So. We all know there is a God because bananas fit perfectly in the hand and the mouth and are easy to peel. Can't argue with that.

But I just tried to eat a mango which was nearly impossible, broke the tip off the knife, and led to unending frustration and cursing, sticky hands, and has left me forced to doubt Kirk Cameron which is, of course, blasphemy.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But I just tried to eat a mango which was nearly
> impossible, broke the tip off the knife, and led
> to unending frustration and cursing, sticky hands...

Did you use a serrated knife?

[I use a so-called "steak knife," which I buy by the half-dozen every few years, to do this kind of fruit and vegetable prep work.]

My best mango technique is to cut off both sides, in the "long" direction, avoiding the center pit.

Then use the steak knife to cut down-to-the-skin "squares" on each "long" half,

Then use either the knife, or a tablespoon, to scrape off the mango "squares"--leaving you with fairly-clean mango skins for each of the "halves."

Then: Use the steak knife to cut off the skin of the part remaining around the pit...in one, more-or-less continuous, strip.

Then use the knife to cut away whatever you can from the fibrous seed. (You can also just bend over the kitchen sink and kind of suck on the pulp to get it dislodged from the rest of the seed, then rinse the sticky parts of your face, and your hands, and the knife.)

The result is a dish of fairly neatly cut mango "squares"...plus a stomach happy with the "extra" mango pulp you were able to wrest from the fibrous seed.

Thank you. I thought I was going to have to go to some Island somewhere and take mango peeling classes. I will try your method but it sure is a along way from just peeling a banana:)

You are welcome!!

:)

P.S. Be sure to wash the whole mango first (before you do anything with it), preferably with a squirt of specifically produce-wash liquid, then rinse well under running water. (Produce wash liquid is always available at any Trader Joe's or Whole Foods store.)

You have NO idea who (or what) touched that mango before you bought it and brought it home (or what pesticide chemicals, etc., were used on it, either!).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2018 05:13PM by Tevai.

God made mangoes.

God explains how to prepare mangoes.

Therefore Tevai is God.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore Tevai is God.

She's got all the other claimed ones beat, hands-down! :)

As for the rest...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLdPjpELyU

(edit: I have a filipina wife. She'd have divorced me if I couldn't cut a mango!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2018 05:13PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Mango with sticky rice. Yum.

Not Filipino but within about a thousand miles, so close enough for government work.

Indonesian perhaps? :)

And I agree completely -- yum!

Well, I was thinking Thai--which would be a bit more than 1,000 miles.

But yes, Indonesia and Malaysia both have their variants for that wonderful fruit!

Thank you, Lot's Wife and Hie!!!

:D

I use the same method with one difference. Instead of cutting or scraping the squares off the skin, I push the skin inward until it pops out backward, leaving all the squares separated, sticking off the skin, kind of like a grenade, then I bite them off.

You are correct, that modern bananas were intelligently designed... by humans.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Banana_argument

I'd be happy if scientists could create just one computer model that showed how the first living cell in all its complexity assembled itself. How did it create a record of its own design, the ability to duplicate that record, and then cause other substances in the environment to use the record as a guide to assemble themselves into a nearly exact duplicate of the original?

And I'd be even happier if they could present this data without a long string of "maybe's" "could have's" and "perhaps." You know, so they don't like a typical religionist trying to explain how Noah could have fit all those animals on the ark.

Thanks.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be happy if scientists could create just one
> computer model that showed how the first living
> cell in all its complexity assembled itself. How
> did it create a record of its own design, the
> ability to duplicate that record, and then cause
> other substances in the environment to use the
> record as a guide to assemble themselves into a
> nearly exact duplicate of the original?
>
> And I'd be even happier if they could present this
> data without a long string of "maybe's" "could
> have's" and "perhaps." You know, so they don't
> like a typical religionist trying to explain how
> Noah could have fit all those animals on the ark.
>
>
> Thanks.

