(March 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm)athrock Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 1:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, congratulations on your MASSIVE appeal to authority!   So because there exist scientists out there who believe in God, therefor God?  You're going to have to do better than that.

LOL.

You wrote: "Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is?"

Now, in light of those quotes from some VERY smart people who see evidence for ID, I think YOU are the one who is going to have to do better than merely asserting that accepting the theory is "convoluted" thinking.

Somewhere, a fat lady is warming up. 

You're cute. Unfortunately for you, scientists who believe in ID are in the minority. But, that's not even relevant. In my opinion, scientists who believes in ID; especially the likes of Stephen Hawking; have to be MORE convoluted in their thinking than any lay-person like you or I. Of course, this in no way detracts from their intelligence, or their brilliance as scientists. It also does nothing to bolster your God claim. [emoji41]

(March 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 1:59 pm)AAA Wrote: I agree, let's not appeal to authority. Although some of the other people seem to want me to list scientists who support ID. Lets appeal to the evidence:

Glycolysis is thought to be the most primitive metabolic pathway in existence. Glycolysis (in most organisms, there are variations) requires 10 different enzymes to effectively catalyze the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate. All of them are necessary with the possible exception of triose phosphate isomerase. If you are missing one enzyme, the reaction no longer proceeds. Then you are unable to make pyruvate. How do you think these 10 (or 9) enzymes managed to gradually arise independently of one another when the absence of one prevents the formation of pyruvate. In addition to this, the cell needs to have pathways in place to further catabolize pyruvate to form high energy potential molecules. Which option is better from a scientific point of view: 1) All the enzymes formed at the same time (because they are all necessary to do the job), or 2) they gradually formed independent of each other in a way that allowed them to work together while the job that they had to complete was somehow accomplished by some other unknown/unobservable mechanism.

One of those options is highly speculative while the other is consistent with observations.

Okay, someone please correct me if I am wrong because I am not a scientist, but I am almost CERTAIN that glycolysis has been naturally reproduced in the lab.  As in...it was by accident.  No one was trying.  It just emerged...naturally.  


https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2...out-cells/

So, yes.  let's appeal to the evidence.

It was not by accident, they were definitely trying. Here's a link to the primary article:

http://msb.embopress.org/content/10/4/725


The tertiary article made it seem like it just happened without any direction. The experiment was well done, and they placed known metabolites or intermediates of both glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway into different test tubes containing concentrations of catalytic metal ions. They then incubated the molecules at 70 C, which is like 158 degrees F. They then analyzed the tubes and found that other intermediates of glycolysis were found. In other words, the molecules that were initially put into the tubes changed into other molecules. This is expected when a lot of energy is applied (70 C worth of thermal energy). At different temperatures different molecular strucutres are favored for molecules. I don't think that the tertiary article does it justice. In other words, it looks like molecules of glycolysis can convert between each other (except they found no 1,3-biphosphoglycerate, which is an intermediate) with sufficient energy. I still think it is speculative to say that organisms were able to take advantage of this until they evolved enzymes to do it themselves. What would be interesting is to look to see if there are organisms near hydrothermal vents that do not use glycolysis. That would support the idea that organisms could sustain themselves without glycolysis if they were in an environment similar to the experimental one.

(March 31, 2016 at 2:17 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm)AAA Wrote: Behe is a biochemist correct? That's in the relevant feild. There were physicists in there too.There were also microbiologists, geneticists, and astrobiologists. But again you can find scientists on any side of a debate. There are scientists who deny global warming. You have to look at the evidence yourself and not take what someone else tells you as truth.

The difference being, you can always find one, two or even a hand full in favor of creationism. You find hundreds of thousands not being creationists. That's why we don't name names, since they would fill volumes, as opposed to creationists.

And thank you very much. I look at the relevant evidence since I was little. Starting out with visits to the museum of natural history with my father. But one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.

Good, keep looking at the evidence. But make the distinction between what has actually been demonstrated by the empirical sciences and what is speculation by scientists, because they often get associated with each other. Then suddenly scientific speculation becomes empirical by association.

(March 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm)athrock Wrote: Now, in light of those quotes from some VERY smart people who see evidence for ID, I think YOU are the one who is going to have to do better than merely asserting that accepting the theory is "convoluted" thinking.

And again, it doesn't matter how smart someone is. What does their work say? What can they demonstrate to be true?

(March 31, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: How do you get from the creator of the universe to the magic Jewish zombie?

Same way as "Two Citations" Craig. He presupposes it.

(March 31, 2016 at 1:51 pm)athrock Wrote: You have a good point. I seriously considered using something like "a shiny sphere made of an unknown substance" instead of a locked box. Shoulda gone with my instincts.

Which kinda demonstrates what I'm talking about: with your sphere, you've got no way to determine design just from looking, and if the sphere were impenetrable to probes- as is the pre-big bang universe to our current technology- then there are no other means currently available for figuring it out. There's no sense in which you could conclude design there, certainly not just based on the fact that the sphere is there.

Quote:As for your final papagraph, my question would simply be: What changed? There was no universe and then there was. What changed?

The second domino to fall does so because of the first. But what caused the first to fall?

So, we've just established that time doesn't necessarily even work at that point: why are you now expecting a progression of events in linear "first thing, second thing" form? If there's no time, there's nothing for events to occur in: there is no "first domino" because there is no "first," prior to the start of time at the point that the big bang had already happened.

