- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanIf intelligent human beings cannot create life, how do you suggest that random chance did it?
Umm... to experiment on the possible origins of life. You know that already. Your point?
Oh, I see, silly me, there I was thinking that you can take the TOE seperately from research into the origins of life. Come on dj, don't be so spurious.
Originally posted by dj2becker
If the TOE does not attempt to explain the creation of life, would you care to explain to me why the Stanley Miller experiment was initially regarded such a great break-through in Evolutionary circles?
You're like a record player! Evolutionary science in it's entirety, and the TOE are not the same thing. I will not answer this again.
And surely there must be some link with the TOE and Abiogenisis? Surely the TOE should be questioned if Abiogenesis crumbles.
If evidence arose which contradicted the foundations of the TOE then yes, it would have to be re-examined with this new evidence in mind. That's the thing about science, it does not stand proud on its position, but is ready to change it in pursuit of a correct state of knowledge.
Do you not require a measure of faith to believe this?
If I had asserted myself that this was fact, then yes. But what I said is that this seems the most likely, but I do not claim to know.
Has anyone demonstrated that this is possible?
Demonstrated it is possible: Yes. Demonstrated it has happened: No.
Has anyone created single celled organisms from chemical compounds?
No, not yet. That does not mean it may not yet happen.
Surely, if "intelligent" human beings have never been able to create a single celled-organism from chemical compounds, a large measure of faith is required to believe that random chance can do it?
No, not at all, you are still labouring under the impression that random chance cannot accomplish anything which intelligence cannot. This is clearly a false premise.
I would not call this "Science", rather "blind faith".
That's because you have a defective view on the process of scientific research, faith and possibility/probability. But your adherence to this claim is of no importance, science will continue to seek out the answers to the questions. You will never even ask them.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanYou're like a record player! Evolutionary science in it's entirety, and the TOE are not the same thing. I will not answer this again.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]If the TOE does not attempt to explain the creation of life, would you care to explain to me why the Stanley Miller experiment was initially regarded such a great break-through in Evolutionary circles?
You're like a record player! Evolutionary science in it's entirety, and the TOE are not the same thing. I will continue to seek out the answers to the questions. You will never even ask them.[/b]
I never said that they are the same thing. All I am saying is that you are putting the trailer in front of the truck. The TOE is dependent on Abiogenisis. How can you expect to prove that life evolved by random chance if you cannot prove that life was created by random chance?
If evidence arose which contradicted the foundations of the TOE then yes, it would have to be re-examined with this new evidence in mind.
That is what is supposed to happen, yes. But as soon as evidence is discovered that contradicts the foundations of the the TOE then it is dismissed as some ID crack-pot lunacy. Neutral Science is only an illusion. Scientist will always interpret the evidence according to their world-view, and thus they will always have different presuppositions.
That's the thing about science, it does not stand proud on its position, but is ready to change it in pursuit of a correct state of knowledge.
Yea right. So tell me, why is the TOE taught as a scientific fact? Why is all the evidence ignored which directly opposes the TOE?
If I had asserted myself that this was fact, then yes. But what I said is that this seems the most likely, but I do not claim to know.
So in other words you are not sure about what you believe? Interresting.
Demonstrated it is possible: Yes.
Is Science not based on what can be observed and tested? How can something be demonstrated to be possible if it cannot be observed or tested?
Demonstrated it has happened: No.
So how can you be sure that it is indeed possible?
No, not yet. That does not mean it may not yet happen.
So should Science based on what might happen in the future?
Can I build an entire Scientific theory on something that has never been observed, tested or demonstrated?
No, not at all, you are still labouring under the impression that random chance cannot accomplish anything which intelligence cannot. This is clearly a false premise.
How so? Has anyone demonstrated that random chance can accomplish something which cannot be accomplished by intelligence? I'm dying to hear this.
That's because you have a defective view on the process of scientific research, faith and possibility/probability. But your adherence to this claim is of no importance, science will continue to seek out the answers to the questions. You will never even ask them.
I just hope Science can do this in an objective manner. But unfortunaltely there is a large part of the Scientific community that is not open to the truth.
