Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
ID makes no claims about the causes of the intelligent designer
Click to expand...
That was not what you said earlier:
o_mlly said:
The ID claim is based on observed current common causes, “Experience shows us that everything in which intelligence is observed has an intelligent cause.”
Click to expand...
The intelligent designer is very obviously something “in which intelligence is observed”. Hence, according to you, the intelligent designer “has an intelligent cause.”

Or are you now trying to row back that statement and tell us that an undesigned intelligence can exist?

If so, then you have to determine if human intelligence is a designed intelligence or an undesigned intelligence.
 
Hey, it’s a video from the Internet, it must be true.

Why not summarise the argument for us, buffalo?
 
rossum said:
The intelligent designer is very obviously something “in which intelligence is observed”. Hence, according to you, the intelligent designer “has an intelligent cause.”
Click to expand...
No one, except you, claims to have observed the intelligent designer. Logically, the intelligent designer is intelligent but of what kind we do not know.

Start a new thread, define your terms – especially what you think “intelligence” means – and make an argument against ID instead of sniping after paraphrasing into a strawman what others have posted.
 
buffalo said:
How long to build a single protein
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Evolution does not build proteins by chance. I could calculate the probability of God forming by chance, but that would be equally useless since God did not form by chance.

Chemistry is not chance. Chemical evolution is not chance. You are applying the wrong solution to the problem and coming up with rubbish.
 
o_mlly said:
No one, except you, claims to have observed the intelligent designer. Logically, the intelligent designer is intelligent but of what kind we do not know.
Click to expand...
The ID side claim that they have the evidence.
Start a new thread, define your terms – especially what you think “intelligence” means – and make an argument against ID instead of sniping after paraphrasing into a strawman what others have posted.
Click to expand...
So, the ID’s intelligent designer does not exist because the ID side cannot define intelligence. I am content to use the DI’s definition of intelligence as shown by their Intelligent Designer.

My question as to how you determine if human intelligence is a designed intelligence or an undesigned intelligence remains.
 
rossum said:
So, the ID’s intelligent designer does not exist because the ID side cannot define intelligence. I am content to use the DI’s definition of intelligence as shown by their Intelligent Designer.

My question as to how you determine if human intelligence is a designed intelligence or an undesigned intelligence remains.
Click to expand...
Perhaps where you reside the cocktail hour is well underway as I cannot understand the above post. (Our hour is not yet upon us, but soon!)

Unless you post in this thread to defend abiogenesis as a scientific hypothesis (testable and falsifiable), I will not respond. New thread for your perceived problems with ID or Creationism, please.
 
rossum said:
OK, what scientific problems do you have with Adamala and Szostak (2013) Nonenzymatic template-directed RNA synthesis inside model protocells ?
Click to expand...
How about this concern – shoddy work:

retractionwatch.com

”Definitely embarrassing:” Nobel Laureate retracts non-reproducible paper in Nature journal

A Nobel Laureate has retracted a 2016 paper in Nature Chemistry that explored the origins of life on earth, after discovering the main conclusions were not correct. Some researchers who study the…
retractionwatch.com retractionwatch.com

A bigger problem: Adamala and Szostak and their ilk get my tax money to pursue the pipe dream of atheists – Astrobiology is the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe.

Atheist academia has masterfully infiltrated the grant mechanisms in our federal government’s programs that in the short term it will be difficult to shut down the pork spent in NASA’s exobiology but not impossible:

spacenews.com

NASA to shut down astrobiology virtual institute

NASA is planning to replace its two-decade-old virtual institute devoted to astrobiology with a looser network of research teams.
spacenews.com spacenews.com

And from the movie "Ghostbusters"we have the academic scientist’s greatest fear: “I’ve worked in the private sector, they expect results.”

 
o_mlly said:
How about this concern – shoddy work:
Click to expand...
Irrelevant, that was a different paper that was retracted.

One theologian recants his position so all statements by all theologians everywhere are inoperative?

You need to do better than this.
 
rossum said:
Irrelevant, that was a different paper that was retracted.

One theologian recants his position so all statements by all theologians everywhere are inoperative?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, quite relevant. This is strike two on the man who admits, "In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief … ". Where are the peer reviews for your citation? I could find none.

Avoid hyperbole. If one theologian recants twice then that theologian’s work, not all theologians work, is to be examined carefully.
rossum said:
You need to do better than this.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. It is you who needs to do better than this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top