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

[Loudmouth]

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.

The difference is that we keep discovering naturalistic explanations for things that we were once ignorant of, or more precisely what was once claimed to come from the supernatural. It is the success of finding naturalistic explanations that justifies the search for more.

On the flip side, I have yet to hear of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a supernaturalistic explanation based on verifiable observations. Why do you think that is?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference is that we keep discovering naturalistic explanations for things that we were once ignorant of, or more precisely what was once claimed to come from the supernatural. It is the success of finding naturalistic explanations that justifies the search for more.

On the flip side, I have yet to hear of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a supernaturalistic explanation based on verifiable observations. Why do you think that is?

The more we know from Science the more we see design and this is not from ignorance but from what we actually observe and know about living organisms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

???

So, you never argue against evolution theory?
Then what are all those ID threads about?

And what was this quote about:

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

???

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

In that case, everyone here, except biologists, should immediatly shut up about biology. And the same goes for any other scientific subject.

If planes fly, Science is infallible.

:facepalm:

Good job on missing (ignoring?) the point made.

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

Right, so what are you arguing about - if you agree?

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

That's what science does....
For crying out loud....

If it doesn't go where the evidence leads to, then it's not science (or "bad science" at best).

I wasn't implying anything of the sort.

Then what were you implying?

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.

Yes, it's called "intellectual honesty".

In reality, it is no more then leaving the door open for the possibility that the hypothesis/theory isn't correct.

You know, like......the opposite of dogma's.

Do you consider this a strenght or a weakness?
It sounds like you are trying to establish as a weakness, is that correct?

It is an established fact that all past scientific theories and propositions have been replaced by different and very often better theories and propositions.

Yes, it's called "learning".

It's also an established fact that religions don't do this. Or at least, aren't happy to do this.

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.

Yes. And that's a good thing. It's why science works and dogmatic thinking doesn't.

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.

Yes. You have used many words to simply repeat what I said: science is about zero-ing in on truth.

Science works for what science is meant to work for.

Indeed. And it is meant to help differentiating truth from fiction. It is meant to understand the phenomena of reality. It is meant to gather knowledge about the world.

All knowledge. Not just the knowledge that agrees with a priori beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't you take things on faith in a dogmatic fashion when there is no evidence for evolution or a natural explanation?

What the hell are you talking about?

I can't take someone seriously when they say that there is no evidence for evolution, sorry.

There's nothing dogmatic about accepting the facts of reality.
And the facts support the model of evolution. That's just the way it is.

Your religious objections are of no consequence.

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.

You use an argument of ignorance when you point to ignorance as if it supports your particular claims about said phenomena.

As in: "science doesn't know about X, therefor my religion is right about X".

When things are unkown, then I just assume ignorance on the matter.
I'm not afraid of the words "I don't know". And no, I don't have any particular beliefs about the things we don't know about.

Might I have opinions or expectations about certain subjects? Sure. But that's not quite the same as "believing" (=accepting as true) any particular thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The more we know from Science the more we see design and this is not from ignorance but from what we actually observe and know about living organisms.

Appearances are not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

???

So, you never argue against evolution theory?
Then what are all those ID threads about?

And what was this quote about:

I don't argue against evolution theory as defined. I argue against claims and assertions being based on the Theory of Evolution.

???

I explained this in the last post.

In that case, everyone here, except biologists, should immediatly shut up about biology. And the same goes for any other scientific subject.

If you are claiming scientific evidence supports your assertions and claims you need to be able to present the evidence that does support it and be able to understand it enough to discuss it when you are in a forum such as this.

:facepalm:

Good job on missing (ignoring?) the point made.

Nope, I got it it is just irrelevant. The fact that planes fly does not mean that science concerns itself about truth.

Right, so what are you arguing about - if you agree?

I am not disagreeing with what Science does, I am disagreeing with your premise that it is about truth.

That's what science does....
For crying out loud....

If it doesn't go where the evidence leads to, then it's not science (or "bad science" at best).

Science has changed throughout history, Aristotle was the pioneer of science but he didn't do science in the way modern science eventually was done. Then Science did work with where the evidence lead but now I fear that dogma of evolution has stymied Science. Now it has almost returned to Aristotle's time where evolution is presupposed and nothing can be shown to question it. Where Aristotle held preconceived ideas he set about to prove with data rather than trying to disprove it so now do scientists do the same with evolution. I am happy to see some new areas of study that are looking at this differently and having success with that. Reverse engineering and taking systems that seem designed and performing research as if they are design has been making headway and new discoveries have been made using this premise.

