I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2013, 05:22 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 01:31 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  If by 'machines' you mean electro-mechanical machines of the sort we understand, then it is hard to imagine how they might come about without a designer.

However, biological organisms are chemical machines and it is not hard to imagine them coming about without design. We have evidence of the precursors occurring naturally.

I don't know....there is a pretty big gap between the formation of precursor molecules and self replicating things.

Given the enormous number of opportunities and the enormous span of time, not so big a gap. The formation of complexity is cumulative.
And it only had to happen once.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 05:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:31 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't know....there is a pretty big gap between the formation of precursor molecules and self replicating things.

Given the enormous number of opportunities and the enormous span of time, not so big a gap. The formation of complexity is cumulative.
And it only had to happen once.

You are essentially claiming there was a natural chemical process that resulted in the formation of self replicating molecules.

What other natural chemicals processes have ever been observed to apparently only happen once? One off events are not natural. The usual and ordinary course of nature is repetition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 01:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 05:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  Given the enormous number of opportunities and the enormous span of time, not so big a gap. The formation of complexity is cumulative.
And it only had to happen once.

You are essentially claiming there was a natural chemical process that resulted in the formation of self replicating molecules.

What other natural chemicals processes have ever been observed to apparently only happen once? One off events are not natural. The usual and ordinary course of nature is repetition.

"One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(05-08-2013 09:06 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Given the incredible number of factors necessary for life to exist, if any single one proved impossible to come about randomly, it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force.

This isn't about whether or not such a factor exists, it's about the argument itself. Is it solid?
I would change the conclusion.
Rather than " it would necessitate the existence of an eternal, intelligent force"
It ought to be " it would necessitate further scientific investigation"

The problem with the "necessitate the existence of a supernatural cause" argument is that they are assuming science have discovered all there is to discover about materialistic naturalism.

Which isn't the case because scientists are continuing to discover on a daily basis. How many professional scientists are there actively working today? Wouldn't their jobs be redundant if we knew everything already?

According to the scientific method a hypothesis, theory etc needs to me falsifiable, it needs to put it's neck on the chopping block and live or die according to the discoverable truth.

Intelligent Design "scientists" although highly educated, and with much proffesional scientific experience diverge from the scientific method and hence operate in a model of pseudo science. They come up with terms such as "irreducible complexity", which by the way is a very useful term and in my opinion should be part of evolutionary science. If something is irreducibly complex then it would provide a major hurdle for evolution and would require further scientific investigation, potentially require modification to the theory of evolution.
But on its own merits "irreducable complexity" is not a scientific theory. It does not prove supernatural causes, it isn't falsifiable. The eye, the bacteria flagellum, the immune system cascade were all touted as irreducably complex, science has since proven that they can be reducable and yet the term still lives on, the proponents still argue that their flavour of god exists.

If psuedo science won the day, let's say they got government backing to redefine the scientific method to allow supernatural, untestable, unobservable, unverifiable explainations then our world would be much different. Instead of one unified global objective scientific approach, set of theories etc we would have various scientific denominations, there would be Catholic science, Protestant science, Islamic science, Creation science, ID science, Wiccan science, etc. Which flavour of science to teach in schools would be dependant on which groups have the highest amount of supporters or offer the highest amount of funds in support of political campaigns. It would be a case of the most powerful whom dictates scientific knowlege within a society and global science would no longer exist. Scientific labs would be run by religious seniors making sure that any science discoveries conform to their religious beliefs. Research funding would be seriously reduced because the gaps are best filled with "God did it" rather than wasting effort on empirical discovery.

All we can do with real science is come up with natural causes for natural events. People wishing for a god to be in the picture, need to turn to religion rather than awkwardly attempt to twist science into a proof for their god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are essentially claiming there was a natural chemical process that resulted in the formation of self replicating molecules.

What other natural chemicals processes have ever been observed to apparently only happen once? One off events are not natural. The usual and ordinary course of nature is repetition.

"One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

If primitive life were being created naturally today then it would be attacked and absorbed by the more efficient and more complex life already in existence today. The new life would be eradicated very quickly. How do we know this isn't happening all the time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 05:59 PM
I need you to attack this argument
Intelligent Design is the opposite of science. It goal is not to find things that can be explained by science, but
to find things that cannot be explained by science. In practice this endeavor is impossible, because for that we need
to know everything that future scientists know.

Intelligent Design is the Antiscience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
29-10-2013, 06:07 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 05:59 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Intelligent Design is the opposite of science. It goal is not to find things that can be explained by science, but
to find things that cannot be explained by science. In practice this endeavor is impossible, because for that we need
to know everything that future scientists know.

Intelligent Design is the Antiscience.

ID is creationism in a new suit. Same rhetoric, same "textbooks", same "ideas" slight name change because creationism was ruled unconstitutional as ID has been in the Dover case. It is a total non-starter and is just going to cost taxpayers money when their districts get dragged to federal court and then lose.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 06:16 PM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 05:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  "One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

If primitive life were being created naturally today then it would be attacked and absorbed by the more efficient and more complex life already in existence today. The new life would be eradicated very quickly. How do we know this isn't happening all the time?

Probably is not happening all that often if at all. The conditions on the earth circa 3 Billion years ago where a lot different than today.

..but if you put the right chemicals (found in abundance on old earth) in a flask and apply enough energy you get the kinds of organic molecules with the potential to become life. All it takes is one successful little bacteria to get the ball rolling and with millions of years and 300 foot tides it starts to look more inevitable than 'irreducibly complex'

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:01 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 01:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are essentially claiming there was a natural chemical process that resulted in the formation of self replicating molecules.

What other natural chemicals processes have ever been observed to apparently only happen once? One off events are not natural. The usual and ordinary course of nature is repetition.

"One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

One off events of natural chemical processes are not the norm. You don't know what you are talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 01:05 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(29-10-2013 05:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(29-10-2013 02:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  "One off events are not natural"? Are you serious? Unique configurations of matter are the norm.

If primitive life were being created naturally today then it would be attacked and absorbed by the more efficient and more complex life already in existence today. The new life would be eradicated very quickly. How do we know this isn't happening all the time?

Why doesn't the more complex life that exists today attack and eradicate and absorb the more primitive life that exists today to such an extent that we wouldn't be able to observe it?

A better and simpler explanation is that abiogenesis isn't happening today which is why we don't observe it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: