Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[leroy]

Chemical reactions are natural processes whether it be inorganic or organic.

Understanding how biological molecules and compound works in cells, will help scientists to figure out what probabilities that such possible of how occurrence could happen - the change from inorganic to organic.

It is not magic, and it doesn’t require imaginary being like this modern mythological Designer that you are so insistent in bringing up, that don’t exist except through unsubstantiated conjectures.

That all ID followers do, make whole bunch of conjectures about Designer without once provide a single piece of evidence of its existence.

How is this Designer any better than Genesis myth of the Creator or fairytale of fairies and pixies? All of these are unfalsifiable, including the ID myth.

So if Designer unfalsifiable then so is Intelligent Design.

Ok, but my question is how is “nature did it” falsifiable?............what experiment, observation, discovery etc. would falsify (or make you doubt) your “nature did it” claim?

Understanding how biological molecules and compound works in cells, will help scientists to figure out what probabilities that such possible of how occurrence could happen - the change from inorganic to organic.

Understanding how biological molecules and compound works in cells, will help scientists to figure out what probabilities that such possible of how occurrence could happen - the change from inorganic to organic.

The change from inorganic to organic is not the issue, the issue is the change between “non self replicating” to “self replicating”

It is not magic, and it doesn’t require imaginary being like this modern mythological Designer that you are so insistent in bringing up, that don’t exist except through unsubstantiated conjectures.

Granted, you don’t need “magic” all you need is to organize the building blocks in the correct order and pattern. pretty much like making a very complex puzzle.

We know that intelligent designers can solve puzzles

We know that the existence of a designer that predates life is at least possible

Based on what we know chemistry doesn’t have any bias towards organizing the building blocks in the correct order.

So why is Design soooo hard to accept as a reasonable possibility?........please spot your specific point of disagreement

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Really and what kind of resoult in experiments would falsify abiogenesis? What kind of resoult (data) would you need to see in order to conclude Inteligent design?

Intelligent Design is not a verifiable scientific hypothesis, it is a metaphysical model of the Cosmos.

What is the point of quoting my question if you are not going to answer it?.............Al I am asking is what would falsify (or make you doubt) the “nature did it claim?”

 

[gnostic]

We know that intelligent designers can solve puzzles

YOU ARE STILL MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES ABOUT THE DESIGNER!!!

How on Earth would you know designers are good with puzzles?

You are making things up. Is that all you can do?

You are making up stories about the amazing abilities about designer(s), but not once have you or anyone who do believe in Intelligent Design ever presented a single evidence of these designers’ existence.

You are making positive assumptions about Intelligent Design, as do all followers of ID, therefore it up to you present evidence for the existence of the Designer. You cannot shift burden of proof to me about Designer nonexistent, but you with Designer existence.

You are not being honest here, not only with me, but with yourself.

 

[leroy]

YOU ARE STILL MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES ABOUT THE DESIGNER!!!.

How on Earth would you know designers are good with puzzles?

Based on what evidence?

You are making things up. Is that all you can do?

You are making up stories about the amazing abilities about designer(s), but not once have you or anyone who do believe in Intelligent Design ever presented a single evidence of these designers’ existence.

You are not being honest here, not only with me, but with yourself.

Again, all I am saying is that the existence of a designer (Alien or God) that predates life in planet (capable of solving puzzles) is possible………….would you agree with this statement? Or would you affirm that the existence of such a being is impossible, (or very, very improbable)

If we go to another planet and find “solved puzzles” you would naturally conclude (or atleast consider the possibility) that an Alien solved the puzzles. You wouldn’t say something stupid like:

"
YOU ARE STILL MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES ABOUT THE ALIENS!!.

How on Earth would you know ALIENS are good with puzzles?

Based on what evidence?"

 

[gnostic]

Again, all I am saying is that the existence of a designer (Alien or God) that predates life in planet (capable of solving puzzles) is possible………….would you agree with this statement? Or would you affirm that the existence of such a being is impossible, (or very, very improbable)

If we go to another planet and find “solved puzzles” you would naturally conclude (or atleast consider the possibility) that an Alien solved the puzzles. You wouldn’t say something stupid like:

"
YOU ARE STILL MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONJECTURES ABOUT THE ALIENS!!.

