the self replicating watch argument

[Speedwell]

so a tree that cant grow (or cant respond to external stimuli) isnt a living thing?

Right. It's a dead tree.

 

[MaudDib]

I actually think a process triggered by chance and guided by the hand of natural selection and associated processes, adapted, modified, purloined, and otherwise evolved, through a series of stages genes, proteins, systems and processes to produce the flaggelae we see today.

The problem is that, as you say, you only THINK a process triggered by chance produced the flagellum motor, you can't SHOW it.

To declare that the flagellum only looks designed, you would need to show how a mindless random process generated such a biological machine without breaking it along the way. In principle IC is impossible to evolve–since it has no functional intermediaries–and thus a falsifier for neo-Darwinism. ID is thus a superior and sufficient explanation for the existence of the flagellum. Showing potential intermediaries is not enough. You all need to provide actual intermediaries of the flagellum to refute ID. You all have not done such a thing.

Case closed.

 

[MaudDib]

You really, really don't like science, do you?

You came here, apparently trying to offer scientific reasons for accepting that the flagellum did not evolve, but now it turns out you don't even like science. You can't tell us what method you prefer to science for answering such questions, and can't tell us what method of creation you think is more likely than evolution.

So what are we to say? I heard on the internet that there is some unknown method better than science that explains an unknown creation method that likely happened? If I fell for that, people would call me gullible

I see there is some ad hominem going on from the few of you, all in an effort to avoid agency.

It is funny that you refuse to acknowledge that there are multiple explicators of explanation.
Scientific mechanism is one, agency is another.

You dig in the sand, find what appears to be some broken pottery and arrow heads in the desert. what now? Are you restricted in some way from postulating agency?

Its not like trying to come up with some supremely contrived explanation ito a scientific mechanism without evidence is going to change the fact that it was an agent who did it?

When it comes to evolution, surely panspermia would at least give you a back door in to postulate agency?

Did you even know that science used to be called Natural Philosophy? I realise its the non believers who commit the taxicab fallacy here: philosophy underpins science, and gives us a method to conduct experiments.
Now that we got to our destination, arbitrarily forget philosophy exists!!

If you cant see that philosophy and science are interwoven then you aint never done science.

Case closed.

 

[Ophiolite]

The problem is that, as you say, you only THINK a process triggered by chance produced the flagellum motor, you can't SHOW it.

I only think. I only think? You are correct that I do not know it as an absolute certainty, because that is not how science works and - the only thing I am certain about - it is not the way I work. But I think such is the case because all the summaries I have read, discussing the matter, present a convincing case.

While I have not shown this to you, I find your curt remark that I can't show you, rather rude. Perhaps my offer in my previous post was unclear, though I cannot see where. Here it is again. The offer still stands (I've underlined the key part): The notion of irreducible complexity in the case of any form of flagellum motor has been dismissed. If you are having difficulty finding the material I can do a search on your behalf.

 

[Speedwell]

When it comes to evolution, surely panspermia would at least give you a back door in to postulate agency?

Did you even know that science used to be called Natural Philosophy? I realise its the non believers who commit the taxicab fallacy here: philosophy underpins science, and gives us a method to conduct experiments.
Now that we got to our destination, arbitrarily forget philosophy exists!!

If you cant see that philosophy and science are interwoven then you aint never done science.

Case closed.

Every undergraduate science student at a reputable university takes a course in the philosophy of science and learns how philosophy underpins science. Did you think that was breaking news?

 

[Astrophile]

How do you think the first cell with a flagellum came into existence. Did it arrive as a result of modification of the DNA of previous bacteria, or did it pop into existence out of nothing?

That’s a false dilemma if I ever saw your one. You must have been home ding under a rock,
There’s a 3rd hypothesis known as the God hypothesis.

How would you test the God hypothesis? Does it make any predictions about the bacterial flagellum that bacteriologists could test by observation or experiment?

 

[MaudDib]

I only think. I only think? You are correct that I do not know it as an absolute certainty, because that is not how science works and - the only thing I am certain about - it is not the way I work. But I think such is the case because all the summaries I have read, discussing the matter, present a convincing case.

While I have not shown this to you, I find your curt remark that I can't show you, rather rude. Perhaps my offer in my previous post was unclear, though I cannot see where. Here it is again. The offer still stands (I've underlined the key part): The notion of irreducible complexity in the case of any form of flagellum motor has been dismissed. If you are having difficulty finding the material I can do a search on your behalf.

You are trying to red herring me.

