Who Believes the Bible Is Literally True?

[Phenomanul]

Right, because it is not possible to misinterpret an attribute such as "Majesty."

, everyone knows "majesty" when they see it.

Google it. You're good for that. Or what? Are we just supposed to twiddle our thumbs and assume no one knows anything??? People know if something is majestic (splendid, resplendant, illuminating grandeur).... you get the idea.

[clambake]

On one hand, God let's his holy servants speak for him in church. On the other hand, he lets these same holy servants rape our children when were not looking. Yes Yes Yes your god does work in mysterious ways. I'm suppose to believe in a god that can't even keep his own house clean. That is some powerful stuff.

[smeagol]

On one hand, God let's his holy servants speak for him in church. On the other hand, he lets these same holy servants rape our children when were not looking. Yes Yes Yes your god does work in mysterious ways. I'm suppose to believe in a god that can't even keep his own house clean. That is some powerful stuff.

Men were created to posses free will. Free will makes men chose to be close to God of far away from Him. Even the so called "men of God" can sin. They are human.

Bottom line, saying priests sin does not negate God, as well as war and other calamities don't negate Him either.

Try again.

[Phenomanul]

I've already stated that I don't think high school science teachers should take a position either way. You, however, seem to think that not mentioned ID in a science class is tantamount to dismissing it, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you.

I'm sorry if you feel dismissed because your idea isn't presented, but you admit to not having any evidence to back up your idea. You are just going to have to deal with it, plain and simple. Questions about theories in place are fine, and should come with the prsentation of theories. But you are the one fooling yourself if you think that ID is on the same level of Evolution as far as being a scientific theory goes, and you know better than to think that Evolution is just some wacky idea. Or maybe you don't know better... in which case there is nothing more to be said on the topic.

And yet you still misinterpret my concern...

ID only addresses the genesis of biological complexity.... it has as much evidence as any other theory out there... none. Can it even be empirically obtained??? The observations need to be addressed nevertheless... and not dismissed.

Replace Evolution with the word adaptation and that is all the evidence we do have... no where does the evidence supporting 'evolution' incorporate a chaotic unguided process.

Granted, not all high school teachers are very good at what they do and misconvey information. It's problem inherent in the structure of our school system - not a problem stemming from the lack of teaching ID in high school class rooms. So, of what relevence is it to this discussion?

You initially claimed high-school teachers being neutral was a solution... I have given you a personal example that they are as predilected to defend an all-evolutionary way of thinking above all else... and this is not relevant?

Yes, I do know it. By calling ID psuedo-science I mean it is exactly that. It's presented as a science yet you admit there is no possible way to present scientific evidence. That, by definition is FALSE SCIENCE.

For all those that clamor for empirical data... where is all this data supporting black matter, anti-matter (both concepts I actually believe in).... no, the element of science comes strictly from observations... emission and absorption of gamma-radiation... the bending of x-rays... odd gravitational pulls etc... but nothing that is subjectable to experimentation, only observation.... should I call it false science???

Science hasn't lost that ability. Maybe high school science teachers have lost that ability, but the concept of evolution is continually redefined and refined as science questions itself and finds evidence leading to a better explanation. And the case for evolution just keeps getting stronger as scientists do this - not weaker.

Again, evidence for adaptive speciation... gets stronger. Adaptive speciation cross-checks the parent genomes of species to determine whether or not phenotypic manifestations are embedded (dormant) in the parent copy... NO where has someone proved a mutation allowed a species to become more fit. Most experiments involving mutations, including the most famous ones for drosophilia flies are actually guided experiments trying to replicate was is supposedly an unguided process... it solves their riddle, but it is also inherently wrong. <--- again another reason, why access to the methods used must be provided before I can agree or disagree with anyones conclusions.

I've seen your calculation of the odds, and they aren't statistically valid. Each step in the evolutionary chain is a random walk, and your calculation vastly overestimates the odds against because it doesn't account for this.

It does whether you choose to see it or not is a different story... and actually, your next point agrees with the math...

Once you've won the lottery once, the odds of winning it a second time are equal to the odds of you winning it the first time.

But that's only becuase all the balls are returned to machine before every drawing, this essentially makes the odds of drawing any sequence identical... But since this isn't the case, the odds are strained... HENCE the use of the factorial.... which I used.

Your calculation seems to assume some instanious process in which we go from a couple specks of dust to a human being.

No, I was only calculating the odds of trying to build a simple 200 part system.... trying to create a human from scratch would be infintessimally more complex... but to address your point.

I was already being less conservative considering the world of chemistry imposes inescapable restrictions on the creation of super molecules like the very first strand of DNA....

First of all, the cons uents involved all need to be 'left handed' molecules, from the bases to the sugar-phosphates...meaning any right-handed molecule floating around and caught by the growing chain would stop the chain's growth all-together... This means that since there is no known natural processes that can create a solution of all left-handed or all-right-handed bases... growth of a DNA chain in a solution of both left and right handed bases would be waging an uphill battle. Again, this is only for the creation of a 200-base strand... and consider that the more left-handed bases that were pulled out of solution would inherently mean that the odds of incorporating a right-handed base on the next step would be increasingly greater... try flipping 200 consecutive 'heads' with a normal coin... yeah. <--- and I like I said, I didn't even include this factor.

Second of all, any incremental addition of smaller molecules to the growing DNA molecule would need to overcome entropic barriers not observed anywhere in the natural world today... (in today's world this process is aided by proteins that stabilize the DNA molecule and allow for its replication... only then can the double helix be opened without risk of 'data' corruption)... These entropies are measureable with today's method's... and they are rather big... which is why in the natural world, 'enzymes' provide the required activation energy of all base incorporations such that the chain can grow...

All this says is that the odds I calculated should have been even smaller due to the torsional strains, and entropic instability that such a growing molecule would have to endure...

All of these observations are very real... the data is their very existence.

You are correct, no field should ever be dismissive of studies because they don't like the results. I agree 100%. Do you agree with it 100%? Science should not be dismissive of a study just because it comes from an IDer. However, don't confuse dismissing a study for lack of scientific merit with dismissing a study just because it came from an IDer. Scientists should give proper evaluation of studies that come along, whether it is 10 seconds or 10 years. As it turns out, so far they are mostly towards the 10 second end of the spectrum.

Here, we agree on something...

Are you equating ID, which you admit there is no scientific evidence for sans a time machine, with the scientific evidence for evolution? Does it then surprise you that you find some people dismissive?

For the record, I never have nor will I ever call you a sheep. I'll say it again - you should embrace your faith.

Explained above...

Maybe there is a definitional problem then. My definition of speciation is as follows:

The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.

There are many observed examples of this occurring. Maybe we are talking about something else though. Please provide a definition so we can be on the same page and talk about what you are referring to.

Again I will point to the example of canines, whose stored genetic wealth is so vast and active (as opposed to dormant - despite the dominance or recessiveness of a gene)...

Surely the big array of 'species' in this group proves speciation can occur right....?? actually all of the genetic content is passed along as one big book and different manfestations of the genome then present themselves in the phenotype... Dingoes, foxes, wolves, dogs, coyotes... belong to the same 'kind' despite drastic and dramatic changes to its phenotype and irregardless of whether we identify them as different species...

I still know how the clock work. I didn't "have" to infer that the clock arose by chance. This is not a solution set of by chance or by God. I can be comfortable NOT knowing. Because I don't know, that doesn't make me have to infer God or infer a chance process.

It seems the "problem" is your desire to demand answers outside of a study's intent. I say "problem" because it is a good problem. However because a study is unable to answer questions outside of its scope doesn't mean the study is flawed. Continue to search for your answers, the world needs people finding answers. I just ask that you bring forth your answers with a empirical basis.

Even so, the evolution from sundials to clocks to watches is a logical one and where we see evidence of this evolution is it not outside of the rhelm of reason to infer evolution. If the "Universe of Time" is trillions of years old, it is not absurd to believe there could have been tiny adaptations leading to the creation of new species of time keeping devices. That is a theory. It is backed up by logic and empirical evidence in the common design elements. It only gets us from sundial to watch. Never does it infer that the sundial came from a couple of specks of dust. Maybe some grand clockmaker put the first sundial in place which set forth the evolutionary chain... maybe he didn't. I don't have scientific evidence either way, so I need not take a position either way.

Get evolutionary science to claim that much and then we will have gotten somewhere... sadly they never will.

If all the letters in the alphabet (which we assume are living creatures) where to spontaniously jump out of a bag, the odds are very low (the the point of zero) they would end up with Romeo and Juliet. However, if Romeo and Juliet was the optimized sequence of those letters for the survial of those letters, and they were given trillions of years to find that optimized sequence... then the odds begin to increase exponentially as the letters go through the process of adaptation.

As for science ignoring incovenient concepts... the scientists I know tend to focus on matters of science, which by definition come with some sort of scientific evidence. ID, by your admission, is incapable of producing scienctific evidence. What is there for science to ignore?

NO NO NO.... I'm applying the concept to molecular genetics... which would pre-date any incorporation of adaptive mutations or the like... YOU can't mutate a genetic message (a sequence of highly structured base-pairs) which have yet to form....

And sadly 100-base chain cannot be added to other 100-base chains without the exclusive help of ribosomes, which themselves were created by a particular rRNA segment over 2000 base pairs long.... So there goes the theory that additive segments increase the odds of complex molecular formation...

Have you studied how codons are pulled out of the genome to create every biological system present in any and every organism??? The sequencing is highly crucial. Anyhow, all of this can be tested to provide 'blanks'... i.e. the lack of a process to negate what I've just explained... but sadly, your group hinges their faith on this 'yet-to-be-found' natural process as the genesis of molecular biology.... Again a field which has to inherently precede biology itself....

[scott]

And yet you still misinterpret my concern...

ID only addresses the genesis of biological complexity.... it has as much evidence as any other theory out there... none. Can it even be empirically obtained??? The observations need to be addressed nevertheless... and not dismissed.

Replace Evolution with the word adaptation and that is all the evidence we do have... no where does the evidence supporting 'evolution' incorporate a chaotic unguided process.

Natural selection is the guide - that is not an "unguided process". There is far more evidence on evolution than just for adaptation. If you don't want to accept it, that is your choice. With or without it, however, it doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. I've already said there would be nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in a philosophy classroom. Why do you insist on wanting to teach something without any possible scientific evidence in a science class?

You initially claimed high-school teachers being neutral was a solution... I have given you a personal example that they are as predilected to defend an all-evolutionary way of thinking above all else... and this is not relevant?

You've provide this example as a case for teaching non-science in a science class. Making things worse is not a solution. Making sure teachers aren't mis-convaying information, is a solution.

For all those that clamor for empirical data... where is all this data supporting black matter, anti-matter (both concepts I actually believe in).... no, the element of science comes strictly from observations... emission and absorption of gamma-radiation... the bending of x-rays... odd gravitational pulls etc... but nothing that is subjectable to experimentation, only observation.... should I call it false science???

Empirical data, by definition, is based on observation. We have observed data supporting black matter and anti-matter. We have observed nothing to support ID. Sorry.

Again, evidence for adaptive speciation... gets stronger. Adaptive speciation cross-checks the parent genomes of species to determine whether or not phenotypic manifestations are embedded (dormant) in the parent copy... NO where has someone proved a mutation allowed a species to become more fit. Most experiments involving mutations, including the most famous ones for drosophilia flies are actually guided experiments trying to replicate was is supposedly an unguided process... it solves their riddle, but it is also inherently wrong. <--- again another reason, why access to the methods used must be provided before I can agree or disagree with anyones conclusions.

They are inherently wrong... because?

In any case, the scientific evidence for natural selection, speciation, and evolution are available in entire libraries. I'm not the right person to dispute this evidence with. You choose to not believe it, best wishes.

It does whether you choose to see it or not is a different story... and actually, your next point agrees with the math...

But that's only becuase all the balls are returned to machine before every drawing, this essentially makes the odds of drawing any sequence identical... But since this isn't the case, the odds are strained... HENCE the use of the factorial.... which I used.

Sorry, but no. The odds of the next step in evolution occuring are totally independent of all previous steps that have occurred. There is no straining of the odds. It is a pure random walk. You're calculations are vastly overstated. If you disagree and believe your odds hold true, then you should submit them for peer review in scientific journals.

However, I don't think your odds matter anyway, given the near infinate nature of the universe.

No, I was only calculating the odds of trying to build a simple 200 part system.... trying to create a human from scratch would be infintessimally more complex... but to address your point.

Already addressed above. It's a random walk.

I was already being less conservative considering the world of chemistry imposes inescapable restrictions on the creation of super molecules like the very first strand of DNA....

First of all, the cons uents involved all need to be 'left handed' molecules, from the bases to the sugar-phosphates...meaning any right-handed molecule floating around and caught by the growing chain would stop the chain's growth all-together... This means that since there is no known natural processes that can create a solution of all left-handed or all-right-handed bases... growth of a DNA chain in a solution of both left and right handed bases would be waging an uphill battle. Again, this is only for the creation of a 200-base strand... and consider that the more left-handed bases that were pulled out of solution would inherently mean that the odds of incorporating a right-handed base on the next step would be increasingly greater... try flipping 200 consecutive 'heads' with a normal coin... yeah. <--- and I like I said, I didn't even include this factor.

Second of all, any incremental addition of smaller molecules to the growing DNA molecule would need to overcome entropic barriers not observed anywhere in the natural world today... (in today's world this process is aided by proteins that stabilize the DNA molecule and allow for its replication... only then can the double helix be opened without risk of 'data' corruption)... These entropies are measureable with today's method's... and they are rather big... which is why in the natural world, 'enzymes' provide the required activation energy of all base incorporations such that the chain can grow...

All this says is that the odds I calculated should have been even smaller due to the torsional strains, and entropic instability that such a growing molecule would have to endure...

All of these observations are very real... the data is their very existence.

I'm not going to comment on this other than to repeat: if you believe in your odds calculations, you should submit them for peer review.

Again I will point to the example of canines, whose stored genetic wealth is so vast and active (as opposed to dormant - despite the dominance or recessiveness of a gene)...

Surely the big array of 'species' in this group proves speciation can occur right....?? actually all of the genetic content is passed along as one big book and different manfestations of the genome then present themselves in the phenotype... Dingoes, foxes, wolves, dogs, coyotes... belong to the same 'kind' despite drastic and dramatic changes to its phenotype and irregardless of whether we identify them as different species...

You never provided your definition of speciation, so I don't know how to respond. Animal husbandry is an example of arfitical speciation - but we have observed natural speciation.

Get evolutionary science to claim that much and then we will have gotten somewhere... sadly they never will.

Evolutionary science in and of itself doesn't make claims either way as to the original clockmaker. There are evolutionary scientists who believe God set everything in motion, there are some who believe everything occured by chance, and there are some who (like me) take the "I don't know and that's okay for now" stance. If you have a problem with certain Evolutionary Scientists, you should take it up with them.

NO NO NO.... I'm applying the concept to molecular genetics... which would pre-date any incorporation of adaptive mutations or the like... YOU can't mutate a genetic message (a sequence of highly structured base-pairs) which have yet to form....

And sadly 100-base chain cannot be added to other 100-base chains without the exclusive help of ribosomes, which themselves were created by a particular rRNA segment over 2000 base pairs long.... So there goes the theory that additive segments increase the odds of complex molecular formation...

Have you studied how codons are pulled out of the genome to create every biological system present in any and every organism??? The sequencing is highly crucial. Anyhow, all of this can be tested to provide 'blanks'... i.e. the lack of a process to negate what I've just explained... but sadly, your group hinges their faith on this 'yet-to-be-found' natural process as the genesis of molecular biology.... Again a field which has to inherently precede biology itself....

First of all, what is "my group"?

Second, I hinge my faith for the origin of life on nothing. I've said it several times - I don't know the answer, and I'm not inclined to have a position either way on the origin of the universe.

I don't want this to become a debate on evolution. Save it for someone who cares more than I do. I'm soley focused on keeping that which has no evidence (ID, in this case) out of a science class, where evidence is the foundation. You have problems with evolution, fine. I'll humor you and say that evolution is a load of crap. That doesn't mean we should teach ID instead, but rather we should stop teaching evolution. As it turns out, the bulk of the scientific community happens to disagree that evolution is crap. Either way, you still don't have a case for teaching ID in a science class.

[Phenomanul]

These are getting longer and longer.... geez.

Natural selection is the guide - that is not an "unguided process". There is far more evidence on evolution than just for adaptation. If you don't want to accept it, that is your choice. With or without it, however, it doesn't lend any credibility to intelligent design. I've already said there would be nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design in a philosophy classroom. Why do you insist on wanting to teach something without any possible scientific evidence in a science class?

Natural selection is the effect not the cause.... the 'unguided process' I'm referring to is the theory's dependence on random mutation to bring about said selection... the means in your case are 'random' genetic alterations....

You've provide this example as a case for teaching non-science in a science class. Making things worse is not a solution. Making sure teachers aren't mis-conveying information, is a solution.

How do you make sure those teachers don't misconvey the information if they never have been exposed to the concerns IDers have brought to the table to begin with.

Weeding us out by 'neutral silence' is a very good approach... I see. Kind of reminds me of some fascist tactics... Which is why North Koreans believe, we started WWI, WWII, and The Korean War... and why we have been made out to be some type of blood-thirsty war proliferating nation... After two generations of teaching lies the regime has successfully been able to portray the U.S. as the great enemy.... they are breeding hate. <--- Granted this is an extreme... but the tactic is the same... teach impartially to get the masses to believe what you want.

It's the very opposite of what Darwinists had to fight through in order to get introduced in the public school curriculum... They just got a little carried away, went completely in the other direction and assumed science was the 'catch-all' tool to answer all their questions... forever banishing the question of origins...

Empirical data, by definition, is based on observation. We have observed data supporting black matter and anti-matter. We have observed nothing to support ID. Sorry.

The entropies associated with the fabrication of:
DNA
RNA
all 20 amino acids
hemoglobin
myoglobin
chlorophyll A
chlorophyll C
xanthocyanin

The two most important ones being the energies associated with DNA and RNA... those entropic energies have yet to be surpassed by any known natural process.... and yet those two molecules alone account for the coded creation of all other biological molecules... I don't know how these measured energies can be interpreted as something other than data... Oh that's right... there is a term for this data... they choose to call it psuedo-science...

They are inherently wrong... because?

What, you don't see the inherent flaw in drosophilia experiments???

I've been reading up on them since the mid-90's

They basically handpick the results to be whatever they choose them to be... the mutations are supposed to be random... random mutations are almost always deleterious. So in essence by targeting the sex-cells of these flies with concentrated mutagens not seen anywhere in the natural world... they are interfering with a supposedly natural process. They do this to hundreds of thousands of sex cells to get a viable fly and then proceed to label this fly generation 2.... those flies are subjected to the same selective, and interfering procedures before a generation 3 fly is born... we have done this to the drosophilia fly repeatedly to obtain generation 36 or 37 (I don't remember what the running count is -- oh yeah, someone is making money by selling the later generations) and where said generation is not interfertile with the original fly.... Sadly they base this infertility on the fly's decision not to copulate with the original fly... instead of trying to fertilize the sex cells directly (I mean, afterall we've been interfereing all along, but not in this instance)... They then use that observation to claim a new species has finally been created in the laboratory... And with all due respect, they still have drosophilia flies in their midst... the only difference is that they've managed to make it sexually unattractive to the original fly so that they would never mate in the wild...

People are selective maters too.... does that one inference allow us to claim that two people who choose not to mate are not interfertile??? But let's not talk about people as we don't usually or consciously think about the reproductive fitness of our mates... and we're a whole different animal altogether...

In any case, the scientific evidence for natural selection, speciation, and evolution are available in entire libraries. I'm not the right person to dispute this evidence with. You choose to not believe it, best wishes.

I do believe most of it... I just happen to believe it's a process guided by GOD and not by purposeless chance.

Sorry, but no. The odds of the next step in evolution occuring are totally independent of all previous steps that have occurred.

Again you are confounding the concepts with those of mutating species.... I'm talking about building a molecule, specifically DNA, not a more reproductively fit species.... Besides, your juxtaposed concept here is still erred.

Example: A female macaw species develops a the ability to lay twice the amount of healthy eggs relative to the norm of that species... It's a successful evolutionary change. Successive generations are less likely to revert to a genome that produces less eggs. It is therefore dependent on the historical context of that species' evolutionary path. Not independent.

Some changes are independent some are not... your comment was rather absolute when in fact there are more factors than meet the eye...

There is no straining of the odds. It is a pure random walk. You're calculations are vastly overstated. If you disagree and believe your odds hold true, then you should submit them for peer review in scientific journals.

However, I don't think your odds matter anyway, given the near infinite nature of the universe.

Already addressed above. It's a random walk.

Purely speculative on your part to declare the formation of DNA as a random walk... but you are only fortifying my calculation... not hurting it. As commented in my previous post, DNA is exclusively comprised of 'left-handed' molecules, the requirement is irrefutable. Additionally, the double helical nature of DNA which finally 'stabilizes' the torsional strains of the singular backbone are the work of highly specialized proteins not the work of a haphazard accident... you could wait trillions of years and a lonely strand of DNA would never twist on its own to form that configuration... sadly, it too requires a huge deal of entropic energy. All measurable amounts really... no magic there....

I'm not going to comment on this other than to repeat: if you believe in your odds calculations, you should submit them for peer review.

Others have done this before me, to no avail... these studies get swept under the rug by smug scientists who don't want to face the fact that maybe there is something more to this picture than they originally thought...

You never provided your definition of speciation, so I don't know how to respond. Animal husbandry is an example of arfitical speciation - but we have observed natural speciation.

Again, I will repeat:

I do believe in most of data provided by evolutionary experiments... I just happen to believe that 'evolution' is a process guided by GOD and not by purposeless chance.

In this sense, that's why I don't use the term evolution as loosely as others would... at it's core the secular definition of evolution implies a random selectiveness to genetic alterations. Whereas I believe we are in fact observing a guided process.

^^^ And don't confuse this for what I want taught in schools...
This is my personal belief drawn from the concerns regarding origins. And introduces a model that allows for the gap between origins and adaptive speciation to be bridged. That the model in my view is GOD driven, is irrelevant to the fact that I feel the concerns need to be taught...

Since 'science' cannot produce data to disprove the notion that GOD provided the biological template behind genetics... I will wait 'till they can. Since I know this won't happen, no one can disprove that what I believe is wrong.

Evolutionary science in and of itself doesn't make claims either way as to the original clockmaker. There are evolutionary scientists who believe God set everything in motion, there are some who believe everything occured by chance, and there are some who (like me) take the "I don't know and that's okay for now" stance. If you have a problem with certain Evolutionary Scientists, you should take it up with them.

Addressed above.

First of all, what is "my group"?

Second, I hinge my faith for the origin of life on nothing. I've said it several times - I don't know the answer, and I'm not inclined to have a position either way on the origin of the universe.

I don't want this to become a debate on evolution. Save it for someone who cares more than I do. I'm soley focused on keeping that which has no evidence (ID, in this case) out of a science class, where evidence is the foundation. You have problems with evolution, fine. I'll humor you and say that evolution is a load of crap. That doesn't mean we should teach ID instead, but rather we should stop teaching evolution. As it turns out, the bulk of the scientific community happens to disagree that evolution is crap. Either way, you still don't have a case for teaching ID in a science class.

Teaching ID means that one is acknowledging that the evolutionary model is missing step 1.... everything from step 1 to step 1,000,000,000 can be accounted for and explained... the failure to explain step 1 however opens the door for a question to be asked... ID simply requests that the question be asked... How did a purly inorganic world, give rise to the molecule that would be the basis of all biological organisms???

Answering the question itself is not a necessary requirement. Like Yonivore once stated, Aliens could be the explanation behind DNA....

[boutons_]

While the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward.

===============

Source: University of Chicago Press Journals

Posted: May 16, 2006


Small Molecule Interactions Were Central To The Origin Of Life

In an important new paper forthcoming in the June issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, Robert Shapiro (New York University) argues against the widely held theory that the origin of life began with the spontaneous appearance of a large, replicating molecule such as RNA. Instead, Shapiro raises an alternative that does not depend on a "stupendously improbable accident," presenting the more plausible idea that life began within a mixture of simple organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reaction cycles and an external source of available energy.
"The diversity of organic chemistry, with its harvest of competing, interconnected reactions, becomes an asset rather than a liability in the case of the energy-driven system," explains Shapiro. "The existence of side reaction paths can provide the network with the capacity of reacting to cir stances."

Shapiro outlines how replicator theories, though they have been supported by "prebiotic" syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents, are highly unlikely. The creation of a molecule that can self-replicate requires the combination of diverse chemicals in a long sequence of reactions in a specific order, interspersed by complicated separations, purifications, and changes in locale.

Instead, Shapiro introduces the idea of a "driver" reaction, linked to a free energy source, that helps convert an unorganized mixture into a organized, self-regulated metabolic network.

"If we wish a more plausible origin of life, then we must work with the assumption that life began, somehow, among one of the mixtures of simple organic molecules that are produced by abiotic processes," writes Shapiro. "Nature will be instructing us, rather than we attempting to impose our schemes onto it."

Reference: Robert Shapiro "Small Molecule Interactions Were Central to the Origin of Life." The Quarterly Review of Biology, June 2006.

[Mr. Peabody]

Google it. You're good for that. Or what? Are we just supposed to twiddle our thumbs and assume no one knows anything???

No, but we are supposed to assume that our knowledge is fallible.

His attributes are described in HIS Word.... If a message contradicts the very essence of these attributes... then it is not from GOD... <--- and these attributes don't lend themselves to misinterpretation... These attributes include Holiniess, Majesty, Truth, Omniscience, Omnipresence, All-Powerful Sovereignty, HE is the very manifestation of LOVE...

You said yourself that if a message is not holy, truthful, majestic, etc. it is not from God. My question is how do you know if a message is holy, etc., unless you have first interpreted that message by means of your admittedly limited, fallible understanding?

[DarkReign]

Aren't you the guy that read a whole 10 pages of the Bible and put it down because it was "boring"? Yet you argue with Christians as if you have an intimate understanding of God, Scripture and others knowledge of God. How is that possible?

I have no intimate understanding of God. Never claimed I did. You claim you do, which is impossible. What? Because you read a book supposedly about God, you know more than me now?

That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.
And for what it's worth I'm not a "signed" member of a Church but I am a full fledged member of the Body of Christ.

You telling me how much "cred" I have is laughable, JJ. Like I care what a Bible-thumping, religious zealot thinks of my "cred". In other parts of the world (yup, there are more places than this), youd be jailed for heretical behavior by other like-minded religious zealots....who just so happened to read a book about God not named the Holy Bible.

No, those individuals know nothing more or less about God than me. Sorry, they are just leaders/followers of The Popular Guess. Congratulations on conforming to the bull .

Baaaaa...

[Mr. Peabody]

No one knows about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.

You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

[2centsworth]

You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

the more you read and study the bible the more insight you will have into what God wants. However, knowing and doing are two different thing.

[clambake]

I'll try again. God (or the invisible man in the sky) is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing. This is the biggest money making con job on earth. How can people be so influenced by words on paper? People make mistakes? Their only human? Well, I happen to be human and I say slaughter all the aholes that rape our children. I say slaughter all the aholes that attempt to cover up this "human mistake". Apparently your god doesn't seem to care.

[Mr. Peabody]

How can people be so influenced by words on paper? People make mistakes? Their only human?

We are all influenced by words on paper. The differences arise when we disagree over which papers to believe.

[Mr. Peabody]

I'll try again. God (or the invisible man in the sky) is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing. This is the biggest money making con job on earth.

I don't know that anyone is saying God is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing, as it is an absurd statement.

I suppose it is possible for people to say that God could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but not responsible for the individual actions of man or acts of nature.

[Phenomanul]

While the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward.

===============

Source: University of Chicago Press Journals

Posted: May 16, 2006


Small Molecule Interactions Were Central To The Origin Of Life

In an important new paper forthcoming in the June issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, Robert Shapiro (New York University) argues against the widely held theory that the origin of life began with the spontaneous appearance of a large, replicating molecule such as RNA. Instead, Shapiro raises an alternative that does not depend on a "stupendously improbable accident," presenting the more plausible idea that life began within a mixture of simple organic molecules, multiplied through catalyzed reaction cycles and an external source of available energy.
"The diversity of organic chemistry, with its harvest of competing, interconnected reactions, becomes an asset rather than a liability in the case of the energy-driven system," explains Shapiro. "The existence of side reaction paths can provide the network with the capacity of reacting to cir stances."

Shapiro outlines how replicator theories, though they have been supported by "prebiotic" syntheses carried out by chemists using modern apparatus and purified reagents, are highly unlikely. The creation of a molecule that can self-replicate requires the combination of diverse chemicals in a long sequence of reactions in a specific order, interspersed by complicated separations, purifications, and changes in locale.

Instead, Shapiro introduces the idea of a "driver" reaction, linked to a free energy source, that helps convert an unorganized mixture into a organized, self-regulated metabolic network.

"If we wish a more plausible origin of life, then we must work with the assumption that life began, somehow, among one of the mixtures of simple organic molecules that are produced by abiotic processes," writes Shapiro. "Nature will be instructing us, rather than we attempting to impose our schemes onto it."

Reference: Robert Shapiro "Small Molecule Interactions Were Central to the Origin of Life." The Quarterly Review of Biology, June 2006.

This theory or approach, though a step in the right direction... still hinges on processes not observed anywhere in the natural world.... all the more reason to raise the question on origins... this guy like myself is trying to find out. So don't give me your typical highly opinionated and unsubstatiated, outburst of lies -- 'while the minds of the Creationists/IDers remains closed and ignorant, science marches forward' please...

Either way, if one assumes that there were molecules that pre-dated DNA or RNA... we would have to conclusively show how these missing 'abiotic' molecules would form? We would also have to explain why we don't see their remnants today? This article is much ado about nothing.... but thank you for posting an article that describes in some depth some of the experiments being conducted by the scientific community on the subject of origins.... Note how much tampering is required... In the end, all it shows is that we can't even create a stable non-reverting broth of amino acids...

[Phenomanul]

No, but we are supposed to assume that our knowledge is fallible.

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???

You said yourself that if a message is not holy, truthful, majestic, etc. it is not from God. My question is how do you know if a message is holy, etc., unless you have first interpreted that message by means of your admittedly limited, fallible understanding?

For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

Again, this is all in the Bible... which I believe to be true.

[scott]

^^^ And don't confuse this for what I want taught in schools...
This is my personal belief drawn from the concerns regarding origins. And introduces a model that allows for the gap between origins and adaptive speciation to be bridged. That the model in my view is GOD driven, is irrelevant to the fact that I feel the concerns need to be taught...

What is it you want taught in schools then? Maybe I'm just confused. I've already acknowledged that concerns should be taught. That doesn't mean ID should be taught? Do you want ID taught in science classes or not?

Teaching ID means that one is acknowledging that the evolutionary model is missing step 1.... everything from step 1 to step 1,000,000,000 can be accounted for and explained... the failure to explain step 1 however opens the door for a question to be asked... ID simply requests that the question be asked... How did a purly inorganic world, give rise to the molecule that would be the basis of all biological organisms???

I agree, the question should be asked... I disagree with you, however, that ID "simply request that the question be asked"... ID proposes an answer... that is more than a simple request that a question be asked.

Have you ignored throughout this post where I encouraged people who believe in ID to continue on with their research and academic pursuits? All I've asked is that an admittedly non-scientific theory be kept out of science classrooms. You have yet to answer my question... I'll ask for the third time:

What is wrong with wanting to keeping theories out of science classrooms unless there is scientific evidence to validate them?

[jochhejaam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
No one knows about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.

You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God? That is a scary thought. Those people don't know any more about God than you or I do. We are all getting our information from the same book, why are they any more of an authority than we are?

As for Mother Theresa, I applaud her altruism, and while it may make her an authority on being a good person, it certainly does not make her an authority on God.

What would she know about God that we don't? It's all in the Bible.

Peabody!?! I realize that DR's Method of Operation is to grossly exaggerate the content of a post to the point where it's almost impossible to decipher who or what he's replying to but "et tu brute"?

Here's a summary;

-DR said "no one knows about God"

- I responded with "even the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa"?

And your response to that exchange was "You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God"?

Where was it implied that any of them was an authority?

[smeagol]

I don't know that anyone is saying God is responsible for everything and responsible for nothing, as it is an absurd statement.

I suppose it is possible for people to say that God could be responsible for the creation of the universe, but not responsible for the individual actions of man or acts of nature.

clamdude . . . even Mr P gets it

[Guru of Nothing]

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???




For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

Weird, you refererence the Holy Spirit and God, but not Jesus, in your lengthy paragraph.

Let's agree not to draw conclusions, except to say it's complicated.

[Phenomanul]

Weird, you refererence the Holy Spirit and God, but not Jesus, in your lengthy paragraph.

Let's agree not to draw conclusions, except to say it's complicated.

Humans are fallible indeed.... but since when were we speaking in complete absolutes... Hey, if we don't know anything why bother asking??? Why bother discussing???

For the umpteenth time... we are being guided by the will of the Holy Spirit. I either choose to follow or I don't... The message is usually on a personal level, or is simply a strenghtening of my spirit to prevent a stumbling fall into temptation's grip... you act as if I'm being instructed to give the world a message which is beyond me... I told you I never claimed to be a profet. Which is why those claiming ill-will on their brothers, in the name of GOD are crazy... ill-will is not harbored by the true follower of Christ. Yes, we may have our enemies but we are also told that GOD will take care of them for us... we should never take GOD's justice in our own hands.

He's there.

[Phenomanul]

What is it you want taught in schools then? Maybe I'm just confused. I've already acknowledged that concerns should be taught. That doesn't mean ID should be taught? Do you want ID taught in science classes or not?



I agree, the question should be asked... I disagree with you, however, that ID "simply request that the question be asked"... ID proposes an answer... that is more than a simple request that a question be asked.

Have you ignored throughout this post where I encouraged people who believe in ID to continue on with their research and academic pursuits? All I've asked is that an admittedly non-scientific theory be kept out of science classrooms. You have yet to answer my question... I'll ask for the third time:

What is wrong with wanting to keeping theories out of science classrooms unless there is scientific evidence to validate them?

You are mistaken, ID does not answer the question... Creationism does. That is the difference between the two movements and also why the former is classified as a scientific movement while the latter is classified as a theistic one...

Again, ID forces the student to question the inconsistencies of the evolutionary model at point zero due to the numerous hurdles posed by the 'origin of life' issue and how they relate to the genesis of any biological progression model... including you guessed it... evolution. Specifically, that without DNA, the evolutionary model has no substance to work with... and essentially can't begin. Therefore, this concern must be addressed before telling the students to accept a model that describes our natural world... while leaving out the part where man is yet to understand (and cannot prove) how said model began. Logically, the same teacher that exposes them to 'evolution' would have to expose them to this conundrum. Now, why is that so hard to understand???

True, there is no 'first-hand' evidence available for origins... Since no one alive was there to gather data... We therefore have to seek out answers based on observations of how the natural world functions around us... Enter fields such as Chemistry and Molecular Biology...

The study of chemical reactions today allows us to quantify the entropic values for the reactions that produce DNA. More importantly we realize that the lack of required enzymes in the earliest 'chemical broth' would pose an even greater hurdle and hamper the kinetics of said formation... DNA replication alone requires about 30 different proteins and the translation process another 90... WOW!!! with a capital W. As I said earlier... this is quantifiable, and reproducible scientific data... stemming from scientific observation.

The odds for the formation of large DNA strands without the help of said enzymes or enzyme altered concentrations is for all intents and purposes zero. More specifically, the probability of success for the formation of a growing polypeptide chain is a function of the number of bases required for the requested DNA or RNA strand.

And you are also mistaken that the absence of 'first-hand' data dictates that a concept cannot be taught in a science classroom. No one has seen the core of the earth, we can only infer what lies at the center of our planet based on observations of earth's magnetic field (i.e. 'second-hand' data)... The same was true for the other concepts I mentioned in the earlier post (dark-matter). We have 'second-hand' data for dark-matter that is inferred from gravitational pulls on other celestial bodies and from rotational inconsistencies observed for certain galaxies, not from 'first-hand' data... And yet, we teach those concepts in school... No one raises about it either...

Also, a theory does not have to provide the answers it seeks out before it is classified as science... in fact, the concept of anti-matter is the subject of much study and yet many consider the search for proof in said field to be speculative in nature while others classify the field as pure 'science fiction'...

Somehow, ID is relegated into having to provide 'first-hand' data when everyone knows it cannot be provided. What I'm getting at is that the data IDers do have is 'second-hand' data... but that in this case we are being told that the data isn't enough... Many also question how a field which bases its entire platform on trying to decipher the issue of origins, can even be a field. To that, I point to the anti-matter analogy. Scientific proponents wanting to discredit the theory of Intelligent Design can't have it both ways.

The bigger problem and essentially the core of this great controversy (boutons_ alludes to it all the time) is that the ID movement is seen as the platform for Creationists... when by all practical definitions they are not the same thing. This perspective is unfair and dismissive... and goes completely against the scientific ideals and principles established for all fields of study. Science is a tool that aids in the search for truth, and helps us describe our natural world... not one that exists to prove or disprove the existence of GOD... or for that matter dispel the beliefs of the world's religions. That was never the intent... And yet many people have placed their whole-hearted faith on science alone... Ironic isn't it???

[Buddy Holly]

So 2000 years ago, 12 ignorant jewish fishermen and their followers invented a story that is believed by billions of people today.

Yeah, right . . .

Really, that's how the bible came to be?

It's years and years of man's simple point of view and ways to control the gulible minds of humans.

[Buddy Holly]

Show me another example in history of a book of fiction that is believed to be true by billions of people.

Why by billions?

Look at scientology.

Look at those geeks who are so into Star Trek and Star Wars. That's religion in its simpliest form.

[Mr. Peabody]

Peabody!?! I realize that DR's Method of Operation is to grossly exaggerate the content of a post to the point where it's almost impossible to decipher who or what he's replying to but "et tu brute"?

Here's a summary;

-DR said "no one knows about God"

- I responded with "even the Pope, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa"?

And your response to that exchange was "You actually believe that the Pope and Billy Graham are authorities on God"?

Where was it implied that any of them was an authority?

Read DR's statement again

No one knows about God. Being a member of any Church does not make you any sort of authority on God, his teachings or intentions.

Your reply

That includes everyone from the Pope to Billy Graham to Mother Theresa...
What little cred you had in this thread (rappers feel free to use that line) has just vanished.

At least read the thread before calling me out and accusing me of exxagerating facts.