RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (666) < ... 328 329 330 331 332 [333] 334 335 336 337 338 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,09:20   

I, on the other hand, am a denier of global electron depletion.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,09:25   

Daniel Smith:

Quote

I've already refuted this once - all it takes to empirically falsify the "God theory" is to show how one complex biological system originated naturally.  Of course, you conveniently don't remember that.  

So, what are we left with then?  We have a choice between a theory that explains everything and can be easily falsified, or one that explains nothing and cannot be falsified.

I vote for the former.


In previous outings, we've established that Daniel Smith was ignorant of science and the history of science. Now, Daniel insists on the trifecta, showing conclusively that he is without clue when it comes to the philosophy of science, too.

Daniel shares this particular mistake with high-profile company; both Michael Behe and William Dembski have said similar tosh in the past.

Falsifiability isn't a statement about the capabilities of another theory. It is, instead, a statement about what must be true if your theory is true. If that turns out to be false, then your theory is falsified. If not, then your theory has survived a falsifying test.

Daniel, read a book. I'd suggest this one for starters.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,11:12   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 07 2008,14:59)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 07 2008,13:29)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2008,22:52)
So.... what you're saying is... it looks like someone designed it, so therefore God designed it.

It's all complicated-like, and you can't understand how it evolved, so it didn't evolve.

Bravo.

Please, don't quit your day job at the garage.

You're close, I've corrected it for you:                          
Quote
So.... what you're saying is... it looks like someone with unlimited intelligence designed it, so therefore God designed it.

It's all complicated-like, and you can't  no one can  understand how it evolved, so it didn't evolve.

Funny, I don't recall you making a single successful argument for your Designer With Unlimited Intelligence.

Show me one argument you've made that doesn't boil down to this.

From that article:  
Quote
However, in some cases (such as that which the noted author Irving Copi describes below) where affirmative evidence could reasonably be expected to be found, but following careful unbiased examination, this evidence has still not been found, then it might become expedient, and sometimes even prudent, to infer that this might suggest (though it does not prove, deductively, it suggests inductively) that the evidence does not exist.
 
Quote
Irving Copi writes that:

The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.
He adds,

A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)


My argument is not one from personal incredulity, but rather one based on a lack of expected evidence.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,11:16   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2008,15:47)
No one's mentioned any specific systems? Really?

Do I really have to laboriously type out several libraries worth of information...?

No Louis, you don't.  Try just focusing on one system for which you feel science has found a decent answer as to its natural origin.  Let's look at that one system in detail.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,11:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,11:12)
My argument is not one from personal incredulity, but rather one based on a lack of expected evidence.

Daniel, the expectation of essentially a video-taped account of events that occurred in the deep past is solely your expectation. There is plenty of evidence that is consistent with the contention that organisms evolved, and that their metabolic pathways evolved with them. Unfortunately it does not correspond to the blow-by-blow account that you seem to require for the evolutionary explanation, while simultaneously blowing off any requests for any evidence that supports your mechanism-free think-poof notions.

The expected evidence is there aplenty. The straw-man version of this evidence, not so much.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,11:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,11:16)
.  Try just focusing on one system for which you feel science has found a decent answer as to its natural origin.  Let's look at that one system in detail.

How far back do you want to trace the origin of "a system"?

All the way back to OOL?

Set a starting point and perhaps you might get an answer. Perhaps.....

You might also get an answer if you go first....

Oh, I forgot, no chance of that is there?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,12:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,17:16)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2008,15:47)
No one's mentioned any specific systems? Really?

Do I really have to laboriously type out several libraries worth of information...?

No Louis, you don't.  Try just focusing on one system for which you feel science has found a decent answer as to its natural origin.  Let's look at that one system in detail.

One system involves libraries. Consilience, Danny, you cannot simply handwave it away.

I think you need to define what you mean by "system" and "origin" (for starters). If I talk about, for example, how simple autocatalytic reactions increase chemical complexity and you want to talk about, for example, speciation, we're going to miss each other.

I'd suggest, again, that you spend some serious time on your own investigating the subjects relevant to your interest as opposed to what appears to be your current direction of effort i.e. internet evangelism.