Ill repeat what I said:

To declare that the flagellum only looks designed, you would need to show how a mindless random process generated such a biological machine without breaking it along the way. In principle IC is impossible to evolve–since it has no functional intermediaries–and thus a falsifier for neo-Darwinism. ID is thus a superior and sufficient explanation for the existence of the flagellum. Showing potential intermediaries is not enough. You all need to provide actual intermediaries of the flagellum to refute ID. You all have not done such a thing.

Case closed.

 

[MaudDib]

How would you test the God hypothesis? Does it make any predictions about the bacterial flagellum that bacteriologists could test by observation or experiment?

Thats a loaded question.

Do you have problems postulating agency as an explanation?

 

[bhsmte]

You are trying to red herring me.

Ill repeat what I said:

To declare that the flagellum only looks designed, you would need to show how a mindless random process generated such a biological machine without breaking it along the way. In principle IC is impossible to evolve–since it has no functional intermediaries–and thus a falsifier for neo-Darwinism. ID is thus a superior and sufficient explanation for the existence of the flagellum. Showing potential intermediaries is not enough. You all need to provide actual intermediaries of the flagellum to refute ID. You all have not done such a thing.

Case closed.

When you have a scientific definition of design and a falsifiable test to determine when design is present, let us know.

Case closed.

 

[bhsmte]

Thats a loaded question.

Do you have problems postulating agency as an explanation?

No problem, we just need more than your opinion.

 

[Speedwell]

Thats a loaded question.

Do you have problems postulating agency as an explanation?

No, but it has to meet the same epistemological standards as any other explanation.

 

[MaudDib]

When you have a scientific definition of design and a falsifiable test to determine when design is present, let us know.

Case closed.

And what do you think is the definition of scientific?

The trouble with you I can see already is that you too for some reason think explanation is confined to mechanism, and can't be expanded to agency.

Shame.

(drop the mike, doink.)

 

[MaudDib]

No, but it has to meet the same epistemological standards as any other explanation.

So give us that ito of Henry Ford vs the motor car as an explanation of the internal combustion motor?

 

[bhsmte]

And what do you think is the definition of scientific?

The trouble with you I can see already is that you too for some reason think explanation is confined to mechanism, and can't be expanded to agency.

Shame.

(drop the mike, doink.)

Well, when ID's own star witness, Dr. Behe, had to admit under oath in the Dover trial, that if intelligent design was to be considered science, than astrology would also be considered science, that was a bit of a; drop the mike moment.

 

[Speedwell]

So give us that ito of Henry Ford vs the motor car as an explanation of the internal combustion motor?

Sorry, I'm a Christian; I come pre-equipped with a better explanation of divine agency than ID.

 

[MaudDib]

Well, when ID's own star witness, Dr. Behe, had to admit under oath in the Dover trial, that if intelligent design was to be considered science, than astrology would also be considered science, that was a bit of a; drop the mike moment.

Lol. Astrology wouldn't be good science at least.

Seriously, IC and the origin of biological information, you can't bring yourself to postulate agency?

I bring a pot to the boil, and ask you to explain why the pot is boiling. You proceed to tell me that the flame conducts heat through the copper pot and agitates the water molecules to cause friction which leads to heat, and thats why the pot is boiling.

I tell you the reason its boiling is because i want a cup of tea!

Explicators at different levels, agency vs mechanism. Independent too. both necessary.
What now?

 

[MaudDib]

Sorry, I'm a Christian; I come pre-equipped with a better explanation of divine agency than ID.

ID leads to divine agency, just can't get there all in one step!

 

[MaudDib]

Every undergraduate science student at a reputable university takes a course in the philosophy of science and learns how philosophy underpins science. Did you think that was breaking news?

it seems to be to a lot of antagonistic people here. surely you would have encountered that already. its called scientism!

 

[Speedwell]

Seriously, IC and the origin of biological information, you can't bring yourself to postulate agency?

Snake oil. No serious Christian should have anything to do with it. ID was invented by a gang of radical Calvinists with a totalitarian agenda. It was meant as a Trojan Horse to get their doctrine into the public schools.

 

[bhsmte]

Lol. Astrology wouldn't be good science at least.

Seriously, IC and the origin of biological information, you can't bring yourself to postulate agency?

I bring a pot to the boil, and ask you to explain why the pot is boiling. You proceed to tell me that the flame conducts heat through the copper pot and agitates the water molecules to cause friction which leads to heat, and thats why the pot is boiling.

I tell you the reason its boiling is because i want a cup of tea!

Explicators at different levels, agency vs mechanism. Independent too. both necessary.
What now?

I tend to believe things when there is evidence present. That is how I roll.

Don't worry, you can still believe what you like.