Disputable points -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 10:06:01pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Disputable points

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08/12/04 5:38pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Design?" on 07/16/04 8:18am

>>Impressed? Why be impressed that they've had so many
>>failures with would-be intermediates?
>
>I'm not sure that they've had "so many failures with
>intermediates".

If that was supposed to be my quote, you misquoted me. I said would be intermediates. If you�re still not sure, look at the list again (e.g. Piltdown man).

>>Okay, suppose we find an obelisk on the moon of
>>Jupiter just like the one that was in 2001: A Space
>>Odyssey. Suppose the obelisk is clearly inscribed
>>with, "This thing is designed, in case you couldn't
>>tell already." Yes, we can tell if it was designed.
>>Archaeologists can also rationally infer design even
>>if they don't know who made it (beyond the fact that
>>they're humans) or why.
>
>Archaeologists have several assumptions working in
>their favor to make that inference. 1) They are on the
>planet Earth, and are familar with what is natural in
>that environment and what is not. 2)They are dealing
>in inanimate objects.
>
>To make the inference that life is designed would
>imply that the earth isn't capable of producing life
>on its own.

And that's precisely one of the main disputable points: whether or not the currents of nature are capable of producing life from non-life without artificial intervention. So far, there is no known natural process that can do that. And here's another disputable point: there are such processes and we just haven't discovered them yet or we haven't discovered them yet because they just don't exist.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]