@MyDebater Big bang does not say that the universe was created from nothing. It says that all of the matter was compress in singularity smaller than an atom and the it blew up and that is why everything is moving away. The matter did not have a beginning, only time had a beginning. If you look at a firecracker blowing up in slow motion, the sparks look like what we can see in the universe. I like to believe that God and the universe are the same thing. Religion is just mans ignorance.
The woman and the man. Both are looking ad the ad-ions well they are talking, demons all around those 2. Just like satan likes publicity, so does his servants.
@Reasonwillwin True. DNA doesn't "prove" God--at least not by your definition of "proof." Nothing short of seeing, speaking to, and touching God will "prove" God; and even that might not be enough for a religiously devout atheist.
We don't render DNA a language, we simply recognize it as one. DNA is encoding and decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the message of a living organism. The fact that biologists use linguistic analysis to decode the human genome, supports this fact.
A code does not simply require a designer - it requires an encoder and a decoder who agree on its meaning. Or more generally, a code requires a set of understanders. It makes no sense to speak of something being a "code" unless it encodes a message of some sort from a sender to a receiver. That is to say, to call DNA a "code" at all is question-begging. DNA is a chemical which interacts with other chemicals according to well-understood laws of chemistry and physics.
@WaltonSauce To presuppose that DNA requires a "who" within itself to qualify it as a code is question begging. Binary code does not require a "who" within itself to qualify it as a code, yet nobody denies that it is. Similar to DNA, once a computer program is coded, it continually encodes and decodes data packets between itself and other programs and systems--all without a "who" to understand the process. In either case, we don't have to know "who" the coder is to recognize something as a code.
Not all systems which are known to represent information (a.k.a. code) were known to have been created by a designer. For example, the solar system can be viewed as a system which encodes information, such as the length of a day or the period in which one might harvest crops, or the tidal calendar. While this coded information provides data relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of this planet, it is by no means apparent that this information was created by a designer.
@WaltonSauce It seems you are confused between naturally occuring patterns in nature, and sequences of symbols, sounds, or chemicals, used to communicate information between two points. Hours are abstract values used to measure the passage of time. The "hour" does not encode and trasmit it's minutes to the "day" so that the "day" may decode it and know how long to last. Your analogy also fails for tides, snowflakes, and any other natural patterns that have been assigned abstract values.
Why grant that "random patterns" occur naturally? Isn't everything in the universe under the direct control of God? If not, then how can God be said to be omnipresent and omnipotent?
The processes of Transcription and Translation, are just chemicals->chemicals->chemicals. However we have processes that account for the origin of most organic molecules from inorganic ones. We have a process for the origin of the universe.
@WaltonSauce Now you're just changing the subject. I've only asserted that DNA sequences are codes that exhibits the same characteristics of binary codes, or written English sentences. By invoking God, you've only conceded my point that DNA sequences are, in fact, codes. The fact that you quickly jumped to the "God Conclusion," only demonstrates your deductive ability to recognize that codes do not occur in nature. Where you go from that conclusion is not for me to decide.
The genome is simply a sequence of chemicals, you brought up God in your earlier comments. Even if DNA is a code, how does that prove it came from a designer? In order to say something looks designed you must have an idea of what something that isn't designed looks like in order to make the comparison. You're argument that: "Codes do not occur in nature" "DNA is a code" "Therefore DNA did not occur naturally is flawed in the fact that we have evidence that DNA did occur naturally.
If DNA contains a code, it does not “prove” the code came from a designer—at least not in the scientific sense. What it does do, however, is “prove” (in the philosophical sense) that, given our understanding of the origins of codes or information, it is most probable that the information within DNA molecules came from an intelligent mind(s).
@WaltonSauce Whether or not the DNA molecule is a natural by-product of nature is irrelevant. I’m not arguing about the origin of the molecule; I’m arguing about the origin of specified set of instructions necessary for the construction of a living organism.
Here’s my formal argument:
P1. Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s).
P2. DNA molecules contain codes.
C1. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligent mind(s).
@WaltonSauce I agree that the genome is a sequence of chemicals, but to use the word “simply” when referring to the human genome is to demonstrate a gross lack of understanding of genetics.
If I brought up God in an earlier comment, it was in response to someone else that ignored my argument by playing the God card earlier.
I'm a genetics student mate, don't bring up a lack of understanding bout genetics.
If DNA originated in a natural way it simply could not have been designed. We simply interpret DNA as a code. You're 1st premise is that all codes come from intelligent minds, I can grant that.
You're 2nd primise is that DNA is a code, since DNA came about by natural processes without an intelligent mind, then this breaks your first premise, therefore your conclusion doesn't follow.
Let us be clear on my 2nd premise. I will use CAPS to emphasize words you've overlooked; no offense intended.
My second premise is that "DNA molecules CONTAIN CODES."
Notice that my premise is not followed by "since DNA came about by natural processes without an intelligent mind."
Now, If you would like to make a case that DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN CODES, please cite peer reviewed scientific sources that have empirically "proven" that DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN CODES.
@WaltonSauce Simply because something could be said, does not make that something true. Rather than continuing with your objection to my 2nd premise, you now wish to challenge my 1st premise--that "Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s)."
In order for you reject premise 1, you must provide one example of a code (not a pattern) that can be shown (not assumed) to occur through natural processes.
@WaltonSauce Email me the link and I'll get back to you. Provide specific quotes that you feel provide the best evidence to back up your claim that codes occur through natural processes.
And just so we agree on definitions, a "naturally occurring code" should be some naturally occurring inorganic entity that communicates between itself and something else through the encoding, transmission and decoding of information. The existence of the a code doesn't prove the origin of the code.
And just so we agree on definitions, a "naturally occurring code" should be some naturally occurring inorganic entity that communicates between itself and something else through the encoding, transmission and decoding of information. The existence of the a code doesn't prove the origin of the code.
No, I do not agree that there must be an inorganic entity.
Allow me to explain what DNA does, the bases themselves are not what it used more the hydrogen bonds that can be formed to them.
@WaltonSauce I appreciate your excellent explanation of how DNA reproduces the genetic code. However, failed to provide an example of a code that has been shown to occur through natural processes; you've only explained how DNA duplicates the preexisting genetic code.
This is your logic:
P1. Some codes occur naturally
P2. DNA contains a genetic code that occurs naturally
C. Therefore, DNA is a code that occurs naturally
By assuming your conclusion in your premise, you're begging the question
A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.
The code is the rule for converting them, not the sequence itself. In genetics the code can be said to be the triplet code, which determines the sequence of Amino acids produced in translation. A different code is used for mtDNA, Nucleic DNA and cDNA.
DNA is a long molecule made of a chain of DeoxyRibose, Phosphate and An Organic Base (Adenine and Guanine the Purines and Thymine and Cytosine the Pyrimidines). Shortened to A T G C. in DNA there are 2 parallell strands that run together in an opposite direction to each other. Normally labelled as the template and coding strands. If there is an A in a particular site on the Template strand there will be a T on the coding and the same for G and C. Only G and C or A and T can bond togethe
An enzyme called Helicase "unzips the 2 strands and RNA nucleotides bond to the DNA (G to C and A to Uracil which replaces T since T cannot be used for RNA) And RNA polymerase (another enzyme) bonds the Ribose sugar one ribonucleotide to the phosphate in the nest creating a 'tail' of RNA that breaks off from the DNA when the 2 strands come back together, The tail is called pre-mRNA. Inside the nucleus the intron sections of the pre-mRNA are removed and it becomes Messenger (m)RNA.
The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enter a ribosome where the first 3 nucleotides in the strand (always AUG) bond to a tRNA (each tRNA structure has a site that bonds to the mRNA dependent on what hydrogen bonds it can make) structure with a particular amino acid bonded to it (in the case of AUG methionine) Then the ribosome moves to the next 3 bases in the sequence maybe CCA (it will not use the same base twice since the tRNA blocks it) and another piece of tRNA bonds to that with a
particular amino acid bonded to it, in this case Proline, the Methionine from the previous tRNA will form a peptide bond to the Proline, this will go on for a while until you have a chain of amino acids called a polypeptide chain.
We know ripples in the sand are products of naturally occurring tides; therefore ripples in the sand are not designed.
We know that the complete works of William Shakespeare is the product of a sequence of letters, words, and sentences that relays stories (information) that others can understand. Therefore, the works of William Shakespeare is the product of design.
Basically what you're saying is: Because these codes come from design, All codes from design, therefore this other code must have been designed despite us pretty much knowing it's origins.
@WaltonSauce If a metallic capsule came crashing down to earth from space, and it was covered in strange symbols, what would your deductive logic lead you to believe?
A. It is the product of billions of years of stellar evolution
or
B. It is the product of an intelligence.
We don't need to know the origin of a code to recognize it as such.
Argument from Analogy? We know the origin of DNA. It was abiogenesis. Phosphates occur naturally, Bases can be created gy basic chemicals and radiation, Carl Sagan demonstrated this in an experiment in which he created Adenine using inorganic chemicals and radiation. Ribose and Deoxyribose came indirectly from the Miller-Urey experiment, which created formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can react with water to form Ribose in the formose reaction.
