Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 196 of 327 (505925)
04-20-2009 7:30 AM


Physical Evidence for the Designer
Anyone got anything to say about physical evidence for the designer? Anyone? Anyone at all? Hello?
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:19 PM Percy has replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 197 of 327 (505973)
04-20-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Phage0070
04-19-2009 12:25 AM


Before the big bang, there was no.....
Phage0070 writes:
Bio-molecularTony writes:
You see, none of these things are normal. There must be some field creating this force and in turn these effects. Nothing is taken for granted anymore.
Where in the world did you get this idea? I cannot see any logical reason to come to this conclusion, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that the way the universe behaves is, by definition, "normal".
Before the big bang, there was no gravity. Gravity is not normal, and so did not always exist. It is not a given that it always existed. Gravity is thought to be CREATED by particle called a graviton (energy field of some kind).
The same is true with all the other forces. Before the big bang physical life did not exist nor could it. It needed to be created and it needed matter to exist to be the blocks to create it from.
So matter is not normal for it did not always exist but had to come into existence. And so to, life is not normal for the same reason. It never always existed, but came into existence later.
Life is only designed to "look" real and "look" alive. There never was anything alive to begin with. "Life" is a fool’s paradise, only the "fooled" think they are "living" entities. So by the fact you’re a machine (without a true life force) you’re by this fact not real to what you thought you were. The living "you" does not exist. The machine made to look like you is all you got. You’re not normal if you’re just a machine "designed to look alive". Physical life does not exist and is not real, just as illusions are not the real thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Phage0070, posted 04-19-2009 12:25 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Phage0070, posted 04-21-2009 12:08 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 201 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-21-2009 1:04 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 198 of 327 (505974)
04-20-2009 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Percy
04-20-2009 7:30 AM


Re: Physical Evidence for the Designer
bluejay #1 writes:
I attempted to initiate a discussion about the type of designer that would be fully consistent with the physical evidence available to us.
God is not physical, so there are no particles of matter that construct him. Indirect evidence galore is everywhere. But as of yet the human eye is said not to be able to see God and live. Will science some day see God, well I don't know, it would be an eye opener for sure.
The intelligence found in the design of "living system" is just one indirect way we can "see" there is a God or Creator.
All matter is said to be made from Gods powerful Holy Spirit - that's everything. The subatomic world is supernatural - moving at the speed of light, never stopping, never running out of energy. Sounds very close to being from a supernatural source. The dual nature of light and the electron are because we have nothing like it to compare it with. So there is no good explanation for what it really is like.
If something acts kind of supernatural, how do you explain it to someone? With what do you compare it to? This is the subatomic world we are just finding out about.
Edited by Bio-molecularTony, : Added new thoughts..sub-atomic world

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 04-20-2009 7:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coyote, posted 04-20-2009 11:50 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 04-21-2009 6:53 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 199 of 327 (505975)
04-20-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Bio-molecularTony
04-20-2009 11:19 PM


