|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2005 : 18:15:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley So your evidence is your personal testimony and faith.
Sorry, but since I consider your God to be a baseless assertion how is your God's consciousness supposed to be compelling evidence.
If my supposed God consciousness doesn't produce some kind of beneficial observed result, I would agree that it is mere baseless assertion and worthless. But even if it did produce beneficial observed results, even then I suspect it might become 'compelling' only to the person who is similarly experiencing a supposed emerging God consciousness.
Mark
|
 |
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 18:28:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.WreckCan you cite one supernatural conecture which has been shown to be the correct explanation for something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One that comes to mind is the biblical assertion about God creating life and then 'resting'. One might take this to imply that no more life is being created from the 'dust'. Although it was commonly believed not too long ago that spontaneous generation of living things routinely occured, that theory was debunked (by Louis Pasteur?). So the biblical assertion/conjecture, that a higher power created life and is no longer doing so, remains to be falsified to this day. But hey given enough conjectures one of them's bound to be correct!
Of course this nonsense hasn't been falsified. It is unfalsifiable, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the question was "Can you cite one supernatural conecture which has been shown to be the correct explanation for something?" Your conjecture fails. It has not been shown to be correct. Showing that spontaneous generation is false by no means supports the "god created life and then rested" conjecture. That is as ridiculous as the "evolution is false therefore creationism is true" arguement.
Now, do you have an example of a supernatural explanation which has been shown by the evidence in favor of it to be true?
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 18:57:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Someone who is massively despressed, and simply not caring for themselves and having suicidal thoughts is clearly still alive, but your definition of "life" would categorize them as non-living. Or are there various "levels" of "aliveness" in your eyes?
Yes I see different degrees of aliveness, 'measured' by the coherence and amount of dynamic of interaction with the environment. But imo there are also different phases or modes of life manifestation: material, mindal and spiritual levels. There are people who are materially very alive but mentally there are compromised. There are people who are spiritually near death but mentally quite fit. etc. But generally the three would have some interrelation and the life property of one can effect the life property of another for good or ill.
Disclaimer: the above does not even pretend to be scientifically based.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 19:08:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
So the biblical assertion/conjecture, that a higher power created life and is no longer doing so, remains to be falsified to this day.
markie, while I find your posts to be generally entertaining, your continued lack of any comprehension of scientific method is starting to bother me (not as in irritate, but as in cause me worry).
This willfully ignorant behavior, sadly, is typical of many true believers.
In the above statement of yours is becomes obvious that you truly have no grasp of the basics of science. What you meant to say, if you were thinking rationally, is that your invisible sky wizard theory "remains without evidence", rather than "remains to be falsified".
Really what I should have said was : The extrapolated assertion (based on supposed supernatural revelation from a higher power), that there is no longer any life arising from nonlife on this world, has thus far been supported by science and is yet to be falsified.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 19:16:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Really what I should have said was : The extrapolated assertion (based on supposed supernatural revelation from a higher power), that there is no longer any life arising from nonlife on this world, has thus far been supported by science and is yet to be falsified.
And you still don't comprehend. It isn't that difficult to learn about basic scientific method.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 19:23:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck Of course this nonsense hasn't been falsified. It is unfalsifiable, just like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the question was "Can you cite one supernatural conecture which has been shown to be the correct explanation for something?" Your conjecture fails. It has not been shown to be correct. Showing that spontaneous generation is false by no means supports the "god created life and then rested" conjecture. That is as ridiculous as the "evolution is false therefore creationism is true" arguement.
Really, even in strictly scientific circles, evidence more often than not is regarded as being merely consistent with a theory than proving a particular theory correct.
So yes I agree, if a assertion based on a particular supernatural premise makes a correct prediction regarding a particular material phenomenon, it certainly does not follow that the supernatural premise is therefore correct.
quote:
Now, do you have an example of a supernatural explanation which has been shown by the evidence in favor of it to be true?
I can't think of another one off hand, no.
Mark |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 21:13:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yes I see different degrees of aliveness, 'measured' by the coherence and amount of dynamic of interaction with the environment. But imo there are also different phases or modes of life manifestation: material, mindal and spiritual levels. There are people who are materially very alive but mentally there are compromised. There are people who are spiritually near death but mentally quite fit. etc. But generally the three would have some interrelation and the life property of one can effect the life property of another for good or ill.
Well, what we were looking for was a definition such that the living could be segregated from the non-living, only. "Degress of aliveness" we'll worry about later. Your definition appears to classify those in a coma as non-living, so it therefore fails to properly segregate the two groups.
And frankly, I doubt you'll be able to craft a definition of life such that you'll include everything obviously alive, reject everything obviously not, and also reject the self-replicating machines, unless you make some appeal to an unscientific idea. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 22:22:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
quote:
Now, do you have an example of a supernatural explanation which has been shown by the evidence in favor of it to be true?
I can't think of another one off hand, no.
Mark
Ok, so we have have one prediction that cannot yet be verfied and no predictions stemming from supernatural explanations which have ever turned out to be correct.
How many predictions stemming from supernatural explanations can you name off hand which have turned out to be incorrect? Feel free to use more than one sheet of paper for your answer.
Now, in the face of such an obvious disparity, the obvious question becomes, "Why would we ever assume there will eventually be a supernatural explanation that turns out to be correct?"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/29/2005 22:23:20 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 22:48:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really what I should have said was : The extrapolated assertion (based on supposed supernatural revelation from a higher power), that there is no longer any life arising from nonlife on this world, has thus far been supported by science and is yet to be falsified.
