Atheism debate

[hellomynameis]

One quick note before I get into this:
1. I noticed this seems to be more of a form letter, as it appears in multiple places on the net, which is fine, it seems a Mike or Michael is always the poster.

...

The first four paragraphs refer to the problem of probability, which has been addressed ad nauseum. A quick run down is that: organic molecules can exist naturally, amino acids can form naturally and it is theorized that they can slowly build in complexity.

Granted this process has yet to be replicated by scientists so we still have many questions regarding the first moments of the evolution of life. However, many biological systems that exist today and have been proposed to be irreducibly complex have been explained and this gives us reason to believe that given the right conditions and amount of time there life cannot be formed and grow in complexity.

For years everyone imagined that the battle to disprove intelligent design would be won on the fronts of theoretical physics and chemistry. Not true. When analyzed within the context of engineering and manufacturing theory (late comers to the arena of science), the idea of raw matter bootstrapping itself into complex arrangements is shown to be a nonevent.

I know very little about molecular biology or chemistry but physics I can work with. Physics provides a beautiful analogy to evolution; a system (the universe) has only grown in complexity from the most fundamental of particles into planets and other complex arrangements. To say that this has been “shown to be a nonevent.” Is to posit the ID opinion while completely discounting all the theory and evidence of evolution. That is rhetoric sans fact.

Next paragraph bangs away at the same old idea that simple cannot evolve into complex.

I am way to tired to use my brain right so I will just leave these simple observations with you for now.

[Born_again]

When people say there is no evidence of design in organic complexity they are sorely mistaken.

First, one needs some well-defined reference from which to assess whether something is designed by a complex process as opposed cobbled into existence by some matrix of simple forces and primitive rules. etc. etc.

Oh boy! Another ID er
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

It stank of Micheal Behe to me, so that narrowed my search down considerably.

Obviously, we quickly run into a combinatorial explosion problem. The question is how does a simple matrix of blind and ignorant forces compensate for such vast variety, where the functional structures are but remote islands in a sea of junk structures?

The answer is you can't. The problem of infinite variety demands something more of the synthesizing process than the random generation of novel structures and some ambiguous fitness rule.

The answers will not elude us for much longer. There is an explosion of research going on right now into synthesising complex protein structures, with an eye to disease prevention etc. To address the problems associated with combinatorial explosion, already there is a great piece of software (A machine learning strategy for protein analysis.pdf) that is helping out tremendously. Breakthroughs are being made on a weekly basis now as scientists gather momentum:
Molecular 'Ratcheting' Of Single Ribosome Molecules Observed In Act Of Building Proteins
Entirely New Process In Cell RNA Discovered
How MicroRNAs Block Protein Synthesis

Just because something is complex, and perhaps beyond our current comprehension, it does not automatically indicate that some sort of intelligent design had a hand in its creation. Come on, give them a chance; the Vatican was telling us the sun revolved around the Earth only a few hundred years ago. Just have a little bit of patience. Let's first exhaust avenues of research before we start shouting "Eureka!", please.

Simply put, which came first, the chicken of the egg? The answer is that simple processes do not have the requisite qualities necessary to synthesize complex network formations of any kind, man-made or organic.

Is this a rephrased way of introducing "irreducible complexity" in reverse, into the topic? If it is, then I'll get my falsifiability and testability head on standby. Might even throw in some papers by B.G. Hall.

[fvkasm2x]

I don't know a whole lot about science and I don't know all too much about God either but I do know that I was raised as a God fearing boy that grew into a God fearing man, and that this isn't the sort of *bleep* that should go on a pubic forum. This is called blasphemy and you don't take chances with it. If any of you knew better you'd stop your typing and get down on your knees and ask for forgiveness because what your doing here isn't going to fly wit the high and mighty. Whether you think so or not God knows what you're doing and its pissiing him off.

I am honestly quite surprised it took that long for the fanatics to come outta the woodwork. Next come the suicide bombers (but at least THEIR veiws on religion is wrong, right jspaz?)

[Glacier]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

[fvkasm2x]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

WHEW. For a minute there I thought u were just gonna ask "where is Mike Hunt"

[Glacier]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

WHEW. For a minute there I thought u were just gonna ask "where is Mike Hunt"

No, I already know the answer to that.

[Born_again]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

Has anyone seen MikeHunt?
Well, we did see him for 2 posts yesterday(my). He opened an account shortly after 08 Sep 2008, 17:00. He made a couple of ID posts then just vaporised. There was nothing of any real consequence, and I think that amongst the quotations we have, it pretty much covered all he said.

[usquebaugh]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

Has anyone seen MikeHunt?
Well, we did see him for 2 posts yesterday(my). He opened an account shortly after 08 Sep 2008, 17:00. He made a couple of ID posts then just vaporised. There was nothing of any real consequence, and I think that amongst the quotations we have, it pretty much covered all he said.

I'm going to hazard a guess that his funny (but inappropriate) name got him in trouble...

[fvkasm2x]

Back when I was a silly teen, i actually called a local pub and asked for Mike.

When the bartender asked "Mike who" , i of course replied "Hunt". Then stifled my teen giggles. Low and behold, the dude said hold on a sec and yelled for Mike. Another guy got on the phone and said "Mike here"

Talk about a prank call gone wrong. I shoulda just asked for Hugh Jass

[Glacier]

Back when I was a silly teen, i actually called a local pub and asked for Mike.

