Why doesn't Bolinsky animate evolution, then put it on YouTube? It would be so laughable and ridiculous that people would question how they even consider evolution to be true. I think this is the best way to prove that evolution is the greatest fraud in the history of mankind. The evolution racket knows this; that's why there is no detailed animation on evolution.
First, there was the stomach; but no intestines. You know, evolution is so slow. Then there was the large intestines and small intestines. But no rectum. The stupid evolution forgot about it. After zillion years of living without a rectum, the evolution realized rectum was necessary. So magically the rectum appeared. The stupid evolution also forgot pancreas. So this miraculous mammal somehow lived another zillion years without a pancreas. Do you still believe the fraud of evolution?
@SeongKYi your argument is terrible. The organs dont form one by one, they form from a simple system with all basic parts, becoming more complex and specific with evolution. Much the same way a baby develops in the womb.
Evolution: Greatest fraud in history. I have never heard of any eye witness to this process in human's 6 thousand year history. If no evolution takes place in 6 thousand years, than may be it doesn't.
@SeongKYi " I have never heard of any eye witness to this process" Because you have not looked. There are many examples of directly observed speciazation, both in nature and in laboratory conditions.
Again, if you are believing this because you WANT to, or to bolster your security with faith-based beliefs, fine. But don't pretend that what you are saying is scientifically verifiable.
@SeongKYi "Evolution: Greatest fraud in history." It's like name-calling at this point, and just silly.
If it is a "fraud", a willful act of deception, you realize that nearly every single scientist the world over would have to be in on the deception? Of course, you could be right, and every expert on the matter wrong. It's technically possible. It's also technically possible that, whenever we are not looking, pigs do fly.
@iridescentsquids So, you too believe the following as well?: Amino acids randomly mixing&mashing somehow miraculously formed all the ultra complex organelles;which are,each,million times more complex than a RolexWatch?
It is millions times more probable to have a correctly assembled RolexWatch from mixing&mashing all the parts of a RolexWatch -- Impossible!
@iridescentsquids "Unless there is evidence for the act of creating the complexity in it's current form, it's just anther form of theological conjecture and not science at all'
Your lack of logic is glaring here. You believe unless there is observable evidence of a designer creating the cell/species in their "current state" of complexity, the default answer is natural forces did it. Yet it does not phase you natural forces have NEVER been observed to create information & molecular machines.
@toobsucker "the default answer is natural forces did it. "
Again, your error is in your exclusive definition of "natural forces" or naturalism. You yourself said that the term "supernatural" isn't valid once what is supernatural is measurable (it can then be called natural) Try replacing "nature" with "things that are not inherently unobservable or unmeasurable, or which don't defy the laws of physics." The term "natural" is only exclusive of that which is "supernatural".
@iridescentsquids "C'mon, these points have been refuted many times before. If you like I'll dredge up the many flaws with this concept"
There are no flaws with I.C.. Millers arguments are not valid. Miller argued the TTSS pump is used in of itself therefore this proves the entire system evolved. The ONLY THING that proves evolution is the actual transition from one state to another and miller can not show this transition. The reason is the transition requires new precise proteins folds
@toobsucker "Miller argued the TTSS pump is used in of itself therefore this proves the entire system evolved."
Irreducible complexity is supposed to falsify evolution, and proponents of IC claim that if something can be shown to be irreducible it could not have evolved. Miller is not arguing proof for evolution, but is in fact showing that IC is not (as yet at least) well founded. IC claims rest on this (so far) unfounded absolute: function can not be maintained when you reduce complexity.
@iridescentsquids "The concept of god does not "perfectly explain" because it isn't much of an explanation. You are saying a supernatural force made everything through a process we CAN'T explain. If it was a perfect explanation, it would explain that process"
Your reasoning never ceases to ammsue me. The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building. He couldn't begin to understand transistors, transducer etc... Does this mean he rejects I.D. as a PCs origins? Liberal Logic
@toobsucker "The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building."
This is your response to my comment that the GOD is not a perfect explanation because it does not explain, it simply replaces one mystery with another.
There are a list of logical fallacies you should be aware of and look out that would help you make better arguments. You are big on the false dichotomies and (in this case) ye old argumentum ad ignorantiam.
@iridescentsquids "My point is that believing it is there is not the same as asserting that I KNOW it ISN'T somewhere else"
Agreed, however we are not talking about knowing anything, we are talking about belief. And My point is believing "something" does not exist equates not beliving "something" exists. OR Knowing "something" is valid equates knowing "something" is not invalid. Just because someone does not understand or consider all the variables does not negate their validity.
@toobsucker "Just because someone does not understand or consider all the variables does not negate their validity."
No, but it also says nothing about their validity. Just as I.D. isn't absolutely knowably false, there are so many hypothesis in science that are not in good standing, and it has nothing to do with the possibility, however remote, of being true. Many hypothesis live in the outer, obscure realms of science until there is real reason to take them seriously.
@iridescentsquids "an appearance" of intelligent design is not good enough for me"
This is why atheists need psychiatrists not data. If you don't want something to be a duck no matter how it walks or talks or acts, you will not see what is right in front of your face. Your emotional attachment to atheism prevents critical thinking from being allowed. You understand that which "appears" to be X, very well could be X.. its a philosophical choice , not a logical one to reject that which could be
@toobsucker "You understand that which "appears" to be X, very well could be X.. its a philosophical choice , not a logical one to reject that which could be"
Are you kidding? I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Please confirm you aren't just egging me on here.
Whether or not we believe something is true or not based on appearance alone isn't just a philosophical choice! (I'm amazed you wrote that) And it's not illogical to be skeptical of appearances until substantiated.
@iridescentsquids "But that does not mean that unfalsifiable hypothesis are rejected as false. NO SCIENTIST THINKS THE WAY YOU ARE. Show me one that does. I've been asking you to do this from the beginning but I think you are too dishonest to admit you can not"
This response is truly amazing. Anyone that cares that scientific theories should be based in TRUTH & FACTS should also care an "invalid hypothesis" may be actually be TRUE & VALID. Anyone that does not care is dishonest to begin with
@toobsucker "Anyone that cares that scientific theories should be based in TRUTH & FACTS should also care an "invalid hypothesis" may be actually be TRUE & VALID."
Irrelevant to my point regarding unfalsifiable hypothesis rejected as false, as you have conceded the point already. But the PROBLEM of a possible true unfalsifiable hypothesis still stands. Science's response now is to deal with what we CAN verify only, and say nothing about what we can not. Do you have a better solution?
Your reasoning abilities do not equate logical realities. In your head "super giant frogs" are illogical because they are not observable. In your equation physical size determines "rational chances of existence". You need to rid your illogical misconceptions of only that which is concivable within the degrees your limited mind can comprehend is logical. Were Molecular machines invalid at one time because they were too small?
@toobsucker "In your equation physical size determines "rational chances of existence".
Size is one quality that I have chose to modify. You are simply choosing another, although yours is actually much more vague. You are describing a KIND of intelligence you claim you can't even imagine, but call "superior". What's illogical is saying you can put characteristics on something you inherently unknowable.
Anyway, my point: By your logic I can infer God-frogs exist, superior to all other frogs.
@iridescentsquids "And yes a "life-building machine" is falsifiable."
"Waiting. Show me how this CAN? NOT be true"
LOL, you just argue to argue not knowing when to stop.
We have no examples of these machines existing. We have no mechanisms to build this machine by natural means. A machine capable of life creation defies the law of bio-genesis not to mention Shannons channel capacity. That which is quantifiable can never be produced by something that is measurably less than its self
@toobsucker "invalid hypothesis" may be TRUE & VALID."
Think of it this way. 500AD, somebody makes a statement that HAPPENS to be true, "light changes it's path when passing near heavy objects". They have no evidence for this claim, but HAPPEN to be correct. An extremely lucky guess. Should we believe it? No. It's rational to withhold judgement/belief until the claim can be verified. And what would science have to say? Nothing at all until it can be verified. It's about reliability, not bias.
@iridescentsquids "the intelligence you describe is a difference in KIND, not just DEGREE (certainly it is if it is omnipotent or supernatural--as no example of either of these KINDS of intelligence exists any more than a unicorn is a KIND of supernatural horse)"
If a different "kind" exists its because the different degree makes it so. That said we have no observable evidence even a slightly superior intelligence exists, therefore under your rules of determining facts it can not exist
@toobsucker "If a different "kind" exists its because the different degree makes it so."
A unicorn can be inferred to exist by your logic as follows: Horses exist. A slightly superior horse therefor is possible. Unicorns are possible. They are simply a KIND of horse by degree of horseness.
"therefore under your rules of determining facts it can not exist" Facts are facts, and are not inferred.
@iridescentsquids "Besides, a distant god can be as mysterious as it needs to be It's the exact same argument (and equally unfalsifiable)"
Not the same argument at all.
Yes a distant God could disguise himself as a spaghetti monster or pink unicorn also. YOUR point of debate is to produce a rational & logical 3rd alternative to getting the DNA & RNA sequences precisely arranged for species building. NOT to produce an outlandish unfalsifiable 3rd alternative to an intelligence arranging DNA
@iridescentsquids "When you say "everything that must be true" what are you referring to? Are you saying that all logical absolutes must be considered
when forming a hypothesis? That's not true. Or do you mean all things that could possibly be true need to be considered?"
Both are true. Logic dictates when forming a hypothesis (if you want the hypothesis to be true) you must also consider as a part of your hypothesis ALL THINGS that now must also be true if your hypothesis is true. Yes U do
@iridescentsquids ""Limiting life is illogical" In no way am I limiting the possibility of life, or the form life takes. I don't believe in these things NOT because I don't think they are possible, but because I don't see evidence for them"
The evidence is in the cell. At least the evidence for a super intellect is in the cell. You combine that with the universes precise fine tuning for life and this super intellect now appears as the universes designer also.
Truth is:evolution is a nonsense.How can something this ultra complex,with vast structures,form on its own and function at all?It would take full knowledge in chemistry,physics,nano-technology,&materials science to even contemplate it.It's obvious that the cell was engineered:Designed and implemented with these advanced knowledge.The presenter mentioned micromachines;machines can never form on its own; unless it obtained"PHD+∞"in those advanced knowledge. Evolution is the biggest lie in history.
@SeongKYi Basically, you are saying that everything that looks complex to you must have been designed. Is that right? You might as well say ALL of science is a lie, then. That's pretty much the same idea, as all science takes steps toward understanding the order (and seeming complexity) we see around us. That's not a bad summary of science in general. So, science is trying to explain things that are so complex they just blow your mind. And if it blows your mind, science must be wrong about it.
Science is a concept,Not a Machine.WhenDid a MachineForm on ItsOwn,ever?It'sMillion TimesMore probable for a RolexWatch to form on its own than TheCell.That's how complex TheCell is.ToCreate TheCell,It wouldTake full knowledge in chemistry,physics,nano-technology,&MaterialsScience.EvenIntelligent humans don't FullyUnderstand TheSciences;thus can't create TheCell;evolution has NoChance.InAddition,theCell functionsPERFECTLY&EFFICIENTLY.No humanEngineered machine canMatch thisPERFECTION&EFFICIENCY
@SeongKYi "TimesMore probable for a RolexWatch to form on its own than TheCell.That's how complex TheCell is." Rolex watches do not reproduce themselves. Strange thing is: all life forms we know of DO reproduce themselves, and they don't do it by intelligently designing each offspring. You could say that they are their own creators and no intelligence is required. Each life form we can see is the direct result of a biological act of regeneration.
InOrder for TheCell to start reproducing,it must be a complete cell first.This is where evolution is proven to be an absolute FRAUD!How did this complete cell first APPEARED ON HEARTH,originally?Did amino acids randomly mixing&mashing somehow miraculously formed all the ultra complex organelles;which are,each,million times more complex than a RolexWatch?It is millions times more probable to have a correctly assembled RolexWatch from mixing&mashing all the parts of a RolexWatch -- Impossible!
@SeongKYi Changing your argument, I see. That's OK. Your new one is also incorrect:
"InOrder for TheCell to start reproducing,it must be a complete cell first." This is not true. There are examples of all different levels of (even non-cellular life) reproducing. The basic process of reproducing and passing on information, although complex, is not contingent upon any structure except those that enable it to survive and reproduce.
