Posted on 12/08/2008 8:10:28 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
In Part I of this article,1 I argued as follows:
(i) Autopoiesis (self-making) is universal and therefore essential to life, so it is required at the beginning for life to exist and is thus not the end product of some long naturalistic process.
(ii) Each level of the autopoietic hierarchy is separated from the one below it by a Polanyi impossibility, so it cannot be reduced to any sequence of naturalistic causes.
(iii) There is an unbridgeable abyss between the autopoietic hierarchy and the dirty mass-action chemistry of the natural environment.
In this part, I test the integrity of this argument in the face of naturalistic objections to intelligent design. I then go on to assess evolutionary arguments for a naturalistic origin of life in the face of universally contradictory evidence...
(FOR PART 1 OF THIS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PAPER, SEE LINK IN REPLY #2)
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Even if it does violate thermo, who says it has to obey such a law when it obviously doesn't?
Even if it does violate probabilities, that only points out that it isn't mechanical.
Even if it violates bio truths, why should it not since it establishes bio truths?
Where are the papers on ID that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
[[If the urns were created consistent with the laws of physics by living beings that evolved naturally, then the urns did occur naturally. That is what science suggests has happened.]]
Soliton- It is evident that you are new to htis, so I won’t comment harshly with hte facts that refute your claims. Good luck in your studies, and this is just a suggestion, but drop the a priori accusations- they are NOT objective factualities- they are petty agendist accusaitons that have NO place in objective science. You’ll gain a world of credibility if you learn to word your objections to the actual scientific facts by concentrating on the facts instead of playing petty games by tryign to tear down the opposition by attackign hteir credibilty- Scientists acknowledge ID is a SCIENCE, but it is those outside of science only that try to tear down the castle by throwing cottonballs at it’s foundation- the facts are the castle, the false accasations tyhat ignore the FACTS are the cotton balls=- It won’t ever work, and will just show that a person that decides to engage in such counter-argument tactics just doesn’t understand the actual facts, and has no other recourse but to throw htose cotton balls. Arm yourself with substantial arguments instead of the tired out petty aerguments of laypersons with an ax to grind agaisnt Christians, God, and Creationism/ID.
Then publish a paper in Nature and I will call it science.
[[Where are the papers on ID that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?]]
They are all over hte place- but again- arm yourself with valid coutner-arguments- NOT that ID even has to present in peer review, but they DO- Science isn’t determined by peer review Soliton- many many scientific discoveries were NOT scientifically reviewed. BUT- you will find that ID meets all your self-imposed criterai, not that they even have to- but they do IF you look into the matter yourself. Happy hunting :)
HEHEHEHEHE
[[Even if it does violate thermo, who says it has to obey such a law when it obviously doesn’t?]]
I’m tired RightWhale, but briefly, The law states that it does. There is NOTHING in nature that can violate this law beyond certai nstatic examples that are irrelevent to the law itself, as the law applies mostly to dynamic living systems. Folks have tried suggesting that because metal shows organization, that dynamic systems could too ‘in an open system’- and htis simply isn’t true. The evidence is clear- dynamic living systems must obey this law- it takes energy to create, energy produces entropy, which negatively affects the overall creation, the more creation, the more entropy, the quicker the system expires due to overhwelming entropy.
To suggest that life didn’t have to obey this basic law trillions of times, all in ever icnreasing, self-organizing complexities, is just putting a blind faith in a process that we know MUST obey these laws.
A pile of wood bakign under the sun, isn’t capable of creating higher and higher complexities. Everythign synamic and living in nature shows that it obeys these laws.
[[Even if it does violate probabilities, that only points out that it isn’t mechanical.]]
I’m afraid you will find many scientists that dissagree with your claim- The scientists that discovered these improbabilites looked at many many different angles to come up with this statement of fact, and we’re not talking about ‘mechanical improbabilites’, we’re talkign about biolgical facts. AND don’t forget, that we’re not just talking about one impossibility, we’re talking about Macroevoltuion havign to violate this impossibilites trillions of times- And we’re not talkign about lotto odds of just one instance, here- We’re talking trillions of instances having to violate it at 10 to the 500+ odds againt it- thisw is huge- this isn’t insignificant in the whole overall priocess= it’s so big that it makes it impossible- For just one instance! Forget about trillions!
[[Even if it violates bio truths, why should it not since it establishes bio truths?]]
