Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
523 online now:
Aussie, AZPaul3, jar, Phat, vimesey (5 members, 518 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,202 Year: 4,314/6,534 Month: 528/900 Week: 52/182 Day: 24/16 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Abiogenesis, no Evolution, then what?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20757
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 136 of 173 (309762)
05-06-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by inkorrekt
05-06-2006 4:19 PM


Re: what is information?
inkorrekt writes:

What you have shown here is a quantification of the data in the form of bytes.This is one way ( today's high tech age, this is the digital information).
Whether it is digital / analogue,it is a form of expression. This even does not explain what is information.

I've provided you the scientific definition of information. Since you don't accept this definition, how do you define information, and how would you apply that definition to my example of eye color to determine whether information has increased or not?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by inkorrekt, posted 05-06-2006 4:19 PM inkorrekt has taken no action

  
Tryannasapien Rex
Junior Member (Idle past 3834 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 02-15-2006


Message 137 of 173 (319595)
06-09-2006 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
10-06-2005 11:17 PM


Re: Life has always existed
You might find your answer if u look at how plants are formed.
The moon went though a formation process when the solar system was being formed.
The was a short period of time when the moon was being hit
by a large number of meteorite's causing the moon to heat up.
This caused lava flowed freely on the surface, causing the great mare structures that u can see now on the moons surface.
At the same point in time the earth was in the same condition
a surface covered in lava.
Water did exist yet because it wasn't made yet.
At this point in time "witch is before the fossil record" no life existed because there was no free water yet.
"All life is dependent on water here on earth.";)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-06-2005 11:17 PM jar has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 138 of 173 (366823)
11-29-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
10-06-2005 11:33 AM


No abiogenesis, no evolution then what
You: 'show proof that God is the author of creation'
Me. I'll go by simple logical argument. Here it is:
Premise (P)1: All simple things like cameras, computers, have designer or maker

P2. If simple things have makers then complex things (like our eyes and brain) has a designer or maker.

P3. Every rule there is an exception.

Conclusion. If every thing--from the simple to the complex--has a maker or designer, and every rule there is an exception then it follows that the Grand designer /maker is the maker of makers and that he is the exception to the rule. That is He has no maker or designer. ( This is by process of elimination. In the Bible he is called God)

A friendly reminder about logic: A valid argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from these premises.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 10-06-2005 11:33 AM Yaro has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:34 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:21 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 151 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 6:52 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 173 (366827)
11-29-2006 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 1:29 PM


First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.

Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3.

Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule.

Each of these invalidates your argument.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 1:29 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2006 1:39 PM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 143 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:42 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 140 of 173 (366829)
11-29-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chiroptera
11-29-2006 1:34 PM


It's a pedantic technicality but a false premise makes an argument unsound, rather than invalid. Validity is a matter of the form of the argument - does it folllow the rules of logic ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:42 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 173 (366831)
11-29-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
11-29-2006 1:39 PM


You are right, of course.

pilate's argument is unsound because P2 is not known to be true (and, in fact, we have good reason to believe it is false).

pilate's argument is invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises, even assuming the premises are true since I gave two alternatives that are consistent with the stated premises.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2006 1:39 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 142 of 173 (366851)
11-29-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 1:29 PM


Re: No abiogenesis, no evolution then what
Restating your position, with a different conclusion

P1: All designed things have a designer or maker.
Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker.
P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it.

Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 1:29 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 143 of 173 (366857)
11-29-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chiroptera
11-29-2006 1:34 PM


Chiropetra's counter-argument
You: First, we do not know that P2 is true. In fact, that is exactly what we are trying to show. Since we cannot be certain all of your premises are true, then the argument is invalid.

Second, eyes and brains may be exceptions to the rule, consistent with P3.

My comment. Reasonable men would agree that the simple concrete blocks that make my house were made. And, therefore they wouldn't believe that my house just evolved or existed by itself.

You: Third, the demiurge of the Bible may not be the exception granted by P3; he may have been created by a higher deity, which then might be the exception to the rule.

Me: By process of elimination. If all makers were eliminated then the last one standing is the exception.

