Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8101 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2014 8:32 PM
192 online now:
Astrophile, Coyote, DrJones*, edge, Epee, Faith, hooah212002, Theodoric (8 members, 184 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,412 Year: 19,253/28,606 Month: 2,524/2,305 Week: 166/563 Day: 93/73 Hour: 10/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Modularity, A distinguishing property of life
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 291 (513289)
06-27-2009 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Abiogenesis has evidence that supports it, and their faith does not?

We can see the pieces, and how they fit together. We just have not managed to put them together ourselves, and we are working on it. Sheesh, slave-driver...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2009 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2009 11:53 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 549 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 17 of 291 (513295)
06-27-2009 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Phage0070
06-27-2009 11:13 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Abiogenesis has evidence that supports it, and their faith does not?

We can see the pieces, and how they fit together. We just have not managed to put them together ourselves, and we are working on it.

Either nothing created everything, or nothing created God and God created everything. What more can be deduced? You still have that age old chicken-egg problem. Which came first?


"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Phage0070, posted 06-27-2009 11:13 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phage0070, posted 06-27-2009 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 20 by onifre, posted 06-27-2009 5:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Mr Jack
Member (Idle past 303 days)
Posts: 3475
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 18 of 291 (513310)
06-27-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2009 9:56 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Aren't you relying on the same kind of faith the religious rely on? Abiogenesis has never been witnessed, experimentally replicated or proven in any way, just like God. What's the difference between your faith and theirs?

Wrong. Abiogenesis is an empirical fact. We know that there was no life 13.7 billion years ago, and no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know there is life on Earth now. Thus, by simple deduction, at some point in the last 13.7 billion years life formed from non-life - abiogenesis - further, given the remarkable unlikelihood of life surviving to cross space and seed earth, it's most likely to have formed on Earth in the last 4.5 billion years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2009 9:56 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 06-27-2009 5:45 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2009 8:34 AM Mr Jack has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 291 (513311)
06-27-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Hyroglyphx writes:

Either nothing created everything, or nothing created God and God created everything. What more can be deduced?


WRONG. You assume that at some point there was nothing, from which came everything. We have not established that there was nothing at any point, so using it as a starting point is a huge assuption. Even *if* we had established such a thing, the question you stated is *not* a "chicken-egg" situation at all. That sort of problem assumes that we have observed both chickens and eggs, and that they are objectively related. In this case it would be more of a rock-unicorn situation: We observe the rock to exist, and have no proof of the existence of the unicorn much less any particular relation of the unicorn to the rock. We know the rock exists, and assuming we knew that it did not exist at a prior time we could conclude it came into existence at some point in the interim. The unicorn is no more or less likely to enter into our conclusion than the concept a god did it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2009 11:53 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2009 9:10 AM Phage0070 has responded
 Message 243 by Filameter, posted 07-08-2009 11:59 AM Phage0070 has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member
Posts: 4851
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 20 of 291 (513312)
06-27-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
06-27-2009 11:53 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Either nothing created everything, or nothing created God and God created everything.

You went from talking about abiogenesis to the big bang. Are you saying that abiogenesis is something coming from nothing...? Well wasn't there a planet? With elements? Wouldn't that be something?

You still have that age old chicken-egg problem. Which came first?

Reptiles used eggs long before the chicken evolved, so I would say the egg, according to the fossil record, came first.

- Oni


Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-27-2009 11:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1019 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 291 (513315)
06-27-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr Jack
06-27-2009 4:05 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Of course, this is only true if you believe in materialism
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr Jack, posted 06-27-2009 4:05 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1019 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 22 of 291 (513316)
06-27-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Teapots&unicorns
06-26-2009 9:23 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
First off, IDers would have to show that evolution could not have caused an organism to be the way it is. This is impossible- you cannot prove a negative.

I can prove I did not buy a pizza yesterday (joking)

On a more serious note, what are you proposing here ? That evolution is not theoretically falsifiable ? (I mean, if there is no way to prove evolution could not have done it, then evolution isn't falsifiable ...)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-26-2009 9:23 AM Teapots&unicorns has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2009 6:35 PM slevesque has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 23 of 291 (513322)
06-27-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
06-27-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
I can prove I did not buy a pizza yesterday (joking)
No, you can't (not joking): You could prove that you made it practically impossible for us to discover how you bought a pizza yesterday.

(I mean, if there is no way to prove evolution could not have done it, then evolution isn't falsifiable ...)
Evolution makes many predictions. Any one of these could falsify evolution. Evolution predicts that baboons can not give birth to starfish. If a baboon troop starts giving birth to starfish evolution, as currently formulated, is history just as soon as the observation is confirmed.

