seriously disabled Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Intelligent design creates more questions than it attempts to explain. For example, if Intelligent design is really true then the questions are: 1. If everything must have a cause then who created the intelligent designer? 2. What is the nature of the intelligent designer? For example, is He a good or evil designer? 3. Why is intelligent design true? Edited July 25, 2016 by seriously disabled
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 2. What is the nature of the intelligent designer? For example, is He a good or evil designer? Given some of the "design decisions" he has made, it isn't even clear that he is very intelligent. So, perhaps, not evil just incompetent. ("Doh. I never realised those cute mosquitoes would kill so many people" ... "Doh. I thought having volcanoes would brighten the place up. I didn't mean to destroy an entire civilization" ... "Doh. I didn't realise that giving those people resistance to malaria would cause a crippling disease." ... "Doh. I ...") He should have put a proper test plan in place before he started.
swansont 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? That casts the laws as some sort of impetus or driver of events, and they aren't. Laws are a framework. Actions and events follow the laws. The laws don't force a radioactive nucleus to decay, the nucleus decays in accordance with the laws. There's nothing about life that violates physical law. For Intelligent Design to be taken seriously as a scientific option, it would require that evidence support it, rather than comparing it to another process. Even if evolution were somehow shown to be false, ID doesn't get promoted to the top of the list. 2
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Alright, lets leave intelligent design/designers aside as they are not really relevant at this stage of the conversation. I will try to keep it simple. As I understand it, some people believe that at one point there was no life in the universe and that at some point life emerged. Is this correct? If it is, would someone please describe this event (the emergence of life) in plain, clear, standard scientific language. Thanks. Edited July 25, 2016 by SimonFunnell -1
SStell Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 The non-scientific theory of intelligent design: Cellular life is too complex for me to understand, therefore it is too complex for you to understand, therefore it is too complex for anyone to understand, therefore it is too complex for anyone to EVER understand, therefore god did it. Any questions?
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 If it is, would someone please describe this event (the emergence of life) in plain, clear, standard scientific language. There are a number of possible explanations and hypotheses that are being explored. This is too big a subject to be summarised in a forum post. I suggest you read up on it (keyword: abiogenesis) and then come back if you have any specific questions.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) According to dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t) abiogenesis is defined as: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ? Edited July 25, 2016 by SimonFunnell -3
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 According to dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t) abiogenesis is defined as: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ? The dictionary is not a technical resource. That's the historical meaning, not the biological one. Look at definition #2 in your link.
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 According to dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t) abiogenesis is defined as: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ? What is it about Creationists that make them so dishonest? Why cherry pick part of a definition, when you could easily have included the whole thing? "2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter. "
SStell Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Life is just too complex for us to understand, therefore something much much much more complicated must have caused it. So Simon, the depth that you have researched your opinion is a really lame dictionary defintion and you chose the wrong part of that definition. Yikes!!!!! Might want to delve a bit further. Try the RNA World Hypotheis, Lipid world hypothesis, proteins first hypothesis, metabolism first hypothesis, panspermia and the list goes on and on and on. Of course you do need to give a complete definition for what you mean by 'life'.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) As I have previously stated I am not a creationist or intelligent design proponent.What I will say about this whole post is that its seems to be petty arguments about words rather than a discussion about the actual ideas. It is also full of emotions about how people feel about intelligent design and it is clouding peoples vision.Sorry people, I have had enough of this intensely tedious conversation. I have made repeated attempts to find common ground from which we can work and nobody has responded.I am sure you are lovely people but I think talking to people on the internet (instead of in person) has changed the way you talk to people as I am confident that this conversation in person would turn out much different.Please stop taking jabs at me as person, like I know none of you, none of you know me. Yet repeatedly people pass judgement without first understanding my case, that is prejudice. This prejudice is brought about by arrogance, that is assuming things you 'feel' to be true even though they are not. If you are sincere, then please contribute to the conversation, otherwise you are just a troll wasting everyone's time. Edited July 25, 2016 by SimonFunnell 2
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) As I have previously stated I am not a creationist or intelligent design proponent. What I will say about this whole post is that its seems to be petty arguments about words rather than a discussion about the actual ideas. So go and learn about the ideas and come back when you are ready to discuss them in an informed and scientific manner. Then perhaps you will stop making petty arguments and be able to discuss the ideas. And then you might not irritate people so much by simply repeating the same arguments that creationists use. (Apparently you have independently invented the same flawed arguments, rather than just parroting them from Creationist websites. Well done. ) Edited July 25, 2016 by Strange
swansont Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 As I have previously stated I am not a creationist or intelligent design proponent. What I will say about this whole post is that its seems to be petty arguments about words rather than a discussion about the actual ideas. It is also full of emotions about how people feel about intelligent design and it is clouding peoples vision. Your habit of asking leading questions has not helped steer this thread in a positive direction.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Look, I am a highly professional person and I never have conversations like this with people in person. However, when you get on the internet forums, suddenly things change. This change is part of internet culture where people are no longer looked upon as people. I will be honest with you, many of you have been really offensive towards me completely unnecessarily and I have just sat here taking it. Now I am not offended by your offensive, but I would prefer it you would take a kinder approach, as I have tried to take with you. Seriously, if I had said some of the things you have said to me, you would tell me to piss off! So please treat me with the same dignity and respect I will treat you. If you want to talk sincerely, I welcome that, otherwise please go and do something useful.
