Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

Titan said:
It's so entertaining to see this revisited. Scientist trying to explain what they don't understand, religionist (?) trying to explain what they don't understand. All in a straight jacket of unquestionable assumptions.
Click to expand...

What "unquestionable assumption" is ID making?
 
foxpaws said:
ID does assume there ‘is’ a design – not ‘if’ there is a design. Why call it Intelligent Design unless one assumes an intelligent designer is behind the whole thing?
Click to expand...

So, because it is named "Intelligent Design" it must assume intelligent design a priori? If you actually educated yourself on ID you would know that is not true and is patently absurd.

The fact of the matter is that ID is named after the conclusion the theory reaches.

You are trying to mischaracterize ID through a style over substance fallacy:
Style over substance is a logical fallacy which occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument. In some cases, the fallacy is employed as a form of ad hominem attack.​
You are looking at the name of the theory to draw conclusions that are A) wrong, and B) don't follow from the premise.

If you look solely at the name of the theory to find out weather it is a teleological process, the name could be due to an a priori assumption that the theory makes (confirming that it is a teleological process) or it could be due to an a posteriori conclusion that the theory asserts (which would mean it has teleological implications, but is not, in and of itself, a teleological process). To prove either way, you have to be familiar with the theory, which you clearly are not.

Here is the thought process of Darwinism:
  1. Assume methodological naturalism
  2. Test (in some fashion) the hypothesis that new species are created through purely natural means
  3. Observe and interpret the findings
  4. Due to the info and its interpretation through the prism of methodological naturalism, conclude that the hypothesis is proven correct
Here is the thought process of ID:
  1. Test (in some fashion) the hypothesis that an intelligence is at work in the creation of new species
  2. Observe and interpret the findings
  3. Due to the info, conclude that the hypothesis is correct
What you are doing is asserting that there is an extra step in the ID thought process before the first step and that the step is that there is an assumption of intelligent design. You are asserting this with a profound and obvious ignorance of what ID is and is not. However, you seem to have no interest in learning what ID really is.

The IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness ) center has even a little ‘Primer’ on the basics of ID shag – want to know what the first sentence is in that primer?
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the conclusion that the theory reaches and what it, thus asserts. All scientific theories have a conclusion that they assert. You are mischaracterizing the nature of scientific theories to perpetuate your mischaracterization of ID.

Also, the quote does show that ID is only concerned with weather or not there is a design; design detection. Not the study of a design, so not a teleological process.

They ‘assert’ – wow – not ‘are looking into,’ ‘wondering if there is’… No ‘ands, ifs or buts’, they ‘assert’ - to state with assurance, confidence, or force; state strongly or positively; affirm.
Click to expand...

Assertion does not equal assumption. and definitely not an assumption, a priori.

In fact, what you are doing now is spinning to setting up another type of fallacy call the texas sharpshooter fallacy:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a story about a Texan who fires several shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.​
The name of the theory of "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with any assumption being made, but you are spinning and manipulating to characterize it as an assumption.

Do you really understand the blind man and the skyscraper analogy with regards to ID?
Click to expand...
Yes.

So, what empirical results can ID point to shag?
Click to expand...

I have already answered this plenty of times in other post, but you don't seem to want to accept it, so let me spell it out for you. All the info you cite also points to ID as it empirically proves only adaptation.

Why go down the path of intelligent design, if we aren't the intended result, or at least on the path of the intended result?
Click to expand...

I refuse to answer this question as it is a loaded question. Don't mistake this for an attempt to dodge the question in some fashion. I am directly saying, I refuse to answer this question.

It is a loaded question in a couple of ways.

First it mischaracterizes ID as some sort of exploratory path or process to determine what the design is, when the theory is not even concerned with what the design is. It is only concerned with detecting if there is a design. Your question inherently mischaracterizes ID.

Second, your question inherently assumes that you have met the burden of proof in proving that ID is a teleological process when you haven't. All you have offered are specious arguments and baseless postulation. You are, effectively, attempting to deceptively shift the burden of proof; another fallacy.

What you are doing with your "teleological" talking point is to effectively assert and trying to justify a distinction without difference. Outside of methodological naturalism and what that implies, there is absolutely no difference between Darwinism and ID except the conclusion, which ultimately stems from that difference in methodological naturalism. The process to reach the conclusion is the same except for methodological naturalism, but you are trying to claim that the process is different. This is based in ignorance of both Darwinism and ID as well as a blatant and willful attempt to obfuscate.

It is patently clear that you are more interested in rationalizing your attempt to dismiss ID as "bad science" through your "teleological process" talking point then you are in actually understanding ID and getting to the truth of the matter. That demonstrates a definite prejudice against ID. Your habitual fallacious arguments here (proof by assertion, straw man fallacy, style over substance, shifting the burden of proof, texas sharpshooter fallacy) demonstrate that your bias has clouded your judgment here, and further confirm that you have a prejudice against ID. It is abundantly clear that there can be no honest discussion with you on this subject due to your prejudice against ID.
 
shagdrum said:
What "unquestionable assumption" is ID making?
Click to expand...

