Not much can be written after you watch the two videos above…
It is pretty easy to understand for those who choose to understand that the theory of abiogenesis and the probability of life spontaneously self-assembling is just a science-fiction story to fill the void for those who need to believe in something other than the obvious…
If the living cell can’t be reassembled in a lab, what evidence is there that life spontaneously self-assembled other than in science-fiction stories?
Now, let’s listen to the excuses…
John Harshman,
The evidence is living organisms that we can observe like bacteria. The ” just so” stories that some espouse are not based on evidence but on conjecture.
The simple to complex story is not based on evidence but conjecture of trying force fit a materialist explanation.
By the same type of “evidence” we can assume the earth had free oxygen, horses, and was relatively cool, four billion years ago.
IOW, it’s complete bollocks.
Glen Davidson
As I’ve said, you aren’t on a first-name basis with evidence. Living organisms, all by themselves, tell us only what living organisms are like. If we want to infer something about past organisms from that, we have to do phylogenetic analysis, which of course you reject, so you’re caught in a bind there.
Now if you bothered to look any closer than just tossing out the word “bacteria”, you would find that some inferences are possible about the common ancestor of life, and even about what came before that ancestor. There are, for example, glimpses of a world in which the genetic code was simpler than it is now, in which ribozymes were much more widespread, and so on. In other words, a simpler organism. These are only hints, but they’re better than conjecture.
I’ve seldom seen anyone so confident that his ignorance is strength.
What is Intelligent Design except the purest of pure just so stories. An unknown designer did something, sometime somewhere to something.
What’s the non-materialist explanation? That the designer had to learn how to build complex things by starting with simple things? No, go on, tell me. I’m genuinely curious.
Well that settles it then! Glen said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Yet you’re the one who puts people on ignore for making you look like a fool.
OMagain,
The non-materialist explanation is that life is complex period. The phantom simpler versions are simply an attempt at a materialist explanation. Is life possible without DNA,DNA repair, a mature ribosome, RNA and mature metabolic systems that can make left handed amino acids in rapid production? The only reason to claim this is to keep open the hope of a material explanation despite any real evidence to support that hope. It is a materialism of the gaps argument.
colewd,
Interesting. Bill seems not to know what “explanation” means. This explains (in the actual meaning of the word) his behavior, but it certainly makes it much more difficult to have any meaningful discussion with him.
This is funny, coming from you. Birds can fly because they lost an ovary. Because John Harshman says so. Laughable, really.
Mung, you know as well as anyone that nobody has actually said anything like that. This really is beneath you.
That’s not an explanation, that is a claim. You know how it is with claims.
*whirr…click!*
That’s why neither Mung nor phoodoo can quote people directly, they put things they’ve made up in quotes or say it’s because someone “said so” without quoting them. All very odd when quoting someone is as simple as highlighting their text and clicking the “quote in reply” button. So easy, and yet so impossible.
Their god must be very proud.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/explanation
Care to try again?
What’s your citation count link? Then we can see who is just “saying so” and who is an anonymous commenter on a message board.
There is everything to stop that being the case. The arguments put forwards by ID do not speculate about designers, they relate to inferring design. All you need do is examine a gazelle. It is not that difficult to figure out that a gazelle eats plants. No plants, no gazelle. Gazelles are designed to eat plants, it is part of what it means to be a gazelle.
Dead easy! even a preschooler can unravel the mysteries of the universe thanks to the Grand Theory of Intelligent design!
Turds stink, it’s part of what means being a turd, turds were designed to stink. Everything can be shown to be “designed” using the CharlieM principle, isn’t ID great folks?
A vast array of insects who would disagree with you there. To them a turd is probably the equivalent of my steak and onions. You are being a bit anthropocentric there, if you don’t mind me saying so 🙂
You were clearly designed to spout inanities
You were the one who brought up the subject of turds. I was merely making, what I think was a valid observation.
Not only that. We observe turds are tapered so your butt hole doesn’t slam shut.
Conclusive proof of Intelligent Design!!
So were plants the first life?
Surely design theory can unravel this matter.
Glen Davidson
How To Do ID.
1) Find out what gazelle does.
2) Say “yeah, well, they would, wouldn’t they?”.
Well I’d think that they must have been autotrophs. And of course the autotrophs prepared the earth and allowed for the appearance of multi-cellular animal life such as gazelles and us.
You would need to ask a design theorist. But, without any foreknowledge of how it can be accomplished, it must be extremely difficult to produce life from inorganic matter because some of our most brilliant minds have been trying to achieve it for a long time without success.
Why yes, the failure of intelligence to do it must mean that intelligence has to have done it.
Much like the failure of intelligence to make hurricanes means that they must be intelligently designed.
Glen Davidson
Allan Miller,
How to do ID:
Termites are intelligent designers? And they finished the Sagrada Familia before we did? Damn
Human intelligence has failed to do it so far. That doesn’t mean that humans won’t do it in the future, does it? Or do you think that humans are incapable of creating life and will never manage it?
The inference is clearly:
1. We intelligent designers built the Sagrada Familia.
2. Termite mounds are sometimes similar to the Sagrada Familia.
3. But neither individual termites nor termite colonies are intelligent.
4. Therefore, the termites themselves must have been designed by some intelligence.
The flaws in this argument will be left as an exercise for the reader.
Oh, so Pareidolia is all you need, huh?
http://www.boredpanda.com/pareidolia-faces-everyday-objects/
No,you need numbers with lots of zeroes, too.
