Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 300 (246212)
09-25-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by nwr
09-25-2005 12:19 AM


Re: ignoring origins
Hi nwr,
I think I am missing your point somehow.
The point of my Message 25 was that a highschool biology text book admits (deep in the appendices) that experimental evidence indicates that living organisms arise only from others of their kind...the principle of biogenesis.
Why the book wishes to spend an entire chapter speculating about how life could arise in a manner contrary to experimental evidence is beyond me. I am particualarly puzzled as to why the experimental evidence is contained on a page and half in appendix 16A while an early and nearly entire chapter (Chapter 4, which is sure to be gone over in class, unlike chapter 26, which may never be read) is devoted to the speculations that are contrary to the experiments of Pasteur.
Pasteur's experiments demonstrated that as long as there are no living organisms in an environment, there will be no living organisms in that environment.
That has not been disproven. And why should we think it would be? And, particularly, why should those speculations (about how the experimentally-supported idea of biogenesis could be circumvented) be treated as some kind of fundamental biological truth (i.e., by devoting an entire, early chapter to the speculations) in a high school biology text book?
--Jason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-25-2005 12:19 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 1:32 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 09-25-2005 9:10 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 9:22 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 32 of 300 (246213)
09-25-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 1:24 AM


Re: ignoring origins
The point of my ignoring origins (Message 25) was that a highschool biology text book admits (deep in the appendices) that experimental evidence indicates that living organisms arise only from others of their kind...the principle of biogenesis.
Well, that's clearly wrong, now isn't it? If that's true then where do all the new kinds of organisms come from? I mean, congratulations on having a ten-year-old high school textbook, but those aren't exactly known for their accuracy, now are they?
Pasteur's experiments demonstrated that as long as there are no living organisms in an environment, there will be no living organisms in that environment.
Pasteur didn't test an environment; he tested some broth. So what did he prove? That organisms don't spontaneously generate from broth. I don't know of any geologic or biochemical evidence that proposes that the primordial Earth was covered in broth, so it's not clear to me why you think Pasteur's experiment is relevant, or somehow proves for all conditions and all environments that abiogenesis is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:24 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 2:40 AM crashfrog has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 300 (246215)
09-25-2005 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
09-25-2005 1:02 AM


non-physical complexities
Crash,
Like I said there appears to be a whole lot about this "theory" that you're not aware of.
I haven't studied indepth. You may be right.
Are you sure you want to hang your hat on a theory you don't seem to know much about?
It's certainly not my theory. I believe the bible to be revealed truth...not a theory. So, no, I'm not hanging my hat on it. But I'll ride the train a bit longer. Maybe I'll make a complete fool of myself, but I might learn a bit in the process.
The entire theory is the equivocation of complexity with intelligence. If intelligence is the source of complexity how can intelligence not be complex?
Is it really? Does the theory define intelligence in anyway? Does it define complexity? How is intelligence complex? If it is, is it complex in the same way as the physically complex structures or processes that the theory proposes are the result of of intelligence is complex?
I still think that the theory can be justly described as proposing that physical complex systems are a result of intelligent activity without confusing physical complexity with intelligence. Does the theory purport to explain non-physical complexities?
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 02:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 1:02 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 2:07 AM TheLiteralist has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 300 (246216)
09-25-2005 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 1:55 AM


Re: non-physical complexities
Does the theory purport to explain non-physical complexities?
It's my understanding that the theory explains informational complexities, or at least, the complexity always seems to be expressed in those terms. I'm not familiar with any specific formulation in the theory that restricts it to information complexity of physical objects; it's just that ID's proponents resist its application outside of the mundane to avoid exposing the flaw that bkelley laid bare in his OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:55 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-27-2005 4:45 PM crashfrog has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 300 (246220)
09-25-2005 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
09-25-2005 1:32 AM


primordial broth
Pasteur didn't test an environment; he tested some broth.
To a bacterium, broth can be an environment.
Crash writes:
So what did he prove? That organisms don't spontaneously generate from broth. I don't know of any geologic or biochemical evidence that proposes that the primordial Earth was covered in broth...
My outdated highschool biology textbook writes:
...the energy sources...acting on that atmosphere, resulted in the formation of organic compounds that accumulated in the oceans until the oceans reached the consistency of a hot dilute soup.
the same book later on writes:
...it is difficult to think of life originating from a hot, smelly chemical soup, yet the evidence is supportive...
Sounds like broth to me.
--Jason
(I was trying to include something serious, but I'm too tired...don't take this post too seriously)
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 02:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 1:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 11:53 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 36 of 300 (246264)
09-25-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 1:24 AM


