|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Attn IDers, what would it take...? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Unless you're 'Mike Gene', you did it again:
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top... And if you are, you keep recycling your own old writings character by character.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Nuggin: Because they weren't manufactured, they weren't built at one location and brought to another one. They don't contain components which are interchangable. They aren't made of a material different than the entity itself.
Warren: This is such nonsense. You are simply making up a strawman definition of machine so that it won't apply to anything in biology. Nice try. Now let's try a common sense definition. A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function. No matter how you try to play games in defining a machine you have lost this agument. Why? Because I have the peer-reviewed literature telling me that scientists view certain things in nature as machines - machines of a different technology and with an accumulated history of evolution, but machines nevertheless. Therefore, to say that my viewing them as machines is comparable to believing in Santa Claus is just plain ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is your psychoanalytic judgment of those that disagree with you as being deluded by their emotions. The same could be said of you. Maybe you are opposed to ID for metaphysical reasons. Are you really open-minded about ID or are you blinded by your philosophical presuppositions? This message has been edited by Warren, 09-17-2005 12:12 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function. By this definition, an elephant is a machine. You're casting your net so wide so that every single thing is a "machine". You might as well substitute "noun" for "machine".
Therefore, to say that my viewing them as machines is comparable to believing in Santa Claus is just plain ridiculous. Not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that believing in ID / Creationism is tantamount to the belief in Santa Claus.
Maybe you are opposed to ID for metaphysical reasons. Are you really open-minded about ID or are you blinded by your philosophical presuppositions? I don't believe in magic. I'll admit that openly. When you're in texas and you hear hooves, think horse, don't think zebra and certainly don't think unicorn. The creationists start at unicorn.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function.
Wouldn't that make billiards a machine? I'm not convinced that there is a good definition of "machine". Our usage of the term would exclude billiards. It would also exclude chess, although it would allow for a chess machine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Chiroptera: The other type seems to accept common descent, but its adherents claim that there are certain features in life that could not have come about through strictly naturalistic processes. Fine, their ideas are consistent with what we know about the natural world; it may very well be that there are a few biological systems that have been "intelligently designed". But they are the ones who are proposing a new (or at least remodelled) theory. But if they are going to propose a theory, then they are the ones who have to show us how to test their ideas to determine whether they warrant further consideration.
Warren: A quick point. First of all, the ID camp I reside in constrains their ID investigation to the OOL (origin of life). They accept common descent. The OOL and the ToE are two different things. Evidence for one isn't necessarily evidence for the other. For example, consider the origin of mammals. From the fossil record, we know that organisms did exist prior to the existence of mammals. And we can find groups that are more similar to mammals than others, thus we can infer mammals evolved from precursors. But when we consider the bacterial flagella, we cannot point to precursors. We might try to infer their existence in a speculative fashion, but unlike mammals we don't know precursors pre-existed bacterial flagella. So what then is the evidence supporting the claim that bacterial flagella originated via a non-teleological process? If you are going to propose a theory, then you have to show us how to test your ideas to determine whether they warrant further consideration. This message has been edited by Warren, 09-17-2005 01:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
NWR: Wouldn't that make billiards a machine?
Warren: No. Where are the well-matched interacting parts? Colliding balls aren't the same as a piston connected to a drive shaft and causing rotating motion. In any event, I don't have to prove that something in nature is a machine. I only have to have a good reason to suspect it is a machine. Investigations begin with suspicions not absolute proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Warren: A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function.
Nuggin: By this definition, an elephant is a machine. You're casting your net so wide so that every single thing is a "machine". You might as well substitute "noun" for "machine". Warren: Sorry, I meant to say a molecular machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Then you accept that evolution can and has resulted in very complicated organs,features and complicated, interlocking systems of organs and biochemical processes. So it is an established fact that very complicated features can be "designed" through evolution. So far, there is no real theory or principle that limits the complexity of the products of evolution. As I have stated, the theory of evolution is the standard, tested, and accepted theory. So when someone is going to come along and suddenly insist that there are organs, features, or biochemical systems that are too complicated to have resulted from evolution, then they the ones who will have to put it on some sort of scientific foundation, either by showing that some "natural" features of life could not have been produced through the evolutionary process, or by directly showing that some feature definitely has been "intelligently" designed. This is why your statement surprises me. Your entire argument has been applied to many different features, like the vertebrate eye, avian flight, or the mammalian immune response, that you apparently accept as having evolved; yet you are using this precise argument in regards to features in the cell. Now we all know that cells do not fossilize well, and their biochemisty certainly doesn't fossilize, so we simply cannot have any fossilized evidence of the precursors of the modern cell even if they did exist; so we will, in all likelihood, never have the evidence that you want to demonstrate that these features of the cell have evolved. Now the precursors of animals from the pre-Cambrian are a relatively recent discovery; for many, many decades, it was a scientific mystery as to the nature of life before the Cambrian. Pre-Cambrian life were small and soft-bodied and lived unimaginably long ago -- there is no a priori reason to have expected that such fossils would ever been found. If this was still the 1930s, would you be advocating the "intelligent design" of multicellular animals? Many creationists are ignorant of the Ediacaran fauna, and so try to argue that the pre-Cambrian "explosion" represents the creation of life; taking into account their ignorance of the precursor fossils, do you think their position is reasonable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Warren: Therefore, to say that my viewing them as machines is comparable to believing in Santa Claus is just plain ridiculous.
