Vision in Verse
New member
Touché.GuySmiley said:
It'll take me some time to figure this one out.
ARCHIVE: Need some expert eyes here
- Thread starter aharvey
- Start date
It'll take me some time to figure this one out.
Vision in Verse
New member
Check this out. There is no evidence for or against God. There is evidence for abiogenesis (the existence of protobionts) and a functional theory compatable with known laws of physics. There is no evidence against abiogenesis.GuySmiley said:
SUTG
New member
GuySmiley said:
Example:
Think of Late night host David Letterman. Either it is the case that he is wearing a white shirt right now, or it is not the case.
I would not say that I believe he is wearing a white shirt. I have no reason to believe this. In other words, I don't believe he is wearing a white shirt.
But, similarly, I would not say that I believe he is not wearing a white shirt right now! I have no reason to believe this, either!
So, I don't believe in any of these propositions:
-David Letterman is wearing a white shirt right now.
-David Letterman is not wearing a white shirt right now.
-David Letterman is speaking right now.
-David Letterman is not speaking right now.
If I were to claim that any of the preceding propositions were true, you would be correct in asking me how in the world I know what David letterman is doing right now!
GuySmiley
Well-known member
There is evidence for the existence of God. You reject it, but its there. For instance my testamony that there is a God and I know Him is evidence. You may think I'm loony, but its there.Vision in Verse said:
I dont know what a protobiont is, but I thought earlier Knight found that they are a theory only, they don't actually exist. Is that right? Earlier you called them the 'precusors of life.' Even that name is begging the question.
I think any experiment where someone tried to create life in a lab is evidence against abiogenesis. Its not conclusive, but its evidence.
I don't believe abiogenesis is possible, because of my worldview. And the failure of science to prove it so far is evidence in my favor.
I think your view of there being no God is no different (except for being wrong, thats a big difference). We can come to conclusions based on lack of evidence.
let me see if I can reset this thread, if I misrepresent anyones position feel free to howl like a banshee.
I was watching the National Geographic channel last night, Naked Science was what they called the show (which is a bit of a fraud cause there weren't any naked people, but I digress). They started with the big bang and brought it all the way down to you and me.
AKA "goo to you", or rather "bang, stars, planets, soup, evolution, cable television". I paid particular attention when they got the Earth cooled down and the primordial seas condensed to see how they would treat abiogenisis.
In their defence they were a bit nebulous about how it happened. They said "there are several theories" about how the first organisms were formed and then they continued on from there. I would say this is wrong as there aren't any theroies, mearly some hypothosyseses.
I can understand why this would make the Creationists angry, as someone who was simply watching might not catch the subtle nuances and come away from the show with "primordial soup" on the brain.
Now, when they got to that part should they have a crawl go across the sceen that says;
Proabably not. That would be annoying just as it is in this post.
But, they could have spent a little more time going over what work has been done and stressing the fact that there is no model of how it happened.
I think the evolutionists on this board would be a little embaressed for someone if they came on here and said "but they have made life! Miller-Ouray! life in a bottle from some soup and a spark!" We would have to patiently explain that though some large molecules were formed that they didn't manage to make a self-replicating macrowhatever that crawled out of the flask and joined them for lunch.
You must admit that there are prolly some people out there that don't know this and think goo to you is a demonstrated fact.
Now, on to the Creationists. I don't know if this thread has caused any of you to read the Wiki articles on abiogenisis or the origins of life article or read any of the material on the various directions that the reaserch has gone. If you did you'd know that nobody is working on peanut buttter, and for good reasons which I would probably butcher if I tried to explain them (ask Harvey when he gets back or Johnny if he hasen't lost interest).
Sans any input from them I'll put it this way, what you need is bricks, peanut butter is ground up chunks of an existing building. There, I hope nobody is any dumber for having read that.
The fallacy that the video commited is not only one of not understanding the field but one of simple logic, the video states that if life can come from matter that it will come from matter. This is the same as saying that if fool can make an intelligent post that he will make an intelligent post. And we all know that this is simply not true.
I think what appalled Harvey and the Phy was the idea that someone might walk into a college class having graduated from their living room with this idea in their head that the origins of life somehow involved peanut butter. I shun to think of the ridicule such a student would have heaped on him by his classmates, just as a group of homeschoolers would evicerate a public school kid that said "it's a scientific fact that life came from a warm little puddle".
