02 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeWhen you come across something that you don't recognize in any way the only correct assumption is to say it was not "created". And even more so when you are not familiar with whatever could have created it.
Something that intentionally reproduces or replicates itself is a huge clue, but it's not necessarily the only clue, or even the most important marker for determining if something is naturally formed or intentionally constructed.
Any archaeologist will tell you that an unearthed clay pot was made by human hands, but no one assumes the clay pot might be ...[text shortened]... happenstance as a result of pursuing a purpose (such as leaving literal footprints in the soil).
For instance in the case of the computer: even if you don't know what it is, you will recognize there are electrical components in there. And it's being held together by screws. And there are people around you who - just like you - are familiar with screws. In that case the most obvious assumption is to say "this is not natural".
But say you travel to a distant planet, you don't see any signs of intelligent life and you come across a strange looking structure (of rocks or something) which makes weird sounds but you don't recognize it in any way, then the most obvious assumption is to say that it is natural, until proven otherwise.
It should also be noted that using the word "purpose" can be dangerous. You can say "the purpose of DNA is for life to evolve" but you can also say "Life evolves because of certain characteristics of DNA". The first description might be heard as being a subjective description whereas the second is much more objective.
Although we do know DNA, we don't recognize it - or part of it - as being created and more importantly (I've said this before and so has Humy, albeit in a diiferent way) if we are saying that DNA was created we are making it far more complicated than it was (Occam's razor) because not only do we not "know" or recognize the "created" (DNA) but we also don't know the creator (...). Hence, until proven otherwise, DNA is natural.
02 Jan 14
4 edits
Originally posted by Great King RatWell said. Excellent use of Occam's razor (mostly implicitly so ) throughout which is the only correct way to fully answer the OP question.
When you come across something that you don't recognize in any way the only correct assumption is to say it was not "created". And even more so when you are not familiar with whatever could have created it.
For instance in the case of the computer: even if you don't know what it is, you will recognize there are electrical components in there. And i ...[text shortened]... " (DNA) but we also don't know the creator (...). Hence, until proven otherwise, DNA is natural.
If only he could deduce it all for himself, all we would have to say to him is the two words "Occam's razor" and nothing else and then he would see how do deduce from that the answer to his question and end his confusion.
Originally posted by Great King RatI don't believe we should start looking at DNA with the idea in mind we need prove anything about it, one way or the other. I wouldn't say "dangerous", but it's also a mistake to think there may be only one preordained question to answer, that question being "was it created or did it naturally form"? IMO that is the wrong approach to begin with. Having said that, I do believe it's possible to make such a determination, but not without having done some groundwork and going through a few well reasoned steps. So, the intitial question shouldn't be where did DNA come from, the question should be where could it have come from.
When you come across something that you don't recognize in any way the only correct assumption is to say it was not "created". And even more so when you are not familiar with whatever could have created it.
For instance in the case of the computer: even if you don't know what it is, you will recognize there are electrical components in there. And i ...[text shortened]... " (DNA) but we also don't know the creator (...). Hence, until proven otherwise, DNA is natural.
No one argues DNA functions as an information/instruction system, so one of our first questions should be can a system like this naturally arise without any outside force or intelligence, for devising and setting into place practical information and instructions for the building, operation and maintenance of very complex (and to a large degree) self-contained self-maintaining mechanisms? I know that last sentence was a mouthful, but it doesn't even come close to describing the level of complexity and function found in DNA. And we are still learning more about it, such as the latest news of finding another code within the code.
I'm frankly puzzled when evolutionists dig a little way into this, but then stop digging before reality is able to bugger any of their firmly established "facts". I don't blame them for wanting to believe a pet theory, but science isn't supposed to be about what any of us want to believe.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by humyWhat you fail to see, or perhaps don't want to acknowledge, is that any evidence we might have of evolution is circumstantial. We still have no positive proof. With all of the time spent on working to prove it, and in spite of our growing knowledge in other branches of science, when we go looking for any possible cross over validation we still haven't been able to prove anything.
Well said. Excellent use of Occam's razor (mostly implicitly so ) throughout which is the only correct way to fully answer the OP question.
If only he could deduce it all for himself, all we would have to say to him is the two words "Occam's razor" and nothing else and then he would see how do deduce from that the answer to his question and end his confusion.
You find a molecule that can work as a basic building block and assembles with no help from anyone, and then talk about it as though it's some great discovery. Really? So if I find something on the ground that looks like it could function as a bolt, can I then assume there must be nuts lying around somewhere that bolt can fit into? Can I then follow through with this thinking until I envision a fully functioning automobile that assembled itself? Of course I can, just like you are able to envision how the most complex system found anywhere in the universe is able to transcend the known laws of physics and assemble itself, with no help from anyone.
