Intelligent Design???

[Dan From Smithville]

What is reasonable ? It appears that there are only two options regarding the creation of life, and everything else. Either the big bang was the result of an unknown and unknowable natural process, or it was created by an intelligently guided process. Either life was created from non life, by some unknown natural process, or it was created by an intelligent agent.


To someone who would be purely objective, with no biases, unfamiliar with science or theology ( an unfindable person) both options would be absurd.

So I guess you pick your absurdity, based upon the perspective through which you have decided you will select.

The conclusion establishing reasonableness is up to the person deciding, you cannot choose for me or vice versa

My proposed evidence that you say hasn´t been shown to be a hindrance to abiogenesisis is totally incorrect.

You haven refuted by evidence what I have posted, you simply say it has been refuted, not the same thing at all, and I have barely begun

Your evidence is that we do not know and claims about amino acid polymerization that doesn't appear to be a real issue and only covers one or a few of the hypotheses proposed. You talk as if it were the only nail needed in the coffin and it does not appear to be a nail and certainly not the only one.

 

[shmogie]

That's not unusual. It took scientists centuries to figure out the orbits of the planets too....but eventually they did.


And who is that exactly?


So your position is that unless something is absolutely proven, then any and all alternatives are equally viable?

No, that isn´t my position. To scientifically state something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did, is dogmatic faith. Especially with the counter evidence.

From the perspective of reason and logic, both alternatives are equally viable.

 

[shmogie]

Your evidence is that we do not know and claims about amino acid polymerization that doesn't appear to be a real issue and only covers one or a few of the hypotheses proposed. You talk as if it were the only nail needed in the coffin and it does not appear to be a nail and certainly not the only one.

Have you read the thread ? Amino acid polymers are not life, they are not RNA, they are not chains of encoded DNA.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you read the thread ? Amino acid polymers are not life, they are not RNA, they are not chains of encoded DNA.

I have read the thread, but I was addressing what you posted and that was about amino acid polymerization and how it could not happen in water and therefore, abiogenesis was refuted. Except it does not demonstrate that abiogenesis could not happen.

I thought this was something you said you spent years studying. What exactly did you study? It does not appear to be anything about abiogenesis that I am familiar with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that isn´t my position. To scientifically state something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did, is dogmatic faith. Especially with the counter evidence.

From the perspective of reason and logic, both alternatives are equally viable.

People that accept evolution do so due to literally mountains of evidence. The evidence is lacking for creationism.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that isn´t my position. To scientifically state something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did, is dogmatic faith. Especially with the counter evidence.

From the perspective of reason and logic, both alternatives are equally viable.

But to view the origin of life from a scientific position, supernatural causes cannot be considered, since there is no evidence for their consideration. There is nothing to test. That is not dogma. That is common sense. I cannot consider giant, invisible, purple, ping pong balls that roam the countryside as the cause of life, because I cannot demonstrate they exist.

You have offered no counter evidence. You have offered quotes that boil down to "we do not know", which is our current position and not a shocking surprise or a deep, dark secret.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that isn´t my position. To scientifically state something had to have happened, with little evidence that it did, is dogmatic faith. Especially with the counter evidence.

From the perspective of reason and logic, both alternatives are equally viable.

The evidence that is available in science is the evidence that life once did not exist on this planet and then it did exist. What we end up with are lots of questions and a small, but growing body of evidence that is not conclusive of anything, but forms the only basis for scientific investigation. What is life? What is the most basic living thing that can form? What conditions are required for life to form? Why do we not see it forming today? What can we learn from current conditions and current life that could help us discover? What is the role of chemistry and chemical evolution? There are many more questions.

Should we just go with your logic and conclude that something that no one can demonstrate is the cause or should we use actual logic and try to answer the questions? You cannot even support with any confidence that the natural processes are not the creative means of God, because you cannot veer from your dogma in any reasonable way.

Where is your logic in claiming "we do not know" means your belief shares equal weight with reasoned and logical hypotheses, valid questions and the evidence we do have?

 

[osgart]

Even if abiogenesis becomes an absolute fact, and a mastered science there will still be the issue of intelligence in nature. And those that consider it will always wonder.

I dont see how the consideration of intelligence impedes science from always focusing on unguided natural law causes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if abiogenesis becomes an absolute fact, and a mastered science there will still be the issue of intelligence in nature. And those that consider it will always wonder.

I dont see how the consideration of intelligence impedes science from always focusing on unguided natural law causes.

There may be "intelligence" in nature , but it is up to the believers in it to provide evidence for their beliefs.

So far it is lacking.

 

[shmogie]

The evidence that is available in science is the evidence that life once did not exist on this planet and then it did exist. What we end up with are lots of questions and a small, but growing body of evidence that is not conclusive of anything, but forms the only basis for scientific investigation. What is life? What is the most basic living thing that can form? What conditions are required for life to form? Why do we not see it forming today? What can we learn from current conditions and current life that could help us discover? What is the role of chemistry and chemical evolution? There are many more questions.