Re: Physical Evidence for the Designer
In other words, all of this intelligent design nonsense isn't science, its just shilling for the Christian version of a deity--with a half-hearted attempt to pretend to be science.
Because your post has nothing to do with science and everything to do with religious apologetics.
Who are you trying to fool?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:19 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 327 (505976)
04-21-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony
04-20-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Before the big bang, there was no.....
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Before the big bang, there was no gravity.
You don't know that. You are in fact talking out of your sphincter. Many current theories also suggest that space-time as we know it began with the Big Bang event, and thus talking about "before the Big Bang" is nonsense in and of itself.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
Gravity is not normal, and so did not always exist.
Not only is this lacking evidential backing, but it is a non-sequitur. You could go from something not always existing to suggesting that it is not "normal", but you cannot simply unilaterally apply a quality of "abnormality" and then deduce reality from that.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
It is not a given that it always existed. Gravity is thought to be CREATED by particle called a graviton (energy field of some kind).
Sure, it might not always have existed. However you are imparting a relationship between a graviton and gravity that is not there. For instance, suppose you have a yellow ball. Did the ball "create" the yellow? Of course not, the yellow color is a *quality* of the ball. In this same way it is thought that gravity is a quality of the graviton (or vice versa depending on who you talk to).
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So matter is not normal for it did not always exist but had to come into existence. And so to, life is not normal for the same reason. It never always existed, but came into existence later.
Forgetting for the moment your universal view of abnormality, let's think about a granite rock sitting on a forest floor. The granite rock has been there for a very long time, and was brought about by forces beyond any form of life. However the rock did not always exist in that form; it was at different points something entirely different. Would you consider something like that abnormal?
Even if you would, you cannot really consider the whole of the universe to be abnormal. Since the Big Bang event brought space-time and the potential for a linear timeframe into existence, the time that you talk about the universe not existing during never happened. There was no "before the Big Bang" so your argument is based only on your misunderstanding.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
"Life" is a fool’s paradise, only the "fooled" think they are "living" entities. So by the fact you’re a machine (without a true life force) you’re by this fact not real to what you thought you were. ... You’re not normal if you’re just a machine "designed to look alive". Physical life does not exist and is not real, just as illusions are not the real thing.
Pure nonsense! By your own admission the "true life force" does not exist; it is the fiction, it is the make-believe, it is the illusion. Your funny little idea in your head is WRONG, and what happens in the world is REAL.
You looked out into the world and realized that it didn't conform to your beliefs conceived in ignorance, and concluded "OMG, the world is a lie!" I cannot properly express the idiocy such a statement conveys; did it cross your mind, such as it is, that perhaps your beliefs were simply incorrect? Or is your argument that you are so colossally stupid that the very fabric of reality is warped by your inability to comprehend it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:07 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 201 of 327 (505980)
04-21-2009 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony
04-20-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Before the big bang, there was no.....
Tony writes:
Before the big bang, there was no gravity.
We have no clue what happened before the Big Bang, if there was even a 'before'. Currently, cosmological models predict that time as well as space (time and space are actually two functions of the same entity called spacetime) began at the Big Bang. Therefore it makes no sense to ask what happened before time began at the Big Bang just like it makes no sense to ask what is north of the north pole.
Gravity is not normal, and so did not always exist.
Banging head into wall. What is exactly your definition of 'normal'. According to you none of reality is 'normal' (whatever 'normal' is?).
And how do you know exactly what is normal and what is not normal? The word 'normal' is a subjective word, just like other misconstrued terms like "complexity" and "intelligence" that creationists and IDers like to throw about with no clue to its utter subjectiveness. These subjective words have to have a frame of reference in order for them to make any sense whatsoever. What are you using to reference the term "normal" of off? Just your frame of reference? The whole of humanity? What?
It is not a given that it always existed.
And how in your infinite intelligence do you know what has or has not always existed? Not even theoretical physicists would make such a unsubstantiated claim as this without providing some bit of logic and evidence to back him up. That is what seperates you (and many other religious fundamentalists) from science, the idea that you speak in absolutes with no evidence to support your claims.
Gravity is thought to be CREATED by particle called a graviton (energy field of some kind).
That is a very simplistic way of thinking of gravity, but in truth it is much more detailed than how you depict it. Gravity is not "created" by the graviton. Rather hypothetical gravitons (which have yet to be detected) are thought to be the mediators of the gravitational forces that attracts matter to each other. These aren't solid, tangible particles but rather wave functions of probability (as is all elementary particles) much in the same way in which electromagnetic energy such as light is carried along by massless particles called photons. I won't go into the details here as that is a totally seperate topic.
Tony writes:
The same is true with all the other forces.
What is your point?
Tony writes:
Before the big bang physical life did not exist nor could it.
Again, modern cosmological models predict that time began at the Big Bang and thus there is no 'before'. So I guess in a matter of speaking you are right to say that life did not or could not exist before it, because there is no 'before'.
Tony writes:
It needed to be created and it needed matter to exist to be the blocks to create it from.
Now you are applying anthropomorphic rationale into your debate. Why does life "need" to be created?
Looking at how prolific life is (especially here on Earth) once certain parameters are met, it is easy to see how life could have occurred through natural means. With the shere number of galaxies in the universe (at least 100 billion) and the number of planets that typically could be in one galaxy (at least 100s of millions to several billion). This would indicated (conservatively) that there are at a minimum several quadrillion planets in the universe (1,000,000,000,000,000,). Even if life was very rare and occurred only at a rate of 1 in a million, this extremely conservative calculation would indicate that over 1 billion planets in the universe should have some form of life on it.
Tony writes:
So matter is not normal for it did not always exist but had to come into existence.
It makes no sense to talk about the normality and nonexistence of matter, as matter, energy, space and time are all intricatelly linked together in the spacetime framework of the cosmos in which we exist. If you ask what occurred before matter existed than it would be akin to asking what existed before time began.
Tony writes:
And so to, life is not normal for the same reason. It never always existed, but came into existence later.
And you know this because?
Tony writes:
Life is only designed to "look" real and "look" alive.
Another unsubstantiated claim. How do you know that life is intelligently designed?
To "look" and "feel" alive are human traits that we put on life to try and categorize it as seperate from non-living matter. However, when we get down to the molecular and atomic levels, there really is no difference between life and non-life except in the way specific molecules and atoms are arranged. It is only when we see things from a macroscopic level that can we see morphological and physiological differences between life and non-life.
Tony writes:
There never was anything alive to begin with.
Ok, and?
Tony writes:
"Life" is a fool’s paradise, only the "fooled" think they are "living" entities.
Whether or not you want to call your self "alive" is just semantics. You do live in the real world in which "life" (or whatever you want to call it) must have certain criteria met for them to continue "living" and not die. If you stop breathing you will die. If you do not get an adequate amount of caloric input you will die. If a plant does not get an adequate supply of water it dies, etc in finitim. Inorganic rocks don't meet this criteria of life/death and therefore we classify them as non-living.
If you think "life" is an illusion than your whole reality is essentially an illusion on par with the Matrix. However, I would venture to guess that you, being part of this reality, are not going to put your faith in your own "illusion of reality" idea and step foot in front of an 18 wheeler barelling down the highway. Rather, you will put faith in your own mortality and the notion that you are a "living" entity with certain bodily needs i.e. not to be brutally maimed and crushed by a big rig and that you would much rather live to see your grandchildren. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Tony writes:
So by the fact you’re a machine (without a true life force) you’re by this fact not real to what you thought you were. The living "you" does not exist. The machine made to look like you is all you got. You’re not normal if you’re just a machine "designed to look alive". Physical life does not exist and is not real, just as illusions are not the real thing.
The "living" you will become real familiar with the force of gravity and its deadly effects if you jump out of an airplane with no parachute, irregardless of whether you think you really exist or not.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:07 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-21-2009 11:00 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 202 of 327 (505988)
04-21-2009 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Bio-molecularTony
04-20-2009 11:19 PM


