*excerpt*
2. This claim applies not only to evolution; it logically should apply to people who believe in materialism or methodological naturalism in any science or any aspect of life. All people who believe that God does not intervene to keep planets rotating, cause winds, or make sodas fizz, according to this claim, must be atheists. It is obvious that they are not. Many famous scientists were and are devout Christians who use, in their work, exactly the same sort of naturalism that evolutionary science uses.
*excerpt*
5. Life is nasty. If life is designed, then death, disease, and decay also must be designed since they are integral parts of life. This is a standard problem of apologetics. Of course, many designed things are also nasty (think of certain weapons), but if the designer is supposed to have moral standards, then it is added support against the design hypothesis.
*excerpt*
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
*excerpt*
1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).
*excerpt*
1.The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
*excerpt*
3.This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible . In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
Argument of incredulity is another term for God of the Gaps.
*excerpt*
More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)
*excerpt*
Many of the proteins involved in transport in eukaryote cells have molecular "ancestors" in bacteria. These molecules, the ABC transporters, serve in a much simpler system. If Behe (the hack who come up with irreducible complexity) is interested in the simplest system that accomplishes a function, why does he not even mention them?
*excerpt*
2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.
*excerpt*
3. In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply the argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons.
*excerpt*
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
*excerpt*
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
*excerpt*
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
*excerpt*
1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because:
the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of
energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
*excerpt*
1. Merely accounting for facts does not make a theory scientific. Saying "it's magic" can account for any fact anywhere but is as far from science as you can get. A theory has explanatory power if facts can be deduced from it. No facts have ever been deduced from ID theory. The theory is equivalent to saying, "it's magic."
*excerpt*
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
*excerpt*
2. Creationists use quotes as appeals to authority. They apparently see the printed word as a weighty authority. In science, though, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself, so that is what writers refer to. Quotes cannot substitute for evidence.
IIRC this is partially included in "First cells could not come together by chance" debunking. Anyway here is proof that "complex chemicals" exist in the harsh outer space. http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm...plications.html
No I appreciate your effort Templares. Good job. But you haven't proved anything. You cherry picked just as you accused the others at the website I furnished of doing.
This is what i mean when i say cherrypicking in my previous post
Overhyping a particular quote (tornado in a junkyard) to make it seem that this particular quoted scientist supports ID (like the one found in reclaimamerica.org):
Sir Fred Hoyle, wrote, “The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
While at the same time conveniently forgetting his real stance on the subject matter:
"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14
Huh? Your reclaimamerica.org source gives a FALSE IMPRESSION of what Fred Hoyle's really stands on the subject. They are MISLEADING. F*ck do you know that is arguably the leading proponent of Panspermia, one of the theories explaining Abiogenesis, "life from non living things" which is CONTRARY to what ID and creationism stands for.
Reclaimamerica.org and similar creationist websited make it seem that Hoyle is an ID proponent.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 25th, 2006 07:12 AM
. Anyway the credit should go to Mr. Mark Isaak and all the intellectual badboys at Talkorigins.org.