When the bartender asked "Mike who" , i of course replied "Hunt". Then stifled my teen giggles. Low and behold, the dude said hold on a sec and yelled for Mike. Another guy got on the phone and said "Mike here"

Talk about a prank call gone wrong. I shoulda just asked for Hugh Jass

ROTFLMAO

What if it was his real name? Did you guys read the story about the person who's name was Yoda couldn't get a Facebook account because they don't except that name?

[fvkasm2x]

Almost positive it was his real name. Aferwards, I thought they had just pulled one over on me.... but I looked in the phone book and he was listed (or soemone with that name was)

[Born_again]

From the OP BYU article:

While Walker appreciates Dawkins for being “a vivid, and at his best, a witty writer,” he ultimately finds the author's condescending and narrow perspective disappointing. “I had hoped for more of what seemed to be the inherent strengths of the scientific viewpoint: more objectivity, more balanced fair-mindedness, and above all more openness to possibilities,” Walker writes.

Sound familiar? I guess the author feels Dawkins must be infringing on someone else's monopoly rights. Has there been some kind of theistic world council meeting recently, where the 1st resolution was to start a labelling campaign to falsely refute every Atheistic utterance with "narrow-minded, narrow-perspective, more openness, close-mindedness"? Is this the new weapon of choice, followed by a second resolution to deny the logic of an Atheists standpoint by repeatedly making false claims like, "lack of logic, learn some logic, there's no logic" ad nauseam?
I don't know whether to laugh, cry or both...........so logic tells me to do both:

This is total absurdity, and harks to the spin doctor's advice to the president, to keep saying "terror" and "weapons of mass destruction" a thousand times over in a single speech, however irrelevant, to seed the minds of sheeple. LOL I suppose there is some 'logic' to this new methodology; it has certainly worked in the past!
It all boils down to wishful thinking; they wish that our reasoning was as ridiculous as their own, they wish that we were as blinded as they are, they wish that we were as narrow-minded as they are, and finally, that logic would miraculously change hands and support the other side.

“These scientists are superlatively good at their way of seeing; problem is, that way is better at deciding what cannot be than at discovering what is, and that is lethal when one tries to think theologically.” Walker adds, “Looking at the universe from this atheist view feels like cramping everything through a telescope or microscope—wonderfully focused on what can be seen, but drastically restricted by the frame.”

Why not just shout from the rooftops that you're up a certain creek without a paddle? Hang-on..........*wiping tears*...that's better. So there we have it: the use of deduction is now the tool of the devil!

[Mr Danksworth]

Oh how I love the hit and run x-ians....Don't think, it might cause you to question, and if you question, you won't like the answer. It's a sad way to live life.

[hellomynameis]

Where is the mike hunt post you guys keep referring to?

His now-missing post shows up on the net, here:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=402381

# Michael Herbst 13 June, 2008

When people say there is no evidence of design in organic complexity they are sorely mistaken.

First, one needs some well-defined reference from which to assess whether something is designed by a complex process as opposed cobbled into existence by some matrix of simple forces and primitive rules. This is easily ascertained by looking at how complex things are put together. For instance proteins are the predominant building blocks of life, serving structural, catalytic and computational roles. But proteins are strings of amino acids (usually several hundred long) whose functional capacity is directly tied to their precise concatenation. In other words, without the right combination, the resulting protein doesn't work right.

With twenty amino acids to choose from, the number of possible combinations for a string 250 amino acids in length is about 2.0E+325! But this is not the end. Imagine thousands of proteins that must be built correctly to fulfill specific functions, each being 250 long.

Obviously, we quickly run into a combinatorial explosion problem. The question is how does a simple matrix of blind and ignorant forces compensate for such vast variety, where the functional structures are but remote islands in a sea of junk structures?

The answer is you can't. The problem of infinite variety demands something more of the synthesizing process than the random generation of novel structures and some ambiguous fitness rule.

This does not even take into account the fact that at the core of life is language! Proteins are not directly taken from the DNA structure. Rather, a code is extracted from DNA which serves as a blueprint for manufacturing the protein on a Ribosome workbench. In other words the actual physical protein is insulated from its DNA representation by what amounts to a dictionary.

And they say there is no evidence of design?

For years everyone imagined that the battle to disprove intelligent design would be won on the fronts of theoretical physics and chemistry. Not true. When analyzed within the context of engineering and manufacturing theory (late comers to the arena of science), the idea of raw matter bootstrapping itself into complex arrangements is shown to be a nonevent.

Simply put, which came first, the chicken of the egg? The answer is that simple processes do not have the requisite qualities necessary to synthesize complex network formations of any kind, man-made or organic. Only more complex processes, like exotic state machines with advanced forms of selection capability and the capacity to manipulate natural resources like raw materials in exotic ways (i.e. intelligent operations), can attack the problem associated with combinatorial explosion successfully.

The truth of the matter is that scientists have not come to terms with what they are looking at when they inspect life. Organisms with nervous systems are essentially software programs running in organic hardware. The macroscopic form of the organism is a product of exquisite nanaotechnological manufacturing processes. The whole organism is a chemically-based machine with chemcial computation at its core.

So tell me: is nature somehow well versed in highly advanced chemisty, computer engineering techniques and automata, materials science, signals and systems theory, and nanotechnology? It would need to be, to construct life as we now understand it.

If not, then where did life come from?

You decide, but do the research first.

[Mr Danksworth]

^
I thought that was a bit too cleverly worded to be some random x-ian from an internet forum...nice detective work.