To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?
We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin.
But there is a point that I think perhaps you miss - there are no designers!
It can be argued that we do not, invent or create artifacts of systems but that these are more properly viewed as having evolved within the collective imagination of our species.
This very broad evolutionary model (extending beyond biology) is expanded upon very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?”
It is a free download from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.
@types10000 I just read you and nooneeagle's argument and it hurt how stupid his arguments were. Design is often made for the purpose of the designer, if he cannot show that the apparent design in nature is for the use of a higher being, then he can't compare it to human design. And if something is designed in a lab, whether it wad or wasn't is irrelevant given that it can arise naturally. Has he given one example where something could not evolve to its present state?
@types10000 since you 'seem' to be the expert in knowledge in this area of abiogenesis maybe you can tell the forum the time frame that life had to arise on the early Earth... This is the time from the Earths crust hardening to the where the fossilized records start to show up? Then tell us in this time frame, how much time life had to arise in the manner you claim is the most supported? I'm just curious because I've been told that this supported stance had millions of years to begin.
I have never claimed that ID is a valid stance, in fact I have claimed just the opposite! I have never claimed that science MUST meet proof, that is rediculous! You can't Prove science but you can prove a concept/priciple which is the standard in science. If you can't find the evidence that shows concept then you rely on falsification! I have said time and again there IS NO God and I'm not trying to push an ID agenda yet types keeps stating that I am??? I am NOT trying to prove abiogenesis by ID
As for types10000 claims that the current 'standard' most popular is the rise of life on this planet from inorganic material is a fallacy! That might be 'HIS" most popular stance but it is NOT the most popular by people who 'think' and realize that this stance does NOT hold up in the time frame of the early Earth! If he has this 'emperical' evidence that he claims is the most popular, let us see it. Popularity NEVER has made a stance true in science! What a fallacy that one is, :))).
"As for types10000 claims that the current 'standard' most popular is the rise of life on this planet from inorganic material is a fallacy!"
- incorrect, i never claimed it was the most popular, i claimed it was the most well supported which it is, it has nothing to do with popularity.GET SMARTER
"I have never claimed that ID is a valid stance, in fact I have claimed just the opposite! "
i repeat:
Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
Please read through this thread and clearly see where types10000 is faulty in his deductions. If I design something, he states that I'm trying to "prove' that there is a supernatural entity? Does anyone here besides me see his faulty reasoning? He is claiming that ID can't be true science because of this 'supernatural entity yet it's he that keeps claiming that since man CAN create design that there must be a supernatural entity(sic)... Does anyone see HIS ingornace in reasoning?
He 'thinks' I'm trying to prove ID in which I am clearly showing observable facts to 'design' not ID as he keeps claiming??? Do you see his transferrence of the facts between 'design' as shown in the lab and his trying to state that ID is one in the same? He clearly has mental issues if he can't understand plain and simple cause and effect!
Other than that, he hasn't debunked anything I have proven and he keeps trying to say data is fallcay? He clearly doesn't understand what the difference between fallacy (reasoning) and actual data that comes from labwork is. You can come to your own conclusion fairly easily to see he doesn't quit grasp the idea of something physically being performed and considered data and a fallacy which is just a thought. Go figure, he'll never amount to anything in the sciences with his train of thought.
@types10000 "The fact humans can use intelligence to design things is not evidence that biological structures arose via design by an intelligence."
OH, I see, now types is claiming that, "I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth!" Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT... He seems to insiuate 'that' possibility though, since he claims I did! I never claimed that buddy! I claim that;
"Man can design life and there is evidence supporting this claim" (Period)
"OH, I see, now types is claiming that, I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth! Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT...I never claimed that buddy!"
Actually you've asserted it numerous times:
- "it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on 'design' desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions "
- "To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God"
"OH, I see, now types is claiming that, I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth! Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT...I never claimed that buddy!"
Actually you've asserted it numerous times:
- "it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on 'design' desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions "
- "To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God"
@types10000 Ok, now types will start taking my words 'out of context' to suit his needs to 'make it look like I am pushing an ID agenda" HA nice try. You are grasping now.... All I see you doing if failing in your attempt to debunk my stance of Design that, anyone in their first year of biology knows that modern man 'designs' life by way of synthetic biology and we are finally going to put the term 'Design' to the appearant@! This is a totally different concept from ID but types doesn't know it.
@types10000 "You've failed to provide any evidence intelligent design is the cause and also failed to address current evidence for abiogenesis"
Again, I can falsify ID just as well if not better than you can types, I don't believe in it. Your attempts fail once again in your transferrence of ID over Design. Get with the program and quit putting 'words' in my mouth!
@types10000 "- you havnt provided evidence for your claim."
I haven't stated my Logical Criteria yet or shared my hypothesis with the community yet either! All I am doing is collecting Data in the form of pros and cons right now so that I will be ready for ALL possibilities when I do publish. I take it you have never published? You don't spill your beans beforehand but collect as much data as possible first from forums and debates. I have evidence in the form of lab work and cites from others.
- you came to a video on intlligent design claiming to have evidence of design. When asked for your evidence you skirted around the issue and then claim that your use of the word design differed from intelligent design.
I repeat:
Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution
"He 'thinks' I'm trying to prove ID in which I am clearly showing observable facts to 'design'..."
- ID itself is centered around a supernatural designer, you are attempting to broaden the scope of it to get out of providing answers for it's fallacy assertions and using an induction fallacy to try and sneak your supernatural being in the back door. it's not fooling anyone.
"He clearly has mental issues" - once again, why do you project your follies onto other people?
- well then by your own admission what you refer to as design has no bearing on the origin of life and does not provide evidence life arose via design; making it completely irrelevant to anything in this video.
@types10000 Again, I have evidence behind Design, just because the word, "design" is part of a religious fallacy does NOT make it taboo to be used in my work! Just because you seem to think in terms of a supernatural entity doesn't mean that the CONCEPT to be applied in my hypothesis! There is NO GOD the concept of God was invented by MAN and your issues with this supernatural entity are your problem! I have a valid stance and the 'evidence’ will be shown to support this stance and idea, sorry.
@types10000 Again, types' issues with ID are his problem, I do NOT support ID. I do NOT support the 'concept' of a God! I DO have evidence to my stance and it will stand, with many points added to ensure that the IDers or religious NUTS won't/can't use this theory to further thier agenda! The wording will incorporate such, in the Theory to state that, "since a god can NOT be shown that design from such entity can NOT be shown through design"! Believe me, I've already thought of these problems!
@nooneeagle The wording is not/has not been all worked out but yeah, there will be wording as such! No I don't agree with ID, was that you problem all along? But yeah, "Design" does NOT fail in general and this video says it does, just as you have argued over and over again that it does! I am going to show evidence otherwise and again sorry but did you know that there is really no definitive definition of the word 'design'? Well, I am set to change that and it should affect ID in a negative way!
"The wording is not/has not been all worked out but yeah, there will be wording as such! "
- oh i see, so you claim to be writing a scientific paper but cant even define what you think your researching.
"But yeah, "Design" does NOT fail in general" - the video isnt referring to design in general, which you could have ascertained if you watched it for more than 20 seconds. CONTEXT.
- no, my 'problems' with ID are the exact same that have prevented it from meeting the scientific burden of proof.
"I do NOT support ID"
- yeh, you just like to use the word design out of context. Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
- no, my 'problems' with ID are the exact same that have prevented it from meeting the scientific burden of proof.
"I do NOT support ID"
- yeh, you just like to use the word design out of context. Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
I show evidence that shows my point yet types10000 still disregards the evidence and contiues to argue his falsified stance in a manner of that of ignorance! Even though ignorance means, lack of knowledge, even with the knowledge in hand, he ignores it and this is the true sense of stupidity! This just shows that types10000 is a troll and just wants to argue even when his point of view has been shown to be wrong, lacking any evidence, where my point of view has evidence backing my position!
@types10000 "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things"
I don't claim anything in regards to ID, ID can't be proven for the "EXACT" reasons you state! I am not showing ID I am drafting a hypothesis on "Design" Two totally different things in which Design can be tested and put through the rigors of falsification.
Types response is one of transferrence in trying to debunk data that shows itself...
"Even though ignorance means, lack of knowledge, even with the knowledge in hand, he ignores it and this is the true sense of stupidity! This just shows that types10000"
- your once again projecting your stupidity and dishonesty onto others, i demonstrated your claim commited an inductive. You have failed to address this but still postulate your claim as correct, do you seriously think people wont notice the fact i've debunked it no less than three times?
@types10000 is so ignorant that he doesn't grasp scientific method and he "TRIES" to claim I proving ID when I am drafting something that does 'fit' the criteria of a workable hypothesis. His ignorance is confusing and to the general public and like I claimed before is a troll tactic and only shows HIS ignorance... He hasn't debunked any work I've put forwrd yet! He has only debunked ID which is fairly easily to debunk by what he claims...
"is so ignorant that he doesn't grasp scientific method"
- haha that's especially funny coming from a person who thinks science works in the realm of absolute proof.
Abiogenesis is accepted science that has lots of evidence support it thanks to it's testable predictions. It doesnt have enough evidence to be a 'scientific theory' but does have evidence to support it (Unlike ID).
@types10000 I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof, that is something you seem to keep projecting. I say that there is PoP in which you don't seem to understand this concept! And no, abiogensis has "MANY" different hypothesis, not one of which has evidence backing it all the way from concept to life!
"I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof"
- proof in itself is an absolute.
- unless your talking about proof in the colloquial sense where it is synonymous with evidence.
"PoP in which you don't seem to understand"
- incorrect, what you dont seem to understand is that proof of principle is not necessary to demonstrate something as the best and most well evidenced explanation.
Abiogenesis is supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof"
- proof in itself is an absolute.
- unless your talking about proof in the colloquial sense where it is synonymous with evidence.
"PoP in which you don't seem to understand"
- incorrect, what you dont seem to understand is that proof of principle is not necessary to demonstrate something as the best and most well evidenced explanation.
Abiogenesis is supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
Abiogenesis via RNA world hypothesis is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life that purposes it arose in gradual stages from inorganic matter.
For this to occur certain specific things need to be able to happen under specific circumstances.
From this we can form TESTABLE PREDICTIONS and if they turn out to be correct that provides evidence for the field by establishing a causal link.
@types10000 You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened and showed up during the heavy bombardment stage in Earths history, the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage and did NOT originate on Earth as you seem to be illusioned too! Grow up and use you intelligence! Your explanation doesn't FIT!
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
- You claimed abiogenesis doesn't have any evidence.
- I explained how the testable predictions of abiogenesis made it the best and most well evidenced explanation for the origin of life
- You responded by demonstrated a complete ignorance of science by claiming testable predictions dont count because they dont demonstrate proof of concept.
