Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-15-2019 4:12 PM
164 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tanypteryx (5 members, 159 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,540 Year: 2,577/19,786 Month: 659/1,918 Week: 247/266 Day: 19/92 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Origin of Translation
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 51 (161104)
11-18-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
11-18-2004 1:42 PM


quote:
This would be completely wrong. ID contains logical fallacies incompatible with good philosophy.

C'mon, I was trying to be generous. I only said that ID was governed by philosophy, not that it was consistent with philosophical logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 1:42 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 3:21 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 51 (161165)
11-18-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Loudmouth
11-18-2004 2:06 PM


I only said that ID was governed by philosophy

I always thought it was governed by the law of gravity, it keeps falling down.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2004 2:06 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

    
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 51 (161324)
11-18-2004 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
11-17-2004 5:48 PM


quote:
There's much to discover about the origin of life. Why can't "I don't know yet" be an appropriate answer to that question?

Simply because its never good enough for me. A hundred years ago, the Bible was discredited because the civilization of the Hittites could never be confirmed. We didn't know where their archaeological remains were, and it was taken as the Bible is false. Why wasn't it good enough then, that we simply hadn't found it yet? Eventually, the civilization was discovered in northern Canaan.

quote:
The one that is correct. I, for one, do not allow what I want to be true to affect my conception of what is true, and I don't understand why a rational person would think otherwise. What does it matter which one of those interpretations we want to be true?

Then you are one of the very very very select few. The rest of us our heavily influenced by our world view. Let's be honest, the fact that both creationists and evolutionists look at the exact same evidence and two completely different ideas are created lends credence to this statement unfortunately. I'll equate it this way. Could an athetis entertaing the question "Did God create?" No, as soon as they allow it as a question, they are no longer atheist. So as an atheist scientist looking at the fossils and the world around him, no matter what evidence he finds he will never see it as evidence for creation.

quote:
But science isn't a place for faith, and the origin of life is not a question of faith

I'm going to have to disagree, specifically about the origin of life. All the fossils we have, all the experiments we do to test possibilities about the origin of life are in the present. Everything exists in the present. The origin of life cannot be directly tested using the scientific method. No one was there to see it, record it, or re-tell it. You must rely on faith that your re-creations of the origin of life are in fact how life began.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2004 5:48 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:38 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 51 (161330)
11-18-2004 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
11-17-2004 5:51 PM


quote:
Absolutely false. There is no faith involved in the sciences, except in the metaphysical underpinnings of objective observations. Every theory put forth has to be testable and BASED on observations. This is the opposite of what is found with a supernatural designer theory, where the theory is untestable and the evidence is subjective.

I'm not saying that all science is based on faith. But when it comes to origins and past events in which there was no recording of data, we are relying on faith regardless of your interpretationg as mentioned in the above post. We weren't there to see it happen so our theory of how it did happen is taken on faith that it actually happened that way regardless of whether or not we can re-test our theory's. We will never know for sure how it happened in the past. That is where faith comes in


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 11-17-2004 5:51 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 11-19-2004 1:53 PM jjburklo has responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 51 (161331)
11-18-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
11-17-2004 5:51 PM


quote:
No one has ever observed a supernatural deity designing anything in biology, nor is it possible to test the mechanisms of supernatural design.

Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it. The same concept can be placed with an ID. Now while this may not be in biological terms it is still relevant. And as far as not seeing supernatural design, well that would depend on your philosophy. If your a materialist then no, if your a creationist yes. I see God's hand in biology every day. It's simply a matter of philosophy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 11-17-2004 5:51 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:40 PM jjburklo has not yet responded
 Message 24 by sidelined, posted 11-18-2004 11:41 PM jjburklo has not yet responded
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2004 11:55 PM jjburklo has not yet responded
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2004 7:27 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 51 (161333)
11-18-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:18 PM


Simply because its never good enough for me.

So, because you don't like not knowing, you have to make something up instead?

Look, buddy, grow up. We live in a world of uncertainty, a world of imperfect knowledge. Learning to deal with that is how we become adults, instead of children who cling to fairy tales because ignorance is scary.

Then you are one of the very very very select few.

No. I'm just an adult.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:18 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 51 (161334)
11-18-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
11-18-2004 10:02 AM


quote:
We have many complex chemicals, we have many complex environments, and we have a definite sign that life exists. Thus chemicals and environments interacted in some way to form life.

