Would this Origin of life model work?

That’s a different argument. I disagree, but let’s not go there.

OK, but then you also need to empirically demonstrate that God can create life. That will be difficult! :wink:

I’m not separating, I’m saying it’s irrelevant to the problem of falsification.

It applies to your hypothesis. The claim that it doesn’t apply to you is very strange, but probably not worth arguing about. :wink:

False dichotomy.

I shot this down somewhere above. I think you aren’t reading.

It’s your term. I agree you didn’t really mean random ITFP, but it didn’t seem worth fussing over.

Articles are also published to present ideas to the scientific community for consideration. It does not mean they are proven. Also, it’s still irrelevant to the question of falsification.

2 Likes

Time for a little review, I think. Maybe a LOT of review …

AND it still bears repeating.

This should be a stopper.

AND you agree it is a stopper.

We have.

There have been many fatal blows, you fail to acknowledge them.

Again you agree the objections are valid, and then present a time-travel argument as a dodge? I think that should count as two stoppers.

AND it is increasingly wrong to even pretend you have a hypothesis. You are arguing from a false premise, which is why there are so many easily contradictions.

Another stopper that bears repeating.

This was especially silly, and remains unfalsifiable.

[quote=“Dan_Eastwood, post:76, topic:13971”]

Wrong is another stopper.

I missed this bit about squirrels on the first pass. Yes, squirrels can generate new information too. Stopper.

And you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

If God can influence the physical world, there must be matter and/or energy involved in some way. Not a stopper, just wrong.

Pretty sure this stopper was entirely ignored.

AND still haven’t.

I think you are arguing from a false premise. It would explain all of this. (And it’s a stopper).

QM=/=Falsification.

You do not understand Information Theory, at least not deeply. That lack of understanding is making you say some silly things.

Yeah, I’m going back to "moving the GP on this one. Stopper.

If your hypothesis depend on redefining reality, can I play too? :wink:

How simple can I make this. God would certainly be sufficient (contingent on existence), but is God necessary? I think we could name any number things for which God’s direct action is not necessary. Thank goodness you aren’t one of those annoying people who get really pedantic about God being necessary for ever tiny detail!

You can only get away with this because you haven’t defined God, allowing you to wriggle away from ever answering the question of falsifying you hypothesis.

Well that’s good, because you haven’t.

This still remains. Back to the definition problem again. Stopper.

I am glad you agree at least to the constraint of consistency for God. However, this can only be assumed, not proven. Stopper.

AND you haven’t answered yet! Stopper.

Really, what does it take?

This remains true.

Falling back to a definition of Reality seems to be the final fatal blow. It’s really grasping at straws, straws that may or may not actually exist in our reality.:wink:

How?

Sorry for the length, but I think I’m done here. :slight_smile:

6 Likes

I admire your patience, sir.

4 Likes

@Meerkat_SK5 , don’t get me wrong - it’s very pleasant to discuss with you, but I think it topic has run its course, several times over. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

After careful reading of everything leading up to your last response including previous topics, I think you might be on to something with one of your objections that I just picked up on. Here it is…

I just realized that I never fully established that God operates the same way that humans do, which would give us a basis to constrain the hypothesis to human behavior like what we see with SETI and forensic science. I was planning on doing this in the next topic, but I think it’s best if I do it now.

In the past, I argued that this designer mimics the behavioral patterns of modern humans based on the “remarkable similarities we see between genomes and natural languages”:

Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116

Here is the objection to this…

Well, we have experiments showing how the genetic code was artificially created by human minds by infusing information into DNA to get a self-replicating molecule. But, the experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time.

This suggests that the information we see observationally in DNA was artificially created instead because as you suggested before …

Therefore, we can infer that DNA information and human information are identical (or at least highly similar) based on those experiments

So going back to what you said here…

Thus, we have good reasons to believe that this causal agent is not only an intelligent designer but a common designer rather than a mysterious one. We can test this in accordance to human behavior by allowing human intervention to take place in experiments and have it count as potential evidence for or against the hypothesis. As I mentioned in previous topics, I am not the only who has made this argument for testability:

“On one endpoint, you have a view of God as an intrinsically mysterious agent. Human reason is simply incapable of penetrating into the mysterious God’s motives, mechanisms, and the like. On the other end of the continuum, there is God as a rational God, a God whose motives and mechanisms are analogous to those of human intelligence (a phrase that came up in an earlier talk). In other words, a rational God is a God that we can understand in some important sense of that word."

Can Intelligent Design Become Respectable? | National Center for Science Education (ncse.ngo)

Remember, I am ultimately arguing for the Judeo-Christian God. This means that the designer would be Jesus Christ who was both divine and human according to the facts:

The Resurrection, Evidence, and The Scientist - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum

So there is nothing mysterious or ill-defined about this designer, as you keep suggesting. Besides, you are creating a double standard if you suggest we have to have access to the designer to prove their existence. This is not a requirement from SETI.

No, I think you overstating what I was trying to convey before. In regards to verifying the hypothesis, I am just saying we can’t falsify the prediction that God is still guiding evolution as we speak or after humans were created because we can’t rule out other minds that might of produced the effect. That’s it! Other than this, we can infer from origin of life experiments that a Divine mind was probably the designer for the first life on earth regarding past events.

However, when it comes to falsification of the whole hypothesis, this would not matter.

As per usual, it is hard to discern what you are trying to claim here @Meerkat_SK5.

Please provide a primary-source citations for (i) these “experiments showing how the genetic code was designed by human minds that infuse information into the DNA to get a self-replicating molecule” and (ii) these “experiments attempting to show this same information evolved naturally ended up yielding negative results every time”.

Balderdash. Neither of your above claims (even if true) have anything to do with “human language”, so are a complete non sequitor to your absurd claim of identity/similarity between human language and DNA.

2 Likes

Poliovirus Baked From Scratch | Science | AAAS (sciencemag.org)

Genetic requirements for cell division in a genomically minimal cell: Cell

Total synthesis of Escherichia coli with a recoded genome | Nature

Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE): A Guide Focused on Evolving Protein–DNA Interactions (nih.gov)

Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention | Nature Communications

"The results of this analysis bolster the analogy between genomes and natural language and show that a “quasi-universal grammar” underlies the evolution of domain architectures in all divisions of cellular life. "

Grammar of protein domain architectures | PNAS

This means that we can infer that the information in DNA is identical (or at least highly similar) to human language since they produce the same effect in those experiments in the form of a self-replicating molecule.

@Meerkat_SK5

if human language == DNA, please translate

“Hello Meerkat_SK5, nice to meet you!”

into DNA.

Thanks!

2 Likes

Analogies collapse and that happens here as well. Its in the paper:

Did you also miss this part in the paper too?:

We see universal common descent for both languages and cellular organisms. Super.

2 Likes

It’s funny you point this out. Read this:

Next-generation digital information storage in DNA - PubMed (nih.gov)

Well, this is why I am not relying solely on observations but on experiments as well in order to justify the inference.

First, experiments involve observations made under controlled conditions. You will always need observations to test your hypothesis.

Second, all you have done in this thread and previous ones is prance around with poorly articulated arguments. You are wasting everyone’s time.

2 Likes

You did not understand Witchdoc’s comment, hence this irrelevant response.

1 Like

Sorry about that. I went back and made changes to the argument to make it more clear and coherent. Just go read it again.

My bad. What was your point in your response?

I won’t go back, because I have done that and nothing changed. You keep on repeating nonsensical claims and misconceptions, as well as ideas which are unsupported by data.

1 Like

What misconceptions and nonsensical claims?

I think you need to study some basic science textbooks first for you to even see where and how you went wrong.

The more one knows, the better one knows what they do not know, and see when others point out where they are in error.

As Aristotle said,

The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.

The converse also applies; the less you know, the less you know you don’t know.

My studies have helped me see but a tiny bit into the depths of the sheer amount of biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics I know I don’t know and don’t understand; and correspondingly how much I don’t even know I don’t know.

2 Likes

I agree, but that is basically what I have been doing ever since I have gotten here. I continue to do this you know. I am constantly learning and changing my approach and hypothesis. As a result, We made a lot of progress despite your lack of acknowledgement.

Trying to learn science via online forums is like trying to learn dancing on skype.

Not time efficient for everyone involved and not very effective.

What are some things you have learned during your time thus far here?