How do you detect "design"?

[Valjean]

Do you believe that life is chemically based?

Do you believe it's magically based? Are you a vitalist?
Evidence, please.

 

[Valjean]

Do you know who Galen was? For over 1,000 years his theory about blood circulation was believed and taught. Until William Harvey had a different idea. Discovery of the cardiovascular system: from Galen to William Harvey - PubMed.

As soon as the scientific method was applied to the discipline of medicine, the errors in Galen's, Hippocrates', and other early physicians' claims were uncovered. Yet you continue to reject the scientific findings relevant to your claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

even YEC have solved many problems

Others have already explained to you that this is incorrect, unless of course you are referring to problems unrelated to that belief and not depending upon it.

there is not a single viable hypothesis for abiogenesis

That's incorrect. Abiogenesis is a viable hypothesis, namely that the first life arranged itself into a living thing by passively obeying the laws of chemistry and physics, and without intelligent oversight. There are disagreements about whether this first occurred on a seafloor near a fumarole or in a shallow tide pool. There are disagreements about whether the first life on Earth formed here or on Mars and came to earth following an impact on Mars. But these are not separate hypotheses to me - just details about where this happened.

It seems to me that no matter how big and difficult an obstacle is, you will always say “nature did it”

What we say if we are rigorous and careful is that absent evidence of a supernatural realm, we don't posit the existence of one, which leaves with only nature to do anything that is done. Things done by nature are natural.

there doesn’t seem to be a hypothetical point where you would stop and say “hey maybe this is better explained with ID”

Assuming that the I in ID refers to a supernatural intelligence, we don't have an idea for which that is the case. As long as we have naturalistic hypotheses for everything and no evidence of any supernatural agents or realm existing, nothing is better explained invoking supernaturalism. You and I discussed this in a thread a year or two ago about resurrection, which is never the best explanation for anything claiming or appearing to be the revivification of a

 

[Valjean]

Amino acids are organic chemicals. What do you think they are?

They are chemicals that form spontaneously in nature, apparently frequently and by multiple pathways. They're even found in space débris.

 

[Valjean]

Actually by cladistics humans are "monkeys'. There are both New World and Old World monkeys. The problem is that they are not a monophyletic group. To make them monophyletic one has to include the apes. There is another term that one could use and that would be "simians". All of us, Old World Monkeys, New World Monkeys, Lesser apes (gibbons) and Great Apes are all simians:View attachment 92128

Separating off the two groups of monkeys would be a paraphyletic group. And that is not a proper grouping in modern animal classification.

Yes, you can claim that all species are derivative of their predecessors, and thus properly deemed variants of these ancestors, but I don't find this helpful for persons who have a poor understanding of cladistics or the mechanisms of evolution. It just tends to confuse the issue and make "evolutionists" look ridiculous.

Apes; new, and, old world monkeys have superficial similarities, but they're different lineages. Yes, they can be lumped into larger clades, but advocates of I.D are splitters. They see each species as seperate and unique creations.

 

[Valjean]

They understand that the mechanism is not the source.

You don't.

OK, what is "the source," and what evidence do you have for it, save not understanding the evidence or logical reasoning?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, what is "the source," and what evidence do you have for it, save not understanding the evidence or logical reasoning?

Well, agan methodlogical naturalism doesn't make a fact that the universe is natural.
What is your evidence that the universe is natural?

 

[Valjean]

To go from a definition of amino acids to a belief that life is chemically based would require a belief in scientism imo. Is that correct?

Who concludes life's chemically based from defining amino acids? Dissect any living thing and all you'll find is chemistry. Noöne's ever found any spirit or magical essence.

What do you claim to be the basis of life, if not chemistry? What evidence is there for any other conclusion, other than religious mythology?

 

[Valjean]

So your belief that life is chemically based would be based on the part of the data that science is able to study, while ignoring anything else.

What else is there, besides tradition and religious mythology?
Emotion? Feelings? Faith?

 

[leroy]

You don;t know wjhat a hypothesis is. Not only do you not understand science, you are hostile towards it.

Even if true, that is not a valid excuse for not sharing a viable hypothesis for the origin of life

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even if true, that is not a valid excuse for not sharing a viable hypothesis for the origin of life

What do you think all of your words mean?

 

[Valjean]

Is there a hypothesis that says that there is no design in the universe?

Depends how you define "design." To me it implies conscious intent, and there is no objective evidence of that. There are known, unconscious mechanisms that account for the order, complexity and function you attribute to magic and an invisible magician.

Absent evidence, the reasonable position on any claim is deferred belief, is it not?

If so, is it based and supported by some evidence (not merely ignorant negative "evidwence" against some different idea)

Huh?
Empirical or objective evidence of a magical god: Nil.
Empirical or objective evidence of physics and chemistry: Voluminous.

