 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
NEZv69.69
Posts:0
 | | 09/28/2007 7:40 AM |
 Alert | | Intelligent Design is not science. It's "creators" cannot be called "scientists." What's to discuss here besides two idiots; each calling the kettle black. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/28/2007 7:55 AM |
Alert | Posted By NEZv69.69 on 09/28/2007 7:40 AM
Intelligent Design is not science.
Based on your forum history, I'm certain that you really don't understand science in the first place; so, as usual, your statement is completely vacuous.
Posted By NEZv69.69 on 09/28/2007 7:40 AM
What's to discuss here besides two idiots; each calling the kettle black.
As usual, you have nothing to offer but insults and baseless commentary. If we're really that stupid, then what could you possibly gain by telling us so?
Bottom line, put up or shut up! Say something meaningful or just go away. Thank you. | | | |
|
| | NEZv69.69
Posts:0
| | 09/28/2007 8:14 AM |
Alert | Here's a fun analogy for you:
You are to 'Copa
what
William Dembski is to Science | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/28/2007 8:18 AM |
Alert | What about the appendix? The pinky toe? Wisdom teeth?
That wasn't very 'intelligent' design. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/28/2007 8:58 AM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/28/2007 8:18 AM
What about the appendix? The pinky toe? Wisdom teeth?
That wasn't very 'intelligent' design.
There are three ways to think about what you suggest here.
------------------------
But first, let me define thinking, reasoning and understanding ...
THINKING = the ability to construct multiple models
REASONING = the ability to relate multiple models
UNDERSTANDING = the ability to sustain reason under changing context
------------------------
1. Scientifically. First, I would like for you to explain precisely in what way those body parts are not intelligent. In order to do that, you must (a) define their function correctly and (b) how/why that function is not optimal. I look forward to hearing about this.
2. Evolutionary. Perhaps we're just in that epoch where Natural Selection is "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Darwin, Origin of Species) eliminating these from the genome? Evolutionists always seem to discount their own mechanism for change/adaptation.
3. Theologically (even though ID isn't theological). ASSUMING that the body parts you listed are not intelligent, AND that Natural Selection IS NOT at work, it is reasonable from a biblical perspective, to account for this as a result of the general decay since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden. But this IS NOT something that ID addresses AT ALL ... it just comes to mind as a plausible explanation given other factors.
-------------------------
The first two options are what I consider to be most likely because (1) I think that you'll find current research/understanding of those body parts to be contrary to your assumption, or (2) if that is not true, then Natural Selection MUST be in effect because the effect is realized within a species.
In accordance with the logic of your post, one of two things MUST be true ...
1. Darwin was wrong when he said "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were." [Origin of Species]
2. Those body parts are in fact intelligent. | | | |
|
|  | Jason
Posts:3378
| | 09/28/2007 10:08 AM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/28/2007 8:18 AM
What about the appendix?
The jury is out on that one.
The pinky toe?
What do you have against the pinky toe?
Wisdom teeth?
We have no use for them today, but that doesn't mean that there never was a use.
That wasn't very 'intelligent' design.
Those weren't very intelligent examples. | |
Joined: Jul 2005 | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/28/2007 1:18 PM |
Alert | I'd like you to address the point that there are Athiests who are researching ID.
How can you be an athiest and believe that a supernatural being intervenes whenever probability becomes small.
Or I guess ID never says Deity. The Athiests in DI are Alien nuts?
Going back to the textbooks. OPaP - Written by prominent ID people one a Discover Institute fellow. Edited by a Discovery Institute fellow. Published by DI Fellows. Promoted by the Foundation of Thought and Ethics.
The FTE has close ties to DI. A DI fellow is the academic advisor for FTE.
None of this stuff is disputed. The one page on the DI website that says that it doesn't promote teaching this stuff in schools is for suckers. Look at all the fellows in DI are doing in their spare time.
So back to the orignal 4 points. The first two are obviously hogwash.
1) DI doesn't say who the designer is. . . Ok. Who cares? It's one of two things a God or some race of hidden aliens who come to earth every couple thousand years to play chemistry.
2) DI memebers don't want it taught in schools. They just want to write and promote the textbook, and schools are the only one that want to buy it?
3) DI believes in micro-evolution but not macro. . . . Ok, I'm a bit confused on this one, as they basically are the same. I kinda understood it when y'all were creationists, as there wasn't time for macro evolution, but now that there was time, what's the point?
4) High probability events don't require a god. Just luck.
I'll give you an example of a rare event.
