Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

argome321 wrote:
Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter
... and how many brand new species have you created in the bio-lab in that way? (we are not talking here about the grain hybrids, copyrighted with terminator of the germs)
argome321 wrote:
... as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.
This talk is too general and too away from the topic. Do you have an example of a bio-code, charged with fully functional and hereditary genetic information on the basis of random process, or not?

You don't seem to have a clue. Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

You don't seem to have a clue.

In order to claim that life can be created out of inorganic matter you should be able to confirm the process in the bio-lab. You should have created some life from inorganic matter (by insulating the biosphere of the Earth) otherwise your claim hangs up in the air.

0 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

You don't seem to have a clue.

Actually, it appears as though nobody has a clue, Argome...not Herald, not me, not you...not anybody.

Any response to questions about the REALITY of existence other than "I really do not know what is going on here"...

...is just sharing of wild guesses.

The back and forth on this issue is farce.

Charges of cluelessness could as reasonably made to an image in a mirror.

From other stuff you have written, Argome...I recognize you realize that. You seem to be backtracking a bit here.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Actually, it appears as though nobody has a clue, Argome...not Herald, not me, not you...not anybody.

Any response to questions about the REALITY of existence other than "I really do not know what is going on here"...

...is just sharing of wild guesses.

The back and forth on this issue is farce.

Charges of cluelessness could as reasonably made to an image in a mirror.

From other stuff you have written, Argome...I recognize you realize that. You seem to be backtracking a bit here.

Are you telling me you don't have a clue as to what the difference is between abiogenesis and evolution, because that is the only thing that I am referring here?
If you notice I only posted dictionary definitions

Quote:

From other stuff you have written, Argome...I recognize you realize that. You seem to be backtracking a bit here.

This is just a blanket statement and people are just to complicated to make such a broad assumption about anyone and pigeon hole them.
If you read my statement you would know that the are varying degrees of how much we can know. I'm a believer of the Mathematical laws of probability. I also believe in some absolutes.
I believe that knowledge is a subset of belief
I believe that sophist intellectual pretense to soothe the ego does harm then it is helpful. etc etc

2 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

Are you telling me you don't have a clue as to what the difference is between abiogenesis and evolution, because that is the only thing that I am referring here?
If you notice I only posted dictionary definitions

That is not what I said, Argome.

And I am directing my comment at the entirety of the argument happening in this thread.

Think about this question:

Did life arise on this planet as the result of the action of a GOD?

There is no way to logically answer that question...no matter how you (universal "you") feel about evolution.

The ONLY way to logically assert there has been no intelligent design...is to first assert that there are no gods.

And there is no way to logically assert there are no gods.

The ONLY way to logically assert that no god had any involvement...is to first assert that there has to be a god.

And there is no way to logically assert there has to be a god...because even if personal revelation were invoked, there is no way to assure the "personal revelation" is not self-delusion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

That is not what I said, Argome.

And I am directing my comment at the entirety of the argument happening in this thread.

Think about this question:

Did life arise on this planet as the result of the action of a GOD?

Quote:

There is no way to logically answer that question...no matter how you (universal "you") feel about evolution.

The ONLY way to logically assert there has been no intelligent design...is to first assert that there are no gods.

And there is no way to logically assert there are no gods.

The ONLY way to logically assert that no god had any involvement...is to first assert that there has to be a god.

And there is no way to logically assert there has to be a god...because even if personal revelation were invoked, there is no way to assure the "personal revelation" is not self-delusion.

That's fine, but you addressed me as if I was answering the post, when in fact I was just trying to show Harold that evolution is not abiognesis. I had not attempted to answer the thread.

I was only trying to show Harold the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. It appears to me that knowing the difference has no importance to him. Which I find interesting because a little accuracy either way helps or strengthen your argument...wouldn't one think?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

If the Evolution cannot explain that - it cannot explain anything. If it is based on quicksands, as it actually is, you cannot build anything on top of that.

Under that fallacious reasoning, if you can't explain how the universe started then all your arguments against evolution are wrong. By your own reasoning, we should discount everything you say.

1 Reply

@argome321,

There’s an old joke about the elderly Israeli who used to go to the Wailing Wall every day…and pray the way orthodox Jews do…with the regalia and the swaying back and forth.

One day, a reporter who had seen him at it for years, decided to interview him…and asked, “What are you praying for?”

The old man says, “I am praying to God for peace…for understanding…for people to love each other and be tolerant. I am praying to God for Jews to be respectful of Palestinians and for Palestinians to be respectful of Jews.”

The reporters say, “And how has that been working out?”

The old man answers, “It’s like talking to a wall!”

Arguing and trying to reason with Herald…or some of the others here, Argome…is like trying to argue and reason with a wall.

That was the somewhat hidden subtext of what I was saying.

Peace! Good luck.

We are all clueless.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There’s an old joke about the elderly Israeli who used to go to the Wailing Wall every day…and pray the way orthodox Jews do…with the regalia and the swaying back and forth.

One day, a reporter who had seen him at it for years, decided to interview him…and asked, “What are you praying for?”