Viruses are not cells, yet they carry inside of them half a strand of DNA, a single helix of RNA, containing all the information required to create life. They could have easily arrived here inside of a frozen comet, along with other primordial life forms, like bacteria and extremophiles.
I dont know why transpermia is such a difficult concept.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Viruses are not cells, yet they carry inside of
> them half a strand of DNA, a single helix of RNA,
> containing all the information required to create
> life. They could have easily arrived here inside
> of a frozen comet, along with other primordial
> life forms, like bacteria and extremophiles.
> I dont know why transpermia is such a difficult
> concept.

Panspermia is not a difficult concept, but it's a dodge. It does not answer the question, it simply admits defeat and pushes the solution into outer space.

"Ancient aliens" is not a scientific response to the question.

That is true. It does push the problem into space.

But doesn't resort to God do the same thing? Both are ways of saying the solution is out there, beyond our understanding.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is true. It does push the problem into
> space.
>
> But doesn't resort to God do the same thing? Both
> are ways of saying the solution is out there,
> beyond our understanding.


Well, yes and no. Intelligent design relies more upon a parallel to what we observe around us. We simply don't observe chaos producing order, and complexity is not seen to emerge from simplicity without some intelligent intervention.

Couple this with the overwhelming complexity of even the most simple living cell, and it's a compelling argument for those open to it.

I entertained the idea for a long time while working my way out of the church. It definitely makes sense as an accommodation between God and science.

The problem for me is more Occamistic: in the absence of evidence for God's intervention, why assume it? I can't disprove intelligent design any more than I can disprove the existence of God. But God does seem to require an additional assumption or two.

Complexity itself need not imply anything. Epistemology is probabilistic. We interpret evidence, come up with conclusions, discover new evidence and refine our conclusions further. The fact that science is closing the gaps--the "missing link" in the primate chain is not an issue anymore; there is evidence of DNA and RNA arising spontaneously, replicating themselves and gaining complexity over time; the origin and adoption of mitochondria are clear; and so on. Those discoveries "prove" nothing, but they shift the probabilities in favor of evolution.

Could that be intelligent design? Yes, but other than substantial (albeit daily diminishing) uncertainty, there don't seem to be many reasons requiring the addition of additional assumptions.

Well there are problems on a number of levels without some sort of intervention.

I'm continually struck by the complex information system involved in the emergence and propagation of the first life. Information is not distilled randomly. And the level of information handling from the moment of the emergence of that very first cell is simply incomprehensible. Countless pieces with disparate roles needed to assemble to perform all the functions to process fuel and extend its life. But the greater challenge was the ability to duplicate. Each of those millions of variables needed to be recorded in a readable format and stored on board. Without any specific self-awareness, this first cell somehow wrote a detailed blueprint of its own existence, and the timing of its existence.

But that also was not enough. The information stored regarding its structure and functions had to somehow catalyze with surrounding elements to build a near exact duplicate of itself to qualify as an actual living cell. That's like asking a blue print for a building to not only record the placement of every nail and every single element of the building, but to somehow interact with the required elements to build the building. It just doesn't happen randomly, but we're supposed to believe that it did.

Couple this with the emergence of matter in the first place, and it's a real conundrum. The universe clearly had a start, so it's not unreasonable to assume that something separate from the universe existed prior to the universe. Time and space are constructs of the universe, so if something existed before it, it could be reasonably argued this something exists outside the bounds of time and space. Sound familiar?

A couple of points.

First, on the complexity of the cell. I agree but am unsure why you stop at that point. We know that in various "soups" that are likely to have existed at the relevant time in terrestrial history, RNA and DNA naturally assemble and reproduce (nearly) identical copies of themselves. There are plenty of "missing links" between that point and the emergence of cells, though there are also interesting bridges over many of the gaps. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.) The picture is a lot clearer than it was 60 years ago, and I don't perceive any reason to believe it won't become clearer still.

At any point in human history we could look at particular phenomena and say that since we don't understand such complexity, it must be God. In many cases those phenomena were subsequently "understood," so God lost those attributes. We may eventually reach a point at which the complexity truly is beyond human understanding and God stops shrinking, but I don't believe we are there yet.

Secondly, you write that "time and space are constructs of the universe, so if something existed before it, it could be reasonably argued this something exists outside the bounds of time and space. Sound familiar?"

