Originally posted by jaywill
Then you mention Abiogenesis. Funny, when I mention abiogenesis or origin of life evolutionists are quick to respond that Evolution does not involve origin of life problems.
Your mentioning of it confirms that it actually does but of late the evolutionists distance themselves from that issue.
You've really outwitted yourself again jaywill. You brought up arguments from probability which are almost always used in these sorts of threads as (naive) arguments against abiogenesis. This was why scotty brought up abiogenesis. It's only desperation that would make you believe that it was some Freudian slip.
Even Dembski, who first wrote down the argument from SETI, uses it as an argument against abiogenesis. Oh, by the way, you know that Dembski generally accepts evolution, right? Last I had read of him, he still posits that an intelligent designer had to have built only the simplest organisms. Random mutation and natural selection took over from there.
And getting back to SETI, here is a response from a SETI researcher regarding the analogy.
" Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, disputes Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity — the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes — while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Good luck with the research . . . or not as the case most likely will be.
Originally posted by KellyJayThis one's been argued already on this thread.
Given the conditions of the earth? What faith you have knowing what
the conditions of the earth were, and knowing how to form a
replicating stable RNA molecule from what was here back then. Don't
you mean you think you could "maybe" set up the conditions that
might lead to such a thing from occuring? I have to say you sound just
like a ID person stating facts about things that they have nothing
but their beliefs to back them on.
Kelly
Do you accept then that conditions for abiogenesis are theoretically possible and your complaint is simply that saying such conditions existed is a matter of faith because we weren't there and therfore could not see it with our own eyes. I'm assuming you have accepted the theoretical possibility here since you have ceased arguing that point and latched (again) on the fact that we are talking about ancient events.
I think there's a logic here in saying that the conditions on the early earth are implied by the simple fact that we are here to argue the point: we have established that the initial state that leads to life is theoretically possible; life exists; therefore the initial state probably occured. God could have done it of course but there's no need for Him.
This may be a circular argument but I don't think it is.
We can also determine what evidence such an initial state might leave and look for it. We can also think up states that would preclude abiogenesis and look for the evidence those states might leave. If we find some of the former and none of the latter (sp?), that's reasonable cause for a balief in abiogenesis, until some better scientific explanation comes along. Can anyone point to such research and sumarise the results? I bet there's been plenty.
If you still have problems with the theoretical possibility of abiogenesis, can we sort those out? Either way I think there should be no need to revisit the "you weren't there so you can't know" argument. But I'm probably wrong 🙂 .
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinThe big hit against ID is that it requires certain things to be true,
This one's been argued already on this thread.
Do you accept then that conditions for abiogenesis are theoretically possible and your complaint is simply that we can't saying such conditions existed is a matter of faith because we weren't there and therfore could not see it with our own eyes. I'm assuming you have accepted the theoretical possibility here ...[text shortened]... n't there so you can't know" argument. But I'm probably wrong 🙂 .
--- Penguin.
the same thing is true of life without ID, you cannot complain that
one is more true than another. One is forced to accept some things
as true and to build upon those truths, science is just that.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, the big hit against ID is the exact opposite: it requires nothing whatsoever to be true. Your intelligent designer is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He can do whatever the hell he likes with no preconditions at all. He could have created the entire universe 30 seconds ago including everyone it it, all our memories and the 1/2 finished message currently on my monitor.
The big hit against ID is that it requires certain things to be true,
the same thing is true of life without ID, you cannot complain that
one is more true than another. One is forced to accept some things
as true and to build upon those truths, science is just that.
Kelly
Since you've not pointed out any flaw in my arguments so far and just ignored them, I'll assume you can find no flaw and therefore have accepted them. My work here is done. Thank You and Good Night. {ducks and runs for cover}
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinThe only thing that ID has going for it is not a creator, but that what
No, the big hit against ID is the exact opposite: it requires nothing whatsoever to be true. Your intelligent designer is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He can do whatever the hell he likes with no preconditions at all. He could have created the entire universe 30 seconds ago including everyone it it, all our memories and the 1/2 finished message cu ...[text shortened]... em. My work here is done. Thank You and Good Night. {ducks and runs for cover}
--- Penguin.
is taking place requires some programming to work within the
universe as is, that what is being done cannot happen without the
input of a designer under the conditions we see. It is not that the
God can do anything, God being able to do anything does mean that
no matter what we see it is God. ID means that something above and
beyond is required, that does not mean 'god' it only means a
designer, just as your posts requires the input from something not
necessarily a person, but something outside of random keystrokes
upon a keyboard.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAgain, you've not said what is wrong with my arguments for abiogenesis and evolution.
The only thing that ID has going for it is not a creator, but that what
is taking place requires some programming to work within the
universe as is, that what is being done cannot happen without the
input of a designer under the conditions we see. It is not that the
God can do anything, God being able to do anything does mean that
no matter what we see ...[text shortened]... not
necessarily a person, but something outside of random keystrokes
upon a keyboard.