@iridescentsquids There are examples of all different levels of (even non-cellular life) reproducing.
WHICH ONE? NAME JUST ONE. Without all the organelles present, cellular reproduction is impossible. Please stop wasting my time and prove that the numerous organelles, which are million times more complex than a rolex watch, formed on its own. Did you ever see a rolex watch form on its own from its parts? Not alone, the watch parts forming on its own. CELL'S is million time more complex!
@SeongKYi Perhaps this is an issue with our definitions of "life". A virus, although not universally considered "alive", reproduces through a process arguably as complex (with striking similarities and even some of the same building blocks) as any cellular life. It does not metabolize, but it supports my supposition that "the basic process of reproducing and passing on information, although complex, is not contingent upon any structure except those that enable it to survive and reproduce.
@SeongKYi "Whatever the hell the internal mini organs are." There are no organs, mini or otherwise. Again, a virus does not metabolize. It does reproduce using mechanisms similar to that of celled organisms.
I'm not making an argument FOR evolution. At this point I'm merely pointing out that 1) your arrogant assertion that evolution is a fraud is entirely unfounded, and 2) regurgitating creationist propaganda, like this much refuted irreducible complexity argument, does not make you right.
@iridescentsquids "But faith is not the only way (in fact, I would argue it is a very uncommon way) to form beliefs. Beliefs can also be formulated on evidence"
Its the only way to form a naturalistic origins of life & species hypothesis. You have no evidence what so ever of abiogenesis & copying errors & selection writing new information for billions of new proteins. The huge changes predicted by evolution are made from observing very small changes, then ASSUMING they will accumulate
@toobsucker "Its the only way to form a naturalistic origins of life & species hypothesis."
100% wrong. Again, you misuse the term "naturalistic". For you it includes any and every explanation that does not involve a creator.
Try as hard as you may, you can not refute that it is possible to form beliefs based on evidence, and vary depending on the reliability and amount of evidence.
Your beliefs are faith-based because they are absolute and you believe them no matter what, unlike mine.
@iridescentsquids "gnostic atheist does believe, in as much as anything can be known, it is also knowable whether there is a god or not. It's as simple as that"
Lets rephrase that. The arrogant philosopher atheist believes he can "know things" when logic dictates he can not. Since he does not even KNOW everything that exists in our own solar system let alone the entire universe. The only way its knowable if God exists or not is if God allows you to know it.
@toobsucker "The arrogant philosopher atheist believes he can "know things" when logic dictates he can not" There may be some arrogance in that. I don't see a lick of difference between claiming you can know a god does not exist or claiming you can know a god does. Both are equally arrogant. And you are the latter.
@iridescentsquids "If "supernatural" is just the natural that is not yet known, science should be on your side."
You also admitted just because something is unfalsifiable does not make it false. This also means (if you can start understanding all things that must be true) Something that is unfalsifiable maybe TRUE or VALID. So staying within the lines of logic & reason. A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical
@toobsucker "A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical"
Really, you've got to step it up. We've been over this & you're falling behind:
Science can only address that which is measurable. If something is true but completely unfalsifiable it DOES fall outside the purview of science. Yes. But we are left unable to measure whether it is true or not. Every possibility you can imagine as unfalsifiable falls into this category.
@iridescentsquids "A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical"
"Science can only address that which is measurable"
Of course, this why I belabor the point of the lack of critical thinking by liberals in science. Developing a theory while at the same time acknowledging unfalsifiable things can be both valid & unfalsifiable, but yet not considering their possible existence when determining TRUTH in science is reprehensible
@iridescentsquids "You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists."
"I don't know what the problem is. If somebody is to declare themselves atheist, it must in relation to a specific definition of god posited by somebody"
Yes, its in relation to theists definition of Elohim. Now explain to me why Elohim falls into the realm of the "super natural". You may appear super natural to an amoeba only because the amoeba can not comprehend the natural methods you use
@toobsucker "You may appear super natural to an amoeba"
Sure, and that COULD be the case with Elohim or Thor or whatever god you define. But the mere possibility that it's true isn't a good enough reason to believe it, not even for you.
And, yes, atheism defines itself as a lack of belief in "god", as it relates to specific definitions of god posited by...whoever is positing it. If YOU don't believe in the god Thor, I suppose technically you are atheist with respect to Thor.
" the scientific definition of falsification includes rejecting all unfalsifiable hypothesis as false"
"You say "as false" This, I disagree with"
The point is exactly the same, you can't see it. If ALL hypotheses are selected on the basis THEY ARE TRUE, then all rejections should be on the basis THEY ARE FALSE. Not the case. Selection & rejection ARE NOT based in true & false but rather valid & invalid. U prove my point again
@toobsucker "Selection & rejection ARE NOT based in true & false but rather valid & invalid."
Great, so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable is not deemed true or false. I'll just assume when you said rejected as false you didn't mean it?
@iridescentsquids "Great, so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable is not deemed true or false. I'll just assume when you said rejected as false you didn't mean it?"
Great so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable, is being rejected with the understanding it may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist. Yet is rejected. So (under all thing that must be true if X is true) an accepted hypothesis maybe also be untrue/invalid
@toobsucker "may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist. "
What's all this? MAY be the ONLY VALID? What's this bullshit? That's like saying "You can't prove that what I imagine is NOT true". So what? I can put absolutely anything that I can imagine in exactly the same situation as your particular fantasy. Yes, fantasy. Because without evidence or reason to believe it is anything but imaginary, even if it can't be disproven, it deserves to be called fantasy.
@iridescentsquids "may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist."
What's all this? MAY be the ONLY VALID? What's this bullshit? That's like saying "You can't prove that what I imagine is NOT true"
Im getting tried of schooling your logical. An unfalsifiable hypothesis may be the ONLY valid hypothesis we have. This is the reason for string theory. The current models in physics do not work, so in order to fix a theory that does not work, the unfalsifiable is a must
@iridescentsquids ""...sound reasoning. Life exists, No reason to believe we are the first."
Exactly my point. The mere "possibility" is not enough, you still need to back your positive assertion with an argument"
LOL, that is the argument. You don't seem to understand logical inferences are uses constantly in science and the logical inference ITS SELF is the argument for existence. If pink unicorns exist on mars we can logically infer their existence elsewhere.
@toobsucker "If pink unicorns exist on mars we can logically infer their existence elsewhere."
Now, don't YOU start placing limits on what is possible.
Why don't you explain to me again why the existence of pink unicorns can not be "inferred" but existence of an omnipotent (are we calling it supernatural?) creator-consciousness CAN be "inferred".
What, again, is the evidence for the super-consciousness? And how would you define it? What are it's qualities that you can "infer"?
@iridescentsquids I also explicitly stated so many times it's getting ridiculous there is no explicit connection between something being unfalsifiable and being true/false. How many times do I need to say this before you understand I MEAN WHAT I SAY'
I completely understand. You do not equate the unfalsifiable (the rejected hypotheses) with true or false. And this is the problem I have. When deciding objective reality, the critical thinker (true intellectual) can not reject the unrejectable
@toobsucker "When deciding objective reality, the critical thinker (true intellectual) can not reject the unrejectable"
Correct. I agree. Finally! You can not reject it. Now consider the flip side. Can you ACCEPT it? You can't accept it either. In order to believe you must use faith.
Serious inductive reasoning problems occur if you accept it merely because it is a possibility. To do so would be to ignore the fact that you could apply the same justification to ALL unfalsifiable explanations.
@iridescentsquids "we can hypothetically have a hypothesis that is VALID and also FALSE/UNTRUE."
"Yea, so? How many times do I have to say I agree with you? I AGREE"
Great, as long as you understand the flawed methods used by science. Most people believe science is an objective endeavor concerning its self with only strict unrelenting facts adhered to by unbiased minds (as science should be). when in fact its not true
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy" Leonard Susskind
@toobsucker "Great, as long as you understand the flawed methods used by science."
I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect method. If you or somebody else could improve upon that method, I'm pretty certain that scientific world would love to hear it. The problem is that this imperfect method seems to be 1) the best method we know of so far and 2) has a fantastic track record.
Undermining science because it does not support faith-based political/social agendas is a serious mistake.
@iridescentsquids "What he did purports to SUPPORTING the position that it's OK to teach evolution because it is still science (he's saying it has not been falsified by IC), but he's not "proving" evolution (science does not "prove")"
Science verifies theories all the time. Science is under the belief (delusion) Darwinian evolution is verified/valid, therefore eliminating an attempt to falsify (I.C.) it, verifies its validity, Nothing is "proven" per se because in many eons things could change
@toobsucker "Science is under the belief (delusion) Darwinian evolution is verified/valid,"
You know, I will actually agree with this point to a degree. Technically science does not "believe" but scientists do. And all beliefs are sort of like delusions, to be a pessimist about it. But it's not accurate to say that the belief is that evolution has been verified 100%, just that it has been verified to a great extent (lots of evidence). Nothing in science is absolute.
@iridescentsquids "Even if you can, I'll just show you how easy it is to morph the concept and come up with yet another unfalsifiable hypothesis that "perfectly explains" why life is the way it is now."
Correct, but that is not your objective numbnuts. I asked for a logical falsifiable 3rd alternative. Not a unfalsifiable ridiculous one
In order to falsify my statement that if abiogenesis/evolution is falsified, I.D. is the only alternative, you must attempt to give RATIONAL responses. get it?
"3) Non-conscious life-building machines (joke but hey it's possible)"
You see you must reach into the absurd to reject the only two rational arguments. If theists cant get away with "who created God", how do you get away without explaining the life-building machines origins?.
I did not answer this post before because its was completely ridiculous. All three answers are easily falsified. You need to understand your decisions are emotional
@toobsucker "If theists cant get away with "who created God", how do you get away without explaining the life-building machines origins?."
I don't. I don't claim this to be any more or less absurd than your god concept. I do agree, however, that this idea is an absurd one.
But that is irrelevant. Just because this is extremely (ridiculously) unlikely, it is not falsifiable. Assuming something did DESIGN life as you claim, that in itself says nothing about the characteristics of the designer.
@iridescentsquids "Show me an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis rejected AS FALSE."
Of course anyone that does not care if an accepted scientific hypothesis is actually TRUE (just as long as its valid) would also not care that the rejected hypotheses are also considered "not false".
Facts mean nothing to liberal philosophers.
"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" E. Darwin
@toobsucker ""In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" E. Darwin"
Where is this from? I suspect it is not accurate or out of context. Fitting facts (or rejecting them) to a priori reasoning is a serious (and well understood) fallacy. By the way, that is not the same thing as rejecting something unfalsifiable as false. Now that you agree there's no need for you to prove otherwise.
@iridescentsquids "Anyone that knowingly rejects possible truths when developing scientific theories is intellectually inept."
"Nobody is rejecting possible? truths AS FALSE. This is a hugely important distinction"
Reiterating the same point is futile. Try to grasp this please. Rejection = INVALID. Accepting = VALID. Now we have made it clear VALID does not equate TRUE & INVALID does not equate FALSE. Simple reasoning now dictates valid hypotheses can be FALSE & invalid can also be TRUE
@iridescentsquids "Lack of belief IS a default position, yes. I would find it highly entertaining to hear you try to argue otherwise"
"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" Douglas Futuyma
You fail to understand "ALL THINGS" as Futuyma understands
@toobsucker "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not." There is is a magical teapot orbiting mars or there isn't. I either have a 10 ton elephant hiding behind my ear or I don't.
You are the kind of either useless or false dichotomies. These are not USEFUL in determining what is true.
@iridescentsquids "You are essentially saying this this God/creator concept is the ONE link between all religions and I.D, but conveniently ignoring the fact that all of the God concepts are supernatural/magical and your I.D. god is not"
That is because you conveniently & continually ignore the term "supernatural" is relative to your understanding of it. Nothing is supernatural, everything God does can be understood and makes perfect sense if you understand the methods used.
@toobsucker " Nothing is supernatural, everything God does can be understood and makes perfect sense if you understand the methods used." If this is the case, why did you rail so vehemently against falsification? You claimed tirelessly (until I finally proved you wrong) that it unfairly excludes the possibility of a supernatural creator.
