Intelligent Design: Extinct?

[THE LIGHT]

Faith, or science:

Science: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com

Evolutionists are the gift that keeps giving stupidity.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

God did not create the universe, says Hawking | Reuters

In the beginning nothing exploded.

Yeah, it takes a LOT of faith to believe shit like that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Faith, or science:

Science: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com

Evolutionists are the gift that keeps giving stupidity.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes.

God did not create the universe, says Hawking | Reuters

In the beginning nothing exploded.

Yeah, it takes a LOT of faith to believe shit like that.

Science is mutable; faith, not so much.

 

[eagleseven]

I'll have to taste some sunlight next time I'm outside. And maybe even remember that for when I get really hungry.

Ever hear of *drumroll* plants?

---

For someone claiming to be The Light, you aren't very bright.

 

[HUGGY]

If Intelligent Design is not extinct, it is certainly an endangered species in the US. I find it quite ironic that a philosophy which opposes the validity of natural selection has apparently fallen victim to the survival of the fittest scientific explanation for the diversity and heredity of life on earth.

Following definitive defeat in federal court and with many religious folks disinterested in any pseudo-scientific explanations for biodiversity -- preferring science or the bible's contentions instead -- does the ID movement have any future in the US?

ID is a fraud. You can't include god in a scientific analysis of ID because there is no factual evidense that there is a god. Suggesting that there was intelligence when life began demands proof of god.

 

[eagleseven]

ID is a fraud. You can't include god in a scientific analysis of ID because there is no factual evidense that there is a god. Suggesting that there was intelligence when life began demands proof of god.

Then there's the can-o-worms of studying said god.

How many ID-supporters want to experiment on their god?

 

[antagon]

Yes, the evidence is called deductive logic. Care to present what this first life form snacked on? And of course how it came about?

antagon contends that the origin of life may or may not have a link to evolution. this depends on what you call life. i also remind that bacteria and archaea can snack on sulfur and ammonia and in environments not conducive to life as we know it now. their processes are related to the development of the environment which we live in, however, and there is a strong tie between the evolution of the environment of the planet, the life in this environment, and the roles such monocells played (and continue to play) in its development.

So the first life form snacked on sulfer and ammonia, but for some reason decided (now there's a problem right there) that it wanted to snack on something better so it turned itself into something it could eat. Self canabalism? Simply amazing.

That still doesn't get us to the question of where life came from. Any ideas?

i suspect that what you're writing is a bit tongue and cheek and that you understand that there's no conscious decision making involved in evolution theory... that's an ID claim. rather, 'snacking' entails two things: an energy source (H or electrons from the sun) and a building material (carbon, for starters) fossil records show that the earliest life derived energy from the sun and from hydrogen rich ammonia or sulfides. some extreme environments still have bacteria and archaea which have this sort of metabolism.

the metabolism of these creatures is responsible for some of the planetary cycles which allow other life (which respirate CO2 and O2) to exist. existing life adaptable to an oxygen rich environment thrived and diversified, just as the anaerobes before them.

this doesn't account for the question of where life comes from. notwithstanding the physical detail which science avails us, i dont see how faith that all life comes from God is imperiled. presuming that you are threatened by the idea that scientists have theories on the physical origin of life, is your faith also threatened by the natural processes of conception in humans? does it make us less godly that we came from a sperm and an egg, rather than from a poorly understood, irreducibly complex process?

how do you define life, lite?

edit: hopefully it's occurred to you that life can munch on sunlight?

REALLY?????

I'll have to taste some sunlight next time I'm outside. And maybe even remember that for when I get really hungry.

when you get hungry, eat some salad. all of those plants derive their energy from the sun. you cant, genius. looking around at the natural world, do you think that everything alive functions the same way?

 

[antagon]

Faith, or science:

Science: Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe - CNN.com

faith.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I'll have to taste some sunlight next time I'm outside. And maybe even remember that for when I get really hungry.

Ever hear of *drumroll* plants?

---

For someone claiming to be The Light, you aren't very bright.

Or maybe I am more bright than you want to admit. Has it ever occurred to you that plants don't "eat" sunlight? Photosynthesis uses energy (sunlight) to "convert" yes, I said "convert" (not eat) CO2 (<- that evil stuff) into sugars (<- food).

That is about the equivalent of saying me lifting a spoon to my mouth is food. NO, it is the process by which I GET food to my mouth. It is NOT food.

 

[Father Time]

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock.

How many times do we have to tell you.

A. Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from rocks
B. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life started so even if you could prove a deity made the first life that doesn't disprove evolution.

 

[antagon]

I'll have to taste some sunlight next time I'm outside. And maybe even remember that for when I get really hungry.

Ever hear of *drumroll* plants?

---

For someone claiming to be The Light, you aren't very bright.

Or maybe I am more bright than you want to admit. Has it ever occurred to you that plants don't "eat" sunlight? Photosynthesis uses energy (sunlight) to "convert" yes, I said "convert" (not eat) CO2 (<- that evil stuff) into sugars (<- food).

That is about the equivalent of saying me lifting a spoon to my mouth is food. NO, it is the process by which I GET food to my mouth. It is NOT food.

this is not brilliance, lite. when we eat plants, we convert their sugars to energy. that is food. when plants sit in the sun, they convert the light to usable energy. that is food. plants don't move like animals do; all of their energy goes into anabolism (growth) and that is where the CO2 comes in. its like i said earlier:

'snacking' entails two things: an energy source (H or electrons from the sun) and a building material (carbon, for starters)

'munching' and 'snacking' aren't great technical terms; when you introduced 'snacking' did you recognize that, or should i break down your statements in the manner you have?

 

[THE LIGHT]

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock.

How many times do we have to tell you.

A. Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from rocks
B. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life started so even if you could prove a deity made the first life that doesn't disprove evolution.

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

 

[HUGGY]

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock.

How many times do we have to tell you.

A. Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from rocks
B. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life started so even if you could prove a deity made the first life that doesn't disprove evolution.

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

Life did come from rocks....sort of. Along the way from the first gathering of the first dust of the big bang stars formed. That created the first stars gravity and mass which had many different outcomes. Stars overheated due to gravity and created temperatures which changed the composition of some elements. As some stars went super nova these new elements added ingredients to places like earth combined with lightning and volcanic activity assembling amino acids which eventually aquired the ability to replacate.

 

[antagon]

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

this is only the third time i've asked you this: what do you mean by 'life', lite?

 

[Sheldon]

ID doesn't claim everything came from a rock.

How many times do we have to tell you.

A. Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from rocks
B. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life started so even if you could prove a deity made the first life that doesn't disprove evolution.

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma9qekERW4c]YouTube - Family Guy - Der Urknall german HD[/ame]

 

[THE LIGHT]

How many times do we have to tell you.

A. Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from rocks
B. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the first life started so even if you could prove a deity made the first life that doesn't disprove evolution.

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

Life did come from rocks....sort of. Along the way from the first gathering of the first dust of the big bang stars formed. That created the first stars gravity and mass which had many different outcomes. Stars overheated due to gravity and created temperatures which changed the composition of some elements. As some stars went super nova these new elements added ingredients to places like earth combined with lightning and volcanic activity assembling amino acids which eventually aquired the ability to replacate.

Finally, someone is honest enough to admit that evoultionists believe life came from a rock.

 

[THE LIGHT]

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

this is only the third time i've asked you this: what do you mean by 'life', lite?

Something that is not dead.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life

 

[THE LIGHT]

Ever hear of *drumroll* plants?

---

For someone claiming to be The Light, you aren't very bright.

Or maybe I am more bright than you want to admit. Has it ever occurred to you that plants don't "eat" sunlight? Photosynthesis uses energy (sunlight) to "convert" yes, I said "convert" (not eat) CO2 (<- that evil stuff) into sugars (<- food).

That is about the equivalent of saying me lifting a spoon to my mouth is food. NO, it is the process by which I GET food to my mouth. It is NOT food.

this is not brilliance, lite. when we eat plants, we convert their sugars to energy. that is food. when plants sit in the sun, they convert the light to usable energy. that is food. plants don't move like animals do; all of their energy goes into anabolism (growth) and that is where the CO2 comes in. its like i said earlier:

'snacking' entails two things: an energy source (H or electrons from the sun) and a building material (carbon, for starters)

'munching' and 'snacking' aren't great technical terms; when you introduced 'snacking' did you recognize that, or should i break down your statements in the manner you have?

Man you are dumb.

Using your logic one could say humans snack on sunlight. NO, plants use the ENERGY from sunlight to convert minerals CO2 and water into sugars.

 

[antagon]

Or maybe I am more bright than you want to admit. Has it ever occurred to you that plants don't "eat" sunlight? Photosynthesis uses energy (sunlight) to "convert" yes, I said "convert" (not eat) CO2 (<- that evil stuff) into sugars (<- food).

That is about the equivalent of saying me lifting a spoon to my mouth is food. NO, it is the process by which I GET food to my mouth. It is NOT food.

this is not brilliance, lite. when we eat plants, we convert their sugars to energy. that is food. when plants sit in the sun, they convert the light to usable energy. that is food. plants don't move like animals do; all of their energy goes into anabolism (growth) and that is where the CO2 comes in. its like i said earlier:

'snacking' entails two things: an energy source (H or electrons from the sun) and a building material (carbon, for starters)

'munching' and 'snacking' aren't great technical terms; when you introduced 'snacking' did you recognize that, or should i break down your statements in the manner you have?

Man you are dumb.

Using your logic one could say humans snack on sunlight. NO, plants use the ENERGY from sunlight to convert minerals CO2 and water into sugars.

no lite. only an idiot could say that humans use light in metabolism -- particularly from what i've said in the thread. converting minerals CO2 and water to sugars is anabolism. plants are made from the sugars you are talking about.

this isn't 'my logic'. this is very basic biochemistry you ignored if you even finished high school.

 

[antagon]

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

this is only the third time i've asked you this: what do you mean by 'life', lite?

Something that is not dead.

dead shit used to be alive, lite. when talking about the very simplest forms of life, the definition is blurred. there are viral and bacterial organisms which don't wholly conform to richer definitions of life than yours. at the same time, these life-like organisms cant be said to be dead until they're killed.

i think the link between evolution and the origin of life revolves around this definition, if there is a link at all.

 

[Montrovant]

And I will ask for the fourth time, where did life come from.

Life did come from rocks....sort of. Along the way from the first gathering of the first dust of the big bang stars formed. That created the first stars gravity and mass which had many different outcomes. Stars overheated due to gravity and created temperatures which changed the composition of some elements. As some stars went super nova these new elements added ingredients to places like earth combined with lightning and volcanic activity assembling amino acids which eventually aquired the ability to replacate.

Finally, someone is honest enough to admit that evoultionists believe life came from a rock.

You are bound and determined to link evolution to theories about the creation of life, even when that isn't what is said. You didn't ask what does evolution say about the creation of life (which several people have told you is nothing, that evolution doesn't concern itself with life's creation but merely the process of change) you just asked where did life come from. You were given a response to that question, which seemingly had nothing to do with evolution. Yet, still, you decide that it is an 'admission' of evolution saying life came from a rock.

There's nothing wrong with you arguing the merits of evolutionary theory, but you could at least be honest with your arguments.