Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[Jan Volkes]

Right you are a prime example of that.

Whatever keeps you believing must be right because for you believing something somehow makes it right.
Remember...... You're the believer not me.
I don't believe in anything, I only accept things as being true if they are backed by evidence.

I accept the big bang theory is true because the people who know more than I also accept it, I bow to their superior knowledge, plus my acceptance of the big bang requires nothing from me nor does it impact my life in any way, I can take it or leave it.

 

[The Cadet]

Are you even serious? We see assembly lines, production lines and transportation lines in factories that all resemble human designs. We see rotary systems that look like the ones we design.

Well that's not a stretch at all. Those two systems don't even look similar from where I'm standing. What's more, we have good reason to believe that the flagellum wasn't designed. Rather, that it evolved gradually over multiple stages, each offering an advantage to the host. We can also see this in the human eye, which appears to be like a pinhole camera, and which we can very firmly establish evolved. So whatever mechanism you're using to detect design, it's not a very good one - it falls prey to false positives.

You don't think there is a purpose in living organisms systems, features, structures and functions?

Not in the sense you seem to be implying. You seem to be implying that there's some sort of purpose; that some designer created us to serve that purpose. I don't believe that, and I welcome you to try to demonstrate it. (Please don't classify this as apologetics; a great many Christians believe in a God who did not explicitly design life!)

We are intelligent agents and we recognize design from intelligent agents,

You keep making this assertion, but I cannot accept it for intelligent agents that aren't extant. I have no idea how you would detect the design of something that designs in ways we don't know with goals we don't understand and with methods we cannot even examine. Please prove that we can recognize design without any foreknowledge of what the designer has produced. Please provide a robust, objective methodology for establishing this.

Are you claiming art can only be done by human?

No, I'm claiming that as of right now, advanced metalworking on earth is the sole purview of humans. We know of no other process anywhere that can do that, ergo it is reasonable to assume that any worked metal was made by humans (at least until we encounter an alien race or supernatural entity capable of doing so).

If a space alien happen to make a statue just like that how would it be different?

It would not be significantly different. However, without first establishing that such aliens exist and visit earth, it would be highly extravagant to claim that they were responsible.

Also art and music does in fact serve a purpose.

This particular artwork? I'm not sure it serves more purpose than scrap metal, to be honest. But then again, this is the nice thing about purpose: we can investigate, to find out why it was made. What ID advocates do is approach this exactly backwards. They don't ask the designer what the purpose is, they try to find out based on what it does, and this can backfire spectacularly.

Notice you are using the exact same logic as ID is using. The only known cause of art is human thus the only known cause of digital code is an intelligence.

"Digital code"? Okay, first of all, DNA is not a code in any meaningful sense. We impose a code onto it. What we have is a complex mess of biochemistry that can be read out as a sequence of letters. This does not mean it itself is a code in the sense of information theory. Unless you want to redefine code to somehow include DNA, in which case no, we have countless examples of a code coming into existence through non-intelligent means. Just ask the people who use the atomic structure of rocks to pass on information.

(Also, it's not "art" that I'm appealing to as a solely human endeavor, it's "metalworking", but that's a little beside the main point I want to make here.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

I guess that would depend on what you meant by that.

It's kind of obvious I think.

That you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at a YEC for example for the actual age of the earth. YEC's will persist in believing it is only 6k to 10k years, because they believe that that is what their book says. And if the facts don't agree with the book, they go with the book anyway. Because, as far as they are concerned, believing in a young earth is a requirement in their religion, which they don't want to quit.


So yes... facts are irrelevant to religious beliefs. By definition. Religious beliefs aren't based on facts. They are based on faith. No matter what the facts say.

 

[AV1611VET]

I accept the big bang theory is true because the people who know more than I also accept it, I bow to their superior knowledge,

Then don't call what you believe in "science," and what we believe in "wrong."

 

[AV1611VET]

Religious beliefs aren't based on facts.

Our [religious] beliefs are based on reported facts.

Reported in writing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Whatever keeps you believing must be right because for you believing something somehow makes it right.
Remember...... You're the believer not me.
I don't believe in anything, I only accept things as being true if they are backed by evidence.

I accept the big bang theory is true because the people who know more than I also accept it, I bow to their superior knowledge, plus my acceptance of the big bang requires nothing from me nor does it impact my life in any way, I can take it or leave it.

You are a believer, a believer that God doesn't exist. You are a believer of materialism, you are a believer of science even if you don't know much about it (I remember you admitting as such). You believe by those in authority and accept it without evidence because you don't know what evidence they have. You only accept things as being true if they are backed by evidence even if you don't know what that evidence is suppose to support. So you keep believing, you don't know if it is true but it must be right...science tells you so. However, science doesn't work in truth nor does evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Our [religious] beliefs are based on reported facts.