It does indeed. But people said that about lightning and the place of the earth in the cosmos, gravity and the non-static nature of the universe. All of those eventually succumbed to one degree or another to human comprehension. Even the contents and behavior of black holes are beginning to yield up their secrets. Could there be a temporal, spacial, or other frontier beyond which science cannot reach? Yes.

Could God be there? Yes. Need he be? I don't see any a priori reason to believe that as opposed to any of the many other theories.

On a more mundane level--whether order naturally emerges from chaos--the answer is it most definitely does.

Chemistry is based on that fact. The probability of a reaction occurring depends on an increase in global, not local, entropy. Most natural processes work that way and in many cases the result is greater local order.

So the argument about chaos is not persuasive. Your answer to that observation could of course be that thermodynamics are part of the intelligent design.

"On a more mundane level--whether order naturally emerges from chaos--the answer is it most definitely does."

COMMENT: Yes. It seems to me that this should have been your first response to TMSH, which he constantly refuses to acknowledge. Complexity has been shown repeatedly, and in many contexts, to arise from chaos, or perhaps better, order out of disorder. The question, however, is whether this simple scientific fact is sufficient to boot-strap the much more extreme cases of biological complexity, if applied over evolutionary time. In addition, science does not understand the underlying mathematical principle, if there is one, that explains this empirical phenomenon.
___________________________________________

"Chemistry is based on that fact. The probability of a reaction occurring depends on an increase in global, not local, entropy. Most natural processes work that way and in many cases the result is greater local order.

COMMENT: Again, yes. With the added assumption that there is enough free local energy.
_____________________________________________

"So the argument about chaos is not persuasive. Your answer to that observation could of course be that thermodynamics are part of the intelligent design."

COMMENT: Agree that TMSH's argument is unpersuasive *if* it depends upon the false assumption that order cannot arise from chaos. However, there is the meta-question that remains, i.e. why does the universe have a natural law (largely not understood in its details) that allows for such phenomenon, and more particularly allows for self-organization of systems at a stage prior to reproduction; for example the reproducing RNA molecule. After all, explaining the complexity of the living cell is not answered solely by a vague appeal to complexity theory. We still need to know, (1) Why the laws associated with complex systems exist in the universe in the first place; and (2) What are the particular details that enabled this concept to work in explanations of the origin of life. I think ID makes valid points as to the second question, simply because evolution by natural selection of itself is inadequate for such an explanation, and "complexity theory" is too vague and underdetermined; at least at present.

You raise the question "Why the laws associated with complex systems exist in the universe in the first place." To simplify, why is the universe arranged in a fashion that allows the development of intelligent life (effectively meaning us)?

There are two explanations for the situation we find ourselves in. One is that a supreme being imposed the natural laws knowing where that imposition would lead. That is of course the Intelligent Design theory. The alternative is the anthropic principle. In short, the laws of the universe HAVE to be the way they are or we would not be here to observe them.

There isn't good reason to prefer the ID model over the anthropic one. Ignorance is not an argument in favor of, or against, an idea; it is merely an invitation to learn more.

God should be more than the answer to questions we cannot comprehend. If s/he is cast in that light, s/he must retreat whenever science advances. Intelligent Design represents a retreat from the notion that God directly created the earth and the universe. The notion that he did so indirectly has the advantage of being impossible to falsify, since scientific progress can be incorporated into it.

But viewed epistemologically, untestable hypotheses aren't very useful. God could exist; ID could be a correct theory. But the inability of humans to understand the universe is not evidence in favor of either of those propositions.

"There are two explanations for the situation we find ourselves in. One is that a supreme being imposed the natural laws knowing where that imposition would lead. That is of course the Intelligent Design theory."

COMMENT: Of course, the nature of God's involvement can take many forms. Notice, however, that if the laws of nature are deterministic, which is assumed, these laws themselves constitute an "imposition" that leads to life; once established they are teleological; they direct nature toward life. In that sense, the laws of nature arguably represent a place-holder for "God." To break that conclusion, you need a built in randomness such that the laws of nature are the result of some random process originating with the big bang, such that they could have been otherwise. That is where the improbabilities and "fine-tuning" arguments become a challenge to science.
___________________________________________

"The alternative is the anthropic principle. In short, the laws of the universe HAVE to be the way they are or we would not be here to observe them."

COMMENT: The anthropic principle is NOT an alternative to theism, and not an argument or explanation in opposition to theism. If you try to make it such, you beg the question. In other words, stating that the universe must be fine-tuned for life, "because" life exists in the universe, assumes the very question that needs an explanation; namely, why life exists in the universe. The anthropic principle is only properly invoked as a premise in a theistic argument for design, which argument alleges that the fine-tuning of the universe "for life" can only be explained by a designer. There is no question-begging in this theistic argument. (Whether right or wrong). So, in short, the anthropic principle places a burden on science, not on religion.
_________________________________________

"There isn't good reason to prefer the ID model over the anthropic one. Ignorance is not an argument in favor of, or against, an idea; it is merely an invitation to learn more."

COMMENT: Again, there is no anthropic argument in favor of naturalism, without question-begging. Moreover, you cannot argue against theism by invoking "scientific ignorance," since no theist makes the argument that scientific ignorance is per se an argument for theism. In this case, the anthropic principle, as used by theism as an argument for design, is not about scientific ignorance at all, it is about probabilities. It says essentially that given the vast scope of possibilities as to what laws of nature could have emerged from the big bang, it is highly improbable that such laws would be "fine-tuned" for life. Given that, it is argued, an intelligent agent is the best explanation.

This is an interesting subject for another post, if you would like to carry on this discussion. But this is all I have to say on the matter here.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, yes and no. Intelligent design relies more
> upon a parallel to what we observe around us. We
> simply don't observe chaos producing order, and
> complexity is not seen to emerge from simplicity
> without some intelligent intervention.

But we *do* observe "chaos producing order" all the time. Every single day. In millions of ways.

I observed it last weekend. We got a fair amount of rain (where raindrops land is random, complete "chaos"). A slightly weak part of topsoil in my backyard gave in to water pressure, and opened up a sinkhole with a 3" diameter opening, about 14" wide inside, which initially filled with water. When the rain stopped and the hole drained, the wind picked up. The next day, I observed the hole -- it was partially filled with leaves, pebbles, and some twigs.

On top of the ground, there is complete "chaos" as to the sizes of leaves, pebbles/rocks, and twigs. There are big ones, small ones, all shapes and sizes.

But inside my sinkhole, there were ONLY leaves, pebbles, and twigs that had a dimension smaller than 3".

"Chaos" just produced order -- a defined set of objects that all have a common characteristic. And far more of an ordered set than the "chaos" on the ground above.

With no intelligent intervention of any kind.
How about that.

Your claim that "we don't see" that is patently false.
Maybe YOU don't, but that's only because you refuse to observe the world around you, and you imagine "intelligent intervention" when there's no evidence of any such thing.

> Couple this with the overwhelming complexity of
> even the most simple living cell, and it's a
> compelling argument for those open to it.

Arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity are never "compelling." They're fallacies.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be happy if scientists could create just one
> computer model that showed how the first living
> cell in all its complexity assembled itself. How
> did it create a record of its own design, the
> ability to duplicate that record, and then cause
> other substances in the environment to use the
> record as a guide to assemble themselves into a
> nearly exact duplicate of the original?
>
_______________________________________________________

Of course, I believe you are right ----- based on my personal 'experiences' that of course many will not believe. This will be 'labeled as a testimony/opinion' but I do believe it is based on something and isn't everyones, even scientists just giving an 'opinion' in the end if something cannot be proved conclusively? So I would rather say it is my opinion but based on 'something'.

We do seem to both believe in God. It appears based on my experiences and others, evolution did appear to occur 'naturally' even though everything on Earth is planned in significant detail so what appears 'natural' took planning in the 'between life'! Additionally, I am not saying aliens/superior beings may not have impacted evolution here. I believe scientists can say it 'looked' to be 'natural selection, etc.' when I believe a lot of planning (spiritual) took place to make those 'key selections possible' or any other outside influence.

We know 'scientists' have developed many 'improved' living things in agriculture. I believe that was not by accident but planned also, even though the specific scientists may claim they did it all by themselves.