If "supernatural" is just the natural that is not yet known, science should be on your side. And so should the evidence. But it's not.
@iridescentsquids "I am not the only one making this assertion. Many (yes, many) conservative thinkers feel exactly the same way about him"
I am not defending Glen Beck. I know very little about him other than he is passionate about his beliefs and he is a Morman which I disagree with. ALL people everywhere make decsions based on how something makesw them feel. Knowingly eating unhealthy foods when you have health problems is a simple example that ALL people do. Liberals take it to an extreme.
@toobsucker "I am not defending Glen Beck. I know very little about him"
You should, considering that you are willing to make blanket statements about political psychology. You should at least know that the most famous and influential conservative commentators COMPLETELY CONTRADICT your assertion regarding liberal vs. conservative logic and emotions.
I would think you would at least try to know what is common knowledge before making such an arrogant claim.
@iridescentsquids "Secondly, such a result would mean we don't understand and need new hypothesis. Maybe the process is very different than previously thought. I have no problem with that possibility. Doesn't mean "god done it"
ALL of science has your same mindset. I.D. is never considered because its been labeled "super natural". So even when random copying errors & selection are totally removed from the theory as mechanism for morphological change they will cling to naturalism at all costs
@iridescentsquids "Are you positing that the entire theory of evolution would be falsified because the specific processes are (lets assume) wildly misunderstood? Firstly, that is not a way to falsify the entire general theory of evolution"
The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99.99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors & selection produces them. This CAN be falsified very quickly
@toobsucker "The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99.99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors & selection produces them."
Nope. That is not true. That is not what Darwin proposed. Try again.
@iridescentsquids "The only positive assertion regarding belief is "I believe it". As you said before, it's not an assertion about what is known, and it does not address the certainty (or lack thereof) in that belief"
Just because you don't acknowledge or comprehend all the variables that must be true if your hypothesis is true does not mean they are not in effect. The cosmological constant HAD TO exist if the physics model was correct. God MUST NOT exist if your hypothesis is correct
@iridescentsquids either you are bullshitting or just not getting it. Your I.D. concept does not mention God specifically, so to disagree with it would not necessarily be an atheist position (which is a position on God, not intelligence or creators). You can't have it both ways. Are we talking about god or not Stop pussyfooting around"
And your "other life" scenario has no logical reason to reject a God. YOU can't have it both ways. You want other life to be a logical possibility but reject GOD
@toobsucker " You want other life to be a logical possibility but reject GOD"
My god you are dense. If I, or anybody else, is going to accurately define themselves as an atheist, you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about.
If you are talking about "other life" I'm fairly certain even most strong atheists would say that does not define their atheism.
You are bullshitting. You're just playing with definitions and not making a serious attempt here.
@iridescentsquids "My god you are dense. If I, or anybody else, is going to accurately define themselves as an atheist, you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about"
You (as have all atheists) have illogically and without scientific reason put limitations of other life in the universe. I have asked you many times to give me the empirical DATA that suggest life can only be "THIS POWERFUL" you have NEVER ONCE given me the DATA that supports this assumption.
@toobsucker "empirical DATA that suggest life can only be "THIS POWERFUL"
I've answered this before. Many times. Let me be clear:
There is no inherent limit, say the one you and I both agree on ---> the notion of something "supernatural" is not helpful, as the moment it is measurable as such, it is natural.
The difference between us: I need evidence to believe something specific exists. You don't because your beliefs are fundamentally faith-based.
@iridescentsquids "No, I'm not limiting powers...Superman is POSSIBLE. The Easter bunny could be real. I concede that even the Mickey Mouse could live on the moon, and the moon is made of cheese"
When making an analogy your source & target must prove a rationally relationship. Yours do not. We ARE NOT talking about celestial objects made of cultured milk and cartoon charters living on this cultured milk. We are talking about a superior intellect. My analogies work because they can be observed
@toobsucker "We are talking about a superior intellect. My analogies work because they can be observed"
Regardless, your claim that I am limiting the form life could possibly take is unfounded. In fact, mine seems more open-minded than yours, considering you are only willing to consider certain forms that might conform with your pre-existing faith.
You say your analogies can be observed. R you saying that you have observed a superior intellect? Or just that Superman does not have that trait?
@iridescentsquids Your claim that atheism is an emotional state revealing and interesting (and fundamentally irrational one, by ANY definition). You seem upset. Sorry to upset you"
My claim that liberals try to avoid "upsetting" is verified. what is irrational is limiting the intelligence level in the universe without any good reason while at the same time claiming "No, I'm not limiting powers"
Your actions and beliefs betray your words. And when your exposed you give irrational analogies
@toobsucker "Your actions and beliefs betray your words. And when your exposed you give irrational analogies"
You seemed to have missed my point when mentioning cartoon characters. They are possible lifeforms. Are YOU now setting limits on what life is possible?
Please, tell me you see the point I am making and aren't going to just write it off because my point is inconvenient to your agenda.
squid: "read your post again. You were talking about cell evolution"
Toob: The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors &
selection produces them."
squid: "Nope. That is not true. That is not what Darwin proposed. Try again"
Wrong again. I started the theory at the point of the single cell. Just as Darwin
Why do you insist on saying "invalid" and "false" are the same thing? (I get the feeling admitting this error would undermine some other argument you are desperately trying to make. )
When you use the word "invalid" you mean a hypothesis falls outside the purview of science because it is untestable. Right? Science can't even start to judge if it's as true OR FALSE.
Disagree? Fine. Please provide documentation that this is the case.
@iridescentsquids "When you use the word "invalid" you mean a hypothesis falls outside the purview of science because it is untestable. Right? Science can't even start to judge if it's as true OR FALSE. "
A hypothesis is rejected by science, NOT because its proven untrue, but because its not capable of being proven false (falsified). You failto understand what real science should be. Rejecting possible truths because these "possible truths" can not be proven false is idiotic or liberal logic
Sure, and that COULD be the case with Elohim or Thor or whatever god you define. But the mere possibility that it's true isn't a good enough reason to believe it, not even for you"
Incorrect. if its existence is rational (and it is) and it explains the data, then the hypothesis is a valid consideration. Chemical reactions producing the cell does not explain the data. I.D. does.I.D. has created every concept in the cell. its valid
@toobsucker " then the hypothesis is a valid consideration. Chemical reactions producing the cell does not explain the data. I.D. does.I.D. has created every concept in the cell."
PROBABILITY.
A key word you are overlooking. What evidence do we have that I.D. is a better explanation than any other? The mere abstract notion that it explains "everything" is not science. That's just a weird variation on the ontological argument for god. (I can conceive of a perfect explanation...therefore...)
@iridescentsquids "I think the leap to an actual "god" concept is a mighty big one"
Right you have said that many times and never once given a reason for it. "I don't see it, therefore ti does not exist" is not a reason based in rational thought. Once you understand you must have a testable reason that either prohibits Godlife from existing, or makes Godlife highly improbable, you will also understand your decisions are emotionally based and not logically based. You don't see the difference
@toobsucker "Right you have said that many times and never once given a reason for it." Only because your actual argument FOR god is not, for the most part, our topic of discussion.
Mostly we are focusing on evolution and I.D. (neither of which, we both agree on, says anything to do with the existence of god.)
I'm happy to switch topics to your positive argument for the existence of God if you want to discuss that. It has something to do with infinite time, does it not? Explain.
@iridescentsquids "You seemed to have missed my point when mentioning cartoon characters. They are possible lifeforms. Are YOU now setting limits on what life is possible?Please, tell me you see the point I am making and aren't going to just write it off because my point is inconvenient "
Your point was to compare my rational argument for the existence of a vastly superior sentient being to a irrational (yet hypothetically possible) cartoon character, and expect me acknowledge equal probability
@toobsucker "expect me acknowledge equal probability"
Well, yes and no. I expected to show you the flaw in arguing from mere possibility as opposed to probability. This in response to your saying I should not limit what is possible. By turning the tables you are now forced to limit the possibilities.
My broader point: It's not good enough to say "you should consider something because it is possible"
@iridescentsquids "I check out the Susskind links. I would be surprised if he actually advocated "rejecting falsification"
He must and does advocate rejecting falsification when the current knowledge & understanding hit a brick wall & theory does not work. Staying within the confines of your own admitted limitations when determining FACT it laughably foolish. Should a "cro-magnon-like" intellect stay within his mental limitations when developing a theory of PC building?.
@iridescentsquids "Consider the treatment theoretical physics often gets, which you brought up earlier. It shares the exact same treatment from science as unfalsifiable creationist concepts"
"Treatment"?, a huge percentage of atheists in science accept the unfalsifiable string theory as valid thus true. Because it fixes a broken theory without a God. God will always be the last unfalsifiable concept entertained by the atheist. The liberal atheist is illogically biased to a huge degree
@toobsucker ""Treatment"?, a huge percentage of atheists in science accept the unfalsifiable string theory as valid thus true."
Where do you get this "valid thus true" bullshit from? My understanding is that within the field of theoretical physics string theory is controversial precisely because it is untestable. Facts.
@iridescentsquids "you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about"
You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists. The oldest definition of God we have is from the Sumer civilization and it is the same definition the Bible has. God = Elohim. Elohim = a life form that holds authority over you just as you hold authority over a room full of 3 years old kids, Atheists have no choice but to obscure a simply understood definition
@toobsucker "You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists."
Wow.
I don't know what the problem is. If somebody is to declare themselves atheist, it must in relation to a specific definition of god posited by somebody. Doesn't really matter who. It only matters that they say they don't share that belief. That's all there is too it.
My problem is you define the I.D. creator as both a supernatural god on par with religion, and natural. Make up your mind already.
"you are the one positing the existence of something based on faith, not evidence. You admit this freely. Tone down the arrogance, please"
Try and stay with the conservation. I said the God of the Bible must be taken on faith.
The concept of God is derived from logical inferences (a vast range of life forms are observable) and I.D. is derived from understanding orders of magnitude in the cell + the presences of information in DNA
@toobsucker "The concept of God is derived from logical inferences (a vast range of life forms are observable)"
A fine concept of God. This is not, however, how most people would define god, and nearly all atheism is not defined relative to it. I doubt most people would call god a "life form", seeing as he/she/it is supposed to be the creator of life. And to claim the first cause status it's problematic to put god on the same level as "life" without undermining the very meaning of the word.
@iridescentsquids "I'm not sure what planet you live on, but here on earth people frequently use evidence to both confirm and falsify beliefs. By your standards I don't need evidence, apparently. You live in a bizarro world'
You don't need evidence for your faith in abiogenesis. You proclaim it to be valid without observation. Yet you need evidence an intelligence can assemble the cell. Even though you know very well an intelligence WILL assemble the cell before chemical reactions do. Hypocrite
@toobsucker "You don't need evidence for your faith in abiogenesis. You proclaim it to be valid without observation."
No I don't believe it on faith.
Abiogenesis is largely an unknown. Meaning, although it fits with other current leading theories across many fields, it is full of holes and as yet not well understood. But it is also an extremely broad concept, and, just as evolution, make no specific claims about how it came about (and says nothing about the existence of god).
@iridescentsquids "Why do you insist on saying "invalid" and "false" are the same thing?"
in·val·id
Not legally or factually valid; null:
Falsely based or reasoned; faulty
So that which is unfalsifiable is considered NOT VALID by science.
va·lid Having some foundation; based on truth Actually supporting the intended point or claim
Falsification dictates Invalid hypotheses ARE NOT based in truth, DO NOT support the intended claim. They ARE NOT factually valid, THEY ARE falsely based
"Falsification dictates Invalid hypotheses ARE NOT based in truth" Flat out wrong. Consider the treatment theoretical physics often gets, which you brought up earlier. It shares the exact same treatment from science as unfalsifiable creationist concepts, which would be as follows:
1) It is not rejected as FALSE
2) Yet it is criticized as a faulty hypothesis in that it is (as yet) untestable.
@iridescentsquids "You are clearly not a critical thinker but an emotional one"
"Lol. Is this what you resort to when you you are having trouble?"
