"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

yawha

mickrock wrote: »

If a hypothesis is proving to be invalid, alternative ones need to considered.

In the case of abiogenesis the mainstream won't consider the alternative. This isn't a very scientific attitude.

What's the alternative?

mickrock

Dades wrote: »

"The" alternative.

That word sums up right there why even having this conversation with you is a waste of time. All you are looking to do is to insert a GOD into a gap you find in human knowledge. You have no interested in seeking an actual answer, only in asserting the only answer you will ever accept.

The alternative being intelligent design.

If something has the appearance of design, it is not unreasonable to consider that a creative intelligence was involved in its design, especially as abiogenesis research is such a failure.

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Christopher Hitchens


The assertion is that life emerged from inanimate matter completely by chance (abiogenesis).

There is absolutely no evidence for this. Abiogenesis research is at an impasse and has been for a long time.

It has turned from a theory into an article of faith, the very antithesis of science. It is blindly accepted as fact and then an attempt is made to figure it all out.

Even though all attempts to explain abiogenesis are proving fruitless, the theory is clung to even more strongly.

Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, not "the assertion that life emerged from inanimate matter". There's no standard model used to explain it (as we have for the complexity of life in Neo-Darwinism) so you still need to specify what exactly is being blindly accepted as fact.

And anyway, the idea that there's no evidence for the idea that life could emerge from inanimate matter is wrong.

Dades

But we don't really have the appearance of design. At least good design.

We're fragile meat sacks prone to any number of conditions, infections, accidents, natural disasters.

Unless you're talking about sharks or cockroaches as being God's chosen species.

Corkfeen

Dades wrote: »

But we don't really have the appearance of design. At least good design.

We're fragile meat sacks prone to any number of conditions, infections, accidents, natural disasters.

Unless you're talking about sharks or cockroaches as being God's chosen species.

I assume it was cheap intelligent design. Think of it this way, we're the lada of the spectrum of creation.

It is sort of funny that mickrock posted only a couple of days ago that intelligent design has nothing to do with the idea of a god. But he now apparently thinks otherwise since he's posting A&A.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76083390&postcount=219

mickrock

Dades wrote: »

But we don't really have the appearance of design. At least good design.

Of course we, and the whole natural world, have the appearance of design. Even Dawkins has said so.

Intelligent design should be ruled out before we come to the conclusion that it all happened by chance.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

The assertion is that life emerged from inanimate matter completely by chance (abiogenesis).

There is absolutely no evidence for this.

That isn't true. There is lots of evidence for this.

Thus stating there isn't would lead me to believe you are simply ignorant of the topic.

Would that be fair to say?

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

Of course we, and the whole natural world, have the appearance of design. Even Dawkins has said so.

Intelligent design should be ruled out before we come to the conclusion that it all happened by chance.

How would you go about doing that?

mickrock

Corkfeen wrote: »

It is sort of funny that mickrock posted only a couple of days ago that intelligent design has nothing to do with the idea of a god. But he now apparently thinks otherwise since he's posting A&A.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76083390&postcount=219

Yeah, I said this:

"It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright."

magicbastarder

how would you suggest that theory be tested?

Zombrex

magicbastarder wrote: »

how would you suggest that theory be tested?

Psssh, science shouldn't be about testing and examination and all that boring stuff, it should be about believing! and truth! and inspiration! and energy! and and and nice stuff!!

What has testing falsifiable scientific theories of natural phenomena ever done for us!

Corkfeen

mickrock wrote: »

Yeah, I said this:

"It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright."

Atheism means a lack of a belief in a god, by posting this on a forum on atheism, you indicate that it's a godlike being. Also from my recollections on how Dawkins said the universe bore a semblance of design, he went on to describe how this isn't actually true once you begin to examine how it the universe is far from an intelligent design and is rather flawed yet still beautiful.

The entire theory of ID is used as a method to legitimise creationism and to make it appear as if it is scientifically correct but there is no evidence of it actually being true. There is no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals that supports it. You keep assuming that the scientific community is rejecting a legitimate claim however this is entirely untrue. You don't seem to understand that you need actually evidence that is supportive of intelligent design when there has yet to be any shown.

mickrock

Daftendirekt wrote: »

And anyway, the idea that there's no evidence for the idea that life could emerge from inanimate matter is wrong.

They produced some amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. This is fairly easy to do.

But life is more than a collection of amino acids, just as a house is more than a collection of bricks randomly thrown together.

Information is the key to life and information typically requires a creative intelligence.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

They produced some amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. This is fairly easy to do.

Yes, that was the point. :rolleyes:

mickrock wrote: »

But life is more than a collection of amino acids, just as a house is more than a collection of bricks randomly thrown together.

Amino acids do not randomly form. They form based on the laws of chemistry.

mickrock wrote: »

Information is the key to life and information typically requires a creative intelligence.

Define "information" as you are using it here. Information typical requires meaning, and there is no meaning in biological life.

mickrock

Corkfeen wrote: »

Atheism means a lack of a belief in a god, by posting this on a forum on atheism, you indicate that it's a godlike being.

What do you consider to be a god-like being?

Corkfeen wrote: »

The entire theory of ID is used as a method to legitimise creationism and to make it appear as if it is scientifically correct but there is no evidence of it actually being true. There is no peer reviewed articles in scientific journals that supports it. You keep assuming that the scientific community is rejecting a legitimate claim however this is entirely untrue. You don't seem to understand that you need actually evidence that is supportive of intelligent design when there has yet to be any shown.

There's no evidence that abiogenesis is true but that doesn't stop you believing in it.

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

They produced some amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. This is fairly easy to do.

But life is more than a collection of amino acids, just as a house is more than a collection of bricks randomly thrown together.

Information is the key to life and information typically requires a creative intelligence.

Information is a meaningless concept in biology. I've only ever heard it bandied about by Creationists in this context.

Self-replication is the key to life.

Amino acids (and I'm not sure just how easy they are to synthesise) aren't life, but if you're hoping for a sudden jump from inorganic matter to living organisms, then you really need to take another look at what constitutes "life". It isn't as black and white as life and non-life. Is a virus alive?

Tomk1

''I must learn how to copy'n paste'' -me

So basically science has yet to unify physics & biology, there are math models for physics, chemistry is explained by physics, I know little about biology/life, but just see it as an extension of physics. But for now we have to contend with the worn imagination from the 'god-of-holes' mindset.

O please, let's hear the famous eye aurgument nexted, must be on page2 of the creationist 'How to talk to atheist' manual.

Might find this interesting:

Did jesus die for Klingons too?
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-Jesus-die-Klingons-Christian-Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-Symposium.html

mickrock

Daftendirekt wrote: »

No, information is a meaningless term in biology. I've only ever heard it bandied about by Creationists in this context.

Bill Gates: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

Dawkins: "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

Of course we, and the whole natural world, have the appearance of design. Even Dawkins has said so.

I really wish creationists would stop taking Dawkins out of context, as a means of trying to give merit to their debate.

Dawkins states that it (complex and varied life) only has an 'appearance' of design, until you understand natural selection. Then, it is perfectly easy to understand how it was not designed and does not require a designer.

Re: Your OP - It would be a perfectly valid topic of discussion, if you didn't argue that the alternative is a being, that is even more complex than the object you are attempting to assert was designed.

robindch

Would anybody be upset if the posts here were moved over to the forum's creationism thread?

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

Bill Gates: "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."

Dawkins: "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."

And?

My point still stands: self-replication is the key to life, not information.

Sure, an analogy can be drawn between DNA and machine code but that doesn't make the concept of information any more meaningful in biology.

Maybe you'd like to explain it yourself?

mickrock

robindch wrote: »

Would anybody be upset if the posts here were moved over to the forum's creationism thread?

Haha!

Why would you feel the need to do that?

Daftendirekt

mickrock wrote: »

Haha!

Why would you feel the need to do that?

Well... that's essentially what the thread is about. Let's be honest here!

mickrock

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Well... that's essentially what the thread is about. Let's be honest here!

I'm not talking about creationism, which is based on the bible or other religious texts.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not talking about creationism, which is based on the bible or other religious texts.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are the exact same thing.

King Mob

mickrock wrote: »

I'm not talking about creationism, which is based on the bible or other religious texts.

So what exactly is the intelligence who designs everything then?
God? Aliens?
Or is it something that you can't explain?

mickrock

Daftendirekt wrote: »

My point still stands: self-replication is the key to life, not information.

There wouldn't be life without the genetic information.

The Mad Hatter

mickrock wrote: »

There wouldn't be life without the genetic information.

What is genetic information? A clear definition, please.

ShooterSF

JC I'm sorry but we're not going to agree for the simple underlying fact that you seem to feel that because you took one of two parts (assuming your kids ain't the second coming ) in creating a child you should get to teach it to believe whatever you want. I strongly disagree and would do the same with an atheist who taught a child not to believe in god (granted they start out that way...).
All children should be taught how to think and then be given as much information on any subject that interests them from as many areas as one can and be allowed to form their own beliefs.
You as a parent have a duty of care for them until they are old enough to take care of themselves; during that time you should have no more carte blanche (sp?) to mould their thought's than a stranger down the street imo.

BTW the more I write about this the more hatred I get thinking of the Amish... They're my new enemies

ShooterSF

So how did an intelligent designer come into existence? Surely it would not just form over time from inanimate objects and would need to be designed... Super God Intelligent Designer again!