Joanna buys a ticket wins the lottery. What are the odds that she'd win the lottery? 1:50 million. However the odds are much much better that someone was going to win the lottery this week. If we didn't narrow it down to Joanna as the one, then the probability gets better by a factor of several million.
Keep that in mind when the probability gets small enough in ID that you think you need a designer. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/28/2007 3:47 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
I'd like you to address the point that there are Athiests who are researching ID.
How can you be an athiest and believe that a supernatural being intervenes whenever probability becomes small.
Or I guess ID never says Deity. The Athiests in DI are Alien nuts?
Once again, you just do not get it! The Atheists who favor ID over Evolution DO NOT think what you say! They think that Design is the reason we notice the high improbability coupled with high specificity. Design DOES NOT happen by accident! They would also ask you if you've ever been abducted by space aliens ... because what you're saying sounds just as nutty.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
Going back to the textbooks. OPaP - Written by prominent ID people one a Discover Institute fellow. Edited by a Discovery Institute fellow. Published by DI Fellows. Promoted by the Foundation of Thought and Ethics.
The FTE has close ties to DI. A DI fellow is the academic advisor for FTE.
None of this stuff is disputed. The one page on the DI website that says that it doesn't promote teaching this stuff in schools is for suckers. Look at all the fellows in DI are doing in their spare time.
Who are the authors? What are the titles? Which schools are buying them? With this information, we can have a responsible discussion.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
1) DI doesn't say who the designer is. . . Ok. Who cares? It's one of two things a God or some race of hidden aliens who come to earth every couple thousand years to play chemistry.
How about just "design"? Did the aliens tell you about the visitation schedule when they abducted you the last time?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
2) DI memebers don't want it taught in schools. They just want to write and promote the textbook, and schools are the only one that want to buy it?
As stated before ... give the names and places.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
3) DI believes in micro-evolution but not macro. . . . Ok, I'm a bit confused on this one, as they basically are the same. I kinda understood it when y'all were creationists, as there wasn't time for macro evolution, but now that there was time, what's the point?
Macro and Micro Evolution are the same?! You must be joking! Even a freshman in Biology 101 knows better than this! Look it up!
With regard to "time for evolution" ... the life span of the universe is insufficient for this to happen. I'll explain more on that below.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
4) High probability events don't require a god. Just luck.
I'll give you an example of a rare event.
Joanna buys a ticket wins the lottery. What are the odds that she'd win the lottery? 1:50 million. However the odds are much much better that someone was going to win the lottery this week. If we didn't narrow it down to Joanna as the one, then the probability gets better by a factor of several million.
Keep that in mind when the probability gets small enough in ID that you think you need a designer.
First, you should not have tried to "take me to school" on the topic of probability. I make a living as a university math professor who teaches this topic on a regular basis.
The chances of winning any lottery are very likely when you compare them to the chances of even assembling the basic parts of a single cell by random undirected natural forces. It takes at least 239 individual proteins in order to make the most basic cell. There are 239 times 238 times 237 ... etc. ways to arrange those proteins, or 10 to the 466th power. By the way, only 1 of those permutations will work; and hence the probability of that event is 1 in 10 to the 466th power, or 1 in a 1 followed by 466 zeros.
In order to put 10 to the 466th power in perspective, please realize that there are only 10 to the 22nd power stars in the visible universe ... only 10 to the 80th power elementary particles in the universe and if the universe is 12 billion years old, then that is only 10 to the 18th power seconds.
To make matters worse, there are numerous event that need to precede this assemblage and numerous events that must follow before the cell can work. Bottom line, as we continue to multiply these probabilities the chances get even smaller and smaller to the point that they exceed the limit of what we call statistically absurd. Exceeding that limit really does not do justice to describing how absurd the chance assemblage of a single cell is. 1 in 10 to the 50th power is the limit for "probable" events ... any power higher than 50 in the denominator means that we've exceed the limit and have something that is statistically absurd.
Do the math ... how much bigger than 50 is 466. What if the next probability space has a denominator of just 20? Well, 466 times 20 is 9320. What if there are a half dozen more conditioning probabilities to factor in before the cell starts to function? See what I mean? | | | |
|
| | joe_2007
Posts:83
| | 09/28/2007 3:57 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 1:18 PM
4) High probability events don't require a god. Just luck.
I'll give you an example of a rare event.
Joanna buys a ticket wins the lottery. What are the odds that she'd win the lottery? 1:50 million. However the odds are much much better that someone was going to win the lottery this week. If we didn't narrow it down to Joanna as the one, then the probability gets better by a factor of several million.
