05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo the beginning if it is ID, abiogenises, or creation are not science at
No, because all one would be doing would be recreating the circumstances under which life is postulated to have evolved, rather than directly bioengineering the earliest cells themselves.
all no matter what, because none of them can be tested or predictions
made on them?
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, actually, we can make predictions about what we'd expect to see in our experiment if abiogenesis is true. We cannot do that with either of the others. This testability makes abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis, whether the others are not.
So the beginning if it is ID, abiogenises, or creation are not science at
all no matter what, because none of them can be tested or predictions
made on them?
Kelly
05 May 08
So far a number of people have claimed that the movie 'expelled' contains a significant number of outright lies. They have given evidence to support that claim.
Has anyone provided counter evidence?
Is there anyone here who still thinks that the movie is mostly factual?
Is there anyone here who agrees that the movie contains a significant number of lies yet still believes the message of the movie? If so, why do you think the maker of the movie found it necessary to manufacture lies? What was his motivation?
05 May 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzReally, exactly how do you do that, again? Define abiogensis for me
Well, actually, we can make predictions about what we'd expect to see in our experiment if abiogenesis is true. We cannot do that with either of the others. This testability makes abiogenesis a scientific hypothesis, whether the others are not.
and tell me how you setup that verses ID? Just to be clear here, I
personally think the only one we can setup is ID, because if setup
anything at all we are using ID to do it. The only two you cannot setup
and test for are creation and abiogensis in my opinion.
Kelly
05 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally? When someone here who has actually seen the movie brings
So far a number of people have claimed that the movie 'expelled' contains a significant number of outright lies. They have given evidence to support that claim.
Has anyone provided counter evidence?
Is there anyone here who still thinks that the movie is mostly factual?
Is there anyone here who agrees that the movie contains a significant number of lie ...[text shortened]... think the maker of the movie found it necessary to manufacture lies? What was his motivation?
up what they know are lies we can talk about them. I believe you once
accused me of lies when we first started talking, until you realized I
believe the things I say, if I'm not mistaken. I’d like to lay off the
word lies until intent is shown, where someone said something they
know was wrong, because lies are not really saying something you
don’t believe is correct.
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayOk. But I explained this before.
Really, exactly how do you do that, again? Define abiogensis for me
and tell me how you setup that verses ID? Just to be clear here, I
personally think the only one we can setup is ID, because if setup
anything at all we are using ID to do it. The only two you cannot setup
and test for are creation and abiogensis in my opinion.
Kelly
From chemical analysis of ancient rocks, paleosoils as well as solar physics and the like, we can have a relatively good understanding of what the environment was like when earth formed. Our knowledge of chemistry and physics can allow us to make predictions about the types of chemicals that would form under those circumstances.
We set up the equipment, put in the chemicals and recreate the environment but not actually designing anything, or creating any life and allow the physics and chemistry do the rest.
This is not ID in any form of its argument that anyone has ever presented.
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, considering the information posted by me in response to Whodey on the previous page, I'd say "lie" is the perfect word for the filmmakers behaviour.
Really? When someone here who has actually seen the movie brings
up what they know are lies we can talk about them. I believe you once
accused me of lies when we first started talking, until you realized I
believe the things I say, if I'm not mistaken. I’d like to lay off the
word lies until intent is shown, where someone said something they
know was wrong, because lies are not really saying something you
don’t believe is correct.
Kelly
Interestingly, if you look at the Youtube movie "why people laugh at creationists" numbers 22 and 23 deal with this fraudster and charlatan.
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat parts are you speaking about?
Yes, once you get them, but how do you get them? Not denying they
are here, nor am I denying that we see processes here in the now as
well. The processes like life, had to start some where, some how.
Which is why I do not think claiming ID shows evolution is wrong, it
only speaks to the beginning of the process, and how it is possible to
get past som ...[text shortened]... s of evolution where no one
has a clue how somethings could have been done in evolution.
Kelly
Keep in mind, anyway, that science is like a never-ending puzzle. As long as you got the big picture, some parts can wait (although if you later find them and they don't fit, you might need to rearrange the puzzle).
