| Subject: Double bubble |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 2/05 6:59am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "So is the answer "yes"?" on 05/ 1/05 10:17pm
>
>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.
Artificially created from non-life? I think quite a few folks would disagree with this.
Contrast to abiogenesis, where it is
>doubted that a means could be created by its critics.
I'm afraid your above statement would be just AS doubted as it offers not a single shred more of evidence for itself.
>Second, a known mechanism for artificially creating
>life will certainly be created eventually.
This sounds much like the tenacity you impute scientists with having. "No known means to create life? It'll eventually happen. We'll stick with ID."
It’s only a
>matter of inevitable technological progress; it’ll
>inevitably be a moot point and is thus not a coherent
>criticism.
So there are problems with ID that will eventually be solved? How long should we wait before these problems are solved until we give ID the boot? A day, an hour?
Third, there are already some
>aspects of life that can be created artificially, but
>there aren’t any known means to produce naturally.
Artifically assuming the pieces of life are already there, and if the pieces of life are already there, then that makes the whole "life from non-life" argument take on an entirely new dimension.
>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.
Yeah, basically you are saying that so long as the fundamental building blocks of life are there, then someone can manipulate them. If the building blocks are ALWAYS there, then we have little need for a designer. A designer needs to be able to make life from non-life WITHOUT cheating by having the constituent pieces already made for him, since that is the process you claim that abiogenesis cannot explain and that ID can.
>
>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.
So amino acids were always here? If so, then we don't need a designer involved to make life. Sooner or later, provided the amino acids were already here, one is bound to get a viable sequence.
>
>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.?
Based on your presentation, yes.
>
>Well, in this case we do the math like above.
So mathematics determines rationality?
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?
It would be AN inference, but I'm not so sure about the most rational. Inferences, as we've discussed before, are neither rational nor irrational. (in as far as their definition goes)
I would say that the above explanation would be the most readily supposed, and I would suspect would probably be the answer to the situation, but there really isn't a logical structure to back up that feeling. Hence, I wouldn't say it is the most rational explanation, but I would say that it the most readily presentable explanation for whatever reason.
>
>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?
Because probability on its own does not determine what is rational to believe. Suppose I come to a stoplight with an uneasy feeling and I put on my seatbelt. 5 minutes later, someone plows into my side. Now, I've been through the same stoplight for YEARS. Based on my past experience with the light, or for that matter anyone elses, it is far less likely that I'm going to be hit. What I noticed was that the lady next to me at the light wasn't exactly driving her car in a normal fashion, and that made me uneasy.
So, at the very least, what is "rational" in THIS situation concerns a synthesis of probabilites reconciled with some gut instincts. It wasn't as if I worked out the mathematics of each and arrived at a specific probability and then made my decision.
>
>Which is irrelevant, because abiogenesis did not have
>the benefit of pre-existing biochemical machinery.
And apparently ID does... or at the VERY least had amino acids handy.
>
>In this case, the predictions are evidence. Without
>the predictions there'd be no evidence for these
>physical laws.
I'm sorry, but you aren't going to be able to shove predictions into the evidence bin. They simply aren't; by definition or otherwise.
>
>Which has been my point all along. The criticism that
>ID has an added complication is not enough.
It is when it comes to the fact that it has an added complication AND that added complication has never been broken down into testable, simple assumptions.
>
>I gave reasons suggesting that appealing to
>undiscovered laws was not reasonable when it comes to
>biological information. See
rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.voy.com/22190/5314.html">this
>post where I explained why appealing to laws was
>problematic.
Let's look at the reasons you gave:
Still, appealing to unknown laws has superficial plausibility, since laws by their nature describe highly regular phenomenon. For instance, all the amino acids are of the L-form, and all the amino acids are connected with peptide bonds. But appealing to even unknown laws has problems when it comes to the origin of biological information.
First of all, it would seem that you assume life is not a regular phenomenon. I think that's a bit premature. Second of all, you simply say "appealing to unknown laws has problems when it comes to the origin of biological information" but not even the next paragraph really seems to explain why that would be true. So I'll ask you again, why is a probelmatic to appeal to unknown laws?
>
>>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.
Trending toward lower entropy resulting in life is precisely how life on Earth came about. Now, the over all entropy, that's a different story. In the above, I was speaking about local entropy.
Now that you mention it though, if the law is that things tend to become more disorderd and order is rare, which is more likely as we go back in time, a MORE ordered state or a more chaotic state?
>
>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.
But that's just the thing, the robots on Pluto ALLOW one to narrow down an identity, and it happens rather quickly just as if we found something on Earth that appeared designed. That makes it IN PRINCIPLE specific enough to test.
>
>No, but they're the only "stuff" that amino acids can
>be made of.
How do you know that?
>
>
>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.
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 and perhaps for quite some time that might be true, but we know for a fact that laws break down during certain portions of the universe's formation.
>I don't know the details, nonetheless there is a known
>means in the scenario I described.
Without a mechanism, your means doesn't amount to much.
>
>The answer appears to be "yes." Is it?
Based on your presentation it is.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 