Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conclusion vs Presupposition
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 94 (445525)
01-02-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by tesla
01-02-2008 6:17 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
It doesn't. Evolution starts with life existing - particularly starting with the life we know today and working backwards.
i may be wrong but Ive heard that life crawled out of the ocean, but this does not answer the question of the first microbe that existed, or even a mitochondria that existed...
That is what the evidence shows (close enough). The earliest life known is a cyanobacteria 3.8 billion years old, and it is a prokaryote with cell wall enclosing DNA etc (no nucleus and no mitochondria though). Eukaryotes with nucleus and mitochondria evolved roughly 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago.
where did the first biological component come from that evolution began from?
We don't know. There are some ideas, but no evidence at this point (no fossil bearing rock older than 3.8 billion years found yet).

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 6:17 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 5:05 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 94 (445526)
01-02-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by tesla
01-02-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
then evolution in no way proves God is not.
And those that tell you otherwise are lying.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by tesla, posted 01-02-2008 6:33 PM tesla has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 2:19 AM RAZD has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 94 (445532)
01-02-2008 6:59 PM


Topic Folk.
Let's try to correct this one fallacy before we try to address all the other lies creationists tell.
Edited by AdminPhat, : appalin spallin

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 49 of 94 (445601)
01-03-2008 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2008 1:49 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Could I suggest once again that you READ A FRICKIN' BIOLOGY TEXBOOK.
Perhaps it is because I read them that I find these conclusions valid. Why are you getting so upset? Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from? Do you think it just arranged itself randomly or is it an information code impressed on matter but not a property of the matter?
Naturalistic philosophy is the starting point for evolution.You have to believe that nothing but impartial laws could have caused us and everything else on this planet to have formed through chance and natural laws -it doesn't make sense but that is the starting point or presupposition on which evolution is built.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2008 1:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2008 2:18 AM Beretta has replied
 Message 52 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 2:21 AM Beretta has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 50 of 94 (445606)
01-03-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Beretta
01-03-2008 1:42 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Beretta
Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from?
Through the physics of the electromagnetic force and only different from the rusting of iron or the freezing of water in complexity of interaction between the atomic bonds of the elements present and the order of their interaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 1:42 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 7:18 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 8:56 AM sidelined has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 51 of 94 (445607)
01-03-2008 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by RAZD
01-02-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
tesla writes:
then evolution in no way proves God is not.
No it starts with the basic premise that God is not and draws faulty conclusions based on that original faulty premise.
And those that tell you otherwise are lying.
And those that tell you otherwise are not dogmatically attached to those evolutionary presuppositions (the evolution religion). They are not 'lying' at all (that oh so common refrain in this forum)-they are trying to bring some balance and open-mindedness to the issues of this debate -they are trying to separate fact from dogma and lay it all out for everyone to see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:41 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 52 of 94 (445609)
01-03-2008 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Beretta
01-03-2008 1:42 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from?
This is a meaningless statement. The "genetic code" contains "information" only inasmuch as we can look at the chemical makeup of a particular DNA sequence and associate that sequence with a given trait in the organism, like production of a certain protein. DNA, and the way it governs life, are nothing more than very complex chemistry.
That's all it is, Beretta. Change the sequence a little, get a different protein. Nothing more.
Do you think it just arranged itself randomly or is it an information code impressed on matter but not a property of the matter?
Neither, Beretta. Statements like this are how we know you've never read a biology or even chemistry textbook - or at the very least didn't comprehend what you were seeing. Chemistry is not random - chemical bonds form under very specific, predictable, non-random conditions. Neither is DNA some sort of "information code impressed on matter."
Naturalistic philosophy is the starting point for evolution.
And all rational inquiry. It is impossible to study that which you cannot even prove exists.
You have to believe that nothing but impartial laws could have caused us and everything else on this planet to have formed through chance and natural laws
"Natural laws" is a misnomer. The laws of physics are nothing more than models created by humans to describe the observed processes of the natural world. Because of the terminology, you act like some intelligence must have made the laws that govern reality - you're putting the cart before the horse. There are no laws of nature. There is only the way the Universe works. The laws are human constructs, "best-fit" models used to describe the workings of the Universe in a way we can use to predict reactions (using the predictions of the law of gravity, for instance, to plot out the path of a space probe).
it doesn't make sense but that is the starting point or presupposition on which evolution is built.