Nuggin: Not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that believing in ID / Creationism is tantamount to the belief in Santa Claus. I don't believe in magic. I'll admit that openly. Warren: I take quite seriously Arthur C. Clarke's dictum: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." What you call magic I call advanced bioengineering. I do not think that an appeal to nanotechnology at the origin of life requires us to posit a supernatural force. Paul Davies says: "The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell." I think that viewing life as carbon-based nanotechnology rather than something strung together by an irrational tinkerer has the potential to inspire the generation of testable hypotheses that will help us better understand biotic reality. Will ID will prove to be a fruitful research paradigm? Time will tell. This message has been edited by Warren, 09-17-2005 02:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Warren writes: the ID camp I reside in constrains their ID investigation to the OOL (origin of life). They accept common descent. The OOL and the ToE are two different things. ...but unlike mammals we don't know precursors pre-existed bacterial flagella. Oops. That isn't OOL but ToE. And this particular example purposefully exploits the lack of fossil evidence for such features (because, gosh, such soft tissue creatures don't fossilize except under very extraordinary conditions), and it completely ignores the existence of many similar features in related bacteria and the genetic evidence of a common ancestor among them. Notice that when you reply you can chose between Normal: O Peek Mode: O in the upper right corner and that you can use {Peek Mode} to intelligently design your response with irreducibly complex items likeQUOTE BOXES
by copying this kind of "specific complexity" code from other posts. Welcome to the fray Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Warren: I take quite seriously Arthur C. Clarke's dictum: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." What you call magic I call advanced bioengineering. I do not think that an appeal to nanotechnology at the origin of life requires us to posit a supernatural force. I continue to consider that an interesting but odd position... You claim to favour a non-supernatural intelligent designer for the origin of life on earth, because you find it hard to believe that it came about through purely natural causes. But what is your position on the origin of these "intelligent designers" themselves? Since you claim not to favour a supernatural 'first designer', it follows that you WILL accept natural causes for THEIR origin, or not? There doesn't seem to be any alternative, except an infinite regression of intelligent designers. But if you accept it for THEIR origins, then why not for OURS? It seems even more far-fetched to accept it for them, since they would be far above our tehcnological capabilities, so their origin isn't exactly likely to be more 'simple'.
Paul Davies says: "The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell." That's how to quote properly... ;-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Annafan.
quote: I don't know what Warren himself believes, but it is logically possible for earth life to have been designed by non-supernatural intelligent aliens without going into an infinite regress. It is entirely possible that some alien intelligence arose naturally some place, but when they, for whatever reason, decided to seed Earth with its artificial creations they made some artificial "improvements" over the natural forms in its designs. The original intelligent's cells may have been simpler (or, perhaps due to haphazard evolution, inefficiently complex) and so more subject to diseases or being less adaptable; their improvements then could have created a "better" form of life. I think the bioengineering of Earth-life by a naturally occurring life form is logically plausible, which is why I am curious why the creationists would consider the proven existence of any example of "intelligent design" to be a victory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4579 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
I don't know what Warren himself believes, but it is logically possible for earth life to have been designed by non-supernatural intelligent aliens without going into an infinite regress. It is entirely possible that some alien intelligence arose naturally some place, but when they, for whatever reason, decided to seed Earth with its artificial creations they made some artificial "improvements" over the natural forms in its designs. The original intelligent's cells may have been simpler (or, perhaps due to haphazard evolution, inefficiently complex) and so more subject to diseases or being less adaptable; their improvements then could have created a "better" form of life. Well, that really doesn't sound plausible, does it? Considering them the product of "inefficient" evolution, while they are by definition way and waaay more advanced than we are right now? Of course it is logically possible, but I'd categorize that even 'behind' naturalistic origins of earth-based life
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Well, the only thing that makes it implausible is that there is no evidence that it has occurred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
In any event, I don't have to prove that something in nature is a machine. I only have to have a good reason to suspect it is a machine. Investigations begin with suspicions not absolute proof. That sounds a little silly. Science starts with clear definitions. "I suspect that xxx satisfies the definition" doesn't sound very clear. If a scientist were wanting to investigate this, but found the term "machine" too vague, he might simply introduce a new term and give it a clearer definition. In any case, I'm not sure where you are going with this. Even if you show that some biological thing is a machine, that would not prove intelligent design. Note that I don't have any principled objection to ID. I have only a pragmatic objection, due to it not being science. If the ID proponents would do something to make the investigation scientific, that would be fine with me. I have indicated how I think it could be made scientific in Message 6.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024