Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
41 online now:
AZPaul3, ekman, jar, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,327 Year: 4,439/6,534 Month: 653/900 Week: 177/182 Day: 10/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 223 (707399)
09-27-2013 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Upright BiPed
09-26-2013 10:25 PM


The argument seems to boil down to the idea that evolution cannot explain the origin of the original replicators from which all known life is descended.

This is not a new or even controversial idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-26-2013 10:25 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:00 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 41 of 223 (707531)
09-28-2013 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Upright BiPed
09-27-2013 6:23 PM


Let me attempt to get you to clarify your position

Is your argument concerned with the origin of replicators as your initial post implied ?

Or is it about the origin of a "symbolic" representation of information not dictated by physical properties, potentially excluding any self-replicating system which lacks encoded information?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Upright BiPed, posted 09-27-2013 6:23 PM Upright BiPed has taken no action

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


(1)
Message 50 of 223 (724805)
04-21-2014 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ed67
04-20-2014 11:00 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
The idea that evolution can't explain the first replicators isn't even an ID idea. Creationists are about the only people who even think that evolution should explain the first replicators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ed67, posted 04-20-2014 11:00 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:10 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 61 of 223 (724885)
04-22-2014 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Ed67
04-21-2014 8:10 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

What kind of an argument is that?

I wouldn't call it an argument, it's just pointing out facts.

quote:

We're not talking about whose idea it is.

I guess that you don't understand the implications. Repeating common knowledge isn't an argument.

quote:

you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.

So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ?

quote:

Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.

What do you think?


I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science". Methodological naturalism includes a lot of things that aren't evolution. Evolution can't explain the first replicators, by the very nature of evolution. However, there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Ed67, posted 04-21-2014 8:10 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by frako, posted 04-22-2014 6:20 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 69 of 223 (724944)
04-23-2014 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ed67
04-22-2014 11:21 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Pressie, posted 04-23-2014 3:39 AM PaulK has taken no action
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM PaulK has replied

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


Message 74 of 223 (724991)
04-23-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:58 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
quote:

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does.

Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you had to roll out the same old lie anyway. Too bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:58 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

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


(2)
Message 79 of 223 (724997)
04-23-2014 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:29 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
quote:

Still, no rational responses. C'mon gang, you can do better than this!

In that case, the rational response is: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:29 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:04 PM PaulK has taken no action

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


Message 104 of 223 (725084)
04-24-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by JonF
04-23-2014 2:57 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....

Since I explicitly told him that there was no claim to certainty before he asserted otherwise it is quite clear that he is blatantly lying. Dishonest as creationists are it is unusual for them to be quite so obvious about it. Hence, the conclusion that he is a troll.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:57 PM JonF has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022