ability of white Males or that a good deal of his theories come from watching Chimps get drunk, and that they get the same type of herpes that Humans do. You can find those in his books "origin of species" and I thing the other is called " The Voyage of the Beagle. At any rate, why not teach them side by side ? Good post by the way.

 

[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.

No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.

I KNOW WHAT VALENCE ELECTRONS ARE; I KNOW HOW VALENCE ELECTRONS WORK! HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT?

In any event——your statement is gibberish. Living organisms have outer shells? Chemical structures have outer shells? You can't even coherently express the idea you're after. But never mind. The idea your after is of secondary relevance to the concerns of precursor availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! NINCOMPOOP!

Moving on. . . .

"[D]esigner molecules in the building blocks of life"?

More gibberish. You might as well have written: "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO."

I didn't say anything about "designer molecules", and, tell us, Einstein, what are the building blocks of life according to your rather strange theory?

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about. Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence? Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur? Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?

I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question. Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.

As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science. While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me). I also do not know how it is tested for. Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?

M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here. From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID. It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science. Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science. But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it. If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.

P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer? I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.
Thanks.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

No matter how "irreducibly complex" the chemical structure found in living organisms, they are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their outer shell, the valence electrons. There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.

I KNOW WHAT VALENCE ELECTRONS ARE; I KNOW HOW VALENCE ELECTRONS WORK! HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT?

In any event——your statement is gibberish. Living organisms have outer shells? Chemical structures have outer shells? You can't even coherently express the idea you're after. But never mind. The idea your after is of secondary relevance to the concerns of precursor availability, conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! NINCOMPOOP!

Moving on. . . .

"[D]esigner molecules in the building blocks of life"?

More gibberish. You might as well have written: "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO."

I didn't say anything about "designer molecules", and, tell us, Einstein, what are the building blocks of life according to your rather strange theory?

When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!!

SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about. Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence? Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur? Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?

I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question. Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.

As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science. While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me). I also do not know how it is tested for. Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?

M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here. From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID. It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science. Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science. But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it. If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.

P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer? I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.
Thanks.

For me, Intelligent Design emcompasses the outermost scope of what the mind can conclude from experience and observation of the world and universe we live in.

For Socrates. it is simple logic. It was illogical to observe that skin tans in the sun to protect it from injury or eyelids protect the eyeballs was all due to chance. It was far more logical to recognize evidence of wise planning in the universe.

Plato focused on how things come to be and theorized that all that we experience and observe is a result of our own mind creating what we see and experience. The 'idea' of everything has always been here and we latch onto the 'idea' to create the world and universe around us.

Aristotle argued that all nature reflects a purpose and direction that is rationally accomplished by a 'god' but not a 'creator'. Again for Aristole, all the substance, time, and space of the universe has always been here but is part of a 'prime mover' who keeps it in motion. He described the prime mover as 'self-thinking thought," but unlike his mentor, Plato, he did not believe it came from the human mind but rather the human mind was part of it..

Immanuel Kant and to some degree Spinoza and Einstein went with a physico-theological proof of observation of symmetry, beauty, purpose, and cohesiveness of nature and the universe that they could not dismiss an intelligence between caught up in or being part of the whole, designing and directing it.

Then of course we have theories like Von Daniken's 'Chariots of the Gods' that all we are here on Planet Earth is the result of ancient alien visitations. He didn't theorize about the origins of them.

And of course the simplest religious faith in a Supreme Being or Beings who simply spoke and it all happened as we now know it to be.

Intelligent Design, in the hands and minds of the open minded is bigger than any science we currently have and far more complex and intricate than any basic religious belief.

And personally, I don't see how our brightest and best can just summarily dismiss it as irrelevent or fantasy and not worthy of exploration or consideration.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!!

SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.

Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.

My questions were satirically rhetorical, the stuff of scathing contempt for the pretensions of a know-nothing twit muddling the scientific concerns of prebiotic chemistry with pseudo-scientific blather. So after being exposed, you still want to brazenly go on with this charade, eh?


I wrote: "You can't even coherently express the idea you're after."