However, this would still not wholesale abolish evolutionary theory. What ever new theory comes into play will have to include all the natural history currently known, and there is a pant load of evidentiary fossil remains that very strongly suggest that the vast majority of life on Earth has followed a course of gradual change. How one adds the new observation that baboons, at the very least, are able to violate the random mutation and natural selection parts IOW, all of it would be difficult, to say the least.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 06-27-2009 5:51 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-27-2009 7:43 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 2:18 AM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 1266 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 24 of 291 (513327)
06-27-2009 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by lyx2no
06-27-2009 6:35 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Evolution makes many predictions. Any one of these could falsify evolution. Evolution predicts that baboons can not give birth to starfish. If a baboon troop starts giving birth to starfish evolution, as currently formulated, is history just as soon as the observation is confirmed.
However, this would still not wholesale abolish evolutionary theory. What ever new theory comes into play will have to include all the natural history currently known, and there is a pant load of evidentiary fossil remains that very strongly suggest that the vast majority of life on Earth has followed a course of gradual change. How one adds the new observation that baboons, at the very least, are able to violate the random mutation and natural selection parts IOW, all of it would be difficult, to say the least.

Of course, this would not prove creationism/ID, it would merely introduce a 3rd theory to the table- something that creationists fear because it defeats their "1 or the other" argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2009 6:35 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 2:21 AM Teapots&unicorns has acknowledged this reply

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1019 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 291 (513341)
06-28-2009 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by lyx2no
06-27-2009 6:35 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
No, you can't (not joking): You could prove that you made it practically impossible for us to discover how you bought a pizza yesterday.

Ok I'll make a negative statement that is more precise:

I did not buy a pizza yesterday at 12h at Domino's pizza, 1273 Cartier street, Montreal, Quebec.

I could prove this negative, simply by watching the security camera. Or by asking the person who worked there at that hour, etc. In the same way I could prove that there are no monkeys in my closet, by opening my closet and showing that there are none. Although it is more difficult to prove a negative, it is a common myth to say that 'you can't prove a negative'.

In regards to the topic at hand. ''Mutation+natural selection could not have produced the genetic diversity we see'' is a statement that could be proven thru population genetics and genetic theory. Because of this, the theory that 'mutation+natural selection produced the genetic diversity we see today' is a valid scientific theory because it can be falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2009 6:35 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 06-28-2009 2:36 AM slevesque has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1019 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 26 of 291 (513342)
06-28-2009 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Teapots&unicorns
06-27-2009 7:43 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
This is a bit of a strawman of the creationist position. YEC say that 'either life made itself' or that 'intelligence made life'.

It is not: either evolution is true or creationism/ID is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-27-2009 7:43 PM Teapots&unicorns has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 06-28-2009 7:52 AM slevesque has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 291 (513344)
06-28-2009 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
06-28-2009 2:18 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
slevesque writes:

I could prove this negative, simply by watching the security camera. Or by asking the person who worked there at that hour, etc.


Security camera footage can be doctored; sufficiently expert tampering would not be detectable. The person who was working there at that hour could be lying because you bribed them, or they might simply be mistaken. You CANNOT prove that you did not order that pizza.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 2:18 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 3:02 AM Phage0070 has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1019 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 28 of 291 (513345)
06-28-2009 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phage0070
06-28-2009 2:36 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
I was hoping no one would suggest something like that, really ...

This argument-type can be used for anything. I mean, in the same way, I could say: 'Barack Obama said ''I have a dog'' on live TV' (a positive statement) and then, as proof, show you a tape of it. But you could say: you can't prove it, since maybe you tampered that tape to make him say that; see, you can't prove a positive. And then I would bring to you 100 people who saw it live, and have them tell you that Barack Obama did say 'I have a dog' on live tv. But you could say: maybe you bribed all these people so that they told me this, you still can't prove a positive. If your argument was valid, you could not prove either a positive nor a negative.

In any case, we can see it in another way: suppose A and not-A, two opposite statements. If I falsify A, then automatically I prove not-A (by the law of non-contradiction)

Example:

A - My car is blue.
not-A - My car is not blue.

If I falsify A, then it proves not-A. If I prove not-A, then it falsifies A.

If I prove A, then it falsifies not-A. But if I falsify not-A, it does not prove A.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phage0070, posted 06-28-2009 2:36 AM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by lyx2no, posted 06-28-2009 8:39 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 35 by Phage0070, posted 06-28-2009 9:23 AM slevesque has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 29 of 291 (513353)
06-28-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque
06-28-2009 2:21 AM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Hi slevesque,

quote:
This is a bit of a strawman of the creationist position. YEC say that 'either life made itself' or that 'intelligence made life'.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. T&U's assessment of YEc is accurate. Your definition is so inaccurate as to be effectively unrecognisable.