@WaltonSauce Correction, we "believe" abiogenesis was the origin of DNA. We have no way to scientifically verify, test, or even falsify this "belief." We cannot claim to "know" something that we can not "prove" through inductive or deductive logic. Organic chemicals do not prove that abiogenesis occurred; they only prove that, given the perfect environmental conditions, organic chemicals might occur naturally. Either way, organic chemicals are light years away from abiogenesis.
@WaltonSauce To say P "could have" caused Q is no different than me saying God (P) "could have" caused DNA (Q). "Could have" is insufficient to "prove" anything, and thereby fails to refute my premise that codes only comes from intelligent minds.
Because the DNA produced in abiogenesis in a lab is not produced by intelligent minds. And to say God could have created DNA you must demonstrate the existence of God.
And in case you bring the up the objection to the Miller-Urey that the atmostphere was wrong, there have been similar experiments performed which produced an even more diverse range of molecules. As for the origin of amino acids, the Murchison Meteorite that fell to earth was rich in Amino acids, Bases, Phosphates and alcohols. Also in some experiments UV light is substituted for the lightning and the same molecules produced. UV light would have been more intense due to lack of Ozone.
However a large percentage of your DNA is not used for protein synthesis and is referred to erroneously as Junk DNA or Introns. However if you remove said Introns the organism cannot survive.
Your logic is:
P1 No codes I know of come from natural sources
P2 the genetic code is a code
C1 Therefore the genetic code did not come from natural sources. This is inductive reasoning.
I have shown that codes only "come from intelligent minds" is a false premise in the process of abiogenesis. this shows that DNA molecules could have come from an unintelligent source. Where DNA came from is a scientific matter though, not a philosophical one.
@WaltonSauce At the end of the day, neither science nor philosophy can know how the first life started. Neither of the two fields are at odds with each other; they just have complementary methods of coming to knowledge. Knowledge that is unobservable and untestable via the scientific method (inductive logic), can be known via deductive arguments. Deduction is how we know gravity exists and that the earth has an EM field. Stephen Hawking owes his entire career to his deductive reasoning.
@WaltonSauce Although chemistry can explain why adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine, it does not appear that it can explain the specific sequence of 3 billions base pairs that make up the human genome. Just as the cumulative sequence of 1s and 0s in binary code make up a executable computer program, the cumulative sequence the 6 billion As, Ts, Gs, and Cs make up the human genome. Would we still have a functioning genome if we scrambled the sequence?
It would still be functioning, just in a different way, it would still produce Polypeptides just different ones. The whole human genome wasn't put together at the same time, it was put together over roughly 3-4 billion years. And it is still changing. The human genome isn't even the longest. The longest is the Polychaos dubium 67Gb (giga-bases not bytes :P), Humans only have ~3.2.
@WaltonSauce If I put a frog in a blender, which contains all the information, DNA, proteins, polypeptides, and amino acids necessary for life, how long do I have to wait before a new life emerges from the goo? Since a blender is not likely to break the frog's DNA strands, I would think it shouldn't take anywhere near billions of years. If it's been done, I'd be interested in knowing how the results of that experiment. :)
DNA, proteins, polypeptides, and amino acids necessary for life, - would not have the energy for enything to start self replicating, and abiogenesis happens over millions of years, the information about abiogenesis is out there google it or there are some videos on youtube, and the blender could destroy the DNA, and would definitely destroy the enzymes require for transcription and translation.
@WaltonSauce Riddle me this: If abiogensis happens over millions of years, and mankind has not been around for millions of years to observe and record it's occurrence via the scientific method, does it not follow that abiogenesis is not science at all?
"does it not follow that abiogenesis is not science at all?"
No, the same can be said for the orbit of pluto, it hasn't orbited the sun since it was discovered, but we still 'know' it orbits the sun. There are many things that have not been directly observed, but we still have evidence for them. In terms of abiogenesis look at:
The antiquity of RNA-based evolution - Gerald F. Joyce
Evolution without speciation but with selection - Hugo Hoenigsberg (last one has longer name use google)
There are also things like the Miller-Urey experiment and many many others that show how abiogenesis could occur, as much as I hate myself as I type this next sentence: Wikipedia has some good stuff on it, particularly if you check the references and read the peer reviewed papers.
@WaltonSauce If I'm not mistaken, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how a few amino acids could have been created in a controlled atmosphere and pre-biotic soup. Also, the amino acids that Miller and Urey were able to create had to be immediately removed to prevent the same soup that created them from destroying them. Thus, the Miller-Urey experiment proved that amino acids could have been created via intelligent design. Anyway, amino acids are a far cry from abiogenesis.
And in response to how would I falsify Abiogenesis? Good question but I would perform an experiment that shows that it is impossible for any self replicating molecules to form in early Earth conditions.
The Craig Venter Institute managed to synthesise DNA. They built a genome out of inanimate matter and then inserted into a mycoplasma cell. It didn't building an entire new organism, but it is building a new set of instructions for an existing organism. link : economist . com/node/16163154?Story_ID=16163154&fsrc=nlw%7Chig%7C05-20-2010%7Ceditors_highlights
@nextgenvids I read about this. They essentially reverse engineered a DNA molecule and altered it to create a new organism. Fascinating stuff, but if I did anything similar with a piece of man-made patented technology, I'd be sued for re-branding and selling someone else's technology.
@WaltonSauce Intelligent Design doesn't make a scientific claim to life's origins--it makes a philosophical one. Since it makes no scientific claim, falsification is not a problem for ID.
That's precisely my point! Abiogenesis says "X 'could have' created life," whereas you are saying "X (abiogenesis) created life." Since abiogenesis cannot be proven through observable, repeatable experimentation, it cannot be falsified, and is therefore, not a scientific claim. To claim that X created Y because it "could have" created Y is faulty logic--it's a non sequiter.
Neither abiogenesis nor ID make valid scientific claims.
Go back through all the comments, you asked me to give an example of how DNA could come through non intelligence, I gave the option of abiogenesis, technically it isn't a theory more of a number of models, it gives a number of different ways that life could have come from non life, which I stated in response to you saying life had to come from intelligence. You said DNA came from an intelligence earlier on, making a scientific claim.
@WaltonSauce "I gave you the option of abiogenesis."
I asked you to show how "information" could have come through natural processes. You have made repeated attempts to change my premise, and then refute it with the abiogenesis hypothesis; which, by the way, is no more scientific than saying "God did it."
@WaltonSauce "You said DNA came from an intelligence..."
I said "information" could not have come from natural processes. This is a deductive conclusion based on the the observable scientific "fact" that we have never observed information coming from non-intelligent sources. To claim "information" came from natural processes (absent empirically verifiable scientific evidence) is purely dogmatic.
"You said DNA came from an intelligence earlier on, making a scientific claim."
I never made any claim to the origins of DNA, much less any scientific ones. Your repeated attempts to knock down straw men of your own making is begging the question.
@WaltonSauce Even if abiogenesis does, one day, become a bonifide scientific theory, it still would not refute my premise that "information" does not come from natural processes. Only by showing (not hypothesizing) that information does, in fact, come from natural processes (with undeniable scientific data) can you refute my premise that information does not come from natural processes. You can't use DNA to prove the origins of information, because we don't "know" the origins of DNA or its info.
In summary I am saying that Abiogenesis could have created life, each individual hypothesis of abiogenesis makes that claim that life can come from non-life, early tests show this could be possible, more tests are being performed.
Correction, abiogenesis could have been hypothetically been the "process" through which life naturally arose from non-life. Creation implies intent. Since agiogenesis is assumed to be a natural process, it could not have "created" life; creation implies intention, and intention implies free will, intelligence, and sentience.
If we go back to the initial point of this discussion you said that all codes come from intelligence. I have shown how a code (DNA) could come from non-intelligence.
@SH1PIT The Big Bang in the future is going to be impossible to falsify due to the rapid expansion in the far future. It's going to be thought the universe is static , and never expanding. Do you think it's the same thing for life ? A one time deal were everything has to be perfect. We don't know the exact conditions so we can't say it wasn't possible , but maybe leave it at we don't know yet.
"We don't know the exact conditions so we can't say it wasn't possible , but maybe leave it at we don't know yet."
That's all I have been saying. Based on the current scientific evidence, life elsewhere in the universe is astronomically improbable. We can not say it is not possible, but we can say--given our current level of scientific knowledge--that it is highly improbable. Improbability, however, does not in anyway take away your right to believe.
@SH1PIT Things we think are improbable happen all the time in the universe. Some may not seem significant to others but they happen. If I had a deck of google cards , and one card was marked and it was shuffle I could get it on my first. At what point does something become improbable ? Do you have some sources for the probabilities ?
You're preaching to the choir. You're talking to someone who actually lost $500 with a stright flush! If anyone knows that improble things happen, it's me. To me, improbable is something that is hightly unlike to happen to a given person, planet, galaxy, or universe. Given 176 million people, someone will probably win the MegaBucks. The odds of "someone" winning is more probable than the odds of "me" winning. Often times, nobody wins and the pot grows into the billions.
@nextgenvids To me, the odds of winning the MegaBucks once in my lifetime is highly improbable. The odds of me winning it 100 times in a row is so improbable that (dare I say it?) it is impossible. This is how I think of the probability of 100 of the right combination of left and right handed amino acids being present on the right sized planet,
@nextgenvids with the right proximity from the right type of star, at the right time when it had the right atmospheric and surface chemicals at the perfect temperature to allow them to form in just the right sequence to form the first functioning protein. To me Improbability is when you take that scenario and multiply it by 1000 before you come to the first living cell, and we're not even at multi-celled organisms yet.
@nextgenvids I conceded that abiogenesis offers the best "scientific" hypothesis. The problem with a scientific hypothesis is that is presupposes naturalism, or that only a scientific explanation can explain a given phenomenon. The presuppositions inherent in naturalism are, themselves, non-scientific. Therefore, the belief that "only scientific explanations can explain a given phenomenon" cannot be validated with a scientific explanation. Naturalism refutes itself.
@SH1PIT So your saying science refutes itself with science. Their is no other ways or means to explain it .. are our natural world , anything beyond it lies in imagination.
@nextgenvids I'm saying naturalism refutes itself with science. Naturalism is not science, nor is science naturalism. Naturalism is the underlying philosophical beliefs of science. If naturalism says that only a scientific explanation can explain a given phenomena, it refutes itself, since science cannot explain the phenomena of naturalism.
Your claim that anything beyond our natural world lies in our imaginations is a metaphysical claim; which goes against your underlying naturalist beliefs.
I have to agree that naturalism is a flawed philosophy, it asserts that nothing beyond this natural world exists. It would be more prudent to say that there is no evidence for a supernatural world.
@nextgenvids Quantum Physics is a branch of science (Theoretical Physics) that deals more heavily with philosophy rather than science. You might as well tell me what the Bible says, if you're going to lean on the crutch of unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
@SH1PIT If it can happen it will occur and it doesn't even matter if it's on earth. Rough analogy: Just like a million dollar lottery someone is going to win period. If you're comparing qauntum physics to the bible I really have nothing to say to you on that if choose to deny it.
OK now you're using the argument from fine tuning, this is a PRATT. The universe is not fine tuned for life AT ALL, there are places on THIS EARTH that will kill us instantly. And you're forgetting that the universe is ~14 Billion years old. And as for perfect temperature??? The optimum temperature for our enzymes is 37 degrees C we have to use lots of energy maintaining that temperature, or like cold blooded animals sunbathe for ages.
@nextgenvids The sheer amount of time where nature could have destroyed all the supposed self-assembled organisms is nothing short of a miracle--just the sort that many scientists say they don't believe in.
"Are you coming from a super natural standpoint ?"
I am viewing it from a purely naturalistic standpoint. My personal beliefs have no bearing on my inability to believe that chemicals can pick themselves up by their bootstraps and assemble themselves without pre-existing information.
@SH1PIT Yes you could be holding some bias and presuppustions , but not willing because you might have to defend it and you can't. If I were judge and I had a history of discriminating against people who had a x feature what makes you think he wouldn't do it again , the defendent with the x feature would wether have one that wasn't.
C1. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligent mind(s).
My argument speaks for itself. That's what so great about deduction; bias is incapable of entering into the equation. Both my premises are true, and nobody has been able to refute my premises. Given the laws of deductive reasoning, if P1 and P2 are true, and the argument (structure) is valid, the conclusion follows necessarily.
@SH1PIT Dichomoy you're are saying it's one or the other. It's kind of like Occams Razor. Even if you had evidence to prove those claims you would first need to define, definitons to assign to attributes , and see if it's tested through science.
@nextgenvids There's nothing wrong with a dichotomy. There are things that are black and white. Either or logic is not faulty logic. It's when you have False Dichotomies that you've run into a fallacy. In other words, if I say there are two options, and you show me a third, you would have shown a fallacy in my argument.
@SH1PIT ID has no bass to even hold it up. How is it even a option. You say it's self-evident where is it ? Why haven't you got noble prize for it yet ?
@nextgenvids I absolutely agree. It has no scientific basis to hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is not a scientific option. ID is self evident because we have countless examples (watches, sculptures, paintings etc...) of things that exhibit specified complexity, and that we know were created by intelligent minds. It is self-evident because a 2 year old can see it. Take any child old enough to talk and ask him/her how the faces on the side of Mt. Rushmore got there; his/her answer will imply ID
If everything complex must have been designed then the designer by definition is also complex, therefore must also be designed. This will form an infinite regress, not to mention the fact that we have evidence other than the watch/painting that the watchmaker/painter exists. Also we have no other mechanism that shows how paintings or watched are formed. Also painting and watched are not created, the matter was already there it was only manipulated into them
"If everything complex must have been designed then the designer by definition is also complex, therefore must also be designed.This will form an infinite regress"
Straw man and argumentum ad infinitum rolled into one--impressive! I never said everything complex must have been designed--only that there is a level of specified complexity that's best explained through ID
The fact that you cannot have an infinite regress is proof that a "first cause," or god exists necessarily.
Either every effect is contingent on a preceding cause (infinite regress), or there is a non-contingent first cause. This non-contingent first cause is, by definition, uncaused; and is what deists and theists call god.
Look up the cyclic model of the universe. The universe does not neccesarily need a beginning and can run in cycles. And do you have an example of anything else that began to exist having a cause?
"The universe does not neccesarily need a beginning and can run in cycles."
And unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns can actually exist as well, but we have no empirical evidence to support either set of beliefs. The best scientific evidence we have supports the Big Bang Theory; which implies a beginning.
"Do you have an example of anything else that began to exist having a cause?"
Nothing that will satisfy a reductionists' definition of that which "begins to exist."
The big bang theory does not imply a beginning per se, if you look up Peter Lynds he basically put forward a model of Bang->Crunch->Bang, which is an interesting concept in itself. The same energy present during the big bang is present now, under conservation of energy laws.
And my apologies for the straw man/ad infinitum. It's a common argument that many ID proponents make is that anything complex is designed, but does this designer not by definition meet the level of specified complexity, and exactly what is the level of specified complexity required?
"does this designer not by definition meet the level of specified complexity, and exactly what is the level of specified complexity required?"
Which designer might that be? I have made no argument to the identity of a designer; I've only shared my "personal belief" of who that designer might be. Although my beliefs motivate me to search for tangible answers, I am careful to avoid cross-contamination between my beliefs and logical conclusions. I try to maintain objectivity.
And before you use a very common quote mine of Hawking:
"It was the beginning of the Universe and of time itself".
to prove your side I will finish the quote
"It was the beginning of the Universe and of time itself, anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after therefore we can ignore events before the Big Bang and say it was the beginning of time".
So he believes. I think it's more intellectually honest to say "...it was the beginning of what we call time."
In a way yes, there is no way anything before the big bang could have any effect on what happens after, since all energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity.
Nothing that will satisfy a reductionists' definition of that which "begins to exist."
"In a way yes, there is no way anything before the big bang..."
I agree. Assuming the beginning of the universe was the beginning (there was no before, at least not in the colloquial sense) of matter, time, and space, then it logically follows that nothing made of matter, time, or space (this includes energy) could have had any effect on what happened afterward.
@SH1PIT Did that ID wait infinite amount of time before the desicion of creating a universe , and would you describe the energy he harnessed to create it if " everything " that existed was in a singularity as physicist say it to be.
"Did that ID wait infinite amount of time before the desicion of creating a universe"
Which ID are you referring to? Have I inferred the identity of the ID in the context of my argument? I think you should realize that in order for an logical explanation to be valid, one does not have to provide an explanation for the explanation; it just needs to be more logically consistent than it's alternatives.
"How can we know if it's many gods vs a single god or does it not matter , and it's just a matter of it being possible."
Are you still trying to argue theology? I see no point in arguing theology with someone who won't even accept the self-evident truth of Intelligent Design. If you can't even acknowledge the possibility that extra-terrestrials seeded life on earth, why does it matter how many extra-terrestrials there might have been? You've already discounted the possibility.
@nextgenvids Yet your previous question implies that you have caricatured the identity of at least one through your usage of the words "he," "temporal," and "virtual particles."
@nextgenvids Fair enough. I should first point out that "Judeo-Christian" is capitalized, and that the god of Judaism and Christianity is not a Christian or Jew. :)
According to scripture, God created the universe, and everything in it (Gen 1:1.) If God created the universe, then it logically follows that He is not part of the universe. If He is not part of the universe, then there is no reason to believe His existence is restricted by our temporal space-time--quarks, particles, and the like.
@SH1PIT So you're saying we 3-D beings only see our dimesion and we can't see nothing above that dimesion kind of like if I were a 2-D being I would only see along the plane. My bad on my capitalaztion.
@nextgenvids Sure. Why not. That's the best explanation I've ever come across on the issue. Just take Carl Sagan's Flat World and take it up 8 or more notches. Here is cartoon animation that explains Carl Sagan's Flat World rather effectively:
watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
You also might find Rich Deem's article on The Extradimensional Nature of God interesting. Just Google "Do Extra-dimensional beings exist." It should be at the top of your hit list.
@SH1PIT It explained it nicely, and when Dr. Qauntum started talking to the 2-D beings I thought of it as christians do pray. I'm about to check out the other one too.
@WaltonSauce According to Wikipedia, "In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof."
I do not need to empirically "prove" something to be true that is self-evident. It is self-evident that the Scientific Method is a reliable means to gain knowledge, but the Scientific Method itself has never been empirically proven. We know it is reliable based on deductive reasoning and epistemological proofs.
