Science Law - Life Comes From Life

[leroy]

To say that natural abiogénesis took place is like saying that a big ice cube, emerged from a pot of boiling water in your kitchen .

If we imagine everything had to come together at the same instant to make a modern cell, sure. But did life actually begin like that?

But even then, it is not impossible. So you were wrong, we have zero data that says abiogenesis is impossible even in the very worst case scenario.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway, so it is an irrelevancy. Literally nobody is seriously advancing the tornado-in-a-junkyard theory.

This event is not literally impossible, but it is safe to say that this event will never occur in the history of our planet. If this event ever occurs in your kitchen you can bet that an intelligent designer was involved.

I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?

We are talking about a similar situation, this is why I presented this analogy, both natural abiogénesis and ice emerging from boiling water are not literally impossible but extremely unlikely and for every practical purpose we can say that it can’t happen. This is fundamentally a statistical problem.

Boiling water is hot because most molecules are hot, but there are a few isolated molecules that are “cold” (as cold as ice) any intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) with the appropriate tools could in theory cherry pick and select all the cold molecules, put them together and create ice.

Statistical problems are not a problem for intelligent designers, intelligent designers can willingly chose an unlikely combination, and this is why intelligent designers can create low entropy form high entropy. Therefore if you ever see ice emerging from boiling water, design (natural or supernatural) would be your best explanation.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway,

ok Would you at least admit that intelligent design ( natural or supernatural) is a better explanation than what you call the “worst possible scenario” ?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

That is not an extraordinary claim. That claim is so mundane
l:

Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

 

[leroy]

You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

Someone pissing the door might not be so extraordinary, but pissing the door and not remember it is extraordinary, especially when that individual usually doesn’t piss doors. Faking a video is also extraordinary, but in my opinion more or ordinary that the first scenario.

. in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation[

Asserting that there is a better explanation does not imply that I am denying the evidence

Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

One wonders what do you personally mean by “accepting the evidence” I am saying (in red letters) that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than without the video, if this doesn’t count as “accepting the evidence” then one wonders what would count as “accepting the evidence”

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

but pissing the door and not remember it is extraordinary, especially when that individual usually doesn’t piss doors.

I guess you don't party much.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You honestly think someone pissing on another person's door is extraordinary, at least as extraordinary as ghosts? Beyond that, you did deny the evidence. Remember when you wrote "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." Claiming evidence to be fake is denying it.

Look at all the mental gymnastics you are now having to jump through. You do realize how much easier you would have it if you just acted honest to start with.

Someone pissing the door might not be so extraordinary, but pissing the door and not remember it is extraordinary, especially when that individual usually doesn’t piss doors. Faking a video is also extraordinary, but in my opinion more or ordinary that the first scenario.

Well, if they have a memory as bad as yours, than it would also be mundane. Beyond that, we do not know if you do not remember, at this point you are simply denying doing it. That could mean that you do not remember or that you are just lying, and both of those are mundane.

Beyond that, you now think that faking a video is as mundane as someone not remembering or lying? You honestly do not have a very firm grasp of reality, now do you?

. in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation[

Asserting that there is a better explanation does not imply that I am denying the evidence

:docpalm:

Your assertion includes the claim of the video being fake. Dandan/Leroy, you wrote that you would argue that the video is fake. Saying something is fake is denying it. How pathetic can one person get? This is just getting sad.

Well that would be a point of disagreement, I would say that the event is extraordinary, but it is irrelevant. I is still a fact that I would not deny the evidence, nor I would deny the existence of the video, nor I would deny the fact that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than with the absence of the video.

One wonders what do you personally mean by “accepting the evidence” I am saying (in red letters) that the video makes the “me urinating” hypothesis more likely to be true than without the video, if this doesn’t count as “accepting the evidence” then one wonders what would count as “accepting the evidence”

Because you are going against what you have said before. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." What you said in red is you trying to have your cake and eat it to. As I mocked before, "[sarcasm]Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it.[/sarcasm]" That is what you are saying. Again, look at all the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through when you could have just been honest from the start.

 

[leroy]

Even when you wrote the statement down, one can see that we are not making the same amount of assumptions. "... you are assuming that there is a real chemical law1 capable of creating life..." That is one assumption. Compared to, "... I am assuming that there is a designer1 capable of creating life2..." That is two assumptions. First you are assuming a designer, than you are also assuming that this designer can create life. Thus, using parsimony, mine is superior.

You are assuming:
1 that the simulations represent a real mechanism

2 that this mechanism was responsible for abiogenesis

Let it go, we are making the same number of assumptions.

My analogy was not mean to be related to parsimony, but anyway, why us that a terrible analogy?

These 2 sentences seem to be analogous (if not why not)

1 “We know that elephants exists, we know nothing about dark energy therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the expansion of the universe.

2 “We know that chemistry exists, we know nothing about “intelligent designers therefore chemistry is a better explanation for the origin of life than ID”

Where does the analogy fail?