Re: ignoring origins
I think I am missing your point somehow.
Perhaps I missed your point.
If the book really contradicts itself, that's certainly a problem. I admit that my expectations for high school texts are rather low (based on experience). Without actually seeing the book, I cannot be sure whether there is a contradiction.
There is a question of how life originated on earth, and we don't have a clear answer to that. A book ought to mention that. I don't see any problem with it mentioning the various speculative hypotheses that have been offered. It ought to be clear that these are speculative.
I also don't see a problem in it mentioning Pasteur's experiments. There isn't an obvious contradiction there, unless the wording is poor. The conditions on earth today are very different from what they would have been at a time when there was no biological life, if only because biological systems change the conditions.
Pasteur's experiments did not and could not prove that spontaneous generation of life is impossible. They could only demonstrate that it is highly improbable under environmental conditions similar to what we see today..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:24 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 300 (246265)
09-25-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 1:24 AM


Ignoring differences?
TheLiteralist, msg 31 writes:
Pasteur's experiments demonstrated that as long as there are no living organisms in an environment, there will be no living organisms in that environment.
Pasteur's experiments showed that when you eliminate life from a {broth\whatever} that you do not see the effects of life on the {broth\whatever}.
The experiments by Paseur were short lived and did not represent the environment that existed on earth before life, or even before oxygen had become predominant in the environment due to the action of life.
You cannot say that his experiments in any way compare to ones currently going on in the field of abiogenesis.
The only reason I would give for information being buried in an appendix as opposed to a chapter is that some school boards objected to the material being taught (texas?) and it was moved to the appendix so that those students that were curious and wanted to know more had at least some avenue to find it.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:24 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bkelly, posted 09-25-2005 10:20 PM RAZD has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 38 of 300 (246283)
09-25-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 2:40 AM


Re: primordial broth
Sounds like broth to me.
Don't cook much, I guess?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 2:40 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 300 (246382)
09-25-2005 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:22 PM


It is a direct application
While Crash has been doing some rather effective heavy lifting, I really should add in my position.
quote:
Really? You mean we should test theories by seeing how they hold up when applied to subjects they were not formulated to explain? Interesting.
Not at all. But as Crash has said, the theory is directly applicable. The ID/creationist POV (point of view) says humans are too complex to have developed without external guidance. To question that is god is too complex is a direct, obvious, and valid application.
Please re-evaluate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:22 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2005 7:50 PM bkelly has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 300 (246400)
09-25-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:44 PM