Your comprehension is irrelevant. Making sense to the uneducated or ill-informed is irrelevant. The Universe behaves in specific ways. Gravity always works in the same way, and our law of gravity can be used to predict the behavior of masses very accurately. The laws of thermodynamics are always, in every single reaction, observed. Given the behaviors of the Universe which we describe with the laws of physics, the formation of stars and solar systems was inevitable - not chance. Similarly, should abiogenesis be shown to be the cause of life, it would mean that life is the inevitable result of chemistry given the presence of certain chemicals under certain conditions - not random.
You seem to misunderstand "naturalistic philosophy" a great deal.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 1:42 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 53 of 94 (445620)
01-03-2008 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
01-02-2008 6:40 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Tesla writes:
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
It doesn't. Evolution starts with life existing - particularly starting with the life we know today and working backwards.
Actually evolution proposes that purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves which is quite an amazing thing considering what is known today about the extreme organization that is required even for the simplest cell.The proposition was acceptable in the days when a cell was assumed to be little more than a blob.
The proposition is no longer an acceptable one considering what we now know about the complexity of the simplest forms of life -hence the intelligent design hypothesis which better explains such an unbelievable occurrence.We've come a long way since Darwin's day and the matter needs to be rethought.
earliest life known is a cyanobacteria 3.8 billion years old, and it is a prokaryote with cell wall enclosing DNA etc
Kind of a complicated arrangement to have arranged itself by random natural processes.DNA and cell membrane - a lot of information.And then it had to reproduce itself as well...
Even today with all we know about what goes on inside a cell, we cannot make one and we cannot even think of how we are going to get itself to reproduce -pretty miraculous and requiring far more faith than the proposal that life may have come from pre-existing intelligence.Even if we could find a way to make life in a laboratory we would then have to admit that to make life requires intelligence and organization.
Eukaryotes with nucleus and mitochondria evolved roughly 1.6 - 2.1 billion years ago.
And then in a relative flash came all the major body plans or phyla in the cambrian explosion defying slow gradual incremental evolutionary development. Quite strange I would think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 7:40 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 54 of 94 (445625)
01-03-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by sidelined
01-03-2008 2:18 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
sidelined writes:
Beretta writes:
Where do you imagine the information for the genetic code came from?
Through the physics of the electromagnetic force and only different from the rusting of iron or the freezing of water in complexity of interaction between the atomic bonds of the elements present and the order of their interaction.
Well you know the 'scientific' confidence that this is so, is based not on experimental results but on philosophy. Scientists BELIEVE that chance and law had to do the whole job because they BELIEVE nothing else was available.Genetic info is the 'software' of the organism. The 4-letter chemical alphabet of the DNA is translated into the 20 letter alphabet of the proteins. But the DNA chemical letters, like the arrangement of the letters on this message is not determined by either chance or the laws of chemistry. Chance produces only random disorder and chemical laws produce the same thing over and over again.If the chemistry of DNA controlled the order of the letters there would be no message, or at least no message with any information content higher than the simple order that is present in the chemical laws.There would be no protein synthesis , and no life processes.
The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software.Where did it come from is the question???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2008 2:18 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2008 8:07 PM Beretta has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 94 (445627)
01-03-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Beretta
01-03-2008 5:05 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Actually evolution proposes that purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves which is quite an amazing thing considering what is known today about the extreme organization that is required even for the simplest cell.The proposition was acceptable in the days when a cell was assumed to be little more than a blob.
Actually not.
The proposition is no longer an acceptable one considering what we now know about the complexity of the simplest forms of life -hence the intelligent design hypothesis which better explains such an unbelievable occurrence.We've come a long way since Darwin's day and the matter needs to be rethought.
Argument from incredulity on top of nonsense -- that's a real good foundation for philosophy.
Kind of a complicated arrangement to have arranged itself by random natural processes.DNA and cell membrane - a lot of information.And then it had to reproduce itself as well...
So? The fact remains that this is what the evidence shows, and beyond that we don't know.
Even today with all we know about what goes on inside a cell, we cannot make one and we cannot even think of how we are going to get itself to reproduce -pretty miraculous and requiring far more faith than the proposal that life may have come from pre-existing intelligence.Even if we could find a way to make life in a laboratory we would then have to admit that to make life requires intelligence and organization.
Really? Gosh you make it sound so ... simple.
And then in a relative flash came all the major body plans or phyla in the cambrian explosion defying slow gradual incremental evolutionary development. Quite strange I would think...
Which just shows that your understanding of "relative flash" and "slow gradual incremental evolutionary development" could be wrong eh?
It doesn't matter what you think Beretta, the universe is totally unimpressed, and things will continue to progress regardless of your opinion or conclusions of what is or is not impossible.
Once you understand that you can look for truth.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 5:05 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 8:21 AM RAZD has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 94 (445628)
01-03-2008 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
01-02-2008 6:40 PM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Raz writes:
tesla writes:
by what manner does evolution propose that life was introduced?
It doesn't. Evolution starts with life existing - particularly starting with the life we know today and working backwards.
Creationists believe there was no life on earth before God created it, then they work forward.
Evolutionists believe there already was life and then they work backwards.
Raz writes:
The earliest life known is a cyanobacteria 3.8 billion years old
Isn’t this cyanobacteria blue-green algae, the same blue-green algae we see today in our rivers and lakes. Shouldn’t it have evolved after 3 800 000 000 years or does it need longer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2008 6:40 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 01-03-2008 8:02 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 01-03-2008 9:20 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 61 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 10:10 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 62 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 57 of 94 (445630)
01-03-2008 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 7:49 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Isn’t this cyanobacteria blue-green algae, the same blue-green algae we see today in our rivers and lakes. Shouldn’t it have evolved after 3 800 000 000 years or does it need longer?
Well yes, other things including us humans were pretty quick in comparison -they must just be happy and content in their little eco niche and felt no need to progress further. It's all about evolution explains everything -absolutely everything and there is no need to look further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 58 of 94 (445634)
01-03-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by RAZD
01-03-2008 7:40 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
RAZD writes:
Beretta writes:
Actually evolution proposes that purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves which is quite an amazing thing considering what is known today about the extreme organization that is required even for the simplest cell.The proposition was acceptable in the days when a cell was assumed to be little more than a blob.
Actually not.
Actually not what? What's your story?
Argument from incredulity on top of nonsense
What!? It is incredible that you can believe it requires no further explanation than the age old 'evolution did it'.
RAZD writes:
Kind of a complicated arrangement to have arranged itself by random natural processes.DNA and cell membrane - a lot of information.And then it had to reproduce itself as well...
So? The fact remains that this is what the evidence shows, and beyond that we don't know.
It exists so evolution must have done it -beyond that we have no idea how, just the faith that it is the answer to every question -no further proposals required.Put the word 'gribbleflix' in for 'evolution' and gribbleflix did everything -no questions please.
Which just shows that your understanding of "relative flash" and "slow gradual incremental evolutionary development" could be wrong eh?
Of course, that would be my lack of understanding or perhaps an outright creationist lie but let us not admit that there is anything wrong with the evolution philosophy.
It doesn't matter what you think Beretta, the universe is totally unimpressed, and things will continue to progress regardless of your opinion or conclusions of what is or is not impossible.
Well it is certainly not my opinion alone, I have loads of company and things will actually continue to run down not progress regardless of your opinions or conclusions.
Once you see it for what it is, you will be venturing closer to the truth that you live in denial of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 7:40 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 01-03-2008 10:42 AM Beretta has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 94 (445637)
01-03-2008 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by sidelined
01-03-2008 2:18 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
in response to Beretta, Sidelined writes:
Through the physics of the electromagnetic force and only different from the rusting of iron or the freezing of water in complexity of interaction between the atomic bonds of the elements present and the order of their interaction.
So life is as simple as a rusty nail or a cold winters night.
A nail oxidizes because it obeys the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life doesn’t.
Water turns to ice because it goes through a state change below a certain temperature. Life doesn’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by sidelined, posted 01-03-2008 2:18 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2008 6:59 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 94 (445644)
01-03-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LucyTheApe
01-03-2008 7:49 AM


Re: Beginning presuppostions
Hi Lucy,
Your question;
LucyTheApe writes:
Isn’t this cyanobacteria blue-green algae, the same blue-green algae we see today in our rivers and lakes. Shouldn’t it have evolved after 3 800 000 000 years or does it need longer?
Your question amounts to little more than the old "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" chestnut. There is a simple answer, i.e. that part of the algae population evolved, and went on to form other species, part did not and stayed pretty much the same.
None of this addresses the topic of course, since the OP had nothing to do with evolution. If you can point out a presupposition in Jar's OP, other then the three basic presuppositions that have been noted, feel free to point it out, instead of dragging this thread off topic. That goes for you too, Beretta.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LucyTheApe, posted 01-03-2008 7:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024