Total Posts:145|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A more valid analog for discussing ID

Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Every time ID is proposed, the proponent likes to compare life to objects that we know to be designed: smart phones, trucks, watches, etc. There is no question that these are designed because we have designed them. Not only that, but they are the result of design built upon design built upon design. These examples are chosen because the design is so obvious as to cause ridicule if anyone suggests otherwise. But these examples are also poor choices for the topic for those same reasons.

The most common evidence pointed to for ID is the design that is supposedly so obvious in living things. But we have yet to see anyone design a completely novel form of life, so there isn't anything to compare existing life to and say "this is something we see in designed life, we see it in existing life, therefore existing life was more likely designed than not." As such, the ID proponent's ideas about detecting design are not convincing to those of us who might disagree with the hypothesis.

So I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse. You come upon an ancient, dried up watercourse. It might have been a canal that was designed and dug by an intelligent agent. Or it might have been a river that developed through purely non-intelligent natural processes. What "hallmarks of design" would you look for in the watercourse to determine whether it was created by intelligent agents or not? Whatever your answer, what do you see in existing life that is comparable to the design indicators you're looking for in the watercourse?

I also want to say that my goal here is to find a method or an indicator that people from either side of this debate could agree on and then honestly look at what we see in life that fits that criteria.
slo1
Posts: 4,339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 3:56:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Every time ID is proposed, the proponent likes to compare life to objects that we know to be designed: smart phones, trucks, watches, etc. There is no question that these are designed because we have designed them. Not only that, but they are the result of design built upon design built upon design. These examples are chosen because the design is so obvious as to cause ridicule if anyone suggests otherwise. But these examples are also poor choices for the topic for those same reasons.

The most common evidence pointed to for ID is the design that is supposedly so obvious in living things. But we have yet to see anyone design a completely novel form of life, so there isn't anything to compare existing life to and say "this is something we see in designed life, we see it in existing life, therefore existing life was more likely designed than not." As such, the ID proponent's ideas about detecting design are not convincing to those of us who might disagree with the hypothesis.

So I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse. You come upon an ancient, dried up watercourse. It might have been a canal that was designed and dug by an intelligent agent. Or it might have been a river that developed through purely non-intelligent natural processes. What "hallmarks of design" would you look for in the watercourse to determine whether it was created by intelligent agents or not? Whatever your answer, what do you see in existing life that is comparable to the design indicators you're looking for in the watercourse?

I also want to say that my goal here is to find a method or an indicator that people from either side of this debate could agree on and then honestly look at what we see in life that fits that criteria.

There is only one possible method and that is to determine if there were a non-intelligent process which could create it. In other words, you find an alternative that disproves intelligence was required. We are just peeling back the possibility of non-intelligent process which could have begun the biochemical process that we call life.

I do like that you are including a physical system. Too often ID proponents get too bogged down with information and dna coding that they completely ignore the physical processes that are required in maintaining life. With that said a canal is probably too simplistic to be a good analog. I once used an analog of a near perfect 50 foot circle of ice in a river. There is nothing a complex as life, so they all seem to fall short.

Another thought. There is another subset of ID proponents which is never discussed. That would be the folks that believe the design is not life, but instead matter and physic of the universe. The way that elementary particles form physical things.....is there a design in that????????? how do you approach that?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2015 10:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How do we know this wasn't made by a purely chemical and/or physical processes?

http://hoopermuseum.earthsci.carleton.ca...

Ignoring the Labels how do we know this sound is not natural but made by an intelligent being?

http://m.eet.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 2:19:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse.

You don't need to, Burzmali. Scientists aren't investigating intelligence. The people proposing it aren't scientists in the first place, and can't offer the evidence that would clinch it -- like rapid terraforming, transition between species faster than could be explained by generational mutation, or abnormally high survival rates of species -- because that evidence is lacking.

So they reinterpret complexity as evidence, ignoring the fact that complexity appeared painfully slowly, with the simple stuff taking much longer to develop than the more complex stuff; and ignoring just how much extinction occurred due to unbridled competition.

There's no question on present evidence. It's not even a viable conjecture, much less a theory. And if life didn't emerge spontaneously on Earth, the next most popular theory (but much less supported) is that it emerged elsewhere, and came via seeds.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 10:52:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 2:19:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse.

