• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

leroy

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

So you would argue that the existsnce of a non human intelligence with the ability to create life is possible (and not very improbable)

But the claim "and they traveled to earth and create life in this planet" is improbable...... Is this a valid representation of your view?




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.

It is not a silly game, it seems to me that you reject the claim "life was caused by an intelligent designer" on the basis that the existance of a designer has not been proved. I simply what to know if you hold this view or if i misunderstood you.


So in order to considere the hypothesis X as the cause Y one most show that X is real...... Does this represent your view?


All you have are just unsubstantiated claims.

I am not making any claims at this point..... I am simply asking questions to understand your view and your arguments
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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?
I would also like an answer and a justification to the question
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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.
Of course scientists proposed “things”, Brian2.

It is called MODEL, which contain “proposed” explanations as to
  1. WHAT these things are
  2. and HOW they work.
And if such proposals are falsifiable, then they will test each proposed premises/explanations, to see if it true/probable or false/improbable. Both are valid outcomes.

These tests are observations, and they obtain either by discovering evidence or by experimentation.

As I said before, the outcome for these tests could be true or false, and both are valid.

If the evidence are against the model, then we would know the model is wrong, debunked, in which case, we can throw the refuted model away.

But if the evidence supported the model, scientists will test the model some more, before we have independent scientists to review and analyze the model, plus the evidence and data (Peer Review).

Should the peers find no errors or biased in the data with the model, then there is chance this model or hypothesis could be accepted as scientific theory.

You are forgetting that any proposed model must be tested, before any of them can be accepted as science.

There are some models that have been called theories, but they aren’t scientific theories, because they haven’t been tested, yet, for examples, Superstring Theory, M-theory.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
So you would argue that the existsnce of a non human intelligence with the ability to create life is possible (and not very improbable)

I only said there could be life in other planets.

What I didn’t say is they created life here, on Earth.

Intelligent Design is a BS fantasy, whether this Designer be god or aliens,

But the claim "and they traveled to earth and create life in this planet" is improbable...... Is this a valid representation of your view?

Same answer as above.

Why must you keep asking the same questions again and again and again and bloody again, when I have already answered them.

No evidence that aliens being here, and no evidence to support aliens creating life, hence Intelligent Design isn’t science, but another religion based on woo and irrational fantasies.

How many times must I say it? NO EVIDENCE for Designer means Intelligent Design is pseudoscience.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It is not a silly game, it seems to me that you reject the claim "life was caused by an intelligent designer" on the basis that the existance of a designer has not been proved. I simply what to know if you hold this view or if i misunderstood you.


So in order to considere the hypothesis X as the cause Y one most show that X is real...... Does this represent your view?

No, Leroy, that’s not a hypothesis.

A hypothesis required explanation, which this x-and-y-game isn’t.

That just you making irrational assumptions with x and y, which served no purpose at all.

I cannot give you answer to something as absurd as this game of illogical rationality.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I


Why must you keep asking the same questions again and again and again and bloody again, when I have already answered them.

Because you haven't answer to the questions, you are avoiding direct answers.... And we both know why
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="gnostic, post: 6819532, member: 4958" @gnostic
I cannot give you answer to something as absurd as this game of illogical rationality.[/QUOTE]
You cant give ne a direct answer because you know you have no way out


If you answer YES you would have to drop a big portion of science because there are many cases in which scientis claim a cause even if they dont show that the cause is real before

If you answer NO then you would have to drop a big portion of your arguments against design

So you would rather play silly word games and avoid direct answers

...
So i would afirm that atleast sometimes one can establish that X is the best explanation for Y even if you dont have prior evidence for the existance of X..... Do we agree on tbis point?

Prediction I wont get a simple and direvt answer
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I
How many times must I say it? NO EVIDENCE for Designer means Intelligent Design is pseudoscience.
There is no evidence for chemical reactions creating life from none life ether...... So should we call "nature did it" pseudoscience?

There is no evidence that a primodial soup ever existed....so.... . Pseudoscience?

There is no evidence that the furt living things where simpler than modern microbes....... So pseudoscience?


Why dont you simply admit that your definition of pseudoscience is "anything that has theological implications that you dont like"?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
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?
It is pseudoscience because the ID’s premises about the Designer is unfalsifiable and untestable.

There are zero evidence for Designer:
  • No evidence FOR the Designer.
  • No evidence AGAINST the Designer.
When such unfalsifiable model like Intelligent Design are still being advocated by believers of ID, then it categorized as being “pseudoscience”.

Yes, Young Earth Creationism is pseudoscience, but so is Intelligent Design.

But Intelligent Design is also creationism.

Intelligent Design was and continued to be popularized by organisation called Discovery Institute (DI), led by Phillip E Johnson (founder of Intelligent Design) with Stephen Meyer.