The old man says, “I am praying to God for peace…for understanding…for people to love each other and be tolerant. I am praying to God for Jews to be respectful of Palestinians and for Palestinians to be respectful of Jews.”

The reporters say, “And how has that been working out?”

The old man answers, “It’s like talking to a wall!”

Arguing and trying to reason with Herald…or some of the others here, Argome…is like trying to argue and reason with a wall.

That was the somewhat hidden subtext of what I was saying.

Peace! Good luck.

We are all clueless.

I understand what you are saying, but this isn't about Harold or anyone else for that matter. Nor am I trying to break through walls.

No, I don't believe we're clueless.
Nor am I beating my head against a wall. It is something quite different.

This is not about the definition of stupidity, doing something over and over hoping for a different result.

This isn't about leading a horse to water. like anyone, people can do what ever they want, react in any way the wish or don't react to what information they receive.

This is about me. I believe every act is a selfish act. So, This I know about me. So here I do have a clue.
What ever motives, compels or drives me to act... be it logic, reason or and empathy or tom foolery?
A need for reason, logic, knowledge, understanding and seeking truth etc?

and If I were to take a guess, i would say you are one who cannot be indifferent to your surroundings.Ii could be wrong. bur I doubt it.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

if you can't explain how the universe started then all your arguments against evolution are ...

... untrustworthy.
BTW this thread is about the creation (if created) of the Universe by ID or by random processes. If both me and you don't know the assumptions of the creation of the Universe - not to say that you cannot even tell whether it has been created or hasn't been always existing - both my and your arguments are 'quicksands', no matter what you may think about your 'reinforced concrete' arguments, derived on the basis of inference by analogy on inverted processes for which you cannot even tell whether they can be inverted in that way in the real world or not. The circumstance that you can proceed in Time to the Future does not suppose in any way that you can proceed in Time to the Past. You cannot invert physical processes just so - as you need them.

0 Replies

If neither of two arguments gives a 100% certainty, that does not make them equally strong arguments. How to evaluate relative strengths of arguments:

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

That was funny!

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

If neither of two arguments gives a 100% certainty, that does not make them equally strong arguments. How to evaluate relative strengths of arguments:

I have noticed that people do this a lot in arguments. Even the cosmological argument for the existence of god makes a leap. But all the argument actually validates is that a god could exist, it says nothing about what this god would be or what it's characteristics are yet people jump to the conclusion that they know what those traits are.

The human brain can validate things to true even when they are not true. This happens far more often than having the integrity to admit that you can't validate something to true therefore you need to take a rational position which is either undefined or unknown. Very few have the courage to take that up.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Indeed. What I've been trying to get across is the simple logical fact that ID has less empirical support (none, actually) than the scientific model(s), and that pointing out the incompleteness of the latter does not elevate ID to the same rank of plausibility. The only thing I know of that can strengthen the argument for ID is evidence that entails that explanation.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

It's a whole helluva lot like this:

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Indeed. What I've been trying to get across is the simple logical fact that ID has less empirical support (none, actually) than the scientific model(s), and that pointing out the incompleteness of the latter does not elevate ID to the same rank of plausibility. The only thing I know of that can strengthen the argument for ID is evidence that entails that explanation.

While I agree with you much, much, much more than with your opponents, FBM...what you fail to "point out"...or acknowledge in any way, is that the same "empirical support" you suppose exists for the scientific model...MAY BE empirical evidence for intelligent design.

You are supposing gratuitously that "evolution" and "intelligent design" are mutually exclusive. The entire of the evolutionary process may be "the intelligent way to design" where we are.

The only way to exclude the possibility of "intelligent design" is to exclude the possibility of a GOD.

That you cannot do.

There is absolutely no reason that "evolution" itself cannot be used as evidence of "intelligent design" if you are going to use it as evidence that it is not evidence of intelligent design.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

If neither of two arguments gives a 100% certainty, that does not make them equally strong arguments.

Obviously you don't understand something - the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' and the assumptions of the Universe created (if has been created) by God (if exists) are actually one and the same set of assumptions. There is no way for them to be more valid and stronger in terms of one of the options, and more invalid and weaker in terms of the other.

3 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FBM wrote:
If neither of two arguments gives a 100% certainty, that does not make them equally strong arguments.
Obviously you don't understand something - the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' and the assumptions of the Universe created (if has been created) by God (if exists) are actually one and the same set of assumptions. There is no way for them to be more valid and stronger in terms of one of the options, and more invalid and weaker in terms of the other.

Would not how one would define their god as to see if the Big bang Theory and the God belief (creator of the universe) determine the validity of each case?

1 Reply

@argome321,

It doesn't matter whether the Universe has been created by God (with the aid of an ID) or not (by stochastics of the Big Bang 'theory') - the assumptions for that are one and the same: no Time; zero-D space; Nothing being into Nowhere.
The assumptions however are different, if the Universe has always existed (as the case most probably is), in which case scenario the creation of the Universe (no matter whether by some God or by some stochastics) becomes pointless, for the Universe has always existed and it doesn't need to be created out of whatsoever.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Then why the statement above as if saying they are one and the same?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know