the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

I agree, but take a guess...what "Telos" may have existed just prior to the abiogenesis moment? And where would it come from? Speculate broadly if you wish!

I don't speculate--I'm a theist. But I don't think you will find it by examining the chemical reactions which brought life from non-life.

 

[pshun2404]

I don't speculate--I'm a theist.

Great! Then do not speculate and be specific.

 

[Speedwell]

Great! Then do not speculate and be specific.

?

 

[pshun2404]

?

? Don't "speculate broadly" give an actual example to prove your assertion or their assertion

 

[Speedwell]

? Don't "speculate broadly" give an actual example to prove your assertion or their assertion

It's not an assertion, it's a belief. Divine telos is unfalsifiable.

 

[pshun2404]

Just because something is unfalsifiable does not make it false just unavailable to be examined according to the scientific method (like some unified whole exhibiting complex interdependent functionality in the component parts as arising by purely natural means).

 

[Speedwell]

Just because something is unfalsifiable does not make it false just unavailable to be examined according to the scientific method.

Exactly.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

but certainly it as readily suggests the possibility of a designer, more so than it does the possibility of living things arising from dead matter for no reason or purpose.

No, it doesn't. Simply asserting it does not make it so.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so a self replicating motor doesnt need a designer?

Are you agreeing with me? Well done!

 

[pshun2404]

No, it doesn't. Simply asserting it does not make it so.

While it is true that asserting anything does not make it true, the assertion is that when an observer comes to observe any unified whole exhibiting complex inter-dependent functionality in the component parts it is equally plausible that one could conclude a maker OR that it has arisen by natural causes.

It is my opinion that it is more likely that it that it has a maker. Try not to equivocate the two. The first is an assertion the second an interpretation of that which can be observed.

Now revisit the "assertion" and tell me if you agree or disagree and why....

 

[Speedwell]

While it is true that asserting anything does not make it true, the assertion is that when an observer comes to observe any unified whole exhibiting complex inter-dependent functionality in the component parts it is equally plausible that one could conclude a maker OR that it has arisen by natural causes.

It is my opinion that it is more likely that it that it has a maker. Try not to equivocate the two. The first is an assertion the second an interpretation of that which can be observed.

Now revisit the "assertion" and tell me if you agree or disagree and why....

You have no idea how refreshing your comments are--after dealing with ID people who assert that functional complexity is incontrovertible evidence of design and are belligerent to anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[pshun2404]

Can someone show me a real example of a self-replicating motor that doesn't need a designer?

 

[pshun2404]

You have no idea how refreshing your comments are--after dealing with ID people who assert that functional complexity is incontrovertible evidence of design and are belligerent to anyone who disagrees with them.

Thank you! Yes, they are as ignorantly belligerent as those of the other extreme that refuse to admit the alternate plausibility. Extremists in general cause all disagreement, disention, war, and so on...an open mind strives to remain non-dogmatic and allows objective consideration of other points of view or interpretation of the same data. It remains open to possibility until an issue is either PROVEN true or false.

You exhibit this same quality. This does not mean open minded people agree on everything just that they can agree to disagree in a civil manner without ad hominem like implications.

 

[pshun2404]

Again, Can someone show me a real example of a self-replicating motor that doesn't need a designer?

Come on Bear...you were implying this is possible...show me!

 

[Speedwell]

Again, Can someone show me a real example of a self-replicating motor that doesn't need a designer?

Come on Bear...you were implying this is possible...show me!

Xianghua"s definition of "motor" included the flagellum.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

While it is true that asserting anything does not make it true, the assertion is that when an observer comes to observe any unified whole exhibiting complex inter-dependent functionality in the component parts it is equally plausible that one could conclude a maker OR that it has arisen by natural causes.

It is my opinion that it is more likely that it that it has a maker. Try not to equivocate the two. The first is an assertion the second an interpretation of that which can be observed.

Now revisit the "assertion" and tell me if you agree or disagree and why....

What I said was that you cannot simply assert that self-replicating motors require a designer. If your statement was an opinion you should have qualified it with words along the lines of "in my opinion". Without that qualification what you wrote was a bald assertion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Again, Can someone show me a real example of a self-replicating motor that doesn't need a designer?

Can we first start with someone showing an example of a self-replicating motor? Then we can get down to demonstrating a need for a designer. A flagellum does not self-replicate - you do not get flagella whizzing around looking for a host to attach to, they are part of the organism.

 

[pshun2404]

Xianghua"s definition of "motor" included the flagellum.

Yes and may have required a designer who made sure this was encoded into the genetic material

 

[pshun2404]

Can we first start with someone showing an example of a self-replicating motor? Then we can get down to demonstrating a need for a designer. A flagellum does not self-replicate - you do not get flagella whizzing around looking for a host to attach to, they are part of the organism.

Right it is not self replicating....so that does not count as one...

 

[bhsmte]

What's next, the self replicating television set?