As far as the first life, it is clear to me (an opinion) it didn't occur here as there are far more 'advanced' civilizations out there.

Whether life on earth started by some 'soup mixture' or from already existing life is a mystery to me ---- I don't care and I don't know anyone in my 'belief area' discussing it. However, it didn't occur by 'accident' ---- it was well planned (spiritually).

My 2 cents from a 'spiritual' point of view. Which I cannot support except to myself so I will not 'argue' anything.

Here you go:

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

You are welcome.

HH =)

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here you go:
>
> https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
>
> You are welcome.
>
> HH =)

So, you're telling me that a group of scientists with a specific goal in mind were able to manipulate a series of elements to recreate one basic part of the millions of variables required to create the first living cell?

And this is proof that the process could have occurred completely at random with no specific goal in mind? Over and over again?

Do you play the lottery much?

So you didn’t read it, or read it and did not understand it?

HH =)

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you didn’t read it, or read it and did not
> understand it?
>
> HH =)


I read it, and I believe I have a basic understanding of it. This group of scientists through manipulation of some basic elements and following some specific timing were able to synthesize a ribonucleotide. Many previous attempts failed in this pursuit, but this group set out to specifically create this element, and they succeeded.

Is that about it?

No. But it sure as hell fits your narrative so we will just let you slide.

HH =)

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd be happy if scientists could create just one
> computer model that showed how the first living
> cell in all its complexity assembled itself. How
> did it create a record of its own design, the
> ability to duplicate that record, and then cause
> other substances in the environment to use the
> record as a guide to assemble themselves into a
> nearly exact duplicate of the original?

Someday they may be able to. Or they may not.
If they do, it'll be based on facts. Since it happened so long ago, and didn't leave much evidence (other than DNA), it may never happen.

Which doesn't, of course, mean "god did it."

In the meantime, claiming "god did it" is even more ridiculous than the "maybes" you claim to dislike so much -- because the "maybes" are at least speculation based on fact, and backed by processes we know exist and operation. Whereas "god did it" isn't any of those things.

Panspermia may not push the problem to space thought that is it's most common application. Life likely developed on earth multiple times before and during the Late Heavy Bombardment period. We have almost no record of the Earth before that time because it rewrote the geologic record. And sterilized the planet. But simultaneously threw primitive life from Earth into orbit around Earth where it later fell back to earth. We know rock can be ejected from earth by meteor strike. Virus and bacteria can survive this journey into and back from space. Earth could have fertilized itself. Yes tmsh will not like the hedge words. But the earths early existence didn't keep good records.

Agreed, but the overwhelming complexity of even the most simple cell is astonishing. There's likely a good reason why we just don't see computer scientists embark on recreating suggested paths for the assembly of that first living cell. It's really just too complex even for our most powerful computers to imagine how such a thing can come to be.

But in our current environment, it's perfectly acceptable to use quasi-religious terms to trust that science will someday provide the answers to what is completely imponderable at present. But theists are seldom granted similar latitude in their estimations of the unknown elements of their world view.

"Agreed, but the overwhelming complexity of even the most simple cell is astonishing. There's likely a good reason why we just don't see computer scientists embark on recreating suggested paths for the assembly of that first living cell. It's really just too complex even for our most powerful computers to imagine how such a thing can come to be."

COMMENT: This is simply a false statement. Computational biologists do indeed create computer models (genetic algorithms) that are designed to understand how cellular membranes could have formed around molecular structures that then reproduce.

Although I have some sympathy in principle for ID arguments because of the vast complexity of the cell, you seem to me to always understate the existing science, while overstating what is needed as a scientific explanation. This is exactly what Stephen Meyer did in his book, Signature of the Cell, which you obviously are heavily relying upon.

Science would love to have the answer tmsh is asking them for. But science is only the best explanation for the available evidence. And the available evidence on this topic is scant. So it's not surprising the explanations are similarly scant. Indeed, as I noted above, if the lhb is true, the evidence is gone. There are some strong challeneges to the lhb, but the support for those challenges requires better lunar exploration to prove.

