Probality of God

[Gwandau]

I really would prefer not to comment anything further here, since it just will propel me into one of those abysmal loops we have had in this thread earlier.

But I feel obliged to ask you, wilby, if you really have assimilated the direction of thought presented by the biochemists that could find no other explanation to the flagellar motor riddle than it being designed. It seems you stopped short even before assimilating the theory, which is unscientific if anything.

Assimilate the observations as seen by the bichemists. It is an obvious mystery. There is no doubt about that. Then draw your own conclusions of course. Nothing wrong in that. But if posting it here, please back it up. Just telling me I am stupid just bounces back upon you by simple lack of grace.

The question however the scientific observations that I started this recent input with is in favour of the idea of an intelligent design or not is of course dependent upon the mindset of the observer at this early stage of the research. But every starting point into a novel scientific area begins with a hunch initiated by some strange observations that threatens the present scientific viewpoint.

Science is not only facts derived from repeatable experiments, intuition is just as important in the scientific endeavor, especially when approaching novel areas of research. The reason for this input was not to ask for your preconceived thought patterns, but to put you at the possible portal of hitherto uncharted areas of knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, my mind is not set rigidly here, I am intuitive and open for anything possible to imagine, since I have learned that there is a lot more to things than meets the eye.


Remember that there is a big difference between a rigid mind and the rigid system behind the scientific validation process. Honor the latter, but beware of the former.

cheers,


Gwandau

[Magluvin]

I really would prefer not to comment anything further here, since it just will propel me into one of those abysmal loops we have had in this thread earlier.

But I feel obliged to ask you, wilby, if you really have assimilated the direction of thought presented by the biochemists that could find no other explanation to the flagellar motor riddle than it being designed. It seems you stopped short even before assimilating the theory, which is unscientific if anything.

Assimilate the observations as seen by the bichemists. It is an obvious mystery. There is no doubt about that. Then draw your own conclusions of course. Nothing wrong in that. But if posting it here, please back it up. Just telling me I am stupid just bounces back upon you by simple lack of grace.

The question however the scientific observations that I started this recent input with is in favour of the idea of an intelligent design or not is of course dependent upon the mindset of the observer at this early stage of the research. But every starting point into a novel scientific area begins with a hunch initiated by some strange observations that threatens the present scientific viewpoint.

Science is not only facts derived from repeatable experiments, intuition is just as important in the scientific endeavor, especially when approaching novel areas of research. The reason for this input was not to ask for your preconceived thought patterns, but to put you at the possible portal of hitherto uncharted areas of knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, my mind is not set rigidly here, I am intuitive and open for anything possible to imagine, since I have learned that there is a lot more to things than meets the eye.


Remember that there is a big difference between a rigid mind and the rigid system behind the scientific validation process. Honor the latter, but beware of the former.

cheers,


Gwandau

[WilbyInebriated]

listen gwandau... if you are going to say stupid shit like:

How come then that the critics of this theory hasn't been able to prove the opposite

then i am going to call you on it... because... it's stupid AND I EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHY.

'proof' is for mathematics and alcohol. you cannot prove anything in science to a certainty, although you can disprove a lot.

all scientific theories are proposed as rigorously tentative and thus, subject to revision.

just because something is a "mystery" to us, that does not indicate nor necessitate "intelligent design"...

[hoptoad]

snip...
Assimilate the observations as seen by the bichemists. It is an obvious mystery. There is no doubt about that.
snip...

As seen by some biochemists, it remains a mystery. As seen by other biochemists, it is not.

There seems to be an assumption by many that complexity requires design. Since life is so complex it must be a result of said design.

A few years ago a group of researchers announced the 'discovery' of nanobes. What they thought were lifeforms smaller than anything previously known. These nanobes had what appeared to be the equivalent of dna at the heart of their structures, but the 'apparent' dna was only a fraction of the size of dna found in microbes.

The premise used to describe these nanobes as living creatures was their complexity of structure, their ability to reproduce, and possession of an apparent metabolism.

However, other researchers have shown the same complexity arising from artificial structures made from non living component chemicals.
These structures appear as self organising and self replicating entities arising from the chemical soup that was used to create and harbour them.

Some of the most surprising and complex structures created by these chemical synthesis experiments are actually non organic,  containing no carbon.

It's possible that these artificial structures are in fact artificial life. It's also possible that they merely mimic the complexity of living reactions without actually being alive.

Cheers

[WilbyInebriated]

There seems to be an assumption by many that complexity requires design. Since life is so complex it must be a result of said design.

i think this is because the difference between correlation and causation is difficult to explain and difficult at first to grasp for the scientifically uninitiated... it also helps to have at least an iq of 100 which makes it even more challenging for 50% of the population. simple-minded people like magluvin, bruce, tito, ramset, newtonII and the rest of the godtards like things cut and dry, either/or. so... when they hear scientists talk about probabilities rather than proof they think they're hedging or being evasive... and a person can spend page upon page (as evidenced by this thread) trying to educate them yet they still don't get it... nor will they in my opinion.