Originally posted by dj2becker
How can you expect to prove that life evolved by random chance if you cannot prove that life was created by random chance?
I think I'd make a good candidate for sainthood, I certianly have the patience. I don't need to. The two are not connected. Why can you not understand this? Okay, for just one second, lets assume that God does exist and he created a single celled organism. This does not change anything about the TOE so the origin of life is immaterial to the TOE, other in that it would be interesting to know. Please, try and understand this time.
That is what is supposed to happen, yes. But as soon as evidence is discovered that contradicts the foundations of the the TOE then it is dismissed as some ID crack-pot lunacy. Neutral Science is only an illusion. Scientist will always interpret the evidence according to their world-view, and thus they will always have different presuppositions.
Lol, cries for neutrality from a creationist, ha! ID is refuted for the nonsense it is because it has no foundation in science, not because science is being biased.
Yea right. So tell me, why is the TOE taught as a scientific fact? Why is all the evidence ignored which directly opposes the TOE?
It is taught as fact because there is no alternative theory. ID is not an alternative theory, it is a device, invented by creationists to attempt to undermine their opponents. If a theory arose which was scientifically viable then it would be taught alongside or in place of the TOE.
So in other words you are not sure about what you believe? Interresting.
Don't be an imbecile. You know very well that is not what I said at all.
Is Science not based on what can be observed and tested? How can something be demonstrated to be possible if it cannot be observed or tested?
I don't expect you to even bother to try and understand, but the physical chemistry behind the proposed origins of life has nothing about it which would deter the formation of more complex molecules. We have just not yet found the correct conditions and process from which to make it happen.
So how can you be sure that it is indeed possible?
I am not, do you ever read anything that people say to you?
So should Science based on what might happen in the future?
Stop begging the question.
Can I build an entire Scientific theory on something that has never been observed, tested or demonstrated?
No, but those are not the conditions we have here. There has been plenty of testing and observation. We have yet to rule out every possibility, but scientists continue to try and reduce the possibilities until a viable theory exists. Not one scientist alive will tell you that it is fact that life came from chemical soup, but many will say it seems the most viable theory.
How so? Has anyone demonstrated that random chance can accomplish something which cannot be accomplished by intelligence? I'm dying to hear this.
Go outside and look up at the sky. Are there clouds? Are they in different shapes? Choose a cloud, any cloud. There is not a human alive who could make a cloud that looked exactly the same as that cloud, had the same mass, chemical composition, physical texture etc. Want another example of how your premise is ridiculous?
I just hope Science can do this in an objective manner. But unfortunaltely there is a large part of the Scientific community that is not open to the truth.
Lol, your idea of truth is:
1) unproveable
2) untestable
3) dependant on faith
4) followed by people who try to undermine the very process which tries to do the opposite to the first three...
...and you have the gall to lecture me about the pursuit of truth?! Your pursuit of truth is so bogged down by biased interpretation, faith, disregardence of empirical process and presuppositional inference that any conclusion you reach is probably false by definition of the process involved.
I don't know why time and time again I get dragged into this with you. I'm a temperate man, a reasoned and liberal man, the kind of guy that lets others do what they want, even if he does disagree with them. But something about you turns my stomach and makes me see red. Have your view dj, I will have mine. But please, for the sake of my sanity, don't reply to my posts in other threads, I do not wish to reply to any of yours anymore, I do not have the time to waste on arguing with someone so steadfastly immovable and dismissive of reason.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have a problem with this post on a number of levels.
[b]Okay, go on then, tell me why you are happy to dismiss the order of chemicals and physics, in favour of the disorder of spacial nature?
I never dismissed the order of chemicals and physics. In fact I believe God created an ordered universe as well as the laws of physics. But quite obviously he had to have made it from disorder.
If you cannot f ...[text shortened]... t come to terms with an ID?[/b]
Me thinks you are an Atheist and ID requires a belief in God.[/b]
First, you make a assumption that since the alphabet is a human contrivance that all the matter in the universe must be created. This is an obvious non-sequiter.
