A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[GenemZ]

Hard to say, really, it depends on what you consider intelligent design. ID of the sort in the bible doesn't have much evidence to support it and has a lot of evidence against it. Intelligent design suggesting guided evolution or the planting of the first microbes on earth is more plausible and has less evidence against it, but doesn't require the "designer" to be a deity (before anyone mentions it, I will, yes aliens, and I will be the first to say that this is not what I believe to be true, I just find it more plausible then the literal creation suggested by the bible).

Who said anything about a deity? One would have to concede that at least something like a space alien had to begin life here. But, to think it all could just happen without a guiding causer? To me? That is disingenuous. Its claiming to be in the position of having a superior intellect, then suddenly dropping off the curve.

All that complex data gathered? Then, that conclusion? Makes no sense. Its like a man fighting tigers in a cage, and when at home, jumping up on a chair at the sight of a mouse. Its that confusing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Who said anything about a deity? One would have to concede that at least something like a space alien had to begin life here. But, to think it all could just happen with a guiding causer? To me? That is disingenuous. Its claiming to be the position of having a superior intellect, then suddenly dropping off the curve. All this complex data gathered? And, that conclusion? Makes no sense. Its like a man fighting tigers in a cage, and when at home jumping up on a chair at the sight of a mouse. Its that confusing.

Sure, if you don't have a specific designer in mind, there is some evidence and support for ID, but not any that treats evolution as not a factor for how life further developed.

However, the extent of the influence of the designer wouldn't be specified, nor would it necessarily be the case that this designer was still active or even had intended to introduce life to our planet. Thus, it doesn't usually fit with religious views, but it is indeed a possibility and may very well be accepted if abiogenesis is proven to be conclusively wrong.

 

[GenemZ]

Sure, if you don't have a specific designer in mind, there is some evidence and support for ID, but not any that treats evolution as not a factor for how life further developed.

However, the extent of the influence of the designer wouldn't be specified, nor would it necessarily be the case that this designer was still active or even had intended to introduce life to our planet. Thus, it doesn't usually fit with religious views, but it is indeed a possibility and may very well be accepted if abiogenesis is proven to be conclusively wrong.

To try to recreate abiogenesis must have an intelligence behind the trial experiment.

Or?

Just wait around and let it happen on its own. That would be the way you would prove no ID.

 

[lasthero]

Just wait around and let it happen on its own. That would be the way you would prove no ID.

That would not prove no ID.

Even if we could go back and observe the first self-replicating molecule first hand, and even if it SEEMED to have no ID, that would not prove that there was some being at work doing things through methods that are imperceptible to us.

That's a big part of the reason why ID isn't science - it's unfalsifiable.

 

[GenemZ]

to us.

That's a big part of the reason why ID isn't science - it's unfalsifiable.

Nothing to so with science's rigid requirements, its just common sense. I believe a few scientist still have some.

UNFALSIFIABLE. : not capable of being proved false.

That's bad?

"Play by our rules, or we take our ball home."

"Not fair.. We can not possibly win against that one."
​

That also means you theory must be falsifiable. Many act like its not possibly so.

 

[lasthero]

That's bad?

Yes, it is. An unfalsifiable premise can't be tested for.

That also means you theory must be falsifiable.

It is.

Many act like its not possibly so.

Well, that's like...your opinion, man.

 

[GenemZ]

That would not prove no ID.

Even if we could go back and observe the first self-replicating molecule first hand, and even if it SEEMED to have no ID, that would not prove that there was some being at work doing things through methods that are imperceptible to us.

It must go from inanimate to no longer inanimate. It must be made alive. Its not like a charged battery.

You were not pre-programmed with responses and reactions, having no ability to CHOOSE how you will act in a given situation. The ability to reason is not a chemical reaction. The brain requires chemical reactions... but its your soul that sits in the seat of your brain that reasons. God created a biological machine to give our soul mobility in the material world. Its called a body.

It was the soul that God created in his image. God called that soul "man" before any body had been provided. So, man did not evolve from any ape. For, man is his soul, not the body. We simply identify men here on earth by the body in which their soul inhabits. Animals souls are not in God's image. When they die, they are gone.

 

[lasthero]

The brain requires chemical reactions... but its your soul that sits in the seat of your brain that reasons.

When you can demonstrate that, let me know. Until you can, it's an unfalsifiable premise, and it can be dismissed with three words.

'No, it doesn't.'

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, it is. An unfalsifiable premise can't be tested for.

Scientists are just not smart enough to.

So, someone cleverly protested by interjecting a technicality, so they could avoid dealing with it. Like a murderer getting off on a technicality.

 

[GenemZ]

When you can demonstrate that, let me know. Until you can, it's an unfalsifiable premise, and it can be dismissed with three words.

My problem is that I am way too ahead of my time and stuck in the past.

 

[lasthero]

Scientists are just not smart enough to.

And they're not smart enough to find the Loch Ness Monster and the Jersey Devil, either.

Of course, there's a more parsimonious explanation for why they can't find those things.

So, someone cleverly protested by interjecting a technicality, so they could avoid dealing with it.

 

[GenemZ]

Meet me after school in the schoolyard? Not very effective.

You think it was?

 

[lasthero]

Meet me after school in the schoolyard? Not very effective.

Really? Based on your behavior so far, I figured it was about your speed.

 

[USincognito]

Maybe my fault is impatience. For I have faced years of obviously arrogant people promoting TOE. After a while, when the same old cut and paste answers appear, I just become impatient... waiting for someone to think for themselves outside of the peer built box. Logically, using reason to head back to the alleged beginning.

Yes. And none of the science advocates on the forum have ever grown weary of the fortress like obstinancy exhibited by Creationists who:
- Don't understand even the basics of evolution, but argue against it or declare if impossible.
- Endlessly regurgitation of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times).
- Are corrected on their misconceptions, ignore those corrections and continue to repeat them as if never corrected (Hi Mark Kennedy ).
- Want to engage in philsophical discussions about "logic" and "reason" because they cannot address the facts and evidence supporting evolution.

Trust me. We feel your pain.

 

[USincognito]

Scientists are just not smart enough to.

Evidence you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dr. Douglas Theobald, over a decade ago, crafted a series of articles based on 29 evidences for macroevolution. All of the evidences have a potential falsification listed. Here's the evidence from molecular vestiges featuring a prediction, a confirmation and a potential falsification.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

 

[PsychoSarah]

Scientists are just not smart enough to.

So, someone cleverly protested by interjecting a technicality, so they could avoid dealing with it. Like a murderer getting off on a technicality.

So if it was proven wrong, what then?

 

[PsychoSarah]

To try to recreate abiogenesis must have an intelligence behind the trial experiment.

Or?

Just wait around and let it happen on its own. That would be the way you would prove no ID.

Incorrect, abiogenesis experiments imitate natural environments, and observe what events that do naturally occur on their own seem to promote the process. Lightening (I find this a tad ironic) striking a liquid that contains amino acids had an interesting result of those amino acids arranging themselves in rings (bacterial DNA is circular, by the way). Lighting does strike bodies of water in nature, and amino acids naturally occur on their own. The intelligent thing about the experiment is that it puts it on a scale easy to see, but none of the things used cannot happen in nature on their own.

 

[GenemZ]

Yes. And none of the science advocates on the forum have ever grown weary of the fortress like obstinancy exhibited by Creationists who:
- Don't understand even the basics of evolution, but argue against it or declare if impossible.

That is a talking point used a many times. Evolutionists either are playing a manipulative game, or are really too dull to know that someone can disagree and also understand the basic tenets.

Quite often EV's will play the detail game. A creationist misplacing a word, yet understanding the premise. The detail now becomes the target of attack, and the fact that the premise is understood it totally ignored.

Its been a clever manipulation game of 'skirt and divert.' Then inevitably, the cartoons and nasty sayings get bannered about. It ends up going nowhere because the evolutionists must maintain the facade that the creationists simply does not get the overall premise, and maintain this vibe because some unessential detail was not picture perfect.

Its a shrewdness game that evolutionists play. A way to bully-win a debate. And, that's all it is. On the other hand, present something that requires some depth and honesty? And the skirt and divert mode pops up again. Its juvenile many times.

We get it! I understand enough to know its not something I would want to dedicate all my energy to study in great depth because I do not want to waste my energy on something I see as flawed at its foundation. You do, because you have a need to prove you are not bad for rejecting God.

- Endlessly regurgitation of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times).

Not refuted so much. But rather, evaded by some means of interjecting some technicality that forbids a scientist to be a human being for a moment and think outside the rigid box they place their mind in.

- Are corrected on their misconceptions, ignore those corrections and continue to repeat them as if never corrected (Hi Mark Kennedy ).

EV's target certain individuals that are easy pickins and like to swab that persons position onto the others in the debate, as if all are the same. Or we should police him. What you just said was a perfect example of that ploy.

- Want to engage in philsophical discussions about "logic" and "reason" because they cannot address the facts and evidence supporting evolution.

No... they want to get beyond the facts that you have forced into your own agenda interpretation, and they want to show you reasons why your assumption has to be illogical. Then, usually the retort is that the Creationists does not understand the facts. While the Christian does, and is just too busy noticing how if A is not B, then the facts as you have concocted them to mean, just aint so. Then the mocking and cartoons may come back into play some more.

Trust me. We feel your pain.

Its not pain. Its sadness. Its not us we are concerned about.

 

[GenemZ]

Incorrect, abiogenesis experiments imitate natural environments,

Assumed natural environments.

and observe what events that do naturally occur on their own seem to promote the process. Lightening (I find this a tad ironic) striking a liquid that contains amino acids had an interesting result of those amino acids arranging themselves in rings (bacterial DNA is circular, by the way).

So does still water when you throw in a pebble. The fact remains that it does not produce DNA. Well? What's the point?

Lighting does strike bodies of water in nature, and amino acids naturally occur on their own. The intelligent thing about the experiment is that it puts it on a scale easy to see, but none of the things used cannot happen in nature on their own.

How did those amino acids end up existing? They work with the presumption that matter has always been existing. That matter is like God. Always existing. Yet? When an atheist wants to balk about God? They note that no one can explain how God could be always existing. But as far as matter? Of course its always been existing. That amino acids and enzymes are somehow timeless. But God? Impossible.

And, then we run to the big bang to tell me that matter did not always exist. That out of nothing it all just happened. Its insane for me to consider, but is a convenient hiding place for those who hate God enough to set up walls of their own invention as not want to be bothered. Its like a self absorbed child who's parents tell him to turn off the TV and go to his room to sleep. That kind of hatred begins there.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
​

TOE is an invention designed for the suppression of the truth about God. One that lies against reality and common sense. All done with a "we know better" mentality. Its an offensive that wishes to dismantle the openness of others towards the knowledge of God, in such a way, as to peer-pressure others into their own suppressing of the truth. Truth that could be self evident to any agenda-free mind.

 

[GenemZ]

So if it was proven wrong, what then?

That does not look like a likely outcome. For they jolt from it as fast as they can. Of course, while carefully maintaining a semblance of composure.