| Subject: Pomp |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/28/05 8:45pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Tertiary" on 04/28/05 3:27pm
>
>Thank you.
For showing you the error of your ways? No problem.
>
>Nonetheless, you have avoided the question. And I
>don't think what you say is true. If it a theory's
>veracity is known to be "highly probable," why
>wouldn't it be rational to believe?
Because what people evaluate as "highly probable" varies from person to person. One person may think it's highly probable that the world is going to end, but that doesn't therefore make it rational.
>
>In my scenario they did; experimentally demonstrate a
>means for ID. Of course this scenario hasn't happened
>yet. But I do believe a number of experiments yield
>evidence for ID (in the form of confirmed, falsifiable
>predictions).
It sounds like you have a bit of a double standard. Why not believe in rabid wombats instead?
>>Well, on the one hand you use the fact that humans
>>intervene as evidence that life needs help, but when I
>>point out that life in fact doesn't need help quite
>>frequently, you begin to shift the question back to
>>life vs nonlife.
>
>What do you mean "shift"? That's what I've been
>talking about all along!
No you haven't. You've specifically talked about how PEOPLE can intermediate and make life and that that somehow lends credibility to the idea that life needs interlopers in order to exist, but you've ignored the fact that life proceeds quite nicely without any interference whatsoever from designers of any kind even as we speak.
>
>
>
>Because the biochemical machinery used to create more
>life was not present for organic evolution.
>The means isn't there.
Wow. I guess they'd better stop looking! Wade says it wasn't there.
>
>An experiment demonstration showing a means where life
>evolves from non-life via undirected chemical
>reactions. This would show that artificial
>intervention is not necessary and absolutely demolish
>ID.
So that's it eh? That's the only experiment that would demolish ID?
>
>But those things are evidence. If predictions
>were not evidence, we'd never be accepting physical
>laws.
Predictions are not evidence themselves. Predictions garner evidence which in turn lends credibility to theories.
If you were in court and you tried to admit your prediction as evidence by itself you'd not win any court cases. If you submitted your prediction and the EVIDENCE for that prediction, then you might get somewhere.
>
>
>>And I've responded that what I'm stating is not a
>>"philosophical principle of simplicity". It's an
>>empircal truth. Simple explanations work better more
>>frequently. Do you deny that?
>
>Well, then we have to junk QM because (however it
>arose) that doesn't give simple explanations.
QM is the end result of many simple assumptions which were tested rather painstakingly over a relatively large amount of time. Did ID start that way? No? Then you are comparing apples to oranges.
I deny
>that principle to the extent that you're using it.
So you do not think simple explanations are generally correct?
>
>Besides, ID really isn’t that complicated. The
>essence of it is very simple and can be summed up in a
>few sentences (e.g. the notion that artificial
>intervention is necessary).
Terse descriptions are not evidence of simplicity.
>Affirmative. One assumption (or implication) if
>artificial intervention is necessary: an intelligent
>designer. This isn't as complicated as you seem to
>make it out to be.
No? Then perhaps you'd care to explain why we should suppose a designer instead of say pure random processes, or perhaps some sort of fundamental universal law that trends towards lower entropy resulting in life, or any number of other solutions.
>>
>>Positing unanswerable questions is not the business of
>>science. That is QUITE enough to justify not using it.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>Think of the Big bang theory. That raises questions
>as to what caused it, and under the science of the
>time such questions were unanswerable (though
>speculations could be made).
Being unanswerable temporarily is not quite the same as being unanswerable permanently. ID poses questions that are probably permanently unanswerable.
Nonetheless, that did not
>make it an inferior explanation.
That's because the questions it raised were testable and answerable given time.
>
>And let's use a counterexample: the robots on Pluto.
>Does the existence of unanswerable questions means
>science should pretend that they weren't designed?
But those questions aren't unanswerable permanetly. A designer of life is inaccesible; there realy isn't any evidence that one could highlight as to the whos, wheres and whys even in principle. Can YOU think of any way of testing out these questions? On the other hand, can you think of ways of testing out these questions on Pluto?
>
>That's ridiculous. Design is still the most rational
>inference here even if there are questions (like the
>origin of the designer) that cannot be answered.
There are quite a few more questions than just that one that can't be answered. See above.
>
>Think of it this way: what's the origin of matter?
>Anyone can ask that question when a theory involves
>the existence of matter. Does the fact that such a
>question cannot be answered make the theory
>illegitimate? Obviously not.
Cannot be answered EVER is different than cannot be answered.
>
>Not only that, but the same criticism can be applied
>for organic evolution. If natural processes created
>life, one could ask what the origin is for natural
>processes. And if one uses the Big bang (or any other
>explanation) one can ask the same question for
>that explanation. What you seem to be
>proposing would destroy the existence of any
>explanations whatsoever. That surely is a high price
>to pay just to throw out ID.
That's because you've misunderstood what I've proposed.
>So says you. There are reams of empirical
>observations and arguments that give reasons why
>artificial intervention is necessary.
Reams huh? Maybe you'd like to point to a non-creationist scientist who says "artifical intervention is necessary beyond a shadow of a doubt."
