Comments on: Leslie Orgel: Metabolic Origin of Life “Unlikely”; Complexity Requires “A Skilled Synthetic Chemist” http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/06/leslie-orgel-metabolic-origin-of-life-unlikely-complexity-requires-a-skilled-synthetic-chemist/ Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:12:41 -1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: amfortas http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/06/leslie-orgel-metabolic-origin-of-life-unlikely-complexity-requires-a-skilled-synthetic-chemist/comment-page-1/#comment-58560 amfortas Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:33:36 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/06/leslie-orgel-metabolic-origin-of-life-unlikely-complexity-requires-a-skilled-synthetic-chemist/#comment-58560 jjtaup, you retain 'wonder', actively, not passively. I particularly like that phrase "I presume He did it according to His pleasure." It is a good starting point for discovering what 'His Pleasure" is. I suspect it is quite wonderful. jjtaup, you retain ‘wonder’, actively, not passively.

I particularly like that phrase “I presume He did it according to His pleasure.”

It is a good starting point for discovering what ‘His Pleasure” is. I suspect it is quite wonderful.

]]> By: jjtaup http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/06/leslie-orgel-metabolic-origin-of-life-unlikely-complexity-requires-a-skilled-synthetic-chemist/comment-page-1/#comment-58550 jjtaup Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:24:22 +0000 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/06/leslie-orgel-metabolic-origin-of-life-unlikely-complexity-requires-a-skilled-synthetic-chemist/#comment-58550 You know, I like many people who, incidentally, are proponents of ID. One was my student once--very intelligent, thoughtful, and affable. Turned in a project regarding the biased-handedness of certain molecules in living creatures as evidence for ID, and aced the (stochastic processes) class--because his work was top-notch, not because he favored or disfavored a particular theory. I also dislike the haughty attitude of some who are decidedly anti-theist (yes, discussion on the origin of life always comes about to the spiritual at some point) and implicitly cite evolution as evidence for the non-existence of God. Especially when they have pretty big holes in their theory. Me? I don't know how God did it, but I presume He did it according to His pleasure. From what I have seen in my life--and I do believe that God expects me to observe and at least try to generalize from my pathetic little existence to things this little mind will never comprehend in its present mortal state--God's methods are usually a hair more subtle than a slab of concrete. Sublime even. So I reject random chance assembling the zoo because, first of all, its impossible to define random in a universe within a multiverse within a dream emanating from the eyes of a Brahma meditating upon a lotus, the fluttering of which produces a universe within a multiverse; secondly, it's not random. The problem is, I also reject the theory that God waved his magic wand six times, descended on a fig leaf to have a chat with Adam about his fruit diet, then ascended as he was called away to preside at a little Paco's pinata party for the boy's 5th birthday. At least I reject it in the sense that I really don't care exactly how many vibrations of a cesium-133 atom comprise a day for God. ID proponents are pretty careful about what they say--or do not say, to be more exact. After having attended two lectures on ID and after speaking with many acquaintances about it, and after having sampled what's on the web regarding it, I have yet to encounter one who just comes out and offers his alternative theory, i.e., that God waved his wand. Well, actualy, one did finally admit this after I pressed him--and he's a smart guy, and it very well may have happened like that. But I don't believe it. I AM a creationist--because I know that God created me, my wife, my office telephone (yeah, go ahead and laugh--you tell me how it got here and then let's trace the story all the way back), Bach's music, etc. But again, I don't believe in the wand theory. God creates as God pleases. I'm still waiting for the ID crowd to not just say the NSF is full of it (which they are!), but also to offer their theory or hypothesis or guess. You can't just say "evolution doesn't happen." You've got to give me an alternative. And if it's the wand story, I'll keep looking. You know, I like many people who, incidentally, are proponents of ID. One was my student once–very intelligent, thoughtful, and affable. Turned in a project regarding the biased-handedness of certain molecules in living creatures as evidence for ID, and aced the (stochastic processes) class–because his work was top-notch, not because he favored or disfavored a particular theory. I also dislike the haughty attitude of some who are decidedly anti-theist (yes, discussion on the origin of life always comes about to the spiritual at some point) and implicitly cite evolution as evidence for the non-existence of God. Especially when they have pretty big holes in their theory.

Me? I don’t know how God did it, but I presume He did it according to His pleasure. From what I have seen in my life–and I do believe that God expects me to observe and at least try to generalize from my pathetic little existence to things this little mind will never comprehend in its present mortal state–God’s methods are usually a hair more subtle than a slab of concrete. Sublime even. So I reject random chance assembling the zoo because, first of all, its impossible to define random in a universe within a multiverse within a dream emanating from the eyes of a Brahma meditating upon a lotus, the fluttering of which produces a universe within a multiverse; secondly, it’s not random.

The problem is, I also reject the theory that God waved his magic wand six times, descended on a fig leaf to have a chat with Adam about his fruit diet, then ascended as he was called away to preside at a little Paco’s pinata party for the boy’s 5th birthday. At least I reject it in the sense that I really don’t care exactly how many vibrations of a cesium-133 atom comprise a day for God.

ID proponents are pretty careful about what they say–or do not say, to be more exact. After having attended two lectures on ID and after speaking with many acquaintances about it, and after having sampled what’s on the web regarding it, I have yet to encounter one who just comes out and offers his alternative theory, i.e., that God waved his wand. Well, actualy, one did finally admit this after I pressed him–and he’s a smart guy, and it very well may have happened like that. But I don’t believe it.

I AM a creationist–because I know that God created me, my wife, my office telephone (yeah, go ahead and laugh–you tell me how it got here and then let’s trace the story all the way back), Bach’s music, etc. But again, I don’t believe in the wand theory. God creates as God pleases. I’m still waiting for the ID crowd to not just say the NSF is full of it (which they are!), but also to offer their theory or hypothesis or guess. You can’t just say “evolution doesn’t happen.” You’ve got to give me an alternative. And if it’s the wand story, I’ll keep looking.

]]>