| Subject: From our sponsor |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/15/05 9:00am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Insert nonsensical title of the post here" on 05/ 5/05 2:01pm
>
>You think there are "quote a few folks" who believe
>life cannot be artificially created?
In the absence of life-like building blocks? Yes.
>
>Critics nonetheless claim that abiogenesis has no
>means to work with. An experimental demonstration of a
>means would carry great weight in supporting the
>theory, not to mention disproving ID. The opposite
>just isn't nearly as true for ID.
If there is no way to create life from non-life, positing a creator is a bit silly because there isn't any possible way for that creator to have made life. Part of being a creator is having the ability to make something. If that ability isn't there, then a hypothesis of a creator is useless.
The lack of a mechanism with regards to ID is MORE fatal in this sense because it robs the creator of the ability to create.
>
>Not really, for a number of reasons. One, if
>abiogenesis has a means, an intelligent agent could
>create life merely by simulating natural conditions.
>If abiogenesis does not have a means (and life began
>to exist) ID would still have a means (because life
>got there somehow).
Life getting here "somehow" makes a big difference especially in exactly how that "How" went down for the reason I stated above.
>
>No. I am assuming the amino acids were also created
>artificially.
What about the nucleotides? Those too?
>
>No. I do claim that there is pre-existing matter, I
>am not assuming the building blocks (e.g. amino
>acids) were always there.
Then what possible mechanism is there for a creator to make life if none of that exists?
>
>Not necessarily. Note the multiple problems I pointed
>out earlier. You've simply ignored them and claimed
>(without reason) that one is "bound to get a viable
>sequence." If that is true the problems I pointed out
>need to be overcome.
If nucleotides were already here, then through random jumbling and fumbling viable sequences are going to occasionally be made. It's not really any more radical than claiming a deck of cards will occasionally produce patterns of high significance to us given time.
>
>It is true that just because something is an
>inference, it doesn't necessarily imply that the
>inference is rational. But there are obvious cases of
>rational inferences (e.g. scientific theories).
I don't agree that there are obvious cases of rational inferences. They are simply inferences. Talking about a "rational inference" makes as much sense to me as talking about a "sad rock".
Why
>wouldn't this inference be the most rational
>one?
see above.
>
>So if the explanation is probably true why wouldn't it
>be the most reasonable one?
Because rationality isn't based on mathematical probability alone. I've already addressed this.
>
>That's true for a lot of scientific theories.
>Nonetheless they are rational to believe.
They are certainly viable, but I don't think it makes sense to talk about inferences and rationality together.
>
>If it is known with near-certainty that the theory is
>true, why wouldn't be rational to believe?
Because the moment that it isn't true, it is no longer rational despite the fact that it has a high probability of being right.
>
>No, but ID has the capability of producing biochemical
>machinery (whether it be through nanites or something
>else).
This sounds pretty far-fetched, but even if we grant that ID has the capability of producing machinery, there is still the problem of where the designer himself came from, and it is a problem because eventually one is forced into an abiogensis sort of stance unless life keeps coming from increasingly larger designers.
Note the problems of getting functional
>proteins. Do you understand why some scientists have
>taken that as evidence for ID?
I understand why people sometimes take the absence of evidence as evidence for something else, but I don't think it's a very good way to go about reasoning.
>
>But let's take a hypothetical example. If life
>had a beginning and there are indeed problems of
>abiogenesis that cannot be reasonably surmounted, you
>would not constitute this as evidence for ID?
No. I'd take it as evidence that abiogenesis is wrong.
>
>What assumptions? (Note: I may make the criticism of
>special pleading if you tell me what the assumptions
>are.) That ID is necessary? Empirically testable and
>falsifiable predictions exist for that.
Namely that there is a designer and the he/she can be expected to do x.
>
>The text that comes after the paragraph you quoted
>does indeed explain the problems of appealing to
>unknown laws. You simply skipped over it.
Thanks for posting it here for all to see since it did such a grand job of explaining it.
>
>And yet we've never seen this imaginary law that is
>supposed to be fundamental and universal.
I've never seen an imaginary designer either.
>
>There are a number of problems here. One, as I have
>already pointed out, we have a fundamental universal
>law that tends towards higher entropy, the
>exact opposite direction.
So what? I guess life on Earth is impossible by this observation.
Second, this imaginary law
>will have to be consistent with known laws, and that
>includes the laws of chemistry (note the chemical
>problems of abiogenesis).
Laws don't always have to be consistent with known laws, but it certainly is nice when they are.
>
>Third, note that in this case ID is appealing to what
>we do know about mathematical probability and
>known chemistry. In this case, abiogenesis is
>appealing to laws that we don't know about and
>haven't observed.
The ID has some mechanism for creating life from non-life that we KNOW about?
>
>Not really, no more than life on Earth anyway. The
>only thing we know is that both were intelligently
>designed. Aliens are an equally good explanation here.
I don't think we know that both were "intelligently" designed, but this issue is a bit off the point anyway.
>
>How do I know that amino acids need to be made of
>matter? I suggest you read an introductory book on
>biochemistry.
So because we've seen amino acids made of visible matter that means that that's the ONLY WAY for amino acids to be produced?
>>
>>But that's not the ONLY thing you have to assume was
>>uniform. You have to assume that as you go backwards
>>in time the laws are uniform
>
>Well, yes. However, ID would not be alone in making
>that assumption for Earth 4 million years ago.
>Origin-of-life researchers also assume the laws of
>chemistry were the same etc.
It's one thing four million years ago, it's another when it's 22 billion years ago.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 