Stripping the above quote of fluff, and paraphrasing, I get this:
"The assertion that there is no longer any spontaneous life generation, has thus far been supported by science and is yet to be falsified."
Is this something you would subscribe to, Markie?
If so, then let's examine this a little bit closer. If by Spontaneous Life Generation (SLG for short) you mean maggots out of a rotting stake of beef, then yes: it has been falsified. Complete living complex organisms does not appear just like that. However, in an-aerobic environments similar to early Earth, instances of amino-acids combining together to self-replicating molecules may still happen. And from there, primordial bacteria may well form. The big problem is, we are unlikely to find evidence of this because of the very specific environment it requires: any attempt to collect samples are likely to irreparably damage the environment. Also, the question is at what stage of development will it be? Current theories has 300 to 500 million years from inanimate amino-acids to the first "living" RNA-based bacteria. The environment we seek must be isolated for this period of time (otherwise it would be contaminated by already living bacteria and extremophiles).
My conclusion is this: Since life first formed on Earth, it has spread (and evolved) to inhabit all ecological niches there is. Should a new niche open, then a living organism evolve to take advantage of it. If there was a spot for life to form again as it first did, then that spot would fill up faster from elsewhere, than from new form. So the theory of evolution also supports the idea that spontaneous generation of life is (at least temporarily) suspended.
Given a sterile environment (un-aerobic with amino acids and hydrogen, and energy) like early Earth, spontaneous life generation would resume.
This is what abiogenesis research is about. Finding a way to speed up the series of events necessary to provide evidence of each step, from early life-less Earth to Living Earth. Scientists need to recreate a compressed timetable for events that took place over 500 million years. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2005 : 23:07:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
However, in an-aerobic environments similar to early Earth, instances of amino-acids combining together to self-replicating molecules may still happen. And from there, primordial bacteria may well form. The big problem is, we are unlikely to find evidence of this because of the very specific environment it requires: any attempt to collect samples are likely to irreparably damage the environment. Also, the question is at what stage of development will it be? Current theories has 300 to 500 million years from inanimate amino-acids to the first "living" RNA-based bacteria. The environment we seek must be isolated for this period of time (otherwise it would be contaminated by already living bacteria and extremophiles).
Not just contaminated...eaten. Darwin himself was one of the first to raise this problem.
quote:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."
--Darwin C.R., letter to J.D. Hooker, [1 February] 1871
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/29/2005 23:09:38 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 18:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. Your definition appears to classify those in a coma as non-living, so it therefore fails to properly segregate the two groups.
Hmmm, the way you read my definition then, someone who is merely asleep would be non-living as well. The complication of course is that the individual parts of an organism - it's organs and cells for instance can be individually alive, but some function of the whole may be temporarily supsended or impaired. It's a complicated thing to define, to encompass all the possibilities of life manifestation. A frozen embryo may have no measureable life characteristics at all, but it has the *potential* for full life funtioning in the future. So many things to mess up an attempt at definition.
Mark |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 18:42:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. HumbertOk, so we have have one prediction that cannot yet be verfied and no predictions stemming from supernatural explanations which have ever turned out to be correct.
How many predictions stemming from supernatural explanations can you name off hand which have turned out to be incorrect? Feel free to use more than one sheet of paper for your answer.
Now, in the face of such an obvious disparity, the obvious question becomes, "Why would we ever assume there will eventually be a supernatural explanation that turns out to be correct?"
First of all, *science* will *never* see any particular supernatural explanation to be correct. Unfalsified mabye. It simply cannot make a pronouncement on those things which are purportedly supernatural and remain to be falsified in material prediction.
But I agree, based both on the contradictory nature of the supernatural claims and explanations out there, and the amount of material predictions which have been falsified by science, any given supernatural explanation is bound to be untrue. Not necessarily, but probably.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 18:53:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My conclusion is this: ... So the theory of evolution also supports the idea that spontaneous generation of life is (at least temporarily) suspended. Given a sterile environment (un-aerobic with amino acids and hydrogen, and energy) like early Earth, spontaneous life generation would resume.
This is what abiogenesis research is about. Finding a way to speed up the series of events necessary to provide evidence of each step, from early life-less Earth to Living Earth. Scientists need to recreate a compressed timetable for events that took place over 500 million years.
OK I agree that the theory of evolution itself is consistent with the proposition that no new life is arising from nonlife these days on earth.
Yes a compressed timetable would be nice, complete with the description of processes specific enough to be investigated; specific enough to be reproduced. All I can say is good luck. And though life won't (imo) be re-created, at least some good biochemistry will come out of it.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2005 : 20:39:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
First of all, *science* will *never* see any particular supernatural explanation to be correct.
It might. It just requires that the "supernatural" explanation actually be a natural one, instead. For example, if someone comes up with a reliable method for detecting ghosts, ghosts will cease to be supernatural beings, and instead part of the everyday world.quote:
It simply cannot make a pronouncement on those things which are purportedly supernatural and remain to be falsified in material prediction.
Science cannot speak to the reality of things which refuse to be detected in any repeatable way, yes.quote:
But I agree, based both on the contradictory nature of the supernatural claims and explanations out there, and the amount of material predictions which have been falsified by science, any given supernatural explanation is bound to be untrue. Not necessarily, but probably.
Still, you seem to not be letting go of that which you now agree is probably untrue. Frankly, this is why I found your pronouncement of what constitutes a "rational" post in the 9/11 thread to be amusing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