You: Each of these invalidates your argument

Me: I therefore disagree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 1:34 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2006 2:58 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 144 of 173 (366858)
11-29-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
11-29-2006 2:21 PM


Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: Restating your position, with a different conclusion
P1: All designed things have a designer or maker.
Conclusion 1: Via induction we can say that complex things like life have a designer or a maker.
P2: Almost all simple rules have an exception which requires that the rule be modified to account for it.

Conclusion 2: The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. Evolutionary processes are not necessarily complex. Where they are complex, they may be the exception to the rule.

Me: I agree w/ your premise 1 and the induction. ( Although you should not call it a conclusion because it has only 1 premise. An argument needs at least 1 truthful premise)

Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons:

1. It does not logically flow from the premises
2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple fact or formula: Input + process = output. How can process be the input?

Edited by pilate_judas, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:57 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 145 of 173 (366862)
11-29-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 2:48 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
Your conclusion that evolutionary process is the designer of complex life is invalid for 2 reasons

Don't worry yourself - that wasn't my conclusion. My conclusion was 'The designer of complex life might be evolutionary processes. '. That is to say it is still logically possible, it has not been excluded as a possibility. Therefore God is not the only possible conclusion. As God is not the only possible conclusion, your argument does not supply us with proof.

2. The definition of "process" itself could not be the origin. Why so? Consider this simple algorithm (??) Input + process = output. How can process be the input?

We weren't talking about the origin of the process. If we want to go back to that we eventually get to the origin of the universe. In that case the universe itself might be the exception. You have not excluded this as a possibility, nor have you excluded it. Thus your argument is not proof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:48 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:02 PM Modulous has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 173 (366863)
11-29-2006 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 2:42 PM


Re: Chiropetra's counter-argument
quote:
My comment. Reasonable men would agree that the simple concrete blocks that make my house were made. And, therefore they wouldn't believe that my house just evolved or existed by itself.

But we are not discussing houses made of concrete blocks. We are discussing organisms, and some reasonable people do believe that these did not have a designer.

Even if we know that houses have designers, this tells us nothing about living organisms.

-

Second, you have a premise, P3, that says for every rule there is an exception. Therefore, according to your own premise, if we have the rule that houses made with concrete blocks are designed, then, according to your own premise, there should be a house that is made of concrete blocks that is not designed.


Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 2:42 PM NOT JULIUS has taken no action

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 147 of 173 (366864)
11-29-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Modulous
11-29-2006 2:57 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: "Your argument is not proof".

Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard. Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 2:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:07 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 148 of 173 (366867)
11-29-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 3:02 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: "Your argument is not proof".

Me: There are different kinds of proof. One is "persuasive" which I believe mine is. Another is "conclusive" which is very hard.

You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?

Do you suppose that evolutionary process is "conclusive" proof? If you do, can I be of liberty to give you scientists who wouldn't agree?

No need. I already said that evolutionary processes being the only possibility is not a logical statement to make. Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:18 PM Modulous has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 3710 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 149 of 173 (366874)
11-29-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Modulous
11-29-2006 3:07 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
You: You mean you were using rhetoric and not logic?

Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be?

You: Evolutionary processes are currently the most practical explanation for how populations change over time.

Me: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Modulous, posted 11-29-2006 3:30 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 150 of 173 (366877)
11-29-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by NOT JULIUS
11-29-2006 3:18 PM


Re: Rebuttal to Modulou's argument
Me: A rhetorical argument can also be logical and persuasive, can't it be?

But was yours logical? As a proof of God? All you proved was that there has to be a terminus point. That terminus point might be God, or it might the universe, or it might be the multiverse. No - it was rhetorical but not necessarily logical.

: Correction please. Change the words "practical explanation" to "popular and controversial explanation". I think everybody would agree on that.

It doesn't matter what everybody agrees on. I don't think it is necessarily either the most popular or necessarily the most controversial. However no other explanatory framework has been as practical. You may refute this simply by showing a more practical explanation. Practical as in utilitarian, by the way. It has to have some utility.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-29-2006 3:18 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by NOT JULIUS, posted 11-30-2006 12:25 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022