"...since all energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity."
A singularity is just an intellectual name for a big question mark. We aren't even really sure what that is. Tell me, did matter, time, and space always exist in the singularity, or did it begin to exist after the Big Bang?
"And what is your definition if it is different?"
Does a sculpture exist before a sculptor sculpts it, or was the sculpture there the entire time?
Allow me to expand on the sculptor analogy, it relates to my previous statement of the difference between creation and manipulation.
The matter/energy that comprises the sculpture/painting/building/watch existed before the maker manipulated it into the shape of said object.. However people who say a being actually created the matter from nothing and use painter etc as an analogy don't see this flaw.
Although I agree that the matter necessary for the sculpture preexists within a chunk of rock, it does not follow that the sculpture already exists. It takes an intelligent mind to "manipulate" the rock into a specified complex form. From this it follows that the sculpture did not exist before it was sculpted by an Intelligent Designer. Since we know sculptures are made by sculptors, we are able to recognize sculptures of unknown origin as Intelligently Designed.
People who use a painter as an analogy for the creation of matter are likely snowballing two related arguments into one. Since the creation of matter from nothing violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, such an act would only be plausible if a being that is not subject to the 1st law exists. Since we have insufficient reason to believe that such a being does not exist, it is, at least, plausible that such an extra natural being could have logically created matter from nothing.
"That is a lie, a singularity is when all energy is at one point of infinite density, comes from einsteins field equations."
Either way, it's a big question mark scientists use to mark the beginning of space-time. Nobody has every observed a singularity, and an actual point of infinite density is a logical impossibility. Not even Einstein can get ignore the argumentum ad infinitum fallacy; which unlike the laws of physics, does not break down at the singularity.
"do not need to empirically "prove" something to be true that is self-evident. It is self-evident that the Scientific Method is a reliable means to gain knowledge, but the Scientific Method itself has never been empirically proven. We know it is reliable based on deductive reasoning and epistemological proofs."
Yes but you have not said how you know ID is self-evident. You have just asserted it is Ad Nauseum (The real definition of ad infinitum).
@SH1PIT "Tell me, did matter, time, and space always exist in the singularity, or did it begin to exist after the Big Bang?" Under conservation of energy law, I suppose it must have always existed, look up cyclic model. It goes like this: Singularity Big Bang Expansion Collapse Crunch Singularity and repeats, this does seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics but under certain interpretations of quantum mech it doesn't weirdly.
"Under conservation of energy law, I suppose it (time) must have always existed, look up cyclic model "
The cyclic model of the universe, even if possible, would still not avoid the infinite regress fallacy. If there are repeated cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, this would raise the question of "when" the "First Big Bang" occurred. The cyclic model presupposes there is a space-time outside of our space-time where an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches occur.
@WaltonSauce So to answer your question, no. I don't think there is any reason or evidence to justify a belief that "time" has always existed.
"this does seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics"
The question is whether the 2nd law is something that only applies to our own universe. If it is, then the 2nd law is a mute point; leaving us with the "infinite regress elephant" in the room again.
"Nobody has every observed a singularity, and an actual point of infinite density is a logical impossibility. Not even Einstein can get ignore the argumentum ad infinitum fallacy"
Blatant fucking lie, Black holes are singularities, and do you even know what argument ad infinitum is?
Also infinite regress, while not a fallacy, states that proposition one requires the support of proposition 2, which requires support from 3 etc etc.
"Blatant fucking lie, Black holes are singularities, and do you even know what argument ad infinitum is?"
And how many black holes (singularities) have we seen? We have not "seen" any. What we do see are the effects these stellar masses have on the space that surrounds them. Since light cannot escape a black hole, it is impossible for us to see them.
"The cyclic model presupposes there is a space-time outside of our space-time where an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches occur."
No that's M-theory a specific type of cyclic universe model, there are many models which do not need the presupposition of a spacetime outside of ours, just that our own spacetime runs in cycles.
"there are many models which do not need the presupposition of a spacetime outside of ours, just that our own spacetime runs in cycles."
Models of any universe involving cycles or oscillations presuppose a separate space/time where/when said cycles or oscillations may occur. Without this space/time, an infinite series of Bangs and Crunches would occur simultaneously, and none of us would be here talking about it. The fact that we are only proves how fallacious the cyclic model is.
"Models of any universe involving cycles or oscillations presuppose a separate space/time where/when said cycles or oscillations may occur. Without this space/time, an infinite series of Bangs and Crunches would occur simultaneously" No it wouldn't, it would go in a sequence of singularity -> expand -> collapse - singularity, there is no need for a seperate universe.
"if all sculptures require a sculptor, what about the 'face on mars'?"
There is a huge difference between shadows or clouds appearing to us like something they are not, and something that actually is what it appears to be. Mt. Rushmore is not a pariedolia. It does not appear as it does due to light and shadow. We are able to distinguish between pariedolias and actual sculptures because we all acknowledge the amount of specified complexity involved in a designed sculpture.
There is a huge difference between shadows or clouds appearing to us like something they are not, and something that actually is what it appears to be.
Isn't mt Rushmore just rocks appearing to be faces, even with a sculptor. Go look at natural phenomena like Khao Phing Kan or coral reefs, they are immensely complex yet had no designer. If you can say something is designed because it looks it you must have a comparison of what undesigned would look like.
"Isn't mt Rushmore just rocks appearing to be faces, even with a sculptor. "
A sculpture is not merely the sum of all it's parts. If that were the case, then we could call everything a sculpture. Mt. Rushmore is a rock with a sculpture carved into the face of it. The sum of all the matter that makes up those faces is not, itself, a sculpture. However, the purposeful manipulation of that matter to make the likeness of four human faces is the sculpture.
Good. So you DO have the cognitive capacity to recognize objects that were designed--even when you do not know the designer. Had there actually been a face carved into a mountain on Mars, would you conclude that billions of years of wind and sand carved it, or would you conclude that it was carved out by some unknown intelligent extra-terrestrial beings? If you would conclude the former, then you would clearly be suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance.
Yes I would conclude probably conclude the latter, but if we found no evidence of a sculpture and found a process by which the sculpture could arise naturally, surely you see how it is not a case of cognitive dissonance.
@anwagner88 so ur saying matter is eternal???
MyDebater 3 weeks ago
Gosh...where is Dr.Craig.
dax1112 3 weeks ago
@TheHydrogen4 so i just wanna get this straight... so matter is eternal then?
MyDebater 1 month ago
@MyDebater matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another
anwagner88 3 weeks ago in playlist thewayofthemaster
do the atheists really still believe in an eternal universe common man learn about the big bang
MyDebater 2 months ago
@MyDebater Big bang does not say that the universe was created from nothing. It says that all of the matter was compress in singularity smaller than an atom and the it blew up and that is why everything is moving away. The matter did not have a beginning, only time had a beginning. If you look at a firecracker blowing up in slow motion, the sparks look like what we can see in the universe. I like to believe that God and the universe are the same thing. Religion is just mans ignorance.
TheHydrogen4 1 month ago
good argument kirk
ubc20 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
180movie.com
33minute documentary.
watch for free
rom116rom 3 months ago
Did anyone tell Kirk that scientists are not looking for a Crocoduck? Evolution would not allow it.
gregrutz 3 months ago
If I had gods power..I could do a lot better job....
ab330 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What happens after we die? Watch "GOD'S PRISON" and find out. It's worth the 4 minutes considering your eternal stake.
Electfilmproductions 5 months ago
I have a big genitalia.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The woman and the man. Both are looking ad the ad-ions well they are talking, demons all around those 2. Just like satan likes publicity, so does his servants.
mcugly1987 6 months ago
Comment removed
mcugly1987 6 months ago
"You can't use DNA to prove the origins of information, because we don't "know" the origins of DNA or its info."
And yet you are using it to prove the existence of a creator. We don't 'know' them but we have a model that shows how it COULD have formed.
You're explanation makes the assumption of the existence of a creator for which you have no evidence.
And you can delete your old comments all you like.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
And yes DNA can self replicate.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT The genetic code is not a language, we render it as a language. And that still wouldn't prove a God sir.
Reasonwillwin 7 months ago
@Reasonwillwin True. DNA doesn't "prove" God--at least not by your definition of "proof." Nothing short of seeing, speaking to, and touching God will "prove" God; and even that might not be enough for a religiously devout atheist.
We don't render DNA a language, we simply recognize it as one. DNA is encoding and decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the message of a living organism. The fact that biologists use linguistic analysis to decode the human genome, supports this fact.