Re: Physical Evidence for the Designer
Hi Tony,
Intelligent design has become a hot topic because of claims by religious conservatives that it represents legitimate science deserving of time in public school science classrooms. The secular response is that it is religion.
When you introduce God into the conversation you automatically concede that intelligent design really *is* religion. So for these two reasons:
  • Even though you march zombie-like forward seemingly unaware that you are committing the mother of all faux pas in terms of this debate, it loses the debate outright when you introduce God into the discussion. In the sense of all that is fair and sporting, we just can't let you keep putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Where's the challenge in that for us? Plus it gets old after a while, and it's already been a while.
  • This thread is in the science forums. Religious topics should be taken to one of the religion forums
Please stop introducing religion into the discussion. Keep your focus on the scientific aspects of intelligent design. This thread is about the physical evidence for the designer.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-20-2009 11:19 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 9:18 AM Percy has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 203 of 327 (506031)
04-21-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by DevilsAdvocate
04-21-2009 1:04 AM


All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Now you are applying anthropomorphic rationale into your debate. Why does life "need" to be created?
Looking at how prolific life is (especially here on Earth) once certain parameters are met, it is easy to see how life could have occurred through natural means. With the shere number of galaxies in the universe (at least 100 billion) and the number of planets that typically could be in one galaxy (at least 100s of millions to several billion). This would indicated (conservatively) that there are at a minimum several quadrillion planets in the universe (1,000,000,000,000,000,). Even if life was very rare and occurred only at a rate of 1 in a million, this extremely conservative calculation would indicate that over 1 billion planets in the universe should have some form of life on it.
I've already killed that beast a long time ago. You don't remember do you? You learned nothing from this forum, you learn "0".
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled. There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
This is what is meant by life only comes from life.
This old mythical story of probabilities does not work with raw matter without intelligent coded programming - and without the machinery that does the "creating".
If you can't remember these basics - you’re a failure for life. This is one of the main cornerstones of our modern understanding of biology (Life). Get this wrong and everything else you think about gets twisted out of alignment. Screwed is a fitting word here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-21-2009 1:04 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Coyote, posted 04-21-2009 11:41 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 205 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 4:28 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied
 Message 206 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-22-2009 5:44 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 204 of 327 (506035)
04-21-2009 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony
04-21-2009 11:00 PM


Re: All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled. There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
This is what is meant by life only comes from life.
"Life only comes from life" has not been scientifically documented. It appears that it is a religious belief rather than a scientific finding.
So I ask--what makes you think that a gradual assembly of molecules can't produce life? We have evidence that life arose some billions of years ago. Please specify the exact reason(s) that this could not have happened due to natural causes.
And please, leave your religious beliefs for some other forum. This is the Science Forum. (See tagline.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-21-2009 11:00 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by IchiBan, posted 04-23-2009 1:17 PM Coyote has replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 205 of 327 (506053)
04-22-2009 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony
04-21-2009 11:00 PM


