|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
But that is a nonsense statement I don't think so Jardoz because I think he means some kind of direct supernatural event, as a possibility, rather than a natural process. I think NM's just being open-minded about it all. Okay - what's probable? I suppose some kind of abiogenesis, but then it could infact require a supernatural sparkplug to kickstart life. I'm not talking NGK either. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't think so Jardoz because I think he means some kind of direct supernatural event, as a possibility, rather than a natural process. Tell you why it is nonsense. If there was a supernatural incident then by definition, it is not something we can study using Science. However, since supernatural events are NOT subject to scientific study, even discussing them in relation to the study of Abiogenesis or developing a Theory of Abiogenesis is a waste of time and nonsense. When the 'goddunit' solution gets tossed on the table, all thinking, all search for knowledge stops. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutralmind Member (Idle past 6154 days) Posts: 183 From: Finland Joined: |
Let's Continue in this vein on this topic if need be, whenever it is promoted. Let's leave the offtopic as is.
Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is another rub that is often overlooked. The scientists who are manipulating matter and supposed conditions in the lab, are by definition 'intelligent agents'. If they are able to produce some burnt slime after zapping a chemical soup (while making massive and unverifiable assumptions about theoretical atmospheric conditions on the early earth), can they really say that 'such an experiment proves that it is possible without intelligent guidance'? The scientists' intelligence in such a case would be used to simulate the conditions of nature, not to guide the process. --- Your complaint seems to be a variation of an old standby. Creationist: I won't believe it until scientists replicate it in a laboratory. Evolutionst: We did. Look! Creationist: That doesn't count, because scientists did it in a laboratory. The peculiar thing is that in this case you're using it to attack an experiment that hasn't been done yet. You like to keep your bases covered, don't you? I suppose that's why your fantasy includes the scientists "making massive and unverifiable assumptions". If such an experiment is ever done ssuccessfully, that's what you're going to say about it, no matter how much evidence the scientists have as to the composition of the prebiotic atmosphere.
Let me ask you this... Could an automobile have evolved without intelligent agents designing it? No. Machines do not reproduce with variation.
All man made things break down into simpler and simpler parts. Just like natural objects. Clearly the whole is always more complex than the part, because the whole contains all the parts. What's your point?
So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is natural, then why do we so with life? So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is SUPERnatural, then why do we so with life? Look at it this way. If we saw something which verifiably defied the laws of nature, like Jesus walking on Lake Galilee, then it would be sensible to think that this was a supernatural event. If we simply see something we are presently at a loss to explain according to our current knowledge, like ball lightning or the hexagon on Saturn, or the mysterious disappearance of my glasses, or a conjurer making an elephant disappear, then it is more reasonable to suppose that there is an explanation within the laws of nature and that it depends on facts and/or laws unknown to us. Certainly any research into the phenomenon must be done on that basis. I can't look for my glasses under the hypothesis that they were stolen by magical spectacle elves and taken to fairyland. Note that I am not talking about philosophical naturalism --- an a priori belief that there is no supernatural. But there is a case for empirical and methodological naturalism as a default possition with regards to any specific thing that needs explaining.
Forget theory and inuendo... where are the laws and evidence to explain these things with the observations we do have? You might want to find out the meaning of the word "theory" and the word "law". And possibly the word "innuendo", since that seems an odd kind of way to use it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
jar writes:
Good God! They're eating the evidence! What could be more convenient? We know that every environmental niche we have looked in so far here on Earth already contains life. It is highly likely that any new critter that did come into existence, assuming conditions today are such that abiogenesis might be possible, would most likely simply become food for whatever happened to be occupying the niche currently. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : only vanity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr.A:
If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is SUPERnatural, then why do we so with life? But we would conclude that the old car came into being supernaturally. And rightly so... I think one trap we too often fall into is thinking of the supernatural as 'unnatural'. That is not what supernatural means. Just like something super-rational (like the scriptures) is not 'irrational'. The only difference between the natural and unnatural for the context of this argument is 'mind' or 'intelligence'. I suspect we will not even be able to agree upon that... The equivilant comparison is mindlessness (randomness or chaos) vs. intelligence (order and harmony). Those are the terms I am speaking in when I say supernatural vs natural. Random events do not give you order... Kuresu, agreed or not, are you listening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
No, I am saying it would be false and a sign of ignorance and dishonesty to say otherwise. That's called deferring to common sense... but who's common sense? Bertrand Russel used the same argument when asked to explain the origin of the universe. "It's just there!", He said... Well, why can't I say that about God? He's just there!" Your double standards are mezmerizing... jar:The fact is that the evidence shows there was a time when there was no living things on earth. We can see that there are living things on earth now. Therefore, abiogenesis happened. Like Evolution, Abiogenesis is a Fact. We are still working to develop a Theory of Abiogenesis that explains how it happened as well as the Theory of Evolution explains the life we see about us, but that Abiogenesis happened is not an issue. Ok fine! It is obvious life is here... I'll agree with you there. How it came into being is another matter. Was it intelligently guided or not? You said in one of your replies that you believe God created all of it. So is that not an intelligent design irrespective of any deficiencies you may perceive in the system? Seems to me that the issue is one of how life came into being. You also indicated this same idea. If we agree on that, then however God God created life, it is not unnatural but supernatural. And it is only supernatural relative to our current understanding. The real solution supercedes our current understanding. What intrigues me, is that the more we know, the more incredible it becomes. The more awesome and miraculous it appears even if we do understand it more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But we would conclude that the old car came into being supernaturally. You think used cars are evidence of the divine will? No, of course you don't. What is your point?