SH1PIT 7 months ago
@SH1PIT
A code does not simply require a designer - it requires an encoder and a decoder who agree on its meaning. Or more generally, a code requires a set of understanders. It makes no sense to speak of something being a "code" unless it encodes a message of some sort from a sender to a receiver. That is to say, to call DNA a "code" at all is question-begging. DNA is a chemical which interacts with other chemicals according to well-understood laws of chemistry and physics.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce To presuppose that DNA requires a "who" within itself to qualify it as a code is question begging. Binary code does not require a "who" within itself to qualify it as a code, yet nobody denies that it is. Similar to DNA, once a computer program is coded, it continually encodes and decodes data packets between itself and other programs and systems--all without a "who" to understand the process. In either case, we don't have to know "who" the coder is to recognize something as a code.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Not all systems which are known to represent information (a.k.a. code) were known to have been created by a designer. For example, the solar system can be viewed as a system which encodes information, such as the length of a day or the period in which one might harvest crops, or the tidal calendar. While this coded information provides data relevant to the daily lives of the inhabitants of this planet, it is by no means apparent that this information was created by a designer.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce It seems you are confused between naturally occuring patterns in nature, and sequences of symbols, sounds, or chemicals, used to communicate information between two points. Hours are abstract values used to measure the passage of time. The "hour" does not encode and trasmit it's minutes to the "day" so that the "day" may decode it and know how long to last. Your analogy also fails for tides, snowflakes, and any other natural patterns that have been assigned abstract values.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Why grant that "random patterns" occur naturally? Isn't everything in the universe under the direct control of God? If not, then how can God be said to be omnipresent and omnipotent?
The processes of Transcription and Translation, are just chemicals->chemicals->chemicals. However we have processes that account for the origin of most organic molecules from inorganic ones. We have a process for the origin of the universe.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Now you're just changing the subject. I've only asserted that DNA sequences are codes that exhibits the same characteristics of binary codes, or written English sentences. By invoking God, you've only conceded my point that DNA sequences are, in fact, codes. The fact that you quickly jumped to the "God Conclusion," only demonstrates your deductive ability to recognize that codes do not occur in nature. Where you go from that conclusion is not for me to decide.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
The genome is simply a sequence of chemicals, you brought up God in your earlier comments. Even if DNA is a code, how does that prove it came from a designer? In order to say something looks designed you must have an idea of what something that isn't designed looks like in order to make the comparison. You're argument that: "Codes do not occur in nature" "DNA is a code" "Therefore DNA did not occur naturally is flawed in the fact that we have evidence that DNA did occur naturally.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
If DNA contains a code, it does not “prove” the code came from a designer—at least not in the scientific sense. What it does do, however, is “prove” (in the philosophical sense) that, given our understanding of the origins of codes or information, it is most probable that the information within DNA molecules came from an intelligent mind(s).
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Whether or not the DNA molecule is a natural by-product of nature is irrelevant. I’m not arguing about the origin of the molecule; I’m arguing about the origin of specified set of instructions necessary for the construction of a living organism.
Here’s my formal argument:
P1. Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s).
P2. DNA molecules contain codes.
C1. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligent mind(s).
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce I agree that the genome is a sequence of chemicals, but to use the word “simply” when referring to the human genome is to demonstrate a gross lack of understanding of genetics.
If I brought up God in an earlier comment, it was in response to someone else that ignored my argument by playing the God card earlier.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
I'm a genetics student mate, don't bring up a lack of understanding bout genetics.
If DNA originated in a natural way it simply could not have been designed. We simply interpret DNA as a code. You're 1st premise is that all codes come from intelligent minds, I can grant that.
You're 2nd primise is that DNA is a code, since DNA came about by natural processes without an intelligent mind, then this breaks your first premise, therefore your conclusion doesn't follow.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Let us be clear on my 2nd premise. I will use CAPS to emphasize words you've overlooked; no offense intended.
My second premise is that "DNA molecules CONTAIN CODES."
Notice that my premise is not followed by "since DNA came about by natural processes without an intelligent mind."
Now, If you would like to make a case that DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN CODES, please cite peer reviewed scientific sources that have empirically "proven" that DNA DOES NOT CONTAIN CODES.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
I DID NOT SAY DID NOT CONTAIN CODES.
I said that since it did, it could be said that not all codes came from intelligence.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
Comment removed
SH1PIT 6 months ago
Comment removed
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Simply because something could be said, does not make that something true. Rather than continuing with your objection to my 2nd premise, you now wish to challenge my 1st premise--that "Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s)."
In order for you reject premise 1, you must provide one example of a code (not a pattern) that can be shown (not assumed) to occur through natural processes.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
DNA, look up Abiogenesis
springerlinkDOTcomSLASHcontent / x84px67704425887 /
natureDOTcomSLASHnature / journal / v459 / n7244 / full / nature08013 . html
add w w w to the beginning.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Email me the link and I'll get back to you. Provide specific quotes that you feel provide the best evidence to back up your claim that codes occur through natural processes.
And just so we agree on definitions, a "naturally occurring code" should be some naturally occurring inorganic entity that communicates between itself and something else through the encoding, transmission and decoding of information. The existence of the a code doesn't prove the origin of the code.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
And just so we agree on definitions, a "naturally occurring code" should be some naturally occurring inorganic entity that communicates between itself and something else through the encoding, transmission and decoding of information. The existence of the a code doesn't prove the origin of the code.
No, I do not agree that there must be an inorganic entity.
Allow me to explain what DNA does, the bases themselves are not what it used more the hydrogen bonds that can be formed to them.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce I appreciate your excellent explanation of how DNA reproduces the genetic code. However, failed to provide an example of a code that has been shown to occur through natural processes; you've only explained how DNA duplicates the preexisting genetic code.
This is your logic:
P1. Some codes occur naturally
P2. DNA contains a genetic code that occurs naturally
C. Therefore, DNA is a code that occurs naturally
By assuming your conclusion in your premise, you're begging the question
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
The actual definition of code is:
A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.
The code is the rule for converting them, not the sequence itself. In genetics the code can be said to be the triplet code, which determines the sequence of Amino acids produced in translation. A different code is used for mtDNA, Nucleic DNA and cDNA.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
DNA is a long molecule made of a chain of DeoxyRibose, Phosphate and An Organic Base (Adenine and Guanine the Purines and Thymine and Cytosine the Pyrimidines). Shortened to A T G C. in DNA there are 2 parallell strands that run together in an opposite direction to each other. Normally labelled as the template and coding strands. If there is an A in a particular site on the Template strand there will be a T on the coding and the same for G and C. Only G and C or A and T can bond togethe
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
An enzyme called Helicase "unzips the 2 strands and RNA nucleotides bond to the DNA (G to C and A to Uracil which replaces T since T cannot be used for RNA) And RNA polymerase (another enzyme) bonds the Ribose sugar one ribonucleotide to the phosphate in the nest creating a 'tail' of RNA that breaks off from the DNA when the 2 strands come back together, The tail is called pre-mRNA. Inside the nucleus the intron sections of the pre-mRNA are removed and it becomes Messenger (m)RNA.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
The mRNA then leaves the nucleus and enter a ribosome where the first 3 nucleotides in the strand (always AUG) bond to a tRNA (each tRNA structure has a site that bonds to the mRNA dependent on what hydrogen bonds it can make) structure with a particular amino acid bonded to it (in the case of AUG methionine) Then the ribosome moves to the next 3 bases in the sequence maybe CCA (it will not use the same base twice since the tRNA blocks it) and another piece of tRNA bonds to that with a
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
particular amino acid bonded to it, in this case Proline, the Methionine from the previous tRNA will form a peptide bond to the Proline, this will go on for a while until you have a chain of amino acids called a polypeptide chain.
The story of transcription and translation :)
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
please cite peer reviewed scientific sources that have empirically "proven" that DNA is a code, since you are shifting the burden of proof.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
We know ripples in the sand are products of naturally occurring tides; therefore ripples in the sand are not designed.
We know that the complete works of William Shakespeare is the product of a sequence of letters, words, and sentences that relays stories (information) that others can understand. Therefore, the works of William Shakespeare is the product of design.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Basically what you're saying is: Because these codes come from design, All codes from design, therefore this other code must have been designed despite us pretty much knowing it's origins.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce If a metallic capsule came crashing down to earth from space, and it was covered in strange symbols, what would your deductive logic lead you to believe?
A. It is the product of billions of years of stellar evolution
or
B. It is the product of an intelligence.
We don't need to know the origin of a code to recognize it as such.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Argument from Analogy? We know the origin of DNA. It was abiogenesis. Phosphates occur naturally, Bases can be created gy basic chemicals and radiation, Carl Sagan demonstrated this in an experiment in which he created Adenine using inorganic chemicals and radiation. Ribose and Deoxyribose came indirectly from the Miller-Urey experiment, which created formaldehyde. Formaldehyde can react with water to form Ribose in the formose reaction.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Correction, we "believe" abiogenesis was the origin of DNA. We have no way to scientifically verify, test, or even falsify this "belief." We cannot claim to "know" something that we can not "prove" through inductive or deductive logic. Organic chemicals do not prove that abiogenesis occurred; they only prove that, given the perfect environmental conditions, organic chemicals might occur naturally. Either way, organic chemicals are light years away from abiogenesis.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
I agree that using know may have been fallacious
Well we have given an example of a way a code could have orginated without an intelligence. Thereby breaking the first premise of your case.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce To say P "could have" caused Q is no different than me saying God (P) "could have" caused DNA (Q). "Could have" is insufficient to "prove" anything, and thereby fails to refute my premise that codes only comes from intelligent minds.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Because the DNA produced in abiogenesis in a lab is not produced by intelligent minds. And to say God could have created DNA you must demonstrate the existence of God.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
And in case you bring the up the objection to the Miller-Urey that the atmostphere was wrong, there have been similar experiments performed which produced an even more diverse range of molecules. As for the origin of amino acids, the Murchison Meteorite that fell to earth was rich in Amino acids, Bases, Phosphates and alcohols. Also in some experiments UV light is substituted for the lightning and the same molecules produced. UV light would have been more intense due to lack of Ozone.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
However a large percentage of your DNA is not used for protein synthesis and is referred to erroneously as Junk DNA or Introns. However if you remove said Introns the organism cannot survive.
