Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 377 (608310)
03-09-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:43 PM


Finding life elsewhere
quote:
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.
You've said this before, and I believe you are completely sincere about it. I've always found such statements quite curious. The Bible is of course completely silent about any activities God may have undertaken elsewhere in the universe. I cannot imagine any discovery man could make with a telescope that would undermine my Christian faith.
I can imagine discoveries using a time machine that might be problematic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:43 PM slevesque has not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 227 of 377 (608311)
03-09-2011 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Taq
03-09-2011 5:08 PM


So where in this experiment does it demonstrate that life can not come from non-life?
from wikipedia:
Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and that the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[2] but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex ovo).
Bottle en col de cygne (Swan neck duct) used by Pasteur
Institut Pasteur de LilleHe exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths unless the flasks were broken open; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. This was one of the last and most important experiments disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. The experiment also supported germ theory.
I guess I should have said sterilization instead of pasturisation. In eithre event Spontaneous generation has been disproven for a long long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 5:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:04 AM havoc has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 228 of 377 (608312)
03-09-2011 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:43 PM


See previous reply to Taq for clarifications
quote:
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 we've hardly looked can hardly be used as evidence to say that life doesn't exist anywhere else. We've also only looked at places that are very different from Earth, if it turns out that certain requirements for life arising naturally don't exist in the small smaple we've looked at, we're left with an empty sample and trying to determine anything from an empty sample is problematic at best.
Beyond that, the argument for design fails the same test. We haven't found designed life anywhere we've looked in the universe (setting aside the debate about life on Earth). Why would a designer not design more life considering the vast universe he obviously created for it?
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.
Good for you, most Creationists would not feel the same way. I applaud your willingness to change your mind. I readily admit that there are things that would change me into a theist of some kind were they to occur.
I'm not sure how you feel, but I certainly hope we're both participating here when the discovery of life outside of Earth is discovered, and I look forward to us discussing it.
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 guess it depends on exactly what you mean by saying "life." Being self-perpetuating is an emergent property of the alignment of the molecules in DNA and RNA, but that emergent property can be explained, and even predicted by studying chemistry and physics.
DO you agree that saying ''biology is simply chemistry'' is a fallacy of ocmposition ? Seems like a textbook example to me.
Depends on the field you study. I was originally an astro-physics major in college. Physics claimed to be the most pure science, since chemistry is simply a subset of physics and biology was a subset of chemistry and any other science was a combination or subset of those three.
I will agree that life is a very special type of chemistry, but I won't back away from saying that life, when boiled down to its essence, is chemistry. There's nothing inherently unchemistry-like that prevents chemistry from becoming life naturalistically.
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.
I disagree. He's the one making the claim. I'm asking him to justify it. If he has no justification for making the claim, then there's no reason to refute it.
If I say that I believe pigs can fly, is it up to you to prove me wrong, or should I provide some reason for my assertion before we even begin to debate it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:43 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:27 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 251 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 1:56 AM Perdition has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 229 of 377 (608313)
03-09-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Perdition
03-09-2011 6:17 PM


or should I provide some reason for my assertion before we even begin to debate it?
So there is no reason to believe that non living can not become living? How about the fact that it has never been observed.
In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment" (referring to his swan-neck flask experiment wherein he proved that fermenting micro-organisms would not form in a flask containing fermentable juice until an entry path was created for them
Edited by havoc, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:17 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 6:39 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 231 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:40 PM havoc has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 230 of 377 (608314)
03-09-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:27 PM


havoc writes:
or should I provide some reason for my assertion before we even begin to debate it?
So there is no reason to believe that non living can become living? How about the fact that it has never been observed.
Neither has Special Creation.
BUT, natural processes have been observed.
When you put your imaginary Designer on the lab table to demonstrate the method and model used, then maybe, just maybe, ID and Creationism might be worth looking at.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:27 PM havoc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 2:06 AM jar has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 231 of 377 (608315)
03-09-2011 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:27 PM


So there is no reason to believe that non living can become living? How about the fact that it has never been observed.
We've never seen some "Intelligent Designer" creating life either. Does that mean we have no reason to believe in one of those, either?
There is no reason to believe that life can't arise from non-life. There is a pretty clear continuum from stuff that we all would agree is living, through things like viruses that some might say are living and some would say aren't, to strands of RNA and amino acids that we would probably all agree aren't life. Why is there any reason to assume that life can't come from non-life? As we've said, we only have a sample size of one, and since life is already here, it's pretty hard for anything new to find room.
Similar to the question I asked slevesque, when scientists show that life can arise from non-life, will you admit that an intelligent designer is not needed for life to be here?
Added in response to your edit:
In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment" (referring to his swan-neck flask experiment wherein he proved that fermenting micro-organisms would not form in a flask containing fermentable juice until an entry path was created for them
You DO realize that Pasteur's work wasn't a universal truth? Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis are not the same thing. Pasteur's work showed that maggots didn't form from rancid meat and similar spontaneous creation events, as some people believed in those days.
Before you try to quote scientists to further your beliefs, make sure what your quoting applies and agrees with what you're trying to argue.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:27 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:52 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM Perdition has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 232 of 377 (608316)
03-09-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by slevesque
03-09-2011 4:49 PM