I think one trap we too often fall into is thinking of the supernatural as 'unnatural'. That is not what supernatural means. Supernatural: supervening the laws of nature. Artificial: created by intelligent processes. That's what the words mean, you don't get to change the English language by fiat.
I suspect we will not even be able to agree upon that... No. Even if you wanted my permission to change the English language, it is not mine to give.
The equivilant comparison is mindlessness (randomness or chaos) vs. intelligence (order and harmony). If you think that "mindlessness" is the same as "randomness or chaos" then you know nothing of physics, and if you think that "intelligence" is the same as "order and harmony" then you know little of the way our poor species conducts its daily affairs.
Random events do not give you order... And random statements don't give you an argument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Dr. A:
Supernatural: supervening the laws of nature. Artificial: created by intelligent processes. That's what the words mean, you don't get to change the English language by fiat. Intelligence is artificial? I don't know about that, but it kinda confirms my point that human life is very unusual (almost alien) to the rest of the creation. There is something very unique about us. We're supernatural! But here we are... But this is encouraging. you're saying that words do have an objective meaning and that I cannot interpret by what they mean to me? Websters: Artificial 1: produced by art rather than nature; also : made by humans to immitate nature 2 : not genuine : FEIGNED So 'man-made' is artificial. How bout God-made? God, who is the supernature (the canvass upon all else hangs. Dr.A:If you think that "mindlessness" is the same as "randomness or chaos" then you know nothing of physics, and if you think that "intelligence" is the same as "order and harmony" then you know little of the way our poor species conducts its daily affairs. Who said that we were intelligent? You are however paying a compliment to order and harmony with your statement. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
DrA writes: Artificial: created by intelligent processes. Rob writes: Intelligence is artificial? I don't know about that, but it kinda confirms my point that human life is very unusual (almost alien) to the rest of the creation. There is something very unique about us. How on earth could you get what you said from DrA's definition? I'd like to see a detailed explanation. As it is this little exchange explains why it is impossible to talk with you. You can't read. Edited by NosyNed, : fix db codes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is obvious life is here... I'll agree with you there. How it came into being is another matter. Was it intelligently guided or not? There is no indication of any intelligent guidance. In fact, the evidence shows just the opposite, that the critters we see are not designed but rather just barely good enough to squeak by.
You said in one of your replies that you believe God created all of it. So is that not an intelligent design irrespective of any deficiencies you may perceive in the system? No. It is a personal belief and has NOTHING to do with the issue of a Theory of Abiogenesis or of the fact that Abiogenesis happened.
If we agree on that, then however God God created life, it is not unnatural but supernatural. No, simply not true. So far all of the evidence is that only natural methods will be involved. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
NosyNed:
How on earth could you get what you said from DrA's definition? I'd like to see a detailed explanation. As it is this little exchange explains why it is impossible to talk with you. You can't read. I could just as easily say the same with some of you. The fact is all of us can read. It is frustrating though. At least we agree upon that. We are speaking different languages conceptually (or spiritually) IMO. That aside, let me explain... Dr.A.:Artificial: created by intelligent processes. How else should I interpret this definition? If that which is 'artificial' (forgery) is created by intelligence, then that which is real (not artificial) must arrive from unintelligent processes. So, this definition is actually defining intelligence as phony. Now in the biblical sense this is true of you and I. But man's intelligence is not God's. God's intelligence is not artificial. You may not agree, and it is certainly now veering way off the topic. But that is where I am coming from. How we can communicate with such a different ontic referent for our assum
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jar:
No. It is a personal belief and has NOTHING to do with the issue of a Theory of Abiogenesis or of the fact that Abiogenesis happened.So far all of the evidence is that only natural methods will be involved. Is that the only evidence you are looking for? Do you expect that unnatural methods would be involved? Seems to me that God's actions would be the 'most-natural' thing. And it would be super... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
How else should I interpret this definition? If that which is 'artificial' (forgery) is created by intelligence, then that which is real (not artificial) must arrive from unintelligent processes. So, this definition is actually defining intelligence as phony. 1) Artifical does not mean forgery. Especially in this context. It means exactly what the definition says. Formed by an intelligent process. It comes from the same root as artifact. If you think our intelligence was created by an intelligent process then I guess we are 'artifacts' too. But that is something you might be saying What DrA said does NOT logically lead to that conclusion. It is not a consequence of "Artificial: created by intelligent process". What you said was like"Fingerpaintings: created by children under 5 Therefor you would conclude that children under 5 are finger paintings. More nonsense. You've confirmed my understanding that attempting to talk to you in English is a waste of time. Edited by NosyNed, : corrected serious grammer error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5550 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Dr.A.: Artificial: created by intelligent processes. How else should I interpret this definition? If that which is 'artificial' (forgery) is created by intelligence, then that which is real (not artificial) must arrive from unintelligent processes. So, this definition is actually defining intelligence as phony. In order to explain an aparently incoherent statement, you are giving us an even more incromprehensible one. Lets break it by parts 1. Since when artificial means forgery (phony)?2. Since when is real the oposite of artificial? 3. Since when an statement about the nature of the artificial (to be created by intelligent processes.) can be taken as an oposite statement (to be created by unintelligent processes.) about the oposite of artificial ??? It's a non-sequitur Edited by fallacycop, : typo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024