Let's take your Shakespear analogy. Fine. Your own turf. Random assortments of letters, hundreds of millions of billions of them (btw one hundred million billion as numerals is 100 000 000 000 000 000, that's alot of plausible combinations). Some of them WILL make words - not even you can deny that. These words have a higher 'fitness' than non-words. Fitter constructs are less likely to be destroyed than unfit constructs (because we select words over non-words). If we include the space as a 'letter unit' then groups of words will start to accumulate. Let's make longer chains fitter than short chains, and long chains that make sense even fitter. Thus, over time longer, more sensible chains will come to predominate over shorter chains. If this process continues for long enough, paragraphs and chapters wil start to form. Eventually a manuscript will emerge.
TOE does not attempt to explain where matter came from. Perhaps you are referring to the Big Bang. As for molecular order, whilst I'm not entirely sure what you are actually referring to, I assume it is why are there molecules rather than just atoms or anything simpler. This fails on two counts, (1) this is simply the anthropic principle getting wheeled out again - this is the way the universe is - GET OVER IT - it is not proof of god, only proof that the universe is the way it is, and (2) simple chemical kinetics can explain the presence of molecules. Especially if the big bang theory is correct. Basically it is the action of energy on molecules. It's a transitory state of affairs. The laws of thermodynamics ONLY TALK ABOUT THE MEAN AVERAGE OVER THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME, not localised effects, which is what we're discussing here.
None of your "points" have any substance in science - at least not in the last hundred and fifty years or so. Go buy yourself some eduction sonny.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by StarrmanOkay, for just one second, lets assume that God does exist and he created a single celled organism. This does not change anything about the TOE so the origin of life is immaterial to the TOE, other in that it would be interesting to know. Please, try and understand this time.
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]How can you expect to prove that life evolved by random chance if you cannot prove that life was created by random chance?
I think I'd make a good candidate for sainthood, I certianly have the patience. I don't need to. The two are not connected. Why can you not understand this? Okay, for just one second, ...[text shortened]... time to waste on arguing with someone so steadfastly immovable and dismissive of reason.[/b]
I have a perfectly good understanding of the ramifications of Theistic evolution. What you have said is true for the Theist. But are you not an Atheist? I am trying to understand this from your perspective.
Lol, cries for neutrality from a creationist, ha! ID is refuted for the nonsense it is because it has no foundation in science, not because science is being biased.
I can hardly say you are being objective, actually neither am I. As I said before, Science is always interpreted according to your world view.
It is taught as fact because there is no alternative theory. ID is not an alternative theory, it is a device, invented by creationists to attempt to undermine their opponents. If a theory arose which was scientifically viable then it would be taught alongside or in place of the TOE.
As I said before, your worldview determines how you interpret the evidence.
Don't be an imbecile. You know very well that is not what I said at all.
😀😀😀😀 Insinuation can utter the word if you don't have the courage to do it yourself.
I don't expect you to even bother to try and understand, but the physical chemistry behind the proposed origins of life has nothing about it which would deter the formation of more complex molecules. We have just not yet found the correct conditions and process from which to make it happen.
Ah. Please explain what you mean with 'complex molecules'. Maybe a single protein? C'mon man. You can't even do that. I am afraid you don't seem to have a clue what 'complex' is.
I am not, do you ever read anything that people say to you?
And you call me an imbecile for saying that you are not sure of what you belive?😛
Stop begging the question.
Typical goose-step.
No, but those are not the conditions we have here. There has been plenty of testing and observation. We have yet to rule out every possibility, but scientists continue to try and reduce the possibilities until a viable theory exists. Not one scientist alive will tell you that it is fact that life came from chemical soup, but many will say it seems the most viable theory.
Would it be the most viable theory if a Creator were brought into the equation?
Go outside and look up at the sky. Are there clouds? Are they in different shapes? Choose a cloud, any cloud. There is not a human alive who could make a cloud that looked exactly the same as that cloud, had the same mass, chemical composition, physical texture etc. Want another example of how your premise is ridiculous?
I disagree with your premise. I believe that there is an intelligent system behind the formation of clouds. I am afraid your premise is ridiculous.
Lol, your idea of truth is:
1) unproveable
2) untestable
3) dependant on faith
4) followed by people who try to undermine the very process which tries to do the opposite to the first three...
I disagree with your first two premises.
...and you have the gall to lecture me about the pursuit of truth?! Your pursuit of truth is so bogged down by biased interpretation, faith, disregardence of empirical process and presuppositional inference that any conclusion you reach is probably false by definition of the process involved.
Truth is not limited to the empirical process.
I don't know why time and time again I get dragged into this with you. I'm a temperate man, a reasoned and liberal man, the kind of guy that lets others do what they want, even if he does disagree with them. But something about you turns my stomach and makes me see red. Have your view dj, I will have mine. But please, for the sake of my sanity, don't reply to my posts in other threads, I do not wish to reply to any of yours anymore, I do not have the time to waste on arguing with someone so steadfastly immovable and dismissive of reason.
Ah, I see. Reason, reason... I wonder... never mind...
Thanks for complimenting me for being steadfastly immovable... 😏
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzFirst, you make a assumption that since the alphabet is a human contrivance that all the matter in the universe must be created. This is an obvious non-sequiter.
I have a problem with this post on a number of levels.
First, you make a assumption that since the alphabet is a human contrivance that all the matter in the universe must be created. This is an obvious non-sequiter.
Let's take your Shakespear analogy. Fine. Your own turf. Random assortments of letters, hundreds of millions of billions not in the last hundred and fifty years or so. Go buy yourself some eduction sonny.
It was not an assumption. It is a simple analogy. Besides, would you care to prove that anything natural can exist without being created?
Let's take your Shakespear analogy. Fine. Your own turf. Random assortments of letters, hundreds of millions of billions of them (btw one hundred million billion as numerals is 100 000 000 000 000 000, that's alot of plausible combinations). Some of them WILL make words - not even you can deny that. These words have a higher 'fitness' than non-words. Fitter constructs are less likely to be destroyed than unfit constructs (because we select words over non-words). If we include the space as a 'letter unit' then groups of words will start to accumulate. Let's make longer chains fitter than short chains, and long chains that make sense even fitter. Thus, over time longer, more sensible chains will come to predominate over shorter chains. If this process continues for long enough, paragraphs and chapters wil start to form. Eventually a manuscript will emerge.
And you are saying that there is no intelligent mechanism involved in this process?
TOE does not attempt to explain where matter came from.
Perhaps you are referring to the Big Bang.
Sure. But what do think caused the Big Bang, if you believe that the Big Bang occured? Energy? Where did it come from? You can't tell?
OK. I believe God did it. You may ask, where did God come from. I'll say I can't tell for sure, but I guess He's probably eternal. Now what makes your theory more credible than mine?
Originally posted by dj2becker"It was not an assumption. It is a simple analogy. Besides, would you care to prove that anything natural can exist without being created? "
[b]First, you make a assumption that since the alphabet is a human contrivance that all the matter in the universe must be created. This is an obvious non-sequiter.
It was not an assumption. It is a simple analogy. Besides, would you care to prove that anything natural can exist without being created?
Let's take your Shakespear anal ...[text shortened]... ut I guess He's probably eternal. Now what makes your theory more credible than mine?
If it was an analogy, it was one with a built in assumption. Therefore, not a good analogy. You and I both know that anything I say that is natural and not created (such as Buckminsterfullerenne balls), you'd just say it was created by god and we'd be right back at that same impasse. In a logical debate I'd win on parsimony, since my explanation requires only provable phenomena, but I'm guessing that's not going to cut the mustard with you and the rest of the god-squad.
"And you are saying that there is no intelligent mechanism involved in this process?"
Indeed, only a selection mechanism. In the Shakespear analogy it's a person, in nature, with molecular evolution it's chemical stability, or reproductive fecundity (if such a term can be used for chemicals) and fidelity.
"Sure. But what do think caused the Big Bang, if you believe that the Big Bang occured? Energy? Where did it come from? You can't tell?
OK. I believe God did it. You may ask, where did God come from. I'll say I can't tell for sure, but I guess He's probably eternal. Now what makes your theory more credible than mine?"
Parsimony. I don't require the involvement of the supernatural.
Originally posted by powershakermy previous post was removed, probably because i spoke my mind again and that it caused offence.
I actually can prove it. I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that if you do what I am about to tell you to do that you will find that what I am saying is true. Here's what I want you to do so I can prove you wrong. Get on your knees and pray to Jesus and tell Him you don't believe in Him, but that if He exists to show your heart the way to Him. Also, you ...[text shortened]... ong. This is about your soul and eternality. This is about finding the Love of God. 🙂
to keep it short. you cannot prove it. you've admitted as much. no, i will not pray to your god. you know, when i was a very young child i think i had an imaginary friend too.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf it was an analogy, it was one with a built in assumption.
"It was not an assumption. It is a simple analogy. Besides, would you care to prove that anything natural can exist without being created? "
If it was an analogy, it was one with a built in assumption. Therefore, not a good analogy. You and I both know that anything I say that is natural and not created (such as Buckminsterfullerenne balls), you'd ...[text shortened]... han mine?"
Parsimony. I don't require the involvement of the supernatural.
Therefore, not a good analogy.
Why is the creation of matter not a good assumption?
You and I both know that anything I say that is natural and not created (such as Buckminsterfullerenne balls), you'd just say it was created by god and we'd be right back at that same impasse.
Whatever the case, faith is required. You require faith as it is impossible for you to prove that matter is eternal.
In a logical debate I'd win on parsimony, since my explanation requires only provable phenomena, but I'm guessing that's not going to cut the mustard with you and the rest of the god-squad.
Your underlying assumptions are as unprovable as mine, as they require faith.
Indeed, only a selection mechanism. In the Shakespear analogy it's a person, in nature, with molecular evolution it's chemical stability, or reproductive fecundity (if such a term can be used for chemicals) and fidelity.
But does the working of random chance not imply that there is an absence of intelligent intervention?
Parsimony. I don't require the involvement of the supernatural.
Adopting the simplest assumption may not be credible if your assumption cannot be demonstrated to be able to do what you assume it can. Thus you also require a huge leap of faith.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemKilling one's self is only suicide, and is a sin. We do not have the right to destroy ourselves, when we were not the God who created ourselves. Also, why kill myself when in the Word of God it says that in our mortal journey, we should look to the after life, treating our brother as we would have him in treat us. We should share with others the love of God by sending His Son Jesus Christ into the world to save us from our sins. Every sorrow and injustice we face in this world shall be dealt with by God when the Messiah returns. He will judge with true justice and righteousness, and those who have treated others badly shall in turn suffer the wrath of God unless they repent and turn from their evil ways.
So go kill yourself. What are you waiting for? Die today, hang out with Jesus tonight. I'm sure he loves people who think about themselves while others are dying and suffering.
Originally posted by RolfeyNext, you'll be asking him for proof of God's existence even when he could show you the astronomical certainties of intelligent design. If you want numbers, look at the odds that a big explosion happened and put the Sun and Moon perfectly situated from the Earth so that we could perfectly view a solar eclipse in its entirety. Then, look at the odds that the "cilia" - far more complex and mobile than any mechanical automobile we have today - wasn't intelligently designed. Then, look at the numbers of the impossibilities that says DNA code - much more complex than any computer program we have yet written on the face of the planet - and say it wasn't intelligent written ... ahemmm... designed. Duhhhh! Duhhh!!! Duh! Rolfey! Wake up! God LIVES! God is LOVE!
can you provide figures to back up your claim at all?
Originally posted by RolfeyYou will not even try praying to Jesus the words I told you and giving Him a chance to come into your life? See what I mean? You are blind. Surely we need to pray for you. Your soul wages war against righteousness, and you turn from the one and only Son of God - the God who gave his Son, Jesus Christ, to be your escape goat, so you wouldn't have to suffer the flaming punishments for your sinfulness.
my previous post was removed, probably because i spoke my mind again and that it caused offence.
to keep it short. you cannot prove it. you've admitted as much. no, i will not pray to your god. you know, when i was a very young child i think i had an imaginary friend too.