The Intelligent Design proposition in a nutshell: Biology involves processes so complex that they could not result from any natural means.
Is that about it because it strongly points to those involved in OOL (origin of life) research as being dishonest charlatans, people who have few scruples about hoodwinking their academic superiors and the public in general?
Everyone on a snipe hunt is fooled. That doesn't make them dishonest. They can honestly be searching for something that isn't there.
Did you watch it or just smear people who have a different perspective than you? Because that is all you feel the need to do?
Everyone on a snipe hunt is fooled. That doesn't make them dishonest. They can honestly be searching for something that isn't there.
But if those who devote their working lives to the closest study of the origin of life conclude that a naturalistic explanation is possible, who are we to claim otherwise?
Who are we to presume that we know better than very well informed specialists in the subject?
Did you watch it or just smear people who have a different perspective than you? Because that is all you feel the need to do?
Me? In what way am I 'smearing' anyone?
But who exactly is Emily Reeves? She's involved with the Discovery Institute I believe? And what do we know about that august body? ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.
Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none"
Is it fair to say that Emily Reeves is simply dishing out the same old, same old?
You've actually been shown dozens of times that there is actually controversy about the origin of life.
I mean, it's really one of the most controversial topics that exist.
The simple law of causation proves that a natural answer to the existence of matter and energy (the building blocks of life) cannot possibly be of natural origin.
Did you watch it or just smear people who have a different perspective than you? Because that is all you feel the need to do?
Me? In what way am I 'smearing' anyone?
But who exactly is Emily Reeves? She's involved with the Discovery Institute I believe? And what do we know about that august body? ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
"The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.
Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a scientific controversy exists over these subjects when in fact there is none"
Is it fair to say that Emily Reeves is simply dishing out the same old, same old?
How would you know?
Everyone on a snipe hunt is fooled. That doesn't make them dishonest. They can honestly be searching for something that isn't there.
But if those who devote their working lives to the closest study of the origin of life conclude that a naturalistic explanation is possible, who are we to claim otherwise?
Who are we to presume that we know better than very well informed specialists in the subject?
So your argument is that the majority of scientists cannot be wrong, or never have been wrong in the past?
You've actually been shown dozens of times that there is actually controversy about the origin of life.
I mean, it's really one of the most controversial topics that exist.
The simple law of causation proves that a natural answer to the existence of matter and energy (the building blocks of life) cannot possibly be of natural origin.
The important point is that I'm not qualified to say and nor are you unless you're involved in OOL research. If those specialists who have spent their entire careers studying this subject don't agree about a natural cause for life, who are we to second-guess them?
And the argument that scientists can't consider non-natural explanations for life because it's outside of their remit does not preclude them from the conclusion that life cannot have emerged by any natural means. They're free to do that but to go no further.
So your argument is that the majority of scientists cannot be wrong, or never have been wrong in the past?
It's more a case of who is better informed about the compexity of life, those who have worked for many years to untangle it, or those who are intent on working towards a particular conclusion.
You've actually been shown dozens of times that there is actually controversy about the origin of life.
I mean, it's really one of the most controversial topics that exist.
The simple law of causation proves that a natural answer to the existence of matter and energy (the building blocks of life) cannot possibly be of natural origin.
The important point is that I'm not qualified to say and nor are you unless you're involved in OOL research. If those specialists who have spent their entire careers studying this subject don't agree about a natural cause for life, who are we to second-guess them?
And the argument that scientists can't consider non-natural explanations for life because it's outside of their remit does not preclude them from the conclusion that life cannot have emerged by any natural means. They're free to do that but to go no further.
Stop, you simply say (This group or person) is biased and out of hand you reject without giving them a hearing. You then go on to say you don’t know and claim who ever you are talking to does not know what they are talking about either, as if you know.
Apparently only the qualifications you accept degrees can be rejected not because they have the proper degree but associations. You didn’t bother listening to the link, you spent more time running down the speaker than their information, and talking about the institution than their discussion. You realize that this is about the evolution discussion?
You should at least keep your points relevant to that, you can post any link you desire to make a point and I promise you that it would be the content I would care about.
So your argument is that the majority of scientists cannot be wrong, or never have been wrong in the past?
