Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 1/05 10:17pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Circumstance" on 04/29/05 6:05pm
Damoclese: ID doesn’t have a known possible mechanism.
>>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)
We’ve already dealt with this issue before. But to save you the effort I’ll reproduce the quote here:
>If creation has no mechanism by which something is
>created, surely it too should be thrown out.
There are a number of problems with that. One you have to realize that different burdens of proof are there. Nobody denies that life could be artificially created, so demonstrating a means would serve little purpose for ID. Contrast to abiogenesis, where it is doubted that a means could be created by its critics. Second, a known mechanism for artificially creating life will certainly be created eventually. It’s only a matter of inevitable technological progress; it’ll inevitably be a moot point and is thus not a coherent criticism. Third, there are already some aspects of life that can be created artificially, but there aren’t any known means to produce naturally. Already human scientists can use chemicals to create amino acids and nucleotides. A chemist can take these building blocks to produce proteins and nucleic acids, and from this can even make RNA and DNA. So, there are known mechanisms for ID to work with, but there are no known mechanisms for organic evolution to produce RNA and DNA.
Why? Well there are a number of known chemical problems with the naturalistic scenario. For instance, the processes to get the components for the nucleotide are chemically incompatible. An intelligent chemist can make these nucleotides with ease in a laboratory thanks to artificial intervention, but undirected chemical reactions overwhelmingly produce shapeless goop and undesired products.
When it comes to the fact that ID has known mechanisms but abiogenesis doesn’t, would you still accept the old paradigm despite the confirmed, falsifiable predictions etc.?
Also, let’s go back to the scenario I described in which ID has a known means. Even here, would you accept ID as the most rational explanation? No, you would not.
>>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?
Well, in this case we do the math like above. And besides, you're straying off the topic. Given the scenario (the magician shuffling the cards, the exact specified order yielded) would not design be the most rational inference?
Additionally, you criticized me for equating "most probable" with most rational. If a theory is e.g. 99% likelihood of being true (the highest likelihood of any competing theory), why wouldn't it be the most rational one to believe?
>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?
Logic. Accepting a theory with a 99% likelihood of being true is quite agreeable to reason. But like I said, we're really straying off topic.
>>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.
Which is irrelevant, because abiogenesis did not have the benefit of pre-existing biochemical machinery.
>>Yes they are. That's a big reason why physical laws
>>are rational to believe. They make heavily confirmed,
>>falsifiable predictions.
>
>Based upon EVIDENCE.
In this case, the predictions are evidence. Without the predictions there'd be no evidence for these physical laws.
>>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.
Which has been my point all along. The criticism that ID has an added complication is not enough.
>>Purely random processes are insufficient for many
>>aspects of life (as I demonstrated in my last post).
>
>Based on a laboratory oven?
Based on experimentation and mathematical calculation. Note that you haven't attacked the evidence I proffered; an example of a problem of abiogenesis.
>>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?
I gave reasons suggesting that appealing to undiscovered laws was not reasonable when it comes to biological information. See this post where I explained why appealing to laws was problematic.
>>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)
True, but let's look at what you actually said:
>or perhaps some sort of fundamental
>universal law that trends towards lower entropy
>resulting in life
We have a fundamental universal law that does the exact opposite. Without any shred of empirical data supporting this imaginary law--and overwhelming evidence for a law that behaves in the exact opposite manner--your imaginary law does not appear reasonable. That was my point. Possible does not necessarily imply reasonably possible.
>>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.
We actually don't know that, but let's ignore that for the moment. We can do the exact same thing for ID.
>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, the same thing is true for the robots on Pluto. We can tell it was designed, but I never said anything about the scenario that would narrow down the designer's identity. Once again, it sounds like you were doing special pleading.
>>>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.
So when you said "cannot be answered" you really meant "it could be answered, just not now."
>>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
No, but they're the only "stuff" that amino acids can be made of.
>>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
Exactly my point.
>>>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.
Actually, it is in physics. At least it was at the time when I read upon the subject. The estimation I gave was all the atoms of this universe. I used the phrase "visible universe" due to the apparently relevant terminology involved.
>>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?
No, but I am of course assuming the uniformity of nature; that the laws of chemistry that hold on Earth also hold millions of light-years away. Where it not for the uniformity of nature, all astronomy would be out the window.
>>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 is, albeit perhaps a different form of abiogenesis than is currently accepted.
>>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?
I don't know the details, nonetheless there is a known means in the scenario I described. Speaking of which:
>>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?
The answer appears to be "yes." Is it?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 