The truth is, we don't know yet. Whatever the answer ends up being, there's a strong possibility that it will actively resist attempts to explain it in our current temporal lexicon and physics. We will need an entirely new suite of terminology to describe it, most likely. The point I'm making is that the assertion that the universe had a cause is unjustifiable given everything we currently know in science.

(March 31, 2016 at 2:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm)athrock Wrote: LOL.

You wrote: "Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is?"

Now, in light of those quotes from some VERY smart people who see evidence for ID, I think YOU are the one who is going to have to do better than merely asserting that accepting the theory is "convoluted" thinking.

Somewhere, a fat lady is warming up. 

You're cute.  Unfortunately for you, scientists who believe in ID are in the minority.  But, that's not even relevant.  

You're right on two counts...I'm cute and it's not relevant.

Because, as you say, let's not appeal to numbers...whether they represent the majority or the minority. Instead, I appealed to the sterling reputations of several towering giants of modern cosmology and astrophysics who agree that there appears to be far more in favor of Intelligent Design that you acknowledged when you tossed out your "convoluted reasoning" comment.

See, Lady, I've basically backed you into this corner, there is no escape from it, and you simply need to admit that you fucked up in your exuberance to trash the views of a believer.

What would be even BETTER, however, would be for you to put aside your prejudices and presuppositions and actually THINK about the arguments rather than merely reacting to them emotionally. The truth is what it is whether you like it or not.

Quote: In my opinion, scientists who believes in ID; especially the likes of Stephen Hawking; have to be MORE convoluted in their thinking than any lay-person like you or I.  Of course, this in no way detracts from their intelligence, or their brilliance as scientists.  It also does nothing to bolster your God claim.

Thank you, lay-person, for your opinion. However, in some matters, it makes more sense to pay attention to the opinions of recognized experts.

This is one of those times.

(March 31, 2016 at 5:08 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 1:51 pm)athrock Wrote: You have a good point. I seriously considered using something like "a shiny sphere made of an unknown substance" instead of a locked box. Shoulda gone with my instincts.

Which kinda demonstrates what I'm talking about: with your sphere, you've got no way to determine design just from looking, and if the sphere were impenetrable to probes- as is the pre-big bang universe to our current technology- then there are no other means currently available for figuring it out. There's no sense in which you could conclude design there, certainly not just based on the fact that the sphere is there.

In the case of the sphere, scientists would analyze its chemical composition, no? What elements it is made of? They could measure its weight, temperature, attempt carbon dating, etc. Kinda like we might do with the universe itself: they would study it to determine all they could about it. In the case of creation, however, there is NOTHING pre-Big Bang. So, why is there something rather than nothing?

Quote:

Quote:As for your final papagraph, my question would simply be: What changed? There was no universe and then there was. What changed?

The second domino to fall does so because of the first. But what caused the first to fall?

So, we've just established that time doesn't necessarily even work at that point: why are you now expecting a progression of events in linear "first thing, second thing" form? If there's no time, there's nothing for events to occur in: there is no "first domino" because there is no "first," prior to the start of time at the point that the big bang had already happened.

The truth is, we don't know yet. Whatever the answer ends up being, there's a strong possibility that it will actively resist attempts to explain it in our current temporal lexicon and physics. We will need an entirely new suite of terminology to describe it, most likely. The point I'm making is that the assertion that the universe had a cause is unjustifiable given everything we currently know in science.

If there was nothing and then there was something (or better yet, then there was everything), what changed? And why?

Something CAUSED everything to come into existence. Things don't simply pop into existence uncaused.

(March 31, 2016 at 5:22 pm)athrock Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 2:41 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You're cute.  Unfortunately for you, scientists who believe in ID are in the minority.  But, that's not even relevant.  

You're right on two counts...I'm cute and it's not relevant.

Because, as you say, let's not appeal to numbers...whether they represent the majority or the minority. Instead, I appealed to the sterling reputations of several towering giants of modern cosmology and astrophysics who agree that there appears to be far more in favor of Intelligent Design that you acknowledged when you tossed out your "convoluted reasoning" comment.

See, Lady, I've basically backed you into this corner, there is no escape from it, and you simply need to admit that you fucked up in your exuberance to trash the views of a believer.

What would be even BETTER, however, would be for you to put aside your prejudices and presuppositions and actually THINK about the arguments rather than merely reacting to them emotionally. The truth is what it is whether you like it or not.

Quote: In my opinion, scientists who believes in ID; especially the likes of Stephen Hawking; have to be MORE convoluted in their thinking than any lay-person like you or I.  Of course, this in no way detracts from their intelligence, or their brilliance as scientists.  It also does nothing to bolster your God claim.

Thank you, lay-person, for your opinion. However, in some matters, it makes more sense to pay attention to the opinions of recognized experts.

This is one of those times.

This corner you imagine you've backed me into exists only in your mind, athrock. Right next to your God. It doesn't matter how many times you say it: quoting scientists who believe in ID does not make ID true. There is still that pesky business of evidence for God and evidence for design that you (or anyone else) have, as of yet, failed to produce. [emoji6]

(March 31, 2016 at 5:31 pm)athrock Wrote: Something CAUSED everything to come into existence. Things don't simply pop into existence uncaused.

So does painting a face on it and calling it God get you any closer to finding what that cause was?