Then what were you implying?

That planes flying and phones ringing are not "truth"

Yes, it's called "intellectual honesty".

In reality, it is no more then leaving the door open for the possibility that the hypothesis/theory isn't correct.

You know, like......the opposite of dogma's.

Granted it should be.

Do you consider this a strenght or a weakness?
It sounds like you are trying to establish as a weakness, is that correct?

I am saying that science has strengths and weakness. Both. It is clear.

Yes, it's called "learning".

It's also an established fact that religions don't do this. Or at least, aren't happy to do this.

That is called bias.

Yes. And that's a good thing. It's why science works and dogmatic thinking doesn't.

Science needs to be un-dogmatic but I fear that it has become just that. When scientists are looked badly upon just because they are not staying within the mainstream that is dogmatic and wrong.

Yes. You have used many words to simply repeat what I said: science is about zero-ing in on truth.

It may discover truth but it is not concerned with it.

Indeed. And it is meant to help differentiating truth from fiction. It is meant to understand the phenomena of reality. It is meant to gather knowledge about the world.

It is meant to gather knowledge about the world not the truth of the world. Truth may be found but it is not truth focused. It is a progression of knowledge and truth may be part of it and may not be, but it is still science.

All knowledge. Not just the knowledge that agrees with a priori beliefs.

Really, millions claim spirituality is a knowledge. There is knowledge that science can't test or confirm does that mean it isn't science?

 

[Jan Volkes]

I have never [nor would I] say there is no possibility that Gods do not exist, just as I can not say there are no fairies, angels or dragons, in order to do that I would need the same information religious people have and I'm not privy to that.
In the absence of evidence I can conclude there is very little likely hood of any of them existing, as for certainty then no.
99.999 certain but not 100 percent.
Let's put it this way atheists are as certain there are no Gods as Christians are that Allah or Vishnu does not exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What the hell are you talking about?

I can't take someone seriously when they say that there is no evidence for evolution, sorry.

Your really need to get a grip. I never said there was no evidence for evolution. I said where there is no evidence...your claim of argument from ignorance or have you forgotten?

There's nothing dogmatic about accepting the facts of reality.
And the facts support the model of evolution. That's just the way it is.

Evolution happens is not a blanket explanation for all the natural world, that is just the way it is.

Your religious objections are of no consequence.

And your objections to them are of no consequence.

You use an argument of ignorance when you point to ignorance as if it supports your particular claims about said phenomena.

I could only do that (not agreeing that I am) if there was no evidence.

As in: "science doesn't know about X, therefor my religion is right about X".

When things are unkown, then I just assume ignorance on the matter.
I'm not afraid of the words "I don't know". And no, I don't have any particular beliefs about the things we don't know about.

Except the things I've claimed and which you have pronounced arguments from ignorance are those things that are very much about things we know rather than what we don't.

Might I have opinions or expectations about certain subjects? Sure. But that's not quite the same as "believing" (=accepting as true) any particular thing.

So do I, but God is not one of them. I have knowledge of God, I have evidence that confirms that knowledge is accurate.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Right, but we already have calculations for these numbers through Drake equation and have thought about the implications through Fermi paradox. According to the numbers, aliens should have already visited us or we should have seen some signs by now because it seems highly improbable that life would not exist elsewhere in the universe.

Well, maybe we're thinking about it in the wrong way. Maybe, intelligent life has already made itself known, its just that its so intelligent that we can't perceive it with our normal physical perceptions. In order to perceive this intelligence we have to open up a part of ourselves that we didn't even know we were capable of opening. This I believe is the spiritual side of humans. To deny the possibility of the spiritual is to deny the possibility of super intelligent beings beyond our realm of understanding. So it seems your trying to make a case for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and I've already accepted intelligent life to exist beyond the universe that is far and above my own intelligence and this intelligence is infinite and is God.

So it seems, if we were actually capable of surveying all inhabitable planets in the universe and found 0 life, this super infinite intelligence that is beyond the universe is trying to tell us it exists and to believe in it, so it can enter your life and reveal absolute truth to you.

Hebrews 11:3
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Psalm 19:1
"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."

God's word will continue to make itself more and more clear in order that no man can have any excuse.

Romans 1:20
"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 people are without excuse."

Continue to seek and you will find.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have never [nor would I] say there is no possibility that Gods do not exist, just as I can not say there are no fairies, angels or dragons, in order to do that I would need the same information religious people have and I'm not privy to that.
In the absence of evidence I can conclude there is very little likely hood of any of them existing, as for certainty then no.
99.999 certain but not 100 percent.

Except of course when there is evidence, you will deny it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearances are not evidence.

Keep repeating that and maybe you'll convince yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Except of course when there is evidence, you will deny it.

The problem is that you don't understand what evidence is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, but we already have calculations for these numbers through Drake equation and have thought about the implications through Fermi paradox. According to the numbers, aliens should have already visited us or we should have seen some signs by now because it seems highly improbable that life would not exist elsewhere in the universe.

That makes a ton of assumptions. First, that a planet of life will produce an intelligent species. Second, that the intelligent species will travel between stars. Third, that the intelligent species will want to interact with other intelligent species. Fourth, that they overcome the limitations of the speed of light so that they can travel between galaxies and stars.

Well, maybe we're thinking about it in the wrong way. Maybe, intelligent life has already made itself known, its just that its so intelligent that we can't perceive it with our normal physical perceptions. In order to perceive this intelligence we have to open up a part of ourselves that we didn't even know we were capable of opening. This I believe is the spiritual side of humans.

Sounds a lot like the gullible part.

To deny the possibility of the spiritual is to deny the possibility of super intelligent beings beyond our realm of understanding.

There is no evidence of the super intelligent beings so there is nothing to deny.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The difference is that we keep discovering naturalistic explanations for things that we were once ignorant of, or more precisely what was once claimed to come from the supernatural. It is the success of finding naturalistic explanations that justifies the search for more.

Which is fine but it is when you deny what is clearly in evidence that you show you are biased and will not allow anything amounting to evidence of the supernatural in your worldview.

On the flip side, I have yet to hear of a naturalistic explanation being replaced by a supernaturalistic explanation based on verifiable observations. Why do you think that is?

Unless you or Dawkins or someone else can explain how the apparent deliberate design with purpose can be produced by evolutionary processes I think we have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is fine but it is when you deny what is clearly in evidence that you show you are biased and will not allow anything amounting to evidence of the supernatural in your worldview.

All we are ignoring is your subjective opinions.

Unless you or Dawkins or someone else can explain how the apparent deliberate design with purpose can be produced by evolutionary processes I think we have.

The burden is on you to show that the appearance of design is objective evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

'
[

The problem is that you don't understand what evidence is.

I have presented the scientific method and how the design is the evidence and how it is arrived at using the scientific method. Show me where I am in error.

 

[Chriliman]

That makes a ton of assumptions. First, that a planet of life will produce an intelligent species. Second, that the intelligent species will travel between stars. Third, that the intelligent species will want to interact with other intelligent species. Fourth, that they overcome the limitations of the speed of light so that they can travel between galaxies and stars.



Sounds a lot like the gullible part.



There is no evidence of the super intelligent beings so there is nothing to deny.

Are you expecting physical evidence for something that isn't physical? Or are you expecting empirical evidence for something that isn't physical? If your expecting empirical evidence, thats good, because that's what you'll get, but then it comes down to what makes the most sense and does not contradict what's possible. I believe, empirical evidence will inevitably point to God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All we are ignoring is your subjective opinions.



The burden is on you to show that the appearance of design is objective evidence.

The Scientific Process
A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
2. Make your hypothesis
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.

The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.

Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such.

From the link above:
One important thing to note is that human senses are subject to errors in perception e.g., optical illusions which can results in erroneous scientific observation. This is why scientific instruments were developed to improve and magnify human powers of observations like microscopes, cameras, telescopes, weight scales, computers, oscilloscopes, radio receivers etc. Emphasis mine. We see that we are not perceiving an illusion but actual elements of design. The only way this appearance (evidence) is an illusion is not by error in perceptions or optical illusions but that the design was produced by evolutionary processes which has not been shown by any evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment

That's what you lack. You don't have an objective experimental methodology.

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms.

That's not an experiment with an objective methodology. Your subjective opinions of what something looks like is not objective evidence.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs.

That is a subjective opinion.

 

[The Cadet]

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.

Um... If we're gonna play that card, it's perhaps worth noting that the "entire scientific community" disagrees with you. They don't see design. They see an illusion of design. And they say as much. You don't get to play that card, I'm sorry.

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.