Re: All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Bio-molecularTony writes:
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled. There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
Do you know what is wrong with this argument? Do you realize why no one takes this claim seriously? Let me explain it to you.
You are stating a hypothesis as fact, without providing any facts to substantiate it.
I will give you an example:
Premise A: "Objects fall toward the ground when there is nothing to suspend them"
Premise B: "We know Premise A to be true because we can see objects fall to the ground."
Premise C: "We know Premise A & B to be true because we have repeatedly tested them, with many other individuals independently testing them."
Conclusion: Objects fall toward the ground when there is nothing to suspend them.
Your argument stops at Premise A. This is evident as not once do you use the words (or any combination thereof of similar meaning) "we know this because" with facts following them.
I would posit the reason that you go no further than Premise A is due mainly to your lack of any substantiating evidence whatsoever for your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-21-2009 11:00 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-22-2009 5:58 AM Michamus has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 206 of 327 (506058)
04-22-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony
04-21-2009 11:00 PM


Re: All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Tony writes:
Myself writes:
Now you are applying anthropomorphic rationale into your debate. Why does life "need" to be created?
Looking at how prolific life is (especially here on Earth) once certain parameters are met, it is easy to see how life could have occurred through natural means. With the shere number of galaxies in the universe (at least 100 billion) and the number of planets that typically could be in one galaxy (at least 100s of millions to several billion). This would indicated (conservatively) that there are at a minimum several quadrillion planets in the universe (1,000,000,000,000,000,). Even if life was very rare and occurred only at a rate of 1 in a million, this extremely conservative calculation would indicate that over 1 billion planets in the universe should have some form of life on it.
I've already killed that beast a long time ago. You don't remember do you? You learned nothing from this forum, you learn "0".
No, you have not. You have not once provided any evidence to back up your claim that life has to be "created". You have not once explained exactly why or how life has to be "created". Michamus states this well (and I have stated over and over at nauseum in this thread as well):
Michamus writes:
You are stating a hypothesis as fact, without providing any facts to substantiate it.
Tony writes:
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Do organic molecules such as amino acids exist? Do they have to come from "life"? Can organic molecules originate on there own without human intervention? Can we find them elsewhere outside the Earth?
Scientists have already found amino acids and the precursors to RNA and DNA in space:
Precursor to Proteins and DNA Found in Stellar Disk
How difficult would it be for the chemicals to exist on one of the quadrillion planets that exist in the universe and for life to develop therewith?
Dr. Geoffrey Blake writes:
If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube, and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine," said Keck Astronomer Dr. Geoffrey Blake, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and co-author of the paper.
also
While the precise events leading up to self-replicating nucleic acids remains unclear, the molecules of acetylene (C2H2) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) have been shown to produce the base compounds necessary to build RNA and DNA. The team found that the abundance of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) was nearly 10,000 times higher than that found in cold interstellar gas from which stars and planets are born.
Tony writes:
There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
And you know this because? We are talking about an evolving chemical system. Biological life did not begin with the complexity that we see today in cells. We are now beginning to understand how RNA and other simpler organic molecules could have evolved into the more complex self-assembing structures that we see today in cellular biology:
Case in point:
Here is some light reading for you:
Luisi, Pier Luigi (2006). The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Martin, W. and Russell M.J. (2002). "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological sciences 358: 59—85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183.
Hartman, Hyman (1998). "Photosynthesis and the Origin of Life". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 28 (4—6): 515—521. doi:10.1023/A:1006548904157.
Harris, Henry (2002). Things come to life. Spontaneous generation revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198515383.
Fernando CT, Rowe, J (2007). "Natural selection in chemical evolution". Journal of Theoretical Biology 247: 152—67. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.01.028.
Arrhenius, Gustaf; et al. (1997). "Entropy and Charge in Molecular Evolutionthe Case of Phosphate". Journal of Theoretical Biology 187 (4): 503—522. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0385.
Davies, Paul (1998). The Fifth Miracle. Penguin Science, London. ISBN 0-140-28226-2.
De Duve, Christian (January 1996). Vital Dust: The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-09045-1.
Tony writes:
This is what is meant by life only comes from life.
Put up or shut up. Here I will spell it out for you.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-21-2009 11:00 PM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 207 of 327 (506060)
04-22-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Michamus
04-22-2009 4:28 AM