Should we just go with your logic and conclude that something that no one can demonstrate is the cause or should we use actual logic and try to answer the questions? You cannot even support with any confidence that the natural processes are not the creative means of God, because you cannot veer from your dogma in any reasonable way.

Where is your logic in claiming "we do not know" means your belief shares equal weight with reasoned and logical hypotheses, valid questions and the evidence we do have?

You cover a lot of ground. Lets be focused, the evidence for abiogenesis is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of very limited chemical reactions and interactions conducted in laboratories.

I think that science should always follow where it wants go.

You make a lot of assumptions, based upon my posting evidence. Refute the evidence, not what I believe.

Hypotheses are ideas with little or no evidence.

Logic is a discipline that determines if a proposition is sound, not true, but sound.

Is the proposition of abiogenesis sound ? No, therefore it is not logical, yet.

I can demonstrate what I believe, just not within the framework acceptable to most scientists.

There are other frameworks for determining truth

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cover a lot of ground. Lets be focused, the evidence for abiogenesis is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of very limited chemical reactions and interactions conducted in laboratories.

Sorry, still evidence for abiogenesis. Evidence for the hypothesis is evidence for the event.

I think that science should always follow where it wants go.

No, that is the sin of the creationists. Real scientists follow the evidence.

You make a lot of assumptions, based upon my posting evidence. Refute the evidence, not what I believe.

Did you post any evidence? I only saw unsupported opinions.

Hypotheses are ideas with little or no evidence.

Ummm . . . no.

Logic is a discipline that determines if a proposition is sound, not true, but sound.

Is the proposition of abiogenesis sound ? No, therefore it is not logical, yet.

Why is it not sound? You need a lot more than ignorance and "because I said so" for that statement to fly.

I can demonstrate what I believe, just not within the framework acceptable to most scientists.

There are other frameworks for determining truth

Not really. You only appear to have arguments that show how little you know about the subject. Articles and links have been provided for you and I have not seen any discussion by you on those articles. Denial is not refutation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You cover a lot of ground. Lets be focused, the evidence for abiogenesis is not evidence of abiogenesis, it is evidence of very limited chemical reactions and interactions conducted in laboratories.

It is evidence that you have not shown cannot be considered in hypothesizing about abiogenesis.

I think that science should always follow where it wants go.

Science should follow the evidence.

You make a lot of assumptions, based upon my posting evidence. Refute the evidence, not what I believe.

I am not assuming anything. I am following your claims and what you presented and I have refuted it.

Hypotheses are ideas with little or no evidence.

That is the point. If they were supported by huge bodies of evidence, then you would not need an hypothesis. You would have a theory.

Logic is a discipline that determines if a proposition is sound, not true, but sound.

Your propositions are not sound. Not knowing something does not mean that a specific claim is now valid or that a valid claim is rejected. That is what you did.

Is the proposition of abiogenesis sound ? No, therefore it is not logical, yet.

What is not sound about it? You are just making claims. You have not shown there is no logical reason to discard it. You are making assertions and then declaring that your assertions mean something without demonstrating that meaning. There is a reason that scientists are studying abiogenesis and not Cornish pixies as the source of life. There is a logic in looking at natural causes for what we see.

I can demonstrate what I believe, just not within the framework acceptable to most scientists.

Classic cop out. If you could demonstrate it, you would not have to just believe it.

There are other frameworks for determining truth

You are not using those here either and since your previous claims did not mention some previously undeclared framework, I think this is just you flopping around hoping to hit water.

 

[shmogie]

It is evidence that you have not shown cannot be considered in hypothesizing about abiogenesis.

Science should follow the evidence.

I am not assuming anything. I am following your claims and what you presented and I have refuted it.

That is the point. If they were supported by huge bodies of evidence, then you would not need an hypothesis. You would have a theory.

Your propositions are not sound. Not knowing something does not mean that a specific claim is now valid or that a valid claim is rejected. That is what you did.

What is not sound about it? You are just making claims. You have not shown there is no logical reason to discard it. You are making assertions and then declaring that your assertions mean something without demonstrating that meaning. There is a reason that scientists are studying abiogenesis and not Cornish pixies as the source of life. There is a logic in looking at natural causes for what we see.

Classic cop out. If you could demonstrate it, you would not have to just believe it.

You are not using those here either and since your previous claims did not mention some previously undeclared framework, I think this is just you flopping around hoping to hit water.

LOL, you have refuted NONE of the evidence I have posted that shows the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis.
Take the major one, complex, coded instruction for the operation of an organism that does not exist. How does that work ? How can a precursor organism obtain these complex codes, and the ability to read then utilize them, if no like organism has passed them on as a result of reproduction ? Did they leech out of the rocks into the alleged primordial sea and arrange themselves in long chains of information bits that are in the perfect order to be read by the precursor organism, that somehow has the ability to read them . Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Refute that

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, you have refuted NONE of the evidence I have posted that shows the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis.
Take the major one, complex, coded instruction for the operation of an organism that does not exist. How does that work ? How can a precursor organism obtain these complex codes, and the ability to read then utilize them, if no like organism has passed them on as a result of reproduction ? Did they leech out of the rocks into the alleged primordial sea and arrange themselves in long chains of information bits that are in the perfect order to be read by the precursor organism, that somehow has the ability to read them . Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Refute that

I did not refute the quotes you provided. I refuted your claim that abiogenesis is not possible based on those quotes.

