Evolution: The Deal Breaker

by Hadriel 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Hadriel - To suggest an intelligence is behind the diversity of life we see on Earth is, scientifically, exactly the same as saying God is behind it. Both avenues offer nothing in way of an explanation because you could say "intelligence" or "God" for everything we see here on Earth and we have no way of falsifying that claim. That is why Intelligent design, or God did it, is not scientific.

  To clarify, it matters not whether your intelligence is an alien or a god as both suggestions offer nothing for us to learn.

  However, if an Alien species were to land, or we were to find something on a nearby planet/moon, and we could analyse what makes them work then we would have some evidence with which to build a hypothesis that could then be tested. Up until that point the only life we have to study is what is here on Earth...

  As an aside there are scientists studying organic compounds found in space (profusely actually) and the scientific findings of those researchers may allow us to widen the net used to consider the beginnings of life on Earth.
• 

  cofty

  I'm more than happy to admit that there is evidence of evolution. You are unwilling to admit that intelligence could have kicked off the whole thing.

  I don't have an opinion about abiogenesis because the correct answer at this moment is "we don't know yet".

  Inserting an intelligent agency as a default answer is totally unscientific. It is a non-answer. A cop-out. A conversation stopper.

  Calling your thread "Evolution: The Deal Breaker" because you can't conceive a naturalistic answer to abiogenesis is ridiculous.

  
  
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "You are unwilling to admit that intelligence could have kicked off the whole thing" - Hadriel

  I don't think we are, I know that I do not dismiss that option. I do think we are unwilling to accept that the premise that an intelligence is responsible for life is scientific, for the reasons in my previous post.
• 

  Hadriel

  @IslandMan I totally get that. I'm not being difficult here. The problem for me is without knowing or being able to prove the initial catalyst I'm simply not able to say that well because of this evidentiary support that it means only one possible source.

  That's what evolutionists want. Common ancestry and genetic code means only one catalyst or origin. That is unwise.

  Are you guys telling me that you know unequivocally that the common genetic code we see that it could have only started one possible way, that being happenstance?

  Given we don't know....THAT is ignorant in my opinion.
• 

  Hadriel

  Inserting an intelligent agency as a default answer is totally unscientific.

  ...but insisting the theory of happenstance is? that is not realistic.
• 

  WatchtowerReviewz

  Hadriel said: Lots of people conveniently want to exclude the initial catalyst.

  What? We DO NOT KNOW what the "initial catalyst" was. You can speculate about this all you want but ultimately it comes down to pure speculation.

  In order for that theory of yours to be taken seriously, it needs to be testable and repeatable. Perhaps someday but not today.

  Hadriel said: You are unwilling to admit that intelligence could have kicked off the whole thing.

  I can't speak for everyone else but even respected scientists like Richard Dawkins leave a small opening to the possibility that maybe an intelligence did kick the whole thing off.

  The reason they don't waste time on that "possibility" is because in order to take it seriously you'd have to concede that a supernatural dimension exists. What evidence do we have that a supernatural dimension exists? NONE. Therefore why waste time giving this theory so much weight?

  Science sticks to what it can test and measure. So at least for now, serious science sticks to the natural world, the only world that we know exists for sure.
• 

  cofty

  ..but insisting the theory of happenstance is? that is not realistic.

  What exactly are you proposing is "happenstance", and what do you mean by "happenstance"?

  Why are you fixated on something you keep calling a catalyst? Every time somebody answers a question you reassert the same thing using a different undefined term.

  I have no idea when you are talking about abiogenesis and when you are talking about evolution and I suspect that is because neither do you.

  Natural selection is not about chance.

  You are railing against a straw man
• 

  cofty

  Hadriel - Let me propose the following analogy.

  You are on a jury. The prosecution lawyer has finished presenting the case against an alleged murderer.

  He has submitted DNA evidence, forensics, fingerprints, CCTV, multiple eye-witness testimony, phone records, ballistics and much, much more. Not a single piece of evidence has been refuted. The case is watertight.

  The defense lawyer has only one thing to say as follows...

  "We accept that there is a great deal of compelling evidence against my client however I put it to you that he is not the originator of this crime. He was paid to commit the killing by an unknown third party. Since nobody knows who this conspirator is, all of the evidence against my client is irrelevant."

  This is exactly how your objection sounds to me.
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  RThere was an interesting article a few weeks ago that looked at it from the point of view of physics. It took the perspective of living things as local and temporary systems that find efficient ways to capture energy and defy entropy. It showed how life is seems to be inevitable.

  cofty would you mind saying where you saw that, if you can remember please?
• 

  Vidiot

  cofty - "I am really struggling to understand your objection..."

  He's already kind of explained it on the previous page:

  hadriel - "The insatiable desire to bring God into the equation is exhausting..."