It seems that Darwinism becoming outdated and obsolete.

originally posted by: cooperton
As opposed to being designed by an intelligent force. It is more likely that ordered systems were created by intelligence. It is the genetic code after all, code requires a programmer.

Prove it. How is it more likely that an intelligent complex creating force just happens to exist without an intelligence to set it up? You think it's more likely because it agrees with your faith and that's literally where it begins and ends.

If ordered systems and information have to be created by intelligence, then where did your designer come from? By your rules and definitions, your designer contains information and hence a programmer must be required. How do you not see the obvious double standard in that?

This is contradictory. If it is substantially backed and thoroughly understood, then it wouldn't need updating.

Wrong. Now you prove that you don't even know what the word "contradictory" means. Just because something is the most well backed theory in history, doesn't mean you can't still learn new things about it. That is completely irrelevant to how much work currently backs it. I never said it was complete or perfect. It's just very well established, moreso than any other theory. If you have an actual argument then please make it. The history of life on earth is not something we are capable of knowing every single detail about, so your gripe here is silly. It's like saying if science does not know everything, it knows nothing.

But the interdependence of proteins and DNA makes it so that it could not have been an incremental process. You need all parts in play to have a replicating living organism. DNA codes for proteins, but the protein production process requires proteins. So how could the DNA make proteins if it doesn't have the necessary proteins? Therefore, This factory-like sequence could not have come about in an incremental manner because all the pieces need to be present for it to function.

Again, you don't know that, you are dishonestly comparing the origin of the very first life to a DNA molecule that has already evolved 3.8 billion years. It's completely fallacious and dishonest.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
This about sums up the evolution debate. A scientist/professor/Dr. clearly smarter than anyone else on ATS has questions on the specifics of evolution. He has tried to go out and get answers from those who are experts on the subject. He is not able to find sufficient evidence to answer specific scientific questions about the theory of evolution. He is just told to believe it, as we all are. He has done nothing wrong. He is attempting to get answers to his questions on how specifically it happened. This generation does not ask questions. They just say believe it or you're stupid. It's all been proven, we don't need to look up any answers or listen to any questions about it. If you ask any questions about it you're a science denier.

He didn't ask questions, he tried to pretend that evolution is obsolete and outdated, which is laughably wrong. Yeah, that sums up the evolution debate perfectly. Creationists lie and constantly misrepresent the science and when called out they play the victim as if people just blindly follow scientific doctrine like ancient holy texts. The questions about evolution have been asked and answered ad naseum, but progress is never made because creationists are usually unwilling to accept anything that conflicts with personal faith.

a reply to: Noinden

You are too simple to understand that analogy?
Let me simplify that statement for you so that you can understand what was meant instead of your slanderous interpretation...
That is to say that one day science will recognize the need of a creator and yes even admit to such...
That is not to say they will discover who that is...
Also Darwin was wishy washy in his religious beliefs...
As for my last line that is to say “they” (real scientists) will discover the truth of the matter for themselves through scientific method...
lol apocalyptic death cult...
No where near as smart as you wish you were...
Delusional for certain... smart? not so much...

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
...
Is the intelligent designer God (the theist view) or is it just the program from which all things emerged--an artifact of information (a possible atheist view)?

That question assumes that all were convinced about intelligent-design.
Wasn't.

Only got 10 min into the first vid. His pleading and imploring voice was a total turn-off. Just couldn't listen anymore.
Whatever he's selling: ain't being bought here.

a reply to: Nothin

DNA is by definition, a design. Understanding the intricate details of that design, requires a great deal of intelligence.

Intelligent Design.


Consider a puzzle maker. Such a craft requires a level of intelligence to design a puzzle. The puzzle is then scrambled, packaged, and sold. The purchaser will need a certain level of intelligence if he is to reconstruct the puzzle

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

If that were true, then everything from soup to nuts would have to be "designed" by default. Your perspective of the universe is not only outdated, it's just plain stupid. The preponderance of evidence weights for evolution and against intelligent design. Mystical creatures do not lend themselves to objective proof.

Your DNA analogy doesn't work either. DNA can self assemble in a lab. I don't recall any mystical creature coming in to design it with a magic wand. I presume you've never been in a molecular biology lab, much less read a book or research papers.

Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. You have neither discovered anything new nor have you provided any evidence. You have an opinion and that's all you have.

originally posted by: scojak

Prove to me it's impossible to randomly create life and I'll believe you. But if there is even a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance, then I'm completely unconvinced.

Perhaps you should first give the existence of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters a try. And see if you're being reasonable in that respects (when using the same type of reasoning for that subject).

After all, so many planets in the universe, why not pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters if you use your type of reasoning, taking into consideration your claim afterwards:

Ok, but what about a billion trillion monkeys over the course of 14 billion years? Randomness, given enough time, will create perfection.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: dug88

based on the opinion of a religious organic chemist, therefore god did it.

Dr. Tour builds nano-machines. He understands more about prebiotic chemistry than most, but you want to write him off because of his faith.

What a disgusting attitude to have.

That conditioned behaviour is quite unpleasant, but it's not exclusive to fans of evolutionary philosophies. Some of those in Christendom are quite quick to demonstrate something quite similar. Especially when the subject is God's identity and the doctrine of the Trinity.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Nothin

DNA is by definition, a design. Understanding the intricate details of that design, requires a great deal of intelligence.

Intelligent Design.