Reported in writing.

No. These "reports", as you call them, are the claims.

You merely repeat those claims.
Claims are not "facts in support of themselves".

 

[AV1611VET]

No. These "reports", as you call them, are the claims.

They are claimed facts & facts claimed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are a believer, a believer that God doesn't exist.

No. Not accepting the claim "x exists!" is not the same as accepting the claim "x does not exist!".

You get that, right?

You are a believer of materialism

I don't remember Jan ever saying such a thing. But he can speak for himself, off course.

However, I know you have a tendency of trying to tell people what they believe, while not actually knowing it at all... You did the same to me on multiple occasions.

, you are a believer of science

Well... yes....

So are you. You trust that the pc that you buy works. Because you know that science works. Without the sciences of physics and chemistry, that pc wouldn't work.

You only every cry foul on science when it contradicts your a priori religious beliefs.

even if you don't know much about it (I remember you admitting as such).

He doesn't have to.
Planes fly.
Science is very results based.

You believe by those in authority

No. One believes based on earned trust. It's results based.
Again, planes fly.

and accept it without evidence because you don't know what evidence they have.

The evidence (to the non-science savy people) is what science produces with unprecedented success, its results: technology.

Science has quite an impressive track record.

However, science doesn't work in truth nor does evolution.

So, your pc doesn't boot?
Planes don't really fly?
Cars don't really drive?
Phones don't really ring?
Germs don't really make you sick?
Nukes don't really explode?
The ISS doesn't really exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They are claimed facts & facts claimed.

You can use any word you wish to refer to these bronze aged texts.

The fact remains that they are merely claims that you merely repeat.

Facts in support of these claims must necessarily come from other sources.

Unless you don't mind circular reasoning, off course.

But I have a feeling that you don't really care about employing fallacious logic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well that's not a stretch at all. Those two systems don't even look similar from where I'm standing. What's more, we have good reason to believe that the flagellum wasn't designed. Rather, that it evolved gradually over multiple stages, each offering an advantage to the host. We can also see this in the human eye, which appears to be like a pinhole camera, and which we can very firmly establish evolved. So whatever mechanism you're using to detect design, it's not a very good one - it falls prey to false positives.

You aren't looking very hard or your standing on your head. It really doesn't matter if you don't know how remarkably structured the BF is in regards to human engineering because the entire scientific community is not so inclined, there are none that don't see the similarity.

You and others including much of the scientific community do not believe it was designed but not based on any evidence that would prohibit that conclusion but one of worldview. Evolutionary mindset is so entrenched in the minds of many scientists that they will only look at such engineering genius and claim it came about by natural processes alone. However, there is no evidence of how this evolved gradually over multiple stages and most certainly how each stage was an advantage to the host. The eye may in your mind shown to be firmly established but there are many who would disagree and those include scientists who have been educated and trained in the field. Now if you feel that the apparent deliberate design that we see in the Bacterial Flagellum and all living organisms is just a false positive for design, it is incumbent upon you to show how evolution produces this and give evidence to support your position rather than just assertions and could haves, might haves and plausible stories of those telling them.

Not in the sense you seem to be implying. You seem to be implying that there's some sort of purpose; that some designer created us to serve that purpose. I don't believe that, and I welcome you to try to demonstrate it. (Please don't classify this as apologetics; a great many Christians believe in a God who did not explicitly design life!)

I don't believe that is not evidence. The design is demonstrated in the living organisms we observe showing design in the same way human engineers design. If you believe this appearance is in error and only mimics deliberate design then it is incumbent on you to provide evidence and not assertions of how evolution produced it.

You keep making this assertion, but I cannot accept it for intelligent agents that aren't extant. I have no idea how you would detect the design of something that designs in ways we don't know with goals we don't understand and with methods we cannot even examine. Please prove that we can recognize design without any foreknowledge of what the designer has produced. Please provide a robust, objective methodology for establishing this.

We do have an idea of how we detect design...we recognize it form our own designs. The evidence of design as recognized by everyone to resemble human design is in all living forms. Man is created in the image of God and thinks His thoughts after Him. There is a reason it appears as humans have designed them because the one who created them creates the same way. In Christian Theology God designed in this way so we would know it was Him doing the designing.

Romans 1:20 says:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

We are suppose to see the design in things and know that God created it. When we see design as recognized as we design it confirms that we are clearly seeing God's design. Now you can deny that this design that is so clearly seen, recognized as design because it has the same structures, features, systems and functions that we find in human engineering, but it is there and has been now observed outwardly for centuries but now with modern technology we can see it within all living things as well.