An elephant is a small part of biology, whereas chemistry is a whole field of science. Do you honestly not see that?

:lol:
Really is that the reason why you think the analogy fails, well change elephants for “Chemistry” by your logic Chemical reactions are a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than dark energy, because we know that chemical reactions exists and we know nothing about dark energy.

Why don’t you simply let it go and admit that your logic is flawed.

. All anyone has ever said is that nature is a far better solution than magic.

But you haven’t done anything to support that assertion,

Right, magic explains everything. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it is something special is telling.

Even if that were true, there are still objective ways that would prove that “nature” is a better explanation than magic.

Right, that gap your Jesus exists in is shrinking.

:lol: :lol:
That is cute, can you support your assertion?

pretty much the only contribution that science has provided in the field of abiogenesis, is proving that the “origin of life problem” is more difficult than previously thought.

The number new problems being discovered outperforms the number of problems that have been solved. Even the authors of your paper have “discovered” more problems than the amount of problems that they have solved.

If you think that gaps are getting smaller as science progresses you are wrong

I love this, you are basically asking me to agree with a tautology. "If there is a magic sky fairy that can create life, than it is most likely what created life." Do you honestly think you are making a good argument? However, yes, I agree with this counter-factual

Well that is how the criteria of “explanatory power works” when comparing 2 hypothesis one assumes that both are true and the hypothesis that provides a better explanation wins

How about explanatory scope:

leroy wrote:4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained

your answer:

To bad you have no evidence for your admitted un-falsifiable speculation. Thus, mine is better in this case as well. Again, you have nothing but fairy dust and star wishes. Mine is actually based on chemistry and reality

Your reply is irrelevant, the criteria of explanatory scope assumes that 2 hypothesis are true, and the one who can explain more independent things wins

The main reason why most cosmologists accept inflation is because it has lots of explanatory scope, it explains at least 3 independent problems. There is no independnent evidence for the inflation nor there is any known mechanism that could produce such expansion, but the strong explanatory scope that this theory has, seems to be enough to convince most cosmologists.

“Jesus” also has lots of explanatory scope, by assuming the existence of a designer many independent problems would be solved.

Your theory wouldn’t solve any other problem; the existence of those “cores” would not solve any other mystery. And it would not even solve the origin of life problem (only a small and secondary portion of it)

 

[leroy]

Because you are going against what you have said before. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." What you said in red is you trying to have your cake and eat it to. As I mocked before, "[sarcasm]Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it.[/sarcasm]" That is what you are saying. Again, look at all the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through when you could have just been honest from the start.

Metal gymnastics is a resoult of you being unable to admit that you lied.

Your original claim:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic

The truth:
I would not deny the evidence, I would not deny that the video is there I would not deny that the video provides strong evidence (just not sufficient) for me pissing the door and I would grant that the “me pissing the door hypothesis” might be true, given that we have the video.

I would reject the conclusion “therefore I pissed the door” not because it suites me, but because me having amnesia and forgetting such an event would be an extraordinary claim, and a single video would not be strong enough to compensate for it.

We can start a new conversation on whether if a video should count as enough evidence or not, and of course the conclusions would depend largely on the background information that we have (is the quality of the video good? Was I drunk? Was there anyone with a good reason to fake the video etc. ) but this conversation would be irrelevant. I is still la fact that you lied.

we do not know if you do not remember, at this point you are simply denying doing it.

At least I would know that I am not lying, that is the main point that I was doing in the other thread.

Sure from the point of view of an external observer, and given that we have a video, it would be almost certainly sure that I pissed the door, and that my negations are just lies.

But from my point of view I would know that I am not l lying. From my point of view there are only 2 extraordinary alternatives.

Ether I have amnesia and did something that I usually don’t do, or someone faked the video, I would say that the second is more probably true, but I would not deny that the first might also be true.

 

[Rumraket]

I fail to see how an intelligent designer can make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I'm an intelligent designer, I can't make an ice cube spontaneously materialize in a pot of boiling water. I can think and wish as hard as I can, and I can move my arms, hands and legs, but I can't somehow stand next to the pot and force the molecules to assemble into ice through the power of my thoughts.

Yet that is essentially what you believe happened at the origin of life? Some kind of person that doesn't have a physical body, merely thought about it and then physical reality obeyed? What laws of physics govern such events, and what particle accelerator have discovered them?

We are talking about a similar situation, this is why I presented this analogy, both natural abiogénesis and ice emerging from boiling water are not literally impossible but extremely unlikely and for every practical purpose we can say that it can’t happen.

For practical purposes we can also say that living entities can't be wished into existence. Thoughts just don't have that kind of power. Everything in our experience tells us that to interact with the physical world you need a physical body. Invoking magical powers of thought and wishing to explain the unexplained not only lacks evidential support, it contradicts the evidence we have.

