How do you detect "design"?

[Pogo]

Different. I just told you to read the book. Because it has "math" in it. Specific to the topic.

Seriously, one is on the anthropic principle, the other one is about conciousness of the human brain.
Quantum is in both of them and non-specific calculations that lead to large numbers to put some ideas in perspective, but seriously?

 

[firedragon]

Seriously, one is on the anthropic principle, the other one is about conciousness of the human brain.
Quantum is in both of them and non-specific calculations that lead to large numbers to put some ideas in perspective, but seriously?

Read it.

 

[Pogo]

Read it.

Read what, neither of them are about detecting design as you pointed out is the topic of the thread.

 

[Valjean]

Cute. Very.

I was talking about probabilities mate. Give me the probability for abiogenesis. At least. Try, If you wish to read on the absurd probabilities of abiogenesis, you could start here. "Kasting, James F., and C. G. Walker. “Limits on Oxygen Concentration in the Prebiological Atmosphere and the Rate of Abiotic Fixation of Nitrogen.” Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (1981): 1147–56."

Inasmuch as there was no life, then there was life, the probability is 100%, if I interpret your point correctly.

Of course you are not interested. You believe in magic that life simply came into being randomly. Like a rabbit out of a hat. Not by design. So that's a wish, not at least an explanation based on probability which shows the case for design.

How is chemistry magic? People have used this argument for millennia for what they attributed to God. Time after time they've had to abandon their incredulity as investigators discovered the real mechanisms behind the magic. What makes you think magic poofing by an invisible magician is responsible this time?
Why is chemistry insufficient?
Why do you believe in a magical spirit?
Why do you believe there's design? Complexity and function don't necessarily indicate intentional design or planning.
Why do you believe in a conscious Designer/creator? It seems you are the one who believes in magic.

Projection.

Anyway, what you did was make conjecture based on your bias that "there cannot be design".

No. We're saying there's no evidence of design. There are known, natural mechanisms that explain the complexity and function.

That's your predetermined bias so obviously you have to make it your fundamental assumption.

No bias. Logic. No evidence of design or designer? -- We defer belief.
We don't jump to unwarranted conclusions.

So you come up with genesis taking place randomly as your only explanation. That's not evidence mate. That's your assertion.

No. Physics and chemistry is not random. Life happened. It appears to be complex chemistry. Goddidit is an unwarranted conclusion; magic by an unevidenced being.

We've had billions of years, with billions of different chemical laboratories present at any given time, and selection operating throughout.

Provide evidence. Either through a philosophical argument or probabilistic argument based on what we know and have established through science.

See above, then google abiogenesis or chemical evolution.
Life is chemical. Chemistry happens automatically in nature.
What other mechanism do you consider feasible? Find one and science will be happy to investigate it.

So you did not provide evidence. If you don't know the difference between evidence and what you believe, that's kind of absurd really. Your faith is extreme but stating your faith and believe faith is evidence is completely out of the question.

It's not the biologists who have faith. Science follows facts.

Mate. Even biologists see design in nature. It's the field of science that takes methodological naturalism as a philosophical axiom that will keep it aside for the purpose of studying nature. That does not make it the fundamental pillar of faith in your paradigm. That's only when you do scientific study.

Biology doesn't see intentional design, it sees complexity and function. "Faith" is anathema to science. S

Science's limitations means that science can study only physical/material reality. When it is studying life forms, it is studying chemicals and it defines life in physical terms. When I talk about "life" I am talking about what animates chemicals to make them alive.

And what might that be? We've never found any evidence of such an animating spirit, What makes you think it exists?

Science's lack of evidence for "spirit" does not prove that spirit (the animating principle) does not exist unless science uses the argument from ignorance.

Science doesn't declare spirit non-existent. Science sees no evidence of it, so defers belief. It investigates what it has tangible evidence of.
You believe in something with no tangible evidence, which does not appear to be a necessary factor in the reality we see around us. So who's the irrational one?

F1fan was just attacking me for this, but the truth is that I am not attacking the scientists but am attacking atheists who seem to have faith based beliefs about "life" but attack theist for having faith based beliefs.

Atheism has no particular doctrine or beliefs about life.
Faith based beliefs are, by definition, irrational and often delusional. They are unfounded -- having little or no objective evidence. They are often fixed and impervious to contrary evidence.
Nobody need attack anyone. Just defend your position and point out any factual or logical errors in our arguments.

Put my comments in context and try to understand that whole argument instead of breaking my posts up into a 100 little bits, each out of context. I find this to be a common problem when speaking to atheists. Maybe it is not on purpose, but it happens a lot.

