Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 241 of 377 (608339)
03-09-2011 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Perdition
03-09-2011 7:17 PM


Ok. Then I expect to see you back here in probably 5 to 10 years, when we do exactly that.
Its a date...unless the rapture comes first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 7:17 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 8:42 PM havoc has replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 242 of 377 (608341)
03-09-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:29 PM


Its a date...unless the rapture comes first.
I'll make a deal with you. If the rapture comes, I'll convert to Christianity, if scientists show that life can occur naturally, you accept science over dogma.
How about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:29 PM havoc has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:45 PM Perdition has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 243 of 377 (608342)
03-09-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by jar
03-09-2011 7:22 PM


Is ice freezing in a refrigerator evidence that water does not freeze naturally?
Not what I said, but you allready know that.
Is water freezing below 32 degrees proof that it can freeze at 50 degrees?
What is up with the insults? I’m sure you are an intelligent person who happens to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 7:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 377 (608343)
03-09-2011 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Coragyps
03-09-2011 7:35 PM


Coragyps writes:
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.
How hard can this be to understand? The distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is explained in the high school biology texts used in essentially every US public high school. Well, at least the texts that creationists haven't gotten to.
Yet a web search for biogenesis turns up countless creationist web pages that take the ridiculous position that Pasteur's experiments proved that abiogenesis and even evolution are impossible.
My favorite "Law of biogenesis" example is Chuck Missler's argument that every time we open a jar of peanut butter we prove that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Coragyps, posted 03-09-2011 7:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM NoNukes has replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 245 of 377 (608344)
03-09-2011 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Perdition
03-09-2011 8:42 PM


I'll make a deal with you. If the rapture comes, I'll convert to Christianity, if scientists show that life can occur naturally, you accept science over dogma.
How about it?
Point 1: you might want to move your time table up you dont want to miss the flight.
Point 2: already have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 8:42 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2011 8:55 PM havoc has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 246 of 377 (608348)
03-09-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:45 PM


Point 1: you might want to move your time table up you dont want to miss the flight.
Point 2: already have.
Considering the "flight" has been "imminent" for about 2000 years now, I'm not going to hold my breath,
If you're arguing that Pasteur's experiments "prove" abiogenesis is impossible, then either you don't understand science, or you're letting your dogma override the scientific proces.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:45 PM havoc has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 377 (608349)
03-09-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:42 PM


Sorry you get insulted.
havoc writes:
Is ice freezing in a refrigerator evidence that water does not freeze naturally?
Not what I said, but you allready know that.
Is water freezing below 32 degrees proof that it can freeze at 50 degrees?
What is up with the insults? I’m sure you are an intelligent person who happens to be wrong.
Now that is an even sillier assertion.
Freezing water in a refrigerator is exactly analogous to a scientist creating life. Both are examples of simply replicating natural systems.
I'm still waiting for you or any other marketeer of Special Creation or Intelligent Design to present evidence similar to what I or others have presented, but have no real expectation that will ever happen.
Until it does, Special Creation and Intelligent Design will remain just stuff to laugh about.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:42 PM havoc has not replied

havoc
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 03-01-2011


Message 248 of 377 (608350)
03-09-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by NoNukes
03-09-2011 8:44 PM


How hard can this be to understand? The distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is explained in the high school biology texts used in essentially every US public high school. Well, at least the texts that creationists haven't gotten to.
Please explain how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 8:44 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 9:00 PM havoc has not replied
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 9:20 PM havoc has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 249 of 377 (608351)
03-09-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:58 PM


But not in this thread
havoc writes:
How hard can this be to understand? The distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is explained in the high school biology texts used in essentially every US public high school. Well, at least the texts that creationists haven't gotten to.
Please explain how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ?
But not in this thread.
Thanks.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM havoc has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 377 (608354)
03-09-2011 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by havoc
03-09-2011 8:58 PM


Abiogenesis v. Spontaneous Generation
havoc writes:
Please explain how abiogenesis and spontaneous generation differ?
I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on Spontaneous Generation. I think that would be enough, but you can also take a peak at the article on Abiogenesis.
I'd also recommend that you examine descriptions of the experiments that Louis Pasteur and Francesco Redi actually performed and that you seriously consider the scope of the conclusions you would reasonably draw from those experiments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by havoc, posted 03-09-2011 8:58 PM havoc has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 251 of 377 (608370)
03-10-2011 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Perdition
03-09-2011 6:17 PM


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.
Well I'm not the one who brought this up. All I am saying is that, if anything, observed lack of extraterrestial life is evidence against the existence of a naturalistic mechanism to get life. But of course, and I'll repeat myself, I totally agree we haven't searched enough for this to hold any weight
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?
You can't really apply this ''test'' (I wouldn't have chosen that word but oh well) to a supernatural designer, unless you are willing to embark on the theology of what a designer would or would not do.
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.
Seeing you speak in absolutes, I assume you are very near 100% sure that we will eventually find extraterrestial life. Seems like a faith-based statement, however.
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.
You need more then physics to explain DNA, RNA and life. You also need information theory.
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.
I also currently study physics at university, and I understand what you mean, but you are neglecting the information aspect that life contains, and this is what seperates it from simply being ''special chemistry''.
The chemical interactions between the molecules of a DNA strand tells us nothing about the information it contains, because it does not depend on the interactions but in the order of those molecules, and this must be viewed from the POV of information theory, not chemistry.
This is why it is the fallacy of composition to attribute to life only the characteristics that it's individual components hold.
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?
''Pigs can fly'' isn't a universal negative.

