Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

a reply to: whereislogic

It's not terminology I have a problem with, it's the suggestion that these organisms or processes were specifically designed for their purpose, which in turn would suggest they are perfect. There are functions of various natural organisms which are not perfect, be that inefficient, prone to error, or any number of imperfect reactions or resolutions. Creation by a perfect creator wouldn't have these issues,

a reply to: TerraLiga

Intelligent design doesn’t have to be perfect. Cars don’t last forever do they? Yet the design and manufacture is the result of intelligence. Maybe this is one simulation among many in order to find a perfect solution to a problem.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Simple process?

originally posted by: whereislogic
Then if I point that out, you'll just deny it again. Even though it's obvious from my previous commentary that none of these things you bring up now is part of my argumentation and if there's any "wide-brushing" going on, it would be you trying to paint that onto my argumentation.

Your argument is pointless. You are trying to suggest that just using the term machine for anything also means intelligent design. Why don't you go ask the people who used it in the papers if they also meant intelligent design? Word use doesn't physically change anything.

originally posted by: Grenade

Intelligent design doesn’t have to be perfect. Cars don’t last forever do they? Yet the design and manufacture is the result of intelligence. Maybe this is one simulation among many in order to find a perfect solution to a problem.

Is God not perfect, can he not make perfect things? Evolution is far from perfect. The best way to explain is "just good enough" so you and others are saying God is just good enough?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... You are trying to suggest that just using the term machine for anything also means intelligent design.

You and TerraLiga have already acknowledged that machines are the product of engineering, because your answer to the first question was yes. That means that the term "natural machines" that you mentioned is contradictory if it is meant to imply that these machines were the product of a natural process, the forces of nature (in the context that you used it). And that is not engineering. There is no such thing as a "natural machine" in that sense.

It sounds like you want to go back on your admission that machines are the product of engineering when you suggest terms like "natural machines".

And no, I am not "trying to suggest that just using the term machine for anything also means intelligent design." (straw man again) Technically, I haven't even used the term "intelligent design" in my argument or questions, but even if you swap it out with "engineering", that still wouldn't be my argument. My 2nd point in my argumentation is that the things shown in the videos that are called "machines" by biologists and biochemists, really are machines. The term is entirely appropiate and accurate/factual. So, just using the term machine is not the crux of my argument. The crux would be the fact that they are machines, and that has logical implications for their origin, and that's the main reason why you deny that fact/reality (the answer to the 2nd question being "no" for you, even though you didn't spell it out, that's what I gathered from your response shortly after I raised the 2 main points/questions to TerraLiga, and just like TerraLiga just now using the term "processes" instead, referring to chemical processes seemingly, you used the term "chemical reactions" to change the subject, which was not the processes or reactions in the cell, but the machinery or enzymes in the cell, which is not the same thing).

a reply to: Xtrozero

Who knows, I don’t know nor claim to know God personally. It’s entirely possible the creator of this universe could be flawed.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: whereislogic

It's not terminology I have a problem with, ...

But you do disagree with the statement that these are machines (you answered the 2nd question with "no"). So unlike the ones I quoted speaking about these things as if they really are machines, you do not agree that these are machines. That's probably why you didn't use that term in the rest of your sentence, cause you prefer to talk about "organisms or processes", in the process changing the subject, cause I was neither talking about whole organisms nor the chemical processes that take place in the cell. Neither is an appropiate alternative term for the "molecular machinery" spoken about in the article I quoted that speaks about the specific things in the cell I'm referring to also referred to as "enzymes". The enzyme or molecular machine is not the or a process.

Your point about perfection is of no relevance yet, since I haven't brought up a perfect creator yet since I raised my main 2 points/questions. Moving on to that subject would involve more theology, and I don't think you are ready to be receptible to any theological discussion on that matter (concerning perfection).

Whether or not something is "perfect" is often in the eye of beholder anyway. What a perfect God (Creator) would consider "perfect" may not be the same as what His intelligent creation (referring to mankind or angels; animals don't really contemplate these issues) might view as "perfect". Especially if they (some people) are biased to view something as less than perfect. Because they want to use it as an argument the way you did.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Xtrozero

Simple process?

This is textbook machinery on the micromolecular level. If they google "cellular machinery" they will realize this is a very commonly used term because it is the best definition for how proteins and other macromolecules in the cell function.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Whereislogic: 1. Are machinery and technology the product of engineering? Yes or no? (the argument of induction above is based on the established fact that they are, i.e. "yes")

TerraLiga: 1. Yes, of course. Products are designed for a purpose or function, unless they have none, in which case it is art.

You will likely deny it, but this is essentially admitting that cellular machinery was engineered.

originally posted by: whereislogic

You and TerraLiga have already acknowledged that machines are the product of engineering, because your answer to the first question was yes. That means that the term "natural machines" that you mentioned is contradictory if it is meant to imply that these machines were the product of a natural process, the forces of nature (in the context that you used it). And that is not engineering. There is no such thing as a "natural machine" in that sense.

My original answer was this "Humans make things, I get it... There could be much higher intelligence out there too, I get it.."

Then you would not let up with the yes or no and I said "OK I'll play your game" I know that game is just a weak logic loop using these human terms as the mechanisms to try and entrap me. You are the only one using the statement "machines are the product of engineering", so that is your point, not anyone else.

You need to go ask the people using the term machine as to what they mean, not me.

originally posted by: Grenade

Who knows, I don’t know nor claim to know God personally. It’s entirely possible the creator of this universe could be flawed.

Well, then it would not be the God from the bible then. Also, if there was it wouldn't matter as you suggest since they are outside of our universe. The only problem I have is we use intelligent design to explain ourselves, but where did they come from? Seems like a continuous loop down a bottomless hole. Having unlimited universes popping in and out of existence all having different properties is a cleaner idea for me, but in the end, they all are unprovable.

a reply to: Xtrozero

For the last time, I'm not a Christian.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Not trying to entrap you or playing any games. As explained before, just trying to figure out what exactly your point of contention is regarding the argument of induction that life's machinery is the product of engineering.

When you answer the question "Are machinery and technology the product of engineering?" with "yes" (which you did), then you are agreeing to the statement that "machines are the product of engineering" (only a slight rephrase, meaning is the same). If that's not actually the case (if you don't agree with that statement), you really shouldn't have said "yes", that's just confusing. How on earth am I going to figure out your position on this particular already well-established fact/certainty/truth/reality then if you do that? When you say:

You are the only one using the statement "machines are the product of engineering", so that is your point, not anyone else.

It almost sounds like you don't agree with that statement, but you don't spell it out that you don't agree with it, what's up with that? Now I still don't know whether or not you can agree with that observed fact.

I already know what these "people using the term machine" mean with the word "machine", it's not a complicated word. I know what a machine is. And they say that these things in the cell also referred to as enzymes, are in fact machines (or machinery). As quoted in the examples. If they don't mean "machines", they should not call them "machines", and say what they mean. But there is no indication that they don't mean "machines". I did not ask you what they mean with it either, for the same reason.

a reply to: whereislogic

You're both playing semantics. Machine is a verb and a noun, and could also be used as a simile, as in "You're a machine!" when referring to someone who can make 30 pizzas an hour on a busy Friday night, or can drive the fasted lap consistently.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Both examples of intelligence driven processes.

originally posted by: Grenade

For the last time, I'm not a Christian.

I know, I'm just saying for the sake of the discussion. It's a little frustrating that you want to talk about your version of intelligent design, Cooperton wants to beat me with his bible and talk about spontaneous life, whereislogic wants to do a little less with the God-lite approach ...lol

While all of you do not show any disagreements among each other though your all views can be vastly different too. When my view is that it can be intelligent design, or not, and in both cases, it is an unfalsifiable statement, so there really isn't an answer. I'm the one that is wrong.

lol geez

originally posted by: Grenade

Both examples of intelligence driven processes.

The point is a machine can be the Sun too, we could call the solar system a machine. whereislogic is suggesting if we label something a machine then that means 100% that it is intelligent design too. I asked him to go back and ask the authors that used these terms if that is what they meant. They will most likely say no, we just used the term because chemical reactions can have moving parts in the process so it was easy to just say organic machine.

a reply to: whereislogic

Let's just say that your statement "machines are the product of engineering" is not correct in suggesting all machines. I would be more inclined to say that technology is a product of engineering whereas the term machine is more of a term describing a process that could be intelligent design or not. Saying that the usage of any word doesn't write in stone what something is or is not. I might use the term engineering to explain something totally non-intelligence and you could disagree with me, but in my use, it doesn't automatically suggest anything.

This is what happens when you make blanket statements and demand just a yes or no answer. Hence why I said, OK...I'll play your game.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: whereislogic

Let's just say that your statement "machines are the product of engineering" is not correct in suggesting all machines. I would be more inclined to say that technology is a product of engineering whereas the term machine is more of a term describing a process that could be intelligent design or not. Saying that the usage of any word doesn't write in stone what something is or is not. I might use the term engineering to explain something totally non-intelligence and you could disagree with me, but in my use, it doesn't automatically suggest anything.

This is what happens when you make blanket statements and demand just a yes or no answer. Hence why I said, OK...I'll play your game.

Biologists use the term cellular machinery because it acts like engineered machinery. ATP synthase works just like a motor...

When you have to start re-defining words to salvage your belief system that's a sign you're straying from objective reality

originally posted by: cooperton

Biologists use the term cellular machinery because it acts like engineered machinery. ATP synthase works just like a motor...

When you have to start re-defining words to salvage your belief system that's a sign you're straying from objective reality

Great, your opinion. I'm not redefining anything, it's you all putting absolutes on the meaning of words.

If the word machine is ever used then it must mean engineering too which must mean intelligent design... Blah blah blah...