It's more a case of who is better informed about the compexity of life, those who have worked for many years to untangle it, or those who are intent on working towards a particular conclusion.
Stephen, I see this line of reasoning often in the threads that you participate in. Essentially it boils down to "Scholars are experts and they are experts because of degrees that they've earned through reading books, writing papers and taking tests. Those are the ones to tell us how everything works and if something they say makes no sense to me I am not allowed to question their conclusions because I don't have their certification". Essentially if the Emperor has no clothes, I am to say nothing for I am not a tailor.
That's basically what I get from most of your posts in discussions like these. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is my perception of your take so far on this topic also.
I was in a discussion/argument/poo-flinging contest about the nature of the Baptist church in the Ideas Room a few months ago. Two people kept arguing with me about the nature of Fundamental Baptist churches by posting articles from Wikipedia, Catholic organizations and ecumenical "Christian" magazines.
I responded by letting them know that I actually am a Fundamental Baptist and I have been for all my life. I've both been a bus kid and I've driven church busses and ran bus routes. I've been both a Sunday School kid and a Sunday School teacher and ran Sunday School programs (and Wednesday night programs). I've sat in the pews and I've stood behind pulpits. I've knocked on thousands and thousands and thousands of doors to give people in my city the Gospel. I've been the knuckleheaded kid who breaks things at church and also the grownup who spends his weekends and evening hours fixing them.
None of that mattered to them. They had some experts and some articles that told them the opposite of what I was trying to tell them and that outweighed anything that anyone without a PhD could tell them.
I told them that what they were doing was listening to a man who read ten books about sheep and dismissing the knowledge of a shepherd. It seems to me that is a trap you often fall into. You put an irrational amount of faith into whatever is the prevailing belief of the moment of the scientific community, even though you know that todays "knowledge" will be soon discarded when another theory gains favor.
You know that there will never be a lasting natural theory of the origins because it is impossible. It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility. If it were simply physically impossible we could assume that we simply do not have enough knowledge yet, but it is not simply impossible physically, it is a logical absurdity. A natural origin to life or the existence of the Universe will never be found because the very idea is preposterous. I don't need a degree from Cambridge or Harvard or Yale or any of the prestigious schools for me to state the obvious. And I am as qualified as anyone on the planet to acknowledge what is obviously true, something a child could grasp. And as far as the experts are concerned, a genius on a fool's errand is a fool nonetheless, albeit overqualified.
Also, I know that the shepherd analogy doesn't apply here because we are talking about origins and none of us were here to see it. But God and the angels were here and the book of Job says that the angels shouted for joy when they saw the Creation of God.
Stop, you simply say (This group or person) is biased and out of hand you reject without giving them a hearing. You then go on to say you don’t know and claim who ever you are talking to does not know what they are talking about either, as if you know.
Apparently only the qualifications you accept degrees can be rejected not because they have the proper degree but associations. You didn’t bother listening to the link, you spent more time running down the speaker than their information, and talking about the institution than their discussion. You realize that this is about the evolution discussion?
You should at least keep your points relevant to that, you can post any link you desire to make a point and I promise you that it would be the content I would care about.
But who exactly is the speaker? In what way is she qualified to speak authoritively on the subject of OOL research?
And as far as I and many others are concerned, association with bodies like the Discovery Institute taints their objectivity (to say the least).
Cell chemistry is extremely complicated and extensive academic training is required to tackle it.
Stephen, I see this line of reasoning often in the threads that you participate in. Essentially it boils down to "Scholars are experts and they are experts because of degrees that they've earned through reading books, writing papers and taking tests. Those are the ones to tell us how everything works and if something they say makes no sense to me I am not allowed to question their conclusions because I don't have their certification". Essentially if the Emperor has no clothes, I am to say nothing for I am not a tailor.
That's basically what I get from most of your posts in discussions like these. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is my perception of your take so far on this topic also.
I was in a discussion/argument/poo-flinging contest about the nature of the Baptist church in the Ideas Room a few months ago. Two people kept arguing with me about the nature of Fundamental Baptist churches by posting articles from Wikipedia, Catholic organizations and ecumenical "Christian" magazines.