SStell Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Simon, why don't we just cut to the chase already and leave the emotions and leading questions behind. What evidence do you have that supports intelligent design and what evidence is there for abiogenesis with its myriad hypotheses that you can refute with evidence? What experiments are intelligent design proponents actually doing that shows evidence for a designer and what experiments are biochemists doing that shows a natural process that you find fault with or can refute the findings of? 2
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 I can't see much sign of anyone being offensive -- but presumably I am one of the people you think is being offensive because I am asking questions and suggesting you learn some of the relevant science. How do expect to have a constructive conversation about a subject where you appear not to know any of the relevant science (or, at least, you haven't referenced it) make repeated strawman arguments about mobile phones, cherry pick quotes and other dishonest tactics? If you find it offensive for your arguments to be called dishonest, then start engaging in a rational discussion.
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 How do expect to have a constructive conversation about a subject where you appear not to know any of the relevant science (or, at least, you haven't referenced it) make repeated strawman arguments about mobile phones, cherry pick quotes and other dishonest tactics? Strange, this is exactly what I mean. Dishonest tactics? Mate, that is paranoia - baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. I have no plan here, no strategy, no tactics. You are making judgements about me that are just plain wrong.
SStell Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Simon, you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, you haven't actually said anything and have avoided answering any questions, how unique. Seeing as you really don't want to discuss your 'idea' I guess you really haven't thought it through. That is not how progress in a debate works. Good luck. 2
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Strange, this is exactly what I mean. Dishonest tactics? Mate, that is paranoia - baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. So why did you cherry-pick half the definition of abiogenesis and ignore the relevant half? Just an accident, I suppose. You are making judgements about me that are just plain wrong. But unlike Creationism/ID they are based on the evidence. 1
SimonFunnell Posted July 25, 2016 Author Posted July 25, 2016 Cherry picking? Again, what are you on about? You do understand that I am not arguing for intelligent design? I am not trying to convince people to believe in my ideas or what not. Can I ask, if you would be so kind to oblige, why you think I am here? What do you think is motivating me? If I am honest, I now think the title of the post wasn't a particularly wise choice because what I would really like to talk about is the emergence of life.
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 (edited) Cherry picking? Again, what are you on about? Really? I mean, Really?? In response to my suggestion that you should read up on the science around abiogenesis, you only response was: According to dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t) abiogenesis is defined as: The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation. ? I can only assume this was intended to imply that abiogenesis is not a scientific concept. Which would be why you deliberately chose to use that half of the definition and not the relevant part. Perhaps you could provide an better explanation for that post? Can I ask, if you would be so kind to oblige, why you think I am here? What do you think is motivating me? I have no idea. You seem strangely disinclined to discuss the science, changing the subject or introducing non seuiturs when it is brought into the discussion. Edited July 25, 2016 by Strange
SStell Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 Simon, """"If I am honest, I now think the title of the post wasn't a particularly wise choice because what I would really like to talk about is the emergence of life."""" WELL, get on with it already. Did you look into any of the many abiogenesis scientific hypotheses that I listed? Do you have any questions about any of them? Or are you just really here to see your own posts? Get on with it already. Seems someone is being quite insincere, but I guess- as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
Strange Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 If I am honest, I now think the title of the post wasn't a particularly wise choice because what I would really like to talk about is the emergence of life. Perhaps you should start a new thread on that topic and we can all make a fresh start. Be sure the reference the relevant science in your discussion.
ajb Posted July 25, 2016 Posted July 25, 2016 The goal posts have been moved some what... i) Abiogenesis is another topic. ii) ID is really the claim that neo-Darwinian 'undirected' evolution is not enough to understand how complex organisms evolved. In relation to ID the basic idea is that something or some one is guiding evolution. This is not the same thing as the question of how life first came about in the Universe - or just here on Earth.
SimonFunnell Posted July 26, 2016 Author Posted July 26, 2016 Life is just too complex for us to understand, therefore something much much much more complicated must have caused it. So Simon, the depth that you have researched your opinion is a really lame dictionary defintion and you chose the wrong part of that definition. Yikes!!!!! Might want to delve a bit further. Try the RNA World Hypotheis, Lipid world hypothesis, proteins first hypothesis, metabolism first hypothesis, panspermia and the list goes on and on and on. Of course you do need to give a complete definition for what you mean by 'life'. I will be honest with you, I don't believe in creationism, however at the same time I do not believe wholly in the theory of evolution. This offers me a very unique perspective. One thing that is very clear about all the people posting here, you are all very emotionally committed to evolution. I mean the repeated attacks on me being a creationist or what not are what have caused the mess in this conversation. I am sure you are wonderful people, but the conversation is far too emotionally charged for us to make progress. Its not me, its you. So I am hoping we can just get back to the subject, i.e. the creation/emergence/whatever of life.
Recommended Posts