Your logic is:
P1 No codes I know of come from natural sources
P2 the genetic code is a code
C1 Therefore the genetic code did not come from natural sources. This is inductive reasoning.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Are you really going to start resorting to straw men?
This is my argument:
P1. Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s).
P2. DNA molecules contain codes.
C1. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligent mind(s).
This is deduction, not induction. Science operates through induction, philosophy operates through deduction.
Either prove one of my premises are false, or prove the argument is invalid (that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
I have shown that codes only "come from intelligent minds" is a false premise in the process of abiogenesis. this shows that DNA molecules could have come from an unintelligent source. Where DNA came from is a scientific matter though, not a philosophical one.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
This comes down to Science vs Philosophy unfortunately.
I am saying that DNA could have come from abiogenesis
You are saying that DNA could have come from an intelligence.
Both are valid hypotheses,so we must depend on evidence to determine the one that is correct, would you agree?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce At the end of the day, neither science nor philosophy can know how the first life started. Neither of the two fields are at odds with each other; they just have complementary methods of coming to knowledge. Knowledge that is unobservable and untestable via the scientific method (inductive logic), can be known via deductive arguments. Deduction is how we know gravity exists and that the earth has an EM field. Stephen Hawking owes his entire career to his deductive reasoning.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Case in point:
P1. No code has ever been observed coming from a natural process
P2. All known codes have been observed to come from a mind
P3. The DNA molecule is not a code
P3. The genetic information encoded in the DNA molecule is a code.
C1. Therefore, the genetic code most probably came from a mind.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
What do you mean by the 'genetic information' in a DNA molecule?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Although chemistry can explain why adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine, it does not appear that it can explain the specific sequence of 3 billions base pairs that make up the human genome. Just as the cumulative sequence of 1s and 0s in binary code make up a executable computer program, the cumulative sequence the 6 billion As, Ts, Gs, and Cs make up the human genome. Would we still have a functioning genome if we scrambled the sequence?
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT It is this specific sequence that I refer to as the information in the DNA molecule.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
It would still be functioning, just in a different way, it would still produce Polypeptides just different ones. The whole human genome wasn't put together at the same time, it was put together over roughly 3-4 billion years. And it is still changing. The human genome isn't even the longest. The longest is the Polychaos dubium 67Gb (giga-bases not bytes :P), Humans only have ~3.2.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce If I put a frog in a blender, which contains all the information, DNA, proteins, polypeptides, and amino acids necessary for life, how long do I have to wait before a new life emerges from the goo? Since a blender is not likely to break the frog's DNA strands, I would think it shouldn't take anywhere near billions of years. If it's been done, I'd be interested in knowing how the results of that experiment. :)
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Did I ever say it would?
DNA, proteins, polypeptides, and amino acids necessary for life, - would not have the energy for enything to start self replicating, and abiogenesis happens over millions of years, the information about abiogenesis is out there google it or there are some videos on youtube, and the blender could destroy the DNA, and would definitely destroy the enzymes require for transcription and translation.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Riddle me this: If abiogensis happens over millions of years, and mankind has not been around for millions of years to observe and record it's occurrence via the scientific method, does it not follow that abiogenesis is not science at all?
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"does it not follow that abiogenesis is not science at all?"
No, the same can be said for the orbit of pluto, it hasn't orbited the sun since it was discovered, but we still 'know' it orbits the sun. There are many things that have not been directly observed, but we still have evidence for them. In terms of abiogenesis look at:
The antiquity of RNA-based evolution - Gerald F. Joyce
Evolution without speciation but with selection - Hugo Hoenigsberg (last one has longer name use google)
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Since all scientific claims must be falsifiable, how would you falsify abiogenesis?
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
There are also things like the Miller-Urey experiment and many many others that show how abiogenesis could occur, as much as I hate myself as I type this next sentence: Wikipedia has some good stuff on it, particularly if you check the references and read the peer reviewed papers.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce If I'm not mistaken, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated how a few amino acids could have been created in a controlled atmosphere and pre-biotic soup. Also, the amino acids that Miller and Urey were able to create had to be immediately removed to prevent the same soup that created them from destroying them. Thus, the Miller-Urey experiment proved that amino acids could have been created via intelligent design. Anyway, amino acids are a far cry from abiogenesis.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
In response to the immediately destroyed
scientificamerican . com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
sciencedirect . com/science/article/pii/0003986161900339
Sugars and other liquids were formed too,
And in response to how would I falsify Abiogenesis? Good question but I would perform an experiment that shows that it is impossible for any self replicating molecules to form in early Earth conditions.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
The Craig Venter Institute managed to synthesise DNA. They built a genome out of inanimate matter and then inserted into a mycoplasma cell. It didn't building an entire new organism, but it is building a new set of instructions for an existing organism. link : economist . com/node/16163154?Story_ID=16163154&fsrc=nlw%7Chig%7C05-20-2010%7Ceditors_highlights
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids I read about this. They essentially reverse engineered a DNA molecule and altered it to create a new organism. Fascinating stuff, but if I did anything similar with a piece of man-made patented technology, I'd be sued for re-branding and selling someone else's technology.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
If you don't mind me asking, how would one falsify ID?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Intelligent Design doesn't make a scientific claim to life's origins--it makes a philosophical one. Since it makes no scientific claim, falsification is not a problem for ID.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
X created life, is a scientific claim.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
That's precisely my point! Abiogenesis says "X 'could have' created life," whereas you are saying "X (abiogenesis) created life." Since abiogenesis cannot be proven through observable, repeatable experimentation, it cannot be falsified, and is therefore, not a scientific claim. To claim that X created Y because it "could have" created Y is faulty logic--it's a non sequiter.
Neither abiogenesis nor ID make valid scientific claims.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Go back through all the comments, you asked me to give an example of how DNA could come through non intelligence, I gave the option of abiogenesis, technically it isn't a theory more of a number of models, it gives a number of different ways that life could have come from non life, which I stated in response to you saying life had to come from intelligence. You said DNA came from an intelligence earlier on, making a scientific claim.
Abiogenesis is still being researched.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce "I gave you the option of abiogenesis."
I asked you to show how "information" could have come through natural processes. You have made repeated attempts to change my premise, and then refute it with the abiogenesis hypothesis; which, by the way, is no more scientific than saying "God did it."
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce "You said DNA came from an intelligence..."
I said "information" could not have come from natural processes. This is a deductive conclusion based on the the observable scientific "fact" that we have never observed information coming from non-intelligent sources. To claim "information" came from natural processes (absent empirically verifiable scientific evidence) is purely dogmatic.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"You said DNA came from an intelligence earlier on, making a scientific claim."
I never made any claim to the origins of DNA, much less any scientific ones. Your repeated attempts to knock down straw men of your own making is begging the question.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce Even if abiogenesis does, one day, become a bonifide scientific theory, it still would not refute my premise that "information" does not come from natural processes. Only by showing (not hypothesizing) that information does, in fact, come from natural processes (with undeniable scientific data) can you refute my premise that information does not come from natural processes. You can't use DNA to prove the origins of information, because we don't "know" the origins of DNA or its info.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
In summary I am saying that Abiogenesis could have created life, each individual hypothesis of abiogenesis makes that claim that life can come from non-life, early tests show this could be possible, more tests are being performed.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"Abiogenesis could have created life..."
Correction, abiogenesis could have been hypothetically been the "process" through which life naturally arose from non-life. Creation implies intent. Since agiogenesis is assumed to be a natural process, it could not have "created" life; creation implies intention, and intention implies free will, intelligence, and sentience.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Fine then, abiogenesis could account for the presence of life.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
If we go back to the initial point of this discussion you said that all codes come from intelligence. I have shown how a code (DNA) could come from non-intelligence.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce You can't use DNA to prove the origins of information, because we don't "know" the origins of DNA or its info.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT The Big Bang in the future is going to be impossible to falsify due to the rapid expansion in the far future. It's going to be thought the universe is static , and never expanding. Do you think it's the same thing for life ? A one time deal were everything has to be perfect. We don't know the exact conditions so we can't say it wasn't possible , but maybe leave it at we don't know yet.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids
"We don't know the exact conditions so we can't say it wasn't possible , but maybe leave it at we don't know yet."
That's all I have been saying. Based on the current scientific evidence, life elsewhere in the universe is astronomically improbable. We can not say it is not possible, but we can say--given our current level of scientific knowledge--that it is highly improbable. Improbability, however, does not in anyway take away your right to believe.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Things we think are improbable happen all the time in the universe. Some may not seem significant to others but they happen. If I had a deck of google cards , and one card was marked and it was shuffle I could get it on my first. At what point does something become improbable ? Do you have some sources for the probabilities ?
