Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/17/05 2:54pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "When you present something worth solving" on 05/16/05 7:58pm
>>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.
>
>Except they weren't really made synthetically in this
>experiment. This experiment was intended to emulate
>the conditions of prehistoric Earth.
Nonetheless, in practice they were made synthetically. A scientist made some amino acids from pre-existing chemicals, demonstrating that ID can make amino acids, which was my point.
Also, remember that those conditions don't emulate the early Earth as was once thought.
>>Illogical. How else did life get here?
>
>Just because something had a beginning does not mean
>that we can therefore make that thing.
That's nice. Do you have an alternate possibility of how life could have gotten here? Didn't think so.
>>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).
>
>So are you saying an intelligent designer started with
>pieces like amonia and hydrogen like in the
>Urey-Miller experiment?
It could have. My point is that ID has a means to do so.
>>Out of the pre-existing chemicals, the kinds that we
>>human scientists can use to make amino acids,
>>proteins, nucleotides, DNA etc.
>
>So an intelligent designer starts with WHAT chemical?
>What MEANS is there to design life?
I don’t know the details, but I do know that the process for making proteins and nucleic acids is automated, and machines that mix and react chemicals to yield these products are sold by a number of businesses. Indeed, there are even machines that can synthesize DNA. This business seems to sell DNA synthesizing machines. See also this, this, and that. Scientists have the means to create these things; this is not disputable.
>>It was from an MIT scientist. Do you have any actual
>>evidence that the calculations are wrong?
>
>Do you have any actual evidence that you do not owe me
>a million dollars?
So you are just willing to assume that the MIT calculations are wrong without evidence because what, it doesn't jibe with your worldviews?
>>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).
>
>Nah, you really haven't ever explained why unexplained
>laws are problematic
Ignoring the problems won't make them go away. Why don't you just address them instead of pretending they don't exist?
>>Remember, ID
>>predicts that chance and undirected chemical reactions
>>are insufficient.
>
>Yeah, but it predicts this BASED on the idea that
>there is in fact a creator that might neatly explain
>the problem.
Well, the prediction does come naturally from the theory, so I suppose the answer is "yes."
>>So we investigate to see if this
>>prediction holds true. We know one thing: chance is
>>inadequate.
>
>No, we don't know that chance is inadequate because
>first of all we haven't any idea of how large a role
>chance really had to play in the first place.
Irrelevant, given the scenario the math actually tests. What if we mix and shuffle amino acids completely at random? Will we get a functional protein? The answer is that chance is inadequate.
But what if, as you suggest, chance played a much less prominent role? What if there are some unobserved, unknown laws that direct the sequencing of amino acids? Then that would be a different scenario, one different from the belief that chance is sufficient to explain the existence of functional proteins.
>>Additionally, what about the robots on Pluto example?
>>Here it is known that undirected chemical reactions
>>etc. are not reasonably sufficient.
>
>It is only known because you have SUPPOSED IT TO BE
>SO.
No, I only stated the observation of robots on Pluto. You can still deny ID, even if undirected chemical reactions are not reasonably sufficient. Perhaps the robots came from nothing. Perhaps the laws of physics were different back then etc. The point is that it wouldn't be reasonable, and many of your philosophical objections (e.g. "we don't know the who the designer is") are obviously not sufficient.
>>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.
>
>If all scientific theories are inferences, then they
>are not necessarily rational.
Once again I do not get a straight answer. Let's recap:
>>Inferences are not rational by definition.
>You and I have very different definitions. When
>I say “infer” I mean “the act or process of
>inferring.” What is inferring? In the definition
>I am using, it means, “to derive as a conclusion
>from facts or premises.” There is nothing about
>this definition that implies that an inference can’t
>be rational or reasonable.
>I'll go the extra mile and give a counterexample.
>Under this definition, atomic theory (like many
>other theories) is an inference. It is a
>rational inference? I believe so. Inferences
>can be rational. The claim that "inferences are
>not rational by definition" is false.
>>I'll go the extra mile and give a counterexample.
>>Under this definition, atomic theory (like many other
>>theories) is an inference. It is a rational
>>inference? I believe so. Inferences can be rational.
>> The claim that "inferences are not rational by
>>definition" is false.
>
>They CAN be rational, but they are not by definition.
Okay, then it seems like I simply misunderstood what you meant when you said "inferences are not rational by definition" as it seemed you were saying "inferences cannot be rational, the definition prevents that."
>>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)
It is true that just because something is an inference, it doesn't necessarily imply that the inference is rational. But there are obvious cases of rational inferences (e.g. scientific theories). Why wouldn't this inference be the most rational one?
>>It is true that just because something is an
>>inference, it doesn't necessarily imply that the
>>inference is rational. But there are obvious cases of
>>rational inferences (e.g. scientific theories).
>
>I don't agree that there are obvious cases of rational
>inferences. They are simply inferences. Talking about
>a "rational inference" makes as much sense to me as
>talking about a "sad rock".
Okay, then we're (apparently) back at the claim that by definition, inferences cannot be rational. I already noted there is nothing in the definition that precludes rationality. 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).
>>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?
Now, given that inferences can be rational, why isn't the design inference we were talking about rational?
>>Again, are you saying atomic theory is not rational?
>>Are you saying evolution is not rational?
>
>If it is an inference, it is not necessarily rational.
Perhaps not necessarily so, perhaps how rational the inferences are depend upon the empirical data etc. But in current scientific reality the inference is rational nonetheless, right?