Come back when you understand the scientific method better.
@types10000 "- your once again projecting your stupidity and dishonesty onto others, i demonstrated your claim commited an inductive. You have failed to address this but still postulate your claim as correct, do you seriously think people wont notice the fact i've debunked it no less than three times?"
Again, all you have done is debunked ID, you have yet to debunk anything I've put out there and the rigors of time will tell. You seem to be a good test subject but not very 'observant'.
"when his point of view has been shown to be wrong, lacking any evidence, where my point of view has evidence backing my position!"
incorrect:
- i demonstrated abiogenesis had evidence in the form testable predictions that make it the best and most well evidenced explanation for the origin of life.
- you attempted to present evidence of ID but i debunked it by demonstrating how it committed an inductive fallacy. refer to fred the space-horse.
@types10000 Abiogenesis has NO workable evidence for the pattern of code in DNA that IS responsible for life! Anyone with first year knowledge in biology knows that DNA codes life and without this code life does NOT exist! This was established long ago and types has no working knowledge on biology that I can tell yet he is here debating the subject yet he doesn't fully understand the workings of such. You can take it from there and I'm sure most people realize types ignorance in this area.
@types10000 Modern Genetic Engeneering, Microbiology and especially Synthetic biology all show that man can intelligenctly design and manipulate life in these fields! This is not only an observable thing but we consciously DESIGN life in these fields! If you call this conscious act a fallacy, then you are more stupid than anyone on this forum! Since this IS a conscious act, some collegues and me are writting a hypothesis and soon 'Design' will be Theory, ToD; Theory of Design in these fields.
@types10000 It's clear to me and most people here in class that types10000 has no understanding of these feilds of science by his arrogant yet ignorant statement about his misguided use of this fallacy in this instance :))) But at least many people are getting a good laugh at his continued ignorance even when he's been debunked over and over. Like I pointed out in this thread, ignorance is lack of knowledge, but the continued ingorant behavior after faced with the facts is just stupidity!
"It's clear to me and most people here in class that types10000 has no understanding of these feilds of science by his arrogant yet ignorant statement about his misguided use of this fallacy"
- incorrect, i correctly identified your claim as a fallacy, refer to fred the space-horse.
Once, again where is the evidence for your assertion? Because you havnt even touched the evidence for abiogenesis, all you've done is espouse your ignorance of how testable prediction works
@types10000 "- i've already demonstrated your statement commits an inductive fallacy refer to fred the space-horse.."
Yeah, your fallacy is only 'valid' when you add the Supernatural designer into the equation, in which you clearly did in your example BUT your fallacy does NOT hold up when we take the supernatural entity out of the equation and show evidence that MAN himself can create design in the lab! Your fallacy means squat in this instance! Design, by man IS a valid stance with evidence!
@types10000 "- it would need evidence first and thus far it has none, that's why in scientific terms it is regarded as an unsubstantiated hypothesis"
Yeah, ID has no evidence because you can't prove a supernatural designer! That is correct BUT
Design by man, has a mulitude of evidence that is shown over and over again and types10000 keeps 'overlooking' this data, this 'evidence. And it is repeatable evidence and can predict what 'might happen'. Types is debating ID and ignoring Design by man!
"Yeah, ID has no evidence because you can't prove a supernatural designer! That is correct BUT Design by man, has a mulitude of evidence "
- design by man does not provide evidence or proof of concept for a supernatural designer IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as the fact horses exist and do things does not provide evidence for a space-horse called fred who does things.
@types10000 Design:(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints... If man "designs" something, it doesn't manifest all by itself and it has a certain set of characteristics set by this person because of his intelect or talent. When we design genetics in the lab, this is definitely not a fallacy, it's design!
- you've failed to address any of my points, you stated a definition of design, this does not provide any evidence that the things you claim to be designed are actually designed.
@types10000 "- you've failed to address any of my points, you stated a definition of design, this does not provide any evidence that the things you claim to be designed are actually designed."
You have NO valid points! You are arguing ID, I'm drafting a hypothesis on "Design" Your arguments have NO bearing on this testable condition. You are illusional in your stance and through your ignorance you fail to see, "what is being shown" in my thesis. Data shows evidence.
i pointed-out how abiogenesis is the best and most well evidenced explanation thanks to it's testable predictions. Your only response to this was to espouse your ignorance of how testable predictions work in science.
You then attempted to use an inductive fallacy which i demonstrated. refer to fred the space-horse.
@types10000 Secondly, you say that in the "proofs" are for math not science, this only shows your ignorance but once again! If nothing was ever "proven" in science, the we wouldn't even have gravity right now stupid! In the scientific method we have PoP Proof of Principle which gives us the right to say that gravity exists because the apple falls! This may not be PROOF but it's PoP which IS used in the scientific method and without it, nothing could even be said to be true or not!
"Secondly, you say that in the 'proofs' are for math not science, this only shows your ignorance but once again!"
- incorrect, YOU are demonstrating YOUR ignorance, nothing is EVER proven in science there is simply evidence that supports a position.
"If nothing was ever 'proven' in science, the we wouldn't..."
- incorrect, your again projecting own stupidity onto others, well evidenced positions allow us to base other explanations, you dont need absolute proof.
@types10000 I know that nothing is "proven, but one has to have a standard of what IS accepted, Even you claim that abiogenesis has been demonstrated to have evidence in the form testable predictions. (Which in accuality, it lacks many points that show proof of principle, it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on "design" desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions and repeatable results. You are still not getting it are you?
"In the scientific method we have PoP Proof of Principle which gives us the right to..."
no:
a). a phenomena that seemingly supports something does not provide proof of principle; if i were to drop a brick and feather i may conclude it provides 'proof of principle' that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, but i'd be wrong.
b). science is not limited to what can be directly observed.
In science there is simply evidence that supports a position. GET SMARTER.
@types10000 From what everyone is reading in your supposedly debate, it is clear that you are the one that needs to "get smarter". Ignorance is no excuse for not understanding what is spelled out right in front of your face time and time again! Even though you keep arguing ID, and transferring the same ignorant arguments on my stance just shows your arrogant ignorance and stupidity!
@types10000 First off, "design" is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion. To say that Design is just a “thought” in reasoning and call it Fallacy, just goes to show that you have NO clue to what Fallacy is, Type10000
"First off, design is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion"
- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence you really dont have any actual argument.
@types10000 "- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence......"
Again, your ignorance prevails in showing through once again... If I design a pattern I can say that, "I designed the pattern that you precieve" and there is NO argument to whether I designed it or not! You ARE truely ignorant!
"First off, design is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion"
- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence you really dont have any actual argument.
"To say that Design is just a thought in reasoning and call it Fallacy, just goes to show that you have NO clue to what Fallacy is"
- incorrect, THE REASON ID is a fallacy is because you want to assume it as long as an actual explanation remains unknown (the argument from ignorance fallacy)
ie. 'i dont know how x could have happened therefore intelligent design must be responsible' - you provide no causal link between subject and your conclusion, just your own ignorance
@types10000 "- incorrect, THE REASON ID is a fallacy is because you want to assume it as long as an actual explanation remains unknown (the argument from ignorance fallacy)"
Again, you are debating ID and what you claim IS true for such supernatural claims! Design by a non-supernatural entity, such as MAN can be shown in the lab, with repeatable result and we can show 'evidence' to this design! Again you are aruing ID, I am proving "Design" Get with the program or shut TFU!
"Just because the Religious Claims of ID believe in a supernatural designer doesn't mean that one exists so you can't falsify ID..."
- The fact of the matter is that ID is rejected by science specifically because it does imply an unevidenced supernatural designer.
- if you were to redefine it to be more general (as you are apparently trying to do) then it would likely be accepted by science, but biological structures .etc would still not be recognized as being designed
Not trying to do, I am showing evidence of design in the lab, I have yet to see any emperical evidence showing inorganic material to become 'alive' except by the hand of MAN, in that he designed the inorganic material to be alive, just saying... Anyway, I don't have to "Prove" anything, Synthetic biology is proving it almost every day. We can create life without a "supernatural God" guiding our hand, we do it by our own "Intelligence" and it's being proven every day...ToD Theory of Design.
"Not trying to do, I am showing evidence of design in the lab,"
- your 'evidence' was already debunked, you were using an inductive fallacy as illustrated by 'Fred the space-horse'
"I have yet to see any emperical evidence showing..."
already debunked:
- if an experiment is setup by humans to EMULATE unguided naturalistic circumstance and turns out to be successful then it is evidence it can happen via unguided naturalistic circumstance, IRRESPECTIVE of human intervention
@types10000 Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to back up "inorganic creation". Life doesn't just 'magically' appear stupid and there is NO evidence showing where this life came from in your reasoning, Nowhere has man ever shown 'where' the code comes from that is responsible for life, code can NOT self create! Your 'reasoning' is a fallacy. Reasoning without out evidence is pure speculation and CAN be considered what you call inductive fallacy!
"Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to back up "inorganic creation""
- i'm not quite sure what you mean by 'inorganic creation' but abiogenesis via the RNA world hypothesis has incredible evidence to support it and is currently the BEST and MOST WELL EVIDENCED explanation for the origin of life thanks to it's dazzling array of testable predictions.
"Nowhere has man ever shown 'where' the code comes from that is responsible for life"
oh my god, how stupid are you? there is no 'code', in genetics we simply use the word code as an analogy, DNA does not code for biological structures anymore than a supernova codes for planetary ring formations.
"Your 'reasoning' is a fallacy." - your provide no evidence of this, just your idiotic assertion that there is a code and humans havnt created it.
@types10000 "oh my god, how stupid are you? there is no 'code', in genetics we simply use the word code as an analogy, DNA does not code for biological structures "
Again, showing your ignorance. Did you not even go to school? Do you NOT understand biology? Maybe your should take a course of two before reposting again because you are making a fool of yourself dude and it is pretty apparent by your responses, expecially like this one that DNA does not code for biological structures, please...
@types10000 "- The fact of the matter is that ID is rejected by science specifically because it does imply an unevidenced supernatural designer."
I agree! There is NO room for a mystical, supernatural God or Entity in a Theory.... All I'm saying is that Design can happen through 'living intelligence' as man is, a scientist per se... Nothing magically happens because something supernatural, "wills" it!
I'm very adamant about evidence being shown in work and this doesn't happen with a God...
@types10000 You keep trying to apply a fallacy to testable experimentation with observable results. A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric “reasoning” resulting in a misconception or presumption in this reasoning. When an experiment shows outcome, this is an “observable conclusion” and you are trying to say it’s “presumptive reasoning” and call it fallacy. Your reasoning fails!
