tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post3926702212005711007..comments2023-11-02T04:21:10.340-04:00Comments on The way the Ball bounces: Quote of the Day: "A Fluke of Fortune Bordering on the Unbelievable"BallBounceshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776039024486455199noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-35810202769785551932010-07-29T21:31:05.487-04:002010-07-29T21:31:05.487-04:00"xn--hrfn-woa I hope you realize that every o..."xn--hrfn-woa I hope you realize that every one of your arguments can be used in the defense of ID."<br /><br />No they cannot. My arguments rely on the existence of detailed scientific explanations of the facts. ID provides no detailed explanations (and no explanation at all, beyond the vacuous 'an unknown designer did something unknown at an unknown place and an unknown time).<br /><br />"My point is not to deny the Big Bang but rather to show that there is no natural reason for it to occur."<br /><br />And my point was that there is in fact considerable scientific explanation of the Big Bang.<br /><br />"As for DNA my point was that even assuming that it were possible given enough time and places that DNA would occur naturally it still would not bring that DNA to life."<br /><br />Then you are clearly ignorant of Abiogenesis research, which looks at more primitive forms of self-organisation (aka very primitive life), prior to the development of DNA -- most particularly the 'RNA world' hypothesis.<br /><br />"I know you love to believe that 'advanced' species evolved from more primitive species but that is not what the fossil records show. The fossil records would indicate that life on earth changed by huge leaps not slow evolution."<br /><br />This is quite simply false. Although the fossil record of the earliest lifeforms are necessarily spotty (least amount of hard body parts to be preserved, most 'over-writing' by later upheavals), there is still a wealth of fossil evidence demonstrating that your "huge leaps" were 'slow fuses' occurring over tens of millions of years, not 'explosions' as some thought. Thereafter the fossil record becomes even more blatantly gradualistic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-20822788873638719412010-07-29T17:39:34.289-04:002010-07-29T17:39:34.289-04:00xn--hrfn-woa I hope you realize that every one of...xn--hrfn-woa I hope you realize that every one of your arguments can be used in the defense of ID. <br /><br />My point is not to deny the Big Bang but rather to show that there is no natural reason for it to occur. Therefore logic would tell you that something beyond the natural world as we know it caused the Big Bang. <br /><br />As for DNA my point was that even assuming that it were possible given enough time and places that DNA would occur naturally it still would not bring that DNA to life. DNA is inert without life. The DNA in the dead squirrel on the road can not repair the dead squirrel and bring it back to life. It might be possible to take that DNA, put it in a living cell and clone the dead squirrel but first you need the living cell.<br /><br />I know you love to believe that 'advanced' species evolved from more primitive species but that is not what the fossil records show. The fossil records would indicate that life on earth changed by huge leaps not slow evolution. That pattern might indicate an intelligent designer's handiwork but would seemingly rule out random chance.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-7462845197213650402010-07-29T12:08:32.176-04:002010-07-29T12:08:32.176-04:00xn--hrfn-woa:
That was perfectly stated.xn--hrfn-woa:<br /><br />That was perfectly stated.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00145928340071215835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-62012247771655717822010-07-29T09:53:36.770-04:002010-07-29T09:53:36.770-04:00"Which we are not. We are not given by any na..."Which we are not. We are not given by any natural phenomena known to mankind enough time or enough places."<br /><br />Please provide detailed calculations to support this claim.<br /><br />"There is no logical explanation of the Big Bang. So given the impossibility of 'natural' existence..."<br /><br />(i) I dispute the assertion that there is "no logical explanation of the Big Bang". The work of Cosmologists appears to give substantial (if still incomplete) explanation.<br /><br />(ii) Even if something is not 'logically explained', does not mean that it did not happen.<br /><br />"...the mere fact the the existence of DNA does not explain life, after all DNA exists in dead carcasses."<br /><br />You can also have a glass of milk without a cow being in sight -- that does not mean that cows and lactation is not a good explanation of milk. Your argument is flawed.<br /><br />"Now consider that each life form is dependent on other life forms for its existence, The Darwinian model looks weaker and weaker all the time."<br /><br />now consider that we know that most lifeforms evolved from more primitive ones. That leads to the conclusion that life may have originally developed from a very simple and primitive lifeform, sufficiently simple and primitive that it may have developed from self-organisation, given (i) a collection of suitable components, (ii) a flow of usable energy through the system & (iii) local coupling mechanisms. Much of Abiogenesis research concentrates on the juxtaposition of these three essential factors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-38600674832646429222010-07-29T09:37:43.000-04:002010-07-29T09:37:43.000-04:00"given enough time (say a few billion years) ..."given enough time (say a few billion years) and enough places (say a whole planet)"<br /><br />Which we are not. We are not given by any natural phenomena known to mankind enough time or enough places.<br /><br />There is no logical explanation of the Big Bang. So given the impossibility of 'natural' existence and combine that with the extremely low probability of the formation of DNA and the mere fact the the existence of DNA does not explain life, after all DNA exists in dead carcasses. Now consider that each life form is dependent on other life forms for its existence, The Darwinian model looks weaker and weaker all the time.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17314193532768891832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20385137.post-5831177472964452442010-07-28T13:49:03.738-04:002010-07-28T13:49:03.738-04:00"When a book's best shot on the origin of..."When a book's best shot on the origin of DNA biosynthesis employs the phrase, "a fluke of fortune bordering on the unbelievable", and this book is given highest praise by the scientific community, isn't it reasonable to conclude that there is room to consider the adequacy of the mindless, purposeless, seamless chemical-biological darwinian scenario to adequately and fully explain the origins of life and species?"<br /><br />There are at least two problems with that argument:<br /><br />1) It is a statistical fact that, given enough time (say a few billion years) and enough places (say a whole planet), that "a fluke of fortune bordering on the unbelievable" eventually happens isn't actually that improbable.<br /><br />2) The "adequacy" of the alternative has to be evaluated, and that at some unknown time and unknown place an unknown intelligence (for which we have no factual evidence prior to humanity's existence) did some unknown action, is grossly inadequate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com