Kelly
Since you've not pointed out any flaw in my arguments so far and just ignored them, I'll assume you can find no flaw and therefore have accepted them.
Therefore, what is taking place does not require an intelligent designer since you have accepted the blind mechanical processes of abiogenesis and evolution.
I say again. My work here is done.
--- Penguin.
The only thing that ID has going for it is not a creator, but that what
is taking place requires some programming to work within the
universe as is, that what is being done cannot happen without the
input of a designer under the conditions we see.
Really? KJ, you should take a trip up to the Discovery Institute (DI)and show them your work! So far Behe and Dembski have been unable to show this. They have asserted it, but they cannot even construct a useful metric by which to measure the amount of "complexity." Without such a metric, you can't identify a critical complexity level such that a designer is necessary.
Believe me Dembski is racking his U of Chicago Mathematics PhD brain trying to concoct such a metric. Every attempt so far has been horrible (They're so bad that even I can show them to be ridiculous, and I don't have an advanced degree in math. The few math departments he's presented at have laughed and promised never to invite him out again.).
Thus all ID arguments to this point boil down to arguments from incredulity. "I can't believe that could possibly happen that way so it didn't." These incredulity arguments are usually joined with some ridiculous probability calculation (I and others here have refuted these calculations many times.).
Finally, penguin has stated the crux of ID's problem: it can be made consistent with every hypothetical observation of nature. There is no way to do any science with it. This is a good thing for the DI since it apparently has no intention of doing any science. The few academics who rally under the ID banner don't even follow up on the essays written by others in their flock. They just make some reference like "Behe has shown that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex", or "Dembski has devised an Explanatory Filter." They have no sustained research programs that attempt to assemble their work into a coherent thesis. As it stands currently, ID can be summarized in the following manner:
"Sometime or other, something(s) or other designed something(s) or other, and somehow or other manufactured the thing(s) in matter and energy without leaving any evidence of the presence of the designer(s), the presence of the manufacturer(s), or the manufacturing process.*"
Even worse, ID conflates that summary with the following invalid logical argument:
"It couldn't have been evolution, so therefore it was ID."
Oh and for some fun, read the transcripts of Behe being cross-examined in the Dover Trial. Hilarious. Among other humiliations, he admits that his personal definition of scientific theory admits astrology as science and that he hasn't followed any of the research on the bacterial flagellum since publishing Darwin's Black Box.
* - Thank you to RBH, a PhD biologist over at iidb.org for that quote.
Originally posted by jaywillYou are apparently confused on a number of issues. This is not surprising, since most creationists (and many atheists) are confused on these issues. Evolutionary theory and abiogeneic theory are seperate, however, interrelated, I believe. My mentioning of it is simply in response to Kelly's assertions mainly.
Overbearingly unlikely. Yes, the first 100 prime numbers radioed from space. Yes, I agree - overbearingly unlikely.
Then you mention Abiogenesis. Funny, when I mention abiogenesis or origin of life evolutionists are quick to respond that Evolution does not involve origin of life problems.
Your mentioning of it confirms that it actually does but ...[text shortened]... that you are willing to follow the evidence to where ever it leads with no subjective bias.
Life comes from life. This is true - nowadays. Of course, we now know that life - non-life is not a hard and fast dividing line, some bacteria and virus' basically straddle the line. Some organisms exihibit the characteristics of life in some parts of their life cycle, but not others. Nothing is so black and white in the real universe. Likewise, nowadays it would be impossible for life to evolve from non-life as it did 4 billion years ago. There is nothing magical about this. It is really a combination of 3 things. One) After 4 billion years of photosynthesis we now live in a world which is highly oxidising, however the conditions required for biochemicals such as RNA chains to form are reducing conditions - which were absolutely prevalent 4 bya (from rock evidence - see iron band at 2 bya). Two) Nowadays, any biochemical configurations which could form life which might spawn life would be quickly consumed by the complex life forms which exist now. Three) The reduced precursors do not exist in concentrations required for abiogenic theory to occur nowadays - most of the worlds freely available nutrients have been tied up in living biomass. Abiogenesis could not happen now.
The DNA / protein chicken-egg problem is only a problem nowadays. During early evolution of life it was probably RNA, not DNA, which was the prominent genetic material. RNA (like DNA) can spontaneously replicate (although DNA normally doesn't). Once we have a self-replicating RNA chain then the translation process may be selected for if the newly formed proteins are useful for something. There is no chicken or egg here.
I think Behe's advice to follow the evidence where it leads is wise. Unfortunately, Behe does not follow his own advice. He is reading too much into his data, as well he should know not to. Even Behe's own colleagues think that his ideas on ID are stupid, and do not follow from the evidence.