I responded by letting them know that I actually am a Fundamental Baptist and I have been for all my life. I've both been a bus kid and I've driven church busses and ran bus routes. I've been both a Sunday School kid and a Sunday School teacher and ran Sunday School programs (and Wednesday night programs). I've sat in the pews and I've stood behind pulpits. I've knocked on thousands and thousands and thousands of doors to give people in my city the Gospel. I've been the knuckleheaded kid who breaks things at church and also the grownup who spends his weekends and evening hours fixing them.
None of that mattered to them. They had some experts and some articles that told them the opposite of what I was trying to tell them and that outweighed anything that anyone without a PhD could tell them.
I told them that what they were doing was listening to a man who read ten books about sheep and dismissing the knowledge of a shepherd. It seems to me that is a trap you often fall into. You put an irrational amount of faith into whatever is the prevailing belief of the moment of the scientific community, even though you know that todays "knowledge" will be soon discarded when another theory gains favor.
You know that there will never be a lasting natural theory of the origins because it is impossible. It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility. If it were simply physically impossible we could assume that we simply do not have enough knowledge yet, but it is not simply impossible physically, it is a logical absurdity. A natural origin to life or the existence of the Universe will never be found because the very idea is preposterous. I don't need a degree from Cambridge or Harvard or Yale or any of the prestigious schools for me to state the obvious. And I am as qualified as anyone on the planet to acknowledge what is obviously true, something a child could grasp. And as far as the experts are concerned, a genius on a fool's errand is a fool nonetheless, albeit overqualified.
Also, I know that the shepherd analogy doesn't apply here because we are talking about origins and none of us were here to see it. But God and the angels were here and the book of Job says that the angels shouted for joy when they saw the Creation of God.
Are you suggesting you're as competent at diagnosing a disease as any trained doctor? Are you able to understand concepts in Quantum Mchanics as well as any professional Physicist?
Do you understand how chemical reactions occue as well as any trained Chemist?
I only ask because you give the impression that scholarship stands for practically nothing.
Cell chemistry and life processes are extremely complex and difficult to grasp but those who are trained to a high standard in that field are much better qualified to untangle the mystery than either you or me.
You entire post underscores the criticism I often make of science skeptics; namely of starting with a conclusion ('god' did it) and then searching desperately for something to justify the belief.
"It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility" - you do understand that applies as much to your 'god' as to anything else?
Stop, you simply say (This group or person) is biased and out of hand you reject without giving them a hearing. You then go on to say you don’t know and claim who ever you are talking to does not know what they are talking about either, as if you know.
Apparently only the qualifications you accept degrees can be rejected not because they have the proper degree but associations. You didn’t bother listening to the link, you spent more time running down the speaker than their information, and talking about the institution than their discussion. You realize that this is about the evolution discussion?
You should at least keep your points relevant to that, you can post any link you desire to make a point and I promise you that it would be the content I would care about.
But who exactly is the speaker? In what way is she qualified to speak authoritively on the subject of OOL research?
And as far as I and many others are concerned, association with bodies like the Discovery Institute taints their objectivity (to say the least).
Cell chemistry is extremely complicated and extensive academic training is required to tackle it.
What do you care, if we treated you as you do that speaker would anyone care one wit what you thought? Do you only want to hear the worthy, and who is worthy? Is it only those with specific degrees from specific universities for specific topics? Those you accept are good, unless of course they join some institution you disapprove of, so they loose their right to speak and be taken seriously!?
The point of this and every other discussion board is the discussions. You are shutting out opinions simply because you don’t want to hear it, not because you can disagree with points in a manner that justifies your stance. Going even further you announce no one else here has a right to question, or refuse to accept foundational axioms presented that justifies their beliefs.
Stephen, I see this line of reasoning often in the threads that you participate in. Essentially it boils down to "Scholars are experts and they are experts because of degrees that they've earned through reading books, writing papers and taking tests. Those are the ones to tell us how everything works and if something they say makes no sense to me I am not allowed to question their conclusions because I don't have their certification". Essentially if the Emperor has no clothes, I am to say nothing for I am not a tailor.
That's basically what I get from most of your posts in discussions like these. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is my perception of your take so far on this topic also.