You don't need to, Burzmali. Scientists aren't investigating intelligence. The people proposing it aren't scientists in the first place, and can't offer the evidence that would clinch it -- like rapid terraforming, transition between species faster than could be explained by generational mutation, or abnormally high survival rates of species -- because that evidence is lacking.

The Earth did undergo drastic climate changes.
http://www.nature.com...

But the rate of evolution isn't falsified by how fast or slow it happens. Evolution has been calculated to happen 5 times as fast as now during the cambrian explosion.
http://www.cell.com...


So they reinterpret complexity as evidence, ignoring the fact that complexity appeared painfully slowly, with the simple stuff taking much longer to develop than the more complex stuff; and ignoring just how much extinction occurred due to unbridled competition.

Science in the pursuit to explain how things "are" seem incapable of discerning when something has been constructed from natural material.


There's no question on present evidence. It's not even a viable conjecture, much less a theory. And if life didn't emerge spontaneously on Earth, the next most popular theory (but much less supported) is that it emerged elsewhere, and came via seeds.

Right because when current hypothesis to the origins of life don't pan out, Don't even consider intelligent design, just move the location to a far away environment that we can imagine anything as being possible.

The manufacturing process used by the intelligent designer will be reproduced in the speculations of scientist as environmental conditions.

just like my story about a viking sword being created by lava flows, cooling ocean water tides and comet bombardment.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2015 11:27:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 10:52:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/21/2015 2:19:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The people proposing it aren't scientists in the first place, and can't offer the evidence that would clinch it -- like rapid terraforming, transition between species faster than could be explained by generational mutation, or abnormally high survival rates of species -- because that evidence is lacking.

The Earth did undergo drastic climate changes.
http://www.nature.com...

Yes -- over geological periods. Which happens on other planets too.

But the rate of evolution isn't falsified by how fast or slow it happens.

Purposeful design would be strongly supported by rapid, monotonic terraforming for life-friendly conditions (i.e. once conditions get better for life, they don't get worse); the rapid establishment of simple life, followed by either the slower or equally-rapid establishment of more complex life (but not accelerating); the same species occupying the same niches permanently, rather than being evicted from them and driven into extinction; and species mutations being disproportionately more beneficial than chance would predict.

All of those observations could be reasonably predicted by purposeful design, and any would require biologists to consider that evolution might not have been the only or most significant force for species development.

Yet none of those observations has been found. There is not even evidence of any biologists looking for such evidence.

What we have instead is ignorant philosophers, theologians and lobbyists spouting rhetoric to people who know even less than they do. It's parochial in that it's principally in the US -- so it's hardly a global science movement -- and it's not even about the future of scientific research.

It's smoke-blowing over what should be taught in schools.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:29:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 11:27:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/21/2015 10:52:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/21/2015 2:19:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The people proposing it aren't scientists in the first place, and can't offer the evidence that would clinch it -- like rapid terraforming, transition between species faster than could be explained by generational mutation, or abnormally high survival rates of species -- because that evidence is lacking.

The Earth did undergo drastic climate changes.
http://www.nature.com...

Yes -- over geological periods. Which happens on other planets too.

Even with a concerted effort terraforming Mars to non-poisinous levels for life would take 1,000s for foundation and a few millennia to stabilize.

Some of the suggestion to begin terraforming Mars are ideas such as laser strikes and meteorite impacts.

Plus if we had the ability to create biological life, we would certainly use simple dispersable durable organisms capable of changing the environment, like yeast to dough for bread.


But the rate of evolution isn't falsified by how fast or slow it happens.

Purposeful design would be strongly supported by rapid, monotonic terraforming for life-friendly conditions (i.e. once conditions get better for life, they don't get worse); the rapid establishment of simple life, followed by either the slower or equally-rapid establishment of more complex life (but not accelerating); the same species occupying the same niches permanently, rather than being evicted from them and driven into extinction; and species mutations being disproportionately more beneficial than chance would predict.

I don't see ID and evolution at odds. I'm debating Intelligent Design on the emergence of life from abiotic material.


All of those observations could be reasonably predicted by purposeful design, and any would require biologists to consider that evolution might not have been the only or most significant force for species development.