How on Earth would you know ALIENS are good with puzzles?

Based on what evidence?"

I don’t deny the possibilities or probabilities of aliens existing anywhere, but we are not talking about some other planets, because it is irrelevant how life got started here on Earth.

Why do you keep making up scenarios that haven’t happened, but you want me to affirm or agree with it?

Without evidence of aliens being here, and without evidence of aliens designing life on Earth, I don’t have to affirm or agree with anything that you have fabricated about ID.

So unless you can present evidence that aliens were here, you are again making up things without evidence.

This is why Intelligent Design is nothing but another religion with no basis in reality...this reality, where nature exist, without gods and aliens.

Nothing are true by default, unless there are observable and verifiable evidence.

You are still making positive claims...so where are your evidence, Leroy? Or are you just going to invent another fable?

 

[leroy]

I don’t deny the possibilities or probabilities of aliens existing anywhere, but we are not talking about some other planets, because it is irrelevant how life got started here on Earth.

Why do you keep making up scenarios that haven’t happened, but you want me to affirm or agree with it?

Without evidence of aliens being here, and without evidence of aliens designing life on Earth, I don’t have to affirm or agree with anything that you have fabricated about ID.

So unless you can present evidence that aliens were here, you are again making up things without evidence.

This is why Intelligent Design is nothing but another religion with no basis in reality...this reality, where nature exist, without gods and aliens.

Nothing are true by default, unless there are observable and verifiable evidence.

You are still making positive claims...so where are your evidence, Leroy? Or are you just going to invent another fable?

Again...

My only assumption is that the existance of an intelligent designer (alien or God) capable of creating life is at least possible.

Do you grant this assumption yes or no?

If No, then explain why is it impossible( or very very unlikely) for such a being to exist

If Yes then i can move on, and develop the argument for ID

 

[gnostic]

Again...

My only assumption is that the existance of an intelligent designer (alien or God) capable of creating life is at least possible.

Do you grant this assumption yes or no?

If No, then explain why is it impossible( or very very unlikely) for such a being to exist

If Yes then i can move on, and develop the argument for ID

You make assumptions and believe in whatever you like, and you can have personal opinions all you like, because that’s your choice.

But you are responding to my posts, asking for what I think on the matter of “Intelligent Design”, and I have repeatedly made it quite clear to you that without evidence of existence of this DESIGNER being responsible for life on Earth - whether that Designer be your Genesis “Creator” or some advanced “aliens” - then Intelligent Design and your personal belief in ID are merely unsubstantiated and unsupported pseudoscience claims.

That you this think these aliens could be the Designers, only demonstrated to me that you have been reading or watching too many sci-fi, thinking these stories are real.

You do understand that “fi” in sci-fi, means “fiction”, don’t you?

You have jumped from believing in God being the creator of this Earth’s life to now ID being identified as aliens, tells me that you distinguish between with reality and wishful fantasies.

 

[leroy]

You make assumptions and believe in whatever you like, and you can have personal opinions all you like, because that’s your choice.

But you are responding to my posts, asking for what I think on the matter of “Intelligent Design”, and I have repeatedly made it quite clear to you that without evidence of existence of this DESIGNER being responsible for life on Earth - whether that Designer be your Genesis “Creator” or some advanced “aliens” - then Intelligent Design and your personal belief in ID are merely unsubstantiated and unsupported pseudoscience claims.

That you this think these aliens could be the Designers, only demonstrated to me that you have been reading or watching too many sci-fi, thinking these stories are real.

You do understand that “fi” in sci-fi, means “fiction”, don’t you?

You have jumped from believing in God being the creator of this Earth’s life to now ID being identified as aliens, tells me that you distinguish between with reality and wishful fantasies.

And i am willing to present my evidence....

But at this point I simply what to spot our points of disagreement

So i ask again...

Is the existance of a designer (Alien or God) posdible...... Or is it impossible (or very unlikely)? Whats your view on that?



Btw

It seems to me that you are saying that i cant propose "X" as the cause of Y unless i show a priori that X exists........ Is this a fare representation of your view?

 

[gnostic]

It seems to me that you are saying that i cant propose "X" as the cause of Y unless i show a priori that X exists........ Is this a fare representation of your view?