I was in a discussion/argument/poo-flinging contest about the nature of the Baptist church in the Ideas Room a few months ago. Two people kept arguing with me about the nature of Fundamental Baptist churches by posting articles from Wikipedia, Catholic organizations and ecumenical "Christian" magazines.
I responded by letting them know that I actually am a Fundamental Baptist and I have been for all my life. I've both been a bus kid and I've driven church busses and ran bus routes. I've been both a Sunday School kid and a Sunday School teacher and ran Sunday School programs (and Wednesday night programs). I've sat in the pews and I've stood behind pulpits. I've knocked on thousands and thousands and thousands of doors to give people in my city the Gospel. I've been the knuckleheaded kid who breaks things at church and also the grownup who spends his weekends and evening hours fixing them.
None of that mattered to them. They had some experts and some articles that told them the opposite of what I was trying to tell them and that outweighed anything that anyone without a PhD could tell them.
I told them that what they were doing was listening to a man who read ten books about sheep and dismissing the knowledge of a shepherd. It seems to me that is a trap you often fall into. You put an irrational amount of faith into whatever is the prevailing belief of the moment of the scientific community, even though you know that todays "knowledge" will be soon discarded when another theory gains favor.
You know that there will never be a lasting natural theory of the origins because it is impossible. It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility. If it were simply physically impossible we could assume that we simply do not have enough knowledge yet, but it is not simply impossible physically, it is a logical absurdity. A natural origin to life or the existence of the Universe will never be found because the very idea is preposterous. I don't need a degree from Cambridge or Harvard or Yale or any of the prestigious schools for me to state the obvious. And I am as qualified as anyone on the planet to acknowledge what is obviously true, something a child could grasp. And as far as the experts are concerned, a genius on a fool's errand is a fool nonetheless, albeit overqualified.
Also, I know that the shepherd analogy doesn't apply here because we are talking about origins and none of us were here to see it. But God and the angels were here and the book of Job says that the angels shouted for joy when they saw the Creation of God.
Are you suggesting you're as competent at diagnosing a disease as any trained doctor? Are you able to understand concepts in Quantum Mchanics as well as any professional Physicist?
Do you understand how chemical reactions occue as well as any trained Chemist?
I only ask because you give the impression that scholarship stands for practically nothing.
Cell chemistry and life processes are extremely complex and difficult to grasp but those who are trained to a high standard in that field are much better qualified to untangle the mystery than either you or me.
You entire post underscores the criticism I often make of science skeptics; namely of starting with a conclusion ('god' did it) and then searching desperately for something to justify the belief.
"It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility" - you do understand that applies as much to your 'god' as to anything else?
Well if you can point something that only a doctor could know you may have a point, but if it is not an exclusive piece of knowledge that only they can know what is your point? You want to duck out of justifying yourself with respect to these topics by saying you are unable to think for yourself?
Stephen, I see this line of reasoning often in the threads that you participate in. Essentially it boils down to "Scholars are experts and they are experts because of degrees that they've earned through reading books, writing papers and taking tests. Those are the ones to tell us how everything works and if something they say makes no sense to me I am not allowed to question their conclusions because I don't have their certification". Essentially if the Emperor has no clothes, I am to say nothing for I am not a tailor.
That's basically what I get from most of your posts in discussions like these. I'm not trying to insult you, but that is my perception of your take so far on this topic also.
I was in a discussion/argument/poo-flinging contest about the nature of the Baptist church in the Ideas Room a few months ago. Two people kept arguing with me about the nature of Fundamental Baptist churches by posting articles from Wikipedia, Catholic organizations and ecumenical "Christian" magazines.
I responded by letting them know that I actually am a Fundamental Baptist and I have been for all my life. I've both been a bus kid and I've driven church busses and ran bus routes. I've been both a Sunday School kid and a Sunday School teacher and ran Sunday School programs (and Wednesday night programs). I've sat in the pews and I've stood behind pulpits. I've knocked on thousands and thousands and thousands of doors to give people in my city the Gospel. I've been the knuckleheaded kid who breaks things at church and also the grownup who spends his weekends and evening hours fixing them.