I was watching the National Geographic channel last night, Naked Science was what they called the show (which is a bit of a fraud cause there weren't any naked people, but I digress). They started with the big bang and brought it all the way down to you and me.
AKA "goo to you", or rather "bang, stars, planets, soup, evolution, cable television". I paid particular attention when they got the Earth cooled down and the primordial seas condensed to see how they would treat abiogenisis.
In their defence they were a bit nebulous about how it happened. They said "there are several theories" about how the first organisms were formed and then they continued on from there. I would say this is wrong as there aren't any theroies, mearly some hypothosyseses.
I can understand why this would make the Creationists angry, as someone who was simply watching might not catch the subtle nuances and come away from the show with "primordial soup" on the brain.
Now, when they got to that part should they have a crawl go across the sceen that says;
Proabably not. That would be annoying just as it is in this post.
But, they could have spent a little more time going over what work has been done and stressing the fact that there is no model of how it happened.
I think the evolutionists on this board would be a little embaressed for someone if they came on here and said "but they have made life! Miller-Ouray! life in a bottle from some soup and a spark!" We would have to patiently explain that though some large molecules were formed that they didn't manage to make a self-replicating macrowhatever that crawled out of the flask and joined them for lunch.
You must admit that there are prolly some people out there that don't know this and think goo to you is a demonstrated fact.
Now, on to the Creationists. I don't know if this thread has caused any of you to read the Wiki articles on abiogenisis or the origins of life article or read any of the material on the various directions that the reaserch has gone. If you did you'd know that nobody is working on peanut buttter, and for good reasons which I would probably butcher if I tried to explain them (ask Harvey when he gets back or Johnny if he hasen't lost interest).
Sans any input from them I'll put it this way, what you need is bricks, peanut butter is ground up chunks of an existing building. There, I hope nobody is any dumber for having read that.
The fallacy that the video commited is not only one of not understanding the field but one of simple logic, the video states that if life can come from matter that it will come from matter. This is the same as saying that if fool can make an intelligent post that he will make an intelligent post. And we all know that this is simply not true.
I think what appalled Harvey and the Phy was the idea that someone might walk into a college class having graduated from their living room with this idea in their head that the origins of life somehow involved peanut butter. I shun to think of the ridicule such a student would have heaped on him by his classmates, just as a group of homeschoolers would evicerate a public school kid that said "it's a scientific fact that life came from a warm little puddle".
SUTG
New member
GuySmiley said:
LOL, I see your point.
Maybe it can be phrased "lack of evidence for a claim can be evidence against that claim" or something like that.
But i think it needs to include a disclaimer of sorts since lack of evidence for a claim isn't always evidence against a claim. It depends on how extraordinary the claim is.
Vision in Verse
New member
Let me rephrase, there is no objective evidence for God.GuySmiley said:
They do exist, and they do form by self-assembly. The controversy is whether or not they are the precursors of primordial cells. There is no objective reason they cannot be.GuySmiley said:
Okay. Although, we could attribute the failure to the experiments as well.GuySmiley said:
It's good to admit that.GuySmiley said:
But the thing is that protobionts do exist, and they do have the materials that life needs.GuySmiley said:
It seems like your approach to this problem is, "it can't be true if there isn't a theory to explain it."
I already assume that life came from non-life because of the way I've learned about the history of the universe, all I need is a more comprehensive way of explaining it.
Vision in Verse
New member
Finally decided to show up?stipe said:
Vision in Verse
New member
I think the video meant something like, if it can, and it is, then it did. Like, if I come to a fallen tree and observe it. I know trees can fall, and I see a fallen tree, it would be logical to assume the tree fell. We see life, and we know life couldn't have existed on earth before the earth was formed. If we have a theory to explain how life could have been assembled into replicating cells, then it's not illogical for us to assume it to be true.fool said:
A protobiont can't even be called a theory really. A protobiont is nothing more than a WAG to fill a known gap in knowledge.GuySmiley said:
Uh... no.... I meant tail, have ya ever seen a cell with a tail???? :noid:Vision in Verse said:
(good catch)
Vision in Verse
New member
There are several theories to explain how life can originate naturally.Knight said:
True, and protobiont's are controversial even among evolutionists.Vision in Verse said:
Vision in Verse
New member
Agreed. However, my argument has changed to: there are theories in which life can arise naturally. Life exists, and I believe there was a time where life could not exist, therefore, I am inclined to believe a theory which can explain how life came to exist in its present form.Knight said: