the self replicating watch argument

[MaudDib]

It just so happens that science is the best way we have to learn about the nature of reality. Can you think of a better way?

Lol,
Is that statement true?
Because it’s a statement about science and not of science.
Self defeating.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God is an agent. Scientific mechanisms may be confined to science, but not agents. The ultimate explanation of design is God.

Ah so you evaded my question.

I was not asking you who you thought made it happen. I was asking how it happened. How do you think God made the first cell with a flagellum? Through evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Lol,
Is that statement true?
Because it’s a statement about science and not of science.
Self defeating.

How is it self defeating to say science is the best way to learn about reality? Can you think of a better way? If so, please tell us the better way.

 

[MaudDib]

Such is a belief, but not a testable hypothesis.

Unless you'd be willing to answer this challenge: How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

Scenario:

You are walking on a deserted beach and come across the words “hi there how are you?”
Do you proceed to explain how the wind and waves did it?
You see, you might not find agency under the microscope, but that doesn’t mean that agency wasn’t responsible in the first place.
And we don’t just shut off our reasoning when we reach these items, and dream up extreme contrivances.

 

[doubtingmerle]

dont forgot self replicating robots and factories

Self-replicating cars have been the subject of so many jokes here, how could we forget?

 

[MaudDib]

How is it self defeating to say science is the best way to learn about reality? Can you think of a better way? If so, please tell us the better way.

There are many methods of inquiry, go and check it out!

 

[doubtingmerle]

Scenario:

You are walking on a deserted beach and come across the words “hi there how are you?”
Do you proceed to explain how the wind and waves did it?
You see, you might not find agency under the microscope, but that doesn’t mean that agency wasn’t responsible in the first place.
And we don’t just shut off our reasoning when we reach these items, and dream up extreme contrivances.

Find me the words, "Hi there, this is God. How are you?" spelled out in the genetic code, and we can talk. In the meantime, the code has the hallmarks of being made by evolution.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are many methods of inquiry, go and check it out!

I am well aware that people have many methods other than science to learn about the nature of reality. I have found science to be the best approach.

I note that you have not answered when I ask you which method you like better.

 

[Skreeper]

Scenario:

You are walking on a deserted beach and come across the words “hi there how are you?”
Do you proceed to explain how the wind and waves did it?
You see, you might not find agency under the microscope, but that doesn’t mean that agency wasn’t responsible in the first place.
And we don’t just shut off our reasoning when we reach these items, and dream up extreme contrivances.

The problem is you already know the language and meaning of these words so of course you will suspect it was the result of an agent because you already knew that.

Let's say you walk along the beach and you come across the "words": gphe djjdjev. Is there a way how we could figure out if it was intentional design or naturally occuring?

 

[MaudDib]

I am well aware that people have many methods other than science to learn about the nature of reality. I have found science to be the best approach.

I note that you have not answered when I ask you which method you like better.

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Kind regards,
T

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Kind regards,
T

You really really dont understand science.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

Except in that these assumptions are in turn validated by their success. The results of these validations are tentative and subject to revision or are outright discarded if these assumptions wind up not working.

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science.

Science doesn't "prove" anything. Proof is the domain of Mathematics and Alcohol. Logical and mathematical axioms (or assumptions if you insist) can be validated by their use, in the same way that a pen you've never seen before can be assumed to work, and then validated by its use.

Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

No, to "presuppose" something as absolute and incontrovertible would be to err in your ways. we can adopt axioms for those things we can't "prove", but only as far as needed and the results of any such axioms are still tentative and not in anyway incontrovertible.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

But as discussed, the results of these axioms adopted beforehand are validated by their use - that is, we have GPS that relies on bi-directional speed of light in order to interoperate to give us the accuracy we enjoy - this is one such successful validation example, and there are many more like it, such as communicating with probes across the solar system, LIGO Gravitational wave detectors across continents and space telescopes in orbit, etc.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

well, yes, we can accept them as rational deductions because they work and continue to work, giving us meaningful and useful results the more we test it.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

well, they've been demonstrated to work very well thanks all the same. We have a global communications network that demonstrates the uniformity of bi-directional speed of light - we're communicating over it now. You choosing not to accept the facts, doesn't make the facts go away.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

Well, probably true - Science and the scientific method have really come unto its own these days and the scientific method is the single most reliable method to come about facts of reality. You're right in that it has its roots firmly planted in philosophy - It isn't perfect to be sure, but no other method has been demonstrated as being any more effective. Feel free to speak up if you think otherwise.