@types10000 "but biological structures .etc would still not be recognized as being designed"
I can "CLEARLY" show by observable data where 'man' can 'design' biological structures in the lab.
-You fail but once again types10000 in your reasoning and intelligence
When we have observable data from experiments showing something we designed consciously, it can't be disputed stupid! Don't you know what 'scientific method' is?
-Again types1oooo, you are "ignorant" even after it being spelled out!
@types10000 "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things"
You wrote that and in no way does the "FACT" that man can manipulate genetics and 'design' life mean that there is a supernatural entity! So your comparrison to that statemt and you fallacy statement does NOT apply! You need to stop spreading your lies and ignorance in places you know nothing about! Tho it gives us a good laugh.
@types10000 wrote, "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things - The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things."
Again, incorrect! "HE" added the part about the supernatural entity! I NEVER claim any sort of supernatural entity and the ToD does NOT support such! So, his fallcy DOES NOT apply in my hypothesis!
"Again, incorrect! 'HE' added the part about the supernatural entity!"
- the concept of ID is orientated around a supernatural designer. If you are using a non-standard definition of ID then it's your fault for not presenting it, refer to the definition of the discovery institute .etc
Trying to use human design as proof of concept for a supernatural designer is an inductive fallacy. refer to fred the space-horse.
NOONE has EVER shown, 'where the information (the code) neccessary for life to exist, came from'. It is a matter of physics that, information can NOT come about all on its own (code cannot self create, if the code wasn't there to begin with, it's not there to guide and 'create' the code neccessary to produce itself) To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God and putting your faith in something that can NOT be proven so Abiogenesis = God! There is NO GOD
Synthetic Biology is Intelligent Design, get with the program! Design CAN explain everything we see living on this planet, to say otherwise is an oxymornic train of thought and I must say a "glitch" in your intelligence to NOT understand such! I DO NOT believe in a 'mystical' magical God, in fact I believe there IS NO GOD but I can see design in life that natural inorganics can't explain. That doesn't mean that other intelligent life didn't design life and place it here on Earth!
@nooneeagle In fact the "design" we see in life on this planet can NOT and has NOT EVER been proven to happen by 'natural means' and by far in concept as stated in types10000 words, "a). science doesnt work on basis of absolute proof, there is simply evidence that supports a position." and in 'design' the evidence clearly points to design over hap-hazard creation of life through nonorganic chance! You and most 'abiogenesis' believers base their 'assumptions', NOT on evidence but on faith.
@nooneeagle ALL eveidence I have ever 'studied' about Abiogensis is based merely on trying to "FIT" the evendence towards their agenda, kind of like fitting a sqare peg in a round hole! At least "design" can be "PROVEN" as PoP in the lab by living evidence that can 'show' evidence that does 'support' this "Theory" where abiogensis by inorganic chance has NO evidence to support the hypothesis with PoP... See the difference in hypothesis and Theory?
@nooneeagle When talking the Theory of Design, I'm talking "Synthetic Biology" IS a proven "Theory"! Creation by inorganic material forming life by chance HAS NO PoP supporting the hypothesis but only evidence that 'might' support a position of unproven "assumption"... There's a lot of mights, assumptions and guessing in the 'chance' hypothesis, where there are proofs and evidence that supports "design by intelligence"!
@nooneeagle I can clearly "falsify" creation of life by inorganic chance! The Theory of Design has yet to be 'falsified' and even has PoP in the lab with repeatable, peer reviewed data! Just saying... you can keep trying to plug that sqare peg into that round hole but many are being left behind by denying (or ignoring) the proofs being founded in the lab by synthetic biology (the 'intelligently' designed life, from inorganics) and also backed up by genetic engeneering.
@nooneeagle Synthetic Biology, Genetic Engeneering, even cross breeding by our own intelligent forceablity are ALL PoP backing the absolute possibility that Intelligent Design can and does occur, thus conclusively "falsifying" this video and the concept that it 'tries' to convey...
@nooneeagle Types claims that the proof of design through mans intelligence and science is a fallacy, that just because we can make it happen, doesn't mean that life here on Earth came from the same means and just because we can "Prove" design doesn't prove that life came about this way here on Earth but it does "Prove" a concept and the concept is that "Design can be proven" and thus can be a possibility that it IS the reason for life on Earth, even without proof of other life in the universe!
@nooneeagle To "prove" a possibility is one thing and is a mindset that doesn't deserve the peace prize but works to move the intelligence of ALL so that the field can move forward in ways that need to be moved towards so the the field can advance! When people 'look' at this "other" posibilty as being proven with PoP then more people won't deny the truth over political reasons! And the field of Evolution and abiogenesis is washed out in "politically wrong ideals"! One can get fired for beliefs!
@nooneeagle But when 'Beliefs' can be "proven through principle" then we need to take a look at these concepts and if they can't be falsified, then the field can finally start advancing in the manner that the proofs lead and this opens up the field to advancement that the 'wrong' beliefs stagnated and stalled the field. Only in showing PoP can we move past the political area that these fields are controlled by and for science to advance again by removing the politics from the field!
There's a "clear" and BIASED paper that the scientific community uses out there called the Anti-Wedge strategy that is politically based that works towards the destruction of anything "Designed" based research. It is clearly biased and works towards the destruction of any advancement in design research and even with PoP in the area of anything considered "design" this document works toward a concept of making the peer-reviewed community look at design as "Non-scientific", Is this scientific?
@nooneeagle In fact, this video is "The prime example" of the "Anti-Wedge Strategy" and follows it to a tee and everyone that fights against the "proven Theory of Design" follows this propaganda and does not use their own intelligence but is a sheep following a biased, destructive concept that is against the scientific methods of research and is clearly not of use in science!
As it stand right now, the "anti-Wedge strategy" prevents anything considered "design" to even be considered peer reviewed! Don't you follow the news? That's why we call it "synthetic Biology" because when you put the truth to it, (Design) then you loose credit and can loose your job, your tenure and even loose credibility, all because of this concept that the Anti-wedge strategy implanted, politically in the communities mindset. How do you win a prize from something that isn't peer accepted?
@raviept BUT Designing life intelligently through Synthetic Biology WILL prevail! The whole concept of the Anti-Wedge strategy is to keep "creation" (religion) out of the curriculum and I'm ALL for that. I often Prove that there ISN'T a God in many forums but this strategy went too far and is hurting this field of science and anything that is biased to the point of hindering the advancement in a field is clearly not productive is the "Scientific Methods of Research"! Ignorant to say the least!
@raviept However you "name" it, Intelligent Design by Synthetic Biology is NOT religious! Intelligent Design by Synthetic Biology CAN and IS a proven no matter what you think unless you are going to start saying Synthetic Biology and genetic Engeneering are no longer valid fields of study either! Some people will never use the intelligence that their brain offers no matter 'how much you spoon feed them the truth'... I think I clearly 'falsified' this video by my posts, sorry.......
@nooneeagle What bubble? I'm not even a Biologist. And no, i have never heard of any school teaching Intelligent Design. I don't even know what you mean by that. Still, what you don't convince of is that scientific community is plotting against ID. I rather believe in those scientists than on the comments of any person on Youtube. I have seen all sorts of ideas in the Internet. To convince me in an area where i'm not an expert, you must first convince the true experts in the field.
@raviept By the way, the "field" of Synthetic Biology (Genetic Engeneering by Intelligent Design) Is a valid "field" of study taught in universities across the nation. Science involves many things but we are talking about a "field" of study and if you claim that ID will never be "science" then you don't even know what you are talking about, but the "field" of science dealing with Design IS a valid "field" and IS already taught in schools, sorry to burst your bubble there.
@nooneeagle Furthermore, i find it very hard to believe you could simply disprove Evolution, a reasonably complex subject, in youtube comments. I'm not stupid either. I work in theoretical computer science and i know it is much harder to prove or disprove something that can be modelled using Math, let alone an empirical concept such as Evolution. To disprove Evolution, i think you have to find a better explanation for every single evidence that is regarded as evidence for Evolution.
@raviept, "I work in theoretical computer science and i know it is much harder to prove or disprove something that can be modelled using Math, let alone an empirical concept such as Evolution."
Great! Maybe you can tell the community here how "code" as in the code that codes life, invented itself, or "self-programmed" from nothing, into life? If you could find code that did that in computer programming, wouldn't that be miraculous? Tell us "how" inorganic (non-living) material did this?
I can't help you inaptitude of reasoning raviept... You don't get it or you just don't understand? Should I spell it out another way... ID is taught in schools just under another name! There, can I be any clearer? ID is associated with religion but 'Design' is something that IS PROVEN in concept so this video attacks 'design' which has and can be proven in the fields of science, thus this video can be falsified through common sense. Jesh....
If anyone believes that "Design" is NOT a valid "concept" then you are ignorant to reasoning and just want to troll or you are part of the propaganda that the Anit-Wedge strategy propagates and again you are ignorant to reasoning. The facts point in the direction that man himself can and does create design in living things, this isn't denied so if you say that 'design' isn't valid, then again you are ignorant to the facts.
@nooneeagle If you are talking about the origin of life, then i think ID might be plausible, but you should comparing it to Abiogenesis, not Evolution. But once again, i'm not an authority on the matter. I just said that i work in computer science to show that i'm not completely unaware of how mathematical proofs are usually done.
@raviept Agreed.... So what about the question I asked you, about the origins of "code" that exist in ALL living things... Do you think a blank computer could 'self program' in this manner as do the abiogenesis nuts claim? Or even this, 'Can code (any code) invent itself if there is no code to beging with'? Is that a fair question? :)
@nooneeagle If you put it in that terms, then no, it is not possible for a code to invent itself. I'm not from Artificial Intelligence, but there is some work on developing "intelligent" software agents capable of acquiring not only new knowledge but also new ways of "reasoning". But of course, there is always an ultimate origin for that code: a programmer. But i'm not sure if you can compare computer code with DNA.
@raviept All DNA is, 'the coded information neccessary for life to exist'... Oh yeah, the origins of that code is quite a mystery. I agree, once the code is there and sophisticated enough, then it could hold the possibility of this code to invent 'newer' code, thus evolution in terms of biology but abiogensis, the invention of the first code, some say that nothing can create itself because it doesn't have orginization in the first place. Like you said, it's not possible for code to self-invent.