How can an organism that does not exist have complex, coded instructions? You tell me how that works. I cannot wait to here that.

You are just asking the same type of questions and then claiming that not knowing means that abiogenesis cannot have happened.

Did what leech out of rocks?

You're just throwing anything against the wall and hoping something will stick.

I just did. Again.

 

[Dell]

Natural selection has brought us to Intelligent design. From this point on our species will decide and design edited humans. Rare now, but acceptance in the future will speed development and exposure... will it be better or worse remains to be seen.

So yes there is an argument for Intelligent design except we are the designer. 10,000 years from now we might see ourselves as the "creators" of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you have refuted NONE of the evidence I have posted that shows the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis.
Take the major one, complex, coded instruction for the operation of an organism that does not exist. How does that work ? How can a precursor organism obtain these complex codes, and the ability to read then utilize them, if no like organism has passed them on as a result of reproduction ? Did they leech out of the rocks into the alleged primordial sea and arrange themselves in long chains of information bits that are in the perfect order to be read by the precursor organism, that somehow has the ability to read them . Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Refute that

It appears taht @shmogie may have me on ignore. It is really a pity that he did not read the articles on evidence. He would have realized that unsolved problems are not evidence. They are merely problems. Perhaps they will be solved and perhaps they won't be. Here he is relying on the undefined term "information". And improperly using the word "code". It appears that he is attempting to form an equivocation fallacy.

As to this problem it too is close to being solved. One thing that has been found for some of the needed elements for life is that genes are not needed for some of the necessary reactions This article goes over how simple compounds can drive some the needed reactions. Early life appears to have had a bit of "metabolism first":

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL, you have refuted NONE of the evidence I have posted that shows the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis.

You have not posted any evidence. Personal assertions as what you believe cannot happen is not evidence. I have presented peer reviewed scientific articles that do present evidence as to how abiogenesis took place, and you have presented nothing but personal opinions..

Take the major one, complex, coded instruction for the operation of an organism that does not exist. How does that work ? How can a precursor organism obtain these complex codes, and the ability to read then utilize them, if no like organism has passed them on as a result of reproduction ? Did they leech out of the rocks into the alleged primordial sea and arrange themselves in long chains of information bits that are in the perfect order to be read by the precursor organism, that somehow has the ability to read them . Which came first, the chicken or the egg ?

Refute that

Arguing from supposed ignorance' is a fallacy and not evidence. Still waiting for a scientific reference and not an opinion with a religious agenda.

 

[BilliardsBall]

On the contrary, it is constrained so if something is possible it is more likely than a 'random search'. THAT is the whole point.

We *know* life is possible. We *know* life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. So we *know* that natural constraints do not make life impossible. And *that* means that those constraints make the development of life much more likely than a simple random search (monkeys on a keyboard).

Then perhaps you would explain how scientists cannot replicate 1/100,000th of what is required for abiogenesis, via controlled experiments in chemistry, fractals, etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that science should always follow where it wants go.

Not a good idea. Scientists should always follow the objective verifiable evidence to falsify hypothesis, and not where they want to go.

You make a lot of assumptions, based upon my posting evidence. Refute the evidence, not what I believe.

You have not cited any evidence, and only negative assertions as to what you believe based on a religious agenda

Hypotheses are ideas with little or no evidence.

Hypothesis do not represent evidence in and of themselves. If hypothesis are supported by objective verifiable evidence, than they may be falsified as true.

Is the proposition of abiogenesis sound ? No, therefore it is not logical, yet.

Abiogenesis is not a logical proposition.

I can demonstrate what I believe, just not within the framework acceptable to most scientists.

This is the problem with your argument, personal anecdotal claims and assertions do not represent evidence, as defined in the English language, and not for the perspective of science.

Contradiction, above you stated it was not what you believe, and here you describe it as 'What you believe.'

There are other frameworks for determining truth

Actually no. The many diverse and conflicting theological/philosophical frameworks based on personal, anecdotal and subjective claims, and not based on objective verifiable evidence, do not determine truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then perhaps you would explain how scientists cannot replicate 1/100,000th of what is required for abiogenesis, via controlled experiments in chemistry, fractals, etc.

You still have not explain the assertion of 1/100,000th. This is not what is required for abiogenesis to take place, because the shotest possible chain of RNA or DNA has not been determined for abiogenesis to begin to take place. You have refused to read and understand the peer reviewed literature, and make the typical Creationist assertions that things have to happen instantaneously, and not over millions of years as the evidence indicates through natural processes.