Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/16/05 3:27pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Special Ed" on 05/15/05 9:34pm
>>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.
No, amino acids are not made from "pieces of life" but non-living chemicals. Remember the Urey-Miller experiment in the 1950s? No parts from living organisms need to be extracted. The molecules can be made purely synthetically.
>>Given life has a beginning, there has to be
>>some way to create life, remember?
>
>I'm not so sure about that.
Illogical. How else did life get here? Do you actually have an alternate possibility? Do you think life could have come from literally nothing?
>>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?
Well, DNA and RNA for example. But ID generally proposes that it made the entire thing (i.e. the first living cell here on Earth).
>>The creator can create those building blocks, of
>>course.
>
>Out of what?
Out of the pre-existing chemicals, the kinds that we human scientists can use to make amino acids, proteins, nucleotides, DNA etc.
>>You might want to see 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.
It was from an MIT scientist. Do you have any actual evidence that the calculations are wrong?
It likely did not emulate all pieces of Earth, but it did calculate the odds of it coming about by chance. The only alternative is some deterministic law (or combination thereof) that determines the sequence of amino acids. But that has problems as I explained earlier (problems you appear to have ignored).
>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.
Not really. The MIT scientist did not at all presuppose a creator when calculating the odds.
>Otherwise, you aren't really
>comparing the two things on an equal footing.
I attack the problem one at a time. Remember, ID predicts that chance and undirected chemical reactions are insufficient. So we investigate to see if this prediction holds true. We know one thing: chance is inadequate. Origin of life researchers agree on this, hence e.g. the reliance on undiscovered laws.
Besides, why not use the same technique I proffered earlier (e.g. the card trick example) for deducing odds for ID?
Additionally, what about the robots on Pluto example? Here it is known that undirected chemical reactions etc. are not reasonably sufficient.
>>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.
So is that a yes? Remember how I defined "inference," it is a belief/conclusion/theory "derived from facts or premises." In that sense, all scientific theories are inferences (as from empirical data) by definition.
Again, are you saying atomic theory is not rational? Are you saying evolution is not 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
True. I even explained this at this at the outset. Note what I said earlier:
If it is known with near-certainty (say, 99%) that the theory is true, then it is rational ("agreeable to reason") 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. 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.
>and the reason is
>because experience and outcomes determine what is
>rational, not probability alone.
That doesn't make sense given the circumstances, because experience and outcomes factor into calculating probability. Probability alone was enough to determine rationality here. Notice that the odds themselves changed in the scenario I described. After I win, the chance that I have won the lottery is now 100% ex hypothesi.
So now we're back to where we were. Note that it was rational to believe--based on probability alone--that I would not win. After I won, it was rational to believe that I had won--again based on probability alone. Then we go back to the original problem:
If it is known with near-certainty (say, 99%) that the theory is true, why would it not be rational ("agreeable to reason") to believe?
>>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.
Perhaps I should have used something more thorough; how about "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason." That's what I got from the dictionary.
>>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.
Nonetheless, it is rational at that time to believe that I would win. Again, rationality does not equal infallibility.
>>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.
But again, if I won, the probability that I have won is now 100%. (Remember, outcomes can easily play a factor in determining 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.
Your kidding, right? Nanites aren't exactly exclusive to ID. It’s a very common technological belief (like faster computers). I just offered that up as a possible means.
Anyway, if you really need an example see this web page.
>>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.
True, but such a matter is beyond what is scientifically testable.
So again why is that (we don't know where the designer came from) a problem?
>If abiogenesis produced the designer, then
>there is nothing to rule out it ALSO creating life
>here on Earth
First, that abiogenesis created that life form would be pure speculation; because it is untestable.
Second, what you said does not logically follow. It could be that life on Earth has a kind of complexity to it that cannot be made naturally, but the aliens that created life on Earth are entirely different so that undirected chemical reactions could make them. Still speculation, but it's enough to show that what you said is not necessarily true.
>>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.
We don't know if something did or did not design the designers, remember? It’s beyond the reach of testable science.
"Well, we don't know where the designers came from, so let's all pretend these robots weren't artificially created."
Does that actually sound rational to you?
>>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.
See above. You haven't given me any reason to believe it is something other than rhetoric.
>>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.
Read the post again please and explain yourself.
>It's about assigning mathematical
>probability in one instance, and NOT utilizing one
>iotia of it in the other.
Read the post again please and explain yourself. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist; you need to actually refute it.
>>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.
That's nice, but it doesn't change things one iota. ID in this instance relied on what we do know (mathematical probability, known chemistry) abiogenesis relies laws we don't know about and haven't observed.
>>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.
Given ex nihlo nihil fit probably not.
But then again, think of my robots on Pluto scenario. Would you really reject ID in that scenario merely because we don't know where the designer came from etc.?
>>hat 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.
And my point above still stands as valid.
>>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.
True, but (one) you nonetheless stated a tendency towards lower entropy, the second law implies an opposite tendency. And (two) I was particularly talking about the laws of chemistry and many known chemical problems that plague abiogenesis, remember? To recap:
>>Second, this imaginary law
>>will have to be consistent with known laws, and that
>>includes the laws of chemistry (note the chemical
>>problems of abiogenesis).
>
>Laws don't always have to be consistent with known
>laws
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.
>Remember that whole life on Earth thing???
Yes, the very thing under discussion.
>>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?
The designer could have, and that's enough. Remember, what were discussing in this case was a known possible means, which ID has here and abiogenesis doesn't.
You may rightfully point out that ID does not (yet) have a complete explanation about how it could have happened. True, but I explained why this wasn’t problematic to ID (if you think my explanations were wrong, please address them). Second, ID beats abiogenesis by far when it comes to having a known means to produce things (functional proteins, RNA, DNA etc.).
>>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
ID does that and I cited evidence to support my case. I cited both known chemistry and mathematical probability to adduce my claim. You need to address the evidence, not pretend it doesn't exist.
>>But the universe isn't that old, for one thing.
>
>I didn't say it was.
Nonetheless, it was a very valid point for me to bring up considering what you said:
>>Well, yes. However, ID would not be alone in making
>>that assumption for Earth 4 million years ago.
>>Origin-of-life researchers also assume the laws of
>>chemistry were the same etc.
>
>It's one thing four million years ago, it's another
>when it's 22 billion years ago.
>>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.
So is that a yes?
Remember, for functional proteins to naturally form five million years ago you still need to overcome the same problems and known barriers I pointed out. Merely claiming there was some magical moment a long, long time ago when it was possible doesn't do the job.
>>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.
Technically, yes. But it's just not reasonable when you have no shred of evidence to back up this theory. ID is more reasonable by far in this scenario.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 