I put this out there many times, if a blank computer(not even a bootstrap or BIOS) was plugged in and lightening kept causing 'random' computer noise to be generated on the machine (like in abiogenesis) and given billions of years(enough time as in abiogenesis) I never can see enough orginization taking hold to create a bootstrap, the BIOS and then to create a programming language intelligent enough to start 'self-programming' yet abiogenesis nuts think that DNA can do all this from inorganics
Many people say that abiogenesis had millions of years BUT the truth of the matter is, fossilized life is found in the history of this planet as soon as the crust hardened! Life magically sprung up in a matter of thousands of years (during the "MASS-Bombardment stage of Earths history) so abiogensis didn't have millions of years but happened in the blink of an eye yet man with ALL his modern knowledge can NOT by any means "Show how life arose from inorganics with PoP backing the stance. Hummm.
Thinking back to the blank computer scenario, even the "random" computer 'noise' that might be spiked onto a blank machine isn't even really noise yet until there is enoough information on the machine to cause computer noise (without a computer language in the first place you won't have random computer letters, numbers of characters! You have to have the bootstrap configure this sort of thing first before the noise could even be recognised and used) Just saying, it would be near impossible!!!
You have to remember that a computer is just as 'inorganic' as the inorganic material that they say life was created out of yet a computer has intelligent structure so it "SHOULD" be able to create code much more easily than the first inorganic materials we find in the Early Earth! So much assumption associated with abiogensis, I often wonder about the people who fight and say it happened the way they say it did without any proof backing their misguided 'assumptions'.
-'Design" can be shown in the lab and has 'PoP' (Proof of Principle) backing up the concept.
-Code arising without any other code or guidance is a physics nightmare that can NOT be claimed!
-Abiogensis, the Neo-Darwinian version that life arose by millions of years with just E (energy) orginizing the code has no basis and there is NO PoP backing up the assumptions. Energy is NOT orginizing but can be destructive as described with Shannon Entropy.
"Synthetic Biology, Genetic Engeneering, even cross breeding by our own intelligent forceablity are ALL PoP backing the absolute..."
Incorrect, you are invoking an inductive fallacy; The fact humans exist and are capable of manipulating nature does not provide evidence that a supernatural intelligent designer exists and can do these things.
perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by 'intelligent design' because it seems to differ from that of the discovery institute.etc
@types10000 It's quite apparent that you know nothing of genetic engeneering! That should be all that need be said but I will explain since you are so ignorant that you don't 'grasp' the concept of what design is in biology and genetics! If I design a gene in the lab it isn't a "falacy"! It's design! Manipulation through intelligent decision and manipulation, it doesn't just happen because it was suppose to, it happened because I 'design' it to do so! You can blabber on and on it won't change it
"It's quite apparent that you know nothing of genetic engeneering! "
- incorrect, i already addressed how and why your argument was erroneous
If a human sets-up a lab experiment that replicates unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth and it turns out to be a success, then the logical conclusion from this is that ''it can happen under unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth"
@types10000 "If a human sets-up a lab experiment that replicates unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth and it turns out to be a success..."
Yeah but man has never succeeded in doing such, sorry, there may be some promising steps in different experiments but even add all together, never has man ever accomplished Proof of Principle, which must show that what is trying to be accomplished IS a workable theory and not just assumption. Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out they have for every stage between inorganic matter and molecular machines, each of which confirmed a testable prediction of abiogenesis and provided incredible evidence for the field.
"never has man ever accomplished Proof of Principle" - still dont quite understand how testable predictions work do you?
"Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis" - yeh, a substantiated hypothesis with evidence
- humans have demonstrated how every stage between inorganic matter and molecular machines can be accomplished via unguided naturalistic means indicative of an early earth
- Each of these stages completed a testable prediction of abiogenesis and provided incredible evidence for the field.
We dont need to demonstrate every stage of abiogenesis inorder to provide EVIDENCE for abiogenesis.And the evidence it currently has makes it the best explanation
@types10000 By your ignorance by insinuating that there MUST BE a supernatural designer in my explanation of design then all this shows is you trying to "manipulate" my explanation of "design" that can be accomplished in the lab. Just because the Religious Claims of ID believe in a supernatural designer doesn't mean that one exists so you can't falsify ID on this stance like the Anti-Wedge strategy does! Sorry...
"By your ignorance by insinuating that there MUST BE a supernatural designer.."
incorrect:
- virtually anything IS POSSIBLE eg. there may be a space-born horse named fred orbiting mars.
what matters is what there is evidence to support.
However, demonstrating that horses exist and perform specific actions does not provide evidence for the claim that there is a space-born horse named fred, humans designing things is not proof of concept for supernatural ID for the same reason
You are damn right that my "theory of Design" is different than the Religious ID that the Discovery Institute teaches! I'll prove all day long that a "supernatural" entity does NOT exist and that this God, is a creation, that Man made in his image, not the other way around, Sorry, but since you can't prove a God falsifies ID, it doesn't falsify my theory because a supernatural God just doesn't exist. My Theory of Design Is based on evidence that "Design" can be shown to happen in the lab!
I can clearly show that "design" happenes in the lab through genetic engeneering, micro-biology and synthetic biology! If you can Falsify this stance, let's see your evidence! It is NOT a falacy because I have emperical evidence shown in labwork to back my claims! The concept of Design can be shown and thus it IS a concept that can NOT be denied.
"I can clearly show that "design" happenes in the lab through genetic engeneering"
- as i pointed-out your using an inductive fallacy, refer to my explanation of how the fact horses exist does not provide evidence that fred the space-horse exists
"In fact the design we see in life on this planet can NOT and has NOT EVER been proven to happen by 'natural means'"
- nor does it have to be; you cannot observe and test an experiment that happened in the past.
- You can however collect information, form a hypothesis, make testable predictions and test those predictions through experimentation, the result of which would be EVIDENCE.
Abiogenesis has evidence that has met the scientific burden of proof. ID has not
"Synthetic Biology is Intelligent Design, get with the program!"
you really must be stupid, showing how a scientist can boil water at 100 degrees does not demonstrate that water can only be boiled by an intelligent agency at 100 degrees.
It's not a difficult concept:
- Showing how various stages of abiogenesis can happen under unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth IS EVIDENCE they did happen via unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an...
the only problem is that you are wrong, organisms are not nicely organiced in a nested hierarchy, as you mentioned in your video. the fact is that live is not organiced in a predictable pattern just like we would expect if life was designed by a designer with creativity
for example the gene persitne places bats and killer whales as close relatives but blue whales and killer whales as far relatives
"the only problem is that you are wrong, organisms are not nicely organiced in a nested hierarchy...for example the gene persitne places bats and killer whales as close relatives but..."
-incorrect, the nested hierarchy is independently verified multiple ways, comparative anatomy, genetics .etc
-What you are pointing to is an example of the convergent evolution of a singular gene used in echolocation. A 14 amino acid commonality easily explained via selective pressures
"there are many cases were anatomy and genetics give different resoults ¿so which should we trust?"
- incorrect, there arnt many at all; the fields syc up the overwhelming majority of the time and in the few anomalies circumstances they dont there are explanations.
"yes that is my point everytime we find genes that do not fit your tree pattern, you wil simply call it convergent evolution. "
- incorrect, convergent evolution is only capable of explaining circumstances of overwhelming simplicity an example being a A 14 amino acid commonality.
- intricate biological structures .etc cannot be explained in this manner eg. a mammal with bird traits, like an avian lung.
that does not change my pointnwhich is, organisms can not be group in a nice tree pattern there are many genes in ´´incorrect places´´ beeing perstine only one of many examples if mammals would have had, avian lungs, you would simply say that the avian lung evolved before birds and mammals (or their ancestors) diverged.
cdk007 is dead?
NerdDUBstepO 1 week ago
Of course when faced with this, creationists will merely go back to the very basics of life (striving for survival and reproduction) and say ...
d007ization 1 month ago
Further to my last post re no designers:
To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?
We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin.
The list can. of course be extended indefinitely.
;
Cognosium 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
cdk007, I agree.
But there is a point that I think perhaps you miss - there are no designers!
It can be argued that we do not, invent or create artifacts of systems but that these are more properly viewed as having evolved within the collective imagination of our species.
This very broad evolutionary model (extending beyond biology) is expanded upon very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?”
It is a free download from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.
Cognosium 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@types10000 I just read you and nooneeagle's argument and it hurt how stupid his arguments were. Design is often made for the purpose of the designer, if he cannot show that the apparent design in nature is for the use of a higher being, then he can't compare it to human design. And if something is designed in a lab, whether it wad or wasn't is irrelevant given that it can arise naturally. Has he given one example where something could not evolve to its present state?
pat5168 4 months ago
@types10000 since you 'seem' to be the expert in knowledge in this area of abiogenesis maybe you can tell the forum the time frame that life had to arise on the early Earth... This is the time from the Earths crust hardening to the where the fossilized records start to show up? Then tell us in this time frame, how much time life had to arise in the manner you claim is the most supported? I'm just curious because I've been told that this supported stance had millions of years to begin.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"maybe you can tell the forum the time frame that life had to arise on the early Earth"
- why? what relevance would it have given the fact that i've already provided you with th experiments?
types10000 4 months ago
I have never claimed that ID is a valid stance, in fact I have claimed just the opposite! I have never claimed that science MUST meet proof, that is rediculous! You can't Prove science but you can prove a concept/priciple which is the standard in science. If you can't find the evidence that shows concept then you rely on falsification! I have said time and again there IS NO God and I'm not trying to push an ID agenda yet types keeps stating that I am??? I am NOT trying to prove abiogenesis by ID
nooneeagle 5 months ago
As for types10000 claims that the current 'standard' most popular is the rise of life on this planet from inorganic material is a fallacy! That might be 'HIS" most popular stance but it is NOT the most popular by people who 'think' and realize that this stance does NOT hold up in the time frame of the early Earth! If he has this 'emperical' evidence that he claims is the most popular, let us see it. Popularity NEVER has made a stance true in science! What a fallacy that one is, :))).
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"As for types10000 claims that the current 'standard' most popular is the rise of life on this planet from inorganic material is a fallacy!"
- incorrect, i never claimed it was the most popular, i claimed it was the most well supported which it is, it has nothing to do with popularity.GET SMARTER
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I have never claimed that ID is a valid stance, in fact I have claimed just the opposite! "
i repeat:
Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
types10000 5 months ago
Please read through this thread and clearly see where types10000 is faulty in his deductions. If I design something, he states that I'm trying to "prove' that there is a supernatural entity? Does anyone here besides me see his faulty reasoning? He is claiming that ID can't be true science because of this 'supernatural entity yet it's he that keeps claiming that since man CAN create design that there must be a supernatural entity(sic)... Does anyone see HIS ingornace in reasoning?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
He 'thinks' I'm trying to prove ID in which I am clearly showing observable facts to 'design' not ID as he keeps claiming??? Do you see his transferrence of the facts between 'design' as shown in the lab and his trying to state that ID is one in the same? He clearly has mental issues if he can't understand plain and simple cause and effect!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Other than that, he hasn't debunked anything I have proven and he keeps trying to say data is fallcay? He clearly doesn't understand what the difference between fallacy (reasoning) and actual data that comes from labwork is. You can come to your own conclusion fairly easily to see he doesn't quit grasp the idea of something physically being performed and considered data and a fallacy which is just a thought. Go figure, he'll never amount to anything in the sciences with his train of thought.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Other than that, he hasn't debunked anything I have proven "
- you havnt provided evidence for your claim.