Statistical problems are not a problem for intelligent designers, intelligent designers can willingly chose an unlikely combination

No known intelligent designer can make an ice cube appear from boiling water. We're not talking about placing bricks in a particular arrangement, we're talking about catching particular molecules out of a liquid. I don't see how that is possible. How are you going to identify which molecules are "cold" without exciting them? Your solution isn't a solution, it's just made up nosense.

Ironally it seems to me the only physically possible explanation, in so far as an ice-cube ever did appear from boiling water, would be chance.

and this is why intelligent designers can create low entropy form high entropy.

Again with this entropy nonsense. Low entropy comes from high entropy all the time, no intelligent designers required. Leave your toast too long in the toaster and it turns black. That black material is incredibly complex, low entropy material.

Therefore if you ever see ice emerging from boiling water, design (natural or supernatural) would be your best explanation.

Actually I would have no explanation for it, other than a statistical fluke of thermodynamics.

But nobody is suggesting this worst-case scenario for how life originated anyway,

ok Would you at least admit that intelligent design ( natural or supernatural) is a better explanation than what you call the “worst possible scenario” ?

Not at all. Simply uttering the words intelligent design isn't an explanation. In order for intelligent design to constitute an actual explanation it's going to need a mechanism that explains what I see and why it is the way it is (the part of the explanation that explains, not merely asserts "and then X caused Y to appear". Which means knowing something about the designer and how it operates.

If you don't have that, then you don't have an explanation. You just have what could be called an account, or a just-so story. At best it would be a description of a chain of events. First X happened, then Y followed, then Z came last. That's not an explanation, that's a story, an account. An explanation would be where you explain how or why Y followed X, and lead to Z, by invoking some sort of mechanism that obeys laws, forces, constraints and initial conditions.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Even when you wrote the statement down, one can see that we are not making the same amount of assumptions. "... you are assuming that there is a real chemical law1 capable of creating life..." That is one assumption. Compared to, "... I am assuming that there is a designer1 capable of creating life2..." That is two assumptions. First you are assuming a designer, than you are also assuming that this designer can create life. Thus, using parsimony, mine is superior.

You are assuming:
1 that the simulations represent a real mechanism

2 that this mechanism was responsible for abiogenesis

Let it go, we are making the same number of assumptions.

No we are not. You said it correctly the first time, I am assuming life came about naturally. What you just did was break up that assumption into particulars. Yet, we can do that for yours too, How exactly did Jesus design, where did Jesus come from? How does the magic Jesus use work? Again, the assumptions are "I think it happened naturally (one)" whereas "you think Jesus exists (one) and did it (two)." An honest person would admit this, but we all know you are far from honest.

My analogy was not mean to be related to parsimony, but anyway, why us that a terrible analogy?

These 2 sentences seem to be analogous (if not why not)

1 “We know that elephants exists, we know nothing about dark energy therefore elephants are a better explanation than dark energy for the expansion of the universe.

2 “We know that chemistry exists, we know nothing about “intelligent designers therefore chemistry is a better explanation for the origin of life than ID”

Where does the analogy fail?

An elephant is a small part of biology, whereas chemistry is a whole field of science. Do you honestly not see that?

:lol:
Really is that the reason why you think the analogy fails, well change elephants for “Chemistry” by your logic Chemical reactions are a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than dark energy, because we know that chemical reactions exists and we know nothing about dark energy.

You do realize that dark energy is just a place holder for something we observe, but do not understand, right? Beyond that, the analogy you want to make is "chemistry is a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than fairies/Jesus because we know chemistry exists. Please try to keep up.

Why don’t you simply let it go and admit that your logic is flawed.

:lol:

You cannot make a proper analogy, yet my logic is flawed? OH, the hubris of the ignorant.

. All anyone has ever said is that nature is a far better solution than magic.

But you haven’t done anything to support that assertion,

]

Does nature exist? Have we ever observed magic? If you answered those questions honestly, you will see all the support needed for that claim.

Right, magic explains everything. The fact that you keep repeating this as if it is something special is telling.

Even if that were true, there are still objective ways that would prove that “nature” is a better explanation than magic.

Yeah. Like I did right above this. Again, answer those questions honestly, and you will see all the support needed for that claim.

Right, that gap your Jesus exists in is shrinking.

:lol: :lol:
That is cute, can you support your assertion?

Easy. You used to be a YEC, right? Now you found out the earth is not 6,000 years old and that life evolved. That knowledge field the gap you use to have when you were a YEC. Beyond that, Christians for thousands of years thought Jesus formed the earth, we know that happened naturally. Christians thought disease was caused by demons or the wrath of Jesus, we know that disease is natural. As I said, the gaps Jesus exist in is shrinking.

pretty much the only contribution that science has provided in the field of abiogenesis, is proving that the “origin of life problem” is more difficult than previously thought.

Citation needed.

The number new problems being discovered outperforms the number of problems that have been solved. Even the authors of your paper have “discovered” more problems than the amount of problems that they have solved.

Citation needed.

