|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
inkorrekt writes: What you have shown here is a quantification of the data in the form of bytes.This is one way ( today's high tech age, this is the digital information).Whether it is digital / analogue,it is a form of expression. This even does not explain what is information. I've provided you the scientific definition of information. Since you don't accept this definition, how do you define information, and how would you apply that definition to my example of eye color to determine whether information has increased or not? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tryannasapien Rex Junior Member (Idle past 4620 days) Posts: 21 Joined: |
You might find your answer if u look at how plants are formed.
The moon went though a formation process when the solar system was being formed. The was a short period of time when the moon was being hit by a large number of meteorite's causing the moon to heat up. This caused lava flowed freely on the surface, causing the great mare structures that u can see now on the moons surface. At the same point in time the earth was in the same condition a surface covered in lava. Water did exist yet because it wasn't made yet. At this point in time "witch is before the fossil record" no life existed because there was no free water yet. "All life is dependent on water here on earth."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
You: 'show proof that God is the author of creation'
Me. I'll go by simple logical argument. Here it is: Premise (P)1: All simple things like cameras, computers, have designer or maker P2. If simple things have makers then complex things (like our eyes and brain) has a designer or maker. P3. Every rule there is an exception. Conclusion. If every thing--from the simple to the complex--has a maker or designer, and every rule there is an exception then it follows that the Grand designer /maker is the maker of makers and that he is the exception to the rule. That is He has no maker or designer. ( This is by process of elimination. In the Bible he is called God) A friendly reminder about logic: A valid argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from these premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.
Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3. Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule. Each of these invalidates your argument. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
It's a pedantic technicality but a false premise makes an argument unsound, rather than invalid. Validity is a matter of the form of the argument - does it folllow the rules of logic ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
You are right, of course.
pilate's argument is unsound because P2 is not known to be true (and, in fact, we have good reason to believe it is false). pilate's argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even assuming the premises are true since I gave two alternatives that are consistent with the stated premises. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Restating your position, with a different conclusion
P1: All designed things have a designer or maker.Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker. P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it. Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
You: First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.
Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3. My comment. Reasonable men would agree that the simple concrete blocks that make my house were made. And, therefore they wouldn't believe that my house just evolved or existed by itself. You: Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule. Me: By process of elimination. If all makers were eliminated then the last one standing is the exception. You: Each of these invalidates your argument Me: I therefore disagree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
You: Restating your position, with a different conclusion
P1: All designed things have a designer or maker. Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker. P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it. Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule. Me: I agree w/ your premise 1 and the induction. ( Although you should not call it a conclusion because it has only 1 premise. An argument needs at least 1 truthful premise) Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons: 1. It does not logically flow from the premises2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple fact or formula: Input + process = output. How can process be the input? Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons Don't worry yourself - that wasn't my conclusion. My conclusion was 'The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. '. That is to say it is still logically possible, it has not been excluded as a possibility. Therefore God is not the only possible conclusion. As God is not the only possible conclusion, your argument does not supply us with proof.
2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple algorithm (??) Input + process = output. How can process be the input? We weren't talking about the origin of the process. If we want to go back to that we eventually get to the origin of the universe. In that case the universe itself might be the exception. You have not excluded this as a possibility, nor have you excluded it. Thus your argument is not proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: But we are not discussing houses made of concrete blocks. We are discussing organisms, and some reasonable people do believe that these did not have a designer. Even if we know that houses have designers, this tells us nothing about living organisms. - Second, you have a premise, P3, that says for every rule there is an exception. Therefore, according to your own premise, if we have the rule that houses made with concrete blocks are designed, then, according to your own premise, there should be a house that is made of concrete blocks that is not designed. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
You: "Your argument is not proof".
Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard. Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You: "Your argument is not proof". Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard. You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?
Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree? No need. I already said that evolutionary processes being the only possibility is not a logical statement to make. Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4496 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
You: You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?
Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be? You: Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time. Me: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be? But was yours logical? As a proof of God? All you proved was that there has to be a terminus point. That terminus point might be God, or it might the universe, or it might be the multiverse. No - it was rhetorical but not necessarily logical.
: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that. It doesn't matter what everybody agrees on. I don't think it is necessarily either the most popular or necessarily the most controversial. However no other explanatory framework has been as practical. You may refute this simply by showing a more practical explanation. Practical as in utilitarian, by the way. It has to have some utility.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024