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBefore we continue with all of these "machines" and "machine designers" analogies, please respond to:
No you did not give me billions of examples, you just basically stated
your belief on what is true, I can say those are examples for ID too,
my saying it or your saying it, does not make it so. That all you got?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?
...
My reply:
Originally posted by Retrovirus
You still have not shown any reason to accept artificial machines as analogs to organisms and/or parts thereof.
Until they are shown to be analogs no valid analogy can be made.
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayBefore we discuss abiogenesis and whether it can be considered a science or not, did I just heard (ah.. read) that you agreed that as long as they don't teach abiogenesis, it's okay to not teach creation and ID (while still teaching evolution, of course)?
So the beginning if it is ID, abiogenises, or creation are not science at
all no matter what, because none of them can be tested or predictions
made on them?
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusNo you did not see me suggest anything about teaching any subject.
Before we discuss abiogenesis and whether it can be considered a science or not, did I just heard (ah.. read) that you agreed that as long as they don't teach abiogenesis, it's okay to not teach creation and ID (while still teaching evolution, of course)?
What you did see me say was that abiogensis and creation are two
subjects we cannot test to, ID was the only one we could. You may
take that and run with it any way you want to, but it was a simple
statement nothing more. Scott brought up the point that we may know
something of what the universe was like during the time that it is
believed that life started, but at best we only know scraps if what he
has suggested is true. If we knew what might have been present in
rocks that does mean we know what took place in the forming of life,
it is a leap of faith to suggest otherwise.
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusReally, you cannot see the comparison between machines and life?
Before we continue with all of these "machines" and "machine designers" analogies, please respond to:
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussio ...[text shortened]... and/or parts thereof.
Until they are shown to be analogs no valid analogy can be made.[/b]
The start stop mechanisms with in both do not suggest they are in any
way similar? The fact that energy drives both, that the vast array of
other odds and ends do not do anything for you?
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayscottishinnz and others pointed out that some of the claims made in the movie were clearly fabricated. I don't see why whether or not they actually watched the movie is relevant. Do you deny that the claims were made in the movie? Do you have counter evidence?
Really? When someone here who has actually seen the movie brings
up what they know are lies we can talk about them.
More importantly why did you avoid my questions by shoving in the 'someone here who has actually seen the movie' clause? It is irrelevant to the issue unless you are specifically claiming that the content of the movie is different from what scottishinnz and others believe it to be. Are you claiming that?
05 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'll freely admit it is hard to know exactly what the conditions were, but even so, it's a whole lot more based in reality than some hypothetical (although that's really the wrong word, since this "designer" cannot be tested for) designer. Pretty much whatever is put into these experimental flasks, given a reducing atmosphere ends up as an organic molecule.
No you did not see me suggest anything about teaching any subject.
What you did see me say was that abiogensis and creation are two
subjects we cannot test to, ID was the only one we could. You may
take that and run with it any way you want to, but it was a simple
statement nothing more. Scott brought up the point that we may know
something of what the ...[text shortened]... know what took place in the forming of life,
it is a leap of faith to suggest otherwise.
Kelly
Strange as it is to me, some philosophers and even some biologists have no problems with the concept of design in biology, yet see no place for a designer. Daniel Dennett would probably be chief amongst these for my money.
ID remains untestable. Not because we cannot infer function from physiology or morphology (design, if you will), but that IDers make the logical falacy of then deciding there must be a maker.
05 May 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is a simple thing if there were claims in the movie that were false
scottishinnz and others pointed out that some of the claims made in the movie were clearly fabricated. I don't see why whether or not they actually watched the movie is relevant. Do you deny that the claims were made in the movie? Do you have counter evidence?
More importantly why did you avoid my questions by shoving in the 'someone here who has actua ...[text shortened]... movie is different from what scottishinnz and others believe it to be. Are you claiming that?
that is indeed something to be concern over. The claims of the movie
were what? If you do not know what the movie claimed by watching it
how do you know the claims against the movie are true, simple?
Kelly