Your sentences contain multiple assertions and often multiple factual or logical problems. It's easier to address these individually.

There is other evidence in the world supporting a designer however but if you have gone down the road of empirical evidence only in you search for Gods then you have pretty much gone down a path where you are unlikely to find Gods who cannot be found or tested by science.

And really, scientifically it cannot be said that a designer/creator is not needed.

So what is this other evidence, and why is a conscious, intentional creator needed when there are natural explanations for the phenomena we experience?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, science cannot find or analyse spirit, but that is no reason to say that there is no spirit. It can remain out of science but science does not claim that spirit does not exist, that is what atheists claim isn't it?

No, both atheists and scientists defer belief till someone comes up with evidence. Till there's an actual reason (evidence, need) to suspect something, science just ignores it.

I don't want to prove spirit or gods with a tool (science) that can only find and test material things. Does that mean that spirit things do not exist?

No, but, inasmuch as you seem to believe in them, we're curious as to your evidence. What non-material, non-tool instilled your belief? Absent evidence, how do you choose what to believe in and what not to?

Do you believe in other non-evidenced things: unicorns? graviton pixies? If not, why not? Isn't there equal evidence -- or non-evidence?
How do you choose what to believe in and what not to?

 

[YoursTrue]

As has been pointed out you ignored some rather basic grammar.

Nope. It is kind of sad to see @We Never Know 's words twisted, almost similar to seeing the comments about Adam and Eve having eaten an apple.

 

[blü 2]

Prove abiogenesis is a fact.

You and I are here, evolved terrestrial protobionts / eukaryotans / bilaterans / vertibratans / tetrapodans / amniotans / cynodontians / vivipars / placentans / homo sapiens.

Where did the first self-reproducing cell come from? We don't know.

How did it form? We don't know that either, but it's a subject of active enquiry.

If you have an alternative hypothesis to offer, please lay it out.

But if it involves magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ please satisfactorily demonstrate the reality of magic before we go on.

Give me the data or the scientists who has proven it and I will read the theory.

All I can give you are links to various discoveries in the research into abiogenesis, and you already know where to find information about evolution, and if you don't, may I suggest you start with Wikipedia.

But please lay out your credible alternative for the origin of life (including, if you're proposing magic instead, a satisfactory demonstration of the reality of magic) . If you can do a credible job of it, you may be in line for a Nobel.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Weren't the universality and immutability of the laws of nature, in all observed cases, what gave them their designation as "laws of nature?"

Well, we are in philosophy of science as for whether there are laws of nature or if there are not, as it is cogntive models in human minds.

"law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances."

Law of nature | Logic, Philosophy & Science

Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right

www.britannica.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not a bunny. Here is a clearer image:

View attachment 92310

I see a gorilla blowing smoke. Maybe that means I'm using both sides of my brain?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove abiogenesis is a fact. Give me the data or the scientists who has proven it and I will read the theory.

You will not find. That's why you are not addressing the question. You are making conjecture it was abiogenesis because you don't want to posit it was biogenesis.

Biogenesis requires previously existing life.
Once there was no life and then there was. Fact.
So, at some point life arose where there was no previous life. Fact.

This is called abiogenesis.


The science of abiogenesis is a quest to find out the how of that event. That it (whatever "it" was) occurred, is a given.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Cute. Very.

I was talking about probabilities mate

Probabilities necessarily include calculations.

Give me the probability for abiogenesis.

1 in 1

Once there was no life and then there was.
Hence, something occurred by which FIRST life came to be.
That something is called abiogenesis.

At least. Try, If you wish to read on the absurd probabilities of abiogenesis, you could start here. "Kasting, James F., and C. G. Walker. “Limits on Oxygen Concentration in the Prebiological Atmosphere and the Rate of Abiotic Fixation of Nitrogen.” Journal of Geophysical Research 86 (1981): 1147–56."

It seems you are confusing specific abiogenesis hypothesis with the general idea.
Don't you realize that there are multiple hypothesis about how it occurred?

Again: that an abiogenesis event occurred, is a given fact. Once there wasn't and then there was. First life necessarily didn't come from previously existing life, because there was no previously existing life. The science of abiogenesis is not a quest to find out "if" it happened, because it necessarily, factually DID happen. It is instead a quest to find out HOW it happened.

Of course you are not interested. You believe in magic that life simply came into being randomly.

No. Magic is what the creationist believes in. Some creationists even literally believe that their god "spoke" things into existence. Sounds an awful lot like "abracadabra", followed by pulling a rabbit out of a head.

Like a rabbit out of a hat.

Irony.

Not by design. So that's a wish, not at least an explanation based on probability which shows the case for design.