None of that mattered to them. They had some experts and some articles that told them the opposite of what I was trying to tell them and that outweighed anything that anyone without a PhD could tell them.
I told them that what they were doing was listening to a man who read ten books about sheep and dismissing the knowledge of a shepherd. It seems to me that is a trap you often fall into. You put an irrational amount of faith into whatever is the prevailing belief of the moment of the scientific community, even though you know that todays "knowledge" will be soon discarded when another theory gains favor.
You know that there will never be a lasting natural theory of the origins because it is impossible. It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility. If it were simply physically impossible we could assume that we simply do not have enough knowledge yet, but it is not simply impossible physically, it is a logical absurdity. A natural origin to life or the existence of the Universe will never be found because the very idea is preposterous. I don't need a degree from Cambridge or Harvard or Yale or any of the prestigious schools for me to state the obvious. And I am as qualified as anyone on the planet to acknowledge what is obviously true, something a child could grasp. And as far as the experts are concerned, a genius on a fool's errand is a fool nonetheless, albeit overqualified.
Also, I know that the shepherd analogy doesn't apply here because we are talking about origins and none of us were here to see it. But God and the angels were here and the book of Job says that the angels shouted for joy when they saw the Creation of God.
Are you suggesting you're as competent at diagnosing a disease as any trained doctor? No, that's not the point.Are you able to understand concepts in Quantum Mchanics as well as any professional Physicist? No.
Do you understand how chemical reactions occur as well as any trained Chemist? No.
I only ask because you give the impression that scholarship stands for practically nothing. Not at all. But I also do not believe it is a trump card that allows you to say anything without being questioned or disagreed with and I also do believe that someone must be on equal scholastic footing to question an awkward theory.
Cell chemistry and life processes are extremely complex and difficult to grasp but those who are trained to a high standard in that field are much better qualified to untangle the mystery than either you or me. That's not really what we're talking about, is it.
You entire post underscores the criticism I often make of science skeptics; namely of starting with a conclusion ('god' did it) and then searching desperately for something to justify the belief. Well, I'll give you half credit for this statement. I am starting with a conclusion (as are you and I've seen you state as much on several occasions). I believe that the Bible is the inspired and preserved Word of God and by the grace of God I will never be talked out of it. But I am not "desperately in search of something to justify my belief". I see the evidence and interpret it based on my beliefs as you do (whether you admit it or not). I see the Grand Canyon (evidence) and I see an amazing amount of water and a little time and you look at the same evidence and see a little water and an amazing amount of time.
Neither one of us is trying to deceive anyone, but one of us is deceived (guess who I think it is).
"It is impossible that something should be the origin of itself. It is not simply a physical impossibility, it is a logical impossibility" - you do understand that applies as much to your 'god' as to anything else? Have I ever denied or hid the fact that my God is supernatural? Have I or any Bible believer ever said that our God can be explained by mathematical equations or scientific formulas? We don't need to explain away the idea that our God has no natural origin, we embrace it.
"I am starting with a conclusion (as are you and I've seen you state as much on several occasions)"
What conclusion do you imagine I'm starting with? I'm not aware of one. What I do is to defer to much better informed specialists in subjects where I'm not well informed. That isn't the same as starting from this or that assumption about what the fact of the matter is.
.... I believe that the Bible is the inspired and preserved Word of God and by the grace of God I will never be talked out of it. But I am not "desperately in search of something to justify my belief". I see the evidence and interpret it based on my beliefs as you do (whether you admit it or not). I see the Grand Canyon (evidence) and I see an amazing amount of water and a little time and you look at the same evidence and see a little water and an amazing amount of time.
This is where your entire argument disintigrates because you're making a wholly unjustified assumption, that a posited non-natural cause of the origin of life has any resemblance to any of the many gods of human religion.
It's a vaulting assumption but you don't seem to recognise that fact.
The actual fact is that if life on earth resulted from some unspecified non-natural intervention, all that tells us is that life resulted from the action of some agent capable of creating the first living thing on our planet. It tells us no more than that.
It certainly doesn't of necessity confirm anything that's written in any of the holy works of the many religions of our world.
https://youtu.be/7PD0iXgu_S8