Abiogenesis

[renniks]

How do you tell if one thing is designed or not designed?

It's pretty simple.

How do you tell if one thing is designed or not designed?

by observation. Have you ever looked at a beautiful work of art, and believed there was no artist?
Have you ever used a computer, and tried to believe it created itself?
Well I've never seen a sunset, or looked at the ocean, and believed there was no artist or that it created itself.. It's just not logical.

 

[renniks]

That is not known. If it was created, it must have been at a time before we know anything about it, assuming that the concept of "time" had any meaning under those circumstances, which is also something we don't know.

Round and round in circles, no end in sight... As I said they don't have a clue.

 

[Larniavc]

It's pretty simple.

by observation. Have you ever looked at a beautiful work of art, and believed there was no artist?
Have you ever used a computer, and tried to believe it created itself?
Well I've never seen a sunset, or looked at the ocean, and believed there was no artist or that it created itself.. It's just not logical.

That's just giving me examples of things. What are the hallmarks of design? How does a crystal differ from a flower in the language of design?

 

[Speedwell]

Round and round in circles, no end in sight... As I said they don't have a clue.

Your point being...? Scientists don't know much about the very earliest stages in the development of the universe. So what?

 

[renniks]

That's just giving me examples of things. What are the hallmarks of design? How does a crystal differ from a flower in the language of design?

It's funny..if a scientist find something as simple as a bunch of rocks in the crude form of an animal, or a cave painting, he is instantly going to assume that an intelligent being created it. And yet, They want me to believe that the animals themselves were not created by an intelligent being? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

 

[renniks]

Your point being...? Scientists don't know much about the very earliest stages in the development of the universe. So what?

So, guessing is not science.
It has to be able to be tested and to repeatedly get the same results to be considered scientific.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's funny..if a scientist find something as simple as a bunch of rocks in the crude form of an animal, or a cave painting, he is instantly going to assume that an intelligent being created it. And yet, They want me to believe that the animals themselves were not created by an intelligent being? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

No, especially as we know how evolution works (the ToE).

 

[VirOptimus]

It's funny..if a scientist find something as simple as a bunch of rocks in the crude form of an animal, or a cave painting, he is instantly going to assume that an intelligent being created it. And yet, They want me to believe that the animals themselves were not created by an intelligent being? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

No, especially as we know how evolution works (the ToE).

 

[renniks]

No, especially as we know how evolution works (the ToE).

Emphasis on theory.

 

[Speedwell]

It's funny..if a scientist find something as simple as a bunch of rocks in the crude form of an animal, or a cave painting, he is instantly going to assume that an intelligent being created it. And yet, They want me to believe that the animals themselves were not created by an intelligent being? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

No one wants you to stop believing that animals were designed. Nobody cares how many unfalsifiable propositions you believe. But if you want to assert that the design was not realized by biological evolution you are going to have to present some evidence of an alternative process.

 

[VirOptimus]

Emphasis on theory.

Yes, scientific theory is as good as it gets. You know that the ToE explains all the data, all of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aside from the whole impossible conspiracy argument, there is not much difference.

Well not really. To believe in a Flat Earth before people could reason the problem out, and especially for a land based people a Flat Earth belief was not irrational. It did not imply that the believers had poor reasoning skills. Again with the qualifier of "at that time". Today is a different matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can we suppose something exists that isn't governed by physics? Isn't that supposing something that can't be understood with science?

What are you talking about? You appear to have misunderstood my post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't answer the question, you just diverted.

No, I answered. You did not understand. When you do not understand ask questions politely.

 

[Speedwell]

So, guessing is not science.
It has to be able to be tested and to repeatedly get the same results to be considered scientific.

So who's guessing? Certainly not scientists when they say "we don't know."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read the whole Bible multiple times. And it portrays a loving God, although that revelation is something that is gradually more evident as you read further than the old testament.

Then there may be some problems on your side. In the creation story, if one reads it literally, God does not give Adam and Eve the ability to tell right from wrong and then blames them for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Remember that the did not know that they had done something wrong until after they ate from the tree. Then God punishes them for his error. That paints God as incompetent and evil. And it does not get any better. If one reads the Bible at all literally it does this again and again. A literal interpretation of the Bible is bad theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really, you are getting a flat Earth from visions? Do you really think the devil showed Jesus the whole Earth, laid out flat?
And the verse in Isaiah does describe the Earth as circular, although with all the metaphorical language in Isaiah, I don't take that as a scientific explanation.

No, I can read and understand the Bible better than many Christians because I do not approach it with a false narrative. I read it in context with knowledge of the people that wrote it. You have to cherry pick which parts you say are literal and which parts are not because of "reasons". Remember that I do not believe in Satan either. Now one can claim that that story described a vision, but then why the tall mountain? That makes no sense unless the writer believed in a Flat Earth

 

[renniks]

No one wants you to stop believing that animals were designed. Nobody cares how many unfalsifiable propositions you believe. But if you want to assert that the design was not realized by biological evolution you are going to have to present some evidence of an alternative process.

Lol, evolution isn't capable of design. It's not an intelligent process.

The vast compexity of creation, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function leads us to conclude irreducible complexity in biology, then conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[renniks]

So who's guessing? Certainly not scientists when they say "we don't know."

And yet they still have thier theories, which are far too often put out there as if they were fact.

 

[Larniavc]

It's funny..if a scientist find something as simple as a bunch of rocks in the crude form of an animal, or a cave painting, he is instantly going to assume that an intelligent being created it. And yet, They want me to believe that the animals themselves were not created by an intelligent being? Doesn't that strike you as absurd?

That's not what I asked you.

What are the hallmarks of design? How does a crystal differ from a flower in the language of design?