tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1733793348041154307..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Five questions for Intelligent Design CreationistsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20046476721171299842014-04-26T08:46:29.294-04:002014-04-26T08:46:29.294-04:00Not as coherent as Robert Byers but definitely a c...Not as coherent as Robert Byers but definitely a contender:<br /><br /><i>That's a good question and another way to describe it is "evolution" and all that Charles Darwin explained is that things change over time and where some things are made gone they're gone. Might be insight to someone who didn't already know that, but it's not theory that predicts what this is for and makes one go Ah ha! and Eureka!</i>steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79538477959972329692014-04-25T20:11:35.748-04:002014-04-25T20:11:35.748-04:00I would suggest first studying the theory and onli...I would suggest first studying the theory and online computer models, before commenting. Not that I would expect that level of common sense from bullies who only have an ax to grind.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------<br />The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.<br /><br />http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=74175&lngWId=1<br /><br />http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/<br /><br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2256931495032365122014-04-25T19:41:57.995-04:002014-04-25T19:41:57.995-04:00Before anybody chooses to respond to Mr. Gaulin...Before anybody chooses to respond to Mr. Gaulin's out-of-left-field post, they might want to browse <a rel="nofollow">the thread devoted to him</a> over at <i><b>After the Bar Closes</b>.</i> Mr. Gaulin may or may not have Buddha-nature, but he definitely has crackpot-nature.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56980999414093883172014-04-25T19:03:43.855-04:002014-04-25T19:03:43.855-04:00I have no interest in answering loaded questions. ...I have no interest in answering loaded questions. But I will again link to the theory that's already getting around in science:<br /><br />The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which in turn causes emergence of multicellular intelligence.<br />The phenomena of "intelligence" can be demonstrated by a relatively simple cognitive model that provides a starting point for developing models demonstrating the phenomena of "intelligent cause". This same circuit/algorithm models both unintelligent and intelligent behavior. It's here possible to determine whether a system is intelligent or not by whether all four of its circuit requirements have been met.<br /><br />There is two way reciprocal causation from one level to the next in both forward and reverse directions. This trinity of intelligence levels connects all of our complex intelligence related behaviors back to the behavior of matter, which does not have to be intelligent to exist, or to be a source of consciousness.<br /><br />At our conception we were only the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, called a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells called an embryo, which was unintelligent at the multicellular level. Later during fetal development we had a functional self-learning brain that can intelligently control our motor muscle movements (including sweat gland motor muscles) thereby reaching the multicellular intelligence level.<br /><br />In a typical multicellular system: At the multicellular level there is a neural connection from the brain to its muscle cells, then a neural sensory feedback connection from the muscle cells back to the brain. At the cellular level of each muscle cell there are metabolic pathway connections to activate muscle cell motor protein molecules which produce muscle cell contraction, then a metabolic pathway sensory feedback connection from motor protein molecules to the surface of the muscle cell to add its internal state (such as fatigue) to the signal that the feedback neuron receives from the muscle. At the molecular level there is the genome that produced and maintains the cell, which also requires sensory feedback for proper control of its internal environment.<br /><br />The lower half of the Causation illustration shows a simplified block-flow diagram of the intelligence system algorithmically shown above it. Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not. Memory In0/Out0 is typically a 4 state (count of 0-3) signal that recalls confidence level of that memory address/location, which increases each time the action is successful and decreases each time the action fails. Upon decreasing to 0 a random guess (or best/educated/good guess) is taken. In a most simple bacterial chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined and reversing motor direction produces a tumble that randomly repositions it in a new direction, a guess where to go next.<br /><br />http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/<br />https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf<br />Gary Gaulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10925297296758439900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36558079044954948662014-04-22T21:10:29.243-04:002014-04-22T21:10:29.243-04:00Quest,
You're really an idiot. Yes, idiot, I ...Quest,<br /><br />You're really an idiot. Yes, idiot, I did not say IDiot, but idiot. Yes, you are. First you ask for one nucleotide:<br /><br /><i>RALF, how has <b>one nucleotide</b> come about by so -called natural processes... Just provide me with some science because I have not found one so far...</i><br /><br />They gave you two nucleotides, some science, and your answer is "oh no, you did not read that they did not produce all of them!" Nice in-your-face moving the goalposts.<br /><br />Why the hell are you lying to yourself you little minded imbecile? What the hell is your real problem? Is it that others made fun of you for being such an idiot while in elementary school? Because it took you forever to learn to read? It's never late Quest. It takes effort, but you can increase your literacy.<br /><br />Take your own advice Quest. Have the tiniest bit of self-respect and stop showing up as such an unbelievable imbecile. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83815808363290892972014-04-22T19:50:31.172-04:002014-04-22T19:50:31.172-04:00Rumbracket
Would you care to tell me this to my f...Rumbracket<br /><br />Would you care to tell me this to my face...? I can, and I'm pretty much available in most parts of the world.... within 1-2 days.... How does Helsinki sound this week...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83377917515761723832014-04-22T16:00:41.516-04:002014-04-22T16:00:41.516-04:00@quest Your post said "how has one nucleotide...@quest Your post said "how has one nucleotide come about by so -called natural processes... Just provide me with some science because I have not found one so far...". I gave you a perfectly fair answer. Your subsequent response was a great example of moving the goalposts.aljones909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10277116174278206834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76265418500275003622014-04-22T13:23:13.584-04:002014-04-22T13:23:13.584-04:00Sooooo Quest, have you seen god supernaturally, in...Sooooo Quest, have you seen god supernaturally, instantaneously, spontaneously or slowly and incrementally design or create anything at all yet? Just one single thing would do. Where's the demonstration that god's supernatural powers are at work, what did they create, when did they create it, how did they create it and how do you know? <br /><br />You don't have to show me the creation of life, or entire universes. Just the tiniest little thing, like a grain of sand or a molecule of water. Got ANY hard, concrete empirical evidence that this takes place anywhere AT ALL?<br /><br />No? Then <b>shut the fuck up.</b><br /><br />Respectully, thank you.<br />/The rational part of humanity Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26134377847823906082014-04-22T12:38:52.108-04:002014-04-22T12:38:52.108-04:00aljones909,
You missed a very important sentence....aljones909,<br /><br />You missed a very important sentence... ;)<br /><br />"Scientists have yet to produce the purine nucleotides adenosine (A) and guanosine (G) under similar prebiotic conditions, but the research is moving in that direction, says Powner. “There’s nothing I see, other than time and effort and a few bright ideas, that stands in the way of understanding at least [the] chemistry to the monomeric components of biology,” he says...." <br /><br />Why are you lying to yourself...? <br /><br />I don't force you to believe in God...do I...? Does anybody else...? I doubt that.... But have some self-respect...at least...!!!!<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73971402183806177902014-04-21T19:46:44.412-04:002014-04-21T19:46:44.412-04:00quest
So, because YOU have not found some science...quest<br /><br />So, because YOU have not found some science that explains, to your satisfaction, how one nucleotide has come about, you believe that a superior intelligence (a god) created nucleotides. <br /><br />First, science isn't in the business of satisfying you. Second, science isn't done looking for evidence and explanations. You IDiots are SO impatient, and when you can't find satisfying, scientific answers to your mostly stupid questions RIGHT NOW, you believe in, worship, and promote whichever supernatural, super-powered, fairy tale 'creator-god' that you have been brainwashed to believe in since birth, or that you have chosen to believe in, worship, and promote at some point. <br /><br />Scientists are actually working at finding real answers to legitimate questions, while you impatient, deluded, narcissistic creationists are just desperately trying to shoehorn your imaginary god(s) and associated dogma into science, education, and government. <br /><br />Below are a few links to articles about what some scientists are working on in regard to the origin of life on Earth. As the research progresses, new evidence will be found, more questions will be asked, more discussion and debate will take place, new equipment will be invented and utilized, revisions may or will be made, and more knowledge will be gained. It will take time, money, and a lot of work, and even IF it turns out that some inferences, hypotheses, or theories are wrong there will still be progress in understanding how life did or could have come about on Earth. In the meantime, creationists will still be arguing about their interpretations of so-called 'holy scriptures' and will still be pushing ridiculous fairy tales as though they're The Truth™. <br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130730235542.