The stumbling block for atheists.

[Michael]

I have posted it. The fact you ignore it does not mean it never happened.

Dad seems to find himself at odds with pretty much every aspect of both empirical and theoretical physics, but he does enjoy using the fruits of empirical physics in the form of his computer to participate in this forum.

 

[dad]

I have posted it. The fact you ignore it does not mean it never happened.

Don't believe you. Whatever I saw that you posted was second rate religion dressed up as science.

 

[dad]

Dad seems to find himself at odds with pretty much every aspect of both empirical and theoretical physics, but he does enjoy using the fruits of empirical physics in the form of his computer to participate in this forum.

No same nature in the past made a computer or anything else. Associating real science with fake news origins sciences is cognitive dissonance.

 

[Michael]

No same nature in the past made a computer or anything else. Associating real science with fake news origins sciences is cognitive dissonance.

I'm thinking about basic things, like radiometric dating methods.

 

[dad]

I'm thinking about basic things, like radiometric dating methods.

Right. Me too. No radiometric method works unless there was radiation. Can you prove there was some in Noah's day?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure I understand what point you were trying to make let alone agree with whatever point you think you're trying to make.

It seemed pretty straightforward.
If the natural and the artificial can look exactly alike, how do you tell the difference?

DNA seems to be the ultimate enigma.

For whom?

To suggest we can "assume" that a 'natural" origin of DNA somehow precludes "intelligent design" is simply empirically unsupportable.

I'm not assuming anything.
The origins of life are unknown.

I expect the answer to be some natural process. I consider that more likely. Sure.
There is exactly zero reason to expect something else.

If I had to choose where to invest a billion dollars for researching this, I'ld spend it on a team looking for a natural process, instead of a team looking for a god (oeps, sorry, "designer").

As for your claim that this expectation is empirically unsupportable - that's also ridiculous.
We have a gazibillion examples of natural chemical and bio-chemical processes producing all kinds of things (including many building blocks of life which were previously branded "too complex to form naturally" by a certain group of people - you know who they are).

We have zero examples of "designers" capable of doing such a thing, if we don't count ourselves.


(edit: typo)

 

[quatona]

We have zero examples of "designers" capable of doing such a thing, if we don't count ourselves.

I´d like to add that postulating a designer as the origin of life implies that the designer didn´t/doesn´t live.
We have no examples for non-living designers - plus the idea of a non-living designer would pretty much blur the line between "designer" and "natural process".

 

[Zoii]

I actually think atheists mock Christians because a lot of Christians cannot reconcile science with belief; and to distinguish between evidence and belief. When Christians hold to a point at all costs, despite objective evidence it amounts to putting your fingers in your ears and screaming no no no no.

I believe in God. But I dont feel the need to be so rigid as to refute what's proven. To do so in my view makes a Christian look like a kook. Just look at the age of the earth as an example. If carbon decay is a proven process, and the error margins are known, then we start to have fragile arguments when we retort... its wrong because thats not what it said in the bible. And admitting that doesnt have to destroy your faith. Its simply accepting that we have additional information now to compliment our belief.... faith is based on a belief that matures with with an open heart to facts.

 

[Kylie]

Don't believe you. Whatever I saw that you posted was second rate religion dressed up as science.

Yeah, treating opposing viewpoints like that makes them easy to handwave away rather than actually dealing with them.

 

[dad]

Yeah, treating opposing viewpoints like that makes them easy to handwave away rather than actually dealing with them.

No one cares what people handwave at. The important thing is that fake news science cannot defend itself here or anywhere. They could not expect to be treated as if they knew what they were talking about any more.

 

[Michael]

It seemed pretty straightforward.
If the natural and the artificial can look exactly alike, how do you tell the difference?

We might ultimately not be able to do so. How does one tell the difference between string theory and LCMD?

For whom?

For anyone studying it's origin for starters.

I'm not assuming anything.

I think most atheists tend to "assume" that a natural source of DNA precludes intelligent design.

The origins of life are unknown.

So how can anyone preclude it from being "intelligently designed"?

I expect the answer to be some natural process.

Er, so do I in the final analysis.

I consider that more likely.

More likely than what? I'm still not following how you jumped from "natural" to "more/less" likely.

Sure.
There is exactly zero reason to expect something else.

Unless of course we include all those human experience of God that you so emphatically avoid.

If I had to choose where to invest a billion dollars for researching this, I'ld spend it on a team looking for a natural process, instead of a team looking for a god (oeps, sorry, "designer").

Is awareness "natural", or "supernatural"? In what way do you think I've deviated from your position in terms of there being a "natural" explanation for DNA?

As for your claim that this expectation is empirically unsupportable - that's also ridiculous.

It if was "ridiculous", you'd have some empirical support for abiogenesis. Do you? Are you holding out on the scientific community?