Keep that in mind when the probability gets small enough in ID that you think you need a designer.
What are talking about. The chances of winning the lottery have nothing to do with which week, or if anyone wins the week before, or how many tickets are sold.
This just shows your lack of knowledge about what you think you know. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/28/2007 4:17 PM |
Alert | Posted By joe_2007 on 09/28/2007 3:57 PM
What are talking about. The chances of winning the lottery have nothing to do with which week, or if anyone wins the week before, or how many tickets are sold.
This just shows your lack of knowledge about what you think you know.
I'll state it again a bit clearer.
The odds to win the lotter is 1:50 million.
Yet there is a winner almost every week.
From Joanna's perspective winning the lottery is a rare event.
Someone winning the lottery is an almost certainty.
The fallacy is what the math professor alluded to.
Note he put in "By the way, only 1 of those permutations will work;" Who says? I'd like to see the experiment with all the possible combinations, just to make sure. Who is to say that there isn't life somewhere else in the universe that doesn't use proteins as building blocks He's thinking that Joanna was the only one that could have won the lottery.
I can prove that 2=0 with a simple algebra equation. It's your job to figure out if each step along the way is valid.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/28/2007 5:29 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 4:17 PM Posted By joe_2007 on 09/28/2007 3:57 PM
What are talking about. The chances of winning the lottery have nothing to do with which week, or if anyone wins the week before, or how many tickets are sold.
This just shows your lack of knowledge about what you think you know. I'll state it again a bit clearer. The odds to win the lotter is 1:50 million. Yet there is a winner almost every week. From Joanna's perspective winning the lottery is a rare event. Someone winning the lottery is an almost certainty. The fallacy is what the math professor alluded to.
Yes, a lottery winner is a near certainty in a short amount of time because the probabilistic resources to quickly run through all of the possible permutations is sufficient for a winner every few weeks. You refute yourself and agree with me without even knowing it.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 4:17 PM
The fallacy is what the math professor alluded to.
What are you talking about?
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 4:17 PM
Note he put in "By the way, only 1 of those permutations will work;" Who says? I'd like to see the experiment with all the possible combinations, just to make sure.
The fundamentals of molecular biology attest to this fact. Who says? Every biologist who can spell the word biology and use it in a full and complete sentence.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 4:17 PM
Who is to say that there isn't life somewhere else in the universe that doesn't use proteins as building blocks He's thinking that Joanna was the only one that could have won the lottery.
The singularity of carbon-based life in this universe is a well-established fact in Physics. Other galaxies function under the same set of physical laws that ours does. The only molecular structure that can support complex life is carbon, and therefore only proteins lead to biological life, which is the only type possible in this universe, from a scientific viewpoint.
Non-carbon-based life only works on Star Trek.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 4:17 PM
I can prove that 2=0 with a simple algebra equation. It's your job to figure out if each step along the way is valid.
Let's be clear on this one ... one can attempt to demonstrate that 2 = 0 through invalid reasoning that is easy to miss if one does not know anything about mathematics. Furthermore, so what! This does not have anything to do with the point that you're failing to make and serves to perpetuate the demonstration of your faulty reasoning. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/28/2007 7:23 PM |
Alert | Yes. . . I can prove 2=1 through invalid reasoning. Just like you can prove that life is so improbable to make an atheist scream for a creator through invalid reasoning.
I showed you two instances which you shrugged off for no reason.
You state that any biologist knows that there is Only one way to build a cell with proteins. This is blatently false. Proteins can be put together in either a left-handed or right-handed fashion, or basically mirror image of each other. If all the proteins are mirror images, everything should work great. There is one example. Who knows if there are more? I'm sure no one has tried all the combinations, or even simulated it, as you pointed out, apparently there isn't enough time or matter in the universe to try out all the combinations. I'd really hate to say that other combinations wouldn't be able to self replicate.
I'd also like to see the proof that life can only be carbon based. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/28/2007 11:10 PM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
Yes. . . I can prove 2=1 through invalid reasoning.
No you can't ... you can NEVER prove anything with invalid reasoning! Proofs are fairly rigorous in that they demand perfect reasoning on every step and across the entire structure of the proof. One logical error trashes the whole proof, even if the conclusion is right! The dude who proved Fermat's Last Theorem spent more than a decade on his first try, published a 200+ page proof that ended correctly but had one error. That error was found and his entire proof was thusly rejected. A few years later he found a way to correct it and now he's done.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
Just like you can prove that life is so improbable to make an atheist scream for a creator through invalid reasoning.
