| Subject: Circumstance |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/29/05 6:05pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Romp." on 04/29/05 11:41am
>>
>
>In this scenario, the odds of getting the right order
>of the cards is less than 1 in 10^67. The fact that
>one person might think a theory is not highly probable
>is irrelevant. If the theory actually is
>highly probable, it is rational to believe.
By what criteria does one determine if something is ACTUALLY HIGHLY probable? If there is no agreement on this, how do we know that "actually highly probable" even exists let alone whether or not it constitutes rational belief? That's my point.
>
>Life does not at all proceed "quite nicely" from
>non-life.
It might very well. You glibly speak on the subject as though it were a closed matter.
Again, without the benefit of
>pre-existing biochemical machinery there is no
>known means to evolve life from non-life without
>artificial intervention.
I'm not aware of a mechanism by which artifical intervention can make life from non-life. Are you?
You're either arguing an
>irrelevant point or are simply confused as to what
>I've been talking about (or both).
No, you seemed to imply that because humans are known to "create" life that that lends itself to supporting the notion that life is designed per my definition of detecting design. However, you overlooked the fact that life continues on without human intervention at all.
>
>I never said that. You asked "if life doesn't need
>help to make more life, why should it need to have
>help concerning non-life?" My answer is that life has
>a means, non-life does not (evidently).
Then explain to me how one makes life from non-life. (Since that is the mechanism that you are raising such a fuss about concerning abiogenesis)
>>
>>So that's it eh?
>
>That would do it. It would certainly falsify ID with
>devastating effectiveness.
And that's the ONLY experiment that would falsify ID?
>
>Yes they are. That's a big reason why physical laws
>are rational to believe. They make heavily confirmed,
>falsifiable predictions.
Based upon EVIDENCE. Predictions by themselves are simply that, predictions. If I say "I believe that Bradd Pitt and Jenifer Lopez are going to marry in a month" that is NOT evidence in and of itself. What IS evidence is when they are married.
>
>Even so, it is complicated. My point? Being
>complicated isn't enough of a reason, especially when
>the added "complication" yields explanatory power and
>makes repeatedly confirmed falsifiable predictions of
>data that are otherwise problematic.
It's a good thing that I never maintained that complication ALONE is grounds to reject a theory. I said that complication often results from a set of simple assumptions that are tested over time but that the inital set of assumptions are quite simple and testable. Then, I went on to say that theories that are COMPLICATED from the beginning are apt to be wrong because experience demonstrates this quite clearly.
I'm not sure whether you are obfuscating the issue intentionally or accidentally, but a cursory glance over my other posts will confirm this.
>
>It is a simple concept.
A concept being simple does not mean that what it describes is simple.
>
>Purely random processes are insufficient for many
>aspects of life (as I demonstrated in my last post).
Based on a laboratory oven?
>
>I explained why appealing to such undiscovered laws
>would not be reasonable in explaining the origin of
>biological information.
And what bit was it that ruled out undiscovered laws?
And let’s not forget the
>second law of thermodynamics.
I'm not advocating that that IS the way life came about, my purpose was to show that there are other possibilities.
As an aside though, there wouldn't really be anything to prevent entropy decreasing resulting in the formulation of life so long as it increased elsewhere. (like body heat)
>
>Why not? Sounds like special pleading to me.
It has to do with the fact that we have an answer to our question already. "Who designed these robots? Aliens. Okay, that's WEIRD, but we can go from there."
When ID poses these questions it's more like, "Alright, so life was designed. Who designed it? A designer. Okay, well, what was the designer like? Dunno, just know it was designed. Well, can we do anything to find out more about the designer? Nope, ID is mute on the point."
Aliens are at least SPECIFIC enough to test out in principle, but a nameless, faceless designer is not.
>>
>>Cannot be answered EVER is different than cannot be
>>answered.
>
>How so? Both cannot be answered.
Cannot be answered ever implies that it can NEVER be answered, whereas cannot be answered doesn't imply any finality. It's a temporal difference, but an important one.
>
>That you've been doing special pleading?
Nice try.
>That's going to be difficult if you define
>"creationist" as someone who believes that artificial
>intervention is necessary. If not, Behe would be an
>example I believe.
Behe is debateable, but we'll go ahead and admit him. That's one. Who else comprises these "reams"?
>
>Not when it comes to numbers such as these. Even a
>million billion years is only about 10^23
>seconds for example. Also note the number of atoms
>estimated to exist in this universe. Even chance has
>its limits.
Atoms are probably not the only "stuff" out there in the universe, and even so, as it cannot be agreed upon how much MATTER is in the universe, I seriously doubt that any atom estimation is going to be anywhere near correct.
>
>Alas, many abiogenesis adherents have exactly the same
>attitude I satired. "The problem is not fatal,
>because there could be undiscovered laws..."
There COULD be, and most likely are undiscovered laws unless you actually think we know the majority of the way life formed already.
>>The "visible universe" is unquestionably a very small
>>portion of THE universe.
>
>Do you know what the phrase "visible universe" means?
>The Big Bang theory implies that the universe has only
>a finite amount of matter. "Visible universe"
>encompasses all the matter this universe contains.
>Amino-acid combinations obviously can't work without
>matter.
That's not a very common way of phrasing that then. There are things like dark matter which are not visible at all. Usually a distinction is drawn between the "visible" universe and the "parts that we cannot see but seem to be there."
Also, there is usually a distinction drawn between the visible universe which means that part of the universe in which light has had time to reach us and the parts which haven't.
Here's a definition from Cornell: "So what I really should say is that the visible universe contains all the objects whose light had to travel less than 13.7 billion light-years to reach us. For anything that is farther away, the light from it would not yet have had a chance to get here."
So that really isn't all inclusive of the matter in the universe. It's just the matter we can see.
>
>We can of course appeal to infinitely many
>unobservable universes (a similar approach has been
>used to counter the "fine-tuning" of physical
>constants) but that seems a rather desperate ploy to
>avoid design.
It would seem that there is plenty in our own universe we can't see.
>
>Saying that doesn't make the chemical problems go
>away. Even if you heat the amino acids for billions
>of years all over the universe, you are not going to
>get proteins.
Really? So you have personal knowledge about the ENTIRE universe at all times and places? I know why you believe ID now! YOU must be the designer!
The laws of chemistry don't work that
>way. Another means is needed to create proteins.
The laws of chemistry as defined by the existence of man for how long in the scheme of the entire universe?
>
>I said other alternative. All those you
>mentioned are still organic evolution. "So there is
>indeed an alternative I'd accept to organic evolution
>besides design....organic evolution." But methinks
>you just forgot the context of my quote.
I'm not sure a physical law that leans towards the creation of life is exactly organic evolution. It'd be something quite a bit more fundamental.
>
>Well, yes it is, since there would indeed be no better
>explanation.
Alright, so as there is currently no explanation for what the "atoms" of the universe are, I'm going to say that they are mysterious eggs caused by magical care bears who monitor the space-time continuum. Do I win a prize?
>
>Confer my scenario of twentieth-century forensics:
>Criminal X's fingers are the only known means for
>Criminal X's fingerprints. ID being the only known
>means certainly does help the theory to at least some
>degree, even if you don't consider it to be enough for
>rational acceptance.
How does ID create life from non-life?
>Let's put you in the twentieth-century and have you
>argue that in a court of law, when you have no known
>means by which that could happen. Think you'd
>convince a jury? I doubt it.
I'm pretty sure there was a thing called latex in the twentieth century not to mention plastics and molds, but that's a moot point.
>
>Or how about, "This wasn't murder. There could be
>undiscovered natural processes that could have killed
>the man and we just haven't discovered it yet." Think
>you'd convince a jury with that one?
No, and I also don't think that "vampire bats flew out of my ass and sucked the blood out of the victim" is a good answer either, but then again, both your explanation and this one are preposterous with yours having the added advantage of being a really keen strawman.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 