(February 20, 2016 at 12:29 pm)AAA Wrote:  

Also it is a model. Intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing a highly specific sequence.

So, tell me, are you aware of cognitive experiments with ravens, dogs and monkeys? Are you aware, there are gorillas and one Orang Utan being able to use sign language and to communicate their thoughts?

(February 20, 2016 at 8:18 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote: Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.

No, don't fucking strawman me. It's not because you assert it cannot be tested in a lab that makes it not scientific; it's that it is carefully crafted to be untestable altogether. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. Why is that so hard?

Right now, I want somebody to give me a definition of science that simultaneously excludes intelligent design as scientific while permitting naturalistic explanations of the origin of life to be scientific.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:32 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 12:29 pm)AAA Wrote:  

Also it is a model. Intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing a highly specific sequence.

So, tell me, are you aware of cognitive experiments with ravens, dogs and monkeys? Are you aware, there are gorillas and one Orang Utan being able to use sign language and to communicate their thoughts?

Who said gorillas aren't intelligent?

(February 20, 2016 at 8:14 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(February 19, 2016 at 11:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

By testing for, and examining, such evidence as would be expected from whatever phenomenon is under investigation. You are seriously misunderstanding what observation means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean you have to be able to see the cause with your own eyes or else it isn't true.

Thank you for saying that. We look at what would be expected if either hypothesis were true. Now go look back at my other response to you, and tell me which one has better predictive power.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Who said gorillas aren't intelligent?

And again, how does that compute with the humanocentric, christian god as scripted?

(February 20, 2016 at 3:11 am)robvalue Wrote: I tried debating you before AAA and I found it to be a waste of time. I gave you a fair shot like I give everyone. You don't know how science works.

At least be honest enough to admit that your Christian beliefs are not scientific. Once you've done that, ask yourself if the required presupposition that not just a creator but a magical creator was involved is clouding your scientific judgement. Of course you think there is a creator; you have to.

If you can't produce something that can actually be tested and is falsifiable, it's not science. It's speculation. At best your methods here are more akin to a soft science like the study of history. It is not biological or physical science.

What would life that wasn't designed be like, and how do you know this? If you can't answer that, all you have is an unfalsifiable assumption that life is designed just because it's life.

If you really are a science student, have you discussed any of this with your tutors?

I don't expect an answer, I'm writing this for the benefit of other readers.

No you haven't. I know how science works more than you. I know how cells work more than you. I know how the body works more than you. I have the privilege to actually be studying biology at a university. You never respond to any scientific topic a response. Also I don't think that my christian beliefs are unscientific, I just meant that we cannot test God. We can certainly compile the evidence and conclude His existence. 

We don't assume life is designed then try to prove it. We look at life. It operates like and infinitely superior computer system that dwarfs anything and everything humans have done. Life that wasn't designed would look something like this: The genetic code must be only a few characters long in order for chance to be sufficient to produce it. There are not initiator proteins that attract acetyltransferases that modify proteins that attract transcription factors that attract mediator proteins and RNA polymerase proteins. All this just to start the process of making one protein. You wouldn't have that. There would be no kinetically perfect enzymes. In fact there would be no enzymes at all. 

And I know you don't want an answer. You would prefer to slap and run.

The origin of life? That's abiogenesis, not evolution. There is no theory about abiogenesis yet. When there is, it will be testable or it won't be a theory.

I'm surprised you're asking us to tell you what science is.

Falsifiable, testable models. That's science. That is the difference between evolution and magical explanations.

Everything you just said is not science. It's looking at stuff and jumping to conclusions. This is why we have trouble believing you're actually a science student.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm)AAA Wrote: I have the privilege to actually be studying biology at a university.

And again, how do you make ends meet with a humanocentric scripted god? If you're studying biology, as you say, you know of course, that we share almost 100 percent of our DNA with chimps.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:43 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 12:33 pm)AAA Wrote: Who said gorillas aren't intelligent?

And again, how does that compute with the humanocentric, christian god as scripted?

How doesn't it? I think I can safely say that all organisms transfer information. Even cells have oligosachharides on their membranes that allow for recognition by other cells. Nobody said that only humans can transfer information. Information is abundant in life. But, there is no other source of specified sequence of characters. If you show me an example where something nonliving is producing specified sequences of code, then let me know.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:51 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 12:48 pm)AAA Wrote: I have the privilege to actually be studying biology at a university.

And again, how do you make ends meet with a humanocentric scripted god? If you're studying biology, as you say, you know of course, that we share almost 100 percent of our DNA with chimps.

More like 95, plus the full chimp genome wasn't sequenced, and the Y chromosome is surprisingly different. What does that show anyway? The computer code for Microsoft office is probably similar to the code for Microsoft excel, but they were both designed.