Yet none of those observations has been found. There is not even evidence of any biologists looking for such evidence.

Why did you get rid of my last link? It showed that the rate of Evolution was 5 times faster than it is today.

This rate of Evolution must be related to the rate of mutations in an organism. And yet this is different for different groups of organisms.
http://www.genetics.org...

This rate of mutation appears to change with environmental pressures as well.
http://www.wired.com...

So Evolution is fast, slow, depending on organism, depending on environment, and yet slow and steady stays the course?


What we have instead is ignorant philosophers, theologians and lobbyists spouting rhetoric to people who know even less than they do. It's parochial in that it's principally in the US -- so it's hardly a global science movement -- and it's not even about the future of scientific research.

It's smoke-blowing over what should be taught in schools.

I'm up to accept that science can't answer this question.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 8:33:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/21/2015 2:19:10 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse.

You don't need to, Burzmali. Scientists aren't investigating intelligence. The people proposing it aren't scientists in the first place, and can't offer the evidence that would clinch it -- like rapid terraforming, transition between species faster than could be explained by generational mutation, or abnormally high survival rates of species -- because that evidence is lacking.

So they reinterpret complexity as evidence, ignoring the fact that complexity appeared painfully slowly, with the simple stuff taking much longer to develop than the more complex stuff; and ignoring just how much extinction occurred due to unbridled competition.

There's no question on present evidence. It's not even a viable conjecture, much less a theory. And if life didn't emerge spontaneously on Earth, the next most popular theory (but much less supported) is that it emerged elsewhere, and came via seeds.

Truth is not a "popularity" contest. If mere popularity is your gauge of truth, then according to studies, ID is certainly true, because more people (at least in America) believe in ID than abiogenesis or the grand claims of evolution.

I don't know whether you are being deliberately dishonest here Ruv, or if you are simply determined to remain willfully ignorant of the fact that many scientists are advancing ID, publishing peer reviewed literature from the perspective of ID, and conducting ID based research; and that the field of ID is growing: more and more scientists are embracing ID outright all the time. Others are growing more receptive. All of this is being done against and in spite of a climate of institutional oppression and censure.

Nature does not build complexity as you indicate. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not suspended for the benefit of those who wish to believe that matte is all there is. Nor is ID built upon the strawman you have put forth:

So they reinterpret complexity as evidence, ignoring the fact that complexity appeared painfully slowly, with the simple stuff taking much longer to develop than the more complex stuff

Complexity by itself is not, nor has it ever been the issue. The reality of genetic language is. The advanced engineering principles which are manifest in the molecular machinery of life is. Each of these counts as evidence. Recent evidence. In the case of the former, genetic language is either ignored by the status quo, denied by the status quo, or else it is simply assumed without a shred of evidence that purely natural processes stumbled upon genetic language. In the case of the latter - the case I believe you are alluding to - imaginative scenarios are offered to explain how these marvelously engineered molecular machines were put together by purely natural processes. But in both cases, the status quo cannot produce a single shred of evidence that purely natural processes are capable of producing bona fide language or advanced feats of engineering. When it comes to life, we are looking at the most advanced information storage and processing system we have ever encountered as well as feats of engineering that we have neither the technical nor the intellectual skills to duplicate. Indeed, we are studying these molecular machines in earnest, in the hope that we can take great steps forward in our own design capabilities.

You are on record as attempting to ridicule ID away rather than confront it for what it really is. But ID is not going away. Truth will always prevail in the end. If you are ever going to confront ID on a substantive and relevant level, you must address the strong arguments of ID, not some silly straw man version that you find easy to argue against. This is an elementary principle of logic. I saw a ray of hope when you asked me in a different forum how we would study evolution differently if ID were true, but after I responded with some crucial empirical examples, I never heard back from you. How sad.
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 8:46:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Every time ID is proposed, the proponent likes to compare life to objects that we know to be designed: smart phones, trucks, watches, etc. There is no question that these are designed because we have designed them. Not only that, but they are the result of design built upon design built upon design. These examples are chosen because the design is so obvious as to cause ridicule if anyone suggests otherwise. But these examples are also poor choices for the topic for those same reasons.