The fact humans can use intelligence to design things is not evidence that biological structures arose via design by an intelligence.
You've failed to provide any evidence intelligent design is the cause and also failed to address current evidence for abiogenesis.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "The fact humans can use intelligence to design things is not evidence that biological structures arose via design by an intelligence."
OH, I see, now types is claiming that, "I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth!" Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT... He seems to insiuate 'that' possibility though, since he claims I did! I never claimed that buddy! I claim that;
"Man can design life and there is evidence supporting this claim" (Period)
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"OH, I see, now types is claiming that, I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth! Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT...I never claimed that buddy!"
Actually you've asserted it numerous times:
- "it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on 'design' desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions "
- "To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God"
.etc
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"OH, I see, now types is claiming that, I claimed that 'design' is responsible for life here on Earth! Did I do that? Well NO! I did NOT...I never claimed that buddy!"
Actually you've asserted it numerous times:
- "it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on 'design' desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions "
- "To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God"
.etc
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Ok, now types will start taking my words 'out of context' to suit his needs to 'make it look like I am pushing an ID agenda" HA nice try. You are grasping now.... All I see you doing if failing in your attempt to debunk my stance of Design that, anyone in their first year of biology knows that modern man 'designs' life by way of synthetic biology and we are finally going to put the term 'Design' to the appearant@! This is a totally different concept from ID but types doesn't know it.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 "You've failed to provide any evidence intelligent design is the cause and also failed to address current evidence for abiogenesis"
Again, I can falsify ID just as well if not better than you can types, I don't believe in it. Your attempts fail once again in your transferrence of ID over Design. Get with the program and quit putting 'words' in my mouth!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 "- you havnt provided evidence for your claim."
I haven't stated my Logical Criteria yet or shared my hypothesis with the community yet either! All I am doing is collecting Data in the form of pros and cons right now so that I will be ready for ALL possibilities when I do publish. I take it you have never published? You don't spill your beans beforehand but collect as much data as possible first from forums and debates. I have evidence in the form of lab work and cites from others.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I haven't stated my Logical Criteria yet or..."
- you came to a video on intlligent design claiming to have evidence of design. When asked for your evidence you skirted around the issue and then claim that your use of the word design differed from intelligent design.
I repeat:
Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"He 'thinks' I'm trying to prove ID in which I am clearly showing observable facts to 'design'..."
- ID itself is centered around a supernatural designer, you are attempting to broaden the scope of it to get out of providing answers for it's fallacy assertions and using an induction fallacy to try and sneak your supernatural being in the back door. it's not fooling anyone.
"He clearly has mental issues" - once again, why do you project your follies onto other people?
types10000 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Again, I have evidence behind Design"
- well then by your own admission what you refer to as design has no bearing on the origin of life and does not provide evidence life arose via design; making it completely irrelevant to anything in this video.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Again, I have evidence behind Design, just because the word, "design" is part of a religious fallacy does NOT make it taboo to be used in my work! Just because you seem to think in terms of a supernatural entity doesn't mean that the CONCEPT to be applied in my hypothesis! There is NO GOD the concept of God was invented by MAN and your issues with this supernatural entity are your problem! I have a valid stance and the 'evidence’ will be shown to support this stance and idea, sorry.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Again, I have evidence behind Design"
- again what you refer to as 'intelligent design' is a non-standard definition which according to you has nothing to do with the origin of life.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I have a valid stance and the 'evidence’ will be shown to support this stance and idea, sorry. "
- no, until you present evidence, you dont.
- and until your claim passes the scientific burden of proof, it's just an unsubstantiated hypothesis
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Again, types' issues with ID are his problem, I do NOT support ID. I do NOT support the 'concept' of a God! I DO have evidence to my stance and it will stand, with many points added to ensure that the IDers or religious NUTS won't/can't use this theory to further thier agenda! The wording will incorporate such, in the Theory to state that, "since a god can NOT be shown that design from such entity can NOT be shown through design"! Believe me, I've already thought of these problems!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle The wording is not/has not been all worked out but yeah, there will be wording as such! No I don't agree with ID, was that you problem all along? But yeah, "Design" does NOT fail in general and this video says it does, just as you have argued over and over again that it does! I am going to show evidence otherwise and again sorry but did you know that there is really no definitive definition of the word 'design'? Well, I am set to change that and it should affect ID in a negative way!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"The wording is not/has not been all worked out but yeah, there will be wording as such! "
- oh i see, so you claim to be writing a scientific paper but cant even define what you think your researching.
"But yeah, "Design" does NOT fail in general" - the video isnt referring to design in general, which you could have ascertained if you watched it for more than 20 seconds. CONTEXT.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Again, types' issues with ID are his problem,"
- no, my 'problems' with ID are the exact same that have prevented it from meeting the scientific burden of proof.
"I do NOT support ID"
- yeh, you just like to use the word design out of context. Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 Why don't you shut up and you MIGHT learn something son!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"Again, types' issues with ID are his problem,"
- no, my 'problems' with ID are the exact same that have prevented it from meeting the scientific burden of proof.
"I do NOT support ID"
- yeh, you just like to use the word design out of context. Going to videos on intelligent design and claiming the word design applies to human products is as stupid as going to a biology video and claiming the word evolution refers to automobile evolution. What kind of retard are you?
types10000 5 months ago
I show evidence that shows my point yet types10000 still disregards the evidence and contiues to argue his falsified stance in a manner of that of ignorance! Even though ignorance means, lack of knowledge, even with the knowledge in hand, he ignores it and this is the true sense of stupidity! This just shows that types10000 is a troll and just wants to argue even when his point of view has been shown to be wrong, lacking any evidence, where my point of view has evidence backing my position!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I show evidence that shows my point yet types10000 still disregards the evidence..."
incorrect, i demonstrated your statement committed an inductive fallacy:
Your claim:
- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things
An equally as ridiculous claim:
- The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things"
I don't claim anything in regards to ID, ID can't be proven for the "EXACT" reasons you state! I am not showing ID I am drafting a hypothesis on "Design" Two totally different things in which Design can be tested and put through the rigors of falsification.
Types response is one of transferrence in trying to debunk data that shows itself...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Even though ignorance means, lack of knowledge, even with the knowledge in hand, he ignores it and this is the true sense of stupidity! This just shows that types10000"
- your once again projecting your stupidity and dishonesty onto others, i demonstrated your claim commited an inductive. You have failed to address this but still postulate your claim as correct, do you seriously think people wont notice the fact i've debunked it no less than three times?
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 is so ignorant that he doesn't grasp scientific method and he "TRIES" to claim I proving ID when I am drafting something that does 'fit' the criteria of a workable hypothesis. His ignorance is confusing and to the general public and like I claimed before is a troll tactic and only shows HIS ignorance... He hasn't debunked any work I've put forwrd yet! He has only debunked ID which is fairly easily to debunk by what he claims...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"is so ignorant that he doesn't grasp scientific method"
- haha that's especially funny coming from a person who thinks science works in the realm of absolute proof.
Abiogenesis is accepted science that has lots of evidence support it thanks to it's testable predictions. It doesnt have enough evidence to be a 'scientific theory' but does have evidence to support it (Unlike ID).
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof, that is something you seem to keep projecting. I say that there is PoP in which you don't seem to understand this concept! And no, abiogensis has "MANY" different hypothesis, not one of which has evidence backing it all the way from concept to life!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof"
- proof in itself is an absolute.
- unless your talking about proof in the colloquial sense where it is synonymous with evidence.
"PoP in which you don't seem to understand"
- incorrect, what you dont seem to understand is that proof of principle is not necessary to demonstrate something as the best and most well evidenced explanation.
Abiogenesis is supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"I never stated that science works in the realm of absolute proof"
- proof in itself is an absolute.
- unless your talking about proof in the colloquial sense where it is synonymous with evidence.
"PoP in which you don't seem to understand"
- incorrect, what you dont seem to understand is that proof of principle is not necessary to demonstrate something as the best and most well evidenced explanation.
Abiogenesis is supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
Abiogenesis via RNA world hypothesis is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life that purposes it arose in gradual stages from inorganic matter.
For this to occur certain specific things need to be able to happen under specific circumstances.
From this we can form TESTABLE PREDICTIONS and if they turn out to be correct that provides evidence for the field by establishing a causal link.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened and showed up during the heavy bombardment stage in Earths history, the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage and did NOT originate on Earth as you seem to be illusioned too! Grow up and use you intelligence! Your explanation doesn't FIT!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
- exogenous is not a well supported explanation.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
- exogenous is not a well supported explanation.
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"You seem to be the one that 'doesn't' understand the concept of aboigenesis! Evidence of life, sprang up on this planet right after the crust hardened..."
- again abiogenesis IS supported by evidence in the form of testable prediction.
"the MOST likely scenario, even accepted by most scientists at NASA is that the precursors of life came from this bombardment stage"
- exogenous is not a well supported explanation.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
- You claimed abiogenesis doesn't have any evidence.
- I explained how the testable predictions of abiogenesis made it the best and most well evidenced explanation for the origin of life
- You responded by demonstrated a complete ignorance of science by claiming testable predictions dont count because they dont demonstrate proof of concept.
Come back when you understand the scientific method better.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "- your once again projecting your stupidity and dishonesty onto others, i demonstrated your claim commited an inductive. You have failed to address this but still postulate your claim as correct, do you seriously think people wont notice the fact i've debunked it no less than three times?"
Again, all you have done is debunked ID, you have yet to debunk anything I've put out there and the rigors of time will tell. You seem to be a good test subject but not very 'observant'.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"when his point of view has been shown to be wrong, lacking any evidence, where my point of view has evidence backing my position!"
incorrect:
- i demonstrated abiogenesis had evidence in the form testable predictions that make it the best and most well evidenced explanation for the origin of life.
- you attempted to present evidence of ID but i debunked it by demonstrating how it committed an inductive fallacy. refer to fred the space-horse.
GET SMARTER.
types10000 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 Abiogenesis has NO workable evidence for the pattern of code in DNA that IS responsible for life! Anyone with first year knowledge in biology knows that DNA codes life and without this code life does NOT exist! This was established long ago and types has no working knowledge on biology that I can tell yet he is here debating the subject yet he doesn't fully understand the workings of such. You can take it from there and I'm sure most people realize types ignorance in this area.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 Modern Genetic Engeneering, Microbiology and especially Synthetic biology all show that man can intelligenctly design and manipulate life in these fields! This is not only an observable thing but we consciously DESIGN life in these fields! If you call this conscious act a fallacy, then you are more stupid than anyone on this forum! Since this IS a conscious act, some collegues and me are writting a hypothesis and soon 'Design' will be Theory, ToD; Theory of Design in these fields.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Modern Genetic Engeneering, Microbiology and especially Synthetic biology all show that man can intelligenctly design and manipulate life"
- i've already demonstrated your statement commits an inductive fallacy refer to fred the space-horse..
"some collegues and me are writting a hypothesis and soon 'Design' will be Theory"
- it would need evidence first and thus far it has none, that's why in scientific terms it is regarded as an unsubstantiated hypothesis
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 It's clear to me and most people here in class that types10000 has no understanding of these feilds of science by his arrogant yet ignorant statement about his misguided use of this fallacy in this instance :))) But at least many people are getting a good laugh at his continued ignorance even when he's been debunked over and over. Like I pointed out in this thread, ignorance is lack of knowledge, but the continued ingorant behavior after faced with the facts is just stupidity!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"It's clear to me and most people here in class that types10000 has no understanding of these feilds of science by his arrogant yet ignorant statement about his misguided use of this fallacy"
- incorrect, i correctly identified your claim as a fallacy, refer to fred the space-horse.
Once, again where is the evidence for your assertion? Because you havnt even touched the evidence for abiogenesis, all you've done is espouse your ignorance of how testable prediction works
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "- i've already demonstrated your statement commits an inductive fallacy refer to fred the space-horse.."
Yeah, your fallacy is only 'valid' when you add the Supernatural designer into the equation, in which you clearly did in your example BUT your fallacy does NOT hold up when we take the supernatural entity out of the equation and show evidence that MAN himself can create design in the lab! Your fallacy means squat in this instance! Design, by man IS a valid stance with evidence!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 "- it would need evidence first and thus far it has none, that's why in scientific terms it is regarded as an unsubstantiated hypothesis"
Yeah, ID has no evidence because you can't prove a supernatural designer! That is correct BUT
Design by man, has a mulitude of evidence that is shown over and over again and types10000 keeps 'overlooking' this data, this 'evidence. And it is repeatable evidence and can predict what 'might happen'. Types is debating ID and ignoring Design by man!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Yeah, ID has no evidence because you can't prove a supernatural designer! That is correct BUT Design by man, has a mulitude of evidence "
- design by man does not provide evidence or proof of concept for a supernatural designer IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as the fact horses exist and do things does not provide evidence for a space-horse called fred who does things.
You are using an inductive fallacy.
Stop dodging and deal with the argument.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Design:(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints... If man "designs" something, it doesn't manifest all by itself and it has a certain set of characteristics set by this person because of his intelect or talent. When we design genetics in the lab, this is definitely not a fallacy, it's design!
-you fail again Types
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"you fail again Types"
- you've failed to address any of my points, you stated a definition of design, this does not provide any evidence that the things you claim to be designed are actually designed.
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 "- you've failed to address any of my points, you stated a definition of design, this does not provide any evidence that the things you claim to be designed are actually designed."
You have NO valid points! You are arguing ID, I'm drafting a hypothesis on "Design" Your arguments have NO bearing on this testable condition. You are illusional in your stance and through your ignorance you fail to see, "what is being shown" in my thesis. Data shows evidence.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"You have NO valid points!"
- incorrect,
i pointed-out how abiogenesis is the best and most well evidenced explanation thanks to it's testable predictions. Your only response to this was to espouse your ignorance of how testable predictions work in science.
You then attempted to use an inductive fallacy which i demonstrated. refer to fred the space-horse.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Secondly, you say that in the "proofs" are for math not science, this only shows your ignorance but once again! If nothing was ever "proven" in science, the we wouldn't even have gravity right now stupid! In the scientific method we have PoP Proof of Principle which gives us the right to say that gravity exists because the apple falls! This may not be PROOF but it's PoP which IS used in the scientific method and without it, nothing could even be said to be true or not!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Secondly, you say that in the 'proofs' are for math not science, this only shows your ignorance but once again!"
- incorrect, YOU are demonstrating YOUR ignorance, nothing is EVER proven in science there is simply evidence that supports a position.
"If nothing was ever 'proven' in science, the we wouldn't..."
- incorrect, your again projecting own stupidity onto others, well evidenced positions allow us to base other explanations, you dont need absolute proof.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 I know that nothing is "proven, but one has to have a standard of what IS accepted, Even you claim that abiogenesis has been demonstrated to have evidence in the form testable predictions. (Which in accuality, it lacks many points that show proof of principle, it has no evidence showing the originized DNA that constitutes modern life) My hypothesis on "design" desmonstrates evidence in the form of "testable predictions and repeatable results. You are still not getting it are you?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"In the scientific method we have PoP Proof of Principle which gives us the right to..."
no:
a). a phenomena that seemingly supports something does not provide proof of principle; if i were to drop a brick and feather i may conclude it provides 'proof of principle' that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, but i'd be wrong.
b). science is not limited to what can be directly observed.
In science there is simply evidence that supports a position. GET SMARTER.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 From what everyone is reading in your supposedly debate, it is clear that you are the one that needs to "get smarter". Ignorance is no excuse for not understanding what is spelled out right in front of your face time and time again! Even though you keep arguing ID, and transferring the same ignorant arguments on my stance just shows your arrogant ignorance and stupidity!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 First off, "design" is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion. To say that Design is just a “thought” in reasoning and call it Fallacy, just goes to show that you have NO clue to what Fallacy is, Type10000
-You fail in intelligence
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"First off, design is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion"
- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence you really dont have any actual argument.
"You fail in intelligence"
- again, major projection going on here.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence......"
Again, your ignorance prevails in showing through once again... If I design a pattern I can say that, "I designed the pattern that you precieve" and there is NO argument to whether I designed it or not! You ARE truely ignorant!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"First off, design is an observable phenomenon that can be shown as a testable experiment with a resulting conclusion"
- incorrect, design is subjectively inferred based on characteristics a person PERCEIVES as indicating design, considering our perception of design is based on order and complexity and capable of producing both without intelligence you really dont have any actual argument.
"You fail in intelligence"
- again, major projection going on here.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"To say that Design is just a thought in reasoning and call it Fallacy, just goes to show that you have NO clue to what Fallacy is"
- incorrect, THE REASON ID is a fallacy is because you want to assume it as long as an actual explanation remains unknown (the argument from ignorance fallacy)
ie. 'i dont know how x could have happened therefore intelligent design must be responsible' - you provide no causal link between subject and your conclusion, just your own ignorance
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "- incorrect, THE REASON ID is a fallacy is because you want to assume it as long as an actual explanation remains unknown (the argument from ignorance fallacy)"
Again, you are debating ID and what you claim IS true for such supernatural claims! Design by a non-supernatural entity, such as MAN can be shown in the lab, with repeatable result and we can show 'evidence' to this design! Again you are aruing ID, I am proving "Design" Get with the program or shut TFU!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
"Just because the Religious Claims of ID believe in a supernatural designer doesn't mean that one exists so you can't falsify ID..."
- The fact of the matter is that ID is rejected by science specifically because it does imply an unevidenced supernatural designer.
- if you were to redefine it to be more general (as you are apparently trying to do) then it would likely be accepted by science, but biological structures .etc would still not be recognized as being designed
types10000 5 months ago
Not trying to do, I am showing evidence of design in the lab, I have yet to see any emperical evidence showing inorganic material to become 'alive' except by the hand of MAN, in that he designed the inorganic material to be alive, just saying... Anyway, I don't have to "Prove" anything, Synthetic biology is proving it almost every day. We can create life without a "supernatural God" guiding our hand, we do it by our own "Intelligence" and it's being proven every day...ToD Theory of Design.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Not trying to do, I am showing evidence of design in the lab,"
- your 'evidence' was already debunked, you were using an inductive fallacy as illustrated by 'Fred the space-horse'
"I have yet to see any emperical evidence showing..."
already debunked:
- if an experiment is setup by humans to EMULATE unguided naturalistic circumstance and turns out to be successful then it is evidence it can happen via unguided naturalistic circumstance, IRRESPECTIVE of human intervention
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to back up "inorganic creation". Life doesn't just 'magically' appear stupid and there is NO evidence showing where this life came from in your reasoning, Nowhere has man ever shown 'where' the code comes from that is responsible for life, code can NOT self create! Your 'reasoning' is a fallacy. Reasoning without out evidence is pure speculation and CAN be considered what you call inductive fallacy!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Again, there is NO EVIDENCE to back up "inorganic creation""
- i'm not quite sure what you mean by 'inorganic creation' but abiogenesis via the RNA world hypothesis has incredible evidence to support it and is currently the BEST and MOST WELL EVIDENCED explanation for the origin of life thanks to it's dazzling array of testable predictions.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Nowhere has man ever shown 'where' the code comes from that is responsible for life"
oh my god, how stupid are you? there is no 'code', in genetics we simply use the word code as an analogy, DNA does not code for biological structures anymore than a supernova codes for planetary ring formations.
"Your 'reasoning' is a fallacy." - your provide no evidence of this, just your idiotic assertion that there is a code and humans havnt created it.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "oh my god, how stupid are you? there is no 'code', in genetics we simply use the word code as an analogy, DNA does not code for biological structures "
Again, showing your ignorance. Did you not even go to school? Do you NOT understand biology? Maybe your should take a course of two before reposting again because you are making a fool of yourself dude and it is pretty apparent by your responses, expecially like this one that DNA does not code for biological structures, please...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 "- The fact of the matter is that ID is rejected by science specifically because it does imply an unevidenced supernatural designer."
I agree! There is NO room for a mystical, supernatural God or Entity in a Theory.... All I'm saying is that Design can happen through 'living intelligence' as man is, a scientist per se... Nothing magically happens because something supernatural, "wills" it!
I'm very adamant about evidence being shown in work and this doesn't happen with a God...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"I agree! There is NO room for a mystical, supernatural God or Entity in a Theory"
- specifically one for which there is no evidence, if ID actually had evidence the story would be different.
"All I'm saying is that Design can happen through 'living intelligence' as man is"
- INDUCTIVE FALLACY refer to 'Fred the space-horse'.
types10000 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 You keep trying to apply a fallacy to testable experimentation with observable results. A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric “reasoning” resulting in a misconception or presumption in this reasoning. When an experiment shows outcome, this is an “observable conclusion” and you are trying to say it’s “presumptive reasoning” and call it fallacy. Your reasoning fails!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"You keep trying to apply a fallacy to testable..."
incorrect, i demonstrated your statement committed the inductive fallacy:
Your claim:
the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things
An equally ridiculous claim:
- The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things.
