What is evidence?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Czernobog, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,287
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    You didn't read the article, did you? Or did you forget what it said about symbolic processing and formalism?
     
  2. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    54,872
    Thanks Received:
    11,694
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +39,073






    I read the article many months ago. It is an opinion piece, which is fine, but it is not evidence. That was my point.
     
  3. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    6,184
    Thanks Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,758
    You making that claim does not answer the question in the OP. What is evidence? I am not asking what your evidence of the existence of a creator is. I am asking what your understanding of the term evidence is.
     
  4. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,287
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    So, the fact that cells contain self-replicating universal constructors, something that modern technology has been unable to create, does not impress you at all? You think it's possible to create by accident something that our best and brightest are incapable of duplicating? It's easier to believe in a Creator, IMHO.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    54,872
    Thanks Received:
    11,694
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +39,073




    Of course it impresses me, however, we can't replicate the energy released in a thunderstorm either, so there are PLENTY of completely natural occurrences that we can't reproduce.
     
  6. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,287
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    I think you're missing the point. Nature is incapable of creating a self-replicating universal constructor. It would be required, first of all, to create the computer itself. Then it would need to create the programming for it. BTW, did you know that every time a new protein is created, it contains a genetic tag that actually tells it where to go? Also, do you have any idea how proteins are made? Not only is the correct genetic sequence recquired, the protein folds itself into complicated three dimensional shapes. They cannot do this without other proteins called protein chaperones. They detect and correct folding errors. I could go on and on about the complexity of cells. How about gene regulatory networks? Do you know what they are? They are complex beyond belief. And each one is part of a larger meta network These GRN's are responsible for regulating how and when proteins are created. Here's what you should consider. If just one component of this network is missing, the cell will not work properly or even die. So there is no way it could have evolved. Everything has to be in place and working at the same time, or the cell dies. Here is what a GRN looks like.

    [​IMG]

    How anyone can honestly believe something like this evolved is beyond ridiculous.
     
  7. Taz
    Offline

    Taz VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    9,069
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +1,955
    Good thing that you’re here to tell us what nature can and can’t do! Please don’t go. :biggrin:
     
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    54,872
    Thanks Received:
    11,694
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +39,073





    Why do you make that claim? As a philosophical question it is interesting, but it is not supported by evidence. We know that evolution occurs. We have actual, real evidence for that. We have zero evidence for your claim however. We have the opinion of some people, but opinions are not facts. For the longest time it was assumed that teleportation was a fantasy. Even Einstein despised the fact that his calculations showed that it would be possible, recently, the scientists working on the project have been able to teleport a photon to orbit.

    What we considered magic until only a few years ago is now possible.

    That is the problem with peoples opinions. Eventually, in almost every case I can recall, a technological advance has come along to make the fanciful possible, and the ridiculous common.




    "Today, the Micius team announced the results of its first experiments. The team created the first satellite-to-ground quantum network, in the process smashing the record for the longest distance over which entanglement has been measured. And they’ve used this quantum network to teleport the first object from the ground to orbit.

    Teleportation has become a standard operation in quantum optics labs around the world. The technique relies on the strange phenomenon of entanglement. This occurs when two quantum objects, such as photons, form at the same instant and point in space and so share the same existence. In technical terms, they are described by the same wave function."

    A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite
     
  9. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    4,287
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +3,645
    You're getting off topic here. We're talking about the origin of life. Here's a little something that explains things better. And it's by a scientist. It's a bit long, but after reading, you should drop this nonsense about naturalistic origins of life. It just ain't possible.

    1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein
     
  10. Czernobog
    Offline

    Czernobog Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2014
    Messages:
    6,184
    Thanks Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Corner of Chaos and Reason
    Ratings:
    +1,758
    Actually, you're the one who is off topic, and when I attempted to redirect you to the topic of the OP, you completely ignored me. Why is that?
     

Share This Page