They impress the
rubesfaithful.Glen Davidson
Wait a minute!… the Sagrada Familia was designed by…. Gawd-dee!. OMFG! It all adds up!
LOL
(Because nothing so far has been seen to be beneath him.)
Only if it is logically possible for God to design anything.
As it happens, I think that Creation (as classical theism conceptualizes it) and design are radically different kinds of activity, and I have grave doubts as to whether it makes any sense to say that God can design.
Okay,
All excuses aside now!
Let’s do some real experimental work to prove what Darwinian or post Darwinian evolution could have done…
Let’s put the Humpty Dumpty together just as if the random processes would do it…
We’ve already have seen that DEvoLUSIONISTS will try to find any possible excuse as to why they can’t reassemble the living cell, as proven in the videos, but they sure should know how the random processes must have done it in the process of evolution that led to the formation of the first living cell…
So, please educate me, and probably many others like me, how the random processes resolved some of the paradoxes before they were able to assemble the Humpty Dumpty. Here is just one of them:
DNA is essential to build the cell membrane but without the cell membrane everything breaks down; no processes happen just like we saw the evidence of it in the videos…
When DNA and other components of the cell leak out when the cell membrane is punctured, everything stops and the cell dies…
So, how did the random processes overcome just this paradox of the interdependence of DNA and the cell membrane when they assembled the first living cell?
So… I’m all ears…
Let’s hear how random processes managed it… Believers sure have the advantage over random processes as they must know by now how this issue had to have been resolved or …let’s face it…everything they believe that must have happened after the supposed assembly of the first living cell by random processes–the evolution of more complex life–is a sham, if this paradox can’t be resolved…
So… Let’s hear it and design the experiment to replicate what dumb luck just happened…to manage…
This is one of my favourite excuses by materialists as to why human intelligence has not been able to recreate life…that random processes just happen to manage…
Now, let’s just assume that in the future human intelligence will progress and scientists will be able to recreate life…
Will this accomplishment actually prove that life can be created by random processes? Or rather, that it needs an intelligent scientist?
BTW: considering the paradoxes that the creation of life by random processes would have to solve (as I mention only one earlier) as well as the possibility that dark energy is the life sustaing power of all life on earth, it is safe to say that humans will never be able to recreate life…
Doesn’t the bible say somewhere that God is the source of life and He will not give his glory to anyone?
I think the flaw is in your reasoning on point 3. Individual termites do have intelligence, they have instinctive intelligence. And I would say that instinctive intelligence is an intelligence that is common to the group. To believe that all intelligence must be like human, individual, learned intelligence is IMO nothing but anthropocentrism.
I certainly enjoyed looking at your link, but I don’t know what you are trying to prove. Wikepedia defines pareidolia as, “a psychological phenomenon in which the mind responds to a stimulus (an image or a sound) by perceiving a familiar pattern where none exists.”
So are you saying that the termite mound is mimicking the Sagrada Familia, or that the Sagrada Familia is mimicking the termite mound? If you believe it is the former, why? Termite mounds have been around a lot longer than the Sagrada Familia.
The thing is that they are both buildings which are designed for a specific purpose, and for all we know Gaudi may have been inspired by termite mounds.
From the National Geographic
That’s one of those fascinating things I’ve learned here, thanks KN
My point is to recognize that pareidolia is a well-known human cognitive bias, and to caution everyone against making a design inferences based on superficial resemblances. Remember the “car in the desert” discussion in another thread?
When you say the termite mound is a building designed for a purpose, I must disagree. “Design” implies forethought. As sociobiologist E.O. Wilson will tell you, the termite mound is a structure that emerges from very simple repetitive behavior of individual termites, much as fractal structures emerge from very simple repetitive mathematical operations.. No forethought is needed.
Or being annoying
Is intelligence learned or is it an aptitude for learning?
Your argument doesn’t follow. Some things in nature can be produced by simple rules and some things are teleological. These are not mutually exclusive. Two examples:
1. A group of people will sometimes fight fire by forming a chain and passing water down the chain from its source to the site of the fire. The rules are so simple that robots could be trained to do it.
2. Termites are known to water their fungus gardens by passing water mouth to mouth in the same manner as example 1. Again simple rules but also teleological.
Here are extracts from a relevant piece from The National Geographic: Collective Mind in the Mound: How Do Termites Build Their Huge Structures?
J. Scott Turner has been studying termites for over quarter of a century. “A termite mound is like a living thing,” says Turner, “dynamic and constantly maintained.”
Kirsten Peterson also from Harvard had this to say:
These are people who are directly involved in studying termite behaviour and they disagree with your simplistic explanation.
Do you think those people would agree with you?
We use our intelligence to learn. Instinctive intelligence is that which has been learned by the group as a whole. Individual intelligence is learning on a personal level. There is a path in evolution from totally instinctive group intelligence such as that displayed by bacteria and individual learned intelligence such as that displayed by the higher animals. An individual octopus can be taught to do things that you could never teach a slug or a bivalve to do.
That termite behaviour is not down to just simple mathematical rules, yes. That it is more accurate to think of a termite colony as an individual organism, yes.
No, as in your more general position regarding etheric force etc that presumably underlies the overall behaviour of termites.
i would hope that we all agree on the facts. Its up to each of us to determine how these facts confirm or oppose our worldview. I would not agree with anyone just because they voiced an opinion and I would hope that this is reciprocated.
Our worldviews can be changed, facts cannot. They do not depend on our beliefs.
I’ll take that as ‘no’ then.