Originally posted by KellyJayI have evidence. Physical evidence. It's pointless to try and have any conversation with you on this point Kelly, as I already know the disdain you hold for physical evidence.
Given the conditions of the earth? What faith you have knowing what
the conditions of the earth were, and knowing how to form a
replicating stable RNA molecule from what was here back then. Don't
you mean you think you could "maybe" set up the conditions that
might lead to such a thing from occuring? I have to say you sound just
like a ID person stating facts about things that they have nothing
but their beliefs to back them on.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, physical evidence for protolife conditions, but no evidence for God, is the difference. Physical evidence.
The big hit against ID is that it requires certain things to be true,
the same thing is true of life without ID, you cannot complain that
one is more true than another. One is forced to accept some things
as true and to build upon those truths, science is just that.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionCarl Sagan was instrumental in the starting of the SETI program.
What's your point?
SETI and possible signals of intelligent origin have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
I don't think Carl Sagan or Scott are logically consistent. It is Sagan who was sure that a string of prime numbers being being radioed to earth from space would be sufficient evidence for him of Extraterrestial Intelligence. I'm inclined to agree.
But here is what he wrote about the human brain:
"The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons - about a hundred trillion bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world's largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space ... The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy. The circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans."
Sagan may have understated the brain's information holding capacity.
He believed that a string of prime numbers in a radio signal from space would indicate intelligence. But he did not believe that brain's capacity equivalent of 20 million books within our craniums was evidence of intelligent design. He admits that the brain is a machine of circuitry "more wonderful than any devised by humans". A much simplier phenomenon of a string of prime numbers persuades him of intelligence but not a much more complex one as the human brain's neuro circuitry.
Do you think he was consistent? He recognized the vastly more specified complexity of the human brain over a signal of a string of prime numbers. Why didn't his faith in spontaneous generation of life reflect a similiar attitude in a signal of prime numbers from space?
And if intelligent humans are not able to produce any machine as intricate as the human brain where does he get the faith that nonintelligent laws of natural selection produced such a wonder?
Originally posted by jaywillYour sneer at my "logical consistancy" is tremendously ironic.
Carl Sagan was instrumental in the starting of the SETI program.
I don't think Carl Sagan or Scott are logically consistent. It is Sagan who was sure that a string of prime numbers being being radioed to earth from space would be sufficient evidence for him of Extraterrestial Intelligence. I'm inclined to agree.
But here is what he wrote about th ...[text shortened]... e get the faith that nonintelligent laws of natural selection produced such a wonder?
Yes. The human brain is very complex. So far, your argument boils down to "it can't have evolved, it just can't, no, no, no, no - I'm not listening". Perhaps you'd like to stamp your feet and hold your breath too?
Irrespective of your viewpoint, every biological phenomena ever noted can be explained by evolution, relying only on genetic variation, competition and time.
Originally posted by jaywillHe gets his faith through a belief in the process of science which has produced a convincing (ignoring the crap found on this forum) explanation for the development of change in species.
Carl Sagan was instrumental in the starting of the SETI program.
I don't think Carl Sagan or Scott are logically consistent. It is Sagan who was sure that a string of prime numbers being being radioed to earth from space would be sufficient evidence for him of Extraterrestial Intelligence. I'm inclined to agree.
But here is what he wrote about th ...[text shortened]... e get the faith that nonintelligent laws of natural selection produced such a wonder?
There is no contradiction.
We don't find strings of prime numbers in the natural world - hence, to find them would suggest they were not of a natural origin, or they'd been deliberately constructed.
We could say the same about the brain, but we don't need to since we have a simpler, coherent process available to us that can produce it. The fact that you and other ID advocates don't believe it to be true, doesn't make it untrue.
Your mention of spontaneous generation of life is of course, completely facetious. You seem to be suggesting the spontaneous generation of a human brain, which any rational person could tell you is ludicrous. Evolution works by small changes - changes that if taken one at a time would probably be unnoticeable, but when totalled up over many generations of a specioes, may lead to significant change.
Originally posted by amannionAh, but remember, in Jaywill's world oak trees spring, fully formed, fully grown, from the soil overnight.
He gets his faith through a belief in the process of science which has produced a convincing (ignoring the crap found on this forum) explanation for the development of change in species.
There is no contradiction.
We don't find strings of prime numbers in the natural world - hence, to find them would suggest they were not of a natural origin, or they'd ...[text shortened]... , but when totalled up over many generations of a specioes, may lead to significant change.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou have evidence; okay...I've never said you didn't. I do disagree
I have evidence. Physical evidence. It's pointless to try and have any conversation with you on this point Kelly, as I already know the disdain you hold for physical evidence.
with you from time to time when you start telling me what your
evidence means. It is one thing to have evidence and quite another
to explain it properly/accurately as it relates to reality. I do not hold
evidence in disdain, I hold postions of faith and belief that are made
as if they are facts in disdain.
Kelly