• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Life depends on matter, energy, and information

arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Not sure what you mean, LZ.


Didn't you say that you can't see the flaw in this statement/argument? [summary: If it looks or seems complex, God probably did it.]

One thing I notice is that you are putting the words "looks" "seems" and "probably" in his mouth.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
All is good.

Great.

It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

Kent Hovind tells people that evolutionists believe we came from rocks, even after he is told, time and time again that (and why) he is wrong. He clearly knows he is lying/wrong and knows where to go to find out (just google to see what people say), so the implication is that he is lying or does not accept being corrected or is not googling.

In a nutshell, if you are ever unsure or have a case or point to make or believe something, it is always a good starting point to go and look (from the stance of the opposing side, not internal criticism) at what the other side ACTUALLY says or believes. You may even want to go back and forth or look at debates, before making claims.

The question of complexity (which, as mentioned, is another way of saying that if we can’t explain it, God must have done it) is one of the commonest questions which can be asked (and answered by a google search). I suppose it could be that you or others may have thoroughly examined this area and still consider the argument valid or persuasive, but to, ‘not be flawed’ is an untenable statement based on looking for answers/responses. This is the teleological argument, and it may be worth a thread if one is not already available.

If you examine arguments, also be aware that just because people use big words or have in-depth discussion, does not equate to one side or the other having ANY validity or evidence or equality that the other, so do not be persuaded by a long argument or debate to imply that the cases are strong or equal. You will find long debates between flat earthers and between moon landing deniers v s scientists who are experience and specialists that go on for ages. Debates are largely for entertainment and peer review is the place for evidence. Occasionally a good debate arises where key points by experts and good presenters are discussed in simple terms so that an audience can get a good grasp of the sides and points.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
All is good.

Great.

It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

An evolutionist once told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

In a nutshell, if you are ever unsure or have a case or point to make or believe something, it is always a good starting point to go and look (from the stance of the opposing side, not internal criticism) at what the other side ACTUALLY says or believes. You may even want to go back and forth or look at debates, before making claims.

Where do you believe life came from?

The question of complexity (which, as mentioned, is another way of saying that if we can’t explain it, God must have done it) is one of the commonest questions which can be asked (and answered by a google search). I suppose it could be that you or others may have thoroughly examined this area and still consider the argument valid or persuasive, but to, ‘not be flawed’ is an untenable statement based on looking for answers/responses. This is the teleological argument, and it may be worth a thread if one is not already available.

Well as I said before, I'm not really big on the complexity argument. But OP is saying that God creating us IS the explanation . Isn't he? In fact, he says it's "The best explanation". So I don't understand where you get this thing about not being able to explain things from.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Hi LZ.

Your quote from me in blue.. Your comment in light grey and my response here in red.


It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”


An evolutionist once told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

This seems a little odd or needs unpacking a little or I would like to know what you understand by this. If I said that lizards are still evolving into reticulated pythons, would that (equivalent) mean anything to you or does it sound odd? Our most direct ancestors have become extinct, having left their genes behind; so nothing (i.e., ‘monkeys’) is evolving into Homo sapiens sapiens anymore. That event stopped. It seems that there is a lot about evolution that you don’t understand, which is fine and not a criticism in any way (we all know bits or lots about some things and little to nothing about lots of things!). I would be happy to explain or you can follow some other threads on this. I can recommend some short, simplified Youtube stuff if it helps.



In a nutshell, if you are ever unsure or have a case or point to make or believe something, it is always a good starting point to go and look (from the stance of the opposing side, not internal criticism) at what the other side ACTUALLY says or believes. You may even want to go back and forth or look at debates, before making claims.

Where do you believe life came from?

I am a nobody and even if I were, my beliefs would count for nothing. Better to ask what I or other know(s) or can show or ask what fits the evidence best.

Do I know where life came from? No, I don’t. I want to put this in perspective for you though, because as a Young Earth Creationist and speaker on the issue for two decades (my views have since changed), this statement, ‘No, I don’t know’ often gets translated into meaning that I (or others) think, ‘it is a total baffling miracle that cannot be explained and therefore God must have done it, but those pesky evolutionists just don’t won’t face up to that inevitable conclusion’.

I don’t know that God does not exist, or which one(s). I don’t know that farriers or goblins or fairies don’t exist, because I can’t prove or show it. But (assuming you hold a similar view on these), that does not mean that you consider that they do or that they have the remotest possibility of existing. I want you to understand the perspective here. It is a perspective of honesty. If something has a one in a trillion chance, in reality or my mind, then one cannot state with certainty or state as a fact or truth, that something is correct or not. Elvis Presley and Bruce Lee might still be alive, but in order for me to state (as fact) that they are dead or alive, I must demonstrate it, however unlikely the alternative is. We too easily or hastily like to make factual or truth or certainty claim, when they are nothing of the sort. But evidence can change or turn something into virtual or legal certainty.