If you think that gaps are getting smaller as science progresses you are wrong

Jesus used to cause disease, earthquakes, storms, and created every living thing as a kind. Now we know Jesus did none of those because of our knowledge. Now, Jesus only exists in what happened before the Big Bang and the start of life. Yes, the the gaps Jesus exists in are getting smaller.

I love this, you are basically asking me to agree with a tautology. "If there is a magic sky fairy that can create life, than it is most likely what created life." Do you honestly think you are making a good argument? However, yes, I agree with this counter-factual

Well that is how the criteria of “explanatory power works” when comparing 2 hypothesis one assumes that both are true and the hypothesis that provides a better explanation wins

Magic explains everything, thus explaining nothing. Thus, it cannot win.

How about explanatory scope:

leroy wrote:4 Explanatory Scope: Your model lacks a significant amount of explanatory scope, if true it would only partially solve the “origin of life problem” while my model fully solves the “origin of life problem” and many other problems. By postulating the existence of a single intelligent designer, a wide variety of things that currently lack an explanation would be explained

your answer:

To bad you have no evidence for your admitted un-falsifiable speculation. Thus, mine is better in this case as well. Again, you have nothing but fairy dust and star wishes. Mine is actually based on chemistry and reality

Your reply is irrelevant, the criteria of explanatory scope assumes that 2 hypothesis are true, and the one who can explain more independent things wins

Yeah. Magic explains everything, thus explaining nothing. Thus, you actually do not have any explanatory scope. Here is an example: How exactly does Jesus create life? The fact that you will ignore this question proves my point.

The main reason why most cosmologists accept inflation is because it has lots of explanatory scope, it explains at least 3 independent problems. There is no independnent evidence for the inflation nor there is any known mechanism that could produce such expansion, but the strong explanatory scope that this theory has, seems to be enough to convince most cosmologists.

Again, citation needed.

“Jesus” also has lots of explanatory scope, by assuming the existence of a designer many independent problems would be solved.

Again, how does Jesus create life? If you cannot answer this basic question, than you have nothing. The fact that you will ignore this question proves my point. Again, magic explains everything, thus explaining nothing.

Your theory wouldn’t solve any other problem; the existence of those “cores” would not solve any other mystery. And it would not even solve the origin of life problem (only a small and secondary portion of it)

Yet that small and secondary portion (as you say) is far more than JesusDidIt explains. Beyond that, no one said that the citation Rumraket gave was supposed to explain the whole field of abiogenesis. It is a whole field of science after all. Again, magic can explain everything, thus explaining nothing.

Because you are going against what you have said before. You said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that “the video is fake” is a better explanation." What you said in red is you trying to have your cake and eat it to. As I mocked before, "[sarcasm]Yes, that is me on that video, and yes I am pissing on that door, and yes that all counts as evidence, and I do not deny that, but I did not do it.[/sarcasm]" That is what you are saying. Again, look at all the mental gymnastics you are putting yourself through when you could have just been honest from the start.

Metal gymnastics is a resoult of you being unable to admit that you lied.

I guess "lied" is another word that dandan/leroy does not know the proper definition for.

:lol:

Your original claim:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic

The truth:
I would not deny the evidence, I would not deny that the video is there I would not deny that the video provides strong evidence (just not sufficient) for me pissing the door and I would grant that the “me pissing the door hypothesis” might be true, given that we have the video.

Again, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It does not matter if you accept that there is a tape if you also think the tape is fake. Beyond that, you are holding yourself to an extremely high standard (i.e. stating that a tape of you is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion for such a mundane action). Thus, how was I lying when I said you would deny evidence to suit you? You are saying the tape is fake and requesting even more evidence than just the tape when a tape would be more than enough evidence for anyone else. Thus, denying evidence to suit you.

I would reject the conclusion “therefore I pissed the door” not because it suites me, but because me having amnesia and forgetting such an event would be an extraordinary claim, and a single video would not be strong enough to compensate for it.

That is not an extraordinary claim, but again, you keep proving me right by pretending that it is. Thank you. Beyond that, amnesia is not the only solution to this problem.

We can start a new conversation on whether if a video should count as enough evidence or not, and of course the conclusions would depend largely on the background information that we have (is the quality of the video good? Was I drunk? Was there anyone with a good reason to fake the video etc. ) but this conversation would be irrelevant. I is still la fact that you lied.

Again, how did I lie when I said you would deny evidence to suit you and you turn around and said the video would be fake and we need more evidence than just a tape to convince you? Your own words vindicate me.

we do not know if you do not remember, at this point you are simply denying doing it.

At least I would know that I am not lying, that is the main point that I was doing in the other thread.

Right, in the other thread you were stating that you would deny evidence to suit you. Thank you again for admitting to it.

Sure from the point of view of an external observer, and given that we have a video, it would be almost certainly sure that I pissed the door, and that my negations are just lies.

Wow! Yet, you said I was lying for making this same conclusion. I think I have figured out the trick. I have to let you think you came up with it, otherwise you will have a knee-jerk reaction to disagree with me.