I don't know what your level of education is on these topics, but it sounds like not a lot if you think scientific abiogenesis hypothesis are ideas that say that "poof, a bunny!".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Projection.

Anyway, what you did was make conjecture based on your bias that "there cannot be design"

He never actually once said that.

That's your predetermined bias

Who's projecting here? My irony meter has just gone nuclear again.
YOU are the one with the predetermined bias here. And it's quite obvious to everyone what that bias is. Even to yourself, if you are honest about it.

So you come up with genesis taking place randomly as your only explanation

He never once said such. That is again your strawman. Funny how you are accusing others here of all the errors that YOU are actually making.
Not a single scientific abiogenesis hypothesis speaks of "poof, a bunny" or random magical events.
Chemistry and bio-chemistry isn't random by any means. They are in fact very deterministic and subject to the rules and processes of physics.

Take the physical, chemical process of how H2O molecules form. Would you call that "random"?
Sure, there is perhaps a bit of randomness involved in terms of how atoms "meet up" and how conditions arise that allow for certain chemical reactions taking place.
But is it really "random" that 2 H atoms and an O atom form an H2O molecule under certain conditions? What's supposedly so random about that?

Provide evidence. Either through a philosophical argument or probabilistic argument based on what we know and have established through science.

Once there was no life and then there was life. So first life factually didn't come from previously existing life, since there was no previously existing life.
Therefor, abiogenesis occurred at least once.

Your faith is extreme but stating your faith and believe faith is evidence is completely out of the question.

"faith"? Does it really require "faith" to follow a simple thought like the above?
Once not X.
Then X.
Therefor at some point X came to be.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Mate. Even biologists see design in nature.

Yes, natural design.
Which is quite different from artificial design.

You understand the difference, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mate. The topic is on design.

More specifically, it's how to detect design. Artificial design. And how to distinguish it from natural design / phenomenon.

Since you care so much about being on topic, perhaps you might be interested in giving the OP question a try instead of this pissing contest you seem to insist on?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Different. I just told you to read the book. Because it has "math" in it. Specific to the topic.

This is a discussion and debate forum.
You are supposed to articulate your arguments and support them.

If your argument boils down to "go read book X", then gtfo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Would" is a subjective judgment.
Useful is always subjectively useful to somebody as per your examples.
I.e. A hammer is useful to drive a nail trough a piece of wood, if you want that result. If you don't want that, then it is not useful.

Yawn

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yawn

That is subjective also. And subjectively useful as a way of signalling that we subjectively disagree.

We are playing what is, that is sometimes objective and how that matters. How it matters is so far in recorded history subjective and not something natural science can do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is subjective also. And subjectively useful as a way of signalling that we subjectively disagree.

We are playing what is, that is sometimes objective and how that matters. How it matters is so far in recorded history subjective and not something natural science can do.

Just stop it already

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biogenesis requires previously existing life.
Once there was no life and then there was. Fact.
So, at some point life arose where there was no previous life. Fact.

This is called abiogenesis.


The science of abiogenesis is a quest to find out the how of that event. That it (whatever "it" was) occurred, is a given.

I like to draw a distinction between natural abiogenesis and magical abiogenesis. I have been pointing out that even creationists believe in some form of abiogenesis since God is not biologically alive, they will say that their god cannot die.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I like to draw a distinction between natural abiogenesis and magical abiogenesis. I have been pointing out that even creationists believe in some form of abiogenesis since God is not biologically alive, they will say that their god cannot die.

Even if their god is "alive", unless he actually gave biological birth to "first life" (although then it wouldn't be "first" life lol), it would still be an act of abiogenesis... Be it through magic or engineering or chemistry. Those "first" life forms would not have biological parents / ancestors.

 

[firedragon]

Inasmuch as there was no life, then there was life, the probability is 100%, if I interpret your point correctly.

An absurd assertion. You don't seem to understand what was said whatsoever.

The probability of randomness vs design was the question. Not if life came to exist. Honestly, that was the most nonsensical argument I have ever seen in my entire life.

No, but, inasmuch as you seem to believe in them, we're curious as to your evidence.

Yep. I believe God exists. But the discussion is not "does God exist". So that's just a red herring. If you do not understand the word "relevance", you cannot be helped.

Do you believe in other non-evidenced things: unicorns? graviton pixies?

Yeah. This is your missionary training mate. Cliche. And nope. I don't believe in all of these things. But YOU seem to believe in a non-evidenced thing. Abiogenesis. If your so called "evidence" is "empirical" and that's your epistemology, please do provide evidence for Abiogenesis and randomness.