Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Soul Winner said:
Obviously Wickie won't give a fig about global warming or the enviroment, for what are minor details like these in comparison with 'earth-like' tolerances like the above.But they're not like earth at all. Nothing like earth in fact. Three times the mass of earth and 14 million miles away from a weaker strength star than our Sun, having a rotation which is locked in with its host star, i.e. with one side permanently facing its host star and the other in permanent darkness. No moon to stabilize its axial tilt and hence no lunar tidal activity. Its hardly a stable environment for life. Suppose we'll have to wait and see won't.
___________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.0 -
-
-
Soul Winner wrote: »Testing the designer is not possible. Testing for ID is.
No it isn't, not scientifically. For it to be a scientific test it must be falsiable.
If you don't believe me then explain how do you test that something was or wasn't made by intelligence.
Looking at it and going "Gee, I think this looks like it was made by something intelligent" is not science. If it was we would probably still think the Giants Causeway was made by a giant. :rolleyes:
It isn't dumb at all, it is the reason ID is not science.Soul Winner wrote: »That has to be the dumbest argument against ID, why do people still use it?
Again if you don't believe me then explain how you test ID in a scientific manner, ie in a falsifable manner.Soul Winner wrote: »But not only can we not determine how it could have come about naturally but what we observe in the even the most basic of living systems also exhibits similar traits that we know can be found in intelligently designed systems. i.e. information processing systems.
They don't actually since biological life doesn't process information (another Creationist myth). Such an idea is like saying rivers process topographic information to figure out how to get to the sea.
But even if they did that only demonstrates ID if such a thing could not occur naturally. Since you are at a loss to show this then it doesn't support ID, any more than the Giants Causeways supports ID because humans also draw hexagons.
Yes we do. We knew that before we started messing around with experients for abiogenesis, knowing the early conditions of the Earth are what lead to theories of abiogenesis. People didn't just suddenly think "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if life had started as self replicating molecules"Soul Winner wrote: »But we don't even know what the actual conditions on earth were.Soul Winner wrote: »What we do is set up an environment that we know is favorable for life and use that as a test environment. That's hardly a good test is it?
Correct that is a terrible test. Of course that isn't what scientists do so it is a total straw man.
Scientists set up the environment like the early Earth and found self replicating molecules, leading to theories on abiogenesis that involved self replicating molecules.
The idea that they would set up the experiment to produce these self replicating molecules is not only nonsense it is also stupid. How would they know what environment would produce these self replicating molecules in the first place?
And what would be the point of it if it was nothing like the early Earth, given that the purpose of these experiments is to understand the early Earth?Soul Winner wrote: »Gravity is a force of nature with a specific and fixed set of values. Testing life formation is hardly comparable with testing gravity.
Of course it is. Test life formation is JUST CHEMISTRY. Chemistry has specific and fixed set of rules and values.Soul Winner wrote: »You're strawmanning again Wick, (really wish you wouldn't). How did you draw the conclusion from what I have been arguing to mean that every test in the lab over the last 200 years is unscientific?
Because every time it is presented to you that these scientists found self replicating molecules by simulating the early Earth you assert that they must have started with the conclusion they wanted and worked backwards. You must believe scientists are stupid, thus chemistry is a sham.
Of course you don't really. Like Wolfsbane you only think scientists are stupid and can't control their own experience when it suits your particular dogmaSoul Winner wrote: »Ah yes, the C word again. When you are running out of good arguments you can always attack the C word to make it look like you have cornered your opponent. How about just showing us why the chance hypothesis is better than the ID hypothesis?
Because the "chance hypothesis" as you call it works given known chemical laws, where as ID requires that we are able to tell that something couldn't have arrived naturally and must have been designed which is entirely subjective and rather pointless.
Again don't believe me? Right explain a scientific test to verify something is intelligently design. You might be here a while since Creationists have been trying to do that for years and everything they have come up with on inspection ends up being nonsense.
Strange how despite this they can all come to the conclusion that God ... sorry, so unknown intelligence, is designing things. It is almost as if they started at that conclusion and are now working backwards. :rolleyes:0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
No it isn't, not scientifically. For it to be a scientific test it must be falsiable.
If you don't believe me then explain how do you test that something was or wasn't made by intelligence.
Answer the following question and you will then have your answer. How will the scientists in the SETI program be able to distinguish between random radio noise and intelligently designed signals? If they repeatedly received a Morse code type signal that produce the effect of sequencing the first 10 prime numbers they would deduce from their everyday experience that such a sequence is highly unlikely to be produced randomly especially if it is repeated over and over again. The SETI scientists would have no problem at all in inferring design in this case.