Johnson have no background, qualification and experience in science. He was former law professor. Meyer was a geologist for petroleum industry, not a biologist, biochemist or paleontologist.

The cofounders Of Discovery Institute Bruce Chapman and George Gilder are not scientists. Chapman was former journalist and politician, while Gilder is a former journalist and economist.

They are all creationists at Discovery Institute, which is nothing more than propaganda maker of Intelligent Design.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It is pseudoscience because the ID’s premises about the Designer is unfalsifiable and untestable.

Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed


What is "untestable" and "un falsifiable" about this claim? All you have tp do is show that any of the premises is wrong

Would you agree that this argument is atleast in principle testsble and falsifiable?.......
 

gnostic

The Lost One
There is no evidence for chemical reactions creating life from none life ether...... So should we call "nature did it" pseudoscience?

Abiogenesis isn’t scientific theory, but it is falsifiable hypothesis with more evidence than Intelligent Design.

And with Abiogenesis it doesn’t say non-life created life.

You don’t understand this, but the premise of Abiogenesis is that the chain reaction can cause inorganic matters can convert to biological matters, such as amino acids (the building block of proteins), adenine (nucleobase is a component of nucleic acids, like for DNA) and carbohydrates (eg which are not only provide chemical energy to life, but they also play role in metabolism and carry genetic information in ribose and deoxyribose sugars of nucleic acids).
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed


What is "untestable" and "un falsifiable" about this claim? All you have tp do is show that any of the premises is wrong

Would you agree that this argument is atleast in principle testsble and falsifiable?.......
You are forgetting that the most factor in Intelligent Design is the Designer, in which there are no evidence for its existence. Hence, the Designer itself is unfalsifiable.

Without such evidence in regarding to the Designer, the whole Intelligent Design falls apart.

Using your silly analogy, if x is the Designer, is supposed to be cause of y (life), then there needs to evidence for x (Designer), otherwise x is nothing more than figment of your imagination, like fairies or goblins.

You still don’t understand the concepts and requirements of falsifiability and evidence.

Or you do is make up stupid game of x and y, which explain nothing, prove nothing and test nothing, because the Designer is just nothing more than a deluded fantasy.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Abiogenesis isn’t scientific theory, but it is falsifiable hypothesis with more evidence than Intelligent Design.

And with Abiogenesis it doesn’t say non-life created life.

You don’t understand this, but the premise of Abiogenesis is that the chain reaction can cause inorganic matters can convert to biological matters, such as amino acids (the building block of proteins), adenine (nucleobase is a component of nucleic acids, like for DNA) and carbohydrates (eg which are not only provide chemical energy to life, but they also play role in metabolism and carry genetic information in ribose and deoxyribose sugars of nucleic acids).


Then your definition of pseudoscience is wrong agree?

no EVIDENCE for Designer means Intelligent Design is pseudoscience.

No evidence doesn't mean pseudoscience agree?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Using your silly analogy, if x is the Designer, is supposed to be cause of y (life), then there needs to evidence for x (Designer), otherwise x is nothing more than figment of your imagination, like fairies or goblins.

I disagree with the part in red

For example there is no evidence for dark matter (X) but we can still establish with a good degree of confidence that dark matter is the cause of the additional gravitational force (Y)
 
Last edited:

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
I only said there could be life in other planets.

What I didn’t say is they created life here, on Earth.

Intelligent Design is a BS fantasy, whether this Designer be god or aliens,



Same answer as above.

Why must you keep asking the same questions again and again and again and bloody again, when I have already answered them.

No evidence that aliens being here, and no evidence to support aliens creating life, hence Intelligent Design isn’t science, but another religion based on woo and irrational fantasies.

How many times must I say it? NO EVIDENCE for Designer means Intelligent Design is pseudoscience.
umm...you are the evidence....quit being dense
 

night912

Well-Known Member
Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed


What is "untestable" and "un falsifiable" about this claim? All you have tp do is show that any of the premises is wrong

Would you agree that this argument is atleast in principle testsble and falsifiable?.......
What is Specified Complexity(SC)?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
What is Specified Complexity(SC)?
It is more of Intelligent Design pseudoscience craps from Discovery Institute, inventing term and concept that really have nothing to do with biology.

The problems are the ID creationists frequent love to use analogies instead of formulating testable model of life’s origin, by comparing life with something that have absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Intelligent Design creationists lacked logic, analytical skills and imagination, because all the Discovery Institute members can do is continually recycled the faulty and unscientific Watchermaker Analogy.

The premise is that nature is far to complex for natural processes to work, so it must be “designed”, and what is “designed” must have designer behind this.

That’s their twisted version of cause-and-effect, never mind, no idiots from Discovery Institute could every produce working testable model that demonstrated the existence of their imaginary Designer. They just continued use more faulty analogies.