Not this again.

I can’t take this example seriously, because it is overly simplistic example to the point of absurdity.

And second, you are still misunderstanding what “a priori” mean, which again make your example looks absurd.

Look up what “a priori” actually means, Leroy, because you are mis-using the term, a term that you clearly don’t understand.

 

[leroy]

Not this again.

I can’t take this example seriously, because it is overly simplistic example to the point of absurdity.

And second, you are still misunderstanding what “a priori” mean, which again make your example looks absurd.

Look up what “a priori” actually means, Leroy, because you are mis-using the term, a term that you clearly don’t understand.

Your attempts to avoid a direct answer are pathetic...... If that statement doesn't reprent your view, then correct me and explain where did i misunderstood you.


Obviously we both know why you whant to avoid direct answers

 

[MNoBody]

Lovecraft has an eloquent way with wyrds.

 

[gnostic]

Your attempts to avoid a direct answer are pathetic...... If that statement doesn't reprent your view, then correct me and explain where did i misunderstood you.


Obviously we both know why you whant to avoid direct answers

Try looking up "a priori", because it has nothing to do with the way you use in the sentence:

It seems to me that you are saying that i cant propose "X" as the cause of Y unless i show a priori that X exists........ Is this a fare representation of your view?

Here is a clue, Leroy:

If you really have evidence to "show" to me as to x being the cause for y, then that isn't "a priori".​

You are misunderstanding and misusing a priori in your scenario.

I have tried to telling this in older thread, and told to look it up, but it is clear to me you didn't look up a priori, so you are repeating your mistakes.

Are you incapable of learning from your mistake, leroy?

 

[leroy]

Try looking up "a priori", because it has nothing to do with the way you use in the sentence:



Here is a clue, Leroy:

If you really have evidence to "show" to me as to x being the cause for y, then that isn't "a priori".​

You are misunderstanding and misusing a priori in your scenario.

I have tried to telling this in older thread, and told to look it up, but it is clear to me you didn't look up a priori, so you are repeating your mistakes.

Are you incapable of learning from your mistake, leroy?

The fact that you are recurring to semantics simply show how desperate you are.

Just change the word show for" know" in the sentence and make anyother grammar corrections that you find necesary and answer to my 2 questions

1under your view is the existance of an inteligence that predates life in this planet possible or would you afirm that it is impossible (or very very unlikely)?

2 are you arguing that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y i have to show that X exists.before proposing ... Is this a valid representation of your view?

Just kidding, i dont expect any direct answer from you

 

[gnostic]

The fact that you are recurring to semantics simply show how desperate you are.

Just change the word show for" know" in the sentence and make anyother grammar corrections that you find necesary and answer to my 2 questions

1under your view is the existance of an inteligence that predates life in this planet possible or would you afirm that it is impossible (or very very unlikely)?

2 are you arguing that in order to stablish that X is the cause of Y i have to show that X exists.before proposing ... Is this a valid representation of your view?

Just kidding, i dont expect any direct answer from you

So you are not going to bother to understand what a priori mean, and just keeping the same mistakes over and over again?

I have already answer your question about aliens. There are no evidence that aliens have ever been in this planet, LET ALONE STARTED LIFE ON THIS PLANET.

Mind you, I don't deny that there could be life in other planets. This galaxy and other galaxies in the universe, has too many planets, not to have life.

So I think there is high probability that life could exist in other planets, except there we currently have no evidence so far, so I don't see any point on speculating life in other planets, let alone those life came here from another to start life here.

What I find absurd that you would bring up aliens being responsible for life on Earth. Like I said you before you are treating your speculation as fact, when it is nothing more than wishful fantasies.

 

[leroy]

So you are not going to bother to understand what a priori mean, and just keeping the same mistakes over and over again?

Sure i am aware of my grammatical mistake, I should have used the word "know" instead of "show" or perhaps i should have used the word "before" instead of a priori......but The fact that you are avoiding an answer and would rather play semantics is very telling.

So will you ever answer my question? Are you aserting that one cant propose X as the cause of Y unless the existance of X is shiwn to be true? Is that your view?

I have already answer your question about aliens. There are no evidence that aliens have ever been in this planet, LET ALONE STARTED LIFE ON THIS PLANET.

