B
buffalo
Guest
Life needs many proteins. Protein folds
http://idvolution.blogspot.com/2011/10/essential-reading.html
Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more
- Status
http://idvolution.blogspot.com/2011/10/essential-reading.html
Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
That amino acids lab you are talking about, was it an intelligently designed lab by Urey and Miller, or did it just randomly throw itself together?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Here’s the thing, Al.
If creation is, analogically speaking, more like a musical piece that God plays than a watch produced and left to wind down, then every “improvisation” will appear as tinkering to those who think they have the original sheet music in front of them.
The assumption on the part of scientists is not that they actually have the original sheet music, but that by intently paying attention to the piece being played (aka scientific observation) scientists can glean various aspects and “draw up” the music. That perspective assumes the performance isn’t being improvised to begin with.
Perhaps, there is no possibility of creating an ultimately accurate set of notations because the performance need not follow some scripted sheet.
The problem is that science’s understanding of those causal relationships is tenuous at best and does not amount to a full and complete accounting of the ontology of things - the way things are - but rather a dubious and “surface” one from what has been observed to occur with some consistency - the reprised and not improvised parts. Science can only extrapolate from those reprised parts that it observes because of their consistency and then infers what “must” be about the rest. The “must” part, however, isn’t firmly established and could, in fact, be of a far deeper and more profound nature than the notations regarding consistency thus far indicate.
If nature is a glimpse into a more robust and spontaneous reality than any “laws” can depict then science itself would need to be overhauled in terms of its principle assumptions being invulnerable.
In other words, the laws of physics may be “child’s play” when compared to “life” and “life” need not follow inexorably from the laws of physics. Assuming that it does leads to the conclusion that God must have “tinkered” to create life. That may not be so. It may be that life is a completely different level of creation that requires a different creative (name removed by moderator)ut by its very nature - improvised by genius, so to speak.
Science may garner a sense of the bass, rhythm track or drum beats, but can have no access to what is “above” those.
R
rossum
Guest
Michaelangelo made an intelligently designed model of God on the wall of the Sistine Chapel, there fore God is designed.That amino acids lab you are talking about, was it an intelligently designed lab by Urey and Miller, or did it just randomly throw itself together?
Your logic needs some work I think.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, no, actually it is your logic that needs some work.
Miller-Urey made an intelligently designed model of an environment in a lab, therefore (you claim) Miller-Urey demonstrated environments and amino acids are NOT designed.
How does that work?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
I’m guessing this is more Buddhist navel gazing.
Or if your mind happens to be lost at sea, more Buddhist naval gazing?
R
rossum
Guest
You build a model of the early atmosphere. You see if that model can produce amino acids. It does. You tweak the model and try the experiment again. You find the range of conditions over which amino acids are produced – for example, too much oxygen will stop amino-acid production. You check that the actual conditions on the early earth were within the range within which the M-U experiment, and its many repeats, showed amino acids being produced.
If, and only if, the conditions on the early earth lay within the range shown to produce amino acids in the lab does science declare that the hypothesis of natural production of amino acids on the early earth confirmed.
That is how science works.
Now, where are your amino acids produced, as claimed, by a non-human designer? Better get some soon; science has had its naturally produced amino acids since the 1950s.
rossum
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But again, produced only in an intelligently designed lab. Unless you think the lab also randomly threw itself together.
R
rossum
Guest
No, it was a logical argument that you failed to provide an answer to.
You pointed out that the M-U experiment was designed. I pointed our that, just as the M-U experiment is a model of the earth’s early atmosphere, so Michaelangelo painted a model of God.
If you wish to derive some conclusion from the existence of the human-designed model in the M-U experiment, then I will derive a similar conclusion from the human-designed model in the Sistine chapel.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
False. they were not produced only in the lab, but also on the early earth, and on comets. See Found: first amino acid on a comet.But again, produced only in an intelligently designed lab. Unless you think the lab also randomly threw itself together.
Creationism is still lacking supernaturally produced amino acids.
Science is ahead.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Unproven.
B
buffalo
Guest
They don’t even agree what the early earth atmosphere was like.
E
edwest2
Guest
Protein folding is complex. The wheel to automobile engine is an excellent example. Making a wheel is far from making an internal combustion engine. As far as I know, scientists have not made proteins. I’d like a reference to that one if it has happened.
Best,
Ed
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Since all Creation is supernaturally produced (there is certainly no earthly scientific explanation for the creation of the universe) all amino acids are supernaturally produced.
Creationism is ahead!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unlike science Design explains the existence of everything within our experience, notably the physical universe, persons, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.
You overlooked the phrase “from scientific explanations”? In other words why do you confine explanations to **physical **reality?
They give better predictions than the alternatives. Is that the sole criterion of valid explanations?
Will science ever predict all human decisions? If not why not?
Are preferences the only explanations that elude science? What about Buddhism? Is that scientific?
R
rossum
Guest
Correct. Every theory in science is unproven. Newton’s theory was unproven. Einstein’s replacement is unproven and the theory of quantum gravity will also be unproven as and when it replaces Einstein.
Currently the RNA world is not even a theory, it is an unproven hypothesis. It does however have a lot more evidence in its favour than the hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
Ribozymes show enzyme-type activity in a test tube. Where is your evidence of the designer either showing enzyme-type activity in a test tube, or making chemicals which show such activity?
Currently there are many gaps in the evidence. The science of abiogenesis has some gaps. The science of ID is all gaps. It has zero experimental verification.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Which is precisely why the M-U experiment has been repeated many times with many different variants of the atmospheric mix and many different energy (name removed by moderator)uts: sunlight, lightning, meteorite strikes, volcanoes, underwater black smokers and others. Science has experiments to show the limits on the range of conditions that will allow the production of amino acids.
Where are the equivalent experiments showing the range of conditions under which the proposed designer can, and cannot, work? Does the designer require air, or can he/she/it/they work underwater? Where are the experiments to support your answer?
Science is doing its work. So far, ID appears to be twiddling its thumbs.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
For the cause of the material universe, some people refer to Vishnu, other people refer to the Multiverse. One is supernatural, the other is not. Your assumption that creation (the word assumes your preferred answer) is supernaturally produced is merely a personal assumption, and carries very little weight.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Science can explain more than design. Science explains the non-existence of actual pegasi: hexapod mammal/avian mixes. Since pegasi are designed, by humans, then obviously pegasi can be designed. Since they can be designed, why do they not exist?
A theory which says, “everything is the way it is because that is the way it is” is utterly useless.
I do not. However, arguing about the relative usefulness of the explanations found in the Bible and the Tripitaka is off topic in this thread and will likely not produce much of any use.
No. The Kalama sutta also asks, “Do they work?” The test for whether or not a scientific theory works is the accuracy of its predictions. Einstein’s mathematics gave better predictions than Newton’s mathematics, so Einstein’s theory is preferred.
I doubt it. To many (name removed by moderator)ut variables, not all of which are measurable.
Part is. Meditation has scientifically measurable effects. The rest is mostly not amenable to scientific testing. The appropriate quote is, “bring me an angel detector.”
rossum
- Status