I am not trying to make an atheist scream for a Creator, nor is my reasoning invalid. If it is invalid, precisely how? You'll need to demonstrate that one of my premises is false or that I've violated one or more of the nine rules of inference in first-order logic or committed any one of the informal fallacies therein.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
I showed you two instances which you shrugged off for no reason.
Please remind me what two instances you refer to here. Two things are happening here, (1) there's a lot of ideas being thrown around and (2) you've given me very little to work with from the standpoint of evidence, examples, descriptions, etc.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
You state that any biologist knows that there is Only one way to build a cell with proteins. This is blatently false. Proteins can be put together in either a left-handed or right-handed fashion, or basically mirror image of each other. If all the proteins are mirror images, everything should work great. There is one example.
I think that you are confusing one or more things with regard to "mirror image proteins".
1. There are some therapeutic methodologies for the treatment of certain diseases that employ mirror-image proteins; but this is very different than the cell structure.
2. rRNA makes something like a mirror image of "protein code" when it replicates a section of DNA when preparing to build a new structure in the orgnaism it serves.
3. Left and right in this context refers to a thing that biologists and chemists call "chirality". It does in fact deal with "left-handed" and "right-handed" properties which basically boils down to polarization and the response of the molecule, protein or amino-acid to light. Bottom line, chirality must be uniform in a functioning structure and one type of chirality is the difference between life-giving and poison. Look it up.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
There is one example. Who knows if there are more?
No, that is not an example because it is wrong.
Yes, there are more, but they are all correct.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
I'm sure no one has tried all the combinations, or even simulated it, as you pointed out, apparently there isn't enough time or matter in the universe to try out all the combinations.
Of course no one has tried them all because that is impossible; however, we have learned what works, come to understand the inner workings of that which works, and are sure that there are no other option. The point is that through random undirected natural forces, there is no hope in fishing through the sea of possibilities and arriving at the working structures while the universe still has an energy distribution capable of useful work.
There isn't enough time, but there is enough matter ... but matter is not in question here. I'm not sure what you mean on that one.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
I'd really hate to say that other combinations wouldn't be able to self replicate.
Huh?! Proteins do not self-replicate, cells do by synthesizing things like amino acids, proteins, etc.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/28/2007 7:23 PM
I'd also like to see the proof that life can only be carbon based.
It's called spectroscopy, and a whole range of physical sciences including astronomy, astro-biology, chemistry, etc. use it to understand that the physical laws that we see in effect in our end of the galaxy work the same in every end of every galaxy. One thing that we notice in our end of the galaxy is that ALL life is based fundamentally on carbon molecules ... nothing else. We've come to understand that there are reasons for this that boil down to the structure of a carbon molecule and its ability to support large and complex molecular structures. The way that it interacts with water is profoundly important too ... water, another thing that is ubiquitous to life. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/29/2007 7:18 AM |
Alert | Life is self-replication. If proteins can't self-replicate, perhaps we should be discussing the probability of what causes the self-replication instead of the proteins.
You can pull out all the big words that you want, but you still didn't even show me your assumptions for your probability yet were even remotely close to being true.
Look closely at your poison statement. You'll find even in your words the fault in your logic on the mirror image thing. "chirality must be uniform". There you go. I did mention all the proteins being mirror image, didn't I?
Spectroscopy has nothing to do with detecting life. It's for detecting which elements are present. We can't even point a Spectroscope to mars and see if there is life there, let alone a different star system. Scientists use spectroscopy to look for water as a surrogate for life, because that is what we are familiar with and everywhere we find water on the earth, we find life. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/29/2007 7:19 AM |
Alert | Life is self-replication. If proteins can't self-replicate, perhaps we should be discussing the probability of what causes the self-replication instead of the proteins.
You can pull out all the big words that you want, but you still didn't even show me your assumptions for your probability yet were even remotely close to being true.
Look closely at your poison statement. You'll find even in your words the fault in your logic on the mirror image thing. "chirality must be uniform". There you go. I did mention all the proteins being mirror image, didn't I?
Spectroscopy has nothing to do with detecting life. It's for detecting which elements are present. We can't even point a Spectroscope to mars and see if there is life there, let alone a different star system. Scientists use spectroscopy to look for water as a surrogate for life, because that is what we are familiar with and everywhere we find water on the earth, we find life. | |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 8:41 AM |
Alert | Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
Life is self-replication.
True.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
Life is self-replication. If proteins can't self-replicate, perhaps we should be discussing the probability of what causes the self-replication instead of the proteins.