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids
You're preaching to the choir. You're talking to someone who actually lost $500 with a stright flush! If anyone knows that improble things happen, it's me. To me, improbable is something that is hightly unlike to happen to a given person, planet, galaxy, or universe. Given 176 million people, someone will probably win the MegaBucks. The odds of "someone" winning is more probable than the odds of "me" winning. Often times, nobody wins and the pot grows into the billions.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@nextgenvids To me, the odds of winning the MegaBucks once in my lifetime is highly improbable. The odds of me winning it 100 times in a row is so improbable that (dare I say it?) it is impossible. This is how I think of the probability of 100 of the right combination of left and right handed amino acids being present on the right sized planet,
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@nextgenvids with the right proximity from the right type of star, at the right time when it had the right atmospheric and surface chemicals at the perfect temperature to allow them to form in just the right sequence to form the first functioning protein. To me Improbability is when you take that scenario and multiply it by 1000 before you come to the first living cell, and we're not even at multi-celled organisms yet.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Are their any other hypothesis that have a greater probability than abiogenesis ?
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids I conceded that abiogenesis offers the best "scientific" hypothesis. The problem with a scientific hypothesis is that is presupposes naturalism, or that only a scientific explanation can explain a given phenomenon. The presuppositions inherent in naturalism are, themselves, non-scientific. Therefore, the belief that "only scientific explanations can explain a given phenomenon" cannot be validated with a scientific explanation. Naturalism refutes itself.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT So your saying science refutes itself with science. Their is no other ways or means to explain it .. are our natural world , anything beyond it lies in imagination.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids I'm saying naturalism refutes itself with science. Naturalism is not science, nor is science naturalism. Naturalism is the underlying philosophical beliefs of science. If naturalism says that only a scientific explanation can explain a given phenomena, it refutes itself, since science cannot explain the phenomena of naturalism.
Your claim that anything beyond our natural world lies in our imaginations is a metaphysical claim; which goes against your underlying naturalist beliefs.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
I have to agree that naturalism is a flawed philosophy, it asserts that nothing beyond this natural world exists. It would be more prudent to say that there is no evidence for a supernatural world.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Quantum physics says that if an event isn't strictly prohibited, it must eventually occur
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids Quantum Physics is a branch of science (Theoretical Physics) that deals more heavily with philosophy rather than science. You might as well tell me what the Bible says, if you're going to lean on the crutch of unfalsifiable pseudo-science.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT If it can happen it will occur and it doesn't even matter if it's on earth. Rough analogy: Just like a million dollar lottery someone is going to win period. If you're comparing qauntum physics to the bible I really have nothing to say to you on that if choose to deny it.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
OK now you're using the argument from fine tuning, this is a PRATT. The universe is not fine tuned for life AT ALL, there are places on THIS EARTH that will kill us instantly. And you're forgetting that the universe is ~14 Billion years old. And as for perfect temperature??? The optimum temperature for our enzymes is 37 degrees C we have to use lots of energy maintaining that temperature, or like cold blooded animals sunbathe for ages.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@nextgenvids The sheer amount of time where nature could have destroyed all the supposed self-assembled organisms is nothing short of a miracle--just the sort that many scientists say they don't believe in.
"Are you coming from a super natural standpoint ?"
I am viewing it from a purely naturalistic standpoint. My personal beliefs have no bearing on my inability to believe that chemicals can pick themselves up by their bootstraps and assemble themselves without pre-existing information.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Yes you could be holding some bias and presuppustions , but not willing because you might have to defend it and you can't. If I were judge and I had a history of discriminating against people who had a x feature what makes you think he wouldn't do it again , the defendent with the x feature would wether have one that wasn't.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids
P1. Codes only come from an intelligent mind(s).
P2. DNA molecules contain codes.
C1. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligent mind(s).
My argument speaks for itself. That's what so great about deduction; bias is incapable of entering into the equation. Both my premises are true, and nobody has been able to refute my premises. Given the laws of deductive reasoning, if P1 and P2 are true, and the argument (structure) is valid, the conclusion follows necessarily.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Dichomoy you're are saying it's one or the other. It's kind of like Occams Razor. Even if you had evidence to prove those claims you would first need to define, definitons to assign to attributes , and see if it's tested through science.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids There's nothing wrong with a dichotomy. There are things that are black and white. Either or logic is not faulty logic. It's when you have False Dichotomies that you've run into a fallacy. In other words, if I say there are two options, and you show me a third, you would have shown a fallacy in my argument.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT ID has no bass to even hold it up. How is it even a option. You say it's self-evident where is it ? Why haven't you got noble prize for it yet ?
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids I absolutely agree. It has no scientific basis to hold up to scientific scrutiny. It is not a scientific option. ID is self evident because we have countless examples (watches, sculptures, paintings etc...) of things that exhibit specified complexity, and that we know were created by intelligent minds. It is self-evident because a 2 year old can see it. Take any child old enough to talk and ask him/her how the faces on the side of Mt. Rushmore got there; his/her answer will imply ID
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Not the argument from design.
If everything complex must have been designed then the designer by definition is also complex, therefore must also be designed. This will form an infinite regress, not to mention the fact that we have evidence other than the watch/painting that the watchmaker/painter exists. Also we have no other mechanism that shows how paintings or watched are formed. Also painting and watched are not created, the matter was already there it was only manipulated into them
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"If everything complex must have been designed then the designer by definition is also complex, therefore must also be designed.This will form an infinite regress"
Straw man and argumentum ad infinitum rolled into one--impressive! I never said everything complex must have been designed--only that there is a level of specified complexity that's best explained through ID
The fact that you cannot have an infinite regress is proof that a "first cause," or god exists necessarily.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1PIT
"The fact that you cannot have an infinite regress is proof that a "first cause," or god exists necessarily."
How did you come to this conclusion?
"You're right, we do have evidence"
Yet you've not shown any
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"How did you come to this conclusion?"
Deduction, my dear Watson!
P1. Every thing that begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C1. Therefore, the Universe has a cause
Either every effect is contingent on a preceding cause (infinite regress), or there is a non-contingent first cause. This non-contingent first cause is, by definition, uncaused; and is what deists and theists call god.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"The Universe began to exist"
Look up the cyclic model of the universe. The universe does not neccesarily need a beginning and can run in cycles. And do you have an example of anything else that began to exist having a cause?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"The universe does not neccesarily need a beginning and can run in cycles."
And unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns can actually exist as well, but we have no empirical evidence to support either set of beliefs. The best scientific evidence we have supports the Big Bang Theory; which implies a beginning.
"Do you have an example of anything else that began to exist having a cause?"
Nothing that will satisfy a reductionists' definition of that which "begins to exist."
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
The big bang theory does not imply a beginning per se, if you look up Peter Lynds he basically put forward a model of Bang->Crunch->Bang, which is an interesting concept in itself. The same energy present during the big bang is present now, under conservation of energy laws.
arxiv. org/abs/physics/0612053
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
And my apologies for the straw man/ad infinitum. It's a common argument that many ID proponents make is that anything complex is designed, but does this designer not by definition meet the level of specified complexity, and exactly what is the level of specified complexity required?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"does this designer not by definition meet the level of specified complexity, and exactly what is the level of specified complexity required?"
Which designer might that be? I have made no argument to the identity of a designer; I've only shared my "personal belief" of who that designer might be. Although my beliefs motivate me to search for tangible answers, I am careful to avoid cross-contamination between my beliefs and logical conclusions. I try to maintain objectivity.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
And before you use a very common quote mine of Hawking:
"It was the beginning of the Universe and of time itself".
to prove your side I will finish the quote
"It was the beginning of the Universe and of time itself, anything that happened before the big bang could not affect what happened after therefore we can ignore events before the Big Bang and say it was the beginning of time".
watch?v=HKQQAv5svkk
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce So he believes. I think it's more intellectually honest to say "...it was the beginning of what we call time."
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
So he believes. I think it's more intellectually honest to say "...it was the beginning of what we call time."
In a way yes, there is no way anything before the big bang could have any effect on what happens after, since all energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity.
Nothing that will satisfy a reductionists' definition of that which "begins to exist."
And what is your definition if it is different?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"In a way yes, there is no way anything before the big bang..."
I agree. Assuming the beginning of the universe was the beginning (there was no before, at least not in the colloquial sense) of matter, time, and space, then it logically follows that nothing made of matter, time, or space (this includes energy) could have had any effect on what happened afterward.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Did that ID wait infinite amount of time before the desicion of creating a universe , and would you describe the energy he harnessed to create it if " everything " that existed was in a singularity as physicist say it to be.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids
"Did that ID wait infinite amount of time before the desicion of creating a universe"
Which ID are you referring to? Have I inferred the identity of the ID in the context of my argument? I think you should realize that in order for an logical explanation to be valid, one does not have to provide an explanation for the explanation; it just needs to be more logically consistent than it's alternatives.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT How can we know if it's many gods vs a single god or does it not matter , and it's just a matter of it being possible.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids
"How can we know if it's many gods vs a single god or does it not matter , and it's just a matter of it being possible."
Are you still trying to argue theology? I see no point in arguing theology with someone who won't even accept the self-evident truth of Intelligent Design. If you can't even acknowledge the possibility that extra-terrestrials seeded life on earth, why does it matter how many extra-terrestrials there might have been? You've already discounted the possibility.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT I'm not going to argue I'm going to leave an open mind about it.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids Great...now we're getting somewhere...
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Would he be a temporal and made of virtual particles you think.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids He who?
