Moontanman Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Well sure humans are part of the general natural process. But are you then saying that somehow humans (intelligent agents) gave rise to the first cell? Surely the idea is to eliminate intelligent agents from the creation of life? Chemistry gave rise to the first replicating chemicals, I'm not sure what you are asserting here...
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Well sure humans are part of the general natural process. But are you then saying that somehow humans (intelligent agents) gave rise to the first cell? That is a complete non sequitur.
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 I think it is important to know I am not a proponent of intelligence design, I would just like a richer understanding. For this I need to know we are on the same page so would people agree with this? Natural process (the laws of physics and chemistry) cannot account for the complexity of a mobile phone and therefore by implication natural processes have limited creative power. Meaning that natural processes (the laws of physics and chemistry) can create complexity but there are limitations to that complexity. Would people agree with that?
EdEarl Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) No, a single cell is far more complex than a cell phone. The human brain is billions of times more complex. Of course, the Universe is unfathomably more complex than a cell phone. Edited July 24, 2016 by EdEarl 2
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Would people agree with that? No. It's nonsense. I think it is important to know I am not a proponent of intelligence design You do a really brilliant impression of one. You should be on stage.
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 No. It's nonsense. Really? I am not sure what you are trying to say, would you care to elaborate? I am happy to learn if you are kind enough to educate me.
Strange Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Really? I am not sure what you are trying to say, would you care to elaborate? I am happy to learn if you are kind enough to educate me. I have. As have others. You have just repeated the same statement. So you seem unwilling to learn. There is no "maximum level of complexity" that can be produced by natural (non-human) causes. Mobile phones are not, in the grand scheme of things, that complex. Many naturally occurring things are more complex. The argument "that looks complex and we know it was designed and so anything complex must therefore be designed" is logically fallacious but is the entire basis of Creationism/ID. 1
SimonFunnell Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 I have. As have others. You have just repeated the same statement. So you seem unwilling to learn. This my friend is from your heart and not your head, you may feel that way but it is simply untrue. Making comments about a persons being is neither relevant nor appropriate in civil discourse. There is no "maximum level of complexity" that can be produced by natural (non-human) causes. Mobile phones are not, in the grand scheme of things, that complex. Many naturally occurring things are more complex. Please forgive me but I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the creative power of the laws of physics/chemistry are not limited and are in fact unlimited? Unlimited as in they do have the creative power to create mobile phones? The argument "that looks complex and we know it was designed and so anything complex must therefore be designed" is logically fallacious but is the entire basis of Creationism/ID. That seems fair enough and I would agree with you.
Fuzzwood Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 You keep assigning this creative power to the laws of physics, a property which it does not have as it would require some kind of consciousness. Things simply happened, happen and keep happening, ergo causality.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 You keep assigning this creative power to the laws of physics, a property which it does not have as it would require some kind of consciousness. Things simply happened, happen and keep happening, ergo causality. Sorry, are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry lack creative power? Are you saying they lack the power to create a cell? -3
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 As I understand it, this is what evolutionists believe, that the laws of physics and chemistry gave rise to the first cell (like in a primordial soup). Am I correct in thinking this? If it doesn't violate physical law, it's possible. What law(s) would this supposedly be violating?
Raider5678 Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Wow dude. I'm a creationist and even I see that your not understanding a thing. Simple terms, it can't be more simple then this. According to this theory, ID: Life was created. It was created by something, be it a God or an alien.(obviously leaning towards god). The end. What don't you understand?
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Wow dude. I'm a creationist and even I see that your not understanding a thing. Simple terms, it can't be more simple then this. According to this theory, ID: Life was created. It was created by something, be it a God or an alien.(obviously leaning towards god). The end. What don't you understand? What created the creator that created the creator that created the creator... ect... Sorry, are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry lack creative power? Are you saying they lack the power to create a cell? You are equating creation as some sort of power with intent. It's really not honest to even use the term creation, that implies a creator, the word reality is more to the point. There is no reason to assume a creator or to assume there is not one, so assuming either is an assertion that needs to be supported with evidence. All we have is reality, that reality can be traced back to a certain point, it's not even clear if it's proper to think of a time before T=0 There are some hypothesis about that possibility but none have supporting evidence and are mostly just speculation. The genesis of life is relatively well known compared to the start of the universe, the chemical reactions necessary to bring about abiogenesis have some pretty good theoretical footing. Assertions about creators or creation are just place holders for ignorance...
