| Subject: Special Ed |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/15/05 9:34pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Special pleading?" on 05/15/05 2:32pm
>
>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?
Because amino acids are fabricated in the laboratory from a life like template, namely pieces of life and not say dirt.
>Given life has a beginning, there has to be
>some way to create life, remember?
I'm not so sure about that. Time had a beginning it would seem, but I'm pretty sure we can't create it.
>
>Of course. Not only nucleotides, but also DNA and
>RNA. Already we human scientists can do so.
Alright, so what fundamental constituent at the very base of life are you proposing for the creation of life? Remember, the stipulation is that it has to categorically be non-life.
>
>The creator can create those building blocks, of
>course.
Out of what?
>
>You might want to see
rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.voy.com/22190/5314.html">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.
First of all, I'm not sure how accurate those odds are since they are probably assigned from controlled laboratory studies that likely don't emulate all the pieces of earth that caused life to transpire.
Second of all, the odds objection as I've pointed out before isn't really all that valid of a way to tackle this problem UNLESS you assign odds to the notion that a creator exists also. Otherwise, you aren't really comparing the two things on an equal footing.
>See above. When you do the math, it turns out to be
>quite radical.
Got some numbers on a designer so we can have everything on an equal footing?
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).
At the point that they tie into inferences, they cease being rational.
>>
>>Because rationality isn't based on mathematical
>>probability alone. I've already addressed this.
>
>Why not? For instance...
We'll take a lottery ticket as an example. One has a slim chance of winning, so one might say "Ah, it's rational to believe that I'm not going to win," however, if that person DOES win, then what was formerely rational ceases to be so and the reason is because experience and outcomes determine what is rational, not probability alone.
>
>That doesn't make any sense. Rationality does not
>equal certainty, and rationality does not equal
>omniscience.
No, and I didn't say it did, but I did say that rationality is driven by outcomes and experience. Probability by itself is no measure of rationality.
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")
Agreeable to reason is a pretty loose definition. Many things that are agreeable to reason are not the way reality functions but to hold them despite what reality indicates would be irrational. Examples would include space/time etc.
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.
You have probability based on past outcomes. That's all good, but it isn't the only thing that drives rationality. Should you win, then it would probably be viewed as irrational to NOT have bought the ticket.
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.
Well yeah, but that's what determines rationality ultimately. It's outcomes, not probabilities.
>
>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.
Hmm. Then I suppose you won't have trouble naming say two or three of them that aren't strict ID'ers who do.
>Why is that a problem?
Because sooner or later, the same question has to be asked of the designer that has to be asked of the designed. If abiogenesis produced the designer, then there is nothing to rule out it ALSO creating life here on Earth, and IF that is the case, the designer is a further complication that really isn't needed.
>Why?
See above.
>
>Think back to the robots on Pluto example. We have no
>idea where the designer comes from. Does that mean we
>should reject ID?
If something DIDN'T design the designers, then yes, we'd have grounds for rejecting ID.
>
>The standard "we should reject it because we don't
>know where the designer came from" sounds more like
>rhetoric than reason.
I think you'd rather it be rhetoric than reason.
>
>Read the post again. It is not the absence of
>evidence, but what we do know about chemistry
>and mathematical probability here.
No it isn't. It's about assigning mathematical probability in one instance, and NOT utilizing one iotia of it in the other.
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).
Have you seen a designer around lately? I sure haven't. What exactly are the known laws of designer-hood?
>
>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)?
It would depend on whether or not it's possible for a designer to come from nothing.
>
>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?
If they cannot be expected to do X, then yes.
>
>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.
But it unevenly applies these things for reasons I've stated above.
What you proposed is a law (supposedly
>universal and fundamental) that we don't know
>about and we have never observed.
What I proposed is an alternative to abiogensis and intelligent design which is what you asked for to begin with.
>
>So, the existence of this supposed fundamental and
>universal law looks less plausible.
Like the formation of life on Earth?
>
>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.
Well, it isn't exactly a new thing that entropy can decrease in one place so long as it increases elsewhere. Remember that whole life on Earth thing???
>
>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.
So because humans have the equpiment, the designer did? Did he also arise due to design? At what point does design end exactly?
In
>contrast, abiogenesis does not have a known
>mechanism and instead has a number of unresolved
>problems that ID accounts for and explains.
But ultimately doesn't.
>
>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 quite. ID would LIKE to think that, but until both of them are put on equal footing, then there are quite a few things ID leaves in the vacuum of ignorance.
>
>But the universe isn't that old, for one thing.
I didn't say it was.
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?
I think that it's possible that the universe was different enough back then or at some other point that the formation of proteins was considerably more likely.
>
>In that case, I propose the physical laws were
>different back then to create the robots that now
>exist on Pluto.
And it COULD have been that they were. We already know for a fact that the universe in its early stages was NOT the universe we know it to be now.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 