They assume that because they see a complicated pattern it follows it had to be designed, that it couldn't have occured any other way. Also that this was done by an intelligence, which implies it was done to some purpose.
 
Calabrio said:
Does anything make a difference?
Click to expand...

Many things can make a difference to many people. Is this one of thse things? Only you can decide if it will make a difference to you.

What's worth knowing?
Click to expand...
Ah, there is a question that can never be answered until it's to late.

What's worth understanding?
Click to expand...

Things that will help you suvive and prosper.

Why not ask why?
Click to expand...

You may not be able to live with the answer?



.
 
Titan said:
They assume that because they see a complicated pattern it follows it had to be designed, that it couldn't have occured any other way. Also that this was done by an intelligence, which implies it was done to some purpose.
Click to expand...
That's an oversimplification in the extreme. It's not just a complicated pattern. It's an irreducible complexity that could not have happened by chance. The mathematical likelihood becomes so close to zero that it is indistinguishable.
 
Titan said:
They assume that because they see a complicated pattern it follows it had to be designed, that it couldn't have occured any other way. Also that this was done by an intelligence, which implies it was done to some purpose.
Click to expand...

No, they conclude that because certain aspects of life exhibit specific types of complicated patterns (among other things) it can logically be inferred that some sort of design by an intelligence at work. What you are talking about is one of two concepts; either irreducible complexity or specified complexity.

And, in order to cut off the unnecessary debate on this; this has already been discussed ad nauseum in the "Expelled" thread. If you are going to try and critique either of these theories, please familiarize yourself with what has come before and don't force us to cover something we have already discussed.
 
We don't even know if we're living in a mico cosmos that is floating around as part of a cloud of dust in a larger environment. We are also hampered by our senses which don't pick up everything that exist, we may be surrounded by the answers to our questions yet unable to percieve them. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant.

Just because the odds of something happening is close to zero doesn't mean it can't,or won't happen in the next second. That's assuming we had all the information to calculate the odds properly.

It is interesting that people throughout recorded history have came up with the notion of some sort of creator.
 
Titan said:
Just because the odds of something happening is close to zero doesn't mean it can't,or won't happen in the next second. That's assuming we had all the information to calculate the odds properly.
Click to expand...

The two ID arguments of complexity are more...complex they how you are characterizing them here. What you are arguing seems to be a variation on the fallacy called Loki's Wager:
Loki's Wager is a form of logical fallacy. It is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.​

Here is how the originator of Irreducible complexity, Michael Behe explained his theory:
a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.​
Here is an explanation of specified complexity:
The Intelligent Design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Dembski claims that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

Dembski defines a probability of 1 in [10 to the 150th power] as the "universal probability bound". Its value corresponds to the inverse of the upper limit of "the total number of possible specified events throughout cosmic history," as calculated by Dembski. He defines complex specified information (CSI) as specified information with a probability less than this limit. (The terms "specified complexity" and "complex specified information" are used interchangeably.) He argues that CSI cannot be generated by the only known natural mechanisms of physical law and chance, or by their combination. He argues that this is so because laws can only shift around or lose information, but do not produce it, and chance can produce complex unspecified information, or non-complex specified information, but not CSI; he provides a mathematical analysis that he asserts demonstrates that law and chance working together cannot generate CSI, either. Dembski and other proponents of ID contend that CSI is best explained as being due to an intelligent cause and is therefore a reliable indicator of design. ​
 
I appreciate that, yet according to aeronautic principals, for a long time bumble bees were not supposed to be able to fly. We now know air behaves differently than we had assumed for small things such as insects.
Quantum physics shows many things we believe to be true are not neccessarily cast in stone.
My point is it's a strange universe out there and we cannot percieve all of it with our senses and may not be able to comprehend "reality" because we would find it to be to bizzare.
While ID may seem to be founded in solid logic it may have a basic flaw we may forever be unaware of.
 
Black87LSC said:
I think there had to have been absolutely nothing at some point
Click to expand...

there is nothing to indicate that. that's what is indicated by E=MC2.
matter and energy are convertible back and forth. so an absdence of matter creates a state of high energy.
nuclear fission being the greatest example of it.
 
sometimes you have to search for the reason instead of the meaning.
 
Black87LSC said:
I think there had to have been absolutely nothing at some point
Click to expand...

I think, i'm reading on it, but what i gather is, before there was the big bang, all that there was were branes. These branes vibrated, which caused the big bang.

Once again, this could be right or faaaaaaaar from it.
 
Mr Wiggl3s said:
I think, i'm reading on it, but what i gather is, before there was the big bang, all that there was were branes. These branes vibrated, which caused the big bang.

Once again, this could be right or faaaaaaaar from it.
Click to expand...

Yea, but how did the membranes come into existence? I keep coming back to why anything exists in the first place. At some point there had to have been a Creator. "The world may never know"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 321 (members: 1, guests: 320)
Back
Top