Michael Behe did this with his Irreducible Complexity (IC), where he used analogy of “designed” machines, which he compared these machines to either biological systems or to biological components.

He qualified biochemist, and yet Behe is so incompetent that he cannot work with biological matters or with organisms, that he would resort to using machine analogy. Why can’t Behe use cells, genes and so on, to explain how biological matters work?

The term, Specified Complexity, is just more of same similar idiocy as Behe’s IC, but this one was coined by William Dembski.

Like Behe, instead of explaining the complexity of biological matters and life in term of biological mechanisms, Dembski instead used the complexity of Shakespeare’s sonnets as comparison.

It is quite clear that all ID creationists from Discovery Institute think alike, because they cannot explain life in term of biological mechanisms, so they used analogies on subjects that have nothing to do with biology or the origin of life.

I am not surprise that Leroy would use Dembski‘s pseudoscience SC, because he is apparently afraid to discuss biology by actually discussing biology.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
honor your mother it is said
form is the mother
form is not some quiescent beast of burden ...some mindless, soul-less existential life-form factory
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
0
What is Specified Complexity(SC)?


Something has the attribute of SC IF:

1 It is complex: Has many parts, many units etc

2 Has a pattern: A function, a meaning, etc.

3 There are many possible combinations allowed by the laws of nature but only one or few combinations would produce the pattern.

4 There is not a bias is the laws of nature, favoring that pattern

It must have all 4 in order to consider it SC

For example a book

1 Is complex because it has many letters

2 Has a pattern, the letters form meaningful words and sentences.

3 There are many possible combinations in which ink can exist but only few would produce letters and meaningful words and letters

4 There is not a bias in the laws of nature that forces ink and paper to produce letters, let alone meaningful words and sentences (if you have ink + the laws of nature, you won’t get a book with meaningful words and sentences.)


Any question releted to the concept of SC?

I am a very patient person, if you have any honest questions or concerns with the definition I would be happy to clarify


@gnostic
@gnostic
It is more of Intelligent Design pseudoscience craps from Discovery Institute, inventing term and concept that really have nothing to do with biology.

And what is wrong with “inventing terms” all terms where invented at some point by someone


The problems are the ID creationists frequent love to use analogies instead of formulating testable model of life’s origin, by comparing life with something that have absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Analogies are used to explain the concept in a clear way, such that everybody can understand….why is that wrong?
It is quite clear that all ID creationists from Discovery Institute think alike, because they cannot explain life in term of biological mechanisms, so they used analogies on subjects that have nothing to do with biology or the origin of life.
They are simply testing their method in thing that are known to be designed and thigns that are known not be designed……. To see if the method works…….why is this wrong? What is unscientific about this?
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
There is no evidence for chemical reactions creating life from none life ether...... So should we call "nature did it" pseudoscience?

There is no evidence that a primodial soup ever existed....so.... . Pseudoscience?

There is no evidence that the furt living things where simpler than modern microbes....... So pseudoscience?


Why dont you simply admit that your definition of pseudoscience is "anything that has theological implications that you dont like"?
Pseudoscience is incompatible with the scientific method. Theories about simple life and chemical reactions are compatible with science.

We know that building blocks existed and new pieces of the puzzle are being found.
Two recent findings are below. We also have evidence of very simple life evolving into more complicated life. Evidence of some supernatural being who shows up and does anything at all is completely anecdotal. The is no version of any god that cannot be demonstrated to be mythology. We do have evidence for that. We have evidence that all god stories were pieced together from older stories and zero evidence of any god existing.
So there is no evidence for any being to even start life. But we have evidence of life becoming more complex and of chemicals being around on Earth. We also have evidence of life.

It's the same with dark matter. We know there is a problem with gravity. We already know particles exist and some are incredible weakly interacting. So science investigated to see if the particle idea had any merit. At first the term "dark matter" was a placeholder that just meant "a problem with gravity measurements". Neil D. Tyson said it could have been called "Fred". Now there is a bit more evidence for the particle dark matter but it's still not certain.
Had someone said that the gravitational anomalies were because God was doing it this would be a pseudoscience theory.

There are no theological implications in science. In historicity they are also absent. They only exist in theology where scholars start with the assumption that whatever scripture they are studying is actually divine.

"In 2015, a team of researchers showed it was possible to synthesize RNA precursors with hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, and ultraviolet light. That would all have been readily available on Earth at the time. "
Scientists Find Chemical Reaction That May Have Spawned Life on Earth - ExtremeTech


"have uncovered new evidence of abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from non-living chemical matter. Their study, published Thursday in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, suggests that a single ancient gene may have used each of its opposite DNA strands to code for different chemical catalysts. Those separate catalysts would have both activated amino acids, which then formed proteins – essential to the production of living cells."
How can life emerge from nonliving matter? UNC scientists find new evidence.
 
Top