Once again, we come down to this fundamental misunderstanding at the core of all of this. Evolution is not the worldview. Evolution is the model. Just like in much of physics, gravity is not a worldview, it is a model. Do you think physicists tested Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko for gravity before they launched the probe? No, of course not, because so far, everything we've tested has gravity, and we can inductively determine that it's pretty much constant. This is the case with evolution. Evolution is nearly an inherent property of life, given that life has the characteristic of descent with modification and natural selection. We see evolution in every part of life sciences, with morphology, genetics, ERV lineages, embryology, and more all producing a clear phylogeny. We know multiple examples of complex natural systems that evolve. So when we are presented with a complex natural system, the first thought is obviously "it evolved". Just like when two objects are attracted to one another, the first thought is obviously "gravity". This is the model we use to explore most of biology, and it works.

But when you see a complex system, your first thought is "it was designed". First of all, that's a very tall claim, one that requires a whole lot of evidence. Think about what you are proposing here. You are proposing the existence of some sort of intelligent entity or entities. You are proposing as evidence for these entities that something is designed. And you are proposing as evidence that that thing is designed that it looks designed. You have no objective criteria for measuring this. You have nothing beyond "it just looks that way". But we have never established design in natural systems. We have no valid point of comparison. I mean, what's more extravagant here - the claim that some entity we know nothing about created these biological systems using some technique we don't even know is possible and left no overt trace of its own existence, or the claim that complex biological systems can occur via a mechanism that we know can produce complex biological systems!

The claim that there is no evidence of the flagellum evolving is false. Of the proteins indispensable for the flagellum, only two have no known homologues. We have a thoroughly workable hypothesis of how the flagellum could have evolved in individual steps with each step giving an advantage to the host. We can see intermediaries of this lineage. So you tell me - why should we not assume that just like every other system we have examined thus far, the bacterial flagellum evolved? Why should we instead assume, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that it must have been designed?

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.

No, I'm sorry, eye evolution has been a solved issue since around 1860. And the genetics has only made it clearer. The fact that you can dredge up the Peter Duesburg of molecular biology to try to make the case that this is wrong does nothing to deflect the fact that it isn't. We know the eye evolved. We know how the eye evolved. We know the individual stages involved in eye evolution. We can trace the genetics back. We can see intermediaries today throughout all of nature. The eye is a complex biological system which evolved.

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.

And there's the shift. "Please prove that it is not designed". No. You need to prove that it is designed. And in order to do this, you need to do better than "It looks designed to me". You need to do better than "the scientific community accepts that it kinda looks designed".

I will say this again and again until you get it. You have plenty of examples of humans designing things. You have zero verifiable examples of an "intelligent designer" designing anything. For all we know, this is a characteristic example of that intelligent designer's work:

...You see no significance in that, but maybe some other entity, some other class of being does.

You're mistaking the natural human compulsion to see patterns where there are none for an actual event. In science, we try very, very hard to filter out natural biases like this, because, well, they're biases! They corrupt our data by filtering it through our heads. And here you offer us a piece of evidence which is completely indistinguishable from a well-known, well-established bias, and you cannot offer any reliable objective criteria by which to measure it - nothing that doesn't boil down to subjective opinion. What are we supposed to make of that?

This is why we refer to it as the illusion of design. Because pareidolia is a well-known and well-established bias which causes us to see the illusion of familiar patterns where none exist. And because literally all of your "evidence" for design can be discounted as pareidolia, you have nothing to work with.

This was the entire point of my thread, "How Do We Detect Design". And we've still gotten nowhere.

Romans 1:20 says:

"You are right, and anyone who disagrees with you knows that you're right. You cannot be wrong! Everyone else who disagrees is just lying. What you believe is self-evidently true and everyone knows it (even if they say they don't)."

That's what Romans 1:20 says. Excuse me for not being impressed in the slightest.

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.

So let's go down the list of problems with this:

• We already know design can mimic nature in multiple ways
• You got the nature of that mimicry backwards
• You have not provided any evidence for design that is objectively distinguishable from a well-known, well-established cognitive bias
• You have formed a false dichotomy (what if it's neither design nor evolution, but some other, as of yet unknown natural process?)
• You hold evolution to a standard that simply is not reasonable
• You ignore the inductive power of evolution as a model
• You invoke Romans 1:20

That pretty much covers it, I think.

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.

Wat. This "code" read by transcription? It's chemistry. It's not "reading" in the way we read it. The ribosome is not looking at the codon and saying, "Ah, A C G, better go code for <whatever that codes for>". These simplifying abstracts that we apply become incredibly confusing when taken too far. And that's what you've done. You've taken the analogy and mistaken it for the substance. What goes on in protein coding is like what goes on in rock formation: it's a natural process based on natural laws, and we can read a perfectly functional code into it, but that code is not inherently meaningful.

Perhaps valuable for future reading: www.christianforums.com/threads/the-role-of-information.7898832/