>>That doesn't make sense given the circumstances,
>>because experience and outcomes factor into
>>calculating probability.
>
>They factor in, but they do not make an outcome.
Fine. But the probability is as it stands. My claim, “It is rational to believe belief X if it is highly probable that belief X is true.” Why is this statement false? You haven’t, for instance, given a counterexample or possible scenario in which the antecedent is true but the consequent is false.
>>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.
>
>Certainty is not probability.
If something is known to be certain, it has 100% probability.
>Probability measures a
>certain degree of uncertainty.
Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't (e.g. when the probability is 100%). Perhaps I’m using a broader definition of “probability” than you seem to be using.
>>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.
>
>So now nanites have gone from something commonly held
>by physicists as being capable of producing artifical
>life to something that is just a technological belief?
I didn't say that. Let's look at what I was responding to:
>>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.
That's what I was responding to.
In any case my point stands as valid: it is not disputable (even among adherents of abiogenesis) that life can be artificially created.
>>True, but such a matter is beyond what is
>>scientifically testable.
>
>How so? A designer IS life just like life on Earth IS
>life.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we can tell who or what the designer is, where the designer came from etc.
>>First, that abiogenesis created that life form would
>>be pure speculation; because it is untestable.
>
>It's exactly the same question that one would ask
>about life on Earth. A designer is alive after all,
>right?
Perhaps so, but abiogenesis creating the designer is untestable because we don't know anything about the designer. With life on Earth we at least know the inner mechanics and composition of life.
>>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.
>
>Now THAT sounds like special pleading.
Why?
>You've held
>onto the fact that life must be thus and so for many
>threads now, and suddenly NOW you decide that MAYBE
>not all life has to be quite like that.
Let's look at what I really said. I believe that life on Earth required artificial intervention; that the kind of complexity we see in life could not have been made naturally. This still leaves the door open for other kinds of life (e.g. in other dimensions, where the laws might be different), but this kind of life (proteins, DNA, the kind of complex organization we see etc.) does not seem as amenable to the naturalistic scenario.
Look at this way. What if we found super-intelligent robots on Pluto? Would it be special pleading for you to conclude that this type of complexity (the robots) could not have been made naturally even if other forms of life could? Obviously not.
>>We don't know if something did or did not design the
>>designers, remember? It’s beyond the reach of
>>testable science.
>
>If the designers are alive, then according to your own
>edicts, they had a beginning, right?
No.
>>"Well, we don't know where the designers came from, so
>>let's all pretend these robots weren't artificially
>>created."
>
>Neato. A straw man.
Really? Let's look at what you said:
>>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.?
>
>Put succintly, yes.
If you think what I said was a straw man, then don't claim that "we don't know where the designer came from" is grounds to reject ID.
You can't accuse me of building a straw man when you make these kinds of statements.
>>Given ex nihlo nihil fit probably not.
>
>So designers are always designed?
Not necessarily. Again, the origin (if any) of the designer is not scientifically testable.
>>True, but (one) you nonetheless stated a
>>tendency towards lower entropy, the second law
>>implies an opposite tendency.
>
>Yeah, and later on I explained that I meant this in a
>relative way.
Yeah, and the second law implies the exact opposite tendency nonetheless. I think you are choosing to forget this fact and especially the fact that I was particularly talking about the known laws of chemistry, not the second law (see my next paragraph).
>>Yes, the very thing under discussion.
>
>Yes, but life on Earth is an example where entropy
>decreased in one place but INCREASED elsewhere.
Question begging are we? We've never seen it happen or simulated in the laboratory. Yes, entropy can be decreased at the expense of increased entropy elsewhere, even when it comes to life on Earth (though artificial intervention may be necessary for this). But there are two problems you seem to be ignoring. One, you said that perhaps there is "some sort of fundamental universal law that trends towards lower entropy," and I have two criticisms. (1) We've never seen this law that's supposed to be fundamental and universal, but we have seen a fundamental universal law that tends towards the opposite direction. This does not strictly disprove the law, but it makes its existence less plausible. (2) This imaginary law will have to be consistent with known laws, and that includes the laws of chemistry (note the serious chemical problems that plague abiogenesis, which again seem to point in the opposite direction of this imagined law). Again, not a formal disproof, but it makes the existence of this unknown, unobserved law look less plausible.
Note again that ID argues from what we do know about mathematical probability and observed chemistry, whereas abiogenesis here is arguing from laws we don't know about and haven't observed. This is a big reason why I believe ID explains the data better in this instance. There doesn’t seem to be any good reason to think otherwise (except perhaps that one may not like ID for philosophical reasons).
>>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.
>
>Evolution is as much of a means as a guy maybe having
>a beaker is.
Except that organic evolution doesn't have any known means to create DNA, whereas ID does.
>>So is that a yes?
>
>No, it's a possiblitiy.
Yes, it's perhaps nominally possible that the laws were somehow very different back then (the uniformity of nature, while widely accepted among physicists, is not proven) to the extent of creating life etc. but again that's still arguing on the basis of laws we don't know about and haven't observed, whereas intelligent design does not need to violate any known laws and has a rigorously known means to create DNA.
>>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.
>
>No, you're right, it's better to pull a designer out
>of hat instead.
If the theory is empirically testable, falsifiable, makes accurate predictions, explains and solves the problem, has a rigorously known means where as the other theory doesn't, etc. then yes. It is better to appeal to artificial intervention.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
