| Subject: Evidentally not |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 06/15/05 6:38am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "...evidence?" on 06/11/05 10:24pm
>
>Scientific theories are never proven, so that really
>isn't much of an issue.
Then I guess that means ANY crazy theory holds equal sway.
We can be reasonably
>confident that nature can't reasonably produce robots,
>trains, planes, and automobiles; even though we can't
>rigorously prove it.
But we cannot be reasonably confident that nature cannot produce life.
>
>We examine the currents of nature.
That's a very pat answer although rather useless.
>
>(2) is irrelevant. Think about it. Suppose (1)
>didn't apply; archaeologists find the Rosetta Stone
>and say, "Well, this could be human-made but we'll
>never know, because nature could produce something
>like this too."
A stone with some language sorts of things written on it is one thing, life is another.
No, they don't say that because it is
>overwhelmingly acknowledged that nature isn't
>reasonably capable of making something like the
>Rosetta Stone.
But life ISN'T overwhelmingly acknowledged as something nature couldn't create so so your example is a matter of comparing apples to oranges.
>
>Not at all. We detect it by examining the data,
>seeing if ID's empirical predictions come true etc.
Examining the data does absolutely no good if what we are looking for isn't well defined in the first place. So I'll ask you again, how does one know that something was designed and how do we know that that particular definition applies to life also?
>
>Known mathematics, known chemistry etc. It'll never
>be rigorous proof, but it is evidence.
Yes, it IS evidence. If I burn my hand on the stove that's also evidence. The difference is that if I burn my hand on the stove that isn't evidence that the entire world is 350 degrees.
Similarly, the extrapolations you are making concerning the "evidence" are unwarranted and require more of a leap of faith rather than logic.
And the
>assumption is falsifiable.
How would you falsify it? What would show that a designer ISN'T possible?
abiogenesis doesn't seem anywhere
>near as falsifiable; your constant arguments based on
>ignorance are evidence of this.
Basing your arguments on "known things" in this particular case doesn't really help your argument any because you are extrapolating these known things into extraordinary circumstances where they likely don't belong.
>
>Easy to say it with words, but what kind of experiment
>could show that it wasn't possible?
That one.
The appeal
>to laws we've never seen etc. seems to forever save
>the theory from anything we've discovered about what
>we currently know about nature.
If life can't come from non-life, then abiogensis isn't possible. The problems you are citing as uniquely abiogenesis's are not. It's a problem for ALL theories.
>
>
>I see, so inferring that--after careful
>examination--the robots were artificially created
>would be "jumping to a conclusion."
Yeah, that's right. Particularly in a vacuum of other sorts of knowledge especially as concerns other planets.
How about a
>perfect replica of a 1979 Oldsmobile found on Pluto?
>I suppose inferring design--even after careful
>examination to confirm that it is indeed
>identical--would be "jumping to a conclusion" as well?
In sufficiently extraordinary circumstances inferring design is premature.
>
>Nonetheless, ID is far more reasonable in this
>instance.
Nah.
>
>(1) It's irrelevant if nature can't reasonably produce
>it.
Except there's no way to know if nature is reasonably capable of producing life at this time.
(2) Suppose we design life. Then we'll now about
>it. What then?
We'll know how we went about designing life.
>
>Or suppose it’s the 17th century and we find a replica
>of a 1979 Oldsmobile. It isn’t of our design (yet)
>because we don’t have the ability to make it. The
>twentieth century comes around, and we can make
>automobiles. Was it rational to infer design in the
>17th century?
Again, given sufficinetly extraordinary circumstances, inferring ANYTHING is going to be premature unless one has the experience of those extraordinary circumstances under his belt.
>
>We can assume they follow the laws of known chemistry!
Which is a bit bold since "known chemistry" is a fraction of all knowledge of chemistry and life is apparently an extraordinary circumstance.
>
>That's not true at all (e.g. the laws of chemistry and
>physics).
The ratio of what we know to what we don't is woefully deficient when it comes to life. That's my point.
>
>Yep, and all that work scientists have been doing on
>that has failed miserably.
No, but it'd be arrogant to assume their work is mostly right and generalizabe to bigger problems.
>
>I don't think
That's apparent.
>
>No.
So you think there are maybe TWO ways of making functional proteins?
>
>The assumption that we know enough about the currents
>of nature to make a reasonable judgment? I don't
>think that assumption is as wobbly as you say.
Yeah, that'd be one of them...especially when it comes to life.
>I have given you known facts of chemistry and
>mathematical probability as basis for a particular
>claim.
And I reject your use of these facts in this particular realm. Extrapolating the data into extraordinary circumstances is not at all warranted here. Simply put, there IS too much ignorance on this subject for any particular objection to matter all that much. Life is still quite heavily in the discovery stage and not so much in the discussion stage. Your repeated attempts to treat current states of knowledge (or lack thereof in some cases) as though it answers this particular question demonstrates to me a lack of intellectual honesty on your behalf.
Appeal to ignorance all you want, but I
>appealed to known chemistry and mathematical
>probability.
And that doesn't help you here because it's too early in the game to apply these things because their implicit assumptions have quite a long way to go before they can be shown to be useful in this particular question.
>
>Oh? And what complication makes the mechanism
>unlikely?
A designer.
>
>That's because it isn't evidence.
Observation isn't evidence? I think you'd better reconsider your position on what evidence is.
>If something other than X happens, X is no longer
>highly probably true and thus your argument
>establishes nothing.
Sure it does. If something other than X happens, even if that thing was only expected to happen .5 then it's rational to believe the thing that happened .5 and not the thing that happens 99.5 percent of the time.
>
>Once again, I ask for some shred of evidence that I am
>"clearly" wrong.
And once again I've provided it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 