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140313092710.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140415195712.htmThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45485991561006887342014-04-21T18:39:02.238-04:002014-04-21T18:39:02.238-04:00@quest "how has one nucleotide come about by ...@quest "how has one nucleotide come about by so -called natural processes." <br /><br />From "the-scientist.com"<br /><br />"Myriad simulations in the lab, however, have yielded some promising answers. In 2009, for example, John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in the U.K. and colleagues demonstrated the formation of the pyrimidine nucleotides, cytidine (C) and uridine (U), from a handful of plausible prebiotic molecules under conditions consistent with current early-Earth geochemical models.2 Rather than rely on free ribose and nucleobases, the team sequentially derived the complete ribonucleotides from glycolaldehyde and glyceraldehyde—“the smallest molecules you might consider sugars,” explains Powner, a collaborator on the study. And in September 2012, Sutherland showed that these sugar building blocks could be derived from hydrogen cyanide, a suspected prebiotic molecule important in synthesizing amino acids."<br />aljones909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10277116174278206834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2034387708450917912014-04-21T18:01:51.948-04:002014-04-21T18:01:51.948-04:00"all the attempts to recreate life have faile..."all the attempts to recreate life have failed...". If you think the Wells 'experiment' has anything to say on this matter then you need a reboot. All the attempts (so far) to produce a sustainable, energy producing, fusion reaction have also failed. Yet we have a detailed naturalistic explanation of how the sun works (we didn't have the answer until 1930). It's particles banging together in a complex cascade of interactions. You're convinced that in the next 1000 years we won't be able to recreate the steps that led to early life on earth? aljones909https://www.blogger.com/profile/10277116174278206834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13538111511845048212014-04-21T17:08:15.420-04:002014-04-21T17:08:15.420-04:00RALF, how has one nucleotide come about by so -cal...RALF, how has one nucleotide come about by so -called natural processes... Just provide me with some science because I have not found one so far...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91968073749422842402014-04-21T16:38:40.808-04:002014-04-21T16:38:40.808-04:00"-fine tuning of the laws"
I don't ..."-fine tuning of the laws"<br /><br />I don't understand the fine tuning argument, please explain it. Apparently, if the knob on the universe was set to a slightly different setting, the universe wouldn't be tuned in very well.<br /><br />Can you explain where this enormous knob is, please? I'm applying the principle of 'it takes one to know one', and you're without question the biggest knob I know. Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6455655241122228322014-04-21T16:09:20.559-04:002014-04-21T16:09:20.559-04:00Actarita Tonsa,
Suppose that scientists are able...Actarita Tonsa, <br /><br />Suppose that scientists are able to recreate life... what empirical evidence will you provide to support the notion that life can originate without a creator...? ......<br />Side note...(I want you, or pissed off people like Dino-genes to answer this... They claim that people like me try to destroy science.... I do not... but issues have to be explained...)<br /><br />....You will be stuck in the same spot... with the only exception that life can be RECREATED OR COPIED BY INTELLIGENT SCIENTIST... nothing else...<br />You reasoning... or the lack of is not scientific.... you would like it to be.... but it is not... <br /><br />I can't remember what Witton used to call people like you... it was a mix o's psychiatric term... I think and abiogenesis.... but I can't remember what it was.. It would fit your beliefs perfectly....<br />I sent an e-mail to witton@gmail.com without response.... several times... <br />Tax evasion is a serious issue in US of America... even if you are a war veteran.... and fully-loaded... Witton had few millions to support his shit... a lot o millions... but when you are republican... sooner or later you get nailed.... To bad.... to bad ... such a moron....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42043172756105202142014-04-21T15:54:01.877-04:002014-04-21T15:54:01.877-04:00Acartia Tonsa,