Egads- No- I’m sorry- it doesn’t establish bio ‘truths’ by violating bio truths- Truth is truth- it’s not subjective- it’s an objective truth- one doesn’t replace a basic bio truth by substituting it with a bio- non truth. No matter how many years and mutatiosn you throw at the issue, it’s still impossible for them to tmove a species beyond it’s own kind biolgically- the info simply isn’t htere to do so- and all that science has to suggest it coudl, are adaptive alterations in small numbers that htey claim couyld ‘prodeuce the necessary new non species specific info NEEDED to move hte species beyond it’s own kind’ but htis is false-
Again- I’ve covered this many times- and ma tired- will post more later- but wow- you don’t establish bio truth by presenting non truths that don’t hold up biolgically. Egads!
I said scientists acknowledge it- not agendists with axes to grind- which includes you evidently- but laugh away- the truth still stands on it’s own m,errits and validity. Hecklers won’t undermine that fact
Oh okay. So there’s an intelligent creator. How exactly did that entity arise? When you can explain that you can get back to me.
It was proven in court that Intelligent Design is just another name for Creationism. It is religion, not science.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
==Then publish a paper in Nature and I will call it science.
There’s no need, it has already been published in a far superior publication, the Journal of Creation.
Actually, all you've really done is dissemble intelligent design while disassembling AN intelligent design.
Perhaps we will continue this later when you are rested and more receptive. As for myself, I am not receptive to either evolution as presented or to ID as presented.
Read my other posts. I made that point.
==Oh okay. So theres an intelligent creator. How exactly did that entity arise? When you can explain that you can get back to me.
Only that which has a beginning requires a cause.
God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Is. 57:15).
This strawman was debunked long ago. I've asked the same of the evo-cultists and the very best they can do is cough up garbage about a few chimps and plants on Madagascar.
First, there's no way to determine if an origins article has been peer reviewed, because everytime it is so-called peer reviewed it's confronted by evo-cultist lunacy like "That's religion!", or "That's THEOCRACY" and so on. What a joke. Don't demand of ID what OBVIOLUSLY is a joke when it comes to the cult of evolution!
No one can tell us how one would know if an evo-cultist or a creation scientist "peer reviewed" evolution without their name being attached. NO ONE.
Evo-cultists hold ID to standards it won't hold the cult of evolution to, much less string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory.
Your dog no longer hunts.
Heck, your dog is ill.
Maybe I should check on your dog, I don't even know if it's still alive!
Where did the "process control system" come from?
AND about that proximity:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and tweaks the reactions conditions just right do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Why do sunflowers follow the sun? Why do white people tan?
Thanks, I haven't had the time to read the paper yet but, from the title, I would likely support part or maybe all of it.
Evolution is a fact. But before you get rankled, please realize that I believe it has its limits. We see evolution in work all of the time -- the constantly mutating flu virus is a good example.
My problems with evolution are scientific, not religious. If you've ever read Michael Behe, you've probably heard of the example of the very complex chemistry behind eyesight. While what I call hyper-evolutionists will rightly point out that the chemistry of vision contains loops, we're still stuck with the fact of explaining how the basic chemistry got there in the first place.
We don't have a lot of unnecessary chemicals floating around in our bodies just looking for a job to do. I'm not aware of any, as a matter of fact. It wasn't until all that long ago that nitric oxide was thought to have no use. And throwing time at it doesn't make the situation any better. As a creationist, I think that the evidence points to a designer, who is the God of the Bible.
However, if we were shown absolute, 100%-undeniable proof that all life evolved from a single-cell (or cells) in the primordial soup, it wouldn't shatter my faith in God one bit. I would just say that God chose to use the laws of evolution to create life. I believe that he does already, just not to the extent to which "hyper-evolutionists" believe.
I think that the complex chemistry of life is one reason why it has been my experience that so many chemists and physicians are Christians.
I have seen far too many miracles in my life to reject God. In fact, I was the beneficiary of an immediate miracle while being prayed for last week. I have seen so many lives changed by God, including my own. I love science, but I see the study of science as the study of God.
As I said before, Genesis tells us nothing about how God created life and the universe. It gives a brief and vague chronological order, but that's about it. I do not see any conflicts between general revelation (science, for one) and the special revelation of God's word. I also pointed out the necessity of word studies in interpreting portions of the Bible. I've already told you about yom and olam, check out the meanings of the word behema and see how it can apply to the flood story.
You made what point?
SO far, you seem to just keep ignoring ID, like you always do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.