Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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:   The design inference
joz
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 121 (7982)
03-29-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cobra_snake
03-28-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)No, it assumes that there are natural laws that we don't know yet.
2)I'm obviously not going to convince you on this matter, so I have a different question. So what? What if God DID do it?
3)I believe he attempted to publish in a scientific journal. He is also involved in books other than Darwin's Black Box.
"With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief..."
4)Really? So, you're saying that belief in a theory that has no supporting evidence makes it a "religous" theory? Actually, IDers do claim to have evidence, and that is the apparent design of living things in nature. It's rather unfortunate that detecting design generally tends to imply a designer, making ID "religous" in your view.
5)Yes, the religion of humanism.

1)And that they supercede the ones we know of and allow all sorts of what our level of knowledge would deem impossible living organisms???
Come on CS you can do better than that....
Also if what are thought of as impossible structures can somehow work it rather undermines IC given that it is based on the percieved non functionality of simpler structures....
2)Good for him all you`ve got to do is empiricaly proove that he did and you will be on the short list for the next Nobel prize.....
Can you?
3)And it was rejected then? What does that tell you about the validity of his theory? Oh I forgot its Global Evilutionist Conspiracy (TM) at work again......
4)No I`m saying that if you drag in a supernatural IDer (or have we agreed to call him God yet) that there is no evidence for the existence of it becomes a religious belief....
As mentioned already NS can act on random components and result in an apparently designed system....
Over on the Stonehenge and ID thread I have repeatedly asked JP for a methodology for differentiating between design and the appearance of design resulting from natural laws acting on a natural system.... So far he hasn`t answered my question, from this I infer (since JP is so fond of inference) that he can`t provide any such method....
So how about it CS want to jump in and give it a go?
5)Humanism eh, which sort?
From http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html
1-Literary Humanism
2-Renaissance Humanism
3-Cultural Humanism
4-Philosphical Humanism
5-Christian Humanism
6-Modern Humanism
a)Secular Humanism
b)Religious Humanism
I`m guessing that you mean 6-a) given that you say atheist...
in which specific context humanism is NOT a religion...
Or as the site above says...
quote:
Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion,
the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian--who said:
"What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"
That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized
by ancient Jerusalem.
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:08 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-05-2002 1:52 PM joz has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 121 (8018)
03-30-2002 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Cobra_snake
03-28-2002 10:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Are you even serious here? Come on man, you HAVE to realize this statement is AT LEAST as ludicrous as a creationist claiming the "grand evolutionist conspiracy" thing that you are fond of laughing at.
By the way, I don't see why exactly this topic has turned into a free-for-all bashing of John Paul. This kind of behavior is patently childish. Also, just because John Paul does not follow a naturalistic view as you may, does not make him ignorant or stupid.

Look, JP seriously wanted me to believe that Noah and his family fed pelleted and compressed food to the herbivores on the Ark. What am I supposed to think about a person who is willing to swallow whole the notion that this kind of thing would even be available in Noah's time, and who resorts to calling me a liar when he can't answer the questions I pose about the details of his scenario?
Seriously, what kind of opinion of his intelligence am I supposed to hold?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:01 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-05-2002 1:53 PM nator has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 121 (8216)
04-05-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by joz
03-29-2002 10:35 AM


"2)Good for him all you`ve got to do is empiricaly proove that he did and you will be on the short list for the next Nobel prize.....
Can you?"
Are you serious? You want "empirical proof"? First of all, it's impossible to prove something, and second of all, no matter what the evidence was, there would still be a large majority of people who don't believe in God.
"3)And it was rejected then? What does that tell you about the validity of his theory? Oh I forgot its Global Evilutionist Conspiracy (TM) at work again......"
It's not a conspiracy. It's human bias in action. Every time someone accuses an evolutionist of bias it becomes the "Global Evilutionist Conspiracy". There is no such conspiracy, it is just that every human is biased.
"4)No I`m saying that if you drag in a supernatural IDer (or have we agreed to call him God yet) that there is no evidence for the existence of it becomes a religious belief...."
There is evidence for Design, it's too bad that you don't see it.
"As mentioned already NS can act on random components and result in an apparently designed system...."
As mentioned already, "natural selection" can do anything you want it to do. Thus, it is impossible to falsify your "nature can do anything" way of thinking. However, I tend to think that irreducibly complex structures point to a Designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by joz, posted 03-29-2002 10:35 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by joz, posted 04-05-2002 2:16 PM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 121 (8217)
04-05-2002 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by nator
03-30-2002 9:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Look, JP seriously wanted me to believe that Noah and his family fed pelleted and compressed food to the herbivores on the Ark. What am I supposed to think about a person who is willing to swallow whole the notion that this kind of thing would even be available in Noah's time, and who resorts to calling me a liar when he can't answer the questions I pose about the details of his scenario?
Seriously, what kind of opinion of his intelligence am I supposed to hold?