Thanks for the data, but that was not my question. I didnt ask if there is evidence for Aliens

My quiestion is: is the existance of a designer that predates life capable of creating life possible or impossible,? what is your view

What I find absurd that you would bring up aliens being responsible for life on Earth. Like I said you before you are treating your speculation as fact, when it is nothing more than wishful fantasies.

Again at this point i am only interested in finding points of disagreement so that i can focuse and elaborate my argument for ID accordingly.


So i would argue that the existance of an inteligent designer that predates life in this planet is possible

So is this a point if disagreement? Would you afirm that it is impossible (or highly unlikely?)

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for the data, but that was not my question. I didnt ask if there is evidence for Aliens

My quiestion is: is the existance of a designer that predates life capable of creating life possible or impossible,? what is your view

Do you have reading comprehension, Leroy?

I gave you my answers in all my responses to yours, regarding to Intelligent Design, no evidence of Designer mean that it is highly improbable...

How many times must I say it before you get this in your head?

I preferred to deal with facts, and facts required evidence that can verify what are known.

If you want to believe in fairytales and pseudoscience of Intelligent Design then that’s your personal choice.

And you have made quite clear that you have no interested in evidence. That ignorance is again, your personal choice.

As to your x causing y to exist, is example of silly question that serve no purpose, because they can have no definite answers. I refused to play this silly game.

 

[leroy]

Do you have reading comprehension, Leroy?

I gave you my answers in all my responses to yours, regarding to Intelligent Design, no evidence of Designer mean that it is highly improbable...

How many times must I say it before you get this in your head?

I preferred to deal with facts, and facts required evidence that can verify what are known.

If you want to believe in fairytales and pseudoscience of Intelligent Design then that’s your personal choice.

And you have made quite clear that you have no interested in evidence. That ignorance is again, your personal choice.

As to your x causing y to exist, is example of silly question that serve no purpose, because they can have no definite answers. I refused to play this silly game.

Do you have reading comprehension, Leroy?

I gave you my answers in all my responses to yours, regarding to Intelligent Design, no evidence of Designer mean that it is highly improbable...

How many times must I say it before you get this in your head?

I preferred to deal with facts, and facts required evidence that can verify what are known.

If you want to believe in fairytales and pseudoscience of Intelligent Design then that’s your personal choice.

And you have made quite clear that you have no interested in evidence. That ignorance is again, your personal choice.

As to your x causing y to exist, is example of silly question that serve no purpose, because they can have no definite answers. I refused to play this silly game.

So are you aserting that the existance of an inteligent designer (alien or God) is highly improbable?

 

[gnostic]

So are you aserting that the existance of an inteligent designer (alien or God) is highly improbable?

Pay attention, Leroy, I am saying that they are highly improbable as being responsible for creating life on Earth.

You are forgetting that it isn’t just about their existence in question. It is about the origin of life...and about life on Earth.

All you have are just unsubstantiated claims.

Second, I don’t deny there could be life on other planets, but there are no evidence to support them travelling here from other planets, just to create life on Earth.

You still don’t get it, Intelligent Design isn’t science, because like the Genesis creation, ID is nothing more than just making unsupported being(s) creating life on Earth.

The oldest evidence that we have here, are microfossils of single-cell organisms - bacteria - and they existed billions of years before the first animals and before the first plant life.

Those are evidence, not your make-believe god or your make-believe space-travelling aliens.

Why do you keep insisting that I accept something that never happened and that don’t exist? It is your fairytale (I’m referring to Intelligent Design), not mine.

 

[Brian2]

Not this again.

I can’t take this example seriously, because it is overly simplistic example to the point of absurdity.

And second, you are still misunderstanding what “a priori” mean, which again make your example looks absurd.

Look up what “a priori” actually means, Leroy, because you are mis-using the term, a term that you clearly don’t understand.

Whatever 'a priori' means is not my point, however I do notice in science that things are proposed, and no doubt believed by many, which have not been shown to exist.

 

[Brian2]

If you want to believe in fairytales and pseudoscience of Intelligent Design then that’s your personal choice.

How does 'intelligent design' fall into the category of pseudo science. I thought that was the science of young earth creationists which is supposed to do that.
Is it the postulating of a designer which makes it pseudo science?