But from my point of view I would know that I am not l lying. From my point of view there are only 2 extraordinary alternatives.

Ether I have amnesia and did something that I usually don’t do, or someone faked the video, I would say that the second is more probably true, but I would not deny that the first might also be true.

Right, you would say the second is more probably true because you think the tape is fake (denying it) and you want more evidence for this mundane claim (holding a higher standard, because it deals with you). Thus, how am I lying when you are saying exactly what I said? Only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's could something like that be uttered.

 

[leroy]

Right, you would say the second is more probably true because you think the tape is fake (denying it) and you want more evidence for this mundane claim (holding a higher standard, because it deals with you). Thus, how am I lying when you are saying exactly what I said? Only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's could something like that be uttered.

Exactly I would hold a higher standard because it is about me, but not because it “suits” me but because I accept memories and experiences as valid sources of information. This is very different from what you said (therefore you lied)

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic

1 I am not denying anything; it is just that I am applying a higher standard

2 Not because it suits me, but because I consider experiences and memories as good sources of knowledge.



This is not controversial, everybody in the real world would accept experiences and memories as reliable sources of knowledge, this forum seems to be the only place where people claim the opposite.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Right, you would say the second is more probably true because you think the tape is fake (denying it) and you want more evidence for this mundane claim (holding a higher standard, because it deals with you). Thus, how am I lying when you are saying exactly what I said? Only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's could something like that be uttered.

Exactly I would hold a higher standard because it is about me, but not because it “suits” me but because I accept memories and experiences as valid sources of information. This is very different from what you said (therefore you lied)

How exactly is "because it suits you" very different from "because I accept memories and experiences as valid sources of information"? Care to explain that or perhaps you would rather stop with the mental gymnastics and just act honest for once? Again, only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's can he agree with what I am saying, than turn around and say I am lying for saying it. The doublethink going on in your mind is amazing.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
As I said, you stating that you would deny evidence if it suited you. Just how dishonest can one person get? Do you think people cannot read? Pathetic

1 I am not denying anything; it is just that I am applying a higher standard

:facepalm:

Dandan/Leroy, you said, "... in this particular case and in this particular hypothetical example I would argue that 'the video is fake'". Claiming evidence is fake is denying it. Beyond that, you applying a higher standard to this is the problem. For whatever reason, you think your memories can trump evidence, however, if the shoe was on the other foot, you would not accept that nonsense. Thus, one standard for you (because it suits you), and another standard for others.

2 Not because it suits me, but because I consider experiences and memories as good sources of knowledge.

If someone broke into your car last night and your neighbor had a tape of the person doing it. If that person said they did not remember doing it, does that mean they get to go free? Remember, according to you memories and experience trump evidence.

This is not controversial, everybody in the real world would accept experiences and memories as reliable sources of knowledge, this forum seems to be the only place where people claim the opposite.

Evidence trumps experience and memories. Now, if you answer the above question honestly, your whole double-standard will be exposed. Thus, I know you will ignore it.

 

[leroy]

No we are not. You said it correctly the first time, I am assuming life came about naturally. What you just did was break up that assumption into particulars. Yet, we can do that for yours too, How exactly did Jesus design, where did Jesus come from? How does the magic Jesus use work? Again, the assumptions are "I think it happened naturally (one)" whereas "you think Jesus exists (one) and did it (two)." An honest person would admit this, but we all know you are far from honest.

If you what to stop this endless circular discussion you have to stop pretending to disagree on simple and uncontroversial points.

You are assuming that a particular natural mechanism exists, (one) and that this mechanism was responsible for abiogenesis (two)I am assuming that a particular type of designer exists (one) and that this designer was responsible for abiogenesis. (two)

I can also be as creative as you are and say “Jesus was responsible for abiogenesis” (one)

You do realize that dark energy is just a place holder for something we observe, but do not understand, right? Beyond that, the analogy you want to make is "chemistry is a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than fairies/Jesus because we know chemistry exists. Please try to keep up.

It seems to me that the point that you are trying to make is that a “known mechanism” (chemistry) is always necessarily a better than “something that may or may not exists” (God, Inflation, dark Matter Dark energy etc.) obviously that is absurd, if that were true then new mechanisms could have never been discovered.

If you are making that point, then I have nothing to add, I explained why is that point absurd

Yeah. Like I did right above this. Again, answer those questions honestly, and you will see all the support needed for that claim

How do you go from nature exists, to therefore nature necessarily is a better explanation than design/magic/God? You haven’t justified your assertion.

Easy. You used to be a YEC, right? Now you found out the earth is not 6,000 years old and that life evolved. That knowledge field the gap you use to have when you were a YEC. Beyond that, Christians for thousands of years thought Jesus formed the earth, we know that happened naturally. Christians thought disease was caused by demons or the wrath of Jesus, we know that disease is natural. As I said, the gaps Jesus exist in is shrinking.

I am talking about specifically the field of abiogenesis, can you show that the Gaps are getting smaller?