No trouble at all. You said
"This has absolutely no affect on your beliefs or mine unless the truth can manifest itself in the form of evidence"
In response to considering "all things that must be true if God truly does not exist". Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking
@toobsucker "Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking"
Nobody is proposing that your concept of a superior creator intelligence MUST be true, and is being ignored. Certainly I am not. Until there is demonstrable evidence to believe it is more than a concept, I will only concede that your superior intelligence creator exists as a CONCEPT along side many many other concepts in the same boat. Why expect special treatment?
@toobsucker "Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking"
When you say "everything that must be true" what are you referring to? Are you saying that all logical absolutes must be considered when forming a hypothesis? That's not true. Or do you mean all things that could possibly be true need to be considered? That's not true, either.
@iridescentsquids "irrelevant to your case for considering the probability of it being true"
You also prove my point once again when I said you don't care if the theory is true as long as its considered "valid" by science. You understand if you actually equated validity with truth as objective scientific theories (and all forms of logic) should do, you would understand unbiased objectivity MUST EQUATE validity with truth and invalidity with false. If you do not, you are not trustworthy.
@toobsucker "You also prove my point once again when I said you don't care if the theory is true as long as its considered "valid" by science."
Nope. Never said that.
I also explicitly stated so many times it's getting ridiculous there is no explicit connection between something being unfalsifiable and being true/false. How many times do I need to say this before you understand I MEAN WHAT I SAY.
@iridescentsquids "Every possibility you can imagine as unfalsifiable falls into this category"
As I have explained to you before science does break its illogical rule of falsification when it does not include a God.
Hawkings string theory has no evidence for its existence what so ever. Its just as unfalsifiable as God is. It predicts the existence of something that can not be empirically verified because adhering to only the falsifiable will not work in many instances. We KNOW THIS for a fact
@toobsucker You can put I.D. on par with string theory if you want to. I have no problem with that. I never said I did. Science has factions, disagreements, etc. String theory is often criticized, as is much of theoretical physics, for not being testable. So what?
Both I.D. and string theory ultimately have to reconcile with observation, evidence and every other aspect of the scientific method. String theory gets no unmerited special exception. I.D. should not either.
@iridescentsquids "IF it can be established species (DNA INFO) suddenly appeared, it can also be established they were intelligently designed."
"Logical absolute my ass. Lol. You can't be serious. You call that a logical absolute"
Your not even in the realm of rational thought. Give me the second hypothesis (other than I.D.) that can explain up to 100 million species just suddenly appearing on earth fully formed.
This is the reason why your an atheist. Your logic is completely absent
You don't remember asking this question last week?
1) Life has always existed
2) Abiogenesis from a deistic perspective (actually quite common)
3) Non-conscious life-building machines (joke, but hey, it's possible)
Anyway, aside from just being another false dichotomy, you have missed my broader point: Having the trait of being "possibly true" is not in itself helpful in determining if something is true.
@iridescentsquids "Its not even considered by science as a valid concept."
"irrelevant to your case for considering the probability of it being true"
Your reasoning is laughably ridiculous. When trying to access TRUTH as science should do, when rejecting a theory as not being "not scientific" it better damn well be because its FALSE/UNTRUE if science is TRULY objective. Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility
@toobsucker "Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility"
Not at all. How could this possibly mean that you are not being objective? It simply means that you are accepting that particular hypothesis as untestable and outside the powers of science to verify.
If you know of a better way to VERIFY whether your unfalsifiable hypothesis is true or not, I'm sure the whole world would like to know about it.
@iridescentsquids "The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building."
This is your response to my comment that the GOD is not a perfect explanation because it does not explain, it simply replaces one mystery with another"
U did not even understand my argument. Your claim that we (X) should be able to fully understand the designers methods, IF (Y) was designed. I gave you X (single cell) has no clue of any of our methodologies, so is INCAPABLE of understanding our designs
@toobsucker "so is INCAPABLE of understanding our designs"
No, I get it. You are saying that there is a chance that life is designed by a process that we can not comprehend. That is exactly consistent with my point. You are not actually providing a "perfect explanation", because you are not explaining anything, just saying "it happens by some mysterious, inherently unknowable process". That's not science. Science deals with what is, not what could possibly be.
@iridescentsquids "If you are talking about "other life" I'm fairly certain even most strong atheists would say that does not define their atheism"
This is where you fail to understand your logic & reasoning break down. The atheists has no reason based in critical thinking to exclude a "God life" from existing. ALL of the atheists reasoning is emotional or philosophical for not allowing "BIG LIFE" to exist. there is not one shred of DATA that supports limiting life's attributes is called for
The cell reproduction process itself proves evolution is the world's greatest fraud. Have you studied the cell reproduction process? This is in itself an ultra complex process. It's like a machine, the cell, executing a long list of super intelligently programmed complex instructions!From DNA splitting in 2 to be copied to, etc. copying of the cell is million times more difficult than for you to assemble the rolex watch on your own. Which I know you won't be able to complete in your life time.
@SeongKYi I suggest you "learn" about cell reproduction from other sources. You are reading biased creationist literature, and eating it up without doing independent research on your own.
If you really WANT to believe that what you are saying it true, there is no way I can possibly stop you. And that seems to be the case, so I won't. But if you are actually interested in knowing whether or not what you believe is verifiably true from a scientific perspective, I suggest you look to science.
"Who told you that it simply can not be explained?"
I expect that the modern-day operations and functions of the cell will be largely understood and explained, in the same way that the operations and functions of simpler designed objects, such as computers and spacecraft can already be understood and explained. To understand the cell, we need to reverse engineer it. But explaining how cells appear in the first place without ID, is like trying to explain how nature created Saturn V
@IDtaksovr " is like trying to explain how nature created Saturn V"
No it's not. Many of the best and most comprehensive explanations we have today for how certain cells and complex organisms are structured incorporate an evolutionary process. They human eye is frequently sited as a good example of this. It exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process, not an intelligent design.
Anyway, I.D. doesn't explain. It just replaces one mystery with another without good evidence.
Evolution doesn't explain cells and complex organisms. It rides on the coattails of what we have discovered about them, through reverse engineering. Darwinian evolution offers its irrelevant, untested narrative of what real science discovers. Just-so stories of "eye-evolution" provide useful case studies in the speculations, assumptions and philosophical baggage that evolutionary biologists bring with them.
@IDtaksovr "philosophical baggage that evolutionary biologists bring with them"
That's one way to look at it. You could say all theories are merely "philosophical baggage" even when the evidence backs them. I get the feeling you would say the same thing about the so called "big bang theory", maybe even all of modern geography estimating the age of the earth.
Am I right? Is all of this "philosophical baggage", too? Just testing my predictions as to your predisposition on matters of science.
Lets not get to general here. Why not test your assertion that the origin of the eye has been adequately explained by Darwinian theory. If I rubbish that claim, do you promise to be more open minded?
@IDtaksovr Open minded? Please. You are claiming that the entire theory of evolution is a fraud. A fraud perpetrated by tens of thousands of scientists across multiple disciplines and many decades of work. Saying it's wrong is one thing. Saying it's a fraud? Lunacy.
I would like to see evidence for that arrogant assertion first. Or were you just being overly passionate and exaggerating?
"You are claiming that the entire theory of evolution is a fraud"
No. I'm just trying to get you to back up an absurd claim that you made. Namely, that the human eye has been adequately explained by modern evolutionary theory......and you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it.
@IDtaksovr So now you are saying it's not a fraud? That's at least one large step toward common ground.
If we are going to discuss the example of the eye, I'll need to correct you on at least one assertion you are already claiming I made. (It might be a true assertions, but I did not make it):
I did not say that the structure of the eye was "adequately explained" by anything. I said that it exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process, and inconsistent with intelligent design.
".. it exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process,..."
Your assertion is now so vague as to be meaningless. Since you are unwilling to claim that the neo Darwinian mechanism can shed any light on human eye evolution (150 years after Darwin offered his own failed attempt), what relevance does Darwinian evolutionary theory have towards understanding the origin of the human eye? Surely you must have something after 150 yrs
@iridescentsquids "Both I.D. and string theory ultimately have to reconcile with observation, evidence and every other aspect of the scientific method. String theory gets no unmerited special exception. I.D. should not either"
Not true. String theory & multiverse do receive unmerited favor by many in science. Both are unfalsifiable. Just Google the terms and find out how many scientists have faith in them. Susskind , Weinberg, Linde, Rees, Vilenkin and Guth to name a few.
@toobsucker "unmerited favor" No, it's not unmerited.
A lot more good work has gone into the string theory, which been moving forward in fits and starts for some time, despite being (as yet) unfalsifiable.
Scientist's general low opinion of I.D. is probably tainted in part because so many fraudulent pseudo scientists push it for insincere reasons (basically to further the faith-based cause). But even on the merits I.D. has been slammed time and again. Slammed on the merits.
@iridescentsquids "If YOU don't believe in the god Thor, I suppose technically you are atheist with respect to Thor"
Who said I rejected Thors existence?. Thor may exist. Thor maybe a son of God in an unfallen state and appear to be "a god" to those that seen him. I believe the Hindu religion is based partly in making deities of of the sons of God. The Greek gods myth came from the Gen 6 "sons of God" that were on earth. "Thor like" beings are rational to me so I do not reject the concept
@iridescentsquids You dont care if the theory works as long as its falsifiable"
I did not say that falsification is more important than a valid theory I said that if it can't be falsified it falls outside of the purview of science"
LOL, its the same effect. If you acknowledging a rejected theory could also be true but its rejected because "it falls outside of the purview of science", then you admit the "purview of science" rejects possible truths, thus TRUTH is not the scientific objective
@iridescentsquids " Irreducible complexity is supposed to falsify evolution, Miller is not arguing proof for evolution, but is in fact showing that IC is not (as yet at least) well founded. IC claims rest on this (so far) unfounded absolute: function can not be maintained when you reduce complexity"
I.C. claims smaller subunits have no function by themselves thus the entire system must appear at once or be rejected by N.S. Miller did argue for evolution by giving functions to subunits
@toobsucker "Miller did argue for evolution by giving functions to subunits"
Technically, you were incorrect in claiming that Miller was trying to prove evolution. He was showing specific examples of how so-called irreducibly complex structures were in fact functional in less complex forms.
@iridescentsquids "Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility"
"Not at all. How could this possibly mean that you are not being objective? It simply means that you are accepting that particular hypothesis as untestable and outside the powers of science to verify"
Because your not being true to the OBJECT of the valid hypothesis , your being true to the SUBJECT of falsification which may produce UNTRUE results
@toobsucker "Because your not being true to the OBJECT of the valid hypothesis" You are not being UNTRUE to it, or true to it. It's impossible to be either. You simply can't do anything with it. All you can do is assume it's true/false without justification. You can't say there is "objectivity" to it because you can't know if it is accurate.
"SUBJECT of falsification which may produce UNTRUE results" I don't see how falsification produces untrue results. It reveals problems with hypothesis.
movie starts at 7:00
rikardhjort 1 month ago
Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
dintdot 2 months ago
Please please adjust the volume of the jingles in the videos! They are painful loud.
jonkerfrits 3 months ago
Absolutely incredible
crudhousefull 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
inspiring!
jpisar11 5 months ago in playlist TED
Why doesn't Bolinsky animate evolution, then put it on YouTube? It would be so laughable and ridiculous that people would question how they even consider evolution to be true. I think this is the best way to prove that evolution is the greatest fraud in the history of mankind. The evolution racket knows this; that's why there is no detailed animation on evolution.
SeongKYi 7 months ago
@SeongKYi " evolution is the greatest fraud in the history of mankind."
A couple posts ago you backed down on that point. Why raise it again if you don't mean it?
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
First, there was the stomach; but no intestines. You know, evolution is so slow. Then there was the large intestines and small intestines. But no rectum. The stupid evolution forgot about it. After zillion years of living without a rectum, the evolution realized rectum was necessary. So magically the rectum appeared. The stupid evolution also forgot pancreas. So this miraculous mammal somehow lived another zillion years without a pancreas. Do you still believe the fraud of evolution?
SeongKYi 7 months ago
@SeongKYi your argument is terrible. The organs dont form one by one, they form from a simple system with all basic parts, becoming more complex and specific with evolution. Much the same way a baby develops in the womb.
stefankozma 6 months ago
Evolution: Greatest fraud in history. I have never heard of any eye witness to this process in human's 6 thousand year history. If no evolution takes place in 6 thousand years, than may be it doesn't.
SeongKYi 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SeongKYi " I have never heard of any eye witness to this process" Because you have not looked. There are many examples of directly observed speciazation, both in nature and in laboratory conditions.
Again, if you are believing this because you WANT to, or to bolster your security with faith-based beliefs, fine. But don't pretend that what you are saying is scientifically verifiable.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@SeongKYi "Evolution: Greatest fraud in history." It's like name-calling at this point, and just silly.
If it is a "fraud", a willful act of deception, you realize that nearly every single scientist the world over would have to be in on the deception? Of course, you could be right, and every expert on the matter wrong. It's technically possible. It's also technically possible that, whenever we are not looking, pigs do fly.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iridescentsquids So you, TOO, think the organelles of the virus, which are million times more complex than a Rolex watch, formed on its own?
SeongKYi 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iridescentsquids So, you too believe the following as well?: Amino acids randomly mixing&mashing somehow miraculously formed all the ultra complex organelles;which are,each,million times more complex than a RolexWatch?
It is millions times more probable to have a correctly assembled RolexWatch from mixing&mashing all the parts of a RolexWatch -- Impossible!
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Unless there is evidence for the act of creating the complexity in it's current form, it's just anther form of theological conjecture and not science at all'
Your lack of logic is glaring here. You believe unless there is observable evidence of a designer creating the cell/species in their "current state" of complexity, the default answer is natural forces did it. Yet it does not phase you natural forces have NEVER been observed to create information & molecular machines.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "the default answer is natural forces did it. "
Again, your error is in your exclusive definition of "natural forces" or naturalism. You yourself said that the term "supernatural" isn't valid once what is supernatural is measurable (it can then be called natural) Try replacing "nature" with "things that are not inherently unobservable or unmeasurable, or which don't defy the laws of physics." The term "natural" is only exclusive of that which is "supernatural".
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "C'mon, these points have been refuted many times before. If you like I'll dredge up the many flaws with this concept"
There are no flaws with I.C.. Millers arguments are not valid. Miller argued the TTSS pump is used in of itself therefore this proves the entire system evolved. The ONLY THING that proves evolution is the actual transition from one state to another and miller can not show this transition. The reason is the transition requires new precise proteins folds
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Miller argued the TTSS pump is used in of itself therefore this proves the entire system evolved."
Irreducible complexity is supposed to falsify evolution, and proponents of IC claim that if something can be shown to be irreducible it could not have evolved. Miller is not arguing proof for evolution, but is in fact showing that IC is not (as yet at least) well founded. IC claims rest on this (so far) unfounded absolute: function can not be maintained when you reduce complexity.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "The concept of god does not "perfectly explain" because it isn't much of an explanation. You are saying a supernatural force made everything through a process we CAN'T explain. If it was a perfect explanation, it would explain that process"
Your reasoning never ceases to ammsue me. The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building. He couldn't begin to understand transistors, transducer etc... Does this mean he rejects I.D. as a PCs origins? Liberal Logic
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building."
This is your response to my comment that the GOD is not a perfect explanation because it does not explain, it simply replaces one mystery with another.
There are a list of logical fallacies you should be aware of and look out that would help you make better arguments. You are big on the false dichotomies and (in this case) ye old argumentum ad ignorantiam.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "My point is that believing it is there is not the same as asserting that I KNOW it ISN'T somewhere else"
Agreed, however we are not talking about knowing anything, we are talking about belief. And My point is believing "something" does not exist equates not beliving "something" exists. OR Knowing "something" is valid equates knowing "something" is not invalid. Just because someone does not understand or consider all the variables does not negate their validity.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Just because someone does not understand or consider all the variables does not negate their validity."
No, but it also says nothing about their validity. Just as I.D. isn't absolutely knowably false, there are so many hypothesis in science that are not in good standing, and it has nothing to do with the possibility, however remote, of being true. Many hypothesis live in the outer, obscure realms of science until there is real reason to take them seriously.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "an appearance" of intelligent design is not good enough for me"
This is why atheists need psychiatrists not data. If you don't want something to be a duck no matter how it walks or talks or acts, you will not see what is right in front of your face. Your emotional attachment to atheism prevents critical thinking from being allowed. You understand that which "appears" to be X, very well could be X.. its a philosophical choice , not a logical one to reject that which could be
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "You understand that which "appears" to be X, very well could be X.. its a philosophical choice , not a logical one to reject that which could be"
Are you kidding? I'm beginning to think you are a troll. Please confirm you aren't just egging me on here.
Whether or not we believe something is true or not based on appearance alone isn't just a philosophical choice! (I'm amazed you wrote that) And it's not illogical to be skeptical of appearances until substantiated.
Amazing.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "But that does not mean that unfalsifiable hypothesis are rejected as false. NO SCIENTIST THINKS THE WAY YOU ARE. Show me one that does. I've been asking you to do this from the beginning but I think you are too dishonest to admit you can not"
This response is truly amazing. Anyone that cares that scientific theories should be based in TRUTH & FACTS should also care an "invalid hypothesis" may be actually be TRUE & VALID. Anyone that does not care is dishonest to begin with
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "Anyone that cares that scientific theories should be based in TRUTH & FACTS should also care an "invalid hypothesis" may be actually be TRUE & VALID."
Irrelevant to my point regarding unfalsifiable hypothesis rejected as false, as you have conceded the point already. But the PROBLEM of a possible true unfalsifiable hypothesis still stands. Science's response now is to deal with what we CAN verify only, and say nothing about what we can not. Do you have a better solution?
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Can I "infer" there are super giant frogs?"
Your reasoning abilities do not equate logical realities. In your head "super giant frogs" are illogical because they are not observable. In your equation physical size determines "rational chances of existence". You need to rid your illogical misconceptions of only that which is concivable within the degrees your limited mind can comprehend is logical. Were Molecular machines invalid at one time because they were too small?
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "In your equation physical size determines "rational chances of existence".
Size is one quality that I have chose to modify. You are simply choosing another, although yours is actually much more vague. You are describing a KIND of intelligence you claim you can't even imagine, but call "superior". What's illogical is saying you can put characteristics on something you inherently unknowable.
Anyway, my point: By your logic I can infer God-frogs exist, superior to all other frogs.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "And yes a "life-building machine" is falsifiable."
"Waiting. Show me how this CAN? NOT be true"
LOL, you just argue to argue not knowing when to stop.
We have no examples of these machines existing. We have no mechanisms to build this machine by natural means. A machine capable of life creation defies the law of bio-genesis not to mention Shannons channel capacity. That which is quantifiable can never be produced by something that is measurably less than its self
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "invalid hypothesis" may be TRUE & VALID."
Think of it this way. 500AD, somebody makes a statement that HAPPENS to be true, "light changes it's path when passing near heavy objects". They have no evidence for this claim, but HAPPEN to be correct. An extremely lucky guess. Should we believe it? No. It's rational to withhold judgement/belief until the claim can be verified. And what would science have to say? Nothing at all until it can be verified. It's about reliability, not bias.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "the intelligence you describe is a difference in KIND, not just DEGREE (certainly it is if it is omnipotent or supernatural--as no example of either of these KINDS of intelligence exists any more than a unicorn is a KIND of supernatural horse)"
If a different "kind" exists its because the different degree makes it so. That said we have no observable evidence even a slightly superior intelligence exists, therefore under your rules of determining facts it can not exist
toobsucker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "If a different "kind" exists its because the different degree makes it so."
A unicorn can be inferred to exist by your logic as follows: Horses exist. A slightly superior horse therefor is possible. Unicorns are possible. They are simply a KIND of horse by degree of horseness.
"therefore under your rules of determining facts it can not exist" Facts are facts, and are not inferred.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Besides, a distant god can be as mysterious as it needs to be It's the exact same argument (and equally unfalsifiable)"
Not the same argument at all.
Yes a distant God could disguise himself as a spaghetti monster or pink unicorn also. YOUR point of debate is to produce a rational & logical 3rd alternative to getting the DNA & RNA sequences precisely arranged for species building. NOT to produce an outlandish unfalsifiable 3rd alternative to an intelligence arranging DNA
toobsucker 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "When you say "everything that must be true" what are you referring to? Are you saying that all logical absolutes must be considered
when forming a hypothesis? That's not true. Or do you mean all things that could possibly be true need to be considered?"
Both are true. Logic dictates when forming a hypothesis (if you want the hypothesis to be true) you must also consider as a part of your hypothesis ALL THINGS that now must also be true if your hypothesis is true. Yes U do
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids ""Limiting life is illogical" In no way am I limiting the possibility of life, or the form life takes. I don't believe in these things NOT because I don't think they are possible, but because I don't see evidence for them"
The evidence is in the cell. At least the evidence for a super intellect is in the cell. You combine that with the universes precise fine tuning for life and this super intellect now appears as the universes designer also.
toobsucker 8 months ago
Truth is:evolution is a nonsense.How can something this ultra complex,with vast structures,form on its own and function at all?It would take full knowledge in chemistry,physics,nano-technology,&materials science to even contemplate it.It's obvious that the cell was engineered:Designed and implemented with these advanced knowledge.The presenter mentioned micromachines;machines can never form on its own; unless it obtained"PHD+∞"in those advanced knowledge. Evolution is the biggest lie in history.
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi Basically, you are saying that everything that looks complex to you must have been designed. Is that right? You might as well say ALL of science is a lie, then. That's pretty much the same idea, as all science takes steps toward understanding the order (and seeming complexity) we see around us. That's not a bad summary of science in general. So, science is trying to explain things that are so complex they just blow your mind. And if it blows your mind, science must be wrong about it.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
Science is a concept,Not a Machine.WhenDid a MachineForm on ItsOwn,ever?It'sMillion TimesMore probable for a RolexWatch to form on its own than TheCell.That's how complex TheCell is.ToCreate TheCell,It wouldTake full knowledge in chemistry,physics,nano-technology,&MaterialsScience.EvenIntelligent humans don't FullyUnderstand TheSciences;thus can't create TheCell;evolution has NoChance.InAddition,theCell functionsPERFECTLY&EFFICIENTLY.No humanEngineered machine canMatch thisPERFECTION&EFFICIENCY
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi "TimesMore probable for a RolexWatch to form on its own than TheCell.That's how complex TheCell is." Rolex watches do not reproduce themselves. Strange thing is: all life forms we know of DO reproduce themselves, and they don't do it by intelligently designing each offspring. You could say that they are their own creators and no intelligence is required. Each life form we can see is the direct result of a biological act of regeneration.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
InOrder for TheCell to start reproducing,it must be a complete cell first.This is where evolution is proven to be an absolute FRAUD!How did this complete cell first APPEARED ON HEARTH,originally?Did amino acids randomly mixing&mashing somehow miraculously formed all the ultra complex organelles;which are,each,million times more complex than a RolexWatch?It is millions times more probable to have a correctly assembled RolexWatch from mixing&mashing all the parts of a RolexWatch -- Impossible!
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi Changing your argument, I see. That's OK. Your new one is also incorrect:
"InOrder for TheCell to start reproducing,it must be a complete cell first." This is not true. There are examples of all different levels of (even non-cellular life) reproducing. The basic process of reproducing and passing on information, although complex, is not contingent upon any structure except those that enable it to survive and reproduce.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids There are examples of all different levels of (even non-cellular life) reproducing.
WHICH ONE? NAME JUST ONE. Without all the organelles present, cellular reproduction is impossible. Please stop wasting my time and prove that the numerous organelles, which are million times more complex than a rolex watch, formed on its own. Did you ever see a rolex watch form on its own from its parts? Not alone, the watch parts forming on its own. CELL'S is million time more complex!
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi Perhaps this is an issue with our definitions of "life". A virus, although not universally considered "alive", reproduces through a process arguably as complex (with striking similarities and even some of the same building blocks) as any cellular life. It does not metabolize, but it supports my supposition that "the basic process of reproducing and passing on information, although complex, is not contingent upon any structure except those that enable it to survive and reproduce.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids So you think the organelles of the virus, which are million times more complex than a Rolex watch, formed on its own?
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi A virus does not have organelles.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids Whatever the hell the internal mini organs are. That's your best argument for evolution?
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi "Whatever the hell the internal mini organs are." There are no organs, mini or otherwise. Again, a virus does not metabolize. It does reproduce using mechanisms similar to that of celled organisms.
I'm not making an argument FOR evolution. At this point I'm merely pointing out that 1) your arrogant assertion that evolution is a fraud is entirely unfounded, and 2) regurgitating creationist propaganda, like this much refuted irreducible complexity argument, does not make you right.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "But faith is not the only way (in fact, I would argue it is a very uncommon way) to form beliefs. Beliefs can also be formulated on evidence"
Its the only way to form a naturalistic origins of life & species hypothesis. You have no evidence what so ever of abiogenesis & copying errors & selection writing new information for billions of new proteins. The huge changes predicted by evolution are made from observing very small changes, then ASSUMING they will accumulate
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Its the only way to form a naturalistic origins of life & species hypothesis."
100% wrong. Again, you misuse the term "naturalistic". For you it includes any and every explanation that does not involve a creator.
Try as hard as you may, you can not refute that it is possible to form beliefs based on evidence, and vary depending on the reliability and amount of evidence.
Your beliefs are faith-based because they are absolute and you believe them no matter what, unlike mine.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "gnostic atheist does believe, in as much as anything can be known, it is also knowable whether there is a god or not. It's as simple as that"
Lets rephrase that. The arrogant philosopher atheist believes he can "know things" when logic dictates he can not. Since he does not even KNOW everything that exists in our own solar system let alone the entire universe. The only way its knowable if God exists or not is if God allows you to know it.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "The arrogant philosopher atheist believes he can "know things" when logic dictates he can not" There may be some arrogance in that. I don't see a lick of difference between claiming you can know a god does not exist or claiming you can know a god does. Both are equally arrogant. And you are the latter.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "If "supernatural" is just the natural that is not yet known, science should be on your side."
You also admitted just because something is unfalsifiable does not make it false. This also means (if you can start understanding all things that must be true) Something that is unfalsifiable maybe TRUE or VALID. So staying within the lines of logic & reason. A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical"
Really, you've got to step it up. We've been over this & you're falling behind:
Science can only address that which is measurable. If something is true but completely unfalsifiable it DOES fall outside the purview of science. Yes. But we are left unable to measure whether it is true or not. Every possibility you can imagine as unfalsifiable falls into this category.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "A VALID & TRUE hypothesis that is also unfalsifiable is WILL BE rejected by science. This is TOTALLY illogical"
"Science can only address that which is measurable"
Of course, this why I belabor the point of the lack of critical thinking by liberals in science. Developing a theory while at the same time acknowledging unfalsifiable things can be both valid & unfalsifiable, but yet not considering their possible existence when determining TRUTH in science is reprehensible
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists."
"I don't know what the problem is. If somebody is to declare themselves atheist, it must in relation to a specific definition of god posited by somebody"
Yes, its in relation to theists definition of Elohim. Now explain to me why Elohim falls into the realm of the "super natural". You may appear super natural to an amoeba only because the amoeba can not comprehend the natural methods you use
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "You may appear super natural to an amoeba"
Sure, and that COULD be the case with Elohim or Thor or whatever god you define. But the mere possibility that it's true isn't a good enough reason to believe it, not even for you.
And, yes, atheism defines itself as a lack of belief in "god", as it relates to specific definitions of god posited by...whoever is positing it. If YOU don't believe in the god Thor, I suppose technically you are atheist with respect to Thor.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Now look at this other statement you made"
" the scientific definition of falsification includes rejecting all unfalsifiable hypothesis as false"
"You say "as false" This, I disagree with"
The point is exactly the same, you can't see it. If ALL hypotheses are selected on the basis THEY ARE TRUE, then all rejections should be on the basis THEY ARE FALSE. Not the case. Selection & rejection ARE NOT based in true & false but rather valid & invalid. U prove my point again
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Selection & rejection ARE NOT based in true & false but rather valid & invalid."
Great, so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable is not deemed true or false. I'll just assume when you said rejected as false you didn't mean it?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Great, so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable is not deemed true or false. I'll just assume when you said rejected as false you didn't mean it?"
Great so we are in agreement. A hypothesis "rejected" as unfalsifiable, is being rejected with the understanding it may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist. Yet is rejected. So (under all thing that must be true if X is true) an accepted hypothesis maybe also be untrue/invalid
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist. "
What's all this? MAY be the ONLY VALID? What's this bullshit? That's like saying "You can't prove that what I imagine is NOT true". So what? I can put absolutely anything that I can imagine in exactly the same situation as your particular fantasy. Yes, fantasy. Because without evidence or reason to believe it is anything but imaginary, even if it can't be disproven, it deserves to be called fantasy.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "may be the only valid hypothesis objective reality dictates can exist."
What's all this? MAY be the ONLY VALID? What's this bullshit? That's like saying "You can't prove that what I imagine is NOT true"
Im getting tried of schooling your logical. An unfalsifiable hypothesis may be the ONLY valid hypothesis we have. This is the reason for string theory. The current models in physics do not work, so in order to fix a theory that does not work, the unfalsifiable is a must
toobsucker 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids ""...sound reasoning. Life exists, No reason to believe we are the first."
Exactly my point. The mere "possibility" is not enough, you still need to back your positive assertion with an argument"
LOL, that is the argument. You don't seem to understand logical inferences are uses constantly in science and the logical inference ITS SELF is the argument for existence. If pink unicorns exist on mars we can logically infer their existence elsewhere.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "If pink unicorns exist on mars we can logically infer their existence elsewhere."
Now, don't YOU start placing limits on what is possible.
Why don't you explain to me again why the existence of pink unicorns can not be "inferred" but existence of an omnipotent (are we calling it supernatural?) creator-consciousness CAN be "inferred".
What, again, is the evidence for the super-consciousness? And how would you define it? What are it's qualities that you can "infer"?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids I also explicitly stated so many times it's getting ridiculous there is no explicit connection between something being unfalsifiable and being true/false. How many times do I need to say this before you understand I MEAN WHAT I SAY'
I completely understand. You do not equate the unfalsifiable (the rejected hypotheses) with true or false. And this is the problem I have. When deciding objective reality, the critical thinker (true intellectual) can not reject the unrejectable
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "When deciding objective reality, the critical thinker (true intellectual) can not reject the unrejectable"
Correct. I agree. Finally! You can not reject it. Now consider the flip side. Can you ACCEPT it? You can't accept it either. In order to believe you must use faith.
Serious inductive reasoning problems occur if you accept it merely because it is a possibility. To do so would be to ignore the fact that you could apply the same justification to ALL unfalsifiable explanations.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "we can hypothetically have a hypothesis that is VALID and also FALSE/UNTRUE."
"Yea, so? How many times do I have to say I agree with you? I AGREE"
Great, as long as you understand the flawed methods used by science. Most people believe science is an objective endeavor concerning its self with only strict unrelenting facts adhered to by unbiased minds (as science should be). when in fact its not true
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy" Leonard Susskind
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "Great, as long as you understand the flawed methods used by science."
I don't believe there is such a thing as a perfect method. If you or somebody else could improve upon that method, I'm pretty certain that scientific world would love to hear it. The problem is that this imperfect method seems to be 1) the best method we know of so far and 2) has a fantastic track record.
Undermining science because it does not support faith-based political/social agendas is a serious mistake.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "What he did purports to SUPPORTING the position that it's OK to teach evolution because it is still science (he's saying it has not been falsified by IC), but he's not "proving" evolution (science does not "prove")"
Science verifies theories all the time. Science is under the belief (delusion) Darwinian evolution is verified/valid, therefore eliminating an attempt to falsify (I.C.) it, verifies its validity, Nothing is "proven" per se because in many eons things could change
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "Science is under the belief (delusion) Darwinian evolution is verified/valid,"
You know, I will actually agree with this point to a degree. Technically science does not "believe" but scientists do. And all beliefs are sort of like delusions, to be a pessimist about it. But it's not accurate to say that the belief is that evolution has been verified 100%, just that it has been verified to a great extent (lots of evidence). Nothing in science is absolute.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Even if you can, I'll just show you how easy it is to morph the concept and come up with yet another unfalsifiable hypothesis that "perfectly explains" why life is the way it is now."
Correct, but that is not your objective numbnuts. I asked for a logical falsifiable 3rd alternative. Not a unfalsifiable ridiculous one
In order to falsify my statement that if abiogenesis/evolution is falsified, I.D. is the only alternative, you must attempt to give RATIONAL responses. get it?
toobsucker 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Give me the second hypothesis "
"3) Non-conscious life-building machines (joke but hey it's possible)"
You see you must reach into the absurd to reject the only two rational arguments. If theists cant get away with "who created God", how do you get away without explaining the life-building machines origins?.
I did not answer this post before because its was completely ridiculous. All three answers are easily falsified. You need to understand your decisions are emotional
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "If theists cant get away with "who created God", how do you get away without explaining the life-building machines origins?."
I don't. I don't claim this to be any more or less absurd than your god concept. I do agree, however, that this idea is an absurd one.
But that is irrelevant. Just because this is extremely (ridiculously) unlikely, it is not falsifiable. Assuming something did DESIGN life as you claim, that in itself says nothing about the characteristics of the designer.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Show me an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis rejected AS FALSE."
Of course anyone that does not care if an accepted scientific hypothesis is actually TRUE (just as long as its valid) would also not care that the rejected hypotheses are also considered "not false".
Facts mean nothing to liberal philosophers.
"In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" E. Darwin
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker ""In fact the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling" E. Darwin"
Where is this from? I suspect it is not accurate or out of context. Fitting facts (or rejecting them) to a priori reasoning is a serious (and well understood) fallacy. By the way, that is not the same thing as rejecting something unfalsifiable as false. Now that you agree there's no need for you to prove otherwise.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Anyone that knowingly rejects possible truths when developing scientific theories is intellectually inept."
"Nobody is rejecting possible? truths AS FALSE. This is a hugely important distinction"
Reiterating the same point is futile. Try to grasp this please. Rejection = INVALID. Accepting = VALID. Now we have made it clear VALID does not equate TRUE & INVALID does not equate FALSE. Simple reasoning now dictates valid hypotheses can be FALSE & invalid can also be TRUE
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "Simple reasoning now dictates valid hypotheses can be FALSE & invalid can also be TRUE"
Yes, we agree. Nobody is rejecting them as false.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Lack of belief IS a default position, yes. I would find it highly entertaining to hear you try to argue otherwise"
"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence" Douglas Futuyma
You fail to understand "ALL THINGS" as Futuyma understands
toobsucker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker "Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not." There is is a magical teapot orbiting mars or there isn't. I either have a 10 ton elephant hiding behind my ear or I don't.
You are the kind of either useless or false dichotomies. These are not USEFUL in determining what is true.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You are essentially saying this this God/creator concept is the ONE link between all religions and I.D, but conveniently ignoring the fact that all of the God concepts are supernatural/magical and your I.D. god is not"
That is because you conveniently & continually ignore the term "supernatural" is relative to your understanding of it. Nothing is supernatural, everything God does can be understood and makes perfect sense if you understand the methods used.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker " Nothing is supernatural, everything God does can be understood and makes perfect sense if you understand the methods used." If this is the case, why did you rail so vehemently against falsification? You claimed tirelessly (until I finally proved you wrong) that it unfairly excludes the possibility of a supernatural creator.
If "supernatural" is just the natural that is not yet known, science should be on your side. And so should the evidence. But it's not.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "I am not the only one making this assertion. Many (yes, many) conservative thinkers feel exactly the same way about him"
I am not defending Glen Beck. I know very little about him other than he is passionate about his beliefs and he is a Morman which I disagree with. ALL people everywhere make decsions based on how something makesw them feel. Knowingly eating unhealthy foods when you have health problems is a simple example that ALL people do. Liberals take it to an extreme.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "I am not defending Glen Beck. I know very little about him"
You should, considering that you are willing to make blanket statements about political psychology. You should at least know that the most famous and influential conservative commentators COMPLETELY CONTRADICT your assertion regarding liberal vs. conservative logic and emotions.
I would think you would at least try to know what is common knowledge before making such an arrogant claim.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Secondly, such a result would mean we don't understand and need new hypothesis. Maybe the process is very different than previously thought. I have no problem with that possibility. Doesn't mean "god done it"
ALL of science has your same mindset. I.D. is never considered because its been labeled "super natural". So even when random copying errors & selection are totally removed from the theory as mechanism for morphological change they will cling to naturalism at all costs
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "I.D. is never considered because its been labeled "super natural".
No. No. and once again NO. I.D. is not considered because there isn't good evidence for it.
You yourself have claimed multiple times that I.D. has nothing to do with supernatural forces.
Make up your mind.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Are you positing that the entire theory of evolution would be falsified because the specific processes are (lets assume) wildly misunderstood? Firstly, that is not a way to falsify the entire general theory of evolution"
The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99.99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors & selection produces them. This CAN be falsified very quickly
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99.99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors & selection produces them."
Nope. That is not true. That is not what Darwin proposed. Try again.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "The only positive assertion regarding belief is "I believe it". As you said before, it's not an assertion about what is known, and it does not address the certainty (or lack thereof) in that belief"
Just because you don't acknowledge or comprehend all the variables that must be true if your hypothesis is true does not mean they are not in effect. The cosmological constant HAD TO exist if the physics model was correct. God MUST NOT exist if your hypothesis is correct
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "The cosmological constant HAD TO exist if the physics model was correct. God MUST NOT exist if your hypothesis is correct"
So what? This has absolutely no affect on your beliefs or mine unless the truth can manifest itself in the form of evidence.
Duh. This is why there is a question regarding truth to begin with.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids either you are bullshitting or just not getting it. Your I.D. concept does not mention God specifically, so to disagree with it would not necessarily be an atheist position (which is a position on God, not intelligence or creators). You can't have it both ways. Are we talking about god or not Stop pussyfooting around"
And your "other life" scenario has no logical reason to reject a God. YOU can't have it both ways. You want other life to be a logical possibility but reject GOD
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker " You want other life to be a logical possibility but reject GOD"
My god you are dense. If I, or anybody else, is going to accurately define themselves as an atheist, you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about.
If you are talking about "other life" I'm fairly certain even most strong atheists would say that does not define their atheism.
You are bullshitting. You're just playing with definitions and not making a serious attempt here.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "My god you are dense. If I, or anybody else, is going to accurately define themselves as an atheist, you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about"
You (as have all atheists) have illogically and without scientific reason put limitations of other life in the universe. I have asked you many times to give me the empirical DATA that suggest life can only be "THIS POWERFUL" you have NEVER ONCE given me the DATA that supports this assumption.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "empirical DATA that suggest life can only be "THIS POWERFUL"
I've answered this before. Many times. Let me be clear:
There is no inherent limit, say the one you and I both agree on ---> the notion of something "supernatural" is not helpful, as the moment it is measurable as such, it is natural.
The difference between us: I need evidence to believe something specific exists. You don't because your beliefs are fundamentally faith-based.
Which is fine. Just be honest about it.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "No, I'm not limiting powers...Superman is POSSIBLE. The Easter bunny could be real. I concede that even the Mickey Mouse could live on the moon, and the moon is made of cheese"
When making an analogy your source & target must prove a rationally relationship. Yours do not. We ARE NOT talking about celestial objects made of cultured milk and cartoon charters living on this cultured milk. We are talking about a superior intellect. My analogies work because they can be observed
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "We are talking about a superior intellect. My analogies work because they can be observed"
Regardless, your claim that I am limiting the form life could possibly take is unfounded. In fact, mine seems more open-minded than yours, considering you are only willing to consider certain forms that might conform with your pre-existing faith.
You say your analogies can be observed. R you saying that you have observed a superior intellect? Or just that Superman does not have that trait?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids Your claim that atheism is an emotional state revealing and interesting (and fundamentally irrational one, by ANY definition). You seem upset. Sorry to upset you"
My claim that liberals try to avoid "upsetting" is verified. what is irrational is limiting the intelligence level in the universe without any good reason while at the same time claiming "No, I'm not limiting powers"
Your actions and beliefs betray your words. And when your exposed you give irrational analogies
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Your actions and beliefs betray your words. And when your exposed you give irrational analogies"
You seemed to have missed my point when mentioning cartoon characters. They are possible lifeforms. Are YOU now setting limits on what life is possible?
Please, tell me you see the point I am making and aren't going to just write it off because my point is inconvenient to your agenda.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids toob: "Darwin proposed"
squid: "read your post again. You were talking about cell evolution"
Toob: The Darwinian theory of evolution (which is 99% of the theory taught) is a single cell with no information for morphology or new functional protein folds, will through random copying errors &
selection produces them."
squid: "Nope. That is not true. That is not what Darwin proposed. Try again"
Wrong again. I started the theory at the point of the single cell. Just as Darwin
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "where you proved me wrong"
you don't remember admitting to me that just because something is unfalsifiable it does not mean it is labeled "false" by science?"
You don't even recognize when you lost a argument. I said
" the scientific definition of falsification includes rejecting all unfalsifiable hypothesis as false"
&
"the scientific definition of falsification includes rejecting all unfalsifiable hypothesis"
Have IDENTICAL results of being invalid thus false
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker " invalid thus false"
ug. We are back to this?
Why do you insist on saying "invalid" and "false" are the same thing? (I get the feeling admitting this error would undermine some other argument you are desperately trying to make. )
When you use the word "invalid" you mean a hypothesis falls outside the purview of science because it is untestable. Right? Science can't even start to judge if it's as true OR FALSE.
Disagree? Fine. Please provide documentation that this is the case.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "When you use the word "invalid" you mean a hypothesis falls outside the purview of science because it is untestable. Right? Science can't even start to judge if it's as true OR FALSE. "
A hypothesis is rejected by science, NOT because its proven untrue, but because its not capable of being proven false (falsified). You failto understand what real science should be. Rejecting possible truths because these "possible truths" can not be proven false is idiotic or liberal logic
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "A hypothesis is rejected by science, NOT because its proven untrue, but because its not capable of being proven false (falsified)."
Do you see that you are changing your points? Look at the above statement. This is a statement we both, for the most part, agree on.
Now look at this other statement you made:
" the scientific definition of falsification includes rejecting all unfalsifiable hypothesis as false"
You say "as false"!!!!!
This, I disagree with. It's incorrect.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You may appear super natural to an amoeba"
Sure, and that COULD be the case with Elohim or Thor or whatever god you define. But the mere possibility that it's true isn't a good enough reason to believe it, not even for you"
Incorrect. if its existence is rational (and it is) and it explains the data, then the hypothesis is a valid consideration. Chemical reactions producing the cell does not explain the data. I.D. does.I.D. has created every concept in the cell. its valid
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker " then the hypothesis is a valid consideration. Chemical reactions producing the cell does not explain the data. I.D. does.I.D. has created every concept in the cell."
PROBABILITY.
A key word you are overlooking. What evidence do we have that I.D. is a better explanation than any other? The mere abstract notion that it explains "everything" is not science. That's just a weird variation on the ontological argument for god. (I can conceive of a perfect explanation...therefore...)
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "I think the leap to an actual "god" concept is a mighty big one"
Right you have said that many times and never once given a reason for it. "I don't see it, therefore ti does not exist" is not a reason based in rational thought. Once you understand you must have a testable reason that either prohibits Godlife from existing, or makes Godlife highly improbable, you will also understand your decisions are emotionally based and not logically based. You don't see the difference
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Right you have said that many times and never once given a reason for it." Only because your actual argument FOR god is not, for the most part, our topic of discussion.
Mostly we are focusing on evolution and I.D. (neither of which, we both agree on, says anything to do with the existence of god.)
I'm happy to switch topics to your positive argument for the existence of God if you want to discuss that. It has something to do with infinite time, does it not? Explain.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You seemed to have missed my point when mentioning cartoon characters. They are possible lifeforms. Are YOU now setting limits on what life is possible?Please, tell me you see the point I am making and aren't going to just write it off because my point is inconvenient "
Your point was to compare my rational argument for the existence of a vastly superior sentient being to a irrational (yet hypothetically possible) cartoon character, and expect me acknowledge equal probability
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "expect me acknowledge equal probability"
Well, yes and no. I expected to show you the flaw in arguing from mere possibility as opposed to probability. This in response to your saying I should not limit what is possible. By turning the tables you are now forced to limit the possibilities.
My broader point: It's not good enough to say "you should consider something because it is possible"
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "I check out the Susskind links. I would be surprised if he actually advocated "rejecting falsification"
He must and does advocate rejecting falsification when the current knowledge & understanding hit a brick wall & theory does not work. Staying within the confines of your own admitted limitations when determining FACT it laughably foolish. Should a "cro-magnon-like" intellect stay within his mental limitations when developing a theory of PC building?.
Its Ridiculous
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Consider the treatment theoretical physics often gets, which you brought up earlier. It shares the exact same treatment from science as unfalsifiable creationist concepts"
"Treatment"?, a huge percentage of atheists in science accept the unfalsifiable string theory as valid thus true. Because it fixes a broken theory without a God. God will always be the last unfalsifiable concept entertained by the atheist. The liberal atheist is illogically biased to a huge degree
toobsucker 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker ""Treatment"?, a huge percentage of atheists in science accept the unfalsifiable string theory as valid thus true."
Where do you get this "valid thus true" bullshit from? My understanding is that within the field of theoretical physics string theory is controversial precisely because it is untestable. Facts.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "you must have a consistent definition of what the god is we are talking about"
You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists. The oldest definition of God we have is from the Sumer civilization and it is the same definition the Bible has. God = Elohim. Elohim = a life form that holds authority over you just as you hold authority over a room full of 3 years old kids, Atheists have no choice but to obscure a simply understood definition
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "You fail to understand it is theists that define "God" not atheists."
Wow.
I don't know what the problem is. If somebody is to declare themselves atheist, it must in relation to a specific definition of god posited by somebody. Doesn't really matter who. It only matters that they say they don't share that belief. That's all there is too it.
My problem is you define the I.D. creator as both a supernatural god on par with religion, and natural. Make up your mind already.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You don't care about truth in DATA"
"you are the one positing the existence of something based on faith, not evidence. You admit this freely. Tone down the arrogance, please"
Try and stay with the conservation. I said the God of the Bible must be taken on faith.
The concept of God is derived from logical inferences (a vast range of life forms are observable) and I.D. is derived from understanding orders of magnitude in the cell + the presences of information in DNA
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "The concept of God is derived from logical inferences (a vast range of life forms are observable)"
A fine concept of God. This is not, however, how most people would define god, and nearly all atheism is not defined relative to it. I doubt most people would call god a "life form", seeing as he/she/it is supposed to be the creator of life. And to claim the first cause status it's problematic to put god on the same level as "life" without undermining the very meaning of the word.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "I'm not sure what planet you live on, but here on earth people frequently use evidence to both confirm and falsify beliefs. By your standards I don't need evidence, apparently. You live in a bizarro world'
You don't need evidence for your faith in abiogenesis. You proclaim it to be valid without observation. Yet you need evidence an intelligence can assemble the cell. Even though you know very well an intelligence WILL assemble the cell before chemical reactions do. Hypocrite
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "You don't need evidence for your faith in abiogenesis. You proclaim it to be valid without observation."
No I don't believe it on faith.
Abiogenesis is largely an unknown. Meaning, although it fits with other current leading theories across many fields, it is full of holes and as yet not well understood. But it is also an extremely broad concept, and, just as evolution, make no specific claims about how it came about (and says nothing about the existence of god).
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Why do you insist on saying "invalid" and "false" are the same thing?"
in·val·id
Not legally or factually valid; null:
Falsely based or reasoned; faulty
So that which is unfalsifiable is considered NOT VALID by science.
va·lid Having some foundation; based on truth Actually supporting the intended point or claim
Falsification dictates Invalid hypotheses ARE NOT based in truth, DO NOT support the intended claim. They ARE NOT factually valid, THEY ARE falsely based
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Falsely based or reasoned; faulty"
Again, not false.
"Falsification dictates Invalid hypotheses ARE NOT based in truth" Flat out wrong. Consider the treatment theoretical physics often gets, which you brought up earlier. It shares the exact same treatment from science as unfalsifiable creationist concepts, which would be as follows:
1) It is not rejected as FALSE
2) Yet it is criticized as a faulty hypothesis in that it is (as yet) untestable.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "You are clearly not a critical thinker but an emotional one"
"Lol. Is this what you resort to when you you are having trouble?"
No trouble at all. You said
"This has absolutely no affect on your beliefs or mine unless the truth can manifest itself in the form of evidence"
In response to considering "all things that must be true if God truly does not exist". Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking"
Nobody is proposing that your concept of a superior creator intelligence MUST be true, and is being ignored. Certainly I am not. Until there is demonstrable evidence to believe it is more than a concept, I will only concede that your superior intelligence creator exists as a CONCEPT along side many many other concepts in the same boat. Why expect special treatment?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Not considering everything that must be true when forming a hypothesis is a serious breach in critical thinking"
When you say "everything that must be true" what are you referring to? Are you saying that all logical absolutes must be considered when forming a hypothesis? That's not true. Or do you mean all things that could possibly be true need to be considered? That's not true, either.
What are you saying?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "irrelevant to your case for considering the probability of it being true"
You also prove my point once again when I said you don't care if the theory is true as long as its considered "valid" by science. You understand if you actually equated validity with truth as objective scientific theories (and all forms of logic) should do, you would understand unbiased objectivity MUST EQUATE validity with truth and invalidity with false. If you do not, you are not trustworthy.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "You also prove my point once again when I said you don't care if the theory is true as long as its considered "valid" by science."
Nope. Never said that.
I also explicitly stated so many times it's getting ridiculous there is no explicit connection between something being unfalsifiable and being true/false. How many times do I need to say this before you understand I MEAN WHAT I SAY.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Every possibility you can imagine as unfalsifiable falls into this category"
As I have explained to you before science does break its illogical rule of falsification when it does not include a God.
Hawkings string theory has no evidence for its existence what so ever. Its just as unfalsifiable as God is. It predicts the existence of something that can not be empirically verified because adhering to only the falsifiable will not work in many instances. We KNOW THIS for a fact
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker You can put I.D. on par with string theory if you want to. I have no problem with that. I never said I did. Science has factions, disagreements, etc. String theory is often criticized, as is much of theoretical physics, for not being testable. So what?
Both I.D. and string theory ultimately have to reconcile with observation, evidence and every other aspect of the scientific method. String theory gets no unmerited special exception. I.D. should not either.
But more importantly, w
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "IF it can be established species (DNA INFO) suddenly appeared, it can also be established they were intelligently designed."
"Logical absolute my ass. Lol. You can't be serious. You call that a logical absolute"
Your not even in the realm of rational thought. Give me the second hypothesis (other than I.D.) that can explain up to 100 million species just suddenly appearing on earth fully formed.
This is the reason why your an atheist. Your logic is completely absent
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Give me the second hypothesis "
You don't remember asking this question last week?
1) Life has always existed
2) Abiogenesis from a deistic perspective (actually quite common)
3) Non-conscious life-building machines (joke, but hey, it's possible)
Anyway, aside from just being another false dichotomy, you have missed my broader point: Having the trait of being "possibly true" is not in itself helpful in determining if something is true.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Its not even considered by science as a valid concept."
"irrelevant to your case for considering the probability of it being true"
Your reasoning is laughably ridiculous. When trying to access TRUTH as science should do, when rejecting a theory as not being "not scientific" it better damn well be because its FALSE/UNTRUE if science is TRULY objective. Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility"
Not at all. How could this possibly mean that you are not being objective? It simply means that you are accepting that particular hypothesis as untestable and outside the powers of science to verify.
If you know of a better way to VERIFY whether your unfalsifiable hypothesis is true or not, I'm sure the whole world would like to know about it.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "The single celled organism CANT explain the process of PC building."
This is your response to my comment that the GOD is not a perfect explanation because it does not explain, it simply replaces one mystery with another"
U did not even understand my argument. Your claim that we (X) should be able to fully understand the designers methods, IF (Y) was designed. I gave you X (single cell) has no clue of any of our methodologies, so is INCAPABLE of understanding our designs
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "so is INCAPABLE of understanding our designs"
No, I get it. You are saying that there is a chance that life is designed by a process that we can not comprehend. That is exactly consistent with my point. You are not actually providing a "perfect explanation", because you are not explaining anything, just saying "it happens by some mysterious, inherently unknowable process". That's not science. Science deals with what is, not what could possibly be.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago
@iridescentsquids "If you are talking about "other life" I'm fairly certain even most strong atheists would say that does not define their atheism"
This is where you fail to understand your logic & reasoning break down. The atheists has no reason based in critical thinking to exclude a "God life" from existing. ALL of the atheists reasoning is emotional or philosophical for not allowing "BIG LIFE" to exist. there is not one shred of DATA that supports limiting life's attributes is called for
toobsucker 8 months ago
The cell reproduction process itself proves evolution is the world's greatest fraud. Have you studied the cell reproduction process? This is in itself an ultra complex process. It's like a machine, the cell, executing a long list of super intelligently programmed complex instructions!From DNA splitting in 2 to be copied to, etc. copying of the cell is million times more difficult than for you to assemble the rolex watch on your own. Which I know you won't be able to complete in your life time.
SeongKYi 8 months ago
@SeongKYi I suggest you "learn" about cell reproduction from other sources. You are reading biased creationist literature, and eating it up without doing independent research on your own.
If you really WANT to believe that what you are saying it true, there is no way I can possibly stop you. And that seems to be the case, so I won't. But if you are actually interested in knowing whether or not what you believe is verifiably true from a scientific perspective, I suggest you look to science.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@SeongKYi " This is in itself an ultra complex process."
Be honest. Where did you hear about this "ultra complex process"? Who told you that it simply can not be explained?
I think it's safe to assume you heard this from a non-scientific, faith-based source.
That does not in itself mean it's not true. But there is a dishonesty to this discussion that should be discarded before it can be useful.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsq
"Who told you that it simply can not be explained?"
I expect that the modern-day operations and functions of the cell will be largely understood and explained, in the same way that the operations and functions of simpler designed objects, such as computers and spacecraft can already be understood and explained. To understand the cell, we need to reverse engineer it. But explaining how cells appear in the first place without ID, is like trying to explain how nature created Saturn V
IDtaksovr 8 months ago
@IDtaksovr " is like trying to explain how nature created Saturn V"
No it's not. Many of the best and most comprehensive explanations we have today for how certain cells and complex organisms are structured incorporate an evolutionary process. They human eye is frequently sited as a good example of this. It exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process, not an intelligent design.
Anyway, I.D. doesn't explain. It just replaces one mystery with another without good evidence.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids
Evolution doesn't explain cells and complex organisms. It rides on the coattails of what we have discovered about them, through reverse engineering. Darwinian evolution offers its irrelevant, untested narrative of what real science discovers. Just-so stories of "eye-evolution" provide useful case studies in the speculations, assumptions and philosophical baggage that evolutionary biologists bring with them.
IDtaksovr 8 months ago
@IDtaksovr "philosophical baggage that evolutionary biologists bring with them"
That's one way to look at it. You could say all theories are merely "philosophical baggage" even when the evidence backs them. I get the feeling you would say the same thing about the so called "big bang theory", maybe even all of modern geography estimating the age of the earth.
Am I right? Is all of this "philosophical baggage", too? Just testing my predictions as to your predisposition on matters of science.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids
"Just testing my predictions...."
Lets not get to general here. Why not test your assertion that the origin of the eye has been adequately explained by Darwinian theory. If I rubbish that claim, do you promise to be more open minded?
IDtaksovr 8 months ago
@IDtaksovr Open minded? Please. You are claiming that the entire theory of evolution is a fraud. A fraud perpetrated by tens of thousands of scientists across multiple disciplines and many decades of work. Saying it's wrong is one thing. Saying it's a fraud? Lunacy.
I would like to see evidence for that arrogant assertion first. Or were you just being overly passionate and exaggerating?
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids
"You are claiming that the entire theory of evolution is a fraud"
No. I'm just trying to get you to back up an absurd claim that you made. Namely, that the human eye has been adequately explained by modern evolutionary theory......and you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it.
IDtaksovr 8 months ago
@IDtaksovr So now you are saying it's not a fraud? That's at least one large step toward common ground.
If we are going to discuss the example of the eye, I'll need to correct you on at least one assertion you are already claiming I made. (It might be a true assertions, but I did not make it):
I did not say that the structure of the eye was "adequately explained" by anything. I said that it exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process, and inconsistent with intelligent design.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iridescentsquid
".. it exhibits structures consistent with an evolutionary process,..."
Your assertion is now so vague as to be meaningless. Since you are unwilling to claim that the neo Darwinian mechanism can shed any light on human eye evolution (150 years after Darwin offered his own failed attempt), what relevance does Darwinian evolutionary theory have towards understanding the origin of the human eye? Surely you must have something after 150 yrs
IDtaksovr 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Both I.D. and string theory ultimately have to reconcile with observation, evidence and every other aspect of the scientific method. String theory gets no unmerited special exception. I.D. should not either"
Not true. String theory & multiverse do receive unmerited favor by many in science. Both are unfalsifiable. Just Google the terms and find out how many scientists have faith in them. Susskind , Weinberg, Linde, Rees, Vilenkin and Guth to name a few.
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "unmerited favor" No, it's not unmerited.
A lot more good work has gone into the string theory, which been moving forward in fits and starts for some time, despite being (as yet) unfalsifiable.
Scientist's general low opinion of I.D. is probably tainted in part because so many fraudulent pseudo scientists push it for insincere reasons (basically to further the faith-based cause). But even on the merits I.D. has been slammed time and again. Slammed on the merits.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "If YOU don't believe in the god Thor, I suppose technically you are atheist with respect to Thor"
Who said I rejected Thors existence?. Thor may exist. Thor maybe a son of God in an unfallen state and appear to be "a god" to those that seen him. I believe the Hindu religion is based partly in making deities of of the sons of God. The Greek gods myth came from the Gen 6 "sons of God" that were on earth. "Thor like" beings are rational to me so I do not reject the concept
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids You dont care if the theory works as long as its falsifiable"
I did not say that falsification is more important than a valid theory I said that if it can't be falsified it falls outside of the purview of science"
LOL, its the same effect. If you acknowledging a rejected theory could also be true but its rejected because "it falls outside of the purview of science", then you admit the "purview of science" rejects possible truths, thus TRUTH is not the scientific objective
toobsucker 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids " Irreducible complexity is supposed to falsify evolution, Miller is not arguing proof for evolution, but is in fact showing that IC is not (as yet at least) well founded. IC claims rest on this (so far) unfounded absolute: function can not be maintained when you reduce complexity"
I.C. claims smaller subunits have no function by themselves thus the entire system must appear at once or be rejected by N.S. Miller did argue for evolution by giving functions to subunits
toobsucker 8 months ago
@toobsucker "Miller did argue for evolution by giving functions to subunits"
Technically, you were incorrect in claiming that Miller was trying to prove evolution. He was showing specific examples of how so-called irreducibly complex structures were in fact functional in less complex forms.
iridescentsquids 8 months ago
@iridescentsquids "Rejecting a theory for being invalid, while admitting invalid does not mean false, you have lost ALL objective credibility"
"Not at all. How could this possibly mean that you are not being objective? It simply means that you are accepting that particular hypothesis as untestable and outside the powers of science to verify"
Because your not being true to the OBJECT of the valid hypothesis , your being true to the SUBJECT of falsification which may produce UNTRUE results
toobsucker 7 months ago
@toobsucker "Because your not being true to the OBJECT of the valid hypothesis" You are not being UNTRUE to it, or true to it. It's impossible to be either. You simply can't do anything with it. All you can do is assume it's true/false without justification. You can't say there is "objectivity" to it because you can't know if it is accurate.
"SUBJECT of falsification which may produce UNTRUE results" I don't see how falsification produces untrue results. It reveals problems with hypothesis.
iridescentsquids 7 months ago