I'm more concerned with your statement, "Of course we still haven't really established that religion has no supporting evidence."
The most intriguing question re Universal Abiogenisis, is how many times did it occur?
My mistake....you are forgiven.
More the case here, BS assertions from 'intellectuals' implying they actually understand the innards of prevailing theory. And should therefore recognize the serious flaws. It's precisely because the likes of Peltzer DO understand the innards and philosophical underpinnings of current theory or rather hypotheses re abiogenesis, that I especially take notice.
Ha ha ha. More poor jest. It's precisely the chief philosophical underpinning for 'scientific atheism', as aggressively promoted and where possible imposed by Marxists.
Only by imposing a narrow definition that excludes it. Abiogenesis is the bedrock upon which all other aspects of organic ToE rests.
Your typical style. Asserting that 'I want to prove a supernatural being'. Wrong of you to assert it. And wrong outright. I'm against the imposition of materialism as the only acceptable position for academics in the field to hold.To assert only unguided natural processes can exist is simply dogma.
More dogmatic assertions you have no right to make. Tackle the man not the ball. Typical of 'intellectuals' with strong leftist leanings. Next post I reproduce verbatim the intended response to your vacuous #63, before another poster got in and torpedoed things.
Who is suggesting otherwise? Keep them coming, any number. They will all crash and burn at the very first hurdle. Because every single one postulates an impossibly 'friendly' environment somehow magically filtering out those pesky Maillard reactions that invariably degrade biochemical molecules in the real world. Reducing conditions, neutral conditions, oxidizing conditions, won't matter. No peptides of any consequence can form and go on to not only survive but grow in complexity. Not even necessary to go the next hurdle, where one might have to deal with origin of sophisticated information generation, storage, and processing that would allow true self-replication of enzymatically useful bio-molecules. Real world chemistry got in the way of that next baby step.
The mix of being stimulated and inebriated simultaneously does need careful handling. Most of us have had to deal with it. Not too often hopefully.
It's imo a matter of what one can reasonably expect. Competent ID types who aren't primarily motivated by religious commitment, as far as I have seen, simply work intelligently and objectively to point out the huge and varied problems facing an unguided origin to life. And many other issues further along. That alone is a healthy check against the many and powerful arrogant scientism advocates. Who insist only minor details have to be ironed out. Nonsense. The truth is, after nearly 200 years of trying hard, nothing close to a working hypothesis is out there. And like it or not, you have the ID crowd to thank for trying hard to have that glaring fact given due prominence.I agree with all his points. No argument. No rebuttal.
Except (read but) if he knows (or even thinks) ID had a finger (a toe or the long sinuous gloop of the red white and yellow Gloopians) in making the components of the human race tell us dumb wats how it WAS done.
At the very least produce the working notes.
Back to the beer
That, if true, would demonstrate that living beings cannot exist now, either.
How so? We are not talking existing cellular biology, with all it's complex machinery for replication and maintainance. The issue is whether prebiotic chemicals could ever achieve the necessary complexity to finally qualify as organic life. Peltzer's multi-pronged critique, if you go back and follow it through carefully, is devastating.
The mix of being stimulated and inebriated simultaneously does need careful handling. Most of us have had to deal with it. Not too often hopefully.
It's imo a matter of what one can reasonably expect. Competent ID types who aren't primarily motivated by religious commitment, as far as I have seen, simply work intelligently and objectively to point out the huge and varied problems facing an unguided origin to life. And many other issues further along. That alone is a healthy check against the many and powerful arrogant scientism advocates. Who insist only minor details have to be ironed out. Nonsense. The truth is, after nearly 200 years of trying hard, nothing close to a working hypothesis is out there. And like it or not, you have the ID crowd to thank for trying hard to have that glaring fact given due prominence.
To expect or demand ID theorists should be able to furnish a detailed step-by-step blueprint for creating life is unreasonable. The whole ID argument being whatever or rather whoever was responsible has abilities far exceeding our own current level.
Yes, it's actually laughable, and even more so how all of a sudden, this Peltzer character has been raised to the level of a god by some, despite the fact that any ID is by definition unscientific and any scenario is covered by scientific explanation anyway.
Correct.
I'd say more to do with ideological stricture.
Hmm...tell you what. Point out anything that seems to be a particular weakness or even fatal flaw in Peltzer's suite of arguments, or of any other ID advocates of similar calibre. That would be something less fluffy to grapple with.
Shamelessly re-posting the same old same old ad nauseam.Typical paddoboy. No principle, other than to make sure to be on the 'winning' i.e. Official Position/majority-opinion side. All I have to do to justify that is point to #76, #79, ##80, #89 here. From straight out atheistic attitude and language in #76, we continue on the Lunar Park ride to 'i'm not an atheist' in #79, to 'I'm not anything' in #80, then to 'Bingo!!!' in reference to highlighted in red "the most intelligent approach to it at this point is agnostic, to admit that we just don't know."Yes, it's actually laughable, and even more so how all of a sudden, this Peltzer character has been raised to the level of a god by some, despite the fact that any ID is by definition unscientific and any scenario is covered by scientific explanation anyway.
The many paths of which Abiogenesis has obviously arisen is unknown, but the fact remains it is the only logical scientific explanation we can arrive at.
As the American Loony society says....
http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/315-ed-peltzer.html
"Since the creationist movement is arduously seeking out anyone with a modicum of scientific credibility who supports their cause, Peltzer is widely used, e.g. in the Kansas Evolution Hearings" .
"Another otherwise intelligent chap who is willing to throw critical thinking and science under the bus if the results don’t fit sufficiently smoothly with his preconceptions. It’s sad, really"
Here he is in another creationist rant.......
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/kansas/kangaroo3.html
and
http://jgrr.blogspot.com.au/2006/01/uncommon-descent-dont-dispute-common.html
One guy who I wouldn't mind seeing Dawkin's rip asunder.......
Peptides have to be maintained in complex configurations without repair or replication, for living things to exist as they do.
If this were so, spores and seeds and dormant stages of algae and all manner of such could not exist, let alone sprout and develop complexity. Dead trees would crumble without bacterial or fungal attack. And so forth.
The entire cell structure and machinery, working as a whole, enables that. Creating and maintaining a continually safe environment. Slice the apple. Watch it turn brown in minutes, not weeks.
I'm no specialist in those areas but you do know that a typical oily seed can keep well for many months if the protective coating is not disrupted, right? And once it is disrupted, rancidity will set in very quickly. Whether you want to call that 'nature's clever design' or something else is up to your personal persuasion.
Well Michael Finnegan Begin Again (sorry, couldn't resist that ditty
), are you really sure there are such a humongous number of other ways? Postulating a near infinite number of random attempts to crash through the abiogenesis barrier is one thing. That's allowed by both sides. But what are all these gazillions of different ways exactly? Can you name a few?
Well Michael Finnegan Begin Again (sorry, couldn't resist that ditty