Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/15/05 2:32pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "From our sponsor" on 05/15/05 9:00am
>>You think there are "quote a few folks" who believe
>>life cannot be artificially created?
>
>In the absence of life-like building blocks? Yes.
Given that the building blocks (I assume we're talking about amino acids) can be created artificially (and this has been demonstrated experimentally) why believe this?
>>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
Given life has a beginning, there has to be some way to create life, remember?
>>No. I am assuming the amino acids were also created
>>artificially.
>
>What about the nucleotides? Those too?
Of course. Not only nucleotides, but also DNA and RNA. Already we human scientists can do so.
>>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?
The creator can create those building blocks, of course.
>>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.
You might want to see this post again before you make that claim. For a viable sequence to be made the problems I pointed out have to be overcome, including the mathematical one. All you’ve done so far is ignore those problems. But ignoring the problems doesn’t make them go away.
>It's not really any more radical
>than claiming a deck of cards will occasionally
>produce patterns of high significance to us given time.
See above. When you do the math, it turns out to be quite radical.
>>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".
Okay, then we're (apparently) back at the claim that by definition, inferences cannot be rational. I already noted there is nothing in the definition that precludes rationality. Additionally, are you saying atomic theory is not rational? Perhaps more appropriately, are you saying evolution is not rational? Remember, all those things are inferences (by definition).
>>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.
Why not? For instance...
>>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.
That doesn't make any sense. Rationality does not equal certainty, and rationality does not equal omniscience. Obviously, if it is known with certainty that the theory is not true, then the theory is not rational to believe. If it is known with near-certainty (say, 99%) that the theory is true, then it is rational ("agreeable to reason") to believe at that time even if the theory turns out to be false. For instance, I have rational reason to believe that if I purchase a lottery ticket, I will lose. Suppose I win. It was still rational at that time to believe that I would lose. Of course, if my theory was proven wrong it is no longer rational to believe, but it's awfully easy to predict the score when the game's over.
>>No, but ID has the capability of producing biochemical
>>machinery (whether it be through nanites or something
>>else).
>
>This sounds pretty far-fetched
No more far-fetched than the theory that undirected chemical reactions can create them!
The belief that nanites are possible form of technology is a long ways away from being far-fetched by the way. Nearly all physicists believe that it is possible.
>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
Why is that a problem?
>and it is a problem because
>eventually one is forced into an abiogensis sort of
>stance
Why?
Think back to the robots on Pluto example. We have no idea where the designer comes from. Does that mean we should reject ID?
The standard "we should reject it because we don't know where the designer came from" sounds more like rhetoric than reason.
>>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
Read the post again. It is not the absence of evidence, but what we do know about chemistry and mathematical probability here. In contrast, abiogenesis has to rely on laws that we don't know about and haven't observed. If anything, it's abiogenesis that's relying on the absence of evidence (e.g. for such laws).
>>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.
Let me rephrase. If life had a beginning and there are indeed a number of problems with abiogenesis that cannot reasonably be surmounted, would this not constitute this as evidence for the theory (that artificial intervention was necessary to create life)?
>>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.
Not really. The designer is pretty vague as far as motives go, but the theory nonetheless is that "artificial intervention is necessary." But if you include that as an assumption, note that the same assumption is made with the robots on Pluto example. Should we reject ID in the Pluto scenario on that basis?
Remember, I warned you about special pleading.
>>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.
No, but you're missing the point. In the situation we were talking about, ID bases its claims on what we do know about chemistry and mathematical probability. What you proposed is a law (supposedly universal and fundamental) that we don't know about and we have never observed.
>>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?
So, the existence of this supposed fundamental and universal law looks less plausible.
>>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 in that case, if the law is inconsistent with known laws and there's no shred of evidence that the known laws are false, your law is looking even more implausible.
>>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?
In this case (of what we were talking about), ID has a known mechansim. ID has a known mechanism for creating functional proteins. We human scientists have laboratory equipment that can do that. In contrast, abiogenesis does not have a known mechanism and instead has a number of unresolved problems that ID accounts for and explains.
In any case, the point remains valid. In this case, ID bases its claims on observed evidence (known chemistry, mathemtical probability), abiogenesis bases its claims on the absence of evidence (e.g. undiscovered laws).
>>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
Well, you're missing the point. Your objection fails because we can't narrow down who the designer is in either the Pluto scenario or the life-on-earth scenario.
>>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?
By definition of what amino acids are, yes. All amino acids are made of atoms.
But perhaps I'm confused what you mean by "visible matter." Remember when I said the "visible universe" I was only referring to all the atoms in this universe. Remember, the known physical universe has an enormous--but finite--number of atoms. (Remember, because of the Big-Bang and the universal speed limit the universe is only of finite size.)
>>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.
But the universe isn't that old, for one thing. And second, do you honestly believe that's a satisfactory solution to the problem? Functional proteins were created 22 billion years ago because the physical laws were different back then and produced the proteins?
In that case, I propose the physical laws were different back then to create the robots that now exist on Pluto.
That doesn't sound plausible.
Special pleading?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 