>
>Chance is an impotent explanation. Consider the case
>of a short protein 100 amino acids in length (a
>typical protein consists of about 300 amino acids,
>some are very much longer). Amino acids must be
>L-form amino acids (as opposed to D-form amino acids,
>which are the mirror image of L-forms). They occur
>with roughly equal probability (as they did in
>Miller's experiment). The probability of getting them
>all right by chance is (1/2)^100, or about one chance
>in 10^30. A similar problem occurs with getting the
>right type of chemical bond (peptide bonds), and
>employing chance yet again (since they occur with
>roughly equal probability) is 1 in 10^60.
Probability, when it comes to cosmic time scales and mechanisms which are RANDOM at their core (QM) is not a very good thing to lean on to rule out randomnality as the source of life. Billions of years in an ENTIRE UNIVERSE makes large numbers pale by comparision.
Now this is the part where
>"law!" comes into play. Unfortunately for
>abiogenesis, there is no known law or combination of
>laws to solve the problem. No experiment has
>demonstrated how the right amino acids could be
>selected and used to form proteins (via undirected
>chemical reactions).
If they were random, the experiment would have had to have run for a few billion years with a universe to play in for it to REALLY be accurate.
But that's okay, because there
>are such laws and we just haven't discovered them yet.
> So the problem is neatly swept under the rug.
I'm very glad that you stayed away from experimental science with that attitude.
>Is "meaningful." Similarly, the sequence of amino
>acids must be so that has useful biological activity.
>While there is some tolerance of differentiation (i.e.
>the sequence doesn't have to be exactly right, though
>it does have to be sufficiently close), the biochemist
>Robert Sauer of MIT calculated that the probability of
>achieving a functional sequence of amino acids is 1
>chance in 10^65 (10^65 is an estimation of how many
>atoms there are in the visible universe).
The "visible universe" is unquestionably a very small portion of THE universe.
Chance is
>clearly impotent.
Say it three times, and it might come true.
Chance is
>impotent, and undiscovered laws seem unlikely.
There you go, the third time made it true.
>
>Additionally, there are chemical problems of getting
>the first protein. Hooking amino acids together
>chemically requires the removal of a water molecule.
>Conversely, the presence of water strongly inhibits
>amino acids from forming proteins. How to get around
>this problem? One theory Sidney Fox proposed is that
>some amino acids washed up onto a very hot surface,
>such as the edge of the volcano, that was able to boil
>the water away. Experimental demonstrations show that
>heating the amino acids gives smelly dark brown tar,
>but apparently no proteins. Fox demonstrated that
>when one amino acid exists in an extra large amount
>among a purified mix of amino acids and heated the
>mixture in a laboratory oven, they do join together.
>However, even then they still do not make proteins.
Universe, billions of years...laboratory oven... hmmmm....
>
>
>
>Damoclese: There are other alternative besides
>design.
>
>>>I disagree. What other answer would they be willing
>>>to accept (given that life had a beginning)?
That there is a physical law that tends to lead towards life? That random chance created life? MAYBE whatever the evidence eventually indicates?
>
>Such as? Can you think of one other possibility? Do
>you remember the game of inference to the best
>explanation?
See above.
>>
>>However, I wouldn't be so brash as to automatically
>>accept design as the answer in lieu of organic
>>evolution.
>
>So the answer appears to be no, in spite of the
>overwhelming evidence and the game of inference to
>the best explanation.
The only explanation is not "the best" explanation.
>
>Why?
Because just because it is the only answer does not make it the best answer. It just makes it A answer.
>
>Well, technically abiogenesis is possible—just
>extremely unlikely to be the correct explanation. In
>this case, there is grounds to believe that
>artificial intervention was probably necessary.
Universe, billions of years...laboratory oven...
>
>Will it always be the case—no matter how long
>ID’s falsifiable predictions are confirmed and how
>long abiogenesis still has its unresolved problems
>(when ID predicts the existence of such problems)—that
>ID is not a better explanation? That ID should never
>be accepted no matter how long this goes on? Even
>when ID has a known means but abiogenesis doesn’t?
You keep touting the "known means" as though that somehow makes the theory better. It really doesn't. A supposed means does not make a theory better...it just makes it supposed.
Then, you seem to think that time and absence of evidence is a good reason to switch theories. If that be true, how long should we wait before we reject the notion that there is a God in the universe? Two thousand years? A million? He hasn't shown himself in THAT long, so how much longer before we reject it altogether?
>
>Here’s one of my reasons why such an approach is not
>rational. Take for instance the point in this
>scenario where ID has a known means but abiogenesis
>does not. Why is this important? Let’s take the
>example of twentieth-century forensics. Criminal X’s
>fingers are the only known cause for Criminal X’s
>fingerprints. Therefore, X’s prints on the murder
>weapon suggest that Criminal X’s fingers touched the
>murder weapon.
But even here the known means aren't exactly known. One could mimic criminal X's fingerprints and have them not be criminal X's ACTUAL fingerprints. That means that criminal X NEVER touched the weapon.
Similarly, appealing to the only known
>cause (intelligent design) for life would be rational,
>I think, in this scenario; especially in light of
>heavily confirmed falsifiable predictions.
Eh.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 