It does not matter what JP has said previously (especially in another thread), because that still leaves no reason for ad hominem attacks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 03-30-2002 9:23 AM nator has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 121 (8218)
04-05-2002 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brachinus
03-29-2002 8:36 AM


"A theory with no supporting evidence may not be religious, but it certainly isn't scientific."
Whoops, I guess evolution is not scientific!
Like I said, it is your opinion that there is no evidence for a Designer.
"As for the "apparent design" in nature, it seems to me that that's a matter of interpretation."
I agree. What makes your interpretation better?
"Also, natural selection has been shown to create the appearance of design (e.g. antibiotic resistance in bacteria)."
I never really thougth of antibiotic resistance as a design feature. However, natural selection can apparently do anything it wants. Thus, it is impossible to falsify a naturalistic way of thinking. I look at design in nature and say "Design!" You look at design in nature and say "Blind mechanistic processes!"
"And what divine being does "the religion of humanism" worship?"
Richard Dawkins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brachinus, posted 03-29-2002 8:36 AM Brachinus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 121 (8219)
04-05-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Cobra_snake
04-05-2002 1:52 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)?
2)Are you serious? You want "empirical proof"? First of all, it's impossible to prove something, and second of all, no matter what the evidence was, there would still be a large majority of people who don't believe in God.
3)It's not a conspiracy. It's human bias in action. Every time someone accuses an evolutionist of bias it becomes the "Global Evilutionist Conspiracy". There is no such conspiracy, it is just that every human is biased.
4)There is evidence for Design, it's too bad that you don't see it.
As mentioned already, "natural selection" can do anything you want it to do. Thus, it is impossible to falsify your "nature can do anything" way of thinking. However, I tend to think that irreducibly complex structures point to a Designer.
5)?

1)No answer yet...
2)No I don`t want empirical proof I want some sort of material evidence of Gods exsistence before throwing the current paradigm out of the window...
Unless you can offer such evidence don`t bother with the what ifs because they are just that what ifs....
3)Do you understand how peer review works CS? Heres an overview a scientist writes a paper, he sends it to the editors of a journal he would like it to appear in, the editors have the paper reviewed by experts in the relevant field (his peers, hence peer review) who look for any glaring errors in methodology etc, if they find no such errors the paper is published REGARDLESS of their personnal opinions as to its veracity...
If Behe had anything bias could not stop publication only an obvious flaw, science contains mechanisms and methodologies precisely to supress the effects of bias....
4)Too bad you can`t show me any....
Nature can`t do anything thats why pigs don`t fly....
Natural selection is a method of selecting the fittest strains for a given environment, it cannot do everything because it doesn`t generate diversity it instead reduces it by throwing out that which does not work as well as the others....
Random mutation generates diversity, but there are limits on what it can produce, hence nature cannot do anything...
Nice demolition of a strawman by the way I`ll keep you in mind if I ever need anyone to get rid of scarecrows for me.....
IC structures can evolve (Muller, 1939) so how is there existence evidence for design?
5)No answer yet...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-05-2002 1:52 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 7:47 PM joz has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 121 (8288)
04-07-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by joz
04-05-2002 2:16 PM