When archaeologists find stone tablets with writings on them they do not infer that the writings are a random product of erosion over time. They deduce that the writings where intelligently designed.
Both cases are good examples of complex specific information where we have no problem at all in inferring design.
Why can't the same inference be made in microbiology? Where we have a vastly more complicated code in place where twenty amino acids (the building blocks of life) are sequenced in chains in order to form particular proteins. A sequence that comes from the information stored in DNA which itself has millions of lines of code? If we cannot infer design at this microscopic level then we have abandoned our faculty of reason. The sequence of these amino acid chains are akin to compiling lines of code for a computer program except they are sequences from 1 to 20 instead of just 0s and 1s, plus they are three dimensional and their sequencing needs to be just right in order for the three dimensional structure of the resulting protein to be able to perform its function within the cell. Are you seriously suggestion that chance alone can account for all this? Because without the aid of any guiding principle in the mix that is exactly what you are asking us to accept.Looking at it and going "Gee, I think this looks like it was made by something intelligent" is not science.
Well then SETI are wasting a lot of time and money aren't they?
Plus looking at it and going "Gee this looks designed but it can't be because we have already sold out to the idea that it isn't designed in at time when we knew sweet FA about the inner workings of the cell." is not science either.It isn't dumb at all, it is the reason ID is not science.
It is dumb.Again if you don't believe me then explain how you test ID in a scientific manner, ie in a falsifable manner.
Simple, when you can show how DNA can form naturally then you will have falsified ID.They don't actually since biological life doesn't process information (another Creationist myth). Such an idea is like saying rivers process topographic information to figure out how to get to the sea.
Bunkum of highest order Wicknight. Rivers are made of water and water finds its own level due to the force of gravity, they will always flow down hill and fill whatever nooks and crannies get in the way. There is no information processing going on at all, just a natural process of cause and effect. Now are you seriously drawing an analogy to water flowing down hill to say, transcription of RNA in the cell? See vid below:But even if they did that only demonstrates ID if such a thing could not occur naturally. Since you are at a loss to show this then it doesn't support ID, any more than the Giants Causeways supports ID because humans also draw hexagons.
In the case Hexagonal shapes in rocks, ID has been shown to be falsified because it can be shown that these shapes form naturally. This has not been done with abiogenesis research though. Hence ID as as good a theory as Chance or Necessity until it can be falsified there too. So what we have seen so far is that ID is testable and that it is falsifiable, meaning that it is as valid a scientific theory as Chance or Necessity.Yes we do. We knew that before we started messing around with experients for abiogenesis, knowing the early conditions of the Earth are what lead to theories of abiogenesis. People didn't just suddenly think "Gee, wouldn't it be cool if life had started as self replicating molecules"
Wicknight, nobody knows exactly what the conditions on earth were like 3.5 billions years ago, all we have are theories which are plausible at best considering the available evidence.Scientists set up the environment like the early Earth and found self replicating molecules, leading to theories on abiogenesis that involved self replicating molecules.
Again tests that are performed in labs that replicate what might have been the conditions on earth at that time. Experiments which test theories which cannot all be right. Tests which explain how certain stages of the self replicating process might have happened but none of which explains how we get to DNA. That is still the enigma that needs explaining by natural causes in order to falsify ID as a theory.The idea that they would set up the experiment to produce these self replicating molecules is not only nonsense it is also stupid. How would they know what environment would produce these self replicating molecules in the first place?
Charles Darwin postulated such an environment when he couldn't possibly have known that it ever existed. We know now that such environments are plausible given what we do know about the early earth, but Charley didn't know then what we know now and yet that didn't stop him from postulating one, so your point is moot.And what would be the point of it if it was nothing like the early Earth, given that the purpose of these experiments is to understand the early Earth?
The purpose of these experiments is to explain how abiogenesis can take place, not to understand what the earth was like. To do that we need to do different tests, study sedimentation, rock formation, layering, composition of the oldest rocks and so on.Of course it is. Test life formation is JUST CHEMISTRY. Chemistry has specific and fixed set of rules and values.
Life is chemically based yes, but we need a mechanism to explain how these chemicals can come together through all the various stages to produce DNA. Chance happening after chance happening is not a good explanation. The best naturalistic explanation I've read so far is the one proposed by Dr. Jack Szostak or Harvard. But that just explains how it COULD have happened using strictly natural processes. But it is but one of the many competing abiogenesis theories out there, none of which are accepted universally in the science community as being a proper and adequate demonstration of abiogenesis.Because every time it is presented to you that these scientists found self replicating molecules by simulating the early Earth you assert that they must have started with the conclusion they wanted and worked backwards. You must believe scientists are stupid, thus chemistry is a sham.
Not so, what I said (and I'll say it again) was that the lab tests that are performed to show how self replicating systems can form naturally use conditions that were supposedly like those of the prebiotic earth. Supposedly because nobody can really say what those conditions were really like. So you have people postulating conditions which they know would be favorable for life formation and transposing those postulations onto the early earth. I'm not saying that they are wrong, I'm just saying that they don't really know for sure, yet. The best and most famous experiment to date only shows how amino acids can form under natural conditions. There is no sufficient experiment that can show how these building blocks can self assemble into proteins without DNA. And there is no experiment that shows how DNA evolved from RNA. And there is no experiment to show how RNA can survive in most of the supposed conditions of the early earth that are used in other experiments which attempt to demonstrate abiogenesis via another route.Of course you don't really. Like Wolfsbane you only think scientists are stupid and can't control their own experience when it suits your particular dogma
No, that's just your imagination running wild.Because the "chance hypothesis" as you call it works given known chemical laws, where as ID requires that we are able to tell that something couldn't have arrived naturally and must have been designed which is entirely subjective and rather pointless.
For one, the chance hypothesis doesn't work, and two, ID is not reliant on the chance hypothesis being false anyway. ID stands or falls depending on whether self replicating systems (specifically DNA) can be shown to develop in conditions that we know for certain were present on the primordial earth. Until this can be demonstrated, ID remains the best explanation for how the first DNA molecule arose, because what we find in DNA are the instructions for the sequence that amino acids need to form in order to build the three dimensionally structured proteins which make up all the various parts and perform all the various functions in the cell, without which the cell would not have proper function.
All these processes are dependent on how these instructions are processed and as far as our everyday experience shows, only intelligent agents are known to produce information processing systems similar to this, all be it much less advanced. Chance assemblages of chemicals and chemical compounds do not produce these effects as far as we know.Again don't believe me? Right explain a scientific test to verify something is intelligently design. You might be here a while since Creationists have been trying to do that for years and everything they have come up with on inspection ends up being nonsense.
Do archaeologists need to test that hieroglyphs are intelligently designed? Do SETI astronomers need to test whether a repeated radio signal sequence of the first ten prime numbers is intelligently designed? No. It is the default position. That's what they are actively looking for, because they know that finding such a signal is practically impossible to occur by chance. They actually calibrate their instruments to detect such signals.
For someone to object to ether of the above inference to intelligent design would require that person to show how these things could occur naturally. Only when they do that can the prior inference to intelligent design be re-examined. But nobody bothers because it is just a given that these types of code sequences are of an inteligent origin. Likewise in the case for microscopic biological systems. Given the fact of their high improbability to have arisen by chance, then add to that that they appear to be designed for a purpose, the burden of proof is on the objector to the most logical conclusion at that juncture. Why do you think so many people try their utmost best to do just that? They've been trying for years and to date nobody has come up with an all encompassing demonstration of abiogenesis.Strange how despite this they can all come to the conclusion that God ... sorry, so unknown intelligence, is designing things. It is almost as if they started at that conclusion and are now working backwards. :rolleyes:
Well if ID is the best explanation for how life came about then an other than us intelligence must have done it. What we are left with at this point is a debate on what that other intelligence might be. This cannot be tested in the science lab, this is a debate for theists, philosophers and SETI enthusiasts. It is either the product of Aliens or of a God of some kind, or possibly even angels but obviously non human inteligence. Atheists have already nailed their flag to the post that God does not exists so no wonder they cleave to any kind of naturalistic explanation that they can find, even when some of these naturalistic explanations would cancel out each other.
So to the charge that ID is not science because it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified. As we have seen above, both of these claims have been refuted, ID is detectable and hence testable in other sciences, and is also falsifiable when it can be shown that what is perceived to be designed can be shown by experiment to be the result of natural processes. Hence ID is a valid scientific theory that explains how life arose on this planet. That doesn't mean that its true, it just means that the charge that its not science based on the two aforementioned criteria is a load of old Tosh.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I have a spiritual knowledge that works in real life - that's logical enough for me.Given that you can't logically tell either way, it would seem arrogant even if you do.
So, are you like the Pope?
And I don't claim I'm infallible about all things. Neither does the Pope.
___________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJSmZ3DsntUThis discussion has been closed.
Advertisement