Consider a puzzle maker. Such a craft requires a level of intelligence to design a puzzle. The puzzle is then scrambled, packaged, and sold. The purchaser will need a certain level of intelligence if he is to reconstruct the puzzle

DNA /ˌdē ˌen ˈā/Submit nounBIOCHEMISTRY deoxyribonucleic acid, a self-replicating material present in nearly all living organisms as the main constituent of chromosomes. It is the carrier of genetic information.

Where do you get 'design', from "self-replicating" ?

DNA is self-replicating. It doesn't need anyone nor anything to wave a magic wand. It just is.

Sometimes: we see what we want to see.
One sees what looks like design, because one seeks it, consciously or unconsciously.

New things appear as great mysteries to us. We don't understand, and the perception mesmerizes us.
We see patterns, and assume intelligence. Why must it be?

Many things in the natural world, have some kind of pattern association. Clouds, waves, etc...

Who made the puzzle-maker?
Who made his tools? Fed him? Nourished him? Taught him?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Nothin

DNA is by definition, a design. Understanding the intricate details of that design, requires a great deal of intelligence.

Intelligent Design.

DNA is a molecule by definition. Design is 100% assumed, there is literally no argument aside from, "It's super complex!" You know darn well that understanding a complex molecule has zero to do with whether or not it was design by an intelligent being. Sounds like you are just manipulating word semantics to change the meaning of intelligent design.

Consider a puzzle maker. Such a craft requires a level of intelligence to design a puzzle. The puzzle is then scrambled, packaged, and sold. The purchaser will need a certain level of intelligence if he is to reconstruct the puzzle

And none of that applies to DNA, sorry. DNA is not a puzzle and actually making a puzzle is easy if you have the right tools. You just print a picture on cardboard and cut all the pieces at once with the push of a button. It was harder in the old days when they cut the pieces individually.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

See and here we are with the ad hominem again neighbour. It does not strengthen your stance. It weakens it. On top of that fallacy you have conformation bias up the wazoo. There is no evidence one way or the other for a creator, creators, or holy pasta.

You would not know a real scientist if one took you to their lab

So you stick to the ad hominems and confirm you are not here in good faith, rather you are here on a crusade.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

DNA is not by definition a dsign.... how would you get that. You are shaping this to the way you want it, not what it actually is.

a reply to: Noinden

DNA is design also known as instructions
And that is it’s definition...
Ho la lee
Take a break

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

DNA is design also known as instructions
And that is it’s definition...
Ho la lee
Take a break

How much of our DNA is junk? The human genome contains around 20,000 genes, that is, the stretches of DNA that encode proteins. But these genes account for only about 1.2 percent of the total genome. The other 98.8 percent is known as noncoding DNA.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Think about that for a second or two....
That goes to show how complex it really is...
The instructions are specific and the rest ensures the instructions are carried out and that it stays true to those instructions...
By your numbers a lot goes on to ensure that can happen...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TzarChasm

Think about that for a second or two....
That goes to show how complex it really is...
The instructions are specific and the rest ensures the instructions are carried out and that it stays true to those instructions...
By your numbers a lot goes on to ensure that can happen...

I think you need to do a bit more reading on junk Dna

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I've told you before, you don't have the ability to tell me what to do, and make me do so.

DNA is chemicals, and thus chemical potential. It contains far more than you so called instructions. As TSarChasm has pointed out, coding DNA is in the minority . So your instructions, are more akin to a 1000 monkeys on a 1000 typewriters, producing a small amount of coherent text, than some holy god derived instruction booklet This is, if you insist on being a ID/creationist. From a "random" point of view, it is as expected.

So yeah you take a break. You are not up to this debate.

a reply to: whereislogic

Question: Where is logic?
Answer: Not in your brain.

Pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters have never been proven to exist... life has. You can't compare something you made up in your head to something that actually exists. So your logic here is flawed.

What's to say that pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monster can never exist? Just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future. So again, your logic is flawed.

What's to say that pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters don't exist somewhere else in the universe? You have no knowledge of what does and does not exist in the entirety of the universe, so you can't make the claim they don't exist. So, yet again, your logic is flawed.

Now, given your lack of logic, your head is probably telling you, "Hey, his first point says unicorns are made up, but his last point says they may be real." Please slap yourself in the face and realize these are individual logical arguments and that trying to combine them into one argument is, well, illogical.

a reply to: cooperton

Where did this "something more intelligent" come from? Can you explain that logically?

It's extremely more logical that after almost 14 billion years of chaos, some order has been created.

And of course it's not sensible that a computer could form at random. But since when are "sensible" and "possible" synonyms?

Is it sensible for matter to exist in two places at the same time? No, yet electrons and photons do. Sensibility has nothing to do with possibility, especially in dealing with quantum physics.

So I watched bits of the first video, Dr Tour seemed to be trying to argue that because the chemicals would have no knowledge of the direction they were taking, and because the processes of their development was so complicated, then he doubts they 'evolved'...?

He also at the end seems to contradict himself at the end by asking for a mechanism for evolution but admitting that even for processes we definitely know and can observe (his example evolution of immune system) we do not know the mechanisms for it.

For me that he is just saying that because he can't comprehend how the process occurred, the only answer is a process that he can comprehend (a designer), but the truth of it exists regardless of his ability to comprehend it.

The stuff about Jesus at the end came was all just subjective.

Should I try to find a video of a evolutionary scientist talking about organic chemistry? I imagine that would sound equally as amateurish as this organic chemist talking about evolution.