(March 31, 2016 at 5:54 pm)athrock Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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.

That was not what I said, LC. 

I said that the fact that serious scientists see a case for ID suggests that it is not based on "convoluted reasoning". Unless, of course, you wish to ascribe "convoluted thinking" to some folks who have proven themselves to be pretty well-stocked in the "little grey cells" department. 

(March 31, 2016 at 10:38 am)AAA Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 10:00 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: In both atlas and 3A's case, the phenomenon they happily accept without a shred of physical evidence is in every conceivable way far more outrageous and unlikely than the phenomenon which they reject in SPITE of evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.  

It's...amazing.  I've never seen two people who hold such an extraordinary belief based solely on faith (made even more extraordinary and unlikely considering they are putting forth not just an anonymous intelligent designer, but the MGC...good luck connecting all those dots with science and sound logic, guys) babble on and on for so damned long about science and odds.  Do you not hear yourselves?  Do you not understand how ridiculously convoluted your thinking is?

Why is it outrageous to say that biological systems may have been designed, when intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining what we know about cells? We babble about science and odds because these are the most informative tools for determining if current models are sufficient to explain the formation of life. I could go through a calculation of the odds of a functionally significant protein forming by chance if you want. You can disagree with the philosophy behind it, but disagreeing with the math is not a good idea. Math is the only way to truly prove anything.

(March 31, 2016 at 2:46 pm)AAA Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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 8:15 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 2:46 pm)AAA Wrote: 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.

So...in what sense is this indicative of an all powerful super-intelligent eternal creator and judge of all man kind again?  And In what sense is this NOT indicative of the possibility of such a thing occurring naturally under the right set of circumstances?  I'm missing your point.

(March 29, 2016 at 8:47 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 29, 2016 at 8:39 pm)AJW333 Wrote: I don't see the relevance here. Small, localized reductions in entropy are not an issue. Massive reversals are. Pond slime to the human brain is gigantic, no mater how long it takes.

What is entropy, to you?

(March 30, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 8:05 pm)AJW333 Wrote: DNA has an ability to perceive information, eg that an error has occurred in the process of replication. It retains this knowledge through subsequent generations. It also uses this retained knowledge to make adaptive behaviours, ie to conduct very complex, multi-stage repair processes. How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?

I already answered this.  Are you behind in responding to posts?

(March 31, 2016 at 8:23 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 31, 2016 at 4:47 am)AJW333 Wrote: When God created the universe, he created the dimension of time. He is not subject to age in the way we measure it because he is outside of time. Therefore it is not necessary that God has a creator - he is eternal.

How do you know this?