We have a gazibillion examples of natural chemical and bio-chemical processes producing all kinds of things (including many building blocks of life which were previously branded "too complex to form naturally" by a certain group of people - you know who they are).

And yet even when we try to intelligently intervene by setting up the "right" conditions in advance, we don't seem to be able to produce life in a test tube from raw chemical ingredients. Why do you suppose that is?

We have zero examples of "designers" capable of doing such a thing, if we don't count ourselves.

And if we count ourselves?

 

[Michael]

I´d like to add that postulating a designer as the origin of life implies that the designer didn´t/doesn´t live.

I don't make such an assumption, so how can you?

We have no examples for non-living designers - plus the idea of a non-living designer would pretty much blur the line between "designer" and "natural process".

Thus far we have no examples of any "designers" that are "intelligent" enough to create DNA from raw chemicals.

 

[quatona]

I don't make such an assumption, so how can you?

I was referring to this statement of yours:

To suggest we can "assume" that a 'natural" origin of DNA somehow precludes "intelligent design" is simply empirically unsupportable.​

 

[JD16]

Thus far we have no examples of any "designers" that are "intelligent" enough to create DNA from raw chemicals.

Scientists Closer To Creating A Fully Synthetic Yeast Genome

Not there yet, but getting closer, and from the looks of it, not far off.

 

[Kylie]

No one cares what people handwave at. The important thing is that fake news science cannot defend itself here or anywhere. They could not expect to be treated as if they knew what they were talking about any more.

*Sigh* More claims, still zero evidence.

 

[dad]

*Sigh* More claims, still zero evidence.

False. My claim that you have no evidence for your pasta state past used by science is proven. You post none. We already discussed how it is useless to pretend you did sometime somewhere also, cause you posted nothing but belief based fake news.

 

[Michael]

False. My claim that you have no evidence for your pasta state past used by science is proven. You post none. We already discussed how it is useless to pretend you did sometime somewhere also, cause you posted nothing but belief based fake news.

Dad, your *assumption* about the laws of physics changing over time is where you deviate from not only empirical physics, but most of hypothetical physics as well. Even when folks have suggested that the speed of light changes over time, it's typically a small amount, and nothing that would help your claims.

Unless you have some evidence that the laws of physics change over time, it's not particularly helpful or logical to create a customized personal belief system that centers around your *entirely subjective* interpretation of the book of Genesis.

Your position isn't logical or scientific dad, which is why you're required to handwave away virtually all types of scientific evidence.

It would be physically impossible for the light from galaxies that are billions of light years away to have even reached earth yet were they all created less than 10,000 years ago. In fact we wouldn't even observe all the stars in our own galaxy.

 

[Michael]

Scientists Closer To Creating A Fully Synthetic Yeast Genome

Not there yet, but getting closer, and from the looks of it, not far off.

Assuming we do get there during my lifetime, it will just be "an" example of "intelligent design".

 

[JD16]

Assuming we do get there during my lifetime, it will just be "an" example of "intelligent design".

LOL, an intelligent design that is done by people that have proven to have design things intelligently,....the question remains, who design the designer?

 

[dad]

Dad, your *assumption* about the laws of physics changing over time is where you deviate from not only empirical physics,

Name something in physics a different nature in the past deviates from!?

but most of hypothetical physics as well.

Circular. The belief system used in forming theories is what matters, not the elaborate dreams that result.

Even when folks have suggested that the speed of light changes over time, it's typically a small amount, and nothing that would help your claims.

?? Canard. I do not say light speed changed.

I have asked questions like, does time itself as we think of it even exist in the far universe? If not then any speed has no meaning. Speed is just how much time is involved in movement!

Unless you have some evidence that the laws of physics change over time,

Unless you have some it didn't....you do not know.

it's not particularly helpful or logical to create a customized personal belief system that centers around your *entirely subjective* interpretation of the book of Genesis.

The descriptions of life demand a different nature pre flood and even early post flood actually. Six ways from Sunday. Trying to wave that away or not believe it doesn't change it.

Your position isn't logical or scientific dad

Yes it is. Science must support it's foundational principles as relates to the past and what is used to model the past. It is foolish to think otherwise.

, which is why you're required to handwave away virtually all types of scientific evidence.

Absurdly untrue. I have never seen any evidence yet for a same set of forces and laws in the far past, so what is there to wave away?? I have seen people try to impose their belief set onto evidences. Fake news science is busted whether you like it or agree or not.

It would be physically impossible for the light from galaxies that are billions of light years away to have even reached earth yet were they all created less than 10,000 years ago. In fact we wouldn't even observe all the stars in our own galaxy.

[/QUOTE] Not if moving through space did not involve time like it does here! So..prove time exists there and existes exactly the same or face the fact you do not know and are preaching nonsense.