Misinformation on Origin Of Life by materialists

[rossum]

God is the origin. How hard can this be?

Then God is not alive. How hard can that be. A living God cannot be the origin of life.

Are you joking?

No. A living designer cannot design life, because it cannot design itself.

 

[The Pixie]

Excuses outside of protocol.

This is a web forum. I am not presenting scientific research.

Where is your protocol?

Atheistic philosophical convictions does not falsify and has not one thing to do with evidence or science.

I agree. I never said otherwise. Atheist cannot be proven by science.

Fact beiong it is anti science because real science is detached, not front loaded with atheistic convictions that reject.

Wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to be an atheist as well as a scientist, just as it is to be a Christian.

Bringing your ideology into science is anti-science, but that is true whatever the ideology.

Then prove it is not since all examples indicative of living.

I have no idea what that means.

Evolution explains nothing. Evolutionists do and they are living, they are not zombies

Ah, semantic nit-picking; a sure sign you lost the debate.

Does not mean their explanations are true. Any hypo explains. You need to beat out of falsify an intelligent agent and you have not done that and God would qualify as an intelligent agent.

But the issue is whether it is a dead end, not whether it is true. A claim can be false, but still lead to interesting research.

Intelligent Design is a dead end because it covers everything and gives no reason to investigate further. Besides the evidence suggesting it is wrong.

The theory of evolution has led to a huge amount of research, all of which has helped to confirm it is true.

BS. Natural evolution is insufficient mechanism to produce the observed effects.

Agreed. It also requires variation (random mutation) and inheritance.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Then God is not alive.

Description is living God. You can look it up.

How hard can that be.

For you? Probably impossible

A living God cannot be the origin of life.

Origin of life here?

No. A living designer cannot design life,

Why not. Who designed your post? An invisible entity dead from the neck up? How hard can this be?

because it cannot design itself.

Why not? Why assume it would have to? Esp if infinite as described and as any school boy can tell you.

 

[rossum]

Description is living God. You can look it up.

I can, and have. What you ignore is that God is Himself alive, so it is impossible for Him to create the first living being, because He Himself is that first living being, and He did not create Himself, which I also looked up.

God can create the second living being, but not the first, i.e. Himself.

Origin of life here?

As I said, I looked up God. God is omnipresent, including present on earth for as long as earth has existed. Hence there has never been a time when life was not present on earth.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Then God is not alive. How hard can that be. A living God cannot be the origin of life.


No. A living designer cannot design life, because it cannot design itself.

Irrational strawmanning episode. God is SPIRIT.

 

[rossum]

Irrational strawmanning episode. God is SPIRIT.

So "SPIRIT" cannot be alive? So "SPIRIT" cannot be omnipresent?

Better tell all those Christian theologians that they are going to have to rethink things.

 

[Howie]

Discovery Institute propoganda.

Anti-Discovery Institute Propaganda ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Algor]

Yes there is. The very process is the evidence and we are looking for a cause by the process of elimination. Nonintelligence is eliminated

Well, no it's not. That's

and intelligence is advanced as the primal cause of what we observe in self replication. Again your problem is obviously bias from the get go. That is not how it is done. It is done absent bias in a detached manner looking at all the evidence. And all the evidence includes written historical accounts which have not been falsified since it is testimony and testimony is evidence. That is not how it is done in the real world where testimony is considered evidence and not rejected because it is not scientific. They certainly do not reject testimony in courts where they attempt to establish truth of past events. They do not reduce it all to one type and ignore everything else.

Sure, but ID here doesn't get you any further. If we were to say "OK, it was designed" then we would want some unique hallmark of design, other that the emergence of life, but we don't have that. We'd also like material evidenc of who designed it, whenthey designed it, by what means didthey design it, and to what end. All the testimony in the world is nice, but I want to see corroborative evidence, aside from the thing under investigation. Otherwise its just a circular discussion

For self replication without plan or purpose? None named or cited.

Hm? Take a look at the genome of any living creature. It does not lok designed, and gene evolution seems to follow patterns of duplication, translocation, truncation, point mutation etc that ar observed eerywhere else. So given that the genome does not look designed, DNA might be designed, but the only evidence for that is the DNA itself and none of the who, what where why bits that you would look for in the DNA. It might be there, but there's nothing specific yet.

Why not? It beats out your hypo and that is all it has to do.

But it doesn't. That's the problem. At least with chemical evolution you know the physical aspects that have to be involved somehow. With ID, that sort of stuff would be dependent on who is doing the designing. how they are dong it, and why.

Intelligent causation as primary cause as opposed to subordinate causes. Objects do not self replicate absent intelligence, plan and purpose. It is axiomatic. The process is far too complicted. Try building a car which self replicates. It cannot be done even with human intelligence as primary causation. And you are saying it can be done naturally on Earth? That is a supernatural/religious claim with earth as causal. It is earth worship or earth as creator

If you want. I don't think nyybody is actually worsipping and praying to the earth or anything like that, but if you want to call it earth worship or whatever OK. But as you note, science doesn't have to be atheistic in its motives or even hypotheses. It just has to produce some sort of insight into material processes.

Science is not by default atheistic. ID is axiomatic for the origin of complex information rich and complex systems in science and biology is not exempt because they do not like where the evidence leads.

ID has not been so useful to date. If somebody manages to make it useful, great. But again, ID tends to shy away from questions of who did the designing, why, and by what means. If it isn't going to go there, it won't be very interesting, because those are the interesting and useful aspects of design.

 

[Harry Leggs]

ID has not been so useful to date.

Your post is ID so are you saying your post is not useful?

If somebody manages to make it useful, great.

Opinion about useful does not falsify ID. If we, for example are made for a purpose then it would behoove us to adhere esp if negative consequences are attached. We need to know what is expected of us in life even if rejected.

But again, ID tends to shy away from questions of who did the designing, why, and by what means.

So? An intelligent cause of death eliminates natural causation even if the intelligent agent is unidentified. It is a process of elimination. There is no need to look for an intelligent agent if the cause of death is determined to be natural, suicidal or accidental.

If it isn't going to go there, it won't be very interesting, because those are the interesting and useful aspects of design.

The human body is designed with systems and eliminates non-intelligent causation which is determined via a nonTheistic philosophy/mandate as a start point, a bias. Not a rigorous detached examination where the two models are compared and contrasted. Meaning absent God we would not be here. There would be no life, there would be no reproduction. Assigning reproduction to natural causation over design and purpose is not on account of detached analysis of all the evidence, but on account of preference. If we are the result of natiral causation absent a mind then the claim is not natural, but an alternative supernatural claim. For some reason, people are Theophobes.

 

[Algor]

Your post is ID so are you saying your post is not useful?

LOL. Since when have I argued that my posts are worth much of anything?

Opinion about useful does not falsify ID. If we, for example are made for a purpose then it would behoove us to adhere esp if negative consequences are attached. We need to know what is expected of us in life even if rejected.

I agree, but if an idea isn't useful, it just falls by the wayside.

So? An intelligent cause of death eliminates natural causation even if the intelligent agent is unidentified. It is a process of elimination. There is no need to look for an intelligent agent if the cause of death is determined to be natural, suicidal or accidental.

But this is because we already know how humans die naturally, and we understand how to differentiate natural death from homicide. We don't simply rule out natural death a priori: we know what natural death, as opposed to homocide, looks like. We don't know what the process of natural development, as opposed to ID, looks like, so we can't rule ot out.

The human body is designed with systems and eliminates non-intelligent causation which is determined via a nonTheistic philosophy/mandate as a start point, a bias. Not a rigorous detached examination where the two models are compared and contrasted. Meaning absent God we would not be here. There would be no life, there would be no reproduction.

Again, we are missing good, testable ideas about the interesting parts of design: who did it, how, where and why? There is nothing preenting these from being examined rigirously and scientifically, if there were any evidence of them. But there isn't, so currently its a dead end.

Assigning reproduction to natural causation over design and purpose is not on account of detached analysis of all the evidence, but on account of preference. If we are the result of natiral causation absent a mind then the claim is not natural, but an alternative supernatural claim. For some reason, people are Theophobes.

OK, so if we need a different scientific paradigm, get it done. Fund it and see what happens: get a gofundme going, collect a few million, get a grant review board put together, get proposals, make some grants and see what you get for it. My bet is "Not much", but I could be wrong.