ID not required

[saltydawg]

i didn't say the force had to be supernatural...i even reference aliens in an arthur c clarke novel. as far as the second statement you made...i don't see the logic...elaborate, please.

sik-m, if you accept that evolution of life has ocurred on the planet, which I do, then the existence of current life forms means that they evolved from previous life forms. You take that line of reasoning back to the earliest life forms and what you come up with is a world in which life arose from the complex soup of amino acids, tides, UV radiation and high voltage electricity. I doubt that any laboratory could re-create the particular conditions that lead to the earliest life forms but given that there is no other reasonable explanation .....

[DRay563]

sik-m, if you accept that evolution of life has ocurred on the planet, which I do, then the existence of current life forms means that they evolved from previous life forms. You take that line of reasoning back to the earliest life forms and what you come up with is a world in which life arose from the complex soup of amino acids, tides, UV radiation and high voltage electricity. I doubt that any laboratory could re-create the particular conditions that lead to the earliest life forms but given that there is no other reasonable explanation .....

A complex soup of amino acids implies that the conditions of the earth were that which were amenable to the reaction of chemicals towards the formation of amino acids.

The scientific evidence towards this is "Miller's Experiment" where he used water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen with electricity to form amino acids. Other experiments, similar in nature, have been able to produce 17 of the 20 ((or 21)) amino acids in protein synthesis as well as other molecules towards the formation of life.

However, there is a serious chemical problem with this experiment. Our star is a 2nd ((possibly a 3rd)) generation star; this means that since the Big Bang, a star's supernova caused a nebula of gas to begin to contract. This contraction continued through gravitational forces, eventually developing into a form of protostar. Other gases orbit around the protostar, on its way to being a star, and eventually coalesce into planets. Thus the formation of our solar system.

The earth is postulated to have been made from ices, carbon-rich substances, and silicates. So what's the problem, you might ask? I don't see any Nitrogen, that's the problem. Nitrogen is an essential element to this process because without Nitrogen, there can be no amino acids. So where does this mystery Nitrogen come from?

If you say it came from the supernova, this won't work either. In a Type Ia Supernova where a White Dwarf goes above 1.4 solar masses and becomes unstable, electron degeneracy can no longer hold off the gravity and the star begins to collapse into a neutron star. The formation creates an shock wave that actually delays for about 10 milliseconds before the energized neutrinos explode with such intensity that the entire star except for an iron core is destroyed.

The other type of supernova is the Type II. Starting from the interior, I will provide the elements in a star before it explodes in a Type II supernova:
Iron core, silicon fusing, Si enhanced, Oxygen fusing, O enhanced, Carbon fusing, C enhanced, Helium fusing, He enhanced, Hydrogen fusing, and then the Star surface. Nowhere is there Nitrogen right before it explodes in a supernova.

Can someone provide the mysterious element of Nitrogen to make all these processes possible?

In Christ,
Daniel

[saltydawg]

Daniel, found this on an internet search. It would appear that nitrogen in our early atmosphere came from deep within the planet via volcanoes.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html

Not that knowledgeable about the formation of nitrogen in early earth history.

[saltydawg]

interesting site.

http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rhdt/diploma/lecture_4/

[duckbillplatty]

but given that there is no other reasonable explanation .....

AHA!!! Lack of scientifically viable alternatives proves whichever theory you otherwise believe. Q.E. freakin' D!!!

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Hey, if Salty wants to believe he and his relatives came from "GOO to the ZOO to YOU"
Theory then I guess that's his business. Some of us are tired of the constant rambling.

[DRay563]

Daniel, found this on an internet search. It would appear that nitrogen in our early atmosphere came from deep within the planet via volcanoes.

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/internet/l2.html

Not that knowledgeable about the formation of nitrogen in early earth history.

Yeah, don't know that much about the formation of nitrogen in early earth history either. That's why I'm asking!

Looked at the site, thought it was interesting, but doesn't really explain it to me. I mean, granted, we got all this Nitrogen from SOMEWHERE; our atmosphere has a stinkin lot of it. The difference, however, is that Nitrogen gas, as found in our atmosphere, is a relatively unreactive gas. It would have to have been stored up in ammonia and/or other molecules that would allow for the Nitrogen to be part of the chemical process.

Thanks for the sites though! I enjoyed reading them. :-)

In Christ,
Daniel

[saltydawg]

AHA!!! Lack of scientifically viable alternatives proves whichever theory you otherwise believe. Q.E. freakin' D!!!

Yep. You do it every day. It's called circumstantial evidence.

For example, when you go to bed at night, it is bone dry outside. When you wake up in the morning, the ground is soaking wet and the wheelbarrow is full of water. Most would conclude that it rained during the night.

You might think that a miracle happened since you didn't see it rain.