I know you won't like this, but to be blunt, if you had a better idea of what you were talking about, it would be worth my while discussing the subject with you. As it stands however.....

Appeals to your various favourites of prejudice, persecution, ignorance, incredulity etc butter no parsnips. Neither will pointing to lacunae we can both agree exist.

Louis

P.S. You do realise btw that the scientific case is nothing like "it cannot be god" but far more "I have no need of that hypothesis".

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,12:08   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2008,17:20)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,11:16)
.  Try just focusing on one system for which you feel science has found a decent answer as to its natural origin.  Let's look at that one system in detail.

How far back do you want to trace the origin of "a system"?

All the way back to OOL?

Set a starting point and perhaps you might get an answer. Perhaps.....

You might also get an answer if you go first....

Oh, I forgot, no chance of that is there?

This is actually a very good point. We can describe the probable "path" of a particle from picoseconds post big-bang to the proteinaceous pablum planted on the pinky that picks Danny's proboscis, all the time acknowledging the varying degrees of certainty and accuracy with which this can be accomplished. However, when dealing with the terminally dumb and religiously blinded the inevitable "But it could still be magic pixies!" demonstrates the pointlessness of the exercise.

Hence why I've asked Danny to define his terms. He seems to be under the illusion that a "system" exists in isolation.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,12:39   

Here's a system for your lying lips Daniel



here's where it came from



go ask yer mommy what it all means.  and haul those goal posts over to the origin of the eternal regress while you are it, pernicious troll.

Quote
We can describe the probable "path" of a particle from picoseconds post big-bang to the proteinaceous pablum planted on the pinky that picks Danny's proboscis


Perfect, partner!  don't forget piddling pustules on his pretty purple pee pee!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,13:21   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 08 2008,11:08)
Hence why I've asked Danny to define his terms. He seems to be under the illusion that a "system" exists in isolation.

Louis

Yeah, it does seem like the development of a new system would have to be accompanied by changes in the existing systems with which it interacts.

Henry

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,16:10   

Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,16:37   

Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 08 2008,17:10)
Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

Plus he had to invent plates.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,16:45   

And filing cabinets for what doesn't fit on the plate - like that one in "Bruce Almighty".

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,16:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2008,16:37)
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 08 2008,17:10)
Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

Plus he had to invent plates.

Hydroplates, no less.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,16:54   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 08 2008,22:48)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2008,16:37)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 08 2008,17:10)
Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

Plus he had to invent plates.

Hydroplates, no less.

Are those the things you put on the bottom of boats to make them very fast?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,17:00   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 08 2008,17:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 08 2008,22:48)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2008,16:37)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 08 2008,17:10)
Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

Plus he had to invent plates.

Hydroplates, no less.

Are those the things you put on the bottom of boats to make them very fast?

Louis

Those would be fountains of the deep. They rock.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,17:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2008,23:00)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 08 2008,17:54)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Dec. 08 2008,22:48)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 08 2008,16:37)
   
Quote (mitschlag @ Dec. 08 2008,17:10)
Holy cow, it sure gets complicated.  That God guy has a lot on his plate.

Plus he had to invent plates.

Hydroplates, no less.

Are those the things you put on the bottom of boats to make them very fast?

Louis

Those would be fountains of the deep. They rock.

I understand that they are also super hot.

That probably explains how the Egyptians had enough people to build the pyramids.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,18:38   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 08 2008,07:25)
Daniel Smith:

               
Quote

I've already refuted this once - all it takes to empirically falsify the "God theory" is to show how one complex biological system originated naturally.  Of course, you conveniently don't remember that.  

So, what are we left with then?  We have a choice between a theory that explains everything and can be easily falsified, or one that explains nothing and cannot be falsified.

I vote for the former.


In previous outings, we've established that Daniel Smith was ignorant of science and the history of science. Now, Daniel insists on the trifecta, showing conclusively that he is without clue when it comes to the philosophy of science, too.

Daniel shares this particular mistake with high-profile company; both Michael Behe and William Dembski have said similar tosh in the past.

Falsifiability isn't a statement about the capabilities of another theory. It is, instead, a statement about what must be true if your theory is true. If that turns out to be false, then your theory is falsified. If not, then your theory has survived a falsifying test.

Daniel, read a book. I'd suggest this one for starters.