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT The ID, I don't think I could name a specific one that's a matter among other groups.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids Yet your previous question implies that you have caricatured the identity of at least one through your usage of the words "he," "temporal," and "virtual particles."
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT Let's assume the monotheistic judeo-christian god.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids Fair enough. I should first point out that "Judeo-Christian" is capitalized, and that the god of Judaism and Christianity is not a Christian or Jew. :)
According to scripture, God created the universe, and everything in it (Gen 1:1.) If God created the universe, then it logically follows that He is not part of the universe. If He is not part of the universe, then there is no reason to believe His existence is restricted by our temporal space-time--quarks, particles, and the like.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT So you're saying we 3-D beings only see our dimesion and we can't see nothing above that dimesion kind of like if I were a 2-D being I would only see along the plane. My bad on my capitalaztion.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@nextgenvids Sure. Why not. That's the best explanation I've ever come across on the issue. Just take Carl Sagan's Flat World and take it up 8 or more notches. Here is cartoon animation that explains Carl Sagan's Flat World rather effectively:
watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4
You also might find Rich Deem's article on The Extradimensional Nature of God interesting. Just Google "Do Extra-dimensional beings exist." It should be at the top of your hit list.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT It explained it nicely, and when Dr. Qauntum started talking to the 2-D beings I thought of it as christians do pray. I'm about to check out the other one too.
nextgenvids 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Also, you have asserted that intelligent design is 'self evident' yet you have not demonstrated that it is.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce According to Wikipedia, "In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof."
I do not need to empirically "prove" something to be true that is self-evident. It is self-evident that the Scientific Method is a reliable means to gain knowledge, but the Scientific Method itself has never been empirically proven. We know it is reliable based on deductive reasoning and epistemological proofs.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WaltonSauce
"...since all energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity."
A singularity is just an intellectual name for a big question mark. We aren't even really sure what that is. Tell me, did matter, time, and space always exist in the singularity, or did it begin to exist after the Big Bang?
"And what is your definition if it is different?"
Does a sculpture exist before a sculptor sculpts it, or was the sculpture there the entire time?
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Sculpture always existed, sculptor chips away the rough edges
(Thank you Rambo for that quote)
A singularity is just an intellectual name for a big question mark.
That is a lie, a singularity is when all energy is at one point of infinite density, comes from einsteins field equations.
AND WHOEVER THE LITTLE FUCK FLAGGING EVERYTHING AS SPAM IS CAN FUCK RIGHT OFF, WE ARE HAVING A CIVILISED DISCUSSION HERE.
Sorry for late reply, didn't get email for the above reason.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Allow me to expand on the sculptor analogy, it relates to my previous statement of the difference between creation and manipulation.
The matter/energy that comprises the sculpture/painting/building/watch existed before the maker manipulated it into the shape of said object.. However people who say a being actually created the matter from nothing and use painter etc as an analogy don't see this flaw.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Although I agree that the matter necessary for the sculpture preexists within a chunk of rock, it does not follow that the sculpture already exists. It takes an intelligent mind to "manipulate" the rock into a specified complex form. From this it follows that the sculpture did not exist before it was sculpted by an Intelligent Designer. Since we know sculptures are made by sculptors, we are able to recognize sculptures of unknown origin as Intelligently Designed.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
People who use a painter as an analogy for the creation of matter are likely snowballing two related arguments into one. Since the creation of matter from nothing violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, such an act would only be plausible if a being that is not subject to the 1st law exists. Since we have insufficient reason to believe that such a being does not exist, it is, at least, plausible that such an extra natural being could have logically created matter from nothing.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"That is a lie, a singularity is when all energy is at one point of infinite density, comes from einsteins field equations."
Either way, it's a big question mark scientists use to mark the beginning of space-time. Nobody has every observed a singularity, and an actual point of infinite density is a logical impossibility. Not even Einstein can get ignore the argumentum ad infinitum fallacy; which unlike the laws of physics, does not break down at the singularity.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"and an actual point of infinite density is a logical impossibility."
technically it was a point of zero volume with a value of mass but under certain interpretations of divide by zero it would be infinite density.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"do not need to empirically "prove" something to be true that is self-evident. It is self-evident that the Scientific Method is a reliable means to gain knowledge, but the Scientific Method itself has never been empirically proven. We know it is reliable based on deductive reasoning and epistemological proofs."
Yes but you have not said how you know ID is self-evident. You have just asserted it is Ad Nauseum (The real definition of ad infinitum).
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
How do you know you exist? Prove it without presupposing your own existence.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SH1PIT
How do you know you exist? Prove it without presupposing your own existence.
I can't, where is this going?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"Under conservation of energy law, I suppose it (time) must have always existed, look up cyclic model "
The cyclic model of the universe, even if possible, would still not avoid the infinite regress fallacy. If there are repeated cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, this would raise the question of "when" the "First Big Bang" occurred. The cyclic model presupposes there is a space-time outside of our space-time where an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches occur.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce So to answer your question, no. I don't think there is any reason or evidence to justify a belief that "time" has always existed.
"this does seem to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics"
The question is whether the 2nd law is something that only applies to our own universe. If it is, then the 2nd law is a mute point; leaving us with the "infinite regress elephant" in the room again.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"Nobody has every observed a singularity, and an actual point of infinite density is a logical impossibility. Not even Einstein can get ignore the argumentum ad infinitum fallacy"
Blatant fucking lie, Black holes are singularities, and do you even know what argument ad infinitum is?
Also infinite regress, while not a fallacy, states that proposition one requires the support of proposition 2, which requires support from 3 etc etc.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WaltonSauce
"Blatant fucking lie, Black holes are singularities, and do you even know what argument ad infinitum is?"
And how many black holes (singularities) have we seen? We have not "seen" any. What we do see are the effects these stellar masses have on the space that surrounds them. Since light cannot escape a black hole, it is impossible for us to see them.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"The cyclic model presupposes there is a space-time outside of our space-time where an infinite series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches occur."
No that's M-theory a specific type of cyclic universe model, there are many models which do not need the presupposition of a spacetime outside of ours, just that our own spacetime runs in cycles.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"there are many models which do not need the presupposition of a spacetime outside of ours, just that our own spacetime runs in cycles."
Models of any universe involving cycles or oscillations presuppose a separate space/time where/when said cycles or oscillations may occur. Without this space/time, an infinite series of Bangs and Crunches would occur simultaneously, and none of us would be here talking about it. The fact that we are only proves how fallacious the cyclic model is.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.@SH1PIT
"Models of any universe involving cycles or oscillations presuppose a separate space/time where/when said cycles or oscillations may occur. Without this space/time, an infinite series of Bangs and Crunches would occur simultaneously" No it wouldn't, it would go in a sequence of singularity -> expand -> collapse - singularity, there is no need for a seperate universe.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
"Since we know sculptures are made by sculptors, we are able to recognize sculptures of unknown origin as Intelligently Designed."
Since the definition of sculpture is a 3d carving/statue made by a sculptor, anything not made by a sculptor must not be a sculpture.
And if all sculptures require a sculptor, what about the 'face on mars'? or when people see shapes in clouds, some things are pariedolia.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"if all sculptures require a sculptor, what about the 'face on mars'?"
There is a huge difference between shadows or clouds appearing to us like something they are not, and something that actually is what it appears to be. Mt. Rushmore is not a pariedolia. It does not appear as it does due to light and shadow. We are able to distinguish between pariedolias and actual sculptures because we all acknowledge the amount of specified complexity involved in a designed sculpture.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
There is a huge difference between shadows or clouds appearing to us like something they are not, and something that actually is what it appears to be.
Isn't mt Rushmore just rocks appearing to be faces, even with a sculptor. Go look at natural phenomena like Khao Phing Kan or coral reefs, they are immensely complex yet had no designer. If you can say something is designed because it looks it you must have a comparison of what undesigned would look like.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"Isn't mt Rushmore just rocks appearing to be faces, even with a sculptor. "
A sculpture is not merely the sum of all it's parts. If that were the case, then we could call everything a sculpture. Mt. Rushmore is a rock with a sculpture carved into the face of it. The sum of all the matter that makes up those faces is not, itself, a sculpture. However, the purposeful manipulation of that matter to make the likeness of four human faces is the sculpture.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Ahh so it is only a sculpture if there was deliberate sculpting?
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
Sculpture: Carved work modeled of, or cut upon, wood, stone, metal, etc (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Do you know of any sculptures that were not the result of "carved work?"
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Do you know of any sculptures that were not the result of "carved work?"
No I don't, hence why I disagree with your analogy of comparing the Universe or life to a sculpture.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago
@WaltonSauce
"No I don't"
Good. So you DO have the cognitive capacity to recognize objects that were designed--even when you do not know the designer. Had there actually been a face carved into a mountain on Mars, would you conclude that billions of years of wind and sand carved it, or would you conclude that it was carved out by some unknown intelligent extra-terrestrial beings? If you would conclude the former, then you would clearly be suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance.
SH1PIT 6 months ago
@SH1PIT
Yes I would conclude probably conclude the latter, but if we found no evidence of a sculpture and found a process by which the sculpture could arise naturally, surely you see how it is not a case of cognitive dissonance.
WaltonSauce 6 months ago