[saltydawg]

Hey, if Salty wants to he and his relatives came from "GOO to the ZOO to YOU"
Theory then I guess that's his business. Some of us are tired of the constant rambling.

Like somebody is forcing you to read this thread.

[saltydawg]

salty, you are the one who is making the jump to 0+0=1. Again, I'm not arguing against you, but as a scientist I am merely making sure that you argue in scientific terms.

You see, if we are talking about the theories of ID and evolution being mutally exclusive, then I think ID should never argue against science in terms of science. It is simply a matter of faith. It's hardly worth arguing because it is more to believe. It is a gift to believe. ID opponents always get Christians to do that, it's a good tactic. However, when you say that life is proof that life resulted from nature, you just took a leap out of science and into faith. So you have made the leap into believing the same "hocus pocus" magic you can't understand.

There is no proof for ID. You accept it because of your religious beliefs. Science recognizes that evolution means that the current life forms on the planet contain the same fundamental biochemical processes as the first life form. In other words, the only difference between you and the first single cell animal on Earth is 3.5 billion years of evolution.

That is not to say that God didn't "make" you.

[duckbillplatty]

There is no proof for ID. You accept it because of your religious beliefs. Science recognizes that evolution means that the current life forms on the planet contain the same fundamental biochemical processes as the first life form. In other words, the only difference between you and the first single cell animal on Earth is 3.5 billion years of evolution.

That is not to say that God didn't "make" you.

I swear you are the hardest person to agree with.

I said ID is a matter of faith. There is no scientific evidence to support it. however, I choose to believe it because of faith, not fact. And I don't see my belief in ID as exclusive to evolution. One is a thery for the origin of species, the other th origin of life.

Now some people on here say ID is the origin of life and species by using the literal interpretation of Genesis. That's fine by me. They have the scripture and their best interpretation to back them up. (I should say origin of species in a single day rather than God's hand in evolution over time.)

You however think that evolution covers both the origin of life and species... Well it doesn't. We have strong evidence of evolution, not the origin of life. The two are not the same thing. Haven't I been over this? It seems like you were trying to tell me that in your last post, but I can't even follow you from post to post right now. If you were trying to say that evolution doesn't mess with origin of life, then I'm glad you've taken my previous posts to heart.

And circumstantial evidence is not science. It used to be. We saw the sun move in the sky and figured. "Hey, it must rotate around us." Fortunately, we've moved past science by "circumstantial evidence" and now use something called the scientific method for which circumstantial evidence only gets us to a hypothesis.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Yep. You do it every day. It's called circumstantial evidence.

For example, when you go to bed at night, it is bone dry outside. When you wake up in the morning, the ground is soaking wet and the wheelbarrow is full of water. Most would conclude that it rained during the night.

You might think that a miracle happened since you didn't see it rain.

Rain is a miracle and blessing from GOD. Of course the Bible does say He allows it to rain on the just and as well the unjust.

[saltydawg]

Rain is a miracle and blessing from GOD. Of course the Bible does say He allows it to rain on the just and as well the unjust.

Rain is certainly a miracle. Just not a supernatural one.

[marketdawg]

I think it should just be called Design, not Intelligent Design. How could you call it intelligent when you think of some of the designs...mosquitoes, light beer, The Yugo (fine Yugoslavian imported vehicle of the 80's) , diet ice cream, parachute pants, mullet hair cuts, alimony, Michael Bolton (see mullet hair cuts), democrats, male ballet dancers, valentines day, taxes, ect. Just call it Design and I might buy into the idea. Until then I'll stick with evolution.

[DRay563]

I think it should just be called Design, not Intelligent Design. How could you call it intelligent when you think of some of the designs...mosquitoes, light beer, The Yugo (fine Yugoslavian imported vehicle of the 80's) , diet ice cream, parachute pants, mullet hair cuts, alimony, Michael Bolton (see mullet hair cuts), democrats, male ballet dancers, valentines day, taxes, ect. Just call it Design and I might buy into the idea. Until then I'll stick with evolution.

It's called Intelligent Design because of the intricacy of the Creation, not because of the things we do or don't like about it. When we look at cars, we don't say "random chance accomplished this," we say "intelligence put this together." In the same way, looking at the fine-tuned machine of the cell, we should say "intelligence put this together." However, counter-evidentially, we say "random chance accomplished this."

Tell you what. Charles Darwin said that his entire theory would be shot down if a single thing could be found: something that is irreducibly complex ((meaning that there can be no precursor from which it would be evolved)). I contend that the cell is irreducibly complex. You cannot make it simplier and still have a functioning cell. Prove that the cell is not irreducibly complex OR that irreducible complexity doesn't shoot evolution out of the water, and we'll run with it. Otherwise, my suggestion would be to begin looking into other alternatives; it is unscientific to believe in theories that are disproven as irreducible complexity does with evolution.

In Christ,
Daniel