Magic explains everything, thus explaining nothing. Thus, it cannot win

However it is still theoretically possible to show a naturalistic explanation that would have more explanatory power and explanatory scope.

exactly does Jesus create life? The fact that you will ignore this question proves my point

This question has been answered multiple times in multiple threads, the answer is “I don’t know” but I don’t need to know the answer ether. (that question is independent and irrelevant)
One can theoretically conclude that Egyptians created the pyramids even without knowing how they did it.

et that small and secondary portion (as you say) is far more than JesusDidIt explains. Beyond that, no one said that the citation Rumraket gave was supposed to explain the whole field of abiogenesis

Feel free to provide additional studies and elaborate a case that covers the whole problem of natural abiogenesis

+ Justify your assertion, the only “argument” that you have provided is “I win because Jesus did it is Magic”

leroy wrote:
The number new problems being discovered outperforms the number of problems that have been solved. Even the authors of your paper have “discovered” more problems than the amount of problems that they have solved.

Citation needed.

Sure, but keep in mind that you also have your burden, you have to justify your assertion that gaps (in abiogenesis) are getting smaller

So for example 100 years ago it was thought that life was simple, that creating life would have been as simple as creating salt (just mixing a few chemicals “Cl Na”) now we know that life is much more complex than previously thought that life (even the simplest life form) require multiple independent proteins, each of them requiring very specific conditions to exists and each of them codependent on others in order to perform a function (reproduction for example)

Or to put it this way, the problem of abiogenesis is bigger today than what scientist would have thought 100 years ago.
This is an example where gaps are getting bigger
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Does nature exist? Have we ever observed magic? If you answered those questions honestly, you will see all the support needed for that claim.

You seem to be making a big deal out of it, yes we know that nature exists but we also know (with a high degree of certainty) what nature can and cant do.

We know for example that natural mechanisms can’t create robots, pyramids, nor cars. Therefore An unknown intelligent designer would always be a better explanation for these stuff than nature, if we find any of these stuff in a distant and inhabited planet we would still say that an unknown designer is a better explanation.

To say that nature exists therefore I win by default is stupid and fallacious.

Life has a complexity analogous to these things, in both cases multiple independent units need to be in a very specific order and pattern, in order to work. The evidence that we have to date indicates design.

I admit that by looking at life itself I have no good reason to say that Jesus is the designer and not any other God, Alien or time traveler, the reason why I think Jesus is the designer comes from other independent arguments.



I honestly don’t have anything else to add, the reasons why I believe that life came from a designer are:

1 The complexity of life is analogous to other things (cars, books, pyramids, robots eyc) that are known to be a product of design. (and could have not been a product of natural mechanisms)

2 There are not, any good reasons for why we should make an exception with life

3 The existence of “a designer” ( God, alien, etc.) is at least possible

4 Other independent arguments (KCA, FT, resurrections) makes “Jesus” the best candidate for who the designer could be.

Each of these points is testable and verifiable, and supported by evidence
And to be honest it seems to me that the only reason for why you reject intelligent design, is because you have a predisposition to reject anything that might have teological implications that you dislike.

 

[leroy]

How exactly is "because it suits you" very different from "because I accept memories and experiences as valid sources of information"? Care to explain that or perhaps you would rather stop with the mental gymnastics and just act honest for once? Again, only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's can he agree with what I am saying, than turn around and say I am lying for saying it. The doublethink going on in your mind is amazing.

Well why don’t you explain what you mean with “because it suits you” perhaps this is just a misunderstanding

If someone broke into your car last night and your neighbor had a tape of the person doing it. If that person said they did not remember doing it, does that mean they get to go free? Remember, according to you memories and experience trump evidence.

Good for you, this comment proves that you where not lying nor being dishonest in any way, by making that comment you showed that you haven’t understand what I am saying.

Yes I would conclude that this person hit my car and that he is lying about his amnesia. But if I where that person I would know that I am not lying.

From my perspective there are only 2 possibilities, ether I have amnesia or the video is fake, depends on the circumstances and the context, but I am more likely to go for the second alternative.
If another person is the one being accused from my prespective, there would be a third alternative, “He hit the car and he is lying about his amnesia”

Evidence trumps experience and memories. Now, if you answer the above question honestly, your whole double-standard will be exposed. Thus, I know you will ignore it.

I would say that it depends on the kind of evidence. But yes i would apply a higher standard if something contradicts my memories and experiences. (just like everybody else)

If you didn’t watch the game and you read in the news paper that the blue team won, you would accept that note as evidence.

But if you saw the game and noted that the red team won, you would need more than just a note in the news paper to convince you that your memories are wrong. Obviously you would apply a higher standard.

 

[Rumraket]

Therefore life from life

This is the same dumb shit you wrote on page one. It was false then, it is false now.

Here is another law, just as well supported (in fact it's the same evidence for both laws): All life is made of cells, which are made of atoms.

See, now your not-even-an-argument has been completely undermined.