I have never heard a YEC say anything along the lines of "life made itself". If you can provide evidence of any YEC saying anything to that effect, I would be interested to see it.

As for "intelligence made life", you are on safer ground. However, in my experience, YECs are not shy about identifying the proposed source of this "intelligence"; the god of the Bible. They at least tend to be honest about this aspect of their beliefs (unlike their ID cousins) and openly promote Yaweh as their creator-of-choice. They tend not to use weasel words such as "intelligent designer". They usually just credit God as the creator.

If you doubt me, here are some definitions of YEC from around the web;

Wikipedia writes:

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Its adherents are those Christians and Jews who believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days, taking the Hebrew text of Genesis as a literal account.

Source

The Young Earth Creation Club writes:

Eleven Statements of Faith #4.
The entire Universe was created by God in 6 days of approximately 24-hours each, as revealed in Genesis 1 and Exodus_20:11.

Source

Conservapedia writes:

Young Earth Creationism, sometimes abbreviated YEC,[1] is a form of creationism which holds that the earth and the universe are approximately 6,000 years old.

and later...

Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of Genesis:

* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, Adam and Eve.

Source

nwcreation.net writes:

The young earth creation perspective is the result of a literal interpretation of the description of creation in Genesis 1. The Bible says that the world was created in 6 days with the many life forms required have a functional ecosystem. Subsequently a genealogy from Adam to Jesus can be used to easily calculate the age of the world. According to this Biblical chronology, the universe and the earth were created approximately 6000 years ago.

Source

Okay?

quote:
It is not: either evolution is true or creationism/ID is true.

Let's be quite clear; this attitude is not so much part of the ideology of YECs, it is more of a debating tactic. Woefully short of positive evidence in favour of creaton (they are short of evidence because no such evidence exists), YECs are reduced to attacking evolution and hoping that YEC philosophy will thus win out by default. It is a sad and sorry tactic, one which you yourself have dismantled to reveal the fallacy within. Proving evolution wrong does nothing to prove creation true, but that doesn't stop dishonest scumbags like Kent Hovind trying to use the tactic anyway, as in this video;

Hovind is very clearly aware of the fallacious nature of his argument. He just doesn't seem to care enough to stop employing the fallacy. Presumably he figures that "lying for Jesus" is OK just as long as he saves a soul or two.

It's not just Hovind either. The false dichotomy argument is a mainstay of creationist polemic. I lose count of the number of times I've seen it employed, here at EvC and elsewhere.

The majority of creationists using the fallacy don't realise that it is fallacious; the rest just don't care.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Rephrase for clarity


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 2:21 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by slevesque, posted 06-28-2009 9:00 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 549 days)
Posts: 5140
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 30 of 291 (513356)
06-28-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mr Jack
06-27-2009 4:05 PM


Re: Falsifiability of your proposal
Wrong. Abiogenesis is an empirical fact. We know that there was no life 13.7 billion years ago, and no life on Earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know there is life on Earth now. Thus, by simple deduction, at some point in the last 13.7 billion years life formed from non-life

I'm sorry but this flies in the face of all scientific inquiry, Mr. Jack.

Let me paraphrase what you just said:

No life was on the Earth a really time ago, but now there is life. So therefore life just popped into existence all by itself, regardless of whether or not it's been scientifically demonstrated. There is nothing else to surmise because there couldn't possibly be any other explanation I'm willing to entertain. It goes against my deepest philosophical views. The end.

There is nothing beyond speculation pointing to abiogenesis. If you reduce life and matter down fraction by fraction, eventually you run in to nothing creating something. Everything we know, empirically, is that such a notion is an absurdity. There is no truth beyond the theoretical stage. I'm sure you're gonna tell me all about the Miller-Urey experiment, and we'll go back and forth for several rounds until I'm bored with repeating myself.

Is it impossible for me to believe? No, not necessarily. Could there be any other explanation besides things just popping in to existence besides something supernatural? Sure, why not.

My issue is the certainty you are speaking with. You don't know what happened, least of all empirically. Nobody does at this point. This is ALL speculation from the scientific community. Good for them for trying to figure out, I hardily commend that. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis is a FACT, as you assert, because it is anything but a fact. At some point you still have the timeless chicken/egg problem.

The most honest answer is, we're not exactly sure, so don't sell me a philosophical agenda when science, true unbiased science, has no agenda

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mr Jack, posted 06-27-2009 4:05 PM Mr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Perdition, posted 06-29-2009 3:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014