After you wrote:

No matter how 'irreducibly complex' the chemical structure [singular antecedent] found in living organisms [plural antecedent?], they [plural pronoun] are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their [plural pronoun] outer shell [singular noun], the valence electrons.​

Grammatically, chemical structure is the antecedent, but it's singular while the pronouns are plural. However, living organisms is a plural term. But living organisms don't have outer shells in the sense that you mean, do they, you drooling retard? And it's nonsensical to talk about chemical structure having an outer shell when it's the atoms of structures that have outer valence shells. Right, retard?

Now the following expression is coherent . . . but, of course, you didn't write it:

The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons.​

But the relevance of your detour into Valence Electronville has yet to be explained. What does this have to do with the fact that the various monomeric, organic precursors of biological systems do not possess the inherent, self-ordering chemical properties that would enable them, under natural conditions, to formulate the self-replicating components of specified complexity found in living organisms? That is to say, spelling it out for you, what does this have to do with the availability of the pertinent monomeric precursors, biochemical conservation, organic information, chirality, bonding affinities and so on beyond atomic structure?

Answer: virtually nothing, retard!


And then we have this ironic statement—the "GURUNDEA-LAP-TIP-MERGEN-STOTCHER-KOOK-LOO" statement—from you, so incredibly stupid it makes gnats look like geniuses:

There are no designer molecules in the building blocks of life.​

Dipstick, there are no designer molecules, as such, at the monomeric level anywhere in nature, and the phrase building blocks of life is an informal reference in biology to amino acids. Amino acids will not form proteins in nature as they only occur in racemic mixtures, and they will not form proteins under laboratory conditions either, even in homochiral mixtures. Valence electrons have nothing to do with the problem.

SHUT UP! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

You have no way of proving that statement, so it's scientifically worthless. How can you categorically say that over billions of years, that it couldn't happen? At least evolutionists are striving to prove their position. We seem to have to take yours on faith, which doesn't get you any science medals.

So let me see if I've got this right. You're saying that the Pasteurian law of abiogenesis and its ramifications in light of subsequent scientific research and discovery about the nature of biochemistry's monomeric precursors and the prevailing conditions of the primordial world are worthless, based on thin air? A mere hypothesis based on what might be overthrows it? That is not how science works at all. You're the one asserting that science should accommodate faith!



That is the prevailing theory of biology, and it is falsifiable. You're merely revealing your ignorance about nearly sixty years of abiogenic research!

Pasteur disproved "spontaneous generation". The modern notion of "abiogenesis" wasn't around at that time.

Pasteur's work has nothing to do with I.D.. It was just good science. It doesn't support ID anymore than any other scientific discovery.

All that aside, it doesn't allow ID to get around the fact that it is non-falsifiable.

 

[geauxtohell]

Though that's what I personally believe and that's what the research evinces, I never said, in terms of science, that abiogenesis couldn't be true. And with regard to known life, the supernatural is not the only option, Thick-as-Brick geauxtohell.

You keep making this statement, and then offer absolutely zilch to back it up (even though you have been asked).

What intelligent, natural process could guide natural selection for every living organism throughout the history of this planet?

That should be rich.

BTW (and again), don't think that it's not completely obvious that you have attempted to steer this issue away from discussions on natural selection in favor of abiogenesis. Intelligent Design as put forth by it's proponents was proposed as a competing theory to natural selection. It had little to do with abiogenesis. Though, I suppose if you are gong to start evoking the supernatural, their is no limit to what you can pretend to explain scientifically.

Again, you aren't fooling anyone.

But even if the supernatural appeared to be the only alternative, so what?

It is the only alternative. And the "what" is exactly the problem. You can't disprove the existence of a supernatural force, therefore you can't construct a hypothesis support the notion of a supernatural force. It's that simple. Once you incorporate an all powerful entity into your methodology, then you have an automatic trump card to every question and the answer always becomes "<insert supernatural force here> did it.>

Perhaps you've never actually done scientific research or formally studied biostatistics and understand how a hypothesis, p-values, etc work. Either that, or you are being intentionally dense.

