(a) No, it does not. (b) What does this have to do with the argument from ignorance?Passerbye said:The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
(a) No, it does not. (b) What does this have to do with the argument from ignorance?Passerbye said:The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music.
One foolishness at a time. You've had more than your fair share.kidnic said:I see no one has responded to my post #234, ...
Nah, like I said before, I'm not talking about proving that God created anything, I'm talking about evidence for Intelligent Design. There you go again putting words in my mouth.Tawn said:Agreed. It would make sense, but it would go no way towards proving it.
...
So even if you could prove (which again you cannot) that DNA cannot be produced without intelligence, I would have to ask - how much intelligence is required to make DNA? If humans can make it, very little one would assume (in comparison to God)... so it is therefore entirely feasible for an alien race to have created it. Or maybe even a retarded space faring creature with some intellect but not a lot. Disproof of non-intelligent DNA creation does not prove God.
Just because you choose to not answer me? What arrogance... :biglaugh:Deut. 32.8 said:One foolishness at a time. You've had more than your fair share.
Actually the statement wasnt postulated with a level of certainty..Passerbye said:The statement "Mozart composed music" states that without a shadow of a doubt Mozart composed music. This cannot be since you stated:
Agree upto this pointIf it is imposible then the only way to come to a positive conclution is to look at the data and see what best fits. I see that the Bible best fits. You see that evolution best fits.
Actually because science is willing to accept the possibility that it could be wrong it lends itself to being more open to the truth.I see that the Bible stays the same and yet has not been proven wrong. I see that the reason evolution fits is that science is ever changing and adapting and thus is unreliable. This is what is postulated. I know you don't agree with my opinions, but do you agree with the facts listed here?
Its very hard to know what youre saying... I have to guess.. sorry if im sometimes inaccurate. Intelligent design is generally defined as creationism.. and hence God creating life.. it is natural for me to assume you are talking about God when you refer to ID.kidnic said:Nah, like I said before, I'm not talking about proving that God created anything, I'm talking about evidence for Intelligent Design. There you go again putting words in my mouth.
lol, we have to get more intelligent to be able to create DNA? I think youre confused about the difference between knowledge and intelligence. There are animals significantly less intelligent than humans which can do things and create things we cannot. If your vast intellect was instantly transported into a spider would you be able to spin a web? Yet you do maintain that you are more intelligent than a spider?It *would* go towards proving it, because I am not giving evidence for God creating anything, but rather just evidence for ID.
We also know that we as humans currently do not posses enough intelligence to make DNA at this point. We can therefore conclude that more intelligence than modern humans posess would be needed.
You have obviously missed post #240. Perhaps it is you who is overlooking me on purpose?kidnic said:I see no one has responded to my post #234, and I would hate for it to be overlooked... except, of course, that it was overlooked on pupose. In that case, it is perfectly fine.
Nah, naturally I just assumed that since he were online, and he chose not to respond to my post and instead reply to Pass, that he must've overlooked my post, or simply didn't respond.Tawn said:Its very hard to know what youre saying... I have to guess.. sorry if im sometimes inaccurate. Intelligent design is generally defined as creationism.. and hence God creating life.. it is natural for me to assume you are talking about God when you refer to ID.
Ok lets get back to this then.. if you could prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that DNA cannot be created without intelligence, then of course (since we are dealing with a true/false statement) we could reliably state that some level of intelligence is required to create DNA. There is no other option because we have defined what 'intelligence is' and it either falls into that abstract category or it doesnt.
lol, we have to get more intelligent to be able to create DNA? I think youre confused about the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
Besides which, i would just love to see you try to prove that non-intelligent creation of DNA is absolutely impossible.
(I know you responded to this later... but still perhaps you are expecting instantaneous responses? Be patient)
Yes, half the trouble though is realising what exactly each of us is trying to argue.kidnic said:Thank you very much though, for eventually agreeing with my argument, and actually giving a try at understanding my point of view.
Ill look forward to it.I would also love to show you that it is imposible, however, since my break at work is coming up soon, it will have to wait until I get back into my office.
Halleluah, I tried to make this point a long time ago. Thus the coin analogy came about to rebuttle it.Also, 'with intelligence' is a human concept.. and we assume such an idea is a (true) or (false) statement. Something is intelligent or it is not.
However, is an animal intelligent? Is a brick intelligent? I would say an animal has more intelligence than a brick, but less than a human. I would say that (the idea of) God probably has more intelligence than a Human.
(A) You could be correct. (B) If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.(a) No, it does not. (b) What does this have to do with the argument from ignorance?