 

[leroy]

​

You are just dead wrong in your skepticism about the scientific basis for RNA World theory. There are examples of all kinds of self-replicating processes in nature that are not RNA and DNA molecules.

Granted, but all known self replicators come ether from intelligent designers or from preexisting self replicators

There are no known natural mechanisms that can create a self repicators....................please ether refute or grant explicitly this fact

 

[Valjean]

Not being able to show that the universe was not designed, seems to mean that you are relying on it not being falsified so that you can claim it is true. That being said, it is as much the ignorantium fallacy as believing in a designer.

If I'm following correctly:
No. You don't understand how to think. You don't understand logic.
It is reasonable to believe in what's empirically evidenced. It's irrational to believe in that which is unevidenced.

Without actual evidence, the reasonable position is deferred belief. Claiming a lack of contrary evidence as affirmative evidence is an argument from ignorance.

Appeal to Ignorance - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[leroy]

We appeal to known, observable, and understood natural mechanisms. It's you who claims magic.

Many different types of self replicating molecules, organic and otherwise, are known, as well as self replicating protobiotic structures and vesicles to contain them. Lipids, amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleotides (including the DNA bases) all form spontaneously, and can combine into organic structures.
Magic poofing, on the other hand, has no known possible mechanism, and has never been observed.
'Goddidit' explains nothing, it just posits an invisible agent. It proposes magic as a more likely 'mechanism' than chemistry or biology -- known sciences.

Abiogenetics and "chemical evolution" are very active areas of research. New discoveries are reported in biology journals all the time. There's a lot more known than you seem to realize. Do some research.

Before declaring "impossible!" you should explain why -- since chemistry is a well known science and Earth is known to harbor life.

since you ignored my challenge i will simplly repeat it

Challenge

1 take all the amino acids sugars and lipids that you what (Let’s assume that every single amino acids, lipid, sugar etc. can be formed naturally,)

2 simulate any environment (assume any temperature, any pressure, any source of energy etc… that you what)

3 given 1 and 2 make a self replicating molecule…………..the only condition is that you can´t use preexisting life to do that.

Can you do that? no can any scientist do that?................... why not?


--

Another question would be…. What observation/experiment/test would convince you that abiogenesis probably can´t happen naturally?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, but all known self replicators come ether from intelligent designers or from preexisting self replicators

There are no known natural mechanisms that can create a self repicators....................please ether refute or grant explicitly this fact

That is an acknowledged problem of abiogenesis. It has not been solved yet. All scientists in the field acknowledge that. But as to your claim, so what? You once again used such a poor argument that it can be refuted by a mere "So what?" You have been told many many times that unanswered questions or problems are never evidence against an idea. Nor are they evidence for your God beliefs because you refuse to put your God beliefs in the form of a testable hypothesis. Unanswered questions are just questions that no one can answer . . . yet. If they were "proof" for you then the countless times that unanswered questions were answered would be a refutation of your God. You cannot have it both ways.

This is why even you have to learn the basics of science and how evidence works.

 

[F1fan]

Even if true,

It’s true that you don’t understand science. Nor do you want to learn science.

that is not a valid excuse for not sharing a viable hypothesis for the origin of life

Why does it matter if a person who doesn’t understand science feels satisfied by what educated people post about science? You have a problem with bad faith contributions. You refuse to acknowledge your ignorance and learn anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Granted, but all known self replicators come ether from intelligent designers or from preexisting self replicators

There are no known natural mechanisms that can create a self repicators....................please ether refute or grant explicitly this fact

Yeah, you really don't understand unknown, do you?

 

[Valjean]

When have you demonstrated that no designer is needed?

The fact that the complexity and function of the universe and of nature -- the basis of your claim of intelligent design -- can be explained without intelligence or conscious design, by ordinary, observable chemistry and physics, obviates the need for any supernatural special pleading.

You can count them with me if you want.
1--the universe was designed by an intelligence.
2--the universe was not designed by an intelligence.

Some people might state it a different way,,,,,,,,, that design in the universe is so obvious that the question is whether it designed itself or was designed.

And there's abundant evidence of the former, and neither need or evidence o the latter.

Yes, science does not know how to recognise whether something has been designed or not.

But it does know how to reason, and until there is some actual evidence for a designer, the reasonable position is to defer belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I'm following correctly:
No. You don't understand how to think. You don't understand logic.
It is reasonable to believe in what's empirically evidenced. It's irrational to believe in that which is unevidenced.

Without actual evidence, the reasonable position is deferred belief. Claiming a lack of contrary evidence as affirmative evidence is an argument from ignorance.

Appeal to Ignorance - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What is your evidence for that? As far as I can tell is a norm and not evidence, but if you believe that you have evidence for that, you are irrational according to your own rule.