You guys think you are being sly by saying "It doesn't have to be God!". In fact, it becomes even more silly. So now you won't even name the force you claim to believe or can prove scientifically is guiding evolution.

In that light, your argument can be boiled down to "This is too difficult to be explained through natural processes alone." which is not a scientific statement at all. It's an opinion (and a rather academically lazy opinion at that).

Theological implications are not part of the scientific equation. If they were, then the constructs of the evolutionary paradigm would not be valid science. You guys just pretend they don't exist as you deny the nature of the constructs' apriority. You know, the apriority whose name you will not speak.

You mean you insistence that this all borders on the "metaphysical" while (quite hilariously) stating that the actual answer is that some magical force guided the process?

It's not that we dare not parrot your idiotic opinion, it's just that we find it too absurd to entertain without laughing.

Currently, as far as science is concerned, we do not know how life arose in the first place. Currently, as far as science is concerned, all we know is that all life comes from life. That theory has theological implications, too, but it cannot be credibly argued that the Pasteurian law of biogenesis is not a scientific fact and will remain one until it is falsified, if ever. It currently stands. It has not been falsified.

How absurd. You act as if Pasteur's refutation of "spontaneous generation" is now applicable to refute the "RNA world" model. It does not. Pastuer's experiment was rather simple and didn't even touch on biochemistry. Pastuer never made claims that his theory explained the origin of life on this planet. He just showed that spontaneous generation was bunk. Furthermore, the double helix wasn't even discovered until the fifties. Only the most disingenuous of hacks would try and evoke Pasteur supporting I.D.

Again, you seem to want to discuss abiogenesis as opposed to natural selection. Is that so you can keep prattling on about Pasteur as if he is the Godfather of Intelligent Design?

Initially, Darwin, a Deist, supposed that God created the first living organism to get things rolling. He latter regretted that, supposing that the first viable cell was a primitive blob of protoplasm. Of course, that was the first hypothesis of abiogenesis to be falsified. The second to be falsified was the hypothesis that amino acids were the initial prebiotic precursors of life. Hence, the RNA-world hypothesis, the metabolism-first hypothesis, or a synthesis thereof. Actually, both of these hypothesis are in trouble, too, for a long list of reasons.

Actually, the debate continues to rage and probably will until the end of time. Some theories (Miller-Urey) that were thought to be disproven have come back into vogue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/science/18conv.html

Miller and Urey's experiment was just repeated (because good scientific work is reproducible) with better results than the original.

Through each process, scientific methodology has either supported or argued against a notion.

Again, your logical canard is insisting that anything short of a 100% answer for any one theory automatically proves yours. In fact, your theory is so goofy, it's not even being considered.

On the other hand, it looks like we might be able to eventually engineer life under laboratory conditions using biopolymers harvested from extant cells. Naturally, that would not account for the origins of their monomeric precursors or the polymerization of the same, and would necessarily entail a directed process based on known biotechnology, namely, a process of intelligent design in accordance with a blueprint that appears to have been drawn out by an intelligent designer.

I bolded your massive logical leap. The impetus is on you to support such a radical statement.

BTW, who is the "intelligent designer"? I would assume you would have to know him before you could comment on how he did something.

But materialists keeping hoping they will overthrow the Pateurian law of biogenesis, even though all the evidence just keeps backing it up.

I've followed this issue for years. Until you showed up, I never met anyone who mentioned Pasteur's work relating to this in the least.

 

[edthecynic]

When you ask stupid questions like those you prove you know absolutely nothing about valence electrons. But knowing nothing about valence electrons you have no idea just how stupid those questions about outer shells are!!!

SparkNotes: Atomic Structure: Electron Configuration and Valence Electrons

The outermost orbital shell of an atom is called its valence shell, and the electrons in the valence shell are valence electrons. Valence electrons are the highest energy electrons in an atom and are therefore the most reactive. While inner electrons (those not in the valence shell) typically don't participate in chemical bonding and reactions, valence electrons can be gained, lost, or shared to form chemical bonds. For this reason, elements with the same number of valence electrons tend to have similar chemical properties, since they tend to gain, lose, or share valence electrons in the same way. The Periodic Table was designed with this feature in mind. Each element has a number of valence electrons equal to its group number on the Periodic Table.

Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.

My questions were satirically rhetorical, the stuff of scathing contempt for the pretensions of a know-nothing twit muddling the scientific concerns of prebiotic chemistry with pseudo-scientific blather. So after being exposed, you still want to brazenly go on with this charade, eh?


I wrote: "You can't even coherently express the idea you're after."

After you wrote:

<b>

No matter how 'irreducibly complex' the chemical structure [singular antecedent] found in living organisms [plural antecedent?], they [plural pronoun] are all constructed based on the number of electrons in their [plural pronoun] outer shell [singular noun], the valence electrons.​

</b>
Grammatically, chemical structure is the antecedent, but it's singular while the pronouns are plural. However, living organisms is a plural term. But living organisms don't have outer shells in the sense that you mean, do they, you drooling retard? And it's nonsensical to talk about chemical structure having an outer shell when it's the atoms of structures that have outer valence shells. Right, retard?

The more you know you are wrong, the more insulting and condescending you get. Molecules have valency too, but an expert like you knew that already so an expert like you had to know you were lying when you said only atoms have valency. Either that or you were too stupid to know you were wrong.

Here are some very well known examples of molecules that have valency:

Phosphate (PO4)3- has a valency of 3
Sulphate (SO4)2- has a valency of 2
Ammonium (NH4)+ has a valency of 1
Nitrate (NO3)- has a valency of 1

 

[geauxtohell]

Maybe I'm too much of a layman, but I'm still unclear just what you are saying ID theory is about. Is it that the origin of life must be from an intelligence? Once that life was created, by whatever intelligence, evolution can then explains the various changes that occur? Does ID make any claims about changes of species, or does it not deal with that at all?

I don't care about the pros or cons of evolutionary theory in regards to this question. Rather, I want to understand what ID says without anything about evolutionary theory diluting it, if possible.

As far as irreducible complexity, I still don't know where else other than ID it is used in science. While it not being used in any other theory or field would not automatically make it invalid, it would make it more difficult to accept (at least for me). I also do not know how it is tested for. Is there an equation that can be applied to show whether or not something is irreducibly complex?

M.D., as I've said, I'm very much a layman here. From my perspective it seems you have done more arguing against other theories or hypotheses than for ID. It may be that I've misunderstood some of what you've said because of my ignorance, but ID and specifically irreducible complexity have always seemed to me to be untestable ideas, therefor not science. Even if they are completely true that would seem to make them not fall within the realm of science. But I am trying to keep enough of an open mind so that if I am shown that they are, in fact, testable and scientific, I won't dismiss it. If you could give me a brief summation of what ID entails, and explain the process by which something is tested to see if it is irreducibly complex, or if you could direct me somewhere I could have that explained, I'd appreciate it.

P.S. - Does ID allow for the possibility an alien intelligence, rather than a supernatural one, is the designer? I'm sure that would be answered if I were clear on what ID proposes, but should you not wish to try and explain the theory here (and possibly dumb it down so I can understand it lol) I would at least like an answer to that question.
Thanks.

"Layman" or not you have accurately summed up the major issues and questions about I.D. You haven't missed anything. The "best and brightest" in the ID movement can't answer the questions you have asked, therefore, I wouldn't expect M.D. to be able to give you the answers you seek.

If you are really interested, here are too good sources:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg]YouTube - &#x202a;Ken Miller on Intelligent Design&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

M.D. is quick to dismiss Dr. Miller's simple explanation of why "irrefutable complexity" is bunk. However, he stops there.

As you noted, his tactic (and the tactic of all ID proponents) is simply to argue against Evolutionary theory without offering any viable alternative.

 

[geauxtohell]

And personally, I don't see how our brightest and best can just summarily dismiss it as irrelevent or fantasy and not worthy of exploration or consideration.

Because it can't be explored scientifically.

 

[geauxtohell]

Okay, you little pissant, the gloves come off.

You mean you've been holding back?

SHUT UP! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

Quite the intellectual argument. You are certainly showing us!