Unlocking the Mystery of Life (Chapter 11 of 12)

[betamale3]

Scientific explanations exclude magical explanations because saying something happened by magic is not an explanation at all, its a roundabout way of saying "I DONT KNOW".

Likewise saying "god did it" is a way of saying "I dont know", without appearing ignorant.

[Fulltilt1973]

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Intelligence was used...to recreate conditions that are necessary to create a cell. Seems to make plenty of sense. That's a pretty typical ID argument.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

They applied biological principles to a biological system. Your argument is comparable to saying that applying growth factors to a tissue culture doesn't accurately resemble in vivo tissue conditions because someone had to use intelligence to figure out that you need to apply growth factors.

Nevertheless, they succeeded in what is supposed to be impossible. To think that they won't continue to build on this research is absolute ignorance.

[hihelloheyhowsitgoin]

@TheSeventhSon

How did they succeed in what is supposed to be impossible? How would we exist if cells could not be created? Its the improbability of the cells being created by chance that is the problem. What I am saying is that it doesn't really prove much if they can describe the processes and create life because of their knowledge of it. In the end, they are intelligent beings and these cells have been created by intelligent designers. Thats why it doesn't do much against intelligent design.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

You're failing in two ways here.

First, not many biologists agree that the development of primitive life from complex molecules is improbable. That is a view held by the creators of this video and its biased due to their attempt to push ID. While ID claims to not associate with anyone deity, typically those that try to fund ID advocates are of the Christian beliefs. Those people are often the ones that have a problem with science without god.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Second, if you're still holding on to the intelligence was used argument, you should therefore conclude that there must be intelligence to account for tissue growth in vivo. Scientists are utilizing what they know from biological systems. It's not a matter of "using intelligence", it's a matter of recreating biological conditions. The biological conditions aren't a bunch of "intelligent processes". They are unguided and driven by physical laws. We simply recreate that.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

No, I understand quite well what you're saying. You are reporting claims from one source and asserting that a designer exists without evidence of this designer. You are taking arbitrary concepts and throwing them out there as if they somehow support that which has no evidence for its existence.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

I never made the claim that the majority was right. Science can definitely be wrong. The problem is that you're constantly stating that abiogenesis is improbable when there are a lot of people, with credentials, that disagree with you. So, your statements aren't necessarily true as you constantly suggest.

There aren't inconsistencies or arguments about evolution occurring.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

First, there's no reason to assume that anything was designed because we have no evidence of any designer. We aren't aware of aliens with life producing capabilities. We aren't aware of a supernatural being that is proven to exist. Second, your argument constantly relies on what we simply have not discovered yet. You sit here and tell me, "we can't do this yet, so everything must be designed!" No, that's a fallacy.

[ChrisnStarry]

We ARE NOT accidental animals!!!

[09205479428]

Where is part 11, this video clip is supposedly part. 5.

[Uaz31]

No, no, no. Those mount rushmore curves are complete coincidence that they look like people's faces. They naturally formed that way from many years of volcanic activity and plate tectonics. Its insane to think that a man could or would have carved those and if you look closely at them they don't really resemble faces at all but only distorted curves from rain and natural pressures. Anyone with half a brain can see that!

[fretbuzz6]

god's in your head. nuff said

[Briavel1]

“To me, the great promise of design is that it gives us a new tool and explanation that belongs in the tool chest of science. INTELLIGENT CAUSES ARE REAL. THEY LEAVE EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE. And a healthy science is a science that seeks the truth and lets the evidence speak for itself... When I look at the evidence objectively, without ruling out the possibility of design…design just leaps up as the most likely explanation. And that’s why I believe that it’s true.”

[TheSeventhSon]

@Briavel1

Your only evidence is that the world is complex. That is hardly evidence for god. That simply means that the world is complex.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

It's complex due to many, many years of evolution. Chance is being ruled by a biased sources. There are significantly more scientists that don't think that it's improbable. You first need evidence of a designer before you can conclude that a designer exists and is therefore responsible for life. Can you suggest any evidence?

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

The whole ID movement hinges on what we don't currently know. It suggests that, because there is more to discover, we should just stop and conclude that intelligence was responsible for everything. That is not science. Do you know what the difference between micro and macro evolution is, genetically?