First of all, the burden of proof is on those who claim life can arise through natural processes. Not the other way around.
I disagree.
In the absence of evidence for the supernatural, the natural is the default position.
After all, we can see and measure and observe the natural.
The supernatural we can't see or measure or observe. It would seem that to posit a supernatural origin for life one would have first to demonstrate that the supernatural even exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 4:49 PM slevesque has not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 233 of 377 (608317)
03-09-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Perdition
03-09-2011 6:40 PM


Similar to the question I asked slevesque, when scientists show that life can arise from non-life, will you admit that an intelligent designer is not needed for life to be here?
If scientists show that non life can become life without the help of the scientists then that would be evidence consistant with abiogenesis. If it takes a team of Intelligent scientists to cause non life to become life. This in no way would be evidence of abiogenesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:54 PM havoc has replied
 Message 239 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 7:22 PM havoc has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 234 of 377 (608318)
03-09-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:52 PM


If scientists show that non life can become life without the help of the scientists then that would be evidence consistant with abiogenesis. If it takes a team of Intelligent scientists to cause non life to become life. This in no way would be evidence of abiogenesis.
That's what I thought. You're going to hide behind the fallacy that the scientists did it, thereby showing only that intelligence can create life.
The scientists would be taking components that exist naturally, adding things like electricity, which exists naturally, and trying to get life. Would you consider that showing that it could have happened naturally, or would you say that the scientists were a necessary part of that process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:52 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 7:00 PM Perdition has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 235 of 377 (608319)
03-09-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Perdition
03-09-2011 6:40 PM


You DO realize that Pasteur's work wasn't a universal truth
Sure it is. His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:40 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 7:17 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 03-09-2011 7:35 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 263 by Taq, posted 03-10-2011 11:02 AM havoc has not replied
 Message 265 by Meddle, posted 03-10-2011 2:08 PM havoc has not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 236 of 377 (608320)
03-09-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Perdition
03-09-2011 6:54 PM


That's what I thought. You're going to hide behind the fallacy that the scientists did it, thereby showing only that intelligence can create life.
The scientists would be taking components that exist naturally, adding things like electricity, which exists naturally, and trying to get life. Would you consider that showing that it could have happened naturally, or would you say that the scientists were a necessary part of that process?
If the experiment was consistant with the enviroment on your proto earth then I would have no problem with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 6:54 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 7:17 PM havoc has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 237 of 377 (608323)
03-09-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:57 PM


Sure it is. His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not?
Nope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM havoc has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 238 of 377 (608324)
03-09-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by havoc
03-09-2011 7:00 PM


If the experiment was consistant with the enviroment on your proto earth then I would have no problem with it.
Ok. Then I expect to see you back here in probably 5 to 10 years, when we do exactly that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 7:00 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:29 PM Perdition has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 239 of 377 (608326)
03-09-2011 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:52 PM


havoc writes:
Similar to the question I asked slevesque, when scientists show that life can arise from non-life, will you admit that an intelligent designer is not needed for life to be here?
If scientists show that non life can become life without the help of the scientists then that would be evidence consistant with abiogenesis. If it takes a team of Intelligent scientists to cause non life to become life. This in no way would be evidence of abiogenesis.
As expected, a really stupid rejoinder.
Is ice freezing in a refrigerator evidence that water does not freeze naturally?
Give me a break.
AbE:
Quit the total nonsense replies. Stick to the topic. If you have evidence comparable to the examples given, bring it. Until you do, Intelligent Design and Special Creation will remain a silly joke.
Edited by jar, : see edit

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:52 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:42 PM jar has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 240 of 377 (608331)
03-09-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by havoc
03-09-2011 6:57 PM


His experiment proved Non life can not become life spontaniously did it not?
Not at all. Pasteur proved that if you kill all the bacteria in a flask of nutrients and prevent outside bacteria from entering, bacteria don't grow in that flask.
Just because nobody has witnessed all the steps in the birth of one star from a parent gas cloud, can you conclude that all those baby stars in Orion didn't form from gas clouds? Because nobody has watched a fertilized ovum for every minute of its path to infanthood, do you think babies are found under cabbage leaves?Those aren't rhetorical questions, by the way - I'd like your answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 6:57 PM havoc has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 8:44 PM Coragyps 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