The Hall of SHAME
Message 1 of 1
04-22-2009 05:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hall Shame - Quasi-Science-quibbles
Some times the only way to get some people in line is to Post their Quasi-science for all to remember.
Then we can have a HISTORY of story tellers that would have us believe they were scientific but were never further from the truth.
Let's record to moments of GREAT SHAME shell we. Maybe "they" will stop repeating their errors of intellect.
There is this thing called common knowledge, yet some would question even the VERY BASICS of the modern understanding in science.
This is not a forum for children is it. So if you wish to question the simplest things - it would be good to post of your lack of knowledge. Those that do not know should not be trying to teach those that do know. So I bring you the HALL of SHAME.
Coyote writes:
"Life only comes from life" has not been scientifically documented. It appears that it is a religious belief rather than a scientific finding.
Michamus writes:
Do you know what is wrong with this argument? Do you realize why no one takes this claim seriously? Let me explain it to you.
You are stating a hypothesis as fact, without providing any facts to substantiate it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 4:28 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Percy, posted 04-22-2009 7:19 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied
 Message 209 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 9:24 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 208 of 327 (506068)
04-22-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony
04-22-2009 5:58 AM


Re: The Hall of SHAME
Bio-molecularTony writes:
There is this thing called common knowledge...
This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, where the attempt is made to carry one's point simply by claiming that because something is already widely believed that it must already have been widely established as true. Everyone used to know the sun orbited the Earth, and so one could have argued against Copernicus on the basis of common knowledge. Unfortunately for common knowledge, Copernicus had science on his side.
But that life can only be intelligently designed has not only not been scientifically established, it doesn't even have the status of being common knowledge. I assume you think its common knowledge because everyone you come in contact with accepts it, but this is not true for the entire country where intelligent design continues to cause controversy.
A few years ago there was a trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, because the school board attempted to teach intelligent design in the classroom and many people in the community did not believe it was science, and this was a very religiously conservative community. Try promoting intelligent design in cities like New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles and you'll find a much smaller percentage of people who accept such ideas.
This thread attempts to bring the light of scientific inquiry to the question of whether there is any evidence for the designer. Claims of common knowledge are just attempts to do an end-run around requests for evidence. Even if the existence of the designer were actually common knowledge that had been widely established as true, there must originally been some pretty convincing evidence. Where is this evidence?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-22-2009 5:58 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

Michamus
Member (Idle past 5157 days)
Posts: 230
From: Ft Hood, TX
Joined: 03-16-2009


Message 209 of 327 (506083)
04-22-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony
04-22-2009 5:58 AM


Re: The Hall of SHAME
Bio-molecularTony writes:
There is this thing called common knowledge
It has become apparent that your intention here is not to discuss knowledge at all. It isn't to describe facts, and how they interact with your interpretation of reality. It isn't to establish some new theory that can be utilized in the advancement of human knowledge and understanding.
No, it has become quite obvious that your intention here is to hammer the same unsubstantiated statement, over, and over, until everyone stops replying to you. At which point you will have the half empty reassurance that you were "right" and they were "wrong".
Until you realize that your are not checking your "common knowledge" to actual knowledge, you will go no where. Remember, it is the one who provides evidence against "common knowledge", that is typically destroyed by the ones who possess the "common knowledge".
Edited by Michamus, : Minor typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-22-2009 5:58 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-22-2009 12:07 PM Michamus has replied
 Message 221 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-24-2009 6:28 AM Michamus has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 210 of 327 (506091)
04-22-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Michamus
04-22-2009 9:24 AM


Re: The Hall of SHAME
I think what is missing from Tony's posts here is the understanding of who possesses this "common knowledge". Clearly, this "common knowledge" he speaks of actually exists only in the minds of people who really fail to understand or care to understand what the question really means, much less how to answer it.
The question of "how can life come from nonlife" to a scientist is not even a valid question since:
a. You have to define terms i.e. what is and is not 'life' and "what does it mean for 'life' to come from other 'life' or 'nonlife'?"
b. Even if life and all its functionality is defined as per point 'a', how can you indicate on a molecular level what life is and isn't (trick question: you can't, 'life' does not exist in the realm of individual atoms and molecules)?
As a result science does not and should not answer purposfully vague and ambiguous questions such as "can life come from nonlife" until scientists burrow down and examine what exactly life is and is not. It is really as simple as that.
As Percy indicated earlier this is an argument ad popularim in which even the 'ad popularim' is only a portion of the unknowledgeable public who knowingly or unknowingly remain ignorant on this subject and attempt to defend this ignorance.
BTW, Michemus, good luck to you in Afghanistan and wish the best for you, your family and your fellow soldiers in arms.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 9:24 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Michamus, posted 04-22-2009 12:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024