I don't get how you don't get what I'm saying.  I gave the falsification test for my claim - not for "another theory".  My claim has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  It is not dependent upon it in any way.  If there were no theory of evolution, my claim - and its falsification test - would still stand.  There is no time in history where someone could not have made my claim and given the same falsification test for it.  I don't get how you think these two things are tied together.  

The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by an intelligence far beyond our comprehension - can be easily falsified: all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not "an intelligence far beyond our comprehension") could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.  

As you can see, since my claim is that life requires an intelligence far above ours, it actually includes intelligences on our level as well.  So, if humans manage to build a living organism that can survive and breed in the wild, (from the ground up, and without just copying what God has already done), my claim will also be falsified.

So Wesley, "what must be true if my claim is true" is that only God can make life, and the test is whether or not life could be built by some other means (i.e. nature or human intelligence).  The fact that my falsification test could have implications for the theory of evolution is incidental.

It's my claim that will be falsified here.  I already know that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified.  Why would I waste my time worrying about falsification of that theory?

I predict now that you will ignore most of what I've said here Wesley.  Tell me, is the test for that prediction also somehow tied to the theory of evolution?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1036
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,18:55   

By an amazing coincidence the current edition of Evolution deals with the origin and evolution of complex systems. The entire issue is also open access so feel free to download to your hearts content...

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,18:56   

It's like trying to discuss cubism with a slug.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,19:00   

Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 08 2008,16:56)
It's like trying to discuss cubism with a slug.

Or sluggishness with a cube.

OK, I'll get back to work then.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,19:19   

Daniel,

You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture. You don't even have a falsifying test for your conjecture. Saying that if something "originated naturally" then your conjecture is false is not a falsifying test. Period. ("Originated naturally" corresponds to an alternative theory in that statement, Daniel.)

 
Quote

The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by an intelligence far beyond our comprehension - can be easily falsified: all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not "an intelligence far beyond our comprehension") could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.  

[...]

So Wesley, "what must be true if my claim is true" is that only God can make life, and the test is whether or not life could be built by some other means (i.e. nature or human intelligence).


This is not something that bloviation will help you with. An actual falsifying test would be something that could be tested on any arbitrarily chosen example as something that we could tell was true if your conjecture were true. You have proposed no such property to look for.

Read a book. Start with the one I linked.

 
Quote

I already know that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified.


Wrong yet again. Evolutionary science has had plenty of falsifying tests of its content. Various theories have been falsified and are no longer on the table. Others have survived their falsifying tests. Again, ignorance is not knowledge, Daniel.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,19:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,18:38)
. . . all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not "an intelligence far beyond our comprehension") could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.
 
A problem is that, no matter what you are shown, you will claim that it is not in enough detail. That is one reason why Louis and others are asking you to define exactly what you mean by a 'living thing' and a 'system'. The goalposts need to be embedded in concrete before people will put much more effort into answering you.
 
Quote
I already know that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified.

It could be falsified. How is it that you have been arguing here for over a year and have still not learned this basic fact?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,20:02   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 08 2008,17:49)
 
Quote
I already know that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified.

It could be falsified. How is it that you have been arguing here for over a year and have still not learned this basic fact?

My guess is that he came here to argue against evolution and not to acquire any knowledge.

In other words, when he first got here he already had all the knowledge he thought he needed and has chosen to stay at that spot.

We've seen this before.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,20:48   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Dec. 09 2008,03:49)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,18:38)
. . . all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not "an intelligence far beyond our comprehension") could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.
 
A problem is that, no matter what you are shown, you will claim that it is not in enough detail. That is one reason why Louis and others are asking you to define exactly what you mean by a 'living thing' and a 'system'. The goalposts need to be embedded in concrete before people will put much more effort into answering you.
   
Quote
I already know that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified.

It could be falsified. How is it that you have been arguing here for over a year and have still not learned this basic fact?

Precisely.

He is trying to sell us "The Anti-Correspondence Theory of Truth"
™ k.e..

Like every other Fundie on the planet he has a language problem.

He is singing a eulogy, heaping praise onto the dead.