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

What?? How are they not doing Science? It's exactly the same scientific method used anywhere else in science.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

...well, yes, because it's science.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

What other domain of inquiry should be included in, or used instead of science, and perhaps we can have a chat about it?

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Will they be any different to the examples you gave above that were mistaken? I'm interested to hear more examples...

 

[Snappy1]

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Kind regards,
T

And why can't you use the scientific method for forensics?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Kind regards,
T

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

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry I must be missing something.

Yes, you definitely are.

Do you know what analogical reasoning is?

Certainly. I am aware of its strengths and weaknesses; its role in scientific and philosophical advances; its importance in such diverse fields as every day problem solving and theology. However, as I demonstrated, the analogy of a sel-replicating watch is a poor analogy and should be discarded.

The flagellum motor, with all its independent parts, all tending toward one result, is exactly that, an example of irreducible complexity.

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.

Wait, do you think a blind mindless unguided process foresaw these parts in perfect combination in order to fulfil a function aimed at survival? That it was goal directed?

The only way you will find me talking unmitigated, irresponsible nonsense is when you put words in my mouth. You came quite close to doing so here.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lol,
Is that statement true?

It's demonstrated true by the impeccable track record of the scientific method in getting accurate answers to questions about nature.

A track record that remains unchallenged by any other method.

So yes, it's very true to say that science is the best method we have to learn about nature.

Because it’s a statement about science and not of science.
Self defeating.

No, it's not. It has evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are many methods of inquiry, go and check it out!

You forgot to mention these mysterious methods and to demonstrate how they achieve better results then science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi Merle,

Thanks for the good question.

While philosophy underlies all sciences I wouldnt really confine myself to it, I would say that inquiry adapts itself to the question at hand.

I know some might recoil at the thought that philosophy underlies science, so let me remind them that science is permeated with unprovable assumptions:

An example would be logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Another example: in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.

None of these beliefs can be scientifically proven, and yet they are accepted by all of us as rational deductions of the world in which we live.

The law of uniformity and law of causality and the speed of light being constant are also unprovable assumptions of science.

So really, philosophy gave you and I our scientific method.

In fact the scientific method is a combination of philosophy (inductive reasoning for hypothesis formulation) and methodological naturalism(deductive reasoning).

However when doing forensic science for example, you can’t use the scientific method, yet they are still doing science.
This applies to all historical sciences including evolutionary biology.

At the same time when doing those sciences you can appeal to all sorts of results that come from the scientific method.

Trying to confine yourself to a sub domain of inquiry is limiting.

I hope this helps, I’m happy to give some examples of what I mean if you want me to.

Kind regards,
T

That's nice, but it's not an answer to the question you were asked.

What method is better in unraveling the mysteries of nature then science and how is it better?

 

[xianghua]

There are no "big steps". Everything is step-wise, exactly what you claimed couldn't happen: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

And no, starting with with a protein export system doesn't count a "big step" for flagellum evolution since a protein export system isn't a flagellum to begin with.

If you are claiming that the flagellum itself can't evolve, then you need to demonstrate how since it clearly has a plausible evolutionary path that can happen step-wise. If you are going to claim that the starting point in this scenario (e.g. a protein export system) can't evolve, then that this an entirely different argument than claiming the flagellum can't evolve.

You need to think about your argument for a moment and try to figure out what it is you are trying to argue for.

first: the burden of proof is on evolutionists side, so i dont nened to explain anything.

second: if a flagellum can evolve by 10 steps: and every one of these steps need about 100 amino acids: its still a big step in every step.

 

[xianghua]

Living things can self-organize, grow, metabolize, respond to external stimuli, and reproduce with inheritance (and consequently evolve).

For example, this demonstrates the difference between a tree (alive) and a table made of wood (not alive). The tree can do all of the above things I listed. The table cannot.

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