No, I'm claiming that as of right now, advanced metalworking on earth is the sole purview of humans. We know of no other process anywhere that can do that, ergo it is reasonable to assume that any worked metal was made by humans (at least until we encounter an alien race or supernatural entity capable of doing so).

We know no other intelligent beings in the universe other than ourselves and what we see in all living things is the design that we engineer by our own intelligence made in the image of God's. We are the only ones capable in the natural world who design in this way that we are aware of and we didn't design the natural world but we know that God who we are created from and in His image could do so. We know of no other designing entity existing but us in the natural world and we know that if God exists as we claim an intelligence above our own would be capable to design as we design. As the scripture says: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

It would not be significantly different. However, without first establishing that such aliens exist and visit earth, it would be highly extravagant to claim that they were responsible.

Yet, millions of people have experienced God and know He exists. It is hardly extravagant to claim that He was responsible for design in living forms and especially if we are made in His image as specified in Scripture. Regardless, there are only two options for the design in living things, actual deliberate design or evolution which Dawkins and others claim can mimic deliberate design. The evidence is the design in all life forms. Now if one wishes to claim that evolution can produce this appearance of deliberate design they must do more than assert that it can. Evidence must be provided that this design is produced by evolutionary means.

This particular artwork? I'm not sure it serves more purpose than scrap metal, to be honest. But then again, this is the nice thing about purpose: we can investigate, to find out why it was made. What ID advocates do is approach this exactly backwards. They don't ask the designer what the purpose is, they try to find out based on what it does, and this can backfire spectacularly.

This makes no sense.

"Digital code"? Okay, first of all, DNA is not a code in any meaningful sense. We impose a code onto it. What we have is a complex mess of biochemistry that can be read out as a sequence of letters. This does not mean it itself is a code in the sense of information theory. Unless you want to redefine code to somehow include DNA, in which case no, we have countless examples of a code coming into existence through non-intelligent means. Just ask the people who use the atomic structure of rocks to pass on information.

I am sorry to say that this exemplifies the fact that you do not understand the topic being discussed. WE don't impose a code onto it. The code is read by transcription and it has to be a meaningful code to work at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. Not accepting the claim "x exists!" is not the same as accepting the claim "x does not exist!".

You get that, right?

Jan has clearly stated as such.

I don't remember Jan ever saying such a thing. But he can speak for himself, off course.

From what I've read that is what the assertion seems to be. If I am wrong Jan will I am sure tell me so.

However, I know you have a tendency of trying to tell people what they believe, while not actually knowing it at all... You did the same to me on multiple occasions.

And you me.

Well... yes....

So are you. You trust that the pc that you buy works. Because you know that science works. Without the sciences of physics and chemistry, that pc wouldn't work.

You only every cry foul on science when it contradicts your a priori religious beliefs.

Example?

He doesn't have to.
Planes fly.
Science is very results based.

If you are going to make claims and assertions based on scientific evidence you best have some idea about which you speak.

No. One believes based on earned trust. It's results based.
Again, planes fly.

Talk about black and white thinking.

The evidence (to the non-science savy people) is what science produces with unprecedented success, its results: technology.

Science has quite an impressive track record.

Indeed. Science has also had some dismal fails. Science works, science does not give truth.

So, your pc doesn't boot?
Planes don't really fly?
Cars don't really drive?
Phones don't really ring?
Germs don't really make you sick?
Nukes don't really explode?
The ISS doesn't really exist?

Truth exists. Planes fly but they don't as well. Cars drive but they don't as well. Phones really ring but they don't as well. Germs don't really make you sick unless they do. Nukes don't really explode unless they do. Truth exists but that doesn't mean science works in truths.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can use any word you wish to refer to these bronze aged texts.

Which Bronze-age text tells you of the Archimedean screw?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's kind of obvious I think.

That you can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many facts you throw at a YEC for example for the actual age of the earth. YEC's will persist in believing it is only 6k to 10k years, because they believe that that is what their book says. And if the facts don't agree with the book, they go with the book anyway. Because, as far as they are concerned, believing in a young earth is a requirement in their religion, which they don't want to quit.


So yes... facts are irrelevant to religious beliefs. By definition. Religious beliefs aren't based on facts. They are based on faith. No matter what the facts say.

Creationists are not all YEC's. That was why I was asking.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Example?

Evolution.

If you are going to make claims and assertions based on scientific evidence you best have some idea about which you speak.