I find it ironic that the lifeless moon is so key to our understanding of early biogenesis and /or evolutionary understanding

Henry, can you post any links to the works you reference? I've googled it a bit, and I find somewhat scant hints at parts of the story but have never found one that suggests it has filled in the considerable gaps.

Here's one I found that while simplistic, is somewhat representative of the current explanations:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150728110720.htm

Like others I've seen, it takes what are quantum leaps of information technology at the cellular level and delegates them to a simple pass:

"Then, somewhere along the line, these growing polymer chains developed the ability to make copies of themselves. Competition between these molecules would allow the ones most efficient at making copies of themselves to do so faster or with greater abundance, a trait that would be shared by the copies they made. "

Developed the ability to make copies of themselves?

That's a quick and easy sentence to write, but displays a level of information handling and process complexity that is beyond comprehension. We grant polymers a pass on their origin and move on. At what point did the cell gain the ability to inventory every bit of minutia relating to its structure, assembly and lifespan? And having assembled this massive volume of data, how did it record it in a format that could be deciphered to recreate those exact same elements? And the most amazing feature of all: How does this mass of data somehow miraculously catalyze with its environment to utilize this data to recreate a duplicate of the original? It's clearly much easier just top say they "developed the ability to make copies of themselves."

And as you know, if we can get over this specific hurdle, we've only filled in a very tiny part of a monolithic story. If you can demonstrate how a tree grows, you're not really explaining how to stick-build a fully functioning home.

But the bottom line for these pursuits is the ironically self-defeating nature of the work. It's possible at some time in the future we'll read a story about how a team of scientists utilizing the most advanced computers available have created a model that hints at how the first living cell came into existence.

And when they do that, they will have shown that with the injection of extreme intelligence and environmental manipulation, we've discovered how the first living cell came to exist.

"Henry, can you post any links to the works you reference? I've googled it a bit, and I find somewhat scant hints at parts of the story but have never found one that suggests it has filled in the considerable gaps."

COMMENT: The link below, was what I particularly recalled. However, there are other numerous examples of computer models aimed at understanding the origin of life. Remember, these are models, and are not intended or claimed to be a full explanation. No such model exists, and nor should one be expected. And, of course, no model "proves" anything. They merely are offered to see how a proposed theory might work as an algorithmic process.

https://phys.org/news/2008-04-cell-membrane-dynamics.html

_______________________________________________________

Here's one I found that while simplistic, is somewhat representative of the current explanations:

Like others I've seen, it takes what are quantum leaps of information technology at the cellular level and delegates them to a simple pass:

"Then, somewhere along the line, these growing polymer chains developed the ability to make copies of themselves. Competition between these molecules would allow the ones most efficient at making copies of themselves to do so faster or with greater abundance, a trait that would be shared by the copies they made. "

Developed the ability to make copies of themselves?

COMMENT: Well, of course, there are significant gaps in our understanding. But the question is whether what science *does* know and understand is sufficient to place it above intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life. That's all. And it seems, at least to me, that biochemistry in general places naturalism on far more solid footing; especially with the added evidence for self-organization, which again is well established even if not very well understood.

If you want to insist upon a design component, you need to identify where such a component comes into play, beyond merely pointing to gaps, and why a God explanation is more reasonable for that particular gap, than is the alternative, however speculative, natural explanation. The fact that a proposed natural explanation is in some part speculative is NOT sufficient reason to conclude that intelligent design is the best explanation. To jump to that conclusion unreasonably undermines all of the evidence we have that the origin of life was the result of purely natural processes, even if on the whole such explanations are not very satisfactory.
__________________________________________________

"That's a quick and easy sentence to write, but displays a level of information handling and process complexity that is beyond comprehension."

COMMENT: "Beyond comprehension?" I would say perhaps "difficult to believe." But again, we can see simple self-organizing biological systems; we can see biochemistry bringing about complex function, even in simple bacterial cells, where, for example, a cell "automatically" moves through a gradient toward a food or energy source. We can see the emergence of replication at the molecular level. So, maybe the full complexity of human biology is difficult to believe, but broken down, it is certainly not incomprehensible, and in my view clearly offers a better explanation for such complexity that ID.
_________________________________________________

"We grant polymers a pass on their origin and move on. At what point did the cell gain the ability to inventory every bit of minutia relating to its structure, assembly and lifespan? And having assembled this massive volume of data, how did it record it in a format that could be deciphered to recreate those exact same elements? And the most amazing feature of all: How does this mass of data somehow miraculously catalyze with its environment to utilize this data to recreate a duplicate of the original? It's clearly much easier just top say they "developed the ability to make copies of themselves."

COMMENT: Look, I am very sensitive to these questions. Remember my post on the "genetic code." Most biologists take this "code" reference quite literally, without thinking about how natural systems could possibly come up with a symbolically functioning code. But, the answer on the physical level at bottom has to be purely mechanistic biochemistry. But, again, the biochemistry is there, and presumably generating more and more complexity over evolutionary time. The most difficult question (in my view) is how and why such natural processes exist in the first place, not whether they need to be boot-strapped by a designer God that fiddles with the process from time to time to keep it on some predetermined track. For me, that scenario is "incomprehensible" or extremely difficult to believe.
____________________________________________

"And as you know, if we can get over this specific hurdle, we've only filled in a very tiny part of a monolithic story. If you can demonstrate how a tree grows, you're not really explaining how to stick-build a fully functioning home."

COMMENT: O.K. but look at the beaver, who builds complex and quite elaborate "stick-built" homes. How does such knowledge find its way into the beaver brain. By evolution, or God. I see no reason to jump to a God explanation simply because nature is sometimes remarkable.
_____________________________________________

"But the bottom line for these pursuits is the ironically self-defeating nature of the work. It's possible at some time in the future we'll read a story about how a team of scientists utilizing the most advanced computers available have created a model that hints at how the first living cell came into existence.

And when they do that, they will have shown that with the injection of extreme intelligence and environmental manipulation, we've discovered how the first living cell came to exist."

COMMENT: The answer will not be found in a computer model, because, as you say, humans programmed the model. But, presumably, with a successful model will come further understanding, with some of that understanding confirmed through discovery of more specific biological mechanisms that perhaps can be replicated. The failure of science is certainly not a given here.

Bananas fit your hand perfectly ? In what other part of the body do they fit perfectly ?

And besides, bananas are man-made.
Cameron is a moron.

Wow. And I thought this thread was going to segue into a conversation about how to deal with a coconut if you don't have a hammer . . .

Or artichokes. Who ever thought to eat the first Artichoke?

Apparently hunger drives invention and exploration and our ability to adapt to the point where we considered artichokes. Wow. Plants rule. There are books on that actually.

Why do people want their Gods?

Without a God, no one is special? No one will be the big winner in a heaven in the end and get to thumb their nose at everyone else? The Religious Olympics will have been for naught?

I found peace in being. I found peace in feeling there are no miracles, only reciprocity. I found peace in feeling that no one is orchestrating this life like some sick puppet show but we are free to be kind no matter how this life came to be. It's a fragile peace, but I'll take it.

Attempting to discount ID arguments as birthed in some inane craving for deity on behalf of its proponents is as valid as dismissing anti-ID positions as motivated by those who can’t stand the concept of a god to whom they may be accountable.

It’s just a form of ad hominem and doesn’t address the actual merits of either position. God does or does not exist independent of anyone’s desires for such.

You're making way to much out of this for me. I'm still talking bananas and artichokes in a light hearted way.

What kind of genius puts two waste disposal operations right next to a nursery and a playground?

This has always been one of my favorite arguments against ID. It never fails to make me smile.

know where else a banana fits perfectly? But you have to talk to your bishop after.

Why the presumption of creation?

Why not . . . the universe has always existed in some form but changes due to the nature of the matter it is composed of? Only thing that makes sense to me.

The "somebody had to create it because it couldn't create itself" is lame. Why did it have to be created? Matter existed and morphed.


Then, if after billions of years, matter somehow involves into an omnipotent super being, he could form balls of matter into a planet with dinosaur bones in it from some dead planet he is using for it's parts, populate it, and then kill his only begotten son as his signature calling card. Rinse. Repeat.