But there is no life without proteins, and if proteins cannot come into being by purely random undirected natural forces, then we need to talk about why that is so.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
You can pull out all the big words that you want, but you still didn't even show me your assumptions for your probability yet were even remotely close to being true.
What?! I did the math right here in the forum!
I'm sorry if you don't understand the big words ... perhaps you should go study them more closely before you attempt to refute them.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
Look closely at your poison statement. You'll find even in your words the fault in your logic on the mirror image thing. "chirality must be uniform". There you go. I did mention all the proteins being mirror image, didn't I?
Yes, chirality must be uniform, but that uniformity is not in any sort of mirror image. The entire chain must be EITHER left- or right-handed, NOT BOTH.
Yes, you did mention all the proteins being mirror image, but this is a gross conceptual error on your part.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
Spectroscopy has nothing to do with detecting life. It's for detecting which elements are present.
Correct, spectroscopy helps us detect the presence of elements and when we point our spectrometers at distant galaxies we find that chemistry works the same out there as it does here. Chemistry is fundamentally about the motion and position of electrons in an atom ... this is the basis of chemical properties.
I did not say that spectroscopy is a "life detector"; but rather, it informs us that the laws of physics have not changed anywhere in the universe. I answered your question perfectly but I'm beginning to think that you do not even understand your own statements.
Posted By ChimneyDuck on 09/29/2007 7:19 AM
We can't even point a Spectroscope to mars and see if there is life there, let alone a different star system. Scientists use spectroscopy to look for water as a surrogate for life, because that is what we are familiar with and everywhere we find water on the earth, we find life.
Yes we can ... I've used one. It's not quite as simple as your example sounds, but we are able to do what you say we cannot.
Why don't you do a Google search on spectroscopy and astronomy ... there is not enough space in this forum to educate you on this topic. | | | |
|
| | Copa Conscious
Posts:379
| | 09/29/2007 8:47 AM |
Alert | The Religious Zealot Freak Idiots, who have FAITH in ID, will never accept evolution.
The Intelligent people, who believe in the facts and evidence of evolution, will never believe in ID.
Argue all you like. You won't change the other side's mind. | | | |
|
| | Veritas
Posts:250
| | 09/29/2007 9:16 AM |
Alert | Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/29/2007 8:47 AM
The Religious Zealot Freak Idiots, who have FAITH in ID, will never accept evolution.
Wrong! There are tons of Christians who believe that God authored Evolution ... they are called Theistic Evolutionists. Some of them have Ph.D.'s and teach at universities, etc. Some of them would disagree with me, but I do not need to stoop to your level and call them names. Grow up!
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/29/2007 8:47 AM
The Intelligent people, who believe in the facts and evidence of evolution, will never believe in ID.
Oh my ... you are so smart! This is exactly the kind of response that is typical of those who do not have any facts and who do not understand evidence at all.
ID proponents do not think that everyone else is stupid or lacking intelligence. It's unfortunate that you hate religion so much that it has caused you suspend your brain. If you can't have an adult discussion, then I recommend that you find a forum for children.
Posted By Copa Conscious on 09/29/2007 8:47 AM
Argue all you like. You won't change the other side's mind.
So, there is NOTHING that can change your mind? Hmmm. I think that is the definition of a closed mind. Congratulations! You have lived up to the accusation that you hurl at ID people. | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:191
| | 09/29/2007 7:35 PM |
Alert | I think he was reading your responses to your post and calling you closed minded.
I clearly called you on only two points of your assumptions. I'll put numbers by them so you can address them, and not fly off on some tangent.
1) You state there can only be one way that proteins can be put together to make a viable cell. I called you on that point. Your answer was just pretty much calling me names.
2) This one is laughable. You state in positively no uncertain terms that only carbon can be the basis for life. Ok. That was a little further than I was trying to go with just singling out proteins as possibly not being the building blocks for some life. What was your proof about that? Spectroscopy, which can't detect life anyway.
Then you call me an idiot for saying that you are just bringing up big words. Why did I point that out? Possibly because your answers didn't show that your assumptions that your proteins can only be put together one way to make a viable cell.
Perhaps if you didn't use a measurement device as proof, then I'd be able to follow your logic. I didn't say "Telescope" and say there. . . Done. Intelligent Design is disproven! I keep trying to keep my points short so you can stay on topic. Please just address the two points above. I have numbered them, so they are easy to find. I'll repeat them, so you don't have to look up.
1) Show that only one combination of 239 proteins can make a self-replicating organism.
2) Show that only carbon based life can exist.
| |
http://www.maricopabikeclub.com - Join us for a bicycle ride. | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|