How do you detect "design"?

[F1fan]

Ok so what would you consider evidence against the claim that abiogenesis happened naturally?

Who cares about this kind of sabotage speculation? The fact is abiogenesis is a valid hypotheistys that can work in nature. If you hate that fact they you have a religion problem.

what experiment/observation/test woudl count as evidnece?

Well, why don't you present a God/designer to us as an alternative. Can you do that? If not then why should we consider it?

 

[Eli G]

If you went to cosmic space and suddenly found a planet full of robots that communicate with each other and carry out all kinds of activities, ...

... would you think that they put themselves together, by chemical and mechanical processes that occurred over billions of years?

What are the chances that you will find a functioning robot on a planet in space that has assembled itself from natural chemical and mechanical processes?

If you accept that there is no chance of that happening, then the probability that a living being (which is much more complex than any robot) would appear in that same way is much lower.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are the chances that you will find a functioning robot on a planet in space that has assembled itself from natural chemical and mechanical processes?

If you accept that there is no chance of that happening, then the probability that a living being (which is much more complex than any robot) would appear in that same way is much lower.

Well, robots are not living, so it is not same as for a living being.

 

[leroy]

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.

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.

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.

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

Ok so:

• there is no evidence for “the spernaturl” (I disagree, but granted for the sake of this comment)
• there is no evidence for any natural mechanism capable of producing life from non-life

given 1 and 2 shouldn’t we declare a draw ?.............if there is no evidence on ether side, shondt we be agnostic? Shouldn’t we be on a 50% / 50% scenario where both are equally likely?

Why should naturalism win by default?

 

[Eli G]

What are the chances that you will find a functioning robot on a planet in space that has assembled itself from natural chemical and mechanical processes?

If you accept that there is no chance of that happening, then the probability that a living being (which is much more complex than any robot) would appear in that same way is much lower.

If a non-living object cannot put itself together from any natural process, then how do evolutionists believe that a living cell that is much more complex than any robot put itself together?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok so:

• there is no evidence for “the spernaturl” (I disagree, but granted for the sake of this comment)
• there is no evidence for any natural mechanism capable of producing life from non-life

given 1 and 2 shouldn’t we declare a draw ?.............if there is no evidence on ether side, shondt we be agnostic? Shouldn’t we be on a 50% / 50% scenario where both are equally likely?

Why should naturalism win by default?

Well, it doesn't win or loose. It is a methodology.
In effect are at least 3 positions here and not just 2. You do know that, don't you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If a non-living object cannot put itself together from any natural process, then how do evolutionists believe that a living cell that is much more complex than any robot put itself together?

Well, they don't believe that, because they know that they don't know.

 

[F1fan]

Ok so:

• there is no evidence for “the spernaturl” (I disagree, but granted for the sake of this comment)

True.

• there is no evidence for any natural mechanism capable of producing life from non-life

False.

given 1 and 2 shouldn’t we declare a draw ?............

No, you are wrong about 2. So science wins, and you lose.

.if there is no evidence on ether side, shondt we be agnostic? Shouldn’t we be on a 50% / 50% scenario where both are equally likely?

Why should naturalism win by default?

Naturalism follows facts, and the new conclusions build on previous conclusions, and become more accurate over time. Abiogenesis is a plausible explanation for how life began. You offer no alternative, so all we have is nature.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True.

False.

No, you are wrong about 2. So science wins, and you lose.

Naturalism follows facts, and the new conclusions build on previous conclusions, and become more accurate over time. Abiogenesis is a plausible explanation for how life began. You offer no alternative, so all we have is nature.

That is not evidence.

 

[Eli G]

If a non-living object cannot put itself together from any natural process, then how do evolutionists believe that a living cell that is much more complex than any robot put itself together?

If I found a robot walking in a planet, wouldn't I know how it appeared there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok granted,(the red text is granted) you are correct so what would you consider evidence against the claim that abiogenesis happened naturally? what experiment/observation/test woudl count as evidnece?

I am not an expert in that area. You would need to go and ask them. A lot of the experiments seem to be on the order of the Miller Urey experiment where a successful result demonstrates that the basic idea is sound. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage where many ideas are demonstrated be possible, but I do not think that there is yet one overarching "hypothesis of abiogenesis". There are hypotheses of that life developed self replication. There are quite a few different ones. There is still evidence for the concept as shown by successful experiments, but it is going to be hypothetical for some time yet. And there are probably testable hypotheses as well. Even if they do show that all of the steps can occur naturally there still may be a need to tie it all together. But all I know of are their successes. I am sure that they have had a ton of failures. If you want to know the specifics you will probably have to do your own homework since no one is apt to do yours for you.

Here is the question that you should be asking yourself. Why aren't any creationists doing any research to show how it had to be "God done did it"? To me it looks as if they are afraid when they refuse to apply the scientific method to their own beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I found a robot walking in a planet, wouldn't I know how it appeared there?

No, not really as it could come locally or from afar. But as we understand robots it would have been produced by a living being.

 

[Eli G]

If I found a robot walking in a planet, wouldn't I know how it appeared there?

The only question I would ask myself would not be how it appeared there, but who put it there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The only question I would ask myself would not be how it appeared there, but who put it there.

Yeah, a living biological being as based on what we know about robots.

 

[Valjean]

If you went to cosmic space and suddenly found a planet full of robots that communicate with each other and carry out all kinds of activities, ...

... would you think that they put themselves together, by chemical and mechanical processes that occurred over billions of years?

I'd defer judgement till I knew more about them. Are they replicating/reproducing? If so, how? Perhaps they've been manufacturing replacements or repairing existing robots for thousands of years and don't even remember where the original prototypes came from.

What we observe in biological life are natural chemical processes, including the reproductive mechanisms. There is no evidence of intent or planning. Everything we observe can be explained by blind chemistry and unguided evolution.

In biology there is reproductive and mutational variation, which is selectively, and blindly, favored or suppressed in populations.
Do the robots reproduce with variation, or do they consciously or automatically repair/replace themselves?

 

[Valjean]

The only question I would ask myself would not be how it appeared there, but who put it there.

I see a watchmaker argument brewing.
It's not a good argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see a watchmaker argument brewing.
It's not a good argument.

Well, no. The robot was made by a living biological being. Thus the universe and life in it was made by a liven biological being. That is where it ends as for a maker. We have evidnce that humans desgn, thus we made the universe.

 

[Eli G]

What is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

Depends on how you understand complex. Do you have any evidence for an objective standard for that?

 

[Eli G]

For those who do not know how a living cell works, a reading like this will give you an idea:

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/origin-of-life-5-questions/

After you have studied it, you will know the answer to the question: what is more complex: a robot or a living cell?

Have a good one.