With regard to life (as in abiogenesis), like so much of the process of evolution, it is very well understood with the processes well known and explainable. The problem is usually one of people seeing it as very complex and therefore unlikely and having a handy creator at hand makes is no much more easy to digest. If you watch a child pianist or chess prodigy, it seems superhuman, but it is down to a lot of hard work behind the scenes, but nevertheless, it still seems amazing. Likewise with evolution and abiogenesis with the great length of time and myriads of opportunities (99.999999999999999% being failures) that the successes seem so amazing. If something can be explained based on logic and experience and known factors, however amazing it seems and is, one can accept the evidence, in spite of the wonder of it. Evolution and abiogenesis are tiny stepping stones and we often just see the huge, steep mountain from afar. I recommend, ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins if this interests you.




The question of complexity (which, as mentioned, is another way of saying that if we can’t explain it, God must have done it) is one of the commonest questions which can be asked (and answered by a google search). I suppose it could be that you or others may have thoroughly examined this area and still consider the argument valid or persuasive, but to, ‘not be flawed’ is an untenable statement based on looking for answers/responses. This is the teleological argument, and it may be worth a thread if one is not already available.

Well as I said before, I'm not really big on the complexity argument. But OP is saying that God creating us IS the explanation . Isn't he? In fact, he says it's "The best explanation". So I don't understand where you get this thing about not being able to explain things from.



‘God creating us is the explanation’.

This is an assertion which requires evidence. You can’t just say something and it becomes true. It requires evidence, and (like I stated above and before), just because something seems amazing or even if it cannot be explained now, that is not a default to bring God into the equation to fill a gap. The gap is a bridge for science to cross. To just give up and state, ‘God’ is no explanation, it’s lazy and requires evidence. Evidence is not the absence or limit of another explanation. Otherwise I could pick a fault in one theistic logic and replace it with a fairy. God is a word used to summarise a being that we have no evidence for, it is not an explanation, anymore that a ED13tfsgh- is.

As for God being the best explanation. From a scientific/evidential perspective, what evidence is there for God or creation or life and have you examined or considered or refuted the scientific evidence put forward for how life most likely arose, based on what we know?

What are the top, most impressive reasion(s) YOU bel;ieve in YEC? Are they things you have heard, things you have researcheed? Have you examined the evidence for evolution (or Creation)?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Thanks. Is that because you think it will be easier for me or clearer for anyone reading it or both or preferable or compulsory or something else?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Hi LZ.

Your quote from me in blue.. Your comment in light grey and my response here in red.


It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”


An evolutionist once told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

This seems a little odd or needs unpacking a little or I would like to know what you understand by this.


Whenever someone posts something about a dumb thing that a creationist said, I try to point out that evolutionists also say dumb things.

I would be happy to explain or you can follow some other threads on this. I can recommend some short, simplified Youtube stuff if it helps.

I would be happy to show you some simple Youtube videos about how to read. Also I think you should learn what a "strawman" is in a debate. You seem to often put words in peoples mouths and proceed against the alternately worded argument.

Do I know where life came from? No, I don’t.


You see? You're doing exactly that here. I wasn't asking you if you knew where life came from. I was asking you "Where do you believe life came from?"

I am asking you, yes you, specifically for that answer. You avoided it by saying that what you believe means nothing and then went on to knock down a strawman.





.
If something has a one in a trillion chance, in reality or my mind, then one cannot state with certainty or state as a fact or truth, that something is correct or not.
Has this way of thinking ever been proven useful to you at all, in your entire life?

Evolution and abiogenesis are tiny stepping stones and we often just see the huge, steep mountain from afar. I recommend, ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins if this interests you.

Yes I have read Dawkins. You remind me a bit of him actually. With Dawkins it's like just because he can make an analogy then we are supposed think he has proven his point. I think there are a few people who are much smarter than Dawkins on this forum and their input is so much more valued to me. I have been on this forum for at least 10 years and even though I am a creationist I think you are a bit too quick to suggest that I could find better information elsewhere.
There are brilliant minds here and even though I might disagree with them I have learned to very much appreciate what they have to say and the effort involved in some of their posts.

I hope you dont think Im putting you down in my replies here. You seem to be a pretty smart guy also and I appreciate your replies also. Yes I am happy to give you answer to what I think the most top reasons I believe in God. But I hope first that you answer my question.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Hi LZ.

Your quote from me in blue.. Your comment in light grey and my response here in red.


It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

An evolutionist once told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

This seems a little odd or needs unpacking a little or I would like to know what you understand by this.

Click to expand...



Whenever someone posts something about a dumb thing that a creationist said, I try to point out that evolutionists also say dumb things.






Please name the evolutionist (and if you can share anything about her/him for me to see, as to their credentials – I am expecting a scientist who specialises in at least one aspect related to evolution) so that I can be assured that someone with something to say worth listening to has said it. I will always be happy to do likewise and restrict my information to quality work and not nobodies. Anecdotes tend to fill a lot of gaps. I think you will be hard pressed to find an, ‘evolutionist’ (as opposed to a nobody like me who has presented little to science, academically). Contrastingly, I cannot find a professional creationist who has not lied, knows he is lying or has spoken crap.