When you simply repeat what the experts of the field are saying, then you're not really making any claims or assertions.

Then you're just accepting what the experts of the field are saying.

Don't you think it's the rational thing to do? To go by what the experts are saying, over what some random folks on the internet are saying?

Talk about black and white thinking.

What's black and white about that?

Indeed. Science has also had some dismal fails. Science works, science does not give truth.

And until you can provide a demonstrably better method with better results, it's the best we can do.

Truth exists.

Yes. And science is, until futher notice, the best tool to zero-in on said truth.

Planes fly but they don't as well. Cars drive but they don't as well. Phones really ring but they don't as well. Germs don't really make you sick unless they do. Nukes don't really explode unless they do.

I love how you make it sound as if the products of science aren't trustworthy.

If science didn't work, we wouldn't have any planes at all. Not even planes that "sometimes" fly. Let alone planes that fly so many times that it's actually the safest way of travel..

Truth exists but that doesn't mean science works in truths.

Science works by zero-ing in on truth.

Religion merely claims to hold the truth. And when asked for supportive evidence, it says "you gotta have faith".

Again, do you have a demonstrably better method to differentiate truth from fiction?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creationists are not all YEC's. That was why I was asking.

And if you paid attention while reading my post, I clearly said that YEC's are but an example.

It applies to annyone who accepts things on faith in a dogmatic fashion.

Both moderate as well as fundamentalist.

The "dogma" part is the important bit.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution.

I don't cry foul regarding evolution. What are you talking about?

When you simply repeat what the experts of the field are saying, then you're not really making any claims or assertions.

Then you're just accepting what the experts of the field are saying.

Don't you think it's the rational thing to do? To go by what the experts are saying, over what some random folks on the internet are saying?

Not a problem if you provide the evidence of such claims and assertions and can understand what it is that is being discussed.

What's black and white about that?

If planes fly, Science is infallible.

And until you can provide a demonstrably better method with better results, it's the best we can do.

Which is fine. Recognizing the strengths and the weaknesses of the method is the best we can do.

Yes. And science is, until futher notice, the best tool to zero-in on said truth.

That depends on whether we go where the evidence leads or not.

I love how you make it sound as if the products of science aren't trustworthy.

If science didn't work, we wouldn't have any planes at all. Not even planes that "sometimes" fly. Let alone planes that fly so many times that it's actually the safest way of travel..

I wasn't implying anything of the sort.

Science works by zero-ing in on truth.

Science explains how things work in the natural world. Science doesn't concern itself with truth. Vague statements that are true are not useful to science. False statements however that are precise are useful. There is no "truth" in science that can not be changed, science doesn't provide universality or permanency as does truth. It is an established fact that all past scientific theories and propositions have been replaced by different and very often better theories and propositions. What once was considered fact a decade ago might be disproved in another. That is the nature of Science. Science's "truth" today may be disproved tomorrow. Science concerns itself with testing propositions in an attempt to disprove or improve them.

It can be shown as well that some false statements in science may have truth within them. Many scientific theories that were found false have led to the discovery of new scientific facts. Sometimes premises can be disproved but conclusions about them shown true while some conclusions can be wrong while the facts are true. Science is not a process of truth but a progression from flawed ideas and premises to more precise conclusions through experimentation and testing of them.

Religion merely claims to hold the truth. And when asked for supportive evidence, it says "you gotta have faith".

I've given evidence to support my faith and never said "you gotta have faith" in this forum unless I would have said it to another believer.

Again, do you have a demonstrably better method to differentiate truth from fiction?

Science works for what science is meant to work for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And if you paid attention while reading my post, I clearly said that YEC's are but an example.

It applies to annyone who accepts things on faith in a dogmatic fashion.

Both moderate as well as fundamentalist.

The "dogma" part is the important bit.

Don't you take things on faith in a dogmatic fashion when there is no evidence for evolution or a natural explanation? Don't you believe that there will someday be a naturalistic answer to what isn't known today? I know you do because you are always claiming we are making arguments from ignorance when it is clear there is no naturalistic explanation known presently.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is the ultimate probability of life existing elsewhere?

Less than what was previously thought since we have under estimated the number of Earth-like planets.

 

[Loudmouth]

What if the opposite is true? We find 1000 of planets perfectly suitable for life, but no trace of life is found to exist on them, what would you think then?

If we found 1,000 lottery tickets that were losers, would you conclude that it is impossible to win the lottery?

If there are just 1,000 Earth-like planets per galaxy, and there are 100 billion galaxies, that would be 100,000,000,000,000 Earth-like planets in the universe. I don't think 1,000 is a very good survey.