How do you detect "design"?

[Valjean]

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.

Not a valid argument.
The mechanisms that produce the remarkable complexity of biological processes are known, natural, observable and explainable. Yes, the complexity is amazing, but not understanding the biochemical mechanisms or accounting for the time involved does not make it magical. It makes I.D an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[leroy]

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


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.

It matters because if you think that there is at least 1 viable hypothesis you should be capable of sharing and developing such hypothesis.

The alleged fact that I refuse to learn is irrelevant you are still expected to provide that hypothesis.

if a person who doesn’t understand science feels satisfied by what educated people post about science

Educated people agree with me, there is not a viable hypothesis, .............. Anyone who reads the actual science would agree with me

quote from an educated person:
"THOSE WHO THINK scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.

The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery."

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

www.jmtour.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

I don't do jw.org

 

[Valjean]

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?

[bolding mine]
The bolded sentence is false. It's an incorrect premise.

 

[Eli G]

...The mechanisms that produce the remarkable complexity of biological processes are known, natural, observable and explainable. ...

After repeating it so many times, you can try to prove it just once... or keep fooling yourself, as evolutionists usually do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

After repeating it so many times, you can try to prove it just once... or keep fooling yourself, as evolutionists usually do.

After repeating it so many times, you can try to prove it just once... or keep fooling yourself, as JWs usually do.

 

[F1fan]

It matters because if you think that there is at least 1 viable hypothesis you should be capable of sharing and developing such hypothesis.

The alleged fact that I refuse to learn is irrelevant you are still expected to provide that hypothesis.

The article on Abiogenesis has already been posted. If you ignore it that’s your fault.

Educated people agree with me, there is not a viable hypothesis, .............. Anyone who reads the actual science would agree with me

False.

quote from an educated person:
"THOSE WHO THINK scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory.

The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery."

James M Tour Group » Evolution/Creation

www.jmtour.com

Who cares what this random person thinks?

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists believe that some thunderstorms in the distant past did something that has never been seen: create life.

None of the storms that are occurring in the US have created anything... they have only destroyed many things and taken some lives.

 

[Eli G]

That kind of thing is only possible in evolutionary fantasies, with their children's stories.

That is why they believe that there were once chimeras, species that were either one animal or another, and according to them their descendants took different paths.

I guess the Egyptians thought about evolution when they built the sphinx, the common ancestor of lions and humans.

 

[leroy]

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.

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?

Abiogenesis is a fact, but nobody knows how that event occurred and there is not a single viable hypothesis……………….do you disagree with this statement?

 

[F1fan]

Abiogenesis is a fact,

False. It’s a hypothesis. That means there are facts that support it being a real and plausible explanation.

but nobody knows how that event occurred and there is not a single viable hypothesis……………….do you disagree with this statement?

Disagree because the hypothesis explains how it can happen naturally.

Now where is your evidence for any alternative explanation?

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists seem to be clinging to their hypotheses because they cannot find other alternatives. Their imagination has already worn out... from using it so much.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Please do some research on what's known in the field of abiogenesis/chemical evolution before asserting that nothing's known.

Complexity? Complexity ≠ conscious design. Small, chance changes and additions, accumulating over millions of years, accumulate into astonishingly complex processes.
You're arguing from incredulity, and from ignorance of the mechanisms involved.

Life vs non-life are not the only two possibilities. Life's a spectrum, of increasing "lifelike" qualities. It could start with aggregates of simple, abiotic organic molecules such as coacervate "bubbles," later encapsulated within micelles, microspheres, and vesicles of varying bio-complexity, with varying degrees of growth, metabolic, and reproductive complexity. The point at which a protobiont could be called alive would be pretty arbitrary, like the point where "rustic Latin" could be dubbed French.

 

[Eli G]

Please, don't lie to yourself that bad.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Please do some research on what's known in the field of abiogenesis/chemical evolution before asserting that nothing's known.

Complexity? Complexity ≠ conscious design. Small, chance changes and additions, accumulating over millions of years, accumulate into astonishingly complex processes.
You're arguing from incredulity, and from ignorance of the mechanisms involved.

Life vs non-life, by the way, is not a clear, black or white dichotomy.
Life's a spectrum, of increasing "lifelike" qualities. It could start with aggregates of simple, abiotic organic molecules within coacervate "bubbles," micelles, microspheres, and vesicles of varying bio-complexity, with varying degrees of growth, metabolic, and reproductive complexity. The point at which a protobiont could be called alive would be pretty arbitrary, like the point where "rustic Latin" could be dubbed "French."

 

[Valjean]

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

Not necessarily.
Please describe the robot.

 

[leroy]

Eli G said:
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. @Eli G

@Valjean Not a valid argument.
The mechanisms that produce the remarkable complexity of biological processes are known, natural, observable and explainable. Yes, the complexity is amazing, but not understanding the biochemical mechanisms or accounting for the time involved does not make it magical. It makes I.D an argument from personal incredulity.

I dont think you adressed the argument/point made by Eli..............
Why can´t a robot assemble itself in a planet in space by unknown chemical and physical mechanisms?....why is that idea fundamentally different from abiogenesis?

we know that iron, copper and other metals are produced naturally by stars....................so why Can´t a robot assemble itself?

The answer is obvious, there are many many many possible combinations in which metals can exist, but only very few combinations would produce a robot……it is simply very unlikely for metals to simple organize themselves by chance to produce a robot. …

The issue is that we have the exact same problem with abiogenesis ………….just change metals for amino acids, lipids, and sugars. And you have the exact same problem.

The mechanisms that produce the remarkable complexity of biological processes are known

Granted biological mechanisms are known, and none of those mechanisms can produce life....................

 

[Valjean]

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?

How did you not learn that in school?
Biologists have been describing and clarifying the natural mechanisms by which life "created itself" for decades. Just Google, there are millions of articles and videos, from simple to advanced, all over the web.

 

[leroy]

Complexity? Complexity ≠ conscious design. Small, chance changes and additions, accumulating over millions of years, accumulate into astonishingly complex processes.

You seem to be suggesting that the fact that complex natural processes occure……………..somehow shows that abiogenesis occurred by such processes.

 

[McBell]

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?

Not the watchmaker fallacy