The most common evidence pointed to for ID is the design that is supposedly so obvious in living things. But we have yet to see anyone design a completely novel form of life, so there isn't anything to compare existing life to and say "this is something we see in designed life, we see it in existing life, therefore existing life was more likely designed than not." As such, the ID proponent's ideas about detecting design are not convincing to those of us who might disagree with the hypothesis.

So I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse. You come upon an ancient, dried up watercourse. It might have been a canal that was designed and dug by an intelligent agent. Or it might have been a river that developed through purely non-intelligent natural processes. What "hallmarks of design" would you look for in the watercourse to determine whether it was created by intelligent agents or not? Whatever your answer, what do you see in existing life that is comparable to the design indicators you're looking for in the watercourse?

I also want to say that my goal here is to find a method or an indicator that people from either side of this debate could agree on and then honestly look at what we see in life that fits that criteria.

The most common evidence for ID is the fact that all life is made possible by genetic language. Genetic language is the signature of design upon which ID rests. When people are ready to "honestly" acknowledge this, we will be ready for a proper debate.

Your canal example is no doubt deliberately constructed to drive home the point that there exist artifacts in the physical world for which a clear signal of nature or design does not exist. I know of no ID proponent who would disagree that this is the case. Where an ID proponent would take issue is with a claim that because some ambiguous examples exist in nature for which a clear design inference is not possible, therefore a design inference is never possible. This would be a clear case of a conclusion that does not follow from the premise; it is illogical.

It remains true on the basis of what we know intelligent agents are and are not capable of; what we know about the defining attributes of language (specifically code, syntax, and semantics), and what we know to be true about what natural processes are and are not capable of, that the origin of language can always be traced to the activity of a mind.

Like it or not, this is the signature of intelligent agency upon which ID rests.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 8:46:40 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Every time ID is proposed, the proponent likes to compare life to objects that we know to be designed: smart phones, trucks, watches, etc. There is no question that these are designed because we have designed them. Not only that, but they are the result of design built upon design built upon design. These examples are chosen because the design is so obvious as to cause ridicule if anyone suggests otherwise. But these examples are also poor choices for the topic for those same reasons.

The most common evidence pointed to for ID is the design that is supposedly so obvious in living things. But we have yet to see anyone design a completely novel form of life, so there isn't anything to compare existing life to and say "this is something we see in designed life, we see it in existing life, therefore existing life was more likely designed than not." As such, the ID proponent's ideas about detecting design are not convincing to those of us who might disagree with the hypothesis.

So I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse. You come upon an ancient, dried up watercourse. It might have been a canal that was designed and dug by an intelligent agent. Or it might have been a river that developed through purely non-intelligent natural processes. What "hallmarks of design" would you look for in the watercourse to determine whether it was created by intelligent agents or not? Whatever your answer, what do you see in existing life that is comparable to the design indicators you're looking for in the watercourse?

I also want to say that my goal here is to find a method or an indicator that people from either side of this debate could agree on and then honestly look at what we see in life that fits that criteria.

The most common evidence for ID is the fact that all life is made possible by genetic language. Genetic language is the signature of design upon which ID rests. When people are ready to "honestly" acknowledge this, we will be ready for a proper debate.

That may be your feeling about the evidence for ID, but people using watches and swords as analogies aren't talking about any kind of code.

Your canal example is no doubt deliberately constructed to drive home the point that there exist artifacts in the physical world for which a clear signal of nature or design does not exist. I know of no ID proponent who would disagree that this is the case. Where an ID proponent would take issue is with a claim that because some ambiguous examples exist in nature for which a clear design inference is not possible, therefore a design inference is never possible. This would be a clear case of a conclusion that does not follow from the premise; it is illogical.

That would indeed be illogical. Good thing no one is attempting to draw that conclusion. The point of the ambiguous example is to remove the "it's just so obvious" argument that many ID proponents find themselves stuck in. Scientists, anthropologists in particular, do frequently try to discern designed from non-designed artifacts. And they look for numerous indicators of design. ID proponents ought to be able to do the same thing with life: point to numerous, convincing markers of design.

It remains true on the basis of what we know intelligent agents are and are not capable of; what we know about the defining attributes of language (specifically code, syntax, and semantics), and what we know to be true about what natural processes are and are not capable of, that the origin of language can always be traced to the activity of a mind.

