How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a dispute between what is important to you versus how science can get its work done and present valid conclusions.

There is no single science. You don't understand that science is a varied cultural behaviour and is not a single unified universal objective and what not methodlogy.
It is an effect of what you have learned and not doubted because you value your worldview.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, it is reasonable, but not evidence.

But the direct observation of the many steps and reactions involved; in real time, is evidence.

 

[Valjean]

"Natural law" is the mega-mechanism. The question then becomes what is the source of that "natural law"?

No. Science describes the laws, but does not delve into sources. It's only the religious, with an interest in defending their God narrative, who obsess on sources.

It is not logical to claim such organizing existential laws sprung from nothing and nowhere as there is no evidence whatever of this ever happening in any capacity or at any time within existence as we know it.

What does logic have to do with it? The laws can be demonstrated to exist.

The mechanism generating the laws and constants of this universe are unknown, and a question being investigated by theoretical physics. Science is not claiming that the laws of physics, mathematics, &c, sprang from nothing. This is an I.D. straw man.
I.D. posits an agent, but this explains nothing. It's an attribution, not an explanation. Moreover, if anyone is claiming creation from nothing, it's the religious.

The laws themselves are just our recognition of what is possible against the backdrop of what is not possible. So what is the source of the possibilities and impossibilities? We do not know.

Yes. We don't know. Be at peace with that. Don't try to shoehorn your religious narrative into it.

Why the insistence on an, invisible, conscious magician? This is a special pleading, physically unevidenced, supported solely by religious mythology.

But we do know that it's not logical or evidential that they spontaneously generated by themselves.

Again, what does logic have to do with it? What syllogism are you working with?
Since 1905, we've ceased to use commonsense and experience to assess reality. The universe plays dice.

Again, you're constructing a straw man. Physics doesn't claim the laws of the universe spontaneously generated themselves. Physics claims: Unknown.
You, on the other hand, seem to claim Goddidit! as a logical and evidenced "explanation."

It is, however, logical to presume that whatever this source is, it transcends those possibilities and restrictions, and thereby any possibility of our proofing or comprehending it.

How is that "logical?" What are your premises? How do you support them?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Science does not report that life is chemically based.
So called educated people who are atheists seem to want to go with the idea that science has not found "spirit" so life must be chemically based.
But these same people know they are wrong scientifically and that they just have faith that this is the situation,,,,,,,,,,, and at the same time they attack others for their belief in a designer.
It is such a curiosity.

No idea what you're going on about, but life is chemically based.

Your entire body is composed of chemicals that are constantly interacting with each other to perform all kinds of bodily functions, to produce thoughts, to allow you to breathe, experience feelings, etc., etc. This is demonstrable. Every time a single synapse has fired in your brain, it's the result of a series of chemical reactions involving calcium and various neurotransmitters (e.g. dopamine or serotonin). (This is an extremely simplified version, just to make the point). It takes ZERO faith to accept this easily demonstrable claim.

Not to mention the fact that your DNA is entirely composed of chemicals.

If you want to claim the body is composed of "spirit" you'll first have to define it, and then somehow demonstrate that it resides within the human body somewhere. You don't just get to claim "spirits" until somebody proves it wrong. Until you can show it's a possibility at all, there's no actual reason for anyone to consider it.

That sounds like you believe what takes your fancy, but can't see that a designer is more likely true than not.

I don't understand how you still don't understand the burden of proof at this point.

You need to show that a designer is "more likely true than not," rather than just assume it. If you can't show it, then there's no reason to consider it in the first place.

 

[leroy]

Ridiculous. Biologists -- and most other scientists -- overwhelmingly support evolution. It's the foundation of the whole discipline, and of our entire understanding of life. Scientifically literate skeptics are rarer than hens' teeth.

Had waiving again, please stop, we are talkig about the origin of life, not evolution………I personally have no idea if James Tour accepts the theory of evolution (I suppose that yes)

You where challenge to

1 quote any factual claim made by James Tour related to the origin of life

2 any claim made by any other expert in the origin of life research

3 show that your expert and Tour contradict each other

If you can´t do that, then you accusation of James Tour begin against the consensus is wrong,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But the direct observation of the many steps and reactions involved; in real time, is evidence.

Yeah, but there is no evidence of abiogenesis as such.

 

[leroy]

But there are.
You really need to keep up with the discipline. Biology journals are replete with new discoveries of such mechanisms.

ok support the claim with a source.

There are numerous known and proposed pathways,

Propsed pathways ? (maybe) but there is not a single known viable pathway

Remember I give all the Amino acids, sugars and lipids that you want……………..then what? how do you make a self-replicating molecules for that?

and please drop the robot thing. We don't know what you mean by robots,
you haven't described them to the point that we can make any assumptions about them or draw any valid conclusions.

Again, you can use your favorite robot as a reference, please quit your dishonest semantic games and answer to my question .

1 We both agree on that the idea of a robot a car or a computer assembling itself with natrualy occurring metals is unacceptable

2 why is the idea of a self-replicating protein assembling itself with naturally occurring amino acids lipids and sugar fundamentally different from the robot example?

 

[leroy]

Yeah, but there is no evidence of abiogenesis as such.