"1)No answer yet..."
Sorry I didn't answer you here, but I didn't really think this discussion was going anywhere. It's not all that relevant anyway.
"2)No I don`t want empirical proof I want some sort of material evidence of Gods exsistence before throwing the current paradigm out of the window..."
Ok, fine. The cause and effect principle. The universe exists and had a beginning, thus it had a cause. The cause must of been something outside the boundaries of time, otherwise it would have had to have a cause. Thus, it is extremely likely that the creator of this universe is an omnipotent being.
I look forward to your discussion of quantam vacuum fluctuations.
"3)Do you understand how peer review works CS? Heres an overview a scientist writes a paper, he sends it to the editors of a journal he would like it to appear in, the editors have the paper reviewed by experts in the relevant field (his peers, hence peer review) who look for any glaring errors in methodology etc, if they find no such errors the paper is published REGARDLESS of their personnal opinions as to its veracity..."
I'm glad to know that "experts in the relevant fields" are not biased.
If you would like to see the original correspondence, here it is.
http://trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
"4)Too bad you can`t show me any...."
Even Dawkins admits that there is design in nature. It's unfortunate that he would rather attribute the obvious design in nature to blind naturalistic processes. Maybe you should take Dawkin's word for it that there are design features in nature.
"Nature can`t do anything thats why pigs don`t fly...."
If pigs could fly evolutionists would surely have a just-so story prepared to "explain" it.
"Natural selection is a method of selecting the fittest strains for a given environment, it cannot do everything because it doesn`t generate diversity it instead reduces it by throwing out that which does not work as well as the others...."
I know.
"Random mutation generates diversity, but there are limits on what it can produce, hence nature cannot do anything..."
What type of "limits" are there? Obviously wings, lungs, hearts, and brains do not violate these supposed "limits". No matter what existed in nature now, it could be attributed to mutations. Obviously the human brain with 120 trillion connections didn't stop it....
"Nice demolition of a strawman by the way I`ll keep you in mind if I ever need anyone to get rid of scarecrows for me....."
When I said that natural selection could do anything, I was also considering random mutations. Sorry that I didn't word it better.
"IC structures can evolve (Muller, 1939) so how is there existence evidence for design?"
What can't evolve? Obviously the human brain was no problem. Hearts, wings, lungs, bacterial flagellum, seems to me that evolution is one bad mother! Just because something "can" happen does not mean it did happen or was likely. Unfortunately, your buddy Muller didn't work out the evolution of bacterial flagellum. He didn't prove that IC structures mentioned by Behe could evolve. Waving the magic wand of mutations and natural selection and adding millions of years doesn't solve anything.
5)No answer yet...
Sorry, I didn't think the discussion was very relevant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by joz, posted 04-05-2002 2:16 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-07-2002 8:27 PM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 117 by joz, posted 04-08-2002 11:24 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 114 of 121 (8291)
04-07-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 7:47 PM


Cobra Snake:
I admit to not being much interested in, and to not having followed much the "inteligent design" debate. I did find http://trueorigin.org/behe07.asp to be interesting.
Indeed, down through history, there have been rejections of articles that, in hindsite, deserved publication. The example that comes to my mind is that of the early studies of chaos theory. The pioneers had a truely tough time getting published.
That aside, Behe's work is taking his perceived gaps in the evolutionary theory (which may or may not be real), and inserting God. This falls outside of the realm of science, and thus outside of the realm of scientific journals.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 7:47 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 10:00 PM Minnemooseus has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 121 (8297)
04-07-2002 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Minnemooseus
04-07-2002 8:27 PM


"That aside, Behe's work is taking his perceived gaps in the evolutionary theory (which may or may not be real), and inserting God. This falls outside of the realm of science, and thus outside of the realm of scientific journals."
Ok, but therefore you admit that the reason that the paper was not published was based on philosophical implications (whether or not such are valid).
This is the point I am trying to convey to Joz. Rejection of Behe's work does not have much to do with whether or not he is right (that God is responsible for life), but has more to do with philosophical considerations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-07-2002 8:27 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-08-2002 12:02 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 116 of 121 (8303)
04-08-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 10:00 PM