Like it or not, this is the signature of intelligent agency upon which ID rests.

And that signature leads to an infinite regression or a god. In either case, it causes ID to exit the realm of science. I'm trying to give ID folks an opportunity to show how they discern design while remaining scientific.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 12:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

Is your god alive?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 1:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.

God is not conditioned by material nature, He is not bound by the physical laws, All physical life needs a pre-existing physical life to bring it into existence. And to argue that life can exist without a pre-existing life. Is your answer for God not needing a creator.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 1:52:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

What about eternal life?

Do you accept that energy is eternal never destroyed or created? Do you accept that all "minds" are the emergent phenomena from energy and interactions?

Then why reject the idea of an eternal mind?

Oh oh because it means you have to admit God is possible and maybe even likely. So best to just espouse bare assertions and say it doesn't happen that way.

Question if we were germs on one neuron inside a human head could we look out and conclude the brain or mind we lived in? Not if we followed your reasoning.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 1:58:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 12:29:10 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
Even with a concerted effort terraforming Mars to non-poisonous levels for life would take 1,000s for foundation and a few millennia to stabilize.

Yes. But not billions of years.

Billions.

A factor of millions longer than if humans were to attempt it with conceivable technologies.

Plus if we had the ability to create biological life, we would certainly use simple dispersable durable organisms capable of changing the environment, like yeast to dough for bread.

Yes, and then if you wanted to do more, you'd have to come back again, and introduce the life you actually wanted there. And at that point, the rate of species development and the fossil record itself would begin to reflect what you'd done.

I don't see ID and evolution at odds.

Just as well, since evolution is occurring anyway, however life arose.

I'm debating Intelligent Design on the emergence of life from abiotic material.

So you're arguing that life was designed intelligently, only to evolve purposelessly?

I'm not saying that's impossible; I'm just wondering where you're going with that, because it's not Creationism.

Why did you get rid of my last link? It showed that the rate of Evolution was 5 times faster than it is today.

Rapid speciation could arise in response to the appearance of uncontested niches (e.g. because their old occupants were killed off, or due to changes in climate or food sources.) But that's around specific global events. My comment was the timeline of life's development itself (see below.)

This rate of Evolution must be related to the rate of mutations in an organism. And yet this is different for different groups of organisms.
http://www.genetics.org...

Yes, because reproduction can be different in different organisms, and some causes of mutation can be more or less likely depending on metabolism and environment.

This rate of mutation appears to change with environmental pressures as well.
http://www.wired.com...

That sounds like epigenetics: [http://www.newscientist.com...]

So Evolution is fast, slow, depending on organism, depending on environment, and yet slow and steady stays the course?

No, this has to do with architecture, design and build, so it should be familiar to you. Smart design typically builds simple, effective patterns quickly, then may take longer over the more complex or unfamiliar stuff (unless it is to a proven, over-all design, in which case the progress is steady.) However, a purposeless design only develops blindly and tactically and will run up many dead ends. So it will typically start very slow, until some revolutionarily successful step in complexity forms. Those steps will gradually get closer and closer together as successful steps combine and adapt, and meanwhile it will throw off many doomed species. So we can view it as a spiral, or an exponential complexity curve, and that's what we see in the fossil and genetic records. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

You need to ask yourself how long you think it should reasonably take to go from the point of sufficient atomospheric oxygen and prokaryotes, to eukaryotes, nematodes and the like.

Would an intelligent design require two billion years for that? Two whole billion years just to produce a nucleus inside a cell wall, or simple organs? And what about flowering plants? If you knew you were going to produce them, would you really need three billion years to go from photosynthesis to flowers? If they're part of a desired end-state at the bottom of the land food chain, why not produce them sooner? All they really need is insects and worms, and they'd help to form the food-base for whatever other species you wanted.

But no, instead you make plankton and ferns, ferns, ferns for one and a half billion years, only to replace them as an afterthought later, after mammals have appeared?

And then there's the 98% of terrestrial species now extinct. If they weren't a part of a desired end-state, why were they produced? Or if they were, why did they fail to thrive?

It's blind, Mhykiel, blind as a bat.

As a development project, terrestrial life has all the characteristics of a Mumbai outsource on missing requirements. :)
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 7:03:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 1:36:26 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.

