Design Through Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Let’s start again. Abiogenesis is a hypothetical theory that living organisms are created from non living matter. The last time I checked, the human body is indeed composed of non organic matter - oxygen,carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorous, potassium, sulphur etc. DNA is composed of protein (nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen) strands. This is the basis for evolution - it cannot occur without DNA. What I am asking is why have those non living elements combined to form a living organism? **

No its not the basis for evolution its a seperate theory. They are not related.
**
I do not need (or want!) a description of the physical and chemical processes and/or the technical terms for them. I want you tell me what *you think *the reason is for the forward (in the sense of development) momentum of matter in this case ( the evolution of man).

I know about mitosis and meiosis. They are processes by which cells divide. You have still not told me what it is that leads a cell to divide (whether by mitosis or meiosis). Remember, you are not allowed to say because the DNA replicates and recombines. I am asking - (for the last time!) What is it that leads to the cell division - where does the impulse to reproduce come from?

You can’t say survival instinct either - we’ve been through that one.**

Ah ok, i think i understand what you are asking. You are asking what triggers the cell to divide? Proteins attach to receptors in the cells membrain to trigger division. These proteins are created externally, for example hormones.
 
I did say that I did not want a description of the process or the technical terms for those processes.

This discussion is going nowhere because you are unable to answer my question - what is the drive for the reproduction.

I know where we are going. We will reach the limit of your knowledge of cell reproduction (or wikipedia’s) and you will still not have answered my question.

For example, I could ask why does the protein attach to the membrane at that point. You will then give me a description or a technical term of that process. I will then ask you why that process occurs and you will then give me another description.

This is not useful or informative. Thank you for your time.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Idvolution - Historian Explodes Stereotypes About Intelligent Design
Click to expand...
So I’m listening to this thing now and almost right off the bat I’m hearing BLATANT misinformation and rewriting of history, here are a couple take-outs.

**
  1. “The defenders of darwinian evolution are trying to something that I’ve noticed they repeatedly do and that’s conflate (which means to confuse) ID with creationism”
  2. “ID is not nor was it from the beginning creationism”**
WRONG.

Here’s some history on how the term Intelligent Design came into being.
In 1981, the FTE advertised in a creationist newspaper, seeking authors for a textbook that would be “sensitively written to present both evolution and creation”. Their first production was Unlocking the secrets:The Mystery of Life’s Origin by creationist chemist Charles Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley and Roger L. Olsen. Thaxton approached Dean H. Kenyon to write the foreword, and when Mystery was ready to go to the printers late in 1982 work began on the textbook, co-authored by Kenyon and Percival Davis with Thaxton as editor.
Click to expand...
A draft dated 1983 was entitled Creation Biology Textbook Supplements, and was stated in the language of creationism, including the following statement:
Click to expand...
The basic metabolic pathways of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.
Click to expand...
A 1986 draft with the title Biology and Creation included a similar statement, and defined “creation” using the classic creationist concept of “abrupt appearance”
Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.
Click to expand...
A 1987 draft entitled Biology and Origins made only minor grammatical alterations to these statements. The FTE sought a publisher for the book, sending a Boston firm a prospectus which indicated that the draft had been sent to school districts for testing as well as to prospective publishers. In the prospectus Buell stated that a “new independent scientific poll… shows almost half of the nation’s biology teachers include some creation in their view of biological origins. Many more who don’t still believe it should be included in science curriculum.”, and enclosed projections showing expected revenue of over $6.5 million in five years based upon “modest expectations for the market.” If creationist teaching in schools was explicitly permitted by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Louisiana “Balanced Treatment Act” case that was then ongoing, the FTE’s founder Jon Buell wrote that “you can throw out these projections, the nationwide market would be explosive!”
Click to expand...

PART 2 Next
 
Part 2
pandas and "cdesign proponentsists"
Click to expand...
the louisiana “balanced treatment act” case — edwards v. Aguillard — was decided by the supreme court in 1987. The court determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the establishment clause of the united states constitution, but that alternative scientific theories could be taught. While the decision ruled out any return to teaching traditional young earth creationism in science classes, it did offer an opening for those willing to recast creationist doctrine in the language of science.
Click to expand...
In 1987 a further draft of the book was produced with the new title of pandas and people, which still had the definition “creation means that various forms of life began abruptly”, and used the term “creationists”:
Click to expand...
the basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.
Click to expand...
the outcome of the case prompted significant editorial changes to the book. Charles thaxton had presented an affidavit to the court in which he defined “creation science” as meaning “origin through abrupt appearance in complex form”, which did “not include as essential parts… Catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life,… The concept of kinds, or any concepts from genesis or other religious texts”, but this argument was rejected so he needed a new term and found it in a phrase he’d picked up from a nasa scientist – intelligent design. He thought "that’s just what i need, it’s a good engineering term…… It seemed to jibe… And i went back through my old copies of science magazine and found the term used occasionally."in a new draft of pandas, approximately 150 uses of the root word “creation”, such as “creationism” and “creationist”, were systematically changed to refer to intelligent design, the definition remained essentially the same, with “intelligent design” substituted for “creation”, and “intelligent creator” changed to “intelligent agency”:
intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.
Click to expand...
the term “creationists” was changed to “design proponents”, but in one case the beginning and end of the original word “creationists” were accidentally retained, so that “creationists” became “cdesign proponentsists”.
the basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Click to expand...
fte founder jon buell claims that the word creationism was a “placeholder term” whose definition "changed to include a religious context after the draft was written, so the writers changed the word."however, the proof that intelligent design was creationism re-labeled played a significant part in the kitzmiller trial, and “cdesign proponentsists” has been described as “the missing link between creationism and intelligent design.”[25]
Click to expand...
 
j1akey

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Look, if Darwin is fine using the word Creator, what is your problem?
 