"Your reasoning fails"
- projection much?
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "but biological structures .etc would still not be recognized as being designed"
I can "CLEARLY" show by observable data where 'man' can 'design' biological structures in the lab.
-You fail but once again types10000 in your reasoning and intelligence
When we have observable data from experiments showing something we designed consciously, it can't be disputed stupid! Don't you know what 'scientific method' is?
-Again types1oooo, you are "ignorant" even after it being spelled out!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I can 'CLEARLY' show by observable data where...You fail but once again types10000"
incorrect, as i already pointed-out your using an inductive fallacy, unless you can address it your argument fails:
- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things
- The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things.
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I can 'CLEARLY' show by observable data where...You fail but once again types10000"
incorrect, as i already pointed-out your using an inductive fallacy, unless you can address it your argument fails:
- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things
- The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things.
types10000 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@types10000 "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things"
You wrote that and in no way does the "FACT" that man can manipulate genetics and 'design' life mean that there is a supernatural entity! So your comparrison to that statemt and you fallacy statement does NOT apply! You need to stop spreading your lies and ignorance in places you know nothing about! Tho it gives us a good laugh.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@types10000 wrote, "- the fact humans can use intelligence to design things provides proof of principle that there is a supernatural being who designs things - The fact horses exist and do certain things provides proof of principle that there is space-horse named fred who does certain things."
Again, incorrect! "HE" added the part about the supernatural entity! I NEVER claim any sort of supernatural entity and the ToD does NOT support such! So, his fallcy DOES NOT apply in my hypothesis!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"Again, incorrect! 'HE' added the part about the supernatural entity!"
- the concept of ID is orientated around a supernatural designer. If you are using a non-standard definition of ID then it's your fault for not presenting it, refer to the definition of the discovery institute .etc
Trying to use human design as proof of concept for a supernatural designer is an inductive fallacy. refer to fred the space-horse.
types10000 5 months ago
NOONE has EVER shown, 'where the information (the code) neccessary for life to exist, came from'. It is a matter of physics that, information can NOT come about all on its own (code cannot self create, if the code wasn't there to begin with, it's not there to guide and 'create' the code neccessary to produce itself) To think that design doesn't play a part in abiogenesis, is akin to belieing in a God and putting your faith in something that can NOT be proven so Abiogenesis = God! There is NO GOD
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Synthetic Biology is Intelligent Design, get with the program! Design CAN explain everything we see living on this planet, to say otherwise is an oxymornic train of thought and I must say a "glitch" in your intelligence to NOT understand such! I DO NOT believe in a 'mystical' magical God, in fact I believe there IS NO GOD but I can see design in life that natural inorganics can't explain. That doesn't mean that other intelligent life didn't design life and place it here on Earth!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle In fact the "design" we see in life on this planet can NOT and has NOT EVER been proven to happen by 'natural means' and by far in concept as stated in types10000 words, "a). science doesnt work on basis of absolute proof, there is simply evidence that supports a position." and in 'design' the evidence clearly points to design over hap-hazard creation of life through nonorganic chance! You and most 'abiogenesis' believers base their 'assumptions', NOT on evidence but on faith.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle ALL eveidence I have ever 'studied' about Abiogensis is based merely on trying to "FIT" the evendence towards their agenda, kind of like fitting a sqare peg in a round hole! At least "design" can be "PROVEN" as PoP in the lab by living evidence that can 'show' evidence that does 'support' this "Theory" where abiogensis by inorganic chance has NO evidence to support the hypothesis with PoP... See the difference in hypothesis and Theory?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle When talking the Theory of Design, I'm talking "Synthetic Biology" IS a proven "Theory"! Creation by inorganic material forming life by chance HAS NO PoP supporting the hypothesis but only evidence that 'might' support a position of unproven "assumption"... There's a lot of mights, assumptions and guessing in the 'chance' hypothesis, where there are proofs and evidence that supports "design by intelligence"!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle I can clearly "falsify" creation of life by inorganic chance! The Theory of Design has yet to be 'falsified' and even has PoP in the lab with repeatable, peer reviewed data! Just saying... you can keep trying to plug that sqare peg into that round hole but many are being left behind by denying (or ignoring) the proofs being founded in the lab by synthetic biology (the 'intelligently' designed life, from inorganics) and also backed up by genetic engeneering.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle Synthetic Biology, Genetic Engeneering, even cross breeding by our own intelligent forceablity are ALL PoP backing the absolute possibility that Intelligent Design can and does occur, thus conclusively "falsifying" this video and the concept that it 'tries' to convey...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle Then, if you are so smart and can prove that, why don't you show your proofs to the scientific community and win a noble prize?
raviept 5 months ago
@nooneeagle Types claims that the proof of design through mans intelligence and science is a fallacy, that just because we can make it happen, doesn't mean that life here on Earth came from the same means and just because we can "Prove" design doesn't prove that life came about this way here on Earth but it does "Prove" a concept and the concept is that "Design can be proven" and thus can be a possibility that it IS the reason for life on Earth, even without proof of other life in the universe!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle To "prove" a possibility is one thing and is a mindset that doesn't deserve the peace prize but works to move the intelligence of ALL so that the field can move forward in ways that need to be moved towards so the the field can advance! When people 'look' at this "other" posibilty as being proven with PoP then more people won't deny the truth over political reasons! And the field of Evolution and abiogenesis is washed out in "politically wrong ideals"! One can get fired for beliefs!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle But when 'Beliefs' can be "proven through principle" then we need to take a look at these concepts and if they can't be falsified, then the field can finally start advancing in the manner that the proofs lead and this opens up the field to advancement that the 'wrong' beliefs stagnated and stalled the field. Only in showing PoP can we move past the political area that these fields are controlled by and for science to advance again by removing the politics from the field!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
There's a "clear" and BIASED paper that the scientific community uses out there called the Anti-Wedge strategy that is politically based that works towards the destruction of anything "Designed" based research. It is clearly biased and works towards the destruction of any advancement in design research and even with PoP in the area of anything considered "design" this document works toward a concept of making the peer-reviewed community look at design as "Non-scientific", Is this scientific?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle In fact, this video is "The prime example" of the "Anti-Wedge Strategy" and follows it to a tee and everyone that fights against the "proven Theory of Design" follows this propaganda and does not use their own intelligence but is a sheep following a biased, destructive concept that is against the scientific methods of research and is clearly not of use in science!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
As it stand right now, the "anti-Wedge strategy" prevents anything considered "design" to even be considered peer reviewed! Don't you follow the news? That's why we call it "synthetic Biology" because when you put the truth to it, (Design) then you loose credit and can loose your job, your tenure and even loose credibility, all because of this concept that the Anti-wedge strategy implanted, politically in the communities mindset. How do you win a prize from something that isn't peer accepted?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle Then, intelligent design will never be considered as a science, and therefore should never be taught in a science class.
raviept 5 months ago
@raviept BUT Designing life intelligently through Synthetic Biology WILL prevail! The whole concept of the Anti-Wedge strategy is to keep "creation" (religion) out of the curriculum and I'm ALL for that. I often Prove that there ISN'T a God in many forums but this strategy went too far and is hurting this field of science and anything that is biased to the point of hindering the advancement in a field is clearly not productive is the "Scientific Methods of Research"! Ignorant to say the least!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@raviept However you "name" it, Intelligent Design by Synthetic Biology is NOT religious! Intelligent Design by Synthetic Biology CAN and IS a proven no matter what you think unless you are going to start saying Synthetic Biology and genetic Engeneering are no longer valid fields of study either! Some people will never use the intelligence that their brain offers no matter 'how much you spoon feed them the truth'... I think I clearly 'falsified' this video by my posts, sorry.......
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle What bubble? I'm not even a Biologist. And no, i have never heard of any school teaching Intelligent Design. I don't even know what you mean by that. Still, what you don't convince of is that scientific community is plotting against ID. I rather believe in those scientists than on the comments of any person on Youtube. I have seen all sorts of ideas in the Internet. To convince me in an area where i'm not an expert, you must first convince the true experts in the field.
raviept 5 months ago
@raviept By the way, the "field" of Synthetic Biology (Genetic Engeneering by Intelligent Design) Is a valid "field" of study taught in universities across the nation. Science involves many things but we are talking about a "field" of study and if you claim that ID will never be "science" then you don't even know what you are talking about, but the "field" of science dealing with Design IS a valid "field" and IS already taught in schools, sorry to burst your bubble there.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle Furthermore, i find it very hard to believe you could simply disprove Evolution, a reasonably complex subject, in youtube comments. I'm not stupid either. I work in theoretical computer science and i know it is much harder to prove or disprove something that can be modelled using Math, let alone an empirical concept such as Evolution. To disprove Evolution, i think you have to find a better explanation for every single evidence that is regarded as evidence for Evolution.
raviept 5 months ago
@raviept "Furthermore, i find it very hard to believe you could simply disprove Evolution, a reasonably complex subject, in youtube comments."
I never claimed that Evolution hasn't been proven, I stated that Evolution is awash with political bias and agenda!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@raviept, "I work in theoretical computer science and i know it is much harder to prove or disprove something that can be modelled using Math, let alone an empirical concept such as Evolution."