If you deny that all life is made of cells which are made of atoms, you are violating the inductive principle of total evidence.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

No we are not. You said it correctly the first time, I am assuming life came about naturally. What you just did was break up that assumption into particulars. Yet, we can do that for yours too, How exactly did Jesus design, where did Jesus come from? How does the magic Jesus use work? Again, the assumptions are "I think it happened naturally (one)" whereas "you think Jesus exists (one) and did it (two)." An honest person would admit this, but we all know you are far from honest.

If you what to stop this endless circular discussion you have to stop pretending to disagree on simple and uncontroversial points.

I am not. That is your department. Stop projecting.

You are assuming that a particular natural mechanism exists, (one) and that this mechanism was responsible for abiogenesis (two)I am assuming that a particular type of designer exists (one) and that this designer was responsible for abiogenesis. (two)

:facepalm:

Wow! Look at those mental gymnastics. Dandan/Leroy, you basically said the same thing twice for my assumption (again, proving that it is one assumption). While again exposing that your assumption has two built into it. Let me demonstrate. We as humans are designers, correct? Can we create life? Obviously not through design. That means you are looking for a designer that also can create life. That is two assumptions.

I can also be as creative as you are and say “Jesus was responsible for abiogenesis” (one)

That is still assuming a designer that can create life. That is still two assumptions. Beyond that, what you are arguing for is Jesus being behind abiogenesis. There literally is nothing else you could be arguing for.

You do realize that dark energy is just a place holder for something we observe, but do not understand, right? Beyond that, the analogy you want to make is "chemistry is a better explanation for the expansion of the universe than fairies/Jesus because we know chemistry exists. Please try to keep up.

It seems to me that the point that you are trying to make is that a “known mechanism” (chemistry) is always necessarily a better than “something that may or may not exists” (God, Inflation, dark Matter Dark energy etc.) obviously that is absurd, if that were true then new mechanisms could have never been discovered.

Not at all the point I am making. Is chemistry new? Again, try to keep up.

If you are making that point, then I have nothing to add, I explained why is that point absurd

I am not as dumb as you, thus I would never make that point.

Yeah. Like I did right above this. Again, answer those questions honestly, and you will see all the support needed for that claim

How do you go from nature exists, to therefore nature necessarily is a better explanation than design/magic/God? You haven’t justified your assertion.

Yes I did, through parsimony.

Easy. You used to be a YEC, right? Now you found out the earth is not 6,000 years old and that life evolved. That knowledge field the gap you use to have when you were a YEC. Beyond that, Christians for thousands of years thought Jesus formed the earth, we know that happened naturally. Christians thought disease was caused by demons or the wrath of Jesus, we know that disease is natural. As I said, the gaps Jesus exist in is shrinking.

I am talking about specifically the field of abiogenesis, can you show that the Gaps are getting smaller?

Yes. Twas the point of the paper Rumraket cited and you claim to accept now.

Magic explains everything, thus explaining nothing. Thus, it cannot win

However it is still theoretically possible to show a naturalistic explanation that would have more explanatory power and explanatory scope.

Possible, but not needed.

exactly does Jesus create life? The fact that you will ignore this question proves my point

This question has been answered multiple times in multiple threads, the answer is “I don’t know” but I don’t need to know the answer ether. (that question is independent and irrelevant)

:lol:

How is that irrelevant? That is the heart of your argument. If you cannot say that, might as well say fairies did it. The same amount of information is put forth.

One can theoretically conclude that Egyptians created the pyramids even without knowing how they did it.

No they could not. However, we have evidence that they did.

et that small and secondary portion (as you say) is far more than JesusDidIt explains. Beyond that, no one said that the citation Rumraket gave was supposed to explain the whole field of abiogenesis

Feel free to provide additional studies and elaborate a case that covers the whole problem of natural abiogenesis

I did that already, and you whined and said to stick to one study. Make up your mind.

+ Justify your assertion, the only “argument” that you have provided is “I win because Jesus did it is Magic”

That is incorrect. I was saying "I win, because I actually provide scientific studies, while you are just wishing on a star." Again, please keep up.

So for example 100 years ago it was thought that life was simple, that creating life would have been as simple as creating salt (just mixing a few chemicals “Cl Na”) now we know that life is much more complex than previously thought that life (even the simplest life form) require multiple independent proteins, each of them requiring very specific conditions to exists and each of them codependent on others in order to perform a function (reproduction for example)

Once again, citations needed.

Or to put it this way, the problem of abiogenesis is bigger today than what scientist would have thought 100 years ago.

And the Universe is older, and there are more species, and Moses is not real. All things not known 100 years ago. Who cares?

This is an example where gaps are getting bigger
https://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Ignored for being from a propaganda website. The fact that you have to stoop that low should tell you everything you need to know about how well you are doing.

Does nature exist? Have we ever observed magic? If you answered those questions honestly, you will see all the support needed for that claim.

You seem to be making a big deal out of it, yes we know that nature exists but we also know (with a high degree of certainty) what nature can and cant do.