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeNo one argues DNA functions as an information/instruction system, so one of our first questions should be can a system like this naturally arise without any outside force or intelligence...
I don't believe we should start looking at DNA with the idea in mind we need prove anything about it, one way or the other. I wouldn't say "dangerous", but it's also a mistake to think there may be only one preordained question to answer, that question being "was it created or did it naturally form"? IMO that is the wrong approach to begin with. Having sa ...[text shortened]... to believe a pet theory, but science isn't supposed to be about what any of us want to believe.
Seeing as DNA exists and we have no signs of an external creator to exist, the obvious answer currently should be "Yes".
Of course, explaining DNA by assigning a creator to it doesn't really solve anything because the question then becomes "where did the creator come from?" The problem with that is that we can at least study DNA and see under which circumstances it (or a precursor such as RNA) might form/have formed whereas this creator can't be studied in any way. Occam's razor again.
Question to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be?
03 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeYet you have no problem seeing life around and envision on the basis of that and only that a creator. Pretty huge step.
What you fail to see, or perhaps don't want to acknowledge, is that any evidence we might have of evolution is circumstantial. We still have no positive proof. With all of the time spent on working to prove it, and in spite of our growing knowledge in other branches of science, when we go looking for any possible cross over validation we still have ...[text shortened]... se is able to transcend the known laws of physics and assemble itself, with no help from anyone.
Originally posted by lemon lime
What you fail to see, or perhaps don't want to acknowledge, is that any evidence we might have of evolution is circumstantial. We still have no positive proof. With all of the time spent on working to prove it, and in spite of our growing knowledge in other branches of science, when we go looking for any possible cross over validation we still have ...[text shortened]... se is able to transcend the known laws of physics and assemble itself, with no help from anyone.
any evidence we might have of evolution is circumstantial. We still have no positive proof.
That is clearly false. Irrefutable proof of evolution has been around for at least a few decades and just keeps mounting up to an ever larger growing mountain.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
and the fossil evidence for macroevolution:
http://www.windows2universe.org/cool_stuff/tour_evolution_3.html
and better:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
here is a more direct link to it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html
scroll about three-fiths down until you see in blue print:
"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”
then click each one in turn and read and then come back to us.
If that is not enough physical evidence of macroevolution for you, just click each of the other links shown there and read them and then come back to me.
Also:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
and here is perhaps one of the best arguments against an intelligence designing living things along with yet MORE examples of evidence!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design
This proves that if there was an intelligent designer of natural life, he/she/it makes stupid mistakes thus cannot be a Christian God like in the Bible just as you hope for else he is a cowboy builder.
Furthermore: Applying Occam's razor: there is no creator of life with a mind -not even a stupid one.
And all the above evidence is very far from all of it!
Well, not much "circumstantial" about the evidence there then!
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in the rest of your post that appears to not relate to anything I said/implied -a failed attempt at creating a straw man I guess.
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatQuestion to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be
[b]No one argues DNA functions as an information/instruction system, so one of our first questions should be can a system like this naturally arise without any outside force or intelligence...
Seeing as DNA exists and we have no signs of an external creator to exist, the obvious answer currently should be "Yes".
Of course, explaining DNA by ...[text shortened]... gain.
Question to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be?[/b]
Apparently I failed to explain the purpose of the OP. Without going back to look I'm fairly sure I made no mention of either evolution or a creator, and so I assumed it was obvious what I was shooting for. For one thing, I very much doubt we will find a one size fits all answer that anyone can claim is the one and only ultimately definitive answer. Whatever methodology is (or can be found to be) reliable will undoubtedly have more than one criteria to satisfy.
I apologize for not being more clear, but I did not see the need to explain what I wasn't looking for... unless someone insists on bringing extraneous and irrelevant points to the table there is no need to insult anyones intelligence. And I still do not wish to insult anyones intelligence, but if no one is interested in my OP and only wants to introduce their own pet topics then there is no reason for me to continue.
So anyway... to reiterate, and (hopefully) more clearly:
Is there a way, a method or methodology whereby someone may be able to dertermine if an object (any object) was:
A) likely formed only through the forces of nature
B) likely formed by something other than (or in addition to) the raw forces of nature
If so, what sort of methodology could we use and how would it be applied so that we might be reasonably sure of our conclusion (determination).
And by the way, I am familiar with Occams' razor. It's a tool that serves as a rule of thumb for guiding a search, but it isn't a direct method for uncovering truths. A rule of thumb in chess can help guide someone through a game, but rules of thumb are not guarantees of success. The same goes for Occams' razor. It's a method for uncovering truth, but it is not a gaurantee of finding that truth.