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 253 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 2:11 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 256 by fizz57, posted 03-10-2011 8:44 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 259 by Perdition, posted 03-10-2011 10:05 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 252 of 377 (608371)
03-10-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by jar
03-09-2011 6:39 PM


BUT, natural processes have been observed.
This is a fallacious reasoning once again. You cannot assert natural processes causes a particular thing just because we have observed natural processes in general.
Think about it, suppose I turned lead into gold and you told me I did so via a natural mean. But when I asked why you think this is so, you answered ''because I have observed natural processes''. This would clearly be illogical, just because you saw an appl fall to the ground, or an electric current create a magnetic field, or any other natural process it does not mean anything concerning turning lead into gold. You actually need to have at least a plausible naturalistic mechanism, and/or observed revelant natural processes.
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.
I'll be honest jar, you have brought very little to this discussion appart from repeating useless things such as this ad nauseam ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by jar, posted 03-09-2011 6:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-10-2011 2:20 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 257 by jar, posted 03-10-2011 9:22 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 297 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2011 1:27 PM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 253 of 377 (608373)
03-10-2011 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by slevesque
03-10-2011 1:56 AM


All I am saying is that, if anything, observed lack of extraterrestial life ...
But this isn't an "observed lack" --- rather, it's a lack of observation. Which is different.
But of course, and I'll repeat myself, I totally agree we haven't searched enough for this to hold any weight
Agreed. In fact, it's not just that we "haven't searched enough" --- we haven't even searched in the right way. So far, the only tests we have made are for life which lives in our near vicinity, which is smart enough to build radios and suchlike gadgets, which is dumb enough not to have built anything better, and which is incautious enough to want to broadcast this fact to the galaxy. That's a much narrower field.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 1:56 AM slevesque has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 377 (608375)
03-10-2011 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by slevesque
03-10-2011 2:06 AM


Think about it, suppose I turned lead into gold and you told me I did so via a natural mean. But when I asked why you think this is so, you answered ''because I have observed natural processes''. This would clearly be illogical, just because you saw an appl fall to the ground, or an electric current create a magnetic field, or any other natural process it does not mean anything concerning turning lead into gold. You actually need to have at least a plausible naturalistic mechanism, and/or observed revelant natural processes.
Well, no.
Suppose you actually (apparently) saw me take an ingot of lead and turn it into an ingot of gold.
Now, you admittedly believe in supernatural forces. Nonetheless, wouldn't your first hypothesis be that I had used natural means to bring about this effect --- possibly some sort of conjuring trick? Would that not be more "logical" than the conclusion that I actually have supernatural powers?
Heck, what do you think when you actually see a conjuring trick? Has it ever even crossed your mind that (for example) Penn & Teller have supernatural powers from Satan, or have you always assumed that they are using purely natural means to produce their effects?
Whether or not miracles happen, we must admit that they are rare. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation of a given effect, we are compelled to believe as a default position that the cause was natural. This is not certain, but it is certainly the way to bet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 2:06 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 2:37 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 255 of 377 (608410)
03-10-2011 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by slevesque
03-09-2011 5:00 PM


slevesque writes:
Irreducible complexity is discussed in the litterature, but it is not named this way. For example:
quote:
A major enigma in evolutionary biology is that
new forms or functions often require the concerted
efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is
unclear how such changes might accumulate when
they are likely to be deleterious individually and be
lost by selective pressure
Koch, A.L., Enzyme evolution: I. The importance of untranslatable
intermediates, Genetics 72:297—316, 1972.
You probably got this from John Woodmorappe's article Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists. If you go back and look more carefully you'll see how you screwed up the citation, since he mentions Koch immediately after that quote, which is actually from the abstract for A yeast prion provides a mechanism for genetic variation and phenotypic diversity (Heather L. True and Susan L. Lindquist, Nature 407, 477-483, 28 September 2000). At least it's not 39 years old, but the abstract continues:
True & Lindquist writes:
The Saccharomyces cerevisiae prion [PSI +] is an epigenetic modifier of the fidelity of translation termination, but its impact on yeast biology has been unclear. Here we show that [PSI +] provides the means to uncover hidden genetic variation and produce new heritable phenotypes. Moreover, in each of the seven genetic backgrounds tested, the constellation of phenotypes produced was unique. We propose that the epigenetic and metastable nature of [PSI +] inheritance allows yeast cells to exploit pre-existing genetic variation to thrive in fluctuating environments. Further, the capacity of [PSI +] to convert previously neutral genetic variation to a non-neutral state may facilitate the evolution of new traits.
Wow! The abstract concludes with a proposed solution for the conundrum introduced at the beginning and concludes in completely opposite fashion to what you thought! We really should create a quote mining archive. This one would deserve to be featured prominently.
Irreducible complexity is the modern form of the argument, "I can't imagine how this could have happened naturally, it must be due to something outside of nature." And no, irreducible complexity is not "discussed in the literature, but it is not named this way." That's because irreducible complexity is not a synonym for "things we as yet have no idea how they happened."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:00 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2011 9:38 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 267 by slevesque, posted 03-10-2011 3:05 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024