quote:
Cobra Snake: This is the point I am trying to convey to Joz. Rejection of Behe's work does not have much to do with whether or not he is right (that God is responsible for life), but has more to do with philosophical considerations.
But since it indeed does have to do with philosophical consederations, the publishing belongs in journals of philosophy. The internet is a better place, for a wider audience, but he still needs to consider the quality of his writing. I'm not particularly up on his work (once again, I plead a general crumby memory - I have read some of his on line stuff), but he does seem to have a reputation of distortions in the information he presents.
Moose
Added by edit: Geology has had it's share of information published, that has turned out to be wrong. It was the best information available at the time, as determined by the peer review process. Later discovered knowledge exposes and corrects the errors.
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 10:00 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 121 (8321)
04-08-2002 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Cobra_snake
04-07-2002 7:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)Sorry I didn't answer you here, but I didn't really think this discussion was going anywhere. It's not all that relevant anyway.
2)Ok, fine. The cause and effect principle. The universe exists and had a beginning, thus it had a cause. The cause must of been something outside the boundaries of time, otherwise it would have had to have a cause. Thus, it is extremely likely that the creator of this universe is an omnipotent being.
I look forward to your discussion of quantam vacuum fluctuations.
3)I'm glad to know that "experts in the relevant fields" are not biased.
If you would like to see the original correspondence, here it is.
http://trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
4)Even Dawkins admits that there is design in nature. It's unfortunate that he would rather attribute the obvious design in nature to blind naturalistic processes. Maybe you should take Dawkin's word for it that there are design features in nature.
If pigs could fly evolutionists would surely have a just-so story prepared to "explain" it.
What type of "limits" are there? Obviously wings, lungs, hearts, and brains do not violate these supposed "limits". No matter what existed in nature now, it could be attributed to mutations. Obviously the human brain with 120 trillion connections didn't stop it....
When I said that natural selection could do anything, I was also considering random mutations. Sorry that I didn't word it better.
What can't evolve? Obviously the human brain was no problem. Hearts, wings, lungs, bacterial flagellum, seems to me that evolution is one bad mother! Just because something "can" happen does not mean it did happen or was likely. Unfortunately, your buddy Muller didn't work out the evolution of bacterial flagellum. He didn't prove that IC structures mentioned by Behe could evolve. Waving the magic wand of mutations and natural selection and adding millions of years doesn't solve anything.
5)Sorry, I didn't think the discussion was very relevant.

1)It is relevant CS your original statement "Yeah, well on a different planet, anything is possible." implied a belief that physical laws are not universal, justify said belief...
If the laws we have observed here on earth have any relevance "anything" is not possible....
2)Why bother we have been over QVF several times on these boards, fact is that even in spacetime of zero curvature material spontaneously appears WITH NO CAUSE rather makes the whole cause and effect argument invalid....
3)I`d like to point out that that wasn`t a paper that he submited but a "heres what I think" essay, they are scientific journals CS they want science not philosophy, god of gaps etc....
If as he claims in his book his work is on par with Newton et al he should publish something in a technical journal, its been 6 years and he hasn`t go figure....
4)I don`t dispute that natural systems have the appearance of design the point is that it is not INTELLIGENT design....
In the stonehenge and ID thread I asked JP for a method of determining between ID and the appearance of design from natural laws acting on a natural potential, I am still waiting, how about you try to answer the question...
No Muller pointed out that IC structures evolve. You know, the old A does a job, A and B do it better, A mutates to A`, A` and B do a yet better job but A` needs B to work, B mutates to B` which needs A` to function, A` and B` do a fantastic job and also form an IC system.... argument...
Behe just says it appears to be IC, ergo design....
5)It is relevant CS you stated that humanism was a religion without mentioning which branch of humanism....
Modern humanism is split into (a)secular (atheist) and (b) religious (Unitarian and Universalists for the most part) humanism....
Humanism is a philosophy not a religion it has adherants that are religious (b) and adherants that are not (a), ergo it is not a religion...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-07-2002 7:47 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:13 PM joz has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 121 (8345)
04-08-2002 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by joz
04-08-2002 11:24 AM


1) I retract the claim then.
"2)Why bother we have been over QVF several times on these boards, fact is that even in spacetime of zero curvature material spontaneously appears WITH NO CAUSE rather makes the whole cause and effect argument invalid...."
Well, I can't really get into deep discussion here due to ignorance, but I have to ask one thing. If material "spontaneously appears", then why haven't we gotten rid of the first law of thermodynamics?
"3)I`d like to point out that that wasn`t a paper that he submited but a "heres what I think" essay, they are scientific journals CS they want science not philosophy, god of gaps etc...."
I'd like to point out that his first submition was about the fact that gene duplication was an inadequate mechanism for the blood clotting cascade. The second submition was an attempted reply to critics. I would only think it fair that a scientist has a chance to defend his theory after it being attacked repeatedly. I am obviously not as knowleadgable in the way of fairness as are evolutionary scientists, I suppose.
I thougth you might find this tidbit interesting:
"On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive."
I'm going to go ahead and take his word for it.
"If as he claims in his book his work is on par with Newton et al"
I challenge you to document the page in the book in which Behe suggests this in any way, otherwise retract it as an irrational and false claim.
"he should publish something in a technical journal, its been 6 years and he hasn`t go figure...."
He's tried at least twice and was dismissed irrationally twice, go figure.
"4)I don`t dispute that natural systems have the appearance of design the point is that it is not INTELLIGENT design...."
I don't dispute that natural systems have the appearance of design, the point is that it is not NATURAL design.
"In the stonehenge and ID thread I asked JP for a method of determining between ID and the appearance of design from natural laws acting on a natural potential, I am still waiting, how about you try to answer the question..."
So everything has evolved until proven otherwise?
"No Muller pointed out that IC structures evolve. You know, the old A does a job, A and B do it better, A mutates to A`, A` and B do a yet better job but A` needs B to work, B mutates to B` which needs A` to function, A` and B` do a fantastic job and also form an IC system.... argument..."
Yes I know the "old" alphabet soup argument. Muller didn't point out that IC structures evolve, at the most he pointed out that it could happen. Thus, reasonable processes should be easy to find, especially with all of the imagination of the evolutionary scientists.
"Behe just says it appears to be IC, ergo design...."
Seems more reasonable to me.
"5)It is relevant CS you stated that humanism was a religion without mentioning which branch of humanism...."
Fine, I meant atheistic humanism.
And I'll also admit that it's not really a religion.
P.S. I'm still waiting for your "limits" of mutational change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by joz, posted 04-08-2002 11:24 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Percy, posted 04-08-2002 10:15 PM Cobra_snake has not replied
 Message 120 by joz, posted 04-09-2002 12:09 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 119 of 121 (8351)
04-08-2002 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 8:13 PM


Hi Cobra,
Before I get to the thread's topic, just thought I'd say the clarification you posted about Baugh in another forum is appreciated.

Cobra_snake writes:
Well, I can't really get into deep discussion here due to ignorance, but I have to ask one thing. If material "spontaneously appears", then why haven't we gotten rid of the first law of thermodynamics?
You'll have to pardon me for picking just one small topic to address. I'm only operating on three cylinders tonight due to a cold, and I'm trying to kill some time waiting for a basketball game to start, so I thought I'd troll for topics I understand well enough to not screw up, and this one qualifies.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (henceforth 1LOT) says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But thermodynamics is a 19th century science that, while accurate in its own realm, does not extend to relativity, quantum mechanics or matter/energy equivalence. So naturally 1LOT isn't the whole story since from E=mc2 we know full well that both matter and energy can be created and destroyed by converting from one form to the other. Since E=mc2 tells us that matter and energy are just different expressions of the same thing, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then neither can matter (excepting conversions between the two).
But as I've already noted, thermodynamics doesn't include quantum electrodynamics, one of whose corrollaries is that it is impossible to know both the velocity and position of any particle with complete accuracy. The more accurately you know the velocity the less accurately you can know the position, and vice-versa. This is more familiarly known as the uncertainty principle, and it tells us that we can never be certain of what we measure about single particles. In fact, the uncertainty principle requires that even completely empty space is not completely empty because virtual particles are constantly flitting in and out of existence everywhere throughout the universe, which I believe is what Joz was referring to. This has been verified experimentally.
It's actually more complicated than this. You've probably heard of wave/particle duality, that both light and matter can be described mathematically as either particles or waves, with context determining which approach is most appropriate. Quantum electrodynamics prefers to describe particles as wave expressions that represent probabilistic functions of velocity and position. So even empty space isn't really empty, but only a probabilistic expