|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Or perhaps the poster is not a native speaker of English. Nothing wrong with asking for coherency, but the "retarded" crack was uncalled for, your faux disclaimer not withstanding. I'll bet you would never call an adult with a cognitive disability retarded to his face. I myself am not a native speaker of english, and yet I put a great deal of effort to avoid spelling and grammar errors, and incoherent phrases. When I put this much time in my posts, I expect to have replies in which people have done the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Pasteurization is experimental, operational science. So where in this experiment does it demonstrate that life can not come from non-life?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Here is the inductive argument. All IC systems of known origin were designed by humans. Therefore, all IC systems of unknown origin were designed by humans. We know this can't be true, therefore IC fails as evidence of design. This is not a coherent logical argument, as the conclusion does not followfrom the premises.
Therefore, not all IC systems are designed. Period. Once again, that conclusion would not follow from the premises. (fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, maybe ?)
Until you show that the inductive argument does not require humans as the designer then I would say that the inductive argument has failed. I have done so here Message 149. I would suggest you work into understanding how syllogisms work before continuing in this vein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think most people think there is a difference between living and non living. Well, way to go skipping over most of my post to jump on one line that can be debated. Does that mean you agree with the rest of my post? As for the difference between living and dead, the difference comes down to a perpetualized chemical reaction. Life is that which has an effective self-perpetuating reactrion, wheras non-life doesn't have self-perpetuating chemical reactions. Again, what law of nature would stop this from being able to happen on its own?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972. Can we see the quote in context with the rest of the text? Also, do you have a source that is a little more recent than 39 years ago?
It becomes a matter of chance if some good combination of mutations happened during that time.
It is not a matter of chance that these fortuitous mutations are passed on at much higher rates than other mutations to the point that they become common within the population. It is also not a matter of chance that this process is iterative and is working on millions of mutations in parallel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
This is not a coherent logical argument, as the conclusion does not followfrom the premises. It is no different than your inductive proofs.
Once again, that conclusion would not follow from the premises. So you are saying that humans have been around since the beginning of life? Remember, the only known origin of IC systems is humans.
I have done so here Message 149. No, you didn't. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: All IC systems of known origin were produced by humans. If you disagree, then please show a counterexample.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No more so than those who claim it came about by design. Irrelevant. You cannot ask him to prove a universal negative. It is the same as if I asked you evidence if you claimed ''supernatural creation is impossible''. Likewise, if you disagree with the statement ''life cannot arise through natural processes'' you are the one who has to provide evidence that it can. In the same way, if havoc claims life was intelligently designed, he has to provide evidence for it.
Seriously? What percentage of planets in the universe have we thoroughly searched for life? We haven't even checked all of the planets and moons in our own solar system. All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally. In no circumstances can this be taken as evidence that it can. Obviously, as you said, we haven't really searched a whole lot of places for this to actually have weight right now.
The same could be said for any non-living matter made up of more than one atom. I think that's the basic idea behind the fallacy of composition. In fact, my biology textbook when I was in Cegep would consistently emphasize that a biological system was more then it's individual components.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around. Why?
Second, the fact that despite all our efforts we fail to find life elsewhere is actually evidence for the fact that life does not arise naturally, or else it would also have elsewhere. We've only been able to look at the barest fractrion of a percent of our own solar system, let along the rest of the galaxy, and even that's only the merest fraction of a percent of the universe. If I were to look at just my backyard, would I be justified in saying that elephants, tigers, any plant over a couple inches, and koalas don't exist becasue I don't see them there? If we find life elsewhere, would that be evidence to you that life can arise naturally, or would you simply assume that God, or someother "designer" just happened to create life there as well?
Life isn't just chemistry, it is an emergent property of the atoms when arranged in a very specific way. I'd say that life is indeed just a self-perpetuating chemical reaction. Consciousness, thought, these are emergent properties of certain types of life, but when you get down to single celled creatures, the difference between chemistry and biology bgins to become very fuzzy. And is there some law that says given nearly infinite volume and time, atoms can't arrange themselves in this way naturally?
Yet I'm the one racking up the fallacies in this thread. I don't agree with the fallacy you pointed out. You're still just making assertions without evidence. The very smart Arthur C. CLarke once said, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." And don't take this as an insult, but you're not even an elderly or distinguished scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
havoc writes: There is no known natural law that causes non living matter to become living matter. What a silly thing to say. Living things accomplish this all of the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Learn to read. Learn to be civil.