BrachioPEP said:

ld learn what a "strawman" is in a debate. You seem to often put words in peoples mouths and proceed against the alternately worded argument.
I would be happy to explain or you can follow some other threads on this. I can recommend some short, simplified Youtube stuff if it helps.

I would be happy to show you some simple Youtube videos about how to read. Also I think you shou



So, you are beyond the simple understanding of evolution? Would you like more detailed explanations? What sort of level would you like? I am unsure why someone who is well versed in evolution would say some of the things you are saying. I’m trying to help and not speak over you. The better question for me to ask so that I know where you are, is to ask why you reject the fact of evolution. What haven’t you been shown or understood or what is it that you reject or don’t understand? I can work from there. If it is that you have a better understanding of evolution that I have, then I would relish to know the evidence that leads you to a creationist viewpoint (bearing what I have said in previous posts).


BrachioPEP said:

Do I know where life came from? No, I don’t.



You see? You're doing exactly that here. I wasn't asking you if you knew where life came from. I was asking you "Where do you believe life came from?"

I am asking you, yes you, specifically for that answer. You avoided it by saying that what you believe means nothing and then went on to knock down a strawman.

What I believe is irrelevant. Whether I believe the moon is made or rock or cheese, is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about what the moon is made of, because opinions stand for nothing, contribute nothing and belief seems to suggest that if one person can have one on anything, anyone else can, about anything, irrespective of the facts, truth or evidence and whilst I have some beliefs based, not on evidence, that is because I don’t have time or the ability or interest to confirm it, but it is likely that it is not an important issue to me or survival, or I am basing it on experience. There are some who equate this form of belief with faith and I have no intention of going down that potentially futile and time consuming/wasting route.


Suffice to say, I believe what the evidence says, so am open to Young Earth Creation, if the evidence points to that.



.

BrachioPEP said:

If something has a one in a trillion chance, in reality or my mind, then one cannot state with certainty or state as a fact or truth, that something is correct or not.

Has this way of thinking ever been proven useful to you at all, in your entire life?


I find statistics extremely interesting and useful and use it in magic (to fool people), evolutionary explanations (to demonstrate the feasibility of evolution) and everyday usage. The national lottery is, for example, a tax on the statistically illiterate. I came back from a visit to my brother’s yesterday. His partner told me a story from some years earlier. He was living in the North of England and was visiting London. As he was walking down Tottenham Court Road, he passed a public phone box which rang just at that moment. He picked the phone up and they said, ‘Mr Wilkinson? (which is his name). It was his bank, wanting to share something. It transpired that they used his bank number which coincided with the phone number of the telephone box. Now, I was/am very sceptical of this and I am currently investigating it, but if it is anything like my 20+ year investigation into healing miracles, I think I know where it will lead. BUT (and this is my point) I would not dismiss this or anything outright. And I cannot rule out any God or act without first investigating it to the point of verification.

BrachioPEP said:

Evolution and abiogenesis are tiny stepping stones and we often just see the huge, steep mountain from afar. I recommend, ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins if this interests you.

Yes I have read Dawkins. You remind me a bit of him actually. With Dawkins it's like just because he can make an analogy then we are supposed think he has proven his point.



Analogies are often very useful to help people see something more clearly. As evolution seems, to many (those who believe in creation or evolution), very statistically improbable, this analogy is particularly useful and has been eye opening to some. Analogies do not, as you (quite obviously) say, prove anything and neither are they meant to and neither do I imply such. The question about where life or everything comes from is most often used to imply that it cannot occur naturally or that it is too complex to occur naturally or without intelligence. Statistics, knowing how evolution works, the steps (and the zillions of failures to every success), when grasped, can be a big help in putting things into perspective.



I think there are a few people who are much smarter than Dawkins on this forum and their input is so much more valued to me. I have been on this forum for at least 10 years and even though I am a creationist I think you are a bit too quick to suggest that I could find better information elsewhere.
There are brilliant minds here and even though I might disagree with them I have learned to very much appreciate what they have to say and the effort involved in some of their posts.


People don’t need to be particularly (or tall) intelligent, not least as intelligent as Richard Dawkins may or may not be, in order to explain things. Dawkins is a zoology professor who has won awards for his literary skills and books, so he is (at least) a starting point or springboard.

You can find excellent information elsewhere on your level, whatever that may be. But there are some who can help here, too. This is largely a philosophy site, so it does not specialise in evolution (but some other sites do).

I have invested emotional and intellectual time with you, LZ and would be disappointed if you have learned nothing.


I hope you dont think Im putting you down in my replies here. You seem to be a pretty smart guy also and I appreciate your replies also. Yes I am happy to give you answer to what I think the most top reasons I believe in God. But I hope first that you answer my question.

Suddenly lost the ability to highlight (i.e. in red), so the folloowing should be my reersponse in red:

It would be bad to put people down, but I don’t think you are doing this. But arguments can be rightfully put down. But I don’t see any argument that I have made that doesn’t make sense and I didn’t understand what argument I was straw manning btw, but It probably isn’t important. I am happy to bow out of this or refrain from helping you or leave it to other more informed or respected folk here or elsewhere. You might like to follow Aron’s recently evolved post on Creation/evolution which seems just what might suit you (but it is not really for beginners, though it was touted as such, if you are a beginner). I could ask you a series of questions to see where you are on understanding evolution if it helps. Again, if/when I know what prevents you from seeing evolution, I can help. I could even put it the other way round. I don’t see Creation or creationism, but if you can show it to me, I’ll look. Which leads me back to my question. What is the evidence that led you to go along with Creation and/or (the) God (of the Bible) and possibly the denomination and interpretation of the Bible that you hold? Was some or most or all based on things other than evidence (like testimony, conversion/religious experience, healing, reading books etc.)? What is the most powerful evidence against what you, ‘believe’? If you can steel man such, that would be great, too.

Just to re-iterate on what I believe. If you mean what I accept, then it is what the evidence points to. So if you are asking me where the evidence points to from my understanding, I can answer that, and I can be wrong or persuaded by further evidence, as I hope you will/can be.

I do not understand a lot of physics, so there are things I accept without having read or understood or compared the evidence. Gravity, electricity, the earth is a rough sphere, my daughters hate me most of the time. There are knowledgeable people who might be able to convince me differently by persuasion, but I (am due to time and a limited life and no life altering or denying reason to fully grasp it), accept it based on experience, even though I may be wrong and living on a flat earth. I consider the possibility of the existence of a God/afterlife and creation/evolution very important to all and/or to me, so I look at the evidence.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Hi LZ.

Your quote from me in blue.. Your comment in light grey and my response here in red.


It is just hard to see how someone could say that they can see no flaw, if they had looked.

There are Creationists who ask, ‘if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

An evolutionist once told me that monkeys are still evolving into humans.

This seems a little odd or needs unpacking a little or I would like to know what you understand by this.

Click to expand...



Whenever someone posts something about a dumb thing that a creationist said, I try to point out that evolutionists also say dumb things.






Please name the evolutionist (and if you can share anything about her/him for me to see, as to their credentials – I am expecting a scientist who specialises in at least one aspect related to evolution) so that I can be assured that someone with something to say worth listening to has said it. I will always be happy to do likewise and restrict my information to quality work and not nobodies. Anecdotes tend to fill a lot of gaps. I think you will be hard pressed to find an, ‘evolutionist’ (as opposed to a nobody like me who has presented little to science, academically). Contrastingly, I cannot find a professional creationist who has not lied, knows he is lying or has spoken crap.

BrachioPEP said:


ld learn what a "strawman" is in a debate. You seem to often put words in peoples mouths and proceed against the alternately worded argument.
I would be happy to explain or you can follow some other threads on this. I can recommend some short, simplified Youtube stuff if it helps.

I would be happy to show you some simple Youtube videos about how to read. Also I think you shou



So, you are beyond the simple understanding of evolution? Would you like more detailed explanations? What sort of level would you like? I am unsure why someone who is well versed in evolution would say some of the things you are saying. I’m trying to help and not speak over you. The better question for me to ask so that I know where you are, is to ask why you reject the fact of evolution. What haven’t you been shown or understood or what is it that you reject or don’t understand? I can work from there. If it is that you have a better understanding of evolution that I have, then I would relish to know the evidence that leads you to a creationist viewpoint (bearing what I have said in previous posts).

BrachioPEP said:

Do I know where life came from? No, I don’t.



You see? You're doing exactly that here. I wasn't asking you if you knew where life came from. I was asking you "Where do you believe life came from?"

I am asking you, yes you, specifically for that answer. You avoided it by saying that what you believe means nothing and then went on to knock down a strawman.

What I believe is irrelevant. Whether I believe the moon is made or rock or cheese, is entirely irrelevant in a discussion about what the moon is made of, because opinions stand for nothing, contribute nothing and belief seems to suggest that if one person can have one on anything, anyone else can, about anything, irrespective of the facts, truth or evidence and whilst I have some beliefs based, not on evidence, that is because I don’t have time or the ability or interest to confirm it, but it is likely that it is not an important issue to me or survival, or I am basing it on experience. There are some who equate this form of belief with faith and I have no intention of going down that potentially futile and time consuming/wasting route.


Suffice to say, I believe what the evidence says, so am open to Young Earth Creation, if the evidence points to that.



.

BrachioPEP said:

If something has a one in a trillion chance, in reality or my mind, then one cannot state with certainty or state as a fact or truth, that something is correct or not.

Has this way of thinking ever been proven useful to you at all, in your entire life?


I find statistics extremely interesting and useful and use it in magic (to fool people), evolutionary explanations (to demonstrate the feasibility of evolution) and everyday usage. The national lottery is, for example, a tax on the statistically illiterate. I came back from a visit to my brother’s yesterday. His partner told me a story from some years earlier. He was living in the North of England and was visiting London. As he was walking down Tottenham Court Road, he passed a public phone box which rang just at that moment. He picked the phone up and they said, ‘Mr Wilkinson? (which is his name). It was his bank, wanting to share something. It transpired that they used his bank number which coincided with the phone number of the telephone box. Now, I was/am very sceptical of this and I am currently investigating it, but if it is anything like my 20+ year investigation into healing miracles, I think I know where it will lead. BUT (and this is my point) I would not dismiss this or anything outright. And I cannot rule out any God or act without first investigating it to the point of verification.

BrachioPEP said:

Evolution and abiogenesis are tiny stepping stones and we often just see the huge, steep mountain from afar. I recommend, ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins if this interests you.

Yes I have read Dawkins. You remind me a bit of him actually. With Dawkins it's like just because he can make an analogy then we are supposed think he has proven his point.



Analogies are often very useful to help people see something more clearly. As evolution seems, to many (those who believe in creation or evolution), very statistically improbable, this analogy is particularly useful and has been eye opening to some. Analogies do not, as you (quite obviously) say, prove anything and neither are they meant to and neither do I imply such. The question about where life or everything comes from is most often used to imply that it cannot occur naturally or that it is too complex to occur naturally or without intelligence. Statistics, knowing how evolution works, the steps (and the zillions of failures to every success), when grasped, can be a big help in putting things into perspective.



I think there are a few people who are much smarter than Dawkins on this forum and their input is so much more valued to me. I have been on this forum for at least 10 years and even though I am a creationist I think you are a bit too quick to suggest that I could find better information elsewhere.
There are brilliant minds here and even though I might disagree with them I have learned to very much appreciate what they have to say and the effort involved in some of their posts.


People don’t need to be particularly (or tall) intelligent, not least as intelligent as Richard Dawkins may or may not be, in order to explain things. Dawkins is a zoology professor who has won awards for his literary skills and books, so he is (at least) a starting point or springboard.

You can find excellent information elsewhere on your level, whatever that may be. But there are some who can help here, too. This is largely a philosophy site, so it does not specialise in evolution (but some other sites do).

I have invested emotional and intellectual time with you, LZ and would be disappointed if you have learned nothing.


I hope you dont think Im putting you down in my replies here. You seem to be a pretty smart guy also and I appreciate your replies also. Yes I am happy to give you answer to what I think the most top reasons I believe in God. But I hope first that you answer my question.

Suddenly lost the ability to highlight (i.e. in red), so the folloowing should be my reersponse in red:

It would be bad to put people down, but I don’t think you are doing this. But arguments can be rightfully put down. But I don’t see any argument that I have made that doesn’t make sense and I didn’t understand what argument I was straw manning btw, but It probably isn’t important. I am happy to bow out of this or refrain from helping you or leave it to other more informed or respected folk here or elsewhere. You might like to follow Aron’s recently evolved post on Creation/evolution which seems just what might suit you (but it is not really for beginners, though it was touted as such, if you are a beginner). I could ask you a series of questions to see where you are on understanding evolution if it helps. Again, if/when I know what prevents you from seeing evolution, I can help. I could even put it the other way round. I don’t see Creation or creationism, but if you can show it to me, I’ll look. Which leads me back to my question. What is the evidence that led you to go along with Creation and/or (the) God (of the Bible) and possibly the denomination and interpretation of the Bible that you hold? Was some or most or all based on things other than evidence (like testimony, conversion/religious experience, healing, reading books etc.)? What is the most powerful evidence against what you, ‘believe’? If you can steel man such, that would be great, too.

Just to re-iterate on what I believe. If you mean what I accept, then it is what the evidence points to. So if you are asking me where the evidence points to from my understanding, I can answer that, and I can be wrong or persuaded by further evidence, as I hope you will/can be.

I do not understand a lot of physics, so there are things I accept without having read or understood or compared the evidence. Gravity, electricity, the earth is a rough sphere, my daughters hate me most of the time. There are knowledgeable people who might be able to convince me differently by persuasion, but I (am due to time and a limited life and no life altering or denying reason to fully grasp it), accept it based on experience, even though I may be wrong and living on a flat earth. I consider the possibility of the existence of a God/afterlife and creation/evolution very important to all and/or to me, so I look at the evidence.

I think I might have gotten you confused with someone else here, so some of my last reply might have been directed at the wrong person. I apologize if I made that mistake. Just want to point that out. I will read this probably on Tuesday, when I have more time and then try to reply. Thank you for taking the time to reply to me Brachio. It looks interesting.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Sorry for the much delayed reply.

I like that you point out that there is no "metric of designedness". I kinda agree with this. I think the same could also be said for arguments creationists give about complexity. Is a thing really complex? Couldn't God have made life 1000x more complex if he wanted to? Though I am young earth creationist, I am not a big fan of the Intelligent Design thing, even though I believe we were intelligently designed.

Here's the rub: there are plenty of fields which have developed and tested metrics of designedness. Archaeology/Material Culture is one such example. A trained archaeologist can look at a field full of random rocks and quickly spot a hand-ax created by a human being. You can learn this skill too, although it does take a long familiarity before you'd be able to just eye-ball a stone tool in a field, you'd certainly be able to see the clearly defined characteristics of designedness when presented with a stone tool, and you can learn those characteristic of designedness. Ultimately, true discovery and truth itself is about testing ones' assumptions or ideas - if I assume that the process of stone-tool manufacturing was done by knapping stone, then logically it follows that the design process should include indications of that process, for example percussion bulbs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulb_of_applied_force - a phenomenon that very rarely occurs naturally.

Thus it is very problematic for ID that they continuously appeal to apparent design - teleology - when they can't even establish a metric which we could test against objects of known provenance. It's like modern ID Creationists heard about Paley's Watch and decided they have a killer argument absent any actual substance.

If, as per your belief, we're intelligently designed - were all the flaws in our anatomy and physiology intentional? For example, is the esophagus and trachea's shared entry really an example of intelligent design? It would seem a pretty obvious problem arising from that 'design' that the possessor of that anatomy would be at serious risk of choking on their food - combining two absolutely necessary components of life (breathing and imbibing nutrients) in such a way as to routinely run the risk of killing the subject doesn't seem to indicate good design (i.e. intelligence) or any form of planning at all.


For me it enough to just ask whether functions like consciousness arise naturally from non-living matter. I don't think any of us a really able to judge the complexity or "designedness" of these functions.

Insofar as we know, consciousness doesn't arise from non-living matter (presumably that would be a component of the immaterial god) - it's certainly never been observed by any human. Consciousness is the function of the brain; the neural network which processes and stores memories acquired through sensory organs - all of which is 'living matter'.



We were designed to fit a certain image.

Then I feel you need to ask yourself whether viruses and bacteria that solely affect humans were exquisitely designed to harm us, tailored to our designed image.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
How? No logical reason is given for this conclusion.

The argument can be summed up as such:
Premise 1: "oh how nifty"
Conclusion: "therefore design"

???How is that of any use???

Conversely, I know of several papers that study the properties of amino acids and deduce from that what they can potentially do in the absence of living systems. Like it has been pointed out that aromatic amino acids are likely biotic in origin, meaning life had to start with a reduced amino acid "alphabet", but they are still able to produce foldable proteins. I actually had a conversation with one of the authors of that paper, Liam Longo, along with a few others, because he saw the video (the one linked above which I helped with the scrip) and was interested in talking to us. Longo's research is on the abiogenesis of proteins and protein folding. This was one of the best conversations I ever had, but it was private and not recorded. He explained in detail how proteins fold and about his recent research on the most ancient protein folds, which turns out are rather simple and can easily form (at least that is what I can recall from memory. You need to ask him if you are interested).
Once you have an answer and solution about the 27 problems in regards of amino acids listed above, you can start thinking about what they can do, or not do.... not before.

Amino acids
Chemical evolution of amino acids and proteins ? Impossible !!



How could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation?
How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required for a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)?
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided?
How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups, so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
How did prebiotic events produce the twenty amino acids used in life? Eight proteinogenic amino acids were never abiotically synthesized under prebiotic conditions.
How did a prebiotic synthesis of biological amino acids avoid the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products?
How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced and concentrated only left-handed amino acids? ( The homochirality problem )
How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
How did nature "kHow could ammonia (NH3), the precursor for amino acid synthesis, have accumulated on prebiotic earth, if the lifetime of ammonia would be short because of its photochemical dissociation?
How could prebiotic events have delivered organosulfur compounds required in a few amino acids used in life, if in nature sulfur exists only in its most oxidized form (sulfate or SO4), and only some unique groups of procaryotes mediate the reduction of SO4 to its most reduced state (sulfide or H2S)?
How did unguided stochastic coincidence select the right amongst over 500 that occur naturally on earth?
How was the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products avoided?
How were bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others selected, and unifunctional monomers (with only one functional group) sorted out?
How did prebiotic events produce the twenty amino acids used in life? Eight proteinogenic amino acids were never abiotically synthesized under prebiotic conditions.
How did a prebiotic synthesis of biological amino acids avoid the concomitant synthesis of undesired or irrelevant by-products?
How could achiral precursors of amino acids have produced and concentrated only left-handed amino acids? (The homochirality problem)
How did the transition from prebiotic enantiomer selection to the enzymatic reaction of transamination occur that had to be extant when cellular self-replication and life began?
How would natural causes have selected twenty, and not more or less amino acids to make proteins?
How did natural events have foreknowledge that the selected amino acids are best suited to enable the formation of soluble structures with close-packed cores, allowing the presence of ordered binding pockets inside proteins?
How did nature "know" that the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal and optimal?
How did Amino acid synthesis regulation emerge? Biosynthetic pathways are often highly regulated such that building blocks are synthesized only when supplies are low.
How did the transition from prebiotic synthesis to cell synthesis of amino acids occur? A minimum of 112 enzymes is required to synthesize the 20 (+2) amino acids used in proteins.now" that the set of amino acids selected appears to be near ideal and optimal?
How did Amino acid synthesis regulation emerge? Biosynthetic pathways are often highly regulated such that building blocks are synthesized only when supplies are low.
How did the transition from prebiotic synthesis to cell synthesis of amino acids occur? A minimum of 112 enzymes is required to synthesize the 20 (+2) amino acids used in proteins.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
My comment: a little bit paradoxical, but definitely very cool - I would say, the least. In my understanding, this is awe-inspiring evidence that a super-intelligent intellect with foresight knew what amino acids would be functional, and how they had to be sequenced to bear functional 3d folding. Another amazing evidence of Intelligent Design.
ME:

How? No logical reason is given for this conclusion.

The argument can be summed up as such:
Premise 1: "oh how nifty"
Conclusion: "therefore design"

???How is that of any use???

Conversely, I know of several papers that study the properties of amino acids and deduce from that what they can potentially do in the absence of living systems. Like it has been pointed out that aromatic amino acids are likely biotic in origin, meaning life had to start with a reduced amino acid "alphabet", but they are still able to produce foldable proteins. I actually had a conversation with one of the authors of that paper, Liam Longo, along with a few others, because he saw the video (the one linked above which I helped with the scrip) and was interested in talking to us. Longo's research is on the abiogenesis of proteins and protein folding. This was one of the best conversations I ever had, but it was private and not recorded. He explained in detail how proteins fold and about his recent research on the most ancient protein folds, which turns out are rather simple and can easily form (at least that is what I can recall from memory. You need to ask him if you are interested).
Once you have an answer and solution about the 27 problems in regards of amino acids listed above, you can start thinking about what they can do, or not do.... not before.

That in no way addresses what I have said in that piece you quoted. It is a typical dodge. You have nothing to show that supports YOUR position, so instead of defending your baseless claims, you attack the opposition.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier too. As I often point out, we don't currently have an explanation for life (although I do not think that some of your points are even an issue, but that is beside the point), but we do have a lot of work and substance from our side that can be discussed diligently for years without making any slight jab at "Intelligent design creationism", because that work on abiogenesis research stands on its own merits.

That's not the case with YOU. Since you don't have anything that stands on its own merits, you have to spend the majority of your time attempting to poke holes in the opposition. If we say that, for the sake of argument, that evolution and abiogenesis, big bang, whatever you want to argue against are completely false....you aren't in a better position at all.....it's actually worse for you. If all of these things are no longer accepted as science, you no longer have an enemy that you must have to define yourself against; and then nearly all of your talking points are completely useless. Since you no longer can attack an oppositions (which is virtually the only thing you do) you have nothing else to say aside from the nonsensical "how nifty is biology, must be designed" thinking.

This is why I have said the following after mentioning new research on abiogenesis:

Well THAT is definitely very cool!! Research on abiogenesis constantly cranks out interesting findings like this, constantly improving our understanding of how life could have originated.

Meanwhile, what has "intelligent design" provided? I mean, besides constantly arguing against abiogenesis and then proclaim victory by default. I specifically mean research with results that supports their hypothesis POSITIVELY?

Well...

EGa57QaXYAIjwGN.png



And I don't see this fact changing anytime soon.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
we do have a lot of work and substance from our side that can be discussed diligently for years without making any slight jab at "Intelligent design creationism", because that work on abiogenesis research stands on its own merits.



EGa57QaXYAIjwGN.png



And I don't see this fact changing anytime soon.
Paradoxes in the origin of life. 2015 Jan 22 Benner SA1.
http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25608919

Steve Benner is the founder and president of the Westheimer Corporation, a private research organization, and a prior Harvard University professor. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on abiogenesis. This is his evaluation of what he has observed:

We are now 60 years into the modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which “molecules that look like biology” might arise from “molecules that do not look like biology” …. For the most part, these papers report “success” in the sense that those papers define the term…. And yet, the problem remains unsolved.
 
arg-fallbackName="Nesslig20"/>
Steve Benner is the founder and president of the Westheimer Corporation, a private research organization, and a prior Harvard University professor. He is one of the world’s leading authorities on abiogenesis. This is his evaluation of what he has observed:

We are now 60 years into the modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which “molecules that look like biology” might arise from “molecules that do not look like biology” …. For the most part, these papers report “success” in the sense that those papers define the term…. And yet, the problem remains unsolved.

wow...I mean....are you not able to read at all? Like, I have said, several times that scientists, while there are tones of research on this, they haven't solved the problem of abiogenesis. Almost exactly what Benner is saying, so putting this quote here as a response against me is just a sign that you are not cognitively processing anything I am saying.

To prove this point even further, remember what I just pointed out? The fact is that YOU....Otangelo....have nothing to back up your nonsense. Nearly everything you do is to argue against an opposition, while thinking that is equivalent to arguing for your position, which it isn't. And look at what you are doing now as a response. You are continuing exactly what I just criticized you for. Dense as a brick and no self-awareness.

Also, this entire response is.....unsupringly.....copy-pasted from a pre-print paper (apparently not peer reviewed) by Timothy R. Stout, George Matzko. Before you start complaining, it is not the fact that you are relying on a non-peer reviewed paper for quoting Benner, it is that you are mindlessly copy pasting entire responses, which do not address any of my comments. Clearly, you are not engaging in a real conversation. You are acting like a literal bot, or......although I despise the meme....an NPC. Stop doing that. Try to be a human on this forum, that's my advise.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
wow...I mean....are you not able to read at all? Like, I have said, several times that scientists, while there are tones of research on this, they haven't solved the problem of abiogenesis. Almost exactly what Benner is saying, so putting this quote here as a response against me is just a sign that you are not cognitively processing anything I am saying.

To prove this point even further, remember what I just pointed out? The fact is that YOU....Otangelo....have nothing to back up your nonsense. Nearly everything you do is to argue against an opposition, while thinking that is equivalent to arguing for your position, which it isn't. And look at what you are doing now as a response. You are continuing exactly what I just criticized you for. Dense as a brick and no self-awareness.

Also, this entire response is.....unsupringly.....copy-pasted from a pre-print paper (apparently not peer reviewed) by Timothy R. Stout, George Matzko. Before you start complaining, it is not the fact that you are relying on a non-peer reviewed paper for quoting Benner, it is that you are mindlessly copy pasting entire responses, which do not address any of my comments. Clearly, you are not engaging in a real conversation. You are acting like a literal bot, or......although I despise the meme....an NPC. Stop doing that. Try to be a human on this forum, that's my advise.
I argue for my position with POSITIVE evidence, and have done it so many times in special at Speeds channel, have you EVER paid attention?

The factory maker argument

https://******************************/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument

Cells are factories in a literal sense:
https://******************************/t2245-abiogenesis-the-factory-maker-argument#6959

1. Living Cells store very complex genetic and epigenetic information through the genetic code, and over thirty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems prescribe and instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms. The operation of cells is close to thermodynamic perfection, and its operation occurs analogously to computers. Cells ARE computers in a literal sense, using boolean logic. Each cell hosts millions of interconnected molecular machines, production lines and factories analogous to factories made by man. They are of unparalleled gigantic complexity, able to process constantly a stream of data from the outside world through signaling networks. Cells operate robot-like, autonomously. They adapt the production and recycle molecules on demand. The process of self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and sophistication.

2. The origin of blueprints containing the instructional complex information, and the fabrication of complex machines and interlinked factories based on these instructions, which produce goods for specific purposes, are both always the result of intelligent setup.

3. Therefore, the origin of biological information and self-replicating cell factories is best explained by the action of an intelligent designer, who created life for his own purposes.

Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”

A metaphor (“A biological cell is like a production system”) demonstrates that similar behaviors are driven by similar causal mechanisms.

Michael Denton’s 1985 Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
The inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy.


Intelligent design theory is like a sword with two edges

Intelligent design wins using eliminative induction based on the fact that its competitors are false. Materialism explains basically nothing consistently in regards to origins but is based on unwarranted consensus and scientific materialism, a philosophical framework, that should never have been applied to historical sciences. Evidence should be permitted to lead wherever it is. Also, eventually, to an intelligent agency as the best explanation of origins.

And intelligent design wins based on abductive reasoning, using inference to the best explanation, relying on positive evidence, on the fact that basically all-natural phenomena demonstrate the imprints and signature of intelligent input and setup. We see an unfolding plan, a universe governed by laws, that follows mathematical principles, finely adjusted on all levels, from the Big Bang, to the earth, to permit life, which is governed by instructional complex information stored in genes and epigenetically, encoding, transmitting and decoding information, used to build, control and maintain molecular machines ( proteins ) that are build based on integrated functional complex parts ( primary to quaternary polypeptide strands and active centers ), which are literally nanorobots with internal communication systems, fully automated manufacturing production lines, transport carriers, turbines, transistors, computers, and factory parks, employed to give rise to a wide range, millions of species, of unimaginably complex multicellular organisms.

Chance to find a message written on a cloud in the sky: "Jesus loves you" randomly, is as DNA creating its own software, and upon it, writing a complex algorithm to make a protein by accident. DNA base sequencing cannot be explained by chance nor physical necessity any more than the information in a newspaper headline can be explained by reference to the chemical properties of ink. Nor can the conventions of the genetic code that determine the assignments between nucleotide triplets and amino acids during translation be explained in this manner. The genetic code functions like a grammatical convention in a human language.
 
arg-fallbackName="rationalist"/>
Also, this entire response is.....unsupringly.....copy-pasted from a pre-print paper (apparently not peer reviewed) by Timothy R. Stout, George Matzko. Before you start complaining, it is not the fact that you are relying on a non-peer reviewed paper for quoting Benner, it is that you are mindlessly copy pasting entire responses, which do not address any of my comments. Clearly, you are not engaging in a real conversation. You are acting like a literal bot, or......although I despise the meme....an NPC. Stop doing that. Try to be a human on this forum, that's my advise.

It is entirely irrelevant if I quoted from a paper of Benner which was peer-reviewed or not, because the quote does not deal with scientific discoveries, but is making a general observation in regards to the status quo of abiogenesis research, which everyone knows its true.

Eugene Koonin is even more clear in this regard: He says:

Eugene V. Koonin: The Logic of Chance: page 252:
" Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth.

and my add on this: The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview of who wants naturalism to be true.

Why do you not permit the evidence to lead where it does, namely design? I can only guess, emotional reasons. Science leads to God.
 
Back
Top