Great! Maybe you can tell the community here how "code" as in the code that codes life, invented itself, or "self-programmed" from nothing, into life? If you could find code that did that in computer programming, wouldn't that be miraculous? Tell us "how" inorganic (non-living) material did this?
nooneeagle 5 months ago
I can't help you inaptitude of reasoning raviept... You don't get it or you just don't understand? Should I spell it out another way... ID is taught in schools just under another name! There, can I be any clearer? ID is associated with religion but 'Design' is something that IS PROVEN in concept so this video attacks 'design' which has and can be proven in the fields of science, thus this video can be falsified through common sense. Jesh....
nooneeagle 5 months ago
If anyone believes that "Design" is NOT a valid "concept" then you are ignorant to reasoning and just want to troll or you are part of the propaganda that the Anit-Wedge strategy propagates and again you are ignorant to reasoning. The facts point in the direction that man himself can and does create design in living things, this isn't denied so if you say that 'design' isn't valid, then again you are ignorant to the facts.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle If you are talking about the origin of life, then i think ID might be plausible, but you should comparing it to Abiogenesis, not Evolution. But once again, i'm not an authority on the matter. I just said that i work in computer science to show that i'm not completely unaware of how mathematical proofs are usually done.
raviept 5 months ago
@raviept Agreed.... So what about the question I asked you, about the origins of "code" that exist in ALL living things... Do you think a blank computer could 'self program' in this manner as do the abiogenesis nuts claim? Or even this, 'Can code (any code) invent itself if there is no code to beging with'? Is that a fair question? :)
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle If you put it in that terms, then no, it is not possible for a code to invent itself. I'm not from Artificial Intelligence, but there is some work on developing "intelligent" software agents capable of acquiring not only new knowledge but also new ways of "reasoning". But of course, there is always an ultimate origin for that code: a programmer. But i'm not sure if you can compare computer code with DNA.
raviept 5 months ago
@raviept All DNA is, 'the coded information neccessary for life to exist'... Oh yeah, the origins of that code is quite a mystery. I agree, once the code is there and sophisticated enough, then it could hold the possibility of this code to invent 'newer' code, thus evolution in terms of biology but abiogensis, the invention of the first code, some say that nothing can create itself because it doesn't have orginization in the first place. Like you said, it's not possible for code to self-invent.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
I put this out there many times, if a blank computer(not even a bootstrap or BIOS) was plugged in and lightening kept causing 'random' computer noise to be generated on the machine (like in abiogenesis) and given billions of years(enough time as in abiogenesis) I never can see enough orginization taking hold to create a bootstrap, the BIOS and then to create a programming language intelligent enough to start 'self-programming' yet abiogenesis nuts think that DNA can do all this from inorganics
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Many people say that abiogenesis had millions of years BUT the truth of the matter is, fossilized life is found in the history of this planet as soon as the crust hardened! Life magically sprung up in a matter of thousands of years (during the "MASS-Bombardment stage of Earths history) so abiogensis didn't have millions of years but happened in the blink of an eye yet man with ALL his modern knowledge can NOT by any means "Show how life arose from inorganics with PoP backing the stance. Hummm.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Thinking back to the blank computer scenario, even the "random" computer 'noise' that might be spiked onto a blank machine isn't even really noise yet until there is enoough information on the machine to cause computer noise (without a computer language in the first place you won't have random computer letters, numbers of characters! You have to have the bootstrap configure this sort of thing first before the noise could even be recognised and used) Just saying, it would be near impossible!!!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
You have to remember that a computer is just as 'inorganic' as the inorganic material that they say life was created out of yet a computer has intelligent structure so it "SHOULD" be able to create code much more easily than the first inorganic materials we find in the Early Earth! So much assumption associated with abiogensis, I often wonder about the people who fight and say it happened the way they say it did without any proof backing their misguided 'assumptions'.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
In conclusion;
-'Design" can be shown in the lab and has 'PoP' (Proof of Principle) backing up the concept.
-Code arising without any other code or guidance is a physics nightmare that can NOT be claimed!
-Abiogensis, the Neo-Darwinian version that life arose by millions of years with just E (energy) orginizing the code has no basis and there is NO PoP backing up the assumptions. Energy is NOT orginizing but can be destructive as described with Shannon Entropy.
-NO proof of a God creation
nooneeagle 5 months ago
Comment removed
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Synthetic Biology, Genetic Engeneering, even cross breeding by our own intelligent forceablity are ALL PoP backing the absolute..."
Incorrect, you are invoking an inductive fallacy; The fact humans exist and are capable of manipulating nature does not provide evidence that a supernatural intelligent designer exists and can do these things.
perhaps you should define exactly what you mean by 'intelligent design' because it seems to differ from that of the discovery institute.etc
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 It's quite apparent that you know nothing of genetic engeneering! That should be all that need be said but I will explain since you are so ignorant that you don't 'grasp' the concept of what design is in biology and genetics! If I design a gene in the lab it isn't a "falacy"! It's design! Manipulation through intelligent decision and manipulation, it doesn't just happen because it was suppose to, it happened because I 'design' it to do so! You can blabber on and on it won't change it
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"It's quite apparent that you know nothing of genetic engeneering! "
- incorrect, i already addressed how and why your argument was erroneous
If a human sets-up a lab experiment that replicates unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth and it turns out to be a success, then the logical conclusion from this is that ''it can happen under unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth"
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 "If a human sets-up a lab experiment that replicates unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth and it turns out to be a success..."
Yeah but man has never succeeded in doing such, sorry, there may be some promising steps in different experiments but even add all together, never has man ever accomplished Proof of Principle, which must show that what is trying to be accomplished IS a workable theory and not just assumption. Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Yeah but man has never succeeded in doing such"
- incorrect, as i already pointed-out they have for every stage between inorganic matter and molecular machines, each of which confirmed a testable prediction of abiogenesis and provided incredible evidence for the field.
"never has man ever accomplished Proof of Principle" - still dont quite understand how testable predictions work do you?
"Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis" - yeh, a substantiated hypothesis with evidence
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"never succeeded"
incorrect:
- humans have demonstrated how every stage between inorganic matter and molecular machines can be accomplished via unguided naturalistic means indicative of an early earth
- Each of these stages completed a testable prediction of abiogenesis and provided incredible evidence for the field.
We dont need to demonstrate every stage of abiogenesis inorder to provide EVIDENCE for abiogenesis.And the evidence it currently has makes it the best explanation
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000 By your ignorance by insinuating that there MUST BE a supernatural designer in my explanation of design then all this shows is you trying to "manipulate" my explanation of "design" that can be accomplished in the lab. Just because the Religious Claims of ID believe in a supernatural designer doesn't mean that one exists so you can't falsify ID on this stance like the Anti-Wedge strategy does! Sorry...
nooneeagle 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"By your ignorance by insinuating that there MUST BE a supernatural designer.."
incorrect:
- virtually anything IS POSSIBLE eg. there may be a space-born horse named fred orbiting mars.
what matters is what there is evidence to support.
However, demonstrating that horses exist and perform specific actions does not provide evidence for the claim that there is a space-born horse named fred, humans designing things is not proof of concept for supernatural ID for the same reason
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"By your ignorance by insinuating that there..."
I'll try to dumb it down for you:
- virtually anything IS POSSIBLE eg. there may be a space-born horse named fred orbiting mars.
- However, what matters is what there is evidence to support.
- demonstrating that horses exist and perform specific actions does not provide evidence for the claim that there is a space-born horse named fred
- humans designing things is not proof of concept for supernatural ID for the same reason
types10000 5 months ago
You are damn right that my "theory of Design" is different than the Religious ID that the Discovery Institute teaches! I'll prove all day long that a "supernatural" entity does NOT exist and that this God, is a creation, that Man made in his image, not the other way around, Sorry, but since you can't prove a God falsifies ID, it doesn't falsify my theory because a supernatural God just doesn't exist. My Theory of Design Is based on evidence that "Design" can be shown to happen in the lab!
nooneeagle 5 months ago
I can clearly show that "design" happenes in the lab through genetic engeneering, micro-biology and synthetic biology! If you can Falsify this stance, let's see your evidence! It is NOT a falacy because I have emperical evidence shown in labwork to back my claims! The concept of Design can be shown and thus it IS a concept that can NOT be denied.
nooneeagle 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nooneeagle
"I can clearly show that "design" happenes in the lab through genetic engeneering"
- as i pointed-out your using an inductive fallacy, refer to my explanation of how the fact horses exist does not provide evidence that fred the space-horse exists
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"I can clearly 'falsify'..."
- ofcourse you could if you didnt have the possibility of falsifying it then it couldnt be scientific, fact is you havnt been able
"The Theory of Design has yet to be 'falsified"
a). there is no theory of ID, it's an unsubstantiated hypothesis
b). it relies on an argument from ignorance logical fallacy where you assume it as long as the actual cause remains unknown
It's a matter of abiogenesis (which has evidence) vs ID which doesnt
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"In fact the design we see in life on this planet can NOT and has NOT EVER been proven to happen by 'natural means'"
- nor does it have to be; you cannot observe and test an experiment that happened in the past.
- You can however collect information, form a hypothesis, make testable predictions and test those predictions through experimentation, the result of which would be EVIDENCE.
Abiogenesis has evidence that has met the scientific burden of proof. ID has not
types10000 5 months ago
@nooneeagle
"Synthetic Biology is Intelligent Design, get with the program!"
you really must be stupid, showing how a scientist can boil water at 100 degrees does not demonstrate that water can only be boiled by an intelligent agency at 100 degrees.
It's not a difficult concept:
- Showing how various stages of abiogenesis can happen under unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an early earth IS EVIDENCE they did happen via unguided naturalistic circumstances indicative of an...
types10000 5 months ago
the only problem is that you are wrong, organisms are not nicely organiced in a nested hierarchy, as you mentioned in your video. the fact is that live is not organiced in a predictable pattern just like we would expect if life was designed by a designer with creativity
for example the gene persitne places bats and killer whales as close relatives but blue whales and killer whales as far relatives
Answerquestions1 5 months ago
@Answerquestions1
"the only problem is that you are wrong, organisms are not nicely organiced in a nested hierarchy...for example the gene persitne places bats and killer whales as close relatives but..."
-incorrect, the nested hierarchy is independently verified multiple ways, comparative anatomy, genetics .etc
-What you are pointing to is an example of the convergent evolution of a singular gene used in echolocation. A 14 amino acid commonality easily explained via selective pressures
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000
there are many cases were anatomy and genetics give different resoults ¿so which should we trust?
yes that is my point everytime we find genes that do not fit your tree pattern, you wil simply call it convergent evolution.
Answerquestions1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Answerquestions1
"there are many cases were anatomy and genetics give different resoults ¿so which should we trust?"
- incorrect, there arnt many at all; the fields syc up the overwhelming majority of the time and in the few anomalies circumstances they dont there are explanations.
types10000 5 months ago
@Answerquestions1
"yes that is my point everytime we find genes that do not fit your tree pattern, you wil simply call it convergent evolution. "
- incorrect, convergent evolution is only capable of explaining circumstances of overwhelming simplicity an example being a A 14 amino acid commonality.
- intricate biological structures .etc cannot be explained in this manner eg. a mammal with bird traits, like an avian lung.
types10000 5 months ago
@types10000
that does not change my pointnwhich is, organisms can not be group in a nice tree pattern there are many genes in ´´incorrect places´´ beeing perstine only one of many examples if mammals would have had, avian lungs, you would simply say that the avian lung evolved before birds and mammals (or their ancestors) diverged.
Answerquestions1 5 months ago
@Answerquestions1
"that does not change my pointnwhich is, organisms can not be group in a nice tree pattern"
- i've already demonstrated that to be incorrect, they can and are and this tree is independently verified by multiple fields.
- all you could do was point to an anomaly in a specific instance that already had an explanation
"here are many genes in ´´incorrect places´" - NO there arnt 'many', again independently verifies the tree the OVERWHELMING majority of the time.