Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,153,231 members, 7,818,781 topics. Date: Monday, 06 May 2024 at 03:02 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? (3995 Views)
Intelligent Design - A Rational Conclusion / Arguments Against Intelligent Design / Intelligent Design Or No Intelligent Design? Can We Analyze This? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 12:12pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
jonbellion: the Miller Uray experiment needed INTELLIGENT scientists to carry it out |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 12:17pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
UyiIredia: I wonder if the livescience article I posted under my argument that shows dancing bees communicate via codes Is not showing |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 2:09pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
UyiIredia: Hardly a failed one, there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. If it was failed, it would have been discarded already, there are no sentiments in science. 1 Like |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 2:26pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
LightandDarkness: actually the milley Urey experiment ended up making abiogenesis unlikely http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 2:53pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
A realist who thinks nature is the cause of DNA evolution... Great!! jonbellion: |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by jonbellion(m): 2:56pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Omudia:first of all do you even acknowledge evolution |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by lastkingsman: 3:28pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Blogthug: This is why I ended up being a deist instead of an atheist. When you look at the universe, you can't but agree that it is a creation. The chance of earth rotating and revolving 24/7, 365 day per year by accident is 1/99999999999999999999999999.... Everything you see is magnificently and divinely designed and created by the creator 3 Likes |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 3:34pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Blogthug: double post |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 3:35pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Blogthug: How so exactly, that article (opinion piece really) is long |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Ranchhoddas: 3:59pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
KingEbukasBlog:Are these 'Living Entities'? |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 4:13pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
lastkingsman: Add 07034362071 to join Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 4:15pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
LightandDarkness:so u won't read a peer reviewed paper coz its long? no wonder u are an atheist 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 5:11pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Obviously, but not Darwin's. jonbellion: |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 6:30pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
UyiIredia:What are genetic codes? Are they not same as codons or base sequence... Now,, read your comment again "genetic code codon" same as "codon codon" or "base sequence codon" which is same as molecular blunder |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by UyiIredia(m): 6:40pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
adepeter26: I forgot to put a comma after the genetic code. Hope that clarifies things. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by UyiIredia(m): 6:44pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
LightandDarkness: There are sentiments in science. That's why I made mention of the current materialistic paradigm. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 8:16pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
UyiIredia:Lol |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by lastkingsman: 8:45pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Blogthug: I have contacted you |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Nobody: 11:04pm On Feb 24, 2017 |
Blogthug: 1. Thats hardly a "peer reviewed paper", I don't see it published in any journal unless creation ministries internation suddenly became nature. 2. I'm busy, they could simply have stated their point succintly, i guess a desire for short arguments makes you atheist. 1 Like |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by UyiIredia(m): 12:03am On Feb 25, 2017 |
LightandDarkness: A scientific work doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be good. Since creationism is considered pseudoscience their work can never be accepted for peer review in any mainstream science journal. The same for intelligent design. LightandDarkness: There are several points against the Miller-Urey experiment which includes • a poor simulation of natural factors: for instance, excluding the extreme heat and radioactivity supposed to prevail in early earth. • intelligent intervention: stopping the reaction at the right time to acculate products and prevent it overheating into tar. • racemic mixture output: life exclusively uses left-handed amino acids while the amino acids produced in the experiment have left and right-handed amino acids. • little output: the concentration of amino acids was minute, and many amino acids were produced in very little concentrations. The even more powerful point is that although the points I have stated should convince any reasonable, objective person that the Miller-Urey experiment does not substantiate abiogenesis, they aren't necessary. The more crucial argument is that even if we assume that Miller-Urey is correct and somehow early earthe made amino acids, it isn't sufficient to prove abiogenesis because you have to explain how amino acids polymerized into proteins and how other organic chemicals like lipids, DNA, RNA etc were assembled into the first living being. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 7:38pm On Feb 25, 2017 |
UyiIredia: great points , using Urey's experiment as evidence for abiogenesis will be a presuppositional fallacy , mind u, even Darwin's theory of evolution was published in a book and not in a reviewed paper, but the creation site reviews their articles before publishing on their journal |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Kay17: 9:57pm On Feb 25, 2017 |
Blogthug: The key premise stated all codes of a known origin are products of intelligence. Your minor premise merely stated that DNA is a code and it did not go further to state if DNA had a known origin. The minor premise ought to find its validity to the extent the major premise allows. Therefore your conclusion is wrong |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 8:19pm On Feb 28, 2017 |
Kay17: I clearly stated Deductive logical inference , I doubt u understand what that means? syllogism : All know C is product of I, if D is C therefore D is is a product of I , the conclusion is inferred from all available evidence. it's like all kids of known birth have mothers, john is a kid therefore John has mother , hope u get it now |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by thehomer: 9:40pm On Feb 28, 2017 |
Blogthug: Your argument fails rather obviously. p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence. p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules. Therefore, your argument is unsound. Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by UyiIredia(m): 10:53pm On Feb 28, 2017 |
Kay17: Well said. That is one of the flaws I earlier suggested. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by UyiIredia(m): 11:04pm On Feb 28, 2017 |
thehomer: Nevertheless, his conclusion is correct. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Kay17: 11:59pm On Feb 28, 2017 |
Blogthug: Deductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion rather it ensures its logical validity. I think the key proviso "known origin" used in your major premise ought to follow up to the conclusion |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 10:37am On Mar 01, 2017 |
Kay17: coz u think doesn't make it so, all codes of known origin have been observed to be a product of intelligence Morse, binary, bee codes , if DNA is a code then it's inferred deductively to be one as well, except u can refute the first premise by citing a code of known origin produced sans intelligence |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 10:41am On Mar 01, 2017 |
UyiIredia: that's not a flaw, except u can name a code of known origin produced sans intelligence , if u can't then the conclusion is inferred and the argument is valid |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Blogthug(m): 10:42am On Mar 01, 2017 |
thehomer: who says it's not a code, you? do u even understand the meaning of codes? or what makes sometime a code? u should research on that first |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by thehomer: 4:59pm On Mar 01, 2017 |
Blogthug: Yes me, and the dictionary. You want me to do your work for you for some reason. If you think all communication is code, then you need to actually show it to be the case. e.g is one person waving at another person code for something? How about someone nodding their head in agreement? Or are birds nests also code? How about lions stalking their prey? Is that code too? Something you dont' seem to understand is the fact that something can be represented as code e.g a DNA sequence of physical molecules, doesn't make the molecules code. The molecular sequence comes first. The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding. So, you need to do the work to show that all communication is actually code. |
Re: Can NL Atheists Dare To Refute This Logical Evidence For Intelligent Design? by Niflheim(m): 5:35pm On Mar 01, 2017 |
@op, These are your words: "All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence"..........................................................What about the genetic code that gives rise to "Down's syndrome? |
If God Is All Knowing, Why Didn't He Prevent Adam And Eve From Eating The Apple / Being An Atheist Is It An Excuse To Be Wicked? / Is Deception A Sin?
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 72 |