2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhy does it have to be in his own words ?
In your own words.
Are you pursuing this kind of logic ?
1.) Because I did not speak in my own words, therefore it is invalid.
2.) Because I may not have understood every detail of what was presented, therefore it is invalid.
Why do you insist the presentation has to be in my or RJHind's own words ?
If you present a functional rebuttal, by way of article or another short YouTube presentation, I do not demand that it be in YOUR own words.
What's up ?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWhy does it have to be in his own words ?
Why does it have to be in his own words ?
Are you pursuing this kind of logic ?
1.) Because I did not speak in my own words, therefore it is invalid.
2.) Because I may not have understood [b]every detail of what was presented, therefore it is invalid.
Why do you insist the presentation has to be in my or RJHind's own words ?
If yo ...[text shortened]... er short YouTube presentation, I do not demand that it be in YOUR own words.
What's up ?[/b]
Because otherwise i'm going to have to buy the book, read all 624 pages of it and then get back to him. It seems a trifle OTT do you not think? Coupled with the fact he's not read the book it would all see rather pointless.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Why does it have to be in his own words ?
Because otherwise i'm going to have to buy the book, read all 624 pages of it and then get back to him. It seems a trifle OTT do you not think? Coupled with the fact he's not read the book it would all see rather pointless.[/b]
Because otherwise i'm going to have to buy the book, read all 624 pages of it and then get back to him. It seems a trifle OTT do you not think? Coupled with the fact he's not read the book it would all see rather pointless.
Let's not mix up requests then.
The history of this matter, as I remember it was:
1.) I had a link to a short YouTube by Stephen Meyers on Protien Synthesis. I asked if anyone with a straight face could tell me such a method in nature was not the result of intelligent design.
2.) I think you stepped foward and spoke of the limitations of your YouTube usage, and could the same material be provided in written form.
3.) I think then RJHinds must have linked you to what must be the entire text of Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell".
4.) I suppose then you requested the same material to be provided to you in RJH's own words.
5.) I think I puzzled over why you needed it in words other than those of Stephen Meyers'
(Are you asleep yet ?)
6.) Now the issue is the incovenience of having to purchase and read the entire book. And whether or not RJH has read it. (Or perhaps me too).
This became a bit too complicated. Originally I simply asked that a short THREE or so minute presentation with animation of nature's way of Protien Synthesis seemed to be to bare the marks of Intelligence.
If you don't want to watch that little video, that's fine with me. Now, what I SAW and what I HEARD in that little video was an impressive succession of steps in the process, which to me, could not have arisen except by a planning, intentional intelligent designer. That's all.
In short, "Stuff like that just doesn't happen accidently." I am sure that the entire book of Meyers ,which I have not read, goes into manifold detail on the same theme.
Originally I didn't require anyone to give a full critique of the whole book "Signature in the Cell" by Dr. Stephen Meyers. I think the SHORT YouTubes can be very communicative.
Anyway, for what it is worth, that is what has transpired here around that little link:
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillRight we're back on track.Because otherwise i'm going to have to buy the book, read all 624 pages of it and then get back to him. It seems a trifle OTT do you not think? Coupled with the fact he's not read the book it would all see rather pointless.
Let's not mix up requests then.
The history of this matter, as I remember it was:
1.) I had a link to a hat little link:
[b] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU [/b]
But the question is can this and any complexity come about in cumulative steps?
For what it's worth here is an review of Signature in the Cell written by Darrel Falk who serves as president of the BioLogos foundation. He's also a Christian and an evolutionary biologist and doesn't support ID.
http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-cell/
and Meyer's response
http://biologos.org/blog/response-to-darrel-falks-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/
Originally posted by jaywillThis one is even better.Because otherwise i'm going to have to buy the book, read all 624 pages of it and then get back to him. It seems a trifle OTT do you not think? Coupled with the fact he's not read the book it would all see rather pointless.
Let's not mix up requests then.
The history of this matter, as I remember it was:
1.) I had a link to a ...[text shortened]... hat little link:
[b] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU [/b]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=VhXYU1YP7iI
Originally posted by Proper KnobThanks.
Right we're back on track.
But the question is can this and any complexity come about in cumulative steps?
For what it's worth here is an review of Signature in the Cell written by Darrel Falk who serves as president of the BioLogos foundation. He's also a Christian and an evolutionary biologist and doesn't support ID.
http://biolo ...[text shortened]... ponse
http://biologos.org/blog/response-to-darrel-falks-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/
I'll check it.
Another question.
Does ANYONE think that Charles Darwin would have written Origin of Species HAD he known this sceintific knowledge ?
I think Charles Darwin might not have written his book had he had this information.
&feature=related
Originally posted by jaywillAbiogenesis and evolution by natural selection are two different ball games.
Thanks.
I'll check it.
Another question.
Does ANYONE think that Charles Darwin would have written [b]Origin of Species HAD he known this sceintific knowledge ?
I think Charles Darwin might not have written his book had he had this information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpNt8d2jgSU&feature=related[/b]
Originally posted by Proper KnobDid you notice this statement.
Right we're back on track.
But the question is can this and any complexity come about in cumulative steps?
For what it's worth here is an review of Signature in the Cell written by Darrel Falk who serves as president of the BioLogos foundation. He's also a Christian and an evolutionary biologist and doesn't support ID.
http://biolo ...[text shortened]... ponse
http://biologos.org/blog/response-to-darrel-falks-review-of-signature-in-the-cell/
To be sure, under the right conditions some building blocks of proteins, the amino acids, form easily from simpler chemicals, as Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago discovered in pioneering experiments in the 1950s. But going from there to proteins and enzymes is a different matter.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo if someone synthesizes a protein, you will be willing to change your tune, right?
Did you notice this statement.
To be sure, under the right conditions some building blocks of proteins, the amino acids, form easily from simpler chemicals, as Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey of the University of Chicago discovered in pioneering experiments in the 1950s. But going from there to proteins and enzymes is a different matter.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357If it could be shown that proteins can be formed without some intelligence
So if someone synthesizes a protein, you will be willing to change your tune, right?
behind it, then I would consider that good evidence that life could occur
without supernatural intervention, but not conclusive evidence.
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you regard the Miller-Urey experiment to be one without intelligence behind it? After all, they estimated the early earth conditions and duplicated them, to some degree. That took thinking.
If it could be shown that proteins can be formed without some intelligence
behind it, then I would consider that good evidence that life could occur
without supernatural intervention, but not conclusive evidence.
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe evidence is the same, its how its viewed that is different. We do not live
The evidence for the 'billions scenario' is overwehlming gathered from numerous scientific disciplines. The evidence for the 'thousands scenario' amounts to nothing.
in two different universes where one gets one set of data and the other
another set. You have assumptions about events that may or may not have
taken place when you think they could have, your assumptions could be right
or wrong, so the word "overwehlming" just means you seem to agree with it
nothing more.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaywhat they dabble in or what thoughts they have concerning other topics is of no importance. cosmology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Oh, I'm sure they have things to say, maybe not in their field but that has
never stopped anyone from talking about any subject.
Kelly
Originally posted by JS357I am not sure. I suppose the early earth conditions could have happened
Do you regard the Miller-Urey experiment to be one without intelligence behind it? After all, they estimated the early earth conditions and duplicated them, to some degree. That took thinking.
by chance. So that seems okay to that point. We will have to see how
things advance from there.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe problem is that the evolutionist do not have a consistent theory from
what they dabble in or what thoughts they have concerning other topics is of no importance. cosmology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
start to finish that can be supported. Therefore, they will need help from
other branches of science. Otherwise, their theory is useless and is only
speculation.