God is not conditioned by material nature, He is not bound by the physical laws, All physical life needs a pre-existing physical life to bring it into existence. And to argue that life can exist without a pre-existing life. Is your answer for God not needing a creator.

So life wasn't created by God? Ok. Then if God doesn't exist, and life only comes from life, evolution is necesarily true. Correct?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 7:13:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 7:03:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:36:26 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.

God is not conditioned by material nature, He is not bound by the physical laws, All physical life needs a pre-existing physical life to bring it into existence. And to argue that life can exist without a pre-existing life. Is your answer for God not needing a creator.

So life wasn't created by God? Ok. Then if God doesn't exist, and life only comes from life, evolution is necesarily true. Correct?

I Never said life wasn't created from God, I also never said evolution wasn't true, Evolution doesn't tackle the origin of life on earth. Notice I said all physical life needs a pre-existing life to bring it into existence. And we have no evidence of anything otherwise. A life which is not bound by the physical laws of material nature, ie God, Is not subject to the physical laws. He does not have a material body which is subject to decay, He is an un-embodied mind, and indeed all physical life could indeed exist as such before having to become embodied into the material universe. Ever heard of transmigration of the soul?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 8:32:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 7:13:18 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:03:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:36:26 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.

God is not conditioned by material nature, He is not bound by the physical laws, All physical life needs a pre-existing physical life to bring it into existence. And to argue that life can exist without a pre-existing life. Is your answer for God not needing a creator.

So life wasn't created by God? Ok. Then if God doesn't exist, and life only comes from life, evolution is necesarily true. Correct?


I Never said life wasn't created from God, I also never said evolution wasn't true, Evolution doesn't tackle the origin of life on earth. Notice I said all physical life needs a pre-existing life to bring it into existence. And we have no evidence of anything otherwise. A life which is not bound by the physical laws of material nature, ie God, Is not subject to the physical laws. He does not have a material body which is subject to decay, He is an un-embodied mind, and indeed all physical life could indeed exist as such before having to become embodied into the material universe. Ever heard of transmigration of the soul?

By your own logic, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-physical life producing physical life, therefore physical life only comes from physical life, and thus God-driven creationism can not be true. So are you proposing something other than God created us? Like aliens?
desertdawg
Posts: 73
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 9:59:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/20/2015 2:00:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
Every time ID is proposed, the proponent likes to compare life to objects that we know to be designed: smart phones, trucks, watches, etc. There is no question that these are designed because we have designed them. Not only that, but they are the result of design built upon design built upon design. These examples are chosen because the design is so obvious as to cause ridicule if anyone suggests otherwise. But these examples are also poor choices for the topic for those same reasons.

The most common evidence pointed to for ID is the design that is supposedly so obvious in living things. But we have yet to see anyone design a completely novel form of life, so there isn't anything to compare existing life to and say "this is something we see in designed life, we see it in existing life, therefore existing life was more likely designed than not." As such, the ID proponent's ideas about detecting design are not convincing to those of us who might disagree with the hypothesis.

So I propose this challenge based on a proper analog: a dried up watercourse. You come upon an ancient, dried up watercourse. It might have been a canal that was designed and dug by an intelligent agent. Or it might have been a river that developed through purely non-intelligent natural processes. What "hallmarks of design" would you look for in the watercourse to determine whether it was created by intelligent agents or not? Whatever your answer, what do you see in existing life that is comparable to the design indicators you're looking for in the watercourse?

I also want to say that my goal here is to find a method or an indicator that people from either side of this debate could agree on and then honestly look at what we see in life that fits that criteria.

What if you were digging around in the dried up watercourse looking for evidence and you found a blueprint with detailed instructions on how to build a watercourse? Would that help solve the mystery?
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix-
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:02:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 8:32:02 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/23/2015 7:13:18 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 7:03:38 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:36:26 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 9:47:32 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

If life only comes from life, either God has a creator, or God is not "a life" and therefore didn't create life.

God is not conditioned by material nature, He is not bound by the physical laws, All physical life needs a pre-existing physical life to bring it into existence. And to argue that life can exist without a pre-existing life. Is your answer for God not needing a creator.