The fact that we have complex environments, complex chemicals, and definite sign of life, in no way asserts that the chemicals and the environment interacted in some way to form life. You don't walk into an empty workshop, see a fully made cabinet, some tools, wood, and assume that the tools and wood randomly created the cabinet. You assume that it was designed and built by somebody.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 10:02 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:41 PM jjburklo has responded
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 4:55 AM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 51 (161335)
11-18-2004 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:33 PM


Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car.

Yeah.

Because we can go to factories and see people building cars just like mine.

So tell me where I can go to to see God hard at work making people. As far as I've ever seen, the only thing making people is people.

I see God's hand in biology every day.

By what method do you distinguish the work of God's hand from the things that just happen because of the laws of physics?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:33 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 51 (161336)
11-18-2004 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:33 PM


jburklo

Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it. The same concept can be placed with an ID.

This is an inaccurate analogy since there are many different"guys" that made my car and I bet that we can track down each and every one of them {provided they are alive} and find compelling evidence that they are real.There is no such case for ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:33 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 51 (161337)
11-18-2004 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:38 PM


You assume that it was designed and built by somebody.

Yes. Because we've seen humans create cabinets. I can't stress that enough. Show me where I can watch God creating things.

We never infer design from the object. It's not possible. We infer design because we observe designers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:38 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:56 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 51 (161339)
11-18-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
11-18-2004 1:19 PM


quote:
I would argue that ID is governed by philosophy

I'll completely agree to this point. However, I believe that in the same light, evolution is governed by the philosophy of materialism.

quote:
Abiogenesis is governed by chemistry. The rules of chemistry can be tested and checked. We can directly test whether certain pathways are possible through natural means. If we are able to produce life through natural mechanisms in the lab, then this is a very possible pathway for life to arise on an early Earth. However, we can't know whether or not this pathway occured on Earth because that evidence has long since been destroyed.

quote:
There is no faith needed in abiogenesis. The mechanisms are there for everyone to touch, feel, manipulate, and test.

As I've mentioned in pretty much all of my replies this is a fallacy. Sure you can test, see, feel, re-test, re-see, re-feel all your mechanisms from the lab. But does that mean that is how it happened in the past? No! You take it on faith that this is how it happened and you take it on faith that there was no creator there to start it all. We weren't there. There is no record of it, so it is based on faith!!! This extends past origins even into evolution itself. The unrecorded past is exactly that unrecorded. Evolutionists can make up schemes and make experiments about how life may have evolved, but in the end there is no concrete data to support it. Therefore, the evolution of life has to be taken on faith that your ideas and theories are correct. Evolution is faith based whether your willing to see it or not. The difference between you and I is simple. I believe there was somone that saw it all and revealed what happened to mankind in the Bible. You have your truth and I have mine. But in my truth, I have an eyewitness account.

Sorry that these last few posts have been somewhat redundant on my part. But I leave for thanksgiving break from school, and I wanted to reply to the posts before I left since I won't be able to reply over the next week. I've also rushed to get these posts out and in doing so may have been unclear, and have not supported my points well enough. Please forgive me in this regard, and hopefully when I return I might be able to add to these posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 11-18-2004 1:19 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8829
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 27 of 51 (161340)
11-18-2004 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:33 PM


Relevant analogies
Now while this may not be in biological terms it is still relevant.

No it is not. The point is that cars don't f**k. To be more detailed and more polite: cars are not produced through a reproductive process that involves imperfect replication and selection. Any analogy that picks something that doesn't have that kind of reproductive process isn't relevant in any way.

Until we found the concept of evolutionary processes we didn't have a good answer for what appeared to be design. However, we now have a completely natural process that can account for outcomes which appear to be designed. It is now longer possible to assume an appearance of design means it had to be purposefully designed.

In addition, we can, generally tell the difference between things which are actually designed with a purpose and things which have arisen from the evolutionary process. The difference is the level of "messyness" in the outcome. Living things exhibit this "messyness". Human designed things (with the possible exception of old software) do not. Living things are to use a techie term, "kludges".

It seems that once you have selected imperfect replicators it isn't a matter of forcing evolution to take place; it is dammed difficult to have anything else happen.

Your analogy ignores the issue of breeding, selected imperfect replicators. It is therefore entirely irrelevant.