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Ok, that seems fair enough. Would form be a better word than create? Is it acceptable to say the laws of physics/chemistry gave the cell form? Or does this suffer from the same problem? What is the best way to describe event? Thanks.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Ok, that seems fair enough. Would form be a better word than create? Is it acceptable to say the laws of physics/chemistry gave the cell form? Or does this suffer from the same problem? What is the best way to describe event? Thanks. It suffers from the same problem, it equates the emergence of life to something predetermined or intentional. The reality is simply energy gradients and complex chemistry. I would honestly expect life to arise where ever enough energy and chemistry of sufficient complexity occur.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 The reality is simply energy gradients and complex chemistry. I would honestly expect life to arise where ever enough energy and chemistry of sufficient complexity occur. So are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry, under the right conditions, give rise to life? Is that not the same thing?
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 So are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry, under the right conditions, give rise to life? Is that not the same thing? Not the same thing as an intelligent designer...
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 My understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is as follows: We are in a room with a table, objectively, the table is a table, you cannot have a subjective opinion on this matter because it is an objective fact. You don't argue or disagree over objective facts, a table is a table regardless of who you are. Now I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, this is subjectivity. Objectivity is context independent, it doesn't matter what room you put the table in, its still a table. Subjectivity is context dependent as opinions can change based on the context, for example, I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, however move it to another room and I may be of the opinion that the same table is too small for the new room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too big. So lets try an be objective, what is that we agree on exactly? Because voicing subjective opinions without have an objective base is folly.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 My understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is as follows: We are in a room with a table, objectively, the table is a table, you cannot have a subjective opinion on this matter because it is an objective fact. You don't argue or disagree over objective facts, a table is a table regardless of who you are. Now I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, this is subjectivity. Objectivity is context independent, it doesn't matter what room you put the table in, its still a table. Subjectivity is context dependent as opinions can change based on the context, for example, I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, however move it to another room and I may be of the opinion that the same table is too small for the new room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too big. So lets try an be objective, what is that we agree on exactly? Because voicing subjective opinions without have an objective base is folly. Being objective is required by not assuming something that is not objective.. like a designer...
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Being objective is required by not assuming something that is not objective.. like a designer... Wonderful...although I have no idea what you are saying.
Delta1212 Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Life is likely an emergent phenomenon that arises from the basic rules of chemistry. As are, frankly, pretty much all macroscopic structures and processes. There's not much reason to single life out from all of the other stuff in the universe except that we are life. There's some stuff life does that other things don't but there's also plenty of stuff that other things do that life generally doesn't. There's nothing particularly special about life that would require a creator instead of natural processes vs a diamond or a hurricane or a galactic supercluster. And yet people tend to have less of a problem with those things being the result of things simply following the laws of physics than they do with life. Probably because we all want to feel special, as if we're not quite as of a piece with the rest of the universe even though we're clearly made of exactly the same stuff as everything else and our bodies operate according to exactly the same physical laws as everything else. But there has to be something, somewhere, that we haven't identified yet about life that makes it special and not just a particularly efficient way to dissipate energy in a region with a high energy gradient. Because otherwise you have no more of a privileged place in the universe than a rock. And some people have a difficult time with that. 1
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 So lets try an be objective, what is that we agree on exactly? Because voicing subjective opinions without have an objective base is folly. I think "we" agree that life arose through natural chemical and physical processes. You seem to have a different opinion. Could you present some objective evidence to support your view (rather than the subjective "it looks complex so it must be designed").
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Dear Strange, This is no reflection upon your personally, I am in no position to judge you and you may be a wonderful human being, but I think you have completely misunderstood me. You need to pay closer attention. For instance, you seem to be under the impression my view is 'it looks complex so it must be designed'. This means that you are basically, not listening to me, not trying to engage me, you are not try to understand me, you are not talking with me, you are just talking at me. This is not a conversation. I think "we" agree that life arose through natural chemical and physical processes. You seem to have a different opinion. Could you present some objective evidence to support your view (rather than the subjective "it looks complex so it must be designed"). I seem to have a different opinion? You misunderstand, I don't have an opinion on the matter, only an interest it in. So when you say I have a different opinion I have really no idea what you are talking about and I am not sure you know really what you are talking about.
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 For instance, you seem to be under the impression my view is 'it looks complex so it must be designed'. Then why do you keep bringing up the (irrelevant) example of a mobile phone? I seem to have a different opinion? You misunderstand, I don't have an opinion on the matter, only an interest it in. Sorry, we see it so often, I just assumed it was the usual dishonest "just asking a question" tactic employed by creationists.
Recommended Posts