|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I wouldn't call it an argument, it's just pointing out facts.
quote: I guess that you don't understand the implications. Repeating common knowledge isn't an argument.
quote: So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ?
quote: I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science". Methodological naturalism includes a lot of things that aren't evolution. Evolution can't explain the first replicators, by the very nature of evolution. However, there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 327 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ? "If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the universe!" (Dr. Beverly Crusher, "Remember Me")Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them. The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities. Message 58: There was no gene pool back then. Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis? Evolution is about change in populations of living organisms, and to study that you have to start with living organisms, you have to start with gene pools. Rather obvious eh? Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins ... Can you describe a single part of this process that is not a chemical reaction bound by the rules of chemical reactions? And how this is different than the chemical reactions that make salt? by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But that's exactly what this semiosis seems to be - a meaning inherit in the sequence of bases on the DNA molecule - inherently able to couple with the protein-building system, which is inherently able to produce proteins in the right amount, at the right time, and deliver them to the right place to make life possible. Its not as magical as you are seeing it. Its all just spontaneous chemical reactions. Just like when growing salt crystals. There are sodium and chlorine atoms floating around in the salt water and when the water evaporates, they combine to make salt crystals. Those crystals can form into really cool patterns and shapes, but there nothing governing the formation of those shapes other than the spontaneous chemical reactions that take place due to the laws of physics. DNA is no different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
It would seem to be the classic, and most rudimentary semantic error - mistaking the word for the thing. DNA is not code for chemistry, it is chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It would seem to be the classic, and most rudimentary semantic error - mistaking the word for the thing. DNA is not code for chemistry, it is chemistry. I don't think so. It doesn't seem like a rudimentary error. Like, this is not stumbling upon the word and then mistaking it for the thing. They are actively searching for things that they can make look like words. Conveniently, the compounds in DNA were abbreviated as ATCG and... oh, now we can see a code
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
PaulK writes:
Okay, I mean METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM.
I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science" PaulK writes:
there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation. That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
I also don't understand why he's trying to slam the word 'faith' here. Isn't faith to be an enormous virtue according to some Holy Books?
I mean; if I wanted to make derogatory remarks about creationism/ID, I wouldn't try to slam it by calling it 'science'. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
PaulK writes: quote: "That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH."-ed67 But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty. So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, just as belief in a creator does. Perhaps more, but that's a subjective matter Can you please explain why it requires faith to test a hypothesis? That doesn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis? Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Well, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but you had to roll out the same old lie anyway. Too bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3350 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Taq writes: Can you please explain why it requires faith to test a hypothesis? That doesn't make any sense. You don't understand. It doesn't require faith to test a hypothesis, it requires faith to BELIEVE a hypothesis is true without confirmation. For further details, consult PaulK Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024