Re: ignoring origins
bkelly writes:
The fact that he (some guy) will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support.
TheLiteralist writes:
Your last sentence is confusing. Does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore facts that contradict their positions?" Or does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely propose positions they cannot support?"
You are correct, it was written poorly. “We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore facts that contradict their positions?”
quote:
Either way, I presume you are living in a democratic society. It sounds like you'd rather live in a dictatorship or something.
It very well could look like that, but that is not my intent. When people put forth a position that cannot endure close examination we should not stand by quietly without that examination. To be silent on a topic is to grant implicit agreement. (Assuming of course that there is no duress.)
quote:
{tongue in cheek}
It is just horrible to allow people to say or believe whatever they want to, I guess.
{/tongue in cheek}
Good point. Valid point. But there is a counter point. Should we truly be allowed to teach people things as fact when the fact cannot be supported? Should the teacher be obligated to fess up to the fact that he believes these things but really has no verifiable reason to do so? The claimant has and should have the right to their position, but with that right goes responsibility. But this is an entirely new thread.
quote:
By the way, just how did life come into being? What is your position on that subject? And what empirical evidence do you use to support your position?
That is one of the most difficult questions that I have ever considered. I do not have a valid answer and I don’t think science really knows. The organization, complexity and abilities of DNA is just incredible.(1) The idea that life just kind of developed of its own accord, so to speak, is a difficult pill to swallow. And I cannot completely swallow it.
That said, there are some mitigating factors. We, that is to say scientists and engineers, do know of complex molecular structures that are self replicating. That is a major first step that I only recently read about. Can we really understand how long one million years is? How large is the ocean and how many billions of tons of unknown types of chemicals and complex molecules were there? How many opportunities were there in a million years?
In that first primordial soup, once life got started the first time, there were no predators, there was nothing out to get it. It only had to be successful once. One time in trillions of gallons of chemical soup, millions of years, trillions of lightening bolts, etc, etc.
And then there is that old saw about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy must increase. When correctly applied to the surface of the earth, it demands that entropy must decrease. But again, that’s another thread.
(1) a footnote that is. Here is one of my pet peeves. I am at a loss for adjectives here. Our society tends to use superlatives with reckless abandon. They are used to the point that they lose their significance. Then we must make up abominations such as humongous and horrific. What to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:44 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-27-2005 4:21 PM bkelly has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 300 (246404)
09-25-2005 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:58 PM


Intent not a prerequisite
TheLiteralist writes:
ID is a theory about how the complexities of physical life came into existence, isn't it? (Based upon things like how DNA works right?) If ID was an attempt to explain the existence of spiritual beings, I was not aware of this aspect of the theory.
I suspect that ID was indeed not intended to explain the existence of spiritual things. However, there are innumerable inventions and creations that came about because of totally unexpected results in experiments. Many software applications started as mis-use of the original code. If it fits, put it to work.
The ID theory is just as applicable to the existance of god as it is to humans and other life. I will indeed apply it. Being hoisted by your own petard can be a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:58 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 300 (246408)
09-25-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
09-25-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Ignoring differences?
quote:
Pasteur's experiments showed that when you eliminate life from a {broth\whatever} that you do not see the effects of life on the {broth\whatever}.
The experiments by Paseur were short lived and did not represent the environment that existed on earth before life, or even before oxygen had become predominant in the environment due to the action of life.
To expand a bit on RAZD, what do you think might have happended if Pasteur has done his experiment with a couple of billion gallons of broth for a couple of million years? And if he put chemicals in and took some out over and over? And if he heated it, and warmed it, and simmered it, and chilled it over and over? And if he zapped with with electricity in some places and not others? And as I said elsewhere, how many opportunities are there in a million years? That is a very long time.
In the realm of human life and disease, Pasteur's experiments were quite valid. But they do not scale up to an experiment the size of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2005 9:22 AM RAZD has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 300 (246653)
09-26-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bkelly
09-25-2005 9:15 PM


Re: It is a direct application
The ID/creationist POV (point of view) says humans are too complex to have developed without external guidance. To question that is god is too complex is a direct, obvious, and valid application.
Not if god is eternal.
Neither would humans require design if they were eternal.
'Who designed the designer' is a great way to falsify ID when the designer is ambiguous, but when you start calling the designer god it loses its applicability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bkelly, posted 09-25-2005 9:15 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2005 8:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 45 by bkelly, posted 09-26-2005 8:41 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2005 8:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 47 by bkelly, posted 09-26-2005 9:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 44 of 300 (246659)
09-26-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
09-26-2005 7:50 PM


Re: It is a direct application
Not if god is eternal.
What evidence from design leads you to this conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2005 7:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 12:36 PM crashfrog has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 300 (246663)
09-26-2005 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by New Cat's Eye
09-26-2005 7:50 PM


bluffs don't work here
Not if god is eternal.
Neither would humans require design if they were eternal.
CS,
I have read a number of your posts and you are more intelligent than to attempt to bluff this argument with such nonsense. I think (at least I hope) that I have shown enough intelligence that it is obvious I won't accept that rot.
Your answer is vacuous, I know it, other people here know it, and so do you. Please try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2005 7:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 12:38 PM bkelly has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024