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

That's exactly what intelligent design proposes. It's the idea that the origin of life is best explained by originating from an intelligent source. That translates to, "we're not sure, so we're going to make this arbitrary conclusion because we want to assume that god did it." You should research how genetically similar organisms are. It is theorized that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Note how different we are from chimps but how genetically similar we are.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

I asked you earlier if you could give me evidence for a designer. If you can't, then there's no reason to consider the idea of intelligent design. Yeah, it's a possibility. ANYTHING is a possibility. You need evidence for it to be considered in the realm of science. Saying that everything is complex is NOT evidence. That just means that everything is complex.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

I said previously, the whole idea of intelligent design hinges on the idea that things are too complex to have naturally formed. That is not a valid scientific argument. That relies on what we don't currently know. That presupposes that a designer exists. Prove the designer exists.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

There's a video of Dr. Ken Miller where he demonstrates that a flagellum isn't "irreducibly complex" as this video would suggest.

No, it's not a valid argument. It would still rely on what we don't know and there is still no evidence for a designer. There are many things that science does not know, that doesn't mean we automatically conclude that a supreme being was responsible.

I've asked you several times, what evidence is there for a designer?

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

In other words, what evidence is there that suggests that a designer exists. Whether something is irreducibly complex or not says nothing about a designer. Nothing. Who is this designer? What are its characteristics? How can we detect it?

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

You mentioned the bacterial flagellum which has been shown by Dr. Ken Miller to not be irreducibly complex in the way that you seem to think. Systems can be irreducibly complex but that isn't to say that something couldn't have gradually evolved over time with functional parts. Really? We know that? This "degree of complexity" happens to function quite well on its own everyday. We have no reason to believe intelligence is at work there.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Scientists have created a cell. Your argument relies on what you think science doesn't already know. Just because we don't know how to do something does not give reason to conclude that some absurd supernatural explanation is valid.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Google search "scientists create cell". It was a rather huge accomplishment in the field considering so many people said that something like this couldn't be done. It will be interesting as they build on this research.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Yes, scientists create a cell. In other words, a cell was synthesized. I have no reason to assume that anything created a law. I have no reason to believe a higher power exists to accomplish that. Do you have evidence to suggest that a higher power created the physical laws?

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

We don't know a lot of things. We don't fully understand abiogenesis. We can't synthesize a lot of natural occurring compounds. We can't recreate organs currently. That's not to say we won't be able to in the future.

No, I'm suggesting that they are inherent in the universe. That seems to be the case.

I need evidence to support your claim. If you're going to insist that a designer exists, you need evidence.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

You continue to suggest life by design as being a valid option, but everytime I ask you for evidence of a designer, you just bring up some arbitrary scenario that someone didn't understand and therefore concluded must have been the result of god. What reason do we have to believe a designer exists? Complexity? No, that means nature is complex. Improbability? No, that argument relies on what we don't know.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

You constantly assert that it's improbably despite the fact that SO MANY scientists disagree with you. Your argument isn't valid.

You've been arguing that complexity MUST MEAN intelligence. I'm arguing that the only thing we can logically conclude from complexity is just that, IT'S COMPLEX.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

Letters are in no way comparable to molecules that follow physical laws. You do realize that evolutionary algorithms have been developed to show that incredibly complex simulations can arise spontaneously and on their own from following simple rules.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

No, it doesn't. They are molecules and they happen to form complex structures. They are still molecules that simply obey physical laws to interact.

Right, but it's analogous to simple rules in nature such as beneficial mutations surviving and detrimental mutations dying out. You're focusing too much on the idea of rules being "placed by someone" because you presuppose that that has to be the case.

[TheSeventhSon]

@hihelloheyhowsitgoin

I understand why you believe intelligent design and I would respect it if you didn't insist that there's evidence for it when your evidence is simply, "we don't know, it must be ID" or, "we're going to incorrectly calculate this to be improbable so it must be ID!" I don't presuppose anything, I'm using the simplest explanation. You are going a step further and making it more complex than it should be for no apparent reason by adding an intelligent source into the mix.

[prettyemofreak]

accept it dont believe it dont believe it one thing we know as humans thats for sure is that when a fact is a fact it doesn't become a non fact just because people believe it or not or accept it or not the fact is that GOD is going to throw anyone that is ignorant selfish and a coward to deny HIM

[marius1ro]

@prettyemofreak we should look at believers (uneducated, burdened, troubled) and the atheist (scientist, civilized nations, people that have no major problems in their lives) to see if your statement hold any water.

[prettyemofreak]

@marius1ro burdened? troubled ? this is so swrong and way off in fact its the opposite you got it so wrong old turd. as for atheists being civilized thats the most delusional thing i have ever heard hitler killed christians and jews because he was an atheist he believed darwin's theory and thought the germans were the big smart and strong breed to dominate

[prettyemofreak]

1ro Mao Zedong (over 40 million Chinese starved in "Great leap forward" late 1950s - early 60s)

2 Josif Stalin (over 20-30 million Russians murdered, 1930s-1953)

3. Pol Pot (killed up to 50% of Kampuchea's population)

4. Ho Chi Minh (caused Vietnam War, one of bloodiest wars of 20th century, as 3rd after World Wars, which later created massive refugee problem

[prettyemofreak]

5. Kim Il-Sung (caused Korean War, North Korea's despot from 1949-94, who corrupted communist ideology to became a fedal family dynasty

all are communists

so atheists civilized? you are out of your damn mind you old fart to think atheists are civilized. When you take out any morals from the Bible out of religion you will become a country with countless murders of innocent people you have any idea what this country would of been like without Christianity ? it would have burned to the ground

[marius1ro]

You are so right, I see the truth in the Bible now. Atheist are savages, criminals one could say, they will burn in hell for not believing. Anyway, I believe now, because of all you said, and your kind manner of addressing me. Just goes to show that if since is wrong (in order for the Bible to be right) so is history. I realize you have the supreme truth, no need for me to tell you a different one. Good luck and half fun.

[prettyemofreak]

@marius1ro ok boob ***have fun

[thebig1]

@prettyemofreak Everything that comes into being has a cause. Those are the facts. Darwinism doesn't explain that at all.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

Darwinism isn't supposed to explain how everything came to be. Not being able to explain everything does not mean a god must have been responsible. It means that not everything can be explained right now.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"Everything that comes into being has a cause" so what caused god?

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD God has always been he created everything you see. Life did not start in a bowl of soup as a certain college who tested the theory would have you believe. DNA is very complex and it to was thought up by a creator. True science proves GOD but the science you LIBERALS follow is nothing more than NEW AGE RELIGION. You Liberals say your secularists yet you bow down at the Atlar of religious science that denies God...THINK ABOUT IT!!!

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"God has always been"

pah, excuses excuses. The truth is you have no idea.

Ultimately your theory can be summed up as magic.

Liberal? What the hell has a theological/scientific argument got to do with a permissive character trait and just how permissive have I been towards your arguments? Crazy.

New religion? It dose take a measure of faith to trust any scientific test, but then you retest, and retest, and retest etc ... silly fool.

P.S. I don't deny god. Really, you know nothing.

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD Being LIBERAL has everything to do with it. You people don't want to believe or admit thewre is a God so you make up a religion that takes God out of the picture. Study history abit deeper you'll see I'm right in my thoughts on this subject. So therefore a theological/scientific argument can be made becauise it is at the very root of this argument.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"Being LIBERAL" "You people"

Infidel is the word you are looking for. To be liberal is to have a permissive character trait, it's not a religion and if you REALLY understood anything about me I am NOT a liberal person.

Second

"don't want to believe or admit thewre is a God"

What I want to be true is irrelevant. Science is only concerned with what is empirically testable. God is not testable, nor is magic and yet we don't need it to explain anything bar perhaps the origin universe

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD Science is not interested in what is testable at all. That is the biggest bunch of crock I have ever heard. Science, Academia, the courts and so on have a built in bias against everything christian...THOSE ARE THE FACTS. So much in regard to biolgy and DNA are proving everyday that we as a people are far different from animals and that earth itself is quite different from the rest of the universe. One day you will see we christians arent morons as you think we are.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"Science is not interested in what is testable at all. "

You have no business commenting on science until you have the first clue about it.

"Science, Academia, the courts and so on have a built in bias against everything christian."

Against everything christian ... seriously you really should think before you type.

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD No perhaps you should take your own advice. Everything I said has evidence to back it up and unlike you I'm not inside a bubble of my own little world like you. You take what " scientists " tell you as FACT when the truth is anything but. Do you ever watch the CNN, MSNBC, CBS or NBC they are in the tank for Liberalism/Socialism and everything that spits on Christianity and on Jews. And you claim I'm closeminded.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"So much in regard to biolgy and DNA are proving everyday that we as a people are far different from animals"

Biology is a science, so far it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt people are directly related to animals. Now you can believe whatever spiritual fairytale you like about the supernatural but there's absolutely nothing in Biology to back that daft claim up.

"earth itself is quite different from the rest of the universe"

N.B. You are talking to a Geologist.

different how

[thebig1]

@MaxSafeheaD Humanbeings couldn't live anywhere in the universe BUT ON EARTH. Plany and animal life can only live in one place THE EARTH. Nasa has already concluded this fact.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

"Nasa has already concluded this fact"

I'm guessing you didn't hear that from NASA.

Come on, seriously, do you think I was born yesterday?

Just you try finding that conclusion.

[Nogre00]

So now we need a rainbow designer, a crystal designer, and so on.

Design is infered because we can see people designing similar things today and there is no naturalistic explanation. We don't infer it from "information."

And we can't see some "intelligent designer" designing life today and we have a working theory of the origins of life called abiogenesis. The research behind the theory is still in its infancy, but that doesn't warrant jumping to intelligent design.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@Nogre00

But abiogenesis is hard to think about and god is so much easier because I don't have to think about it, it's definately the answer.

[waketherabble]

Um, there is a huge and unjustified leap in logic in the following:

Improbable + Specificity = Information.

[priyatmadi]

Are there somethings that we have never realize that they exist? Should we reject the possibility of an intelligent creator?

[nicein20001]

Charles Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University, said:

an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence.

[waketherabble]

The problem with this is that that whether or not the signals came from intelligent life can be tested scientifically. Moreover, if they purportedly come from an extraterrestrial source, the signals are themselves the product of a natural phenomenon--there is still NO need to invoke a supernatural explanation.

The argument that

[TheSeventhSon]

@nicein20001 DNA codes for proteins that obtain their structure based on physical properties. There's nothing really "intelligent" about that. It just works because physics allows it to. That is why DNA is not evidence for an intelligent designer.

[thebig1]

@TheSeventhSon Again DNA and everything else didn't just come into being. Everything that has to do with human beings and animals has a cause and a cause had a creator. You do everything you can to deny ID but you except Darwinism like GOSPEL. You may not see it but Darwinism is your religion and its a religion that has no basis in truth.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

Nice assumption, but that doesn't make it true. The development of a self replicating molecule did have a cause. There's no reason to believe that it did not develop on its own. I accept evolution as a scientific fact, because it is that. I'm sorry that you deny facts just because your holy book tells you to. I study these things and know them to be true. You can continue living in the dark, but no one will ever take you seriously.

[greglam]

@TheSeventhSon Um, isn't it actually referred to as the "theory of evolution"? And, nothing which at one time did not exist cannot bring itself into being. It is simply not possible for a molecule, or anything else, which did not exist to cause itself to be.

[TheSeventhSon]

@greglam

Yes, as everything idea in science is a "theory". For instance, electric circuit theory is referred to as a "theory". So, what is your point? Molecules can develop with basic chemicals and energy. The Miller-Urey experiment showed this. Also, why are you referring to theories that do not pertain to Darwin? Darwin appears to be what I was arguing here a while back.

[thebig1]

@TheSeventhSon When science in its trueist form is conducted it proves design in everything. Darwinism is on iots last legs and thats a fact.

[TheSeventhSon]

@thebig1

No, it does not. Nothing suggests that anything was designed. Darwinism on its last legs? This is what people that don't understand science actually think.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@thebig1

ROFL =D

comedy genius.

[MaxSafeheaD]

@nicein20001

"Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source" because we have alternative explainations for it's origin are far more plausable. Complex molecular chemistry is one thing, it's a completely different to beaming a complex signal across billions of light years of space! The sound of a boulder falling down a hill could be a message sequence if you're going to broaden the search THAT far!!!

[roniepao]

@nicein20001

it didnt came up to his mind.

[nicein20001]

This is an excellent series. Well done.

[gregrutz]

Only if you have never opened a science book or studied logic.

[thebig1]

@gregrutz This from a blind kool-aid drinker that has never opened up a bible himself and most likley never opened up a science book ON HIS OWN. He believes what his Liberal elitist teachers tell him to believe.

[MaxSafeheaD]

IF hyroglyphics where 90% "junk" then perhaps we would have to re-think how they formed.

Do any of the examples you will inevitably give over the next few minutes self-replicate withmodification? I don't mind betting at only 0:52 that NO, they do not.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Objects we 'know' where designed do not self-replicate with modification. Therefore they can not evolve. Ideas of designers is more symptomatic of a predominantly artificial environment than any insight against natural explanations.

Intelligence CAN be a scientific theory, so long as it's testable. You lie AGAIN =/

Supernatural ideas are not testable therefore CAN NOT make up knowledge - this is what the word FAITH is for.

[joroma77]

I got the bronze.....

[Korianne75]

second!!

[akanso]

first!