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, there isn't. The reason is that if some non-natural force had influenced anything, we can not measure it. By definition, we can only measure natural phenomena.
Is there a way, a method or methodology whereby someone may be able to dertermine if an object (any object) was:
A) likely formed only through the forces of nature
B) likely formed by something other than (or in addition to) the raw forces of nature
04 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI wasn't talking about measuring anything. We already have the ability to determine if something may or may not be man made, so the main thrust of my inquiry is to try identifying how our minds are able to do this. It's one of those things most people are able to do without having to think too much about it, but at the same time it's a mental process that almost defies explanation.
No, there isn't. The reason is that if some non-natural force had influenced anything, we can not measure it. By definition, we can only measure natural phenomena.
You can "know" without actually knowing (being there to see it happen) that the appearance of faces on Mount Rushmore didn't occur because of natural erosion. And you don't need to be a trained archaeologist to discern the difference between a naturally formed stone and a stone that was intentionally fashioned into a crude bowl. Even if a naturally formed rock appears to function as a bowl, you could probably tell the difference between that and a rock that was worked on by human hands. That's how finely tuned this ability is. And it seems to develop and become more and more refined as time goes by without any conscious effort on our part. Our minds do this automatically.
If scientists want to be careful not to say too much about things that can't be seen and layed out and measured, I don't have a problem with that. But to say it doesn't happen or can't be identified is nuts, because it happens all the time. All I'm trying to find out is how this is done... what exactly are our minds doing that enable us to almost effortlessly see the difference between man-made/man-influenced and nature?
And yes, I understand the apprehension of evolutionists when it comes to examining something like this, because they are worried it could provide fuel for the idea of intelligent design. But let's face it, whether God exists or not intelligent design is already known to exist... if it didn't, you would be seeing nothing but signs of nature everywhere. No cities, no plane trains or automobiles, not even a straw hut or a crudely fashioned fishing pole. Just nature, period. So relax, you can't just dismiss the idea of intelligent design and say it doesn't exist simply because of some threat it may pose to evolution theory. Evolution will either be able to stand on its own legs or it won't.
Science can be a cruel mistress. One day she's validating a pet theory and the next day she refutes it, so it's best not to fall too deeply in love with her. 😕😛
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeBy "measuring" I mean empirically determining. We cannot measure the supernatural or metaphysical because there is no way of excluding the natural or physical.
I wasn't talking about measuring anything. We already have the ability to determine if something may or may not be man made, so the main thrust of my inquiry is to try identifying how our minds are able to do this. It's one of those things most people are able to do without having to think too much about it, but at the same time it's a mental process that ...[text shortened]... or it won't. Science can be a cruel mistress, so don't fall too deeply in love with her.
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOkay, but why do you assume I'm saying anything about "the supernatural or metaphysical"? Where are you getting this from?
By "measuring" I mean empirically determining. We cannot measure the supernatural or metaphysical because there is no way of excluding the natural or physical.
04 Jan 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI didn't ask you about a creator.
[b]Question to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be
Apparently I failed to explain the purpose of the OP. Without going back to look I'm fairly sure I made no mention of either evolution or a creator, and so I assumed it was obvious what I was shooting for. For one thing, I very much doubt we will find a one si ...[text shortened]... zor. It's a method for uncovering truth, but it is not a gaurantee of finding that truth.[/b]
I was simply asking Question to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be
And I was indeed referring to this question:
Is there a way, a method or methodology whereby someone may be able to dertermine if an object (any object) was:
A) likely formed only through the forces of nature
B) likely formed by something other than (or in addition to) the raw forces of nature
If so, what sort of methodology could we use and how would it be applied so that we might be reasonably sure of our conclusion (determination).
I've given my answer, now I would like to know what your answer would be. I'd like for this conversation to continue, but I think in order to do so you should now give your answer so that we can see if we (partially) agree or not.
Originally posted by Great King RatNo, you didn't ask me about a creator, you were telling me about a creator. You made comments about evolution and a creator, both of which I have said nothing about until you brought it up. And now you're telling me that you didn't ask about a creator. Well, I didn't ask about a creator either, so what are you going to do now? Build more strawmen to blow down?
I didn't ask you about a creator.
I was simply asking [b]Question to the OP: what would your answer to your question posed in the first post be
And I was indeed referring to this question:
Is there a way, a method or methodology whereby someone may be able to dertermine if an object (any object) was:
A) likely formed only through th ...[text shortened]... do so [b]you should now give your answer so that we can see if we (partially) agree or not.[/b]
And now, after playing this little game with me you are demanding an answer. Wow, I'm very impressed... pffft, NOT!!