|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you're not even interested in the question that this forum is all about, why did you register here? Was it some sort of accident?
As for your argument, such as it is, it is obviously flawed: because as it stands it is not just an argument that I can't find out about the distant past, it's also an argument that I can't find out what happened five minutes ago. Yes, as you say, any 6 year old can always legitimately ask: What happened before that?, but that does not in any way thwart my ability to find out what happened five minutes ago, and to do so to a degree of certainty that cannot reasonably be described as "all conjecture".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
Since there is no true beginning, you can never ascertain the essence or how of anything. Baloney. Physicists and chemists have figured out how atoms interact, and they did this without needing to know the ultimate beginning of the universe or even how these atoms were produced to begin with. We don't need to know where hydrogen and oxygen came from to know that water is made up of two hydrogens to one oxygen, as one example.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
quote: So, the answer to a question does not need to be explained in itself to be acceptable. Nor does it need to be simpler. Edited by Energy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So, the answer to a question does not need to be explained in itself to be acceptable. Nor does it need to be simpler. No. What Taq seems to be saying is that initial conditions of the universe are not required to be known to understand how atoms and molecules interact. It's a bit like understanding ToE does not need an understanding of abiogenesis. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
quote:So it's not a question of causality, but mechanism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Basically.
Water is going to boil at 100C stp: we know that at that temperature the molecules break apart becuase the covalent and hydrogen bonds cannot be maintained. We do not need to know where the atoms ultimately originated from. Oh, and welcome to EvC!The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
quote:Why thank you. quote:Alright. Edited by Energy, : No reason given. Edited by Energy, : No reason given. Edited by Energy, : ending discussion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Water is going to boil at 100C stp: we know that at that temperature the molecules break apart becuase the covalent and hydrogen bonds cannot be maintained. Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not. Well I thought they did. That's what I remember from school.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Covalent bonds breaking when water boils? Surely not.
Well I thought they did. That's what I remember from school. Steam is still H2O...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9972 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
quote: Causality and mechanism are one in the same, at least how I view it. What causes evolution? Descent with modification filtered through natural selection. What is the mechanism of evolution? Descent with modification filtered through natural selection. We could use a murder case as an example. The prosecution could present evidence where the defendant's fingerprints are found on the knife that was used in the murder. If the defense pointed out that the prosecution was not able to describe the ultimate origin of the molecules in the knife, or the ultimate origin of life on planet earth and hence the defendant, could this evidence be thrown out? Of course not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Energy, and welcome to the fray.
taq in Message 377: Physicists and chemists have figured out how atoms interact, and they did this without needing to know the ultimate beginning of the universe or even how these atoms were produced to begin with. We don't need to know where hydrogen and oxygen came from to know that water is made up of two hydrogens to one oxygen, as one example. quote:Alright. In the context of doing chemistry we do not need to know the source of molecules, or even much about the molecules internal workings (quarks and leptons, not just electrons, protons and neutrons), in order to study and understand chemical reactions, or to make predictions on future reactions from the properties of the chemicals. However, if the question "where do the atoms come from" is asked, then chemistry is not able to answer that question. In a similar vein, if the question "where did life come from" is asked, then evolution is not able to answer that question -- evolution deals with the "chemical reactions" of organisms within ecologies, and doesn't need to know where life came from to study and understand evolutions "reactions," or to make predictions on future "reactions" from the properties of the organisms and their ecologies. In the context of the topic for this thread (Message 1):
quote: In the context of the above discussion, it would be possible to study aspects of ID without knowing where the IDer came from. In the context of this thread I am asking where the IDer came from. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 Edited by Zen Deist, : psby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, the answer to a question does not need to be explained in itself to be acceptable. Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered that if you go on asking "why?" for long enough, eventually you exhaust the knowledge of your parents. But this doesn't invalidate all the answers given before you reach that point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
D'oh!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Energy Junior Member (Idle past 4431 days) Posts: 5 Joined: |
Causality and mechanism are one in the same, at least how I view it. What causes evolution? Descent with modification filtered through natural selection. What is the mechanism of evolution? Descent with modification filtered through natural selection.
Sounds like you're asking it wrong. If a footprint were found in snow, for example.v v v However, if the question "where do the atoms come from" is asked, then chemistry is not able to answer that question. In a similar vein, if the question "where did life come from" is asked, then evolution is not able to answer that question -- The origin of the footprint doesn't answer how the foot made the depression in the snow, which would be explaining the mechanism of it. I could be wrong, however, as I am usually missing something lol Thanks for the tips, Zen, and for the welcome.
Quite. Every three-year-old has discovered that if you go on asking "why?" for long enough, eventually you exhaust the knowledge of your parents. But this doesn't invalidate all the answers given before you reach that point.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024