So life wasn't created by God? Ok. Then if God doesn't exist, and life only comes from life, evolution is necesarily true. Correct?


I Never said life wasn't created from God, I also never said evolution wasn't true, Evolution doesn't tackle the origin of life on earth. Notice I said all physical life needs a pre-existing life to bring it into existence. And we have no evidence of anything otherwise. A life which is not bound by the physical laws of material nature, ie God, Is not subject to the physical laws. He does not have a material body which is subject to decay, He is an un-embodied mind, and indeed all physical life could indeed exist as such before having to become embodied into the material universe. Ever heard of transmigration of the soul?

By your own logic, we have no evidence whatsoever of non-physical life producing physical life, therefore physical life only comes from physical life, and thus God-driven creationism can not be true. So are you proposing something other than God created us? Like aliens?

Just because we have no evidence doesn't mean it can't be true, similarly take the example of abiogenesis, we have no evidence of life being generated from non life. Thus by your very own logic, it can't be true.

We are on equal playing ground here my friend, except their are more philosophical arguments in favour of God than there are for abiogenesis.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:20:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 1:52:44 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

What about eternal life?

There's no such thing in reality. Sorry.

Do you accept that energy is eternal never destroyed or created?

No, I don't agree with your understanding of energy.

Do you accept that all "minds" are the emergent phenomena from energy and interactions?

Again, I don't agree with your silly claims.

Then why reject the idea of an eternal mind?

Because, that concept is merely intellectual psuedo nonsense.

Oh oh because it means you have to admit God is possible and maybe even likely.

No, it means you have no idea what you're talking about, as usual.

So best to just espouse bare assertions and say it doesn't happen that way.

Question if we were germs on one neuron inside a human head could we look out and conclude the brain or mind we lived in? Not if we followed your reasoning.

Sorry, you call that reasoning? LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:23:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?

Ok, if you say so. Because you have complete knowledge I'll take your word for it.

NOT
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:31:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:23:33 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?


Ok, if you say so. Because you have complete knowledge I'll take your word for it.

NOT

Acting like a child is not an answer.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:39:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:23:33 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?


Ok, if you say so. Because you have complete knowledge I'll take your word for it.

NOT

Acting like a child is not an answer.

And your response was mature was it,

Oh please.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:51:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:39:48 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:23:33 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?


Ok, if you say so. Because you have complete knowledge I'll take your word for it.

NOT

Acting like a child is not an answer.

And your response was mature was it,

Oh please.

So, the fact that I pointed out your ignorance in regards to life coming from non-life and the fact that your God is most likely a myth is immature? Obviously, you are just using that as a lame excuse not to answer questions. Oh well.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 12:57:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 12:51:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:39:48 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:31:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:23:33 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/23/2015 12:16:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:46:59 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/22/2015 1:21:49 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:16:24 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Fact: Life comes from life.

It has never been demonstrated to come from non life.

But we must kill God, so there is hope for the atheists at least, And they are forced to live in faith.

By your logic, if God is life, God did not come from non-life, so what life created God and what life created that life and so on...???

You have to stop somewhere and eventually conclude life came from non-life entirely on it's own.

Could that life be God? An uncaused cause? Maybe God just appeared out of a bolt of lightning.

You can make up all kinds of things with the word, "God" in it and it only serves to explain nothing. Maybe your God is a myth?


Ok, if you say so. Because you have complete knowledge I'll take your word for it.

NOT

Acting like a child is not an answer.

And your response was mature was it,

Oh please.

So, the fact that I pointed out your ignorance in regards to life coming from non-life and the fact that your God is most likely a myth is immature? Obviously, you are just using that as a lame excuse not to answer questions. Oh well.

You are one of the least persons I wish to interact with on this site,

Not because as you wish to think, that you are intelligent, on the contrary. I don't believe you have anything substantial to offer in regards to intellectual discussion. You only have an extremely condescending ad arrogant attitude to which I find no appeal. This site has many atheists who can hold a much higher degree of discussion than you can, and it's them I choose to interact with, someone who actually proposes a challenge and with decorum. You fail on both counts. Thus my responses to you from here on, if I respond will be with as much contempt as you dish out.

Hence why I chose to ignore you the first time. Quite simply I find you pathetic.