Did you see the guy that made your car? Like the rest of us probably not. But I'll put a million dollars down that you believe that somebody did in fact build your car. You believe it even though you did not see it

But I have ample evidence that someone did. I've been in an assembly plant. I've seen TV interviews with designers. I believe it was a human. I can touch a human most any day. I know that they have capabilities that allow for the possibility of them designing a car. I have the overblown-ego idea that it would be possible for me.

A car (as noted above) exhibits the kind of design that I expect a reasonably competant human to do. (e.g., the design is not too much more complex than needed, it doesn't have parts that are no longer needed, some parts are a total disconnect from previous cars with no conceivable step wise path to them (DVD navigation) ) In living things I do not see this kind of design at all. I see a connection between all living things unlike the lack of connection between my toaster and car.

If your a materialist then no, if your a creationist yes. I see God's hand in biology every day. It's simply a matter of philosophy

And if you see God's hand you see one that doesn't design using the kind of design approaches that humans use at all. What you do see is exactly the kind of designs that the evolutionary process produces. The only reasonably conclusion is that, while you may believe God is the designer (and I have a limited amount of argument with that), you have to conclude that the method He used to do that design was the evolutionary process.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:33 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 51 (161342)
11-18-2004 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by crashfrog
11-18-2004 11:41 PM


quote:
We never infer design from the object. It's not possible. We infer design because we observe designers.

Point taken. I see how these analogies don't exactly fit. But I still hold to the point of all of my posts. Evolution, particularly when concernec with origins requires faith.

This message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-19-2004 12:03 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by crashfrog, posted 11-18-2004 11:41 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 51 (161397)
11-19-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:38 PM


You don't walk into an empty workshop, see a fully made cabinet, some tools, wood, and assume that the tools and wood randomly created the cabinet. You assume that it was designed and built by somebody.

That's right. We don't walk into a place where we know things are made, spot objects we can identify from experience as having been made, or look similar to objects that have been made, see things we know from experience help "people" (who we know from experience are capable of making things) make things, and then suggest that the best explanation is that the objects which look made happened to fall together through chemical interactions.

But what we can do is look at the earth, where there are a bunch of chemicals (which we know interact in many complex ways all by their lonesome), and a variety of complex environments (which facilitate a variety of complex chemical reactions all on their lonesome), note that we have no evidence of any beings capable of manufacturing anything in the deep past, note that we have no indication that there were any tools for manufacture in the deep past, note that at one time in the deep past there was no biochemical life and then there was, note that evidence suggests life began in simple biochemical form and progressively became more complex, note that evidence suggests that life began in a single environment and moved to different environments, note that evidence indicates that they reproduced (which we have full experience of today), and that we have full evidence both changing environments and reproduction result in changes over time to a population, and then state that the best explanation fitting all of this evidence is abiogenesis, followed by evolution.

Now it is true that for us to say this explanation is exactly what happened and we damn well know it 100%... that would be working on pure faith. Future evidence may change what is indicated as the best explanation.

However at this time, to say that any other option, particularly one that involves an ID, is equal to or better as an explanation is not just faith, it is fraud.

Only a person that is uncomfortable with facts can assert there is some equality of "faith" required by both theories. One is the best explanation we have, given the available evidence: that is abiogenesis, followed by evolution.

If you want to have faith that more evidence will come in later, that's fine. Just don't pretend it has before it has.

This message has been edited by holmes, 11-19-2004 05:04 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:38 PM jjburklo has not yet responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 51 (161507)
11-19-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jjburklo
11-18-2004 11:25 PM


quote:
We weren't there to see it happen so our theory of how it did happen is taken on faith that it actually happened that way regardless of whether or not we can re-test our theory's.

There are people on death row today that were put there without an eyewitness to the crime. Can you guess what type of evidence convicted them? Scientific evidence devoid of faith. Are they there because of faith? Absolutely not. They are there because the scientific method is a trustworthy method of determing what happened in the past even if there was no one there to witness it. On one hand science is trustworthy enough to put people to death, and in the next moment (according to creationists) it is totally untrustworthy. If science is totally based on faith and not trustworthy, then there are a lot of prisoners that should be set free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jjburklo, posted 11-18-2004 11:25 PM jjburklo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jjburklo, posted 12-10-2004 8:56 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019