Charlemagne II:
Look, if Darwin is fine using the word Creator, what is your problem?
Click to expand...
/palmface

I’m not even talking about what darwin said. Geez, I’m talking about how the guy in that pod cast was misrepresenting the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism when they are the exact same thing. What does Darwin have to do with any of that?!

Even if I was, why would I care what Darwin said about a creator? This discussion isn’t about Darwin.
 
Buffalo,

Your point, illustrated by that website, is well taken. Clearly intelligent design is not exclusively the territory of Christian fundamentalists, as some would have us believe, and goes back to before Plato. However, atheists seem to have claimed evolution as their own territory insofar as it allows them to defy any notion whatever of intelligent design.

What Darwin had to say about creation should matter to evolutionists, unless the evolutionists happen to be atheists and see evolution as a necessary prop for atheism. Then, of course, if Darwin says something imprudent about a “Creator,” atheists might just as well say, “Who cares what Darwin said?”

Unless, of course, he said something about evolution too! :rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Buffalo,

Your point, illustrated by that website, is well taken. Clearly intelligent design is not exclusively the territory of Christian fundamentalists, as some would have us believe, and goes back to before Plato. However, atheists seem to have claimed evolution as their own territory insofar as it allows them to defy any notion whatever of intelligent design.

What Darwin had to say about creation should matter to evolutionists, unless the evolutionists happen to be atheists and see evolution as a necessary prop for atheism. Then, of course, if Darwin says something imprudent about a “Creator,” atheists might just as well say, “Who cares what Darwin said?”

Unless, of course, he said something about evolution too! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Another point - the Church has been defending herself against evolution since the beginning.
 
j1akey said:
…Intelligent Design and Creationism … are the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
There’s simply no way to defend that claim.

Alfred Russell Wallace explained the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism back in the late 19th century - as that audio interview explains.
 
Fran65 said:
I did say that I did not want a description of the process or the technical terms for those processes.

This discussion is going nowhere because you are unable to answer my question - what is the drive for the reproduction.

I know where we are going. We will reach the limit of your knowledge of cell reproduction (or wikipedia’s) and you will still not have answered my question.

For example, I could ask why does the protein attach to the membrane at that point. You will then give me a description or a technical term of that process. I will then ask you why that process occurs and you will then give me another description.

This is not useful or informative. Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Ah so you using the god of the gaps argument. You want to keep asking questions until the answer is “i dont know” then claim “god did it”.

What you seem to be unable to grasp is these processes ARE what control DNA reproduction. The fact that you don’t understand it is not evidence for god, it’s evidence that you don’t understand it.
 
tonyrey said:
Yet another evasion! Do you or do you not believe science can in principle explain everything? What constitutes evidence for the existence of a person? Can you observe consciousness, free will and responsibility through a microscope?
Click to expand...
Oh, you crack me up with your hypocrisy. I’m being evasive???

I don’t know whether science can explain everything. Everything is a lot. So, probably not. But the absence of a current scientific explanation does not mean that the only alternative is God. You must see that -, a child of three is aware of the concept of there being more than two choices.Your ridiculous microscope comment only serves to demonstrate your intellectual shortcomings.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
j1akey

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Look, if Darwin is fine using the word Creator, what is your problem?
Click to expand...
Uh-oh, there’s Darwin (and never mind that he doesn’t even validate a creator in this quote).

Wait for it, Einstein and Newton will be hot on his heels, with a heady mix of selective quotes…😃

Charlemagne, I repeat a question I asked you in another thread, that you never answered:
Can you quote any current contemporaries of your treasured trio, that support your view? That is, people who have the benefit of up-to-the-minute scientific technique and equipment?
 
wanstronian said:
I’m being evasive???
Click to expand...
**What constitutes evidence for the existence of a person?

**You pin all your hopes on your faith that science will **ultimately **explain not only consciousness, free will and responsibility but also rationality and purposeful activity - even though you have finally admitted that science will probably not be able to explain everything!

It is significant you have never defined what “nature” is because that enables you to shift the goal posts to accommodate new discoveries that strengthen the evidence for “supernature”. You are in an impregnable position!
 
Charles_Darwin said:
Ah so you using the god of the gaps argument. You want to keep asking questions until the answer is “i dont know” then claim “god did it”.

What you seem to be unable to grasp is these processes ARE what control DNA reproduction. The fact that you don’t understand it is not evidence for god, it’s evidence that you don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying that you have not explained the origin of the drive for life - which you seem to think that you have by giving descriptions of the physical processes involved.

Think of it this way. I’m about to drive to a coffee shop. If I asked you why I was going you would say something along the lines of: you pick up your bag & keys, you get in the car, you turn on the ignition (you may even give me a description of how an automotive engine works), you drive to the car park etc. You have *not explained why * I have gone to the coffee shop! Do you see the difference?

All I am pointing out is that you have not explained what you think you have. You have described it - you do not understand it either! Its fine that you don’t, no one does!

God is an explanation of the creative life force that ‘drives’ the universe. Its not the only one, but its one that makes sense to me. As for the God of the gaps…well, at least theists admit there are gaps!
 
Wanstronian

Charlemagne, I repeat a question I asked you in another thread, that you never answered:
Can you quote any current contemporaries of your treasured trio, that support your view? That is, people who have the benefit of up-to-the-minute scientific technique and equipment?

I’ll bet you’re still quoting that great up-to-date Miller-Urey experiment from the 1950s that was supposed to prove life could start up by chance.

Can you give more recent -up-to-date data that proves it?

Remember, if you take a position, you must have scientific proof for that position.

How is it that the first complex life on the planet began by accident rather than by design, and began with coded instruction to replicate itself? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top