Darwin's theory, although not ...Acartia Tonsa,<br /><br /><i>Darwin's theory, although not the entire picture, satisfies these criteria. It is consistent with geological, paleantological, biological and molecular observations.</i><br /><br />I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Darwin's theory." In what way is "Darwin's theory" consistent with the vast amounts of variation present in most populations? How is is consistent with a molecular clock? How do you explain large amounts of junk DNA using "Darwin's theory"? How does "Darwin's theory" explain punctuated equilibrium or species sorting? <br /><br />The reason why "Darwin's theory" is "not the entire picture" is precisely because it is not consistent with all the observations.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83432185840617646212014-04-21T14:46:34.830-04:002014-04-21T14:46:34.830-04:00The idea of a circular argument was my entire poin...The idea of a circular argument was my entire point. The ID crowd have never made an argument that wasn't circular. Their entire defence of their faith is to point out all of the things that science has not explained. <br /><br />I could argue, with as much credibility and validity that, because we science does not fully understand the origin of life or the origin of the universe, they were both caused by leaving gum under the table in a bar in a ore-universe universe. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79456855727420714042014-04-21T13:23:14.682-04:002014-04-21T13:23:14.682-04:00I hope you don't mind me coping and pasting it...<i>I hope you don't mind me coping and pasting it on another blog...?</i><br /><br />With attribution I don't mind.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49403771330256930802014-04-21T13:10:58.710-04:002014-04-21T13:10:58.710-04:00Again: There is no fine tuning of the acceleration...Again: There is no fine tuning of the acceleration. (Think about it - how can a rate that is constantly changing be called "fine tuned"?) It used to be thought that the expansion rate was fine tuned until it was determined the rate was accelerating. The fine tuning problem was thus determined to be more specific than one of expansion rate, and as I mentioned is known as the "horizon" (or "flatness") problem. This is the problem inflation is hypothesized to resolve, and that hypothesis was recently bolstered by the observation of gravity waves. judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74217994764342943712014-04-21T11:41:14.588-04:002014-04-21T11:41:14.588-04:00Thank you....
I kind of knew this stuff...It was ...Thank you....<br /><br />I kind of knew this stuff...It was at the back of my mind, as I have ready many times....but you put it very concisely and to the point...I hope you don't mind me coping and pasting it on another blog...? Do you...?<br /><br />5. By find tuning of the expansion of the universe I meant to say the acceleration of the expansion... or the acceleration of the universe, if that makes more sense to you...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36212962265011481902014-04-21T11:33:01.680-04:002014-04-21T11:33:01.680-04:00What the ID proponents don't understand is tha...What the ID proponents don't understand is that scientists earn respect for their theories (discoveries). Not because they have been proven correct, which science does not allow, but because they are consistent with multiple lines of evidence and have been demonstrated to be highly predictive. Darwin's theory, although not the entire picture, satisfies these criteria. It is consistent with geological, paleantological, biological and molecular observations. And you don't have to go any further than antibiotic resistance to know that it is highly predictive. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19800271843223921532014-04-21T11:31:13.428-04:002014-04-21T11:31:13.428-04:00This is a very poor argument... The "if"...This is a very poor argument... The "if" is a big issue.... as you can imagine... <br /><br />"If" scientists never recreate life, would this mean that natural processes did it...?<br /><br />It is a circular reasoning that attempts to diverge the attention from the fact that scientist not only have no idea how to recreate life, they don't even know what life is... <br /><br />One expert I had a long discussion with over the weekend last week insists that they may be some undetectable to us power that sustains life itself....<br /><br />He claims that it could be a reason why scientists not only can't recreate life... but also can't sustain life....<br /><br />He was referring to the punctured cell in the famous video: "...you can't put humpty dumpty back together again..." by Jonathan Wells...<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfi2GLAmB5AAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45340848166196805662014-04-21T11:14:00.815-04:002014-04-21T11:14:00.815-04:00Quest, I have often heard creationists argue that ...Quest, I have often heard creationists argue that life must have been created because scientists have not even come close to creating life. A totally non-argument. We both know that if science ever succeeds in creating life, the creationists will simply argue that this was proof of that an intelligent creator is required for life to arise. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989141381412901927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64827388596756337552014-04-21T11:09:06.762-04:002014-04-21T11:09:06.762-04:002 - As with most science, there are various thread...2 - As with most science, there are various threads of confirming evidence. Some of the most persuasive are the cosmic microwave background experiments, beginning from work initiated in the 1940s and bearing fruit beginning in 1964 with Penzias and Wilson's Nobel-winning work. This has been followed by the COBE Explorer experiments and resulting papers, which have been the most cited recent physics papers. Then very recently there's been the work on gravity waves. And also there's your TV. What? Yep, turn on your TV and without an antenna connected, switch your video input to antenna. See the "snow"? The fact that there's "snow" rather than a blank screen is because of the cosmic microwave background radiation from the Big Bang.<br /><br />3 - First indications were from Einstein's work, which was so surprising at the time that Einstein thought he was mistaken. Then this was confirmed by the careful observations of Edwin Hubble in 1929, and has since been confirmed by innumerable subsequent observations and experiments.<br /><br />4 - The topic of whether the expansion was steady, slowing down, or accelerating was the subject of a great deal of research. The definitive evidence of acceleration (a surprise, since many scientists expected the expansion would be slowing down) came from Perlmutter's work on Type 1a supernovae in the 1990s, and has since been reconfirmed by many other observations.<br /><br />5 - The expansion is not finely tuned. You are probably confusing fine tuning of the expansion (which does not exist) with the "horizon problem." The leading hypothesis to resolve this problem is "inflation," first proposed by Dr. Alan Guth in 1980. This hypothesis appears to have been confirmed by the evidence of the recent gravity wave experiments.<br /><br />6 - The leading hypothesis at this time is dark energy in the form of a scalar field.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18989928598352511852014-04-21T10:48:31.658-04:002014-04-21T10:48:31.658-04:00None of creationists' teachings are compatible...None of creationists' teachings are compatible with my knowledge; Troley, Sordova and most at UD are perfect examples of that....<br /><br />Next week, I'm meeting one of the top scholars for lunch... Apparently, he is sort of like me; he believes in the act of creation, but his views are totally separate from the "main stream creationism"... <br /><br />I have written that many times.... I know it is boring to some of you... but it is an inescapable fact: <br /><br />Many scientists, (as well as many on people on this blog) believe that life has arisen spontaneously, somehow... and yet, all the attempts to recreate life have failed... <br /><br />How could scientists and others be so sure that life has arisen without intelligence, if intelligent scientists can't recreate what they believe chance, accident and natural processed did..? Those who believe in such a nonsense should give the scientific titles to chance, since it appears to be more intelligent than them...<br /><br />Not only that.... many respectable scientist believe that even the "simplest" cell is, so complex that it couldn't have originated on the Earth… Well…. this is encouraging…. However, this is just an example of moving this problem somewhere else….and not really facing the fact…that life is so complex that it could only have been created by intelligence superior than ours…. <br /><br />If anyone wants to discuss this issue, please don’t write “ …we don’t know how life originated, so God did it…” I will ignore comments like that...as I have been in the past…<br /><br />To me personally, talking about evolution-what I mean by that is variation leading to new, separate species with new body plans- is nonsense without explaining first the issue of the origins of life...I know many think it is not a problem... as they say that there is some much supposed evidence for appearance of new, properly defined species or kinds... but I'm yet to see such evidence....<br /><br />The funniest thing of all is the supposed mechanism of the evolution nobody can agree on.... I have to give Larry and UD guys credit for exposing natural selection an inadequate, or insufficient mechanism for evolution.... I'm pretty sure that Coyne loves it as his recent book and the upcoming one are apparently all about natural selection as...:the only game in town of evolution ...." lol<br /><br />Also….<br /><br />1. The universe had a beginning; there is no doubt about that...<br /><br />2. Everything that had a beginning had to have a cause... <br /><br />3. Most scientists agree that the big-bang lead to the beginning of time, matter and laws that govern the universe….It is inescapable to me, that whoever or whatever was the cause of “the beginning of the material universe” had to have been a mind….outside of time and space…without a beginning… some kind of transcendent being…Nobody so far…even Karuss proposed anything logical to contradict that….<br /><br />4. The first cause had to have not only intelligence superior to ours…<br />-fine tuning of the laws, black energy or the total mass of the universe are so fine-tuned that it is mind boggling and whoever believes that it happened by accident believes in miracles…)<br /><br />....but also inexhaustible source of energy or power… as expanding and accelerating universe is a living proof of that…<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com