At times we can determine if a non biological artifact is the result of outside interference and influence. Read the OP. In it I post examples. When someone can present the same level of evidence regarding biological things then we can consider that they might be a product of outside interference and influence. So far NO Creationist or Intelligent (talk about and oxymoron) Design marketeer has produced comparable evidence. Ok so your examples are a computer with HP stamped on it and a car with Dodge on it. So if you know the maker you know it was made? surely there can be design when the designer in unknown. Here is an example of biological design. Color vision. I will now quote directly from a Jonathan Sarfati book.
Our eyes have two types of light detectors, rods and cones. The cones are mainly in the central part of our retina and need bright lightthey detect colour. The rods are in the peripheral part and are good in dim light but can’t distinguish colours. There are three types of cone. One is sensitive mainly to red, a second to green and a third blue. Each of them sends a signal to the brain if it detects light. But the signal by itself says nothing about colour, only about the brightness of the light it can detect. Yet from the simple system, we can distinguish millions of different colours. Here’s how. If a small beam of red light hits three adjoining cones, only the red one will fire, sending a signal to the brain. But this signal by its self doesn’t say ‘red’it is only the lack of signal from the adjoining blue and green cones that makes the brain see ‘red’. But what about yellow? Here, a beam of yellow light, wavelength about 580 nm, will still land on three cones. But as they have a range of detectable wavelengths, both the red and green cones will detect the light. When the brain receives signals from adjoining red and green cones, it sees ‘yellow’. If the light is somewhat greenish yellow, the green cone will send a slightly stronger signal, so the brain sees a greener shade of yellow. The brain can distinguish between many different wavelengths of light by how they affect the three types of cone. And if all three are fired equally strongly, the brain sees white. Explain color vision in the terms of slight changes required by Darwin. I know its not a compeling as your Dodge sticker example but seems to make sence to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is also irrelevant. If color vision provides an advantage it will be selected.
There is no mystery there. There is NO evidence of any outside interference or influencing entity. Edited by jar, : add last line Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4669 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Why? We've only been able to look at the barest fractrion of a percent of our own solar system, let along the rest of the galaxy, and even that's only the merest fraction of a percent of the universe. If I were to look at just my backyard, would I be justified in saying that elephants, tigers, any plant over a couple inches, and koalas don't exist becasue I don't see them there? See previous reply to Taq for clarifications
If we find life elsewhere, would that be evidence to you that life can arise naturally, or would you simply assume that God, or someother "designer" just happened to create life there as well? If I speak for myself yes it would. I probably would not feel that it is conclusive evidence, but it would certainly be evidence for a naturalistic origin of life over any ad hoc explanation I could come up with as a christian.
I'd say that life is indeed just a self-perpetuating chemical reaction. Consciousness, thought, these are emergent properties of certain types of life, but when you get down to single celled creatures, the difference between chemistry and biology bgins to become very fuzzy. My biology textbook disagrees with me, life as an emergent property of biological systems is probably the one thing it puts the most emphasize on, at least in the first few chapters.
I don't agree with the fallacy you pointed out. You're still just making assertions without evidence. DO you agree that saying ''biology is simply chemistry'' is a fallacy of ocmposition ? Seems like a textbook example to me.
The very smart Arthur C. CLarke once said, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong." And don't take this as an insult, but you're not even an elderly or distinguished scientist. I guess M. Clarke is entitled to his opinion, but logic has little to do with personnal opinions. The reality is that havoc is entitled to claim ''life cannot arise naturally'', even if it is unjustified, and that you are the one who has to provide counter-evidence to this assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
slevesque writes: All I'm saying is that, if anything, the fact life is only found on earth can only be seen as evidence against life arising naturally. In no circumstances can this be taken as evidence that it can. The fact that life is only found on earth is equally good evidence against the creation of life by ________ (fill in the blank). This form of argument would not seem to be all that helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4782 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It is also irrelevant. If color vision provides an advantage it will be selected. There is no mystery there. There is NO evidence of any outside interference or influencing entity. I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design. So I find these fine tuned features as evidence of design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
havoc writes: It is also irrelevant. If color vision provides an advantage it will be selected. There is no mystery there. There is NO evidence of any outside interference or influencing entity. I dont think evolution could ever lead to this level of design. So I find these fine tuned features as evidence of design. Fortunately what you think is irrelevant. The FACT is that neither you or any other Creationist or Intelligent Design marketeer can or has produced anything like the level of evidence I and others have presented. Until that happens Special Creation and Intelligent Design will remain jokes and products sold to the gullible from the back step of the Medicine Wagon. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024