And thus far, nothing has precluded it from creating life. The fact that you castrated your entropy argument proves that.

We know for example that natural mechanisms can’t create robots, pyramids, nor cars. Therefore An unknown intelligent designer would always be a better explanation for these stuff than nature, if we find any of these stuff in a distant and inhabited planet we would still say that an unknown designer is a better explanation.

Have we actually found any of those? Amazing how you just keep stacking theoretical on theoretical and think you are making a good point.

To say that nature exists therefore I win by default is stupid and fallacious.

It is parsimony, get over it. You were the one that brought it up. Now you are upset that it is being wielded against you.

Life has a complexity analogous to these things, in both cases multiple independent units need to be in a very specific order and pattern, in order to work. The evidence that we have to date indicates design.

Again, citation needed.

I admit that by looking at life itself I have no good reason to say that Jesus is the designer and not any other God, Alien or time traveler, the reason why I think Jesus is the designer comes from other independent arguments.

You still have failed to show that design factors into this equation at all. You are putting the cart before the horse.

I honestly don’t have anything else to add, the reasons why I believe that life came from a designer are:

Yet that will not stop you from mindlessly responding to me.

1 The complexity of life is analogous to other things (cars, books, pyramids, robots eyc) that are known to be a product of design. (and could have not been a product of natural mechanisms)

Again, citation needed.

2 There are not, any good reasons for why we should make an exception with life

Besides the fact that all you have done is asserted them to be the same?

3 The existence of “a designer” ( God, alien, etc.) is at least possible

Yes. Fairies could be real, if only you clapped your hands and believed really really hard.

:lol:

4 Other independent arguments (KCA, FT, resurrections) makes “Jesus” the best candidate for who the designer could be.

All three of those have failed to pass muster in this forum alone. Beyond that, arguments are not evidence.

Each of these points is testable and verifiable, and supported by evidence

And I am still waiting to see any of this evidence. Are you planning on sharing it anytime soon?

And to be honest it seems to me that the only reason for why you reject intelligent design, is because you have a predisposition to reject anything that might have teological implications that you dislike.

Yet another example of dandan/leroy failing at mind reading. You really need to get a refund on those classes.

Oh look, another post after saying, "I honestly don’t have anything else to add..."

:lol:

How exactly is "because it suits you" very different from "because I accept memories and experiences as valid sources of information"? Care to explain that or perhaps you would rather stop with the mental gymnastics and just act honest for once? Again, only in a mind as dense as dandan's/leroy's can he agree with what I am saying, than turn around and say I am lying for saying it. The doublethink going on in your mind is amazing.

Well why don’t you explain what you mean with “because it suits you” perhaps this is just a misunderstanding

What I mean by "it suits you" is that you are basing your experiences on your memories. You think that just because you do or do not remember something it did or did not happen.

If someone broke into your car last night and your neighbor had a tape of the person doing it. If that person said they did not remember doing it, does that mean they get to go free? Remember, according to you memories and experience trump evidence.

Good for you, this comment proves that you where not lying nor being dishonest in any way, by making that comment you showed that you haven’t understand what I am saying.

Yes I would conclude that this person hit my car and that he is lying about his amnesia. But if I where that person I would know that I am not lying.

You would know you were not lying? What? Do you not see the glaring double standard here?

You also do realize that those are not the only two options, right? He could genuinely not remember, for whatever reason. Again, evidence trumps memories. If there is a video of it happening, it does not matter what the person remembers or not.

From my perspective there are only 2 possibilities, ether I have amnesia or the video is fake, depends on the circumstances and the context, but I am more likely to go for the second alternative.

And this is where you fail. There are not only two possibilities. Another possibilities is that you genuinely do not remember (for whatever reason). This is why evidence trumps memories.

If another person is the one being accused from my prespective, there would be a third alternative, “He hit the car and he is lying about his amnesia”

Again, he genuinely could not remember. There are more options than you think.

Beyond that, none of this matters, because you are now admitting that evidence trumps memories for others. However, for whatever reason you still would argue that the evidence is fake if the shoe were on the other foot. Do you not see the glaring double standard you are holding here?

Evidence trumps experience and memories. Now, if you answer the above question honestly, your whole double-standard will be exposed. Thus, I know you will ignore it.

I would say that it depends on the kind of evidence. But yes i would apply a higher standard if something contradicts my memories and experiences. (just like everybody else)

I do not do that. I am not a hypocrite like you. However, thanks again for admitting that you hold a double standard (i.e. rejecting evidence to suit you).

If you didn’t watch the game and you read in the news paper that the blue team won, you would accept that note as evidence.

Correct.

But if you saw the game and noted that the red team won, you would need more than just a note in the news paper to convince you that your memories are wrong. Obviously you would apply a higher standard.

Nope. If I were at a game and thought I saw that the Blue Team win, however, later I am shown that the Red Team was the winner, I would accept that. Why? Because evidence trumps memories.