Via Dean Sorenson (sorry for my "new" headline -sometime I can't help myself)
Scientists use "Intelligent Design" to explore plausible theory of the origins of life.
"not a hypothesis anymore, it's an experimental fact." says Ramanarayanan ("Ram") Krishnamurthy....
Originally shared by rasha kamel
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120131175629.htm
Thanks for sharing. I find that many times--perhaps most--a person needs to see things in three different ways or three different times before it syncs in. 3x3=9+1
ReplyDeleteAre you being sarcastic when claiming "Intelligent Design" has anything to do with this research?
ReplyDeletewell they did have to carefully plan and conduct the experiment.... (maybe)
ReplyDeleteI am saying that if we are intelligent, then the design is intelligent as well. That leaves the possibilities open for many different things. People think that quantum physics disprove a god or gods, but I think that gods are probably just representations and interpretations of life. Still, a lot of strange things have happened to me and other people. I'm not going to put lines around my interpretations. We are all interconnected and so to discredit intelligent design makes no sense when we are using our intelligence to design things ourselves. What's the difference between creationism and the Big Bang? Not much in my opinion. Also, the use of prime numbers and the correlation with mathematical structures I think cannot be disregarded a fluke.
ReplyDeleteDean Sorenson I am confused. You link to an article that shows experimentally that carbohydrates can be created with no external intervention, but then proceed to claim that some intelligence must be involved? Don't you see the contradiction?
ReplyDeleteDean Sorenson "We are all interconnected and so to discredit intelligent design makes no sense when we are using our intelligence to design things ourselves."
ReplyDeleteWhat is there to discredit? "Intelligent Design" isn't a scientific theory with any testable hypothesis. Just because I can't disprove some hypothesis does not make it true. Surely you're familiar with Russell's teapot?
It depends on what we consider intelligent, but yes, I do see how it is mostly a contradiction. I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between determinism and interdeterminism.
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with abiogenesis?
ReplyDeleteA coin on a table may have been tossed. That doesn't prove that no one could have set it there.
ReplyDeleteUh, ok. You're comparing a known man-made inorganic object to biological systems that grow, multiply, and adapt over billions of years?
ReplyDeleteWhen a man made pie get's eaten, is it organic or inorganic?
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? Is a man-made pie made of organic material (flour/wheat, sugar cane, eggs, etc)? Yes. Does the process of eating said material somehow make it anything other than organic?
ReplyDeleteUm... Yeah the pie thing has me confused too... But yes I am simplifying the discussion with the coin toss. Unless I misunderstood the discussion - the point is that since elements will combine to form compounds and that they can then form more complex structures then there obviously cannot be any possible God or "force" or any such thing. I don't agree but would be glad to listen with an open mind. (I'm not a litteralist or fundamentalist or whatever) For example while I believe in God - I understand evolution. I don't have to believe in things that are demonstratively factual.
ReplyDeleteA pie is an inorganic thing once cooked, but if you look down far enough, it is moving. What is the difference? The degree at which it is moving relative to our bodies. We are merely carbon copies of our parents with some experience mixed in. We fear death, but we are always dying and always alive until our bodies shut down. Once that happens the energy just transfers. You cannot separate the two in the grand scheme. We are only here because the Earth is here, but do you consider the Earth organic or inorganic? It goes through chemical processes like we do. It is a matter of perspective. Neither is wrong or right. If not intelligent design, beautiful design.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, the process does what it does by itself, but it is an interconnected system. Since it is untrue to say that it is deterministic or that it isn't. It is relative and determined internally which gives it's structure and intelligence or at least information.
Right, I'm not arguing that God does not exist. I would only argue that current research suggests that a supernatural entity is not required for these processes to begin. 100 years ago I would not be able to state such a thing because we simply didn't know all that we know today, and I would wager that 100 years into the future we will know a lot more about the machinery of life (and I doubt we're going to find tiny angels inside the molecules pushing things about:))
ReplyDeleteDean Sorenson "A pie is an inorganic thing once cooked, but if you look down far enough, it is moving."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's still considered organic because it's made up of organic molecules. And no, "moving" is not enough to make something organic. Otherwise you could argue that a watch is organic. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
"We are merely carbon copies of our parents with some experience mixed in."
Yikes. Looks like you are lacking in basic biology, too.
The rest of this woo-woo about "energy" and "moving relative to our bodies" and "the energy just transfers" is similarly silly and ill-defined.