There is more than enough to go around. A fair share implies that there is a limit to the amount of foolishness allowed. No limit has been set that I can see. Would you like to set the limit?One foolishness at a time. You've had more than your fair share.
Actually the statement wasnt postulated with a level of certainty..
Actually because science is willing to accept the possibility that it could be wrong it lends itself to being more open to the truth.
No, it does not.Passerbye said:If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.
Excellent we are making progress.Passerbye said:Halleluah, I tried to make this point a long time ago. Thus the coin analogy came about to rebuttle it.
Well it depends on how you postulate that something can be absolutely true. If you say that mozart must have composed because all other theories we know of are false.. that would be the fallacy (the first half).(A) You could be correct. (B) If the statement is stated as positivly true then then the argument from ignorance comes about since that would say that another theory could not be true, even though no proof exists either way, that I know of.
No thank you.. lets not make this personal (thats to everyone).There is more than enough to go around. A fair share implies that there is a limit to the amount of foolishness allowed. No limit has been set that I can see. Would you like to set the limit?
Well I disagree, but I can see why you might think so..It seemed to me to be presented with 100% certainty, by the manner it was presented and the argument it was presented to rebuttal.
Not at all. It is as open to lies as religion is.It also lends itself to be more open to a lie.
Actually, just thinking, the only way you could do this is by proving that it must have required intellect to create DNA/life etc.. which is what we have been asking of you.. hence proof for ID.Tawn said:If you can do the impossible and disprove all naturalistic explanations - even the ones not demonstrated, Id be amazed..
What do you think of this statement that I found?Carl Sagan(spelling?) estimated the probability of life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power. Probability scientists say that anything that is 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible, and 10 to the 50th power IS impossible. That's only 50. Can we still have been created by chance??
I think it is typical that it is offered without context or reference.Passerbye said:What do you think of this statement that I found?Carl Sagan(spelling?) estimated the probability of life from non-life was 10 to the 2 billionth power. Probability scientists say that anything that is 10 to the 15th power is virtually impossible, and 10 to the 50th power IS impossible. That's only 50. Can we still have been created by chance??
Actually, just thinking, the only way you could do this is by proving that it must have required intellect to create DNA/life etc.. which is what we have been asking of you.. hence proof for ID.
I was not talking about your reference, but the Sagan reference. What did Sagan say, where did he say it, what was the context? All you've shown is that others are as irresponsible with their quotes as you.Passerbye said:
In brief, the quote is, unsurprisingly, a despicable distortion. How interesting that you would propagate it.Even Carl Sagan has been cited, from a book he edited, Communication with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (MIT Press, 1973), a record of the proceedings of a conference on SETI. Sagan himself presented a paper at that conference, in which he reports (pp. 45-6) the odds against a specific human genome being assembled by chance as 1 in 10^2,000,000,000 (in other words, the genome of a specific person, and not just any human). As a build-up to this irrelevant statistic he states that a simple protein "might consist" of 100 amino acids (for each of which there are 20 "biological varieties") for a chance of random assembly, for one specific protein of this sort, of 1 in 10^130. He uses these statistics as a rhetorical foil for the fact that no human genome is assembled at random, nor did life have to start with only one possible protein of a particular, specific type, but that "the preferential replication, the preferential reproduction of organisms, through the natural selection of small mutations, acts as a kind of probability sieve, a probability selector," so that one must account for natural selection in estimating the odds of any alien species existing elsewhere in the universe, and not just calculate the odds of random assembly like the examples he just gave. Nevertheless, Sagan's words are used against him by Christians who grab at the numbers without paying attention to their context, or indeed to the fact that Sagan uses extremely simplified equations and assumptions.
- see Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?
Alright, here's some:Tawn said:Ill look forward to it.
According to this, there is absolutely no chance that the chemicals created by "random chance occurences" could even exist long enough to aid in the production of DNA.Furthermore, research has documented that "unless the origin of life took place extremely rapidly (in less than 100 years), we conclude that a high temperature origin of life... cannot involve adenine, uracil, guanine or cytosine" because these compounds break down far too fast in a warm environment. In a hydrothermal environment, most of these compounds could neither form in the first place, nor exist for a significant amount of time (Levy and Miller, p. 7933).
As Levy and Miller explain, "the rapid rates of hydrolysis of the nucleotide bases A,U,G and T at temperatures much above 0° Celsius would present a major problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential components on the early earth" (p. 7933).
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
Furthermore, the authors found that, given the minimal time perceived to be necessary for evolution to occur, cytosine is unstable even at temperatures as cold as 0º C. Without cytosine neither DNA or RNA can exist.
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp