Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
But more water during that time.
Yes. Great point! I'm told there was much more.
Marking.
If you have an impossible premise then your premise is wrong.
It is always an indication of a weak argument when someone presumes to tell another what he doesn't "understand." You ain't in my head and your comment is mere presumption.
_If_ materialism was true, then your conclusions would be valid.
Ahhh, the dreaded "materialism" curse raises its ugly head. In reality materialism has nothing to do with it, the premise I critiqued is logically invalid. Either something is possible or it isn't - but it cannot be merely improbable to the point of impossibility. The premise is self-contradictory, so as the basis of a theory it is a priori invalid.
Is that why nearly every biologist recognizes the amount of "apparent design" within nature, and, according to even the atheists, have to keep reminding themselves that it wasn't designed?
Typical dropping of the context of the argument. "Apparent design" is not actual design and does not prove the existence of a designer which was the context in question. And once again, this wonderful faculty you have for knowing the thoughts of others and what atheists have to "keep reminding themselves" of. Pure fantasy.
I would say that all of the evidence, even as admitted by atheists, points to design.
What you "would say" is precisely that for which you have no evidence. Pure circular reasoning which is merely your opinion. And you go back to claiming design while having absolutely no evidence of a designer.
What happened was that Darwin _thought_ that he had found a mechanism to produce design without a designer. If he did, then that does put creationist arguments largely on ice. If he did not, then you are back to the fact that life exhibits many qualities of being designed.
Darwin was merely taking the evidence of what he had seen and tried to organize that into a coherent whole. He didn't think he had found any such thing and was actually rather depressed with what he was forced to end up concluding.
And once again your word choice reveals the weakness of your position, "exhibits many qualities of being designed". You have to use so many words to say nothing because the premise is invalid. It Begs the Question that you have the absolute knowlege of what "qualities of being designed" constitutes - rather than just "appearing" to be so. This is a conclusion for which there is no "evidence" and is merely an opinion.
If you disagree that life is designed, then perhaps you should propose a mathematical model for design, and show why life is not designed according to your model.
I don't agree or disagree that life is designed, the fact is there is no evidence of it. A theory doesn't have to be seriously considered as valid unless there is some evidence to support it. I don't have to go to the trouble to create such a mathematical model because logic already says there is no need for it.
The visionary genius Buckminster Fuller (you know, the guy who invented the geodesic dome, among 1000 other things) tried his entire life to come up with a term to describe a natural phenomenom which is inaccurately termed. Since we have learned that the sun does not go around the earth, but rather the earth spins on its axis, the phrases "the sun rises" and "the sun sets" are totally inaccurate to describe what is actually happening. They are, in fact, inadequate colloquialisms. But Bucky never found better ones.
The same is true for the word "design". Just because we can't come up with a better word for the nature of the structures that make up the Universe and life, that doesn't mean they are "designed" anymore than the sun "sets". A limitation of language isn't proof of anything other than the limitations of language.
Refutation of the opinion piece by Dawkins and Coyne.
I can't fault your optimism...
I still don't understand, exactly what is *my* impossible premise?
Ok, I guess I'm going to have to draw with crayons. You said while castigating someone else to "think out of the box":
*Why* can't the TOE say something about origin of life??
The typical, invariable Creationist challenge to the idea that the TOE could explain the origin of life is the question:
"Then how does evolution explain how life could arise from a dead universe" or other somesuch objections.
So I challenged you to "think outside the box" by explaining what is wrong with that premise.
Do you get it now?
That is something I have heard many many times before.
Will any evolutionist go on record stating the boundries of the TOE are set in stone never, ever, to be changed?
Will any evolutionist go on record stating there will never, ever, be a new theory with boundries taking in both evolution and origin of life?
That is something I have heard many many times before.
Will any evolutionist go on record stating the boundries of the TOE are set in stone never, ever, to be changed?
Will any evolutionist go on record stating there will never, ever, be a new theory with boundries taking in both evolution and origin of life?
"*Why* can't the TOE say something about origin of life??"
and my challenge to;
"think out side the box"
have got nothing to do with the question;
"Then how does evolution explain how life could arise from a dead universe"
you preemptively introduced to the discussion to head off a potetial (in your mind) argument I wasn't making and didn't intend to make. That is why that question confused me.
See my previous two posts :-) for where my question and challenge were coming from.
I didn't say evolution "depends" on anything. I said, "what's wrong with the premise?" You can draw any conclusions you like.
Will any evolutionist go on record stating the boundries of the TOE are set in stone never, ever, to be changed?
Why is this a relevant question to anything?
Will any evolutionist go on record stating there will never, ever, be a new theory with boundries taking in both evolution and origin of life?
Or this? Science marches on no matter what any individual will say. Reality is what it is, and any theory is just that, a theory. The closer the theory corresponds to reality, the more "fact" it contains but it is a mistake to confuse the two.
No, I was merely drawing attention to the contradiction inherent in your statement. It's the argument you did make and the box you put yourself in.
When we start telling each other what their argument was the discussion is pretty much over.
When we start telling each other what their argument was the discussion is pretty much over.
You said the first statement. You are requiring that the TOE say something which is not required by the TOE, unless you endorse or explain the contradiction I elucidated.
If you've "heard it ALL before" then why didn't this argument occur to you? How do you refute it then, not merely run away from it?
Anyway, before insisting others think "outside the box" how about you think outside that wet-paper-bag. It should be easy, you've heard it all.
Second, with that question I wasn't requiring anything of the TOE. That is a product of your imagination - it's you telling me what my argument is.
Third, the TOE requires a live universe, that's a given, and in that context the dead universe question is a red herring.
Fourth, all of my discussion in this thread stems from the article "Who Designed the Designer?". It's interesting that evolutionists ask that question when the question of the origin of life is off limits re the TOE. How convenient. That is being dishonest, plain and simple.
Fifth, it is very interesting honest evolutionists are concerned about the origin of life question. (Post 201) That is a whole different attitude than one sees here on this thread.
Finally;
Science marches on no matter what any individual will say. Reality is what it is, and any theory is just that, a theory. The closer the theory corresponds to reality, the more "fact" it contains but it is a mistake to confuse the two.
This is a great statement, and one I totally agree with. Who knows what understanding of life as we observe it, and origin of life, the next XXX years will bring. This is exactly why I find the The Origin-of-Life Prize ® so exciting and interesting.
You prefer to ignore the contradiction your question implies. Evasion noted.
Third, the TOE requires a live universe, that's a given, and in that context the dead universe question is a red herring.
You haven't proven your assertion (TOE requires any such thing.) Chance could have created life, in which case a "live Universe" wouldn't be required. You have no evidence either way.
Fourth, all of my discussion in this thread stems from the article "Who Designed the Designer?".
Begs the Question there was a Designer, or a Designed Designer. No evidence of either.
It's interesting that evolutionists ask that question when the question of the origin of life is off limits re the TOE.
I have never held so. The two questions that cannot be answered is "Where did the Designer come from" or to the contrary, "What went Bang?" Both sides ignore these conundrums. There is no answer. Simply admit it.
How convenient. That is being dishonest, plain and simple.
Only if you mis-characterize the discussion to suit yourself. What is plain and simple is that there is not enough information, evidence, on the subject to know one way or another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.