Well abiogenesis is a fact (obviously life came from non-life at some point in the past)

My issue with *some* atheist is that they conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis happened through natural mechanisms …….. I don’t think the evidence that we have today supports such a radical and confident conclusion

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well abiogenesis is a fact (obviously life came from non-life at some point in the past)

My issue with *some* atheist is that they conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis happened through natural mechanisms …….. I don’t think the evidence that we have today supports such a radical and confident conclusion

Well, you are debating a strong global skeptic, so no. I don't believe in facts like you do. And I don't have the same faith as you.

 

[Pogo]

Had waiving again, please stop, we are talkig about the origin of life, not evolution………I personally have no idea if James Tour accepts the theory of evolution (I suppose that yes)

You where challenge to

1 quote any factual claim made by James Tour related to the origin of life

Tour's only claim is that he doesn't know how it could have happened. That is his only real claim and he makes it because his area of chemistry is not closely related to the probable chemical reactions that are related.

2 any claim made by any other expert in the origin of life research

Read the literature. see Google or bing or whatever.

3 show that your expert and Tour contradict each other

The argument from incredulity is a fallacy

If you can´t do that, then you accusation of James Tour begin against the consensus is wrong,

Like I said, his argument is a fallacy so it is wrong.
The consensus is we don't know but we are exploring possibilities.
defaulting to I don't know so some god musta dunnit is not even in contention without evidence for this god's capabilities or existence.

Just bringing up a new long refuted creationist claim is never going to get you anywhere.

 

[leroy]

. It's accepted because the mechanisms and chemical steps necessary are largely known, familiar and observable.

That is false, few if any relevant steps are known………………..

Logically, how likely is magic poofing?

Well supposing that you are an agnostic, who believes that the existence of a god is within the 50% rage……………..”magic” becomes “not very unlikely”………….I mean if God excists then magic every once in a while is expected.

If you think that probability of the existence of a god is much lower than 50% then magic would be unlekly but you would have to support your atheism with some arguments and evidence……………

 

[Subduction Zone]

I may have misunderstood it, but I understood it as being about evidence for abiogenesis.

Both creationists and those that accept that it life arose naturally will argue that at one point there was no life on Earth and that later there was. And theists do not believe that God is "alive" in a biological sense. That means that even creationists believe in some sort of "abiogenesis". One is natural the other is magical. For both life is evidence of an abiogenesis event.

 

[Pogo]

My issue with *some* atheist is that they conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abiogenesis happened through natural mechanisms …….. I don’t think the evidence that we have today supports such a radical and confident conclusion

No, we conclude that within the paradigm of methodological naturalism that science operates under we are only looking at possibilities that are amenable to study.
Undemonstrable forces and philosophical mind alternatives are of no use in this endeavour.

We are really not interested in what is in your navel.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, you don't understand methodological naturalism and how naturalism is axiomatic assumptions.

I agree that it is an assumption. It appears to be a very reasonable assumption. Perhaps you could explain methodological naturalism.

 

[Pogo]

That is false, few if any relevant steps are known………………..


Well supposing that you are an agnostic, who believes that the existence of a god is within the 50% rage……………..”magic” becomes “not very unlikely”………….I mean if God excists then magic every once in a while is expected.

If you think that probability of the existence of a god is much lower than 50% then magic would be unlekly but you would have to support your atheism with some arguments and evidence……………

No, not this one again, you cannot assign a probability with no knowledge especially when you can't even define what it is that you are trying to claim a probability for.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, we conclude that within the paradigm of methodological naturalism that science operates under we are only looking at possibilities that are amenable to study.
Undemonstrable forces and philosophical mind alternatives are of no use in this endeavour.

We are really not interested in what is in your navel.

Well, as long as you understand that that we is not universal. You are not universal and neither is anybody else including me.
In effect that in-group of we are in some people so fond of, that they consider how that we works.

But yes, natural sceince is a good, but limited tool and no, it is not an universal multi-tool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, as long as you understand that that we is not universal. You are not universal and neither is anybody else including me.
In effect that in-group of we are in some people so fond of, that they consider how that we works.

But yes, natural sceince is a good, but limited tool and no, it is not an universal multi-tool.

I do not think that anyone has ever claimed that it is the only tool. But there are problems that it can solve and abiogenesis is likely to be one of them.

Please not that those on the side of science are more apt to use conditional terminology. In fact that drives creationists nuts because they seem to want dogmatic statements from others since it seems to justify their own beliefs. They are the ones that will say "abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that it is an assumption. It appears to be a very reasonable assumption. Perhaps you could explain methodological naturalism.

The shortest version is that we define the universe as natural and treat it like that. Natural being there are no gods and all those variants or if you like that there are no mental processes in the universe as such and that the mental is limited to life that came from no life.

Edit: As @Pogo pointed out I over did it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not think that anyone has ever claimed that it is the only tool. But there are problems that it can solve and abiogenesis is likely to be one of them.

Please not that those on the side of science are more apt to use conditional terminology. In fact that drives creationists nuts because they seem to want dogmatic statements from others since it seems to justify their own beliefs. They are the ones that will say "abiogenesis is impossible.

Well, yes. But we still have those who claim that it is a fact, that the universe is natural, physical and such variants. I wish there where evidence for that, I have never found in any actual creditble text.
So I have chosen to argue against some versions of religion and some versions of science. But that is me.

 

[Pogo]

The shortest version is that we define the universe as natural and treat it like that. Natural being there are no gods and all those variants or if you like that there are no mental processes in the universe as such and that the mental is limited to life that came from no life.

overstatement, MN deals only with that which we can demonstrate and measure, it makes no claims to anything beyond that including gods or everything being a brain that we don't know because that is all it really is.