Perhaps Daniel you could tell us which is more useful a ouija board or a test tube.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,21:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 08 2008,19:38)
The claim I am making...can be easily falsified: all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not "an intelligence far beyond our comprehension") could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.

This is such a strange construction. It is strange first because Daniel thinks that his theory could be "easily" falsified. All we need do is solve one of the great unsolved scientific questions of our time, and perhaps many decades or even centuries to come: the origins of life on earth. Easypeasy puddin'n'pie.  

Moreover, as Daniel previously acknowledged, his "falsifying test," taken on its own bizarre terms, is not complete until the end of history has arrived and no such natural pathway has been found.

Which leads to a question: Daniel, why are you claiming, in a context of scientific justification, the correctness of your theory prior the completion of the only test you specify for your theory? Isn't that a bit premature?

BTW, Daniel, I have a scientific theory of my own you may be interested in. I argue that the known universe is invisibly scaffolded not by the atheistic postulates of relativity and quantum physics, but rather by a heretofore undetected subatomic slurry of emulsified ear wax and ground pencil erasers embedded in a matrix of pubic hair and navel lint. This matrix has one very special property: it is incompatible with quantum gravity. Why? It just is.

Lest you protest that my theory is not scientific because it generates no empirical predictions, adds nothing to current physical theory and offers no justification of its primary postulates, I say it is, because it is easily falsifiable: A completed theory of quantum gravity falsifies my theory. And because it is falsifiable, my theory is scientific, and deserves to take its place next to relativity and quantum mechanics as a valid, competing description of the physical world.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,21:16   

Quote
The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by the Hypnotoad - can be easily falsified: all you have to do is show how natural forces (or something that is not the Hypnotoad) could have built a living thing or one of life's systems and you've falsified my claim.


There. A competing hypothesis that is every bit as feasible as Daniel's.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,21:45   

Quote
The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by an intelligence far beyond our comprehension - can be easily falsified:


All that claim says is that there are going to be unanswered questions.

Of course there are going to be unanswered questions - that's inevitable regardless of what model is correct. So a claim that doesn't say anything but that is useless.

Besides, "natural processes cannot produce life" does not logically follow from "life was engineered" - engineers are quite capable of doing things that might also happen without them.

And thirdly, inability of knowable mechanisms to produce life doesn't necessarily imply "life was engineered", even if there were actually some way to verify that inability. All that would do is produce a permanent "I don't know" condition.

Henry

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,22:38   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2008,05:45)
 
Quote
The claim I am making - that life and its systems are so intricately organized they could not have been built by natural forces, but had to be built by an intelligence far beyond our comprehension - can be easily falsified:


All that claim says is that there are going to be unanswered questions.

Of course there are going to be unanswered questions - that's inevitable regardless of what model is correct. So a claim that doesn't say anything but that is useless.

Besides, "natural processes cannot produce life" does not logically follow from "life was engineered" - engineers are quite capable of doing things that might also happen without them.

And thirdly, inability of knowable mechanisms to produce life doesn't necessarily imply "life was engineered", even if there were actually some way to verify that inability. All that would do is produce a permanent "I don't know" condition.

Henry

god of the gaps is directly equivalent to we do not yet know and that gap diminishes by the minute.

Paley and his stupid watchmaker analogy.


What will future purveyors of "I do not yet know" bring.

g$d was a femto-techonologist?

edited once the drugs for clarity kicked in

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2008,23:09   

Daniel

you realize that by denying the natural forces (sperm and egg) that create the life that is that sweet little ol baby girl up there you are denying that she is a natural living thing and hence the dirty little secret at the bottom of your ontological commitments.

nasty little thing this human exceptionalism is.

nasty thing your denial of the fruit of your epistemology is.

the best you can hope for is to redefine "living thing" such that living thing = supernatural thing.

then all you can win reap the eternal regress of what is more supernatural than a living god... haha

all living things are supernatural?  o.k..  nothing alive is not supernatural??  sure.  well how about all that stuff that we can explain without duh sooper sooper nacharral?  can we go ahead and admit yet daniel that you don't have a clue about all that and don't care anyway?

for daniel "living thing" = "supernatural".  it's just a definition that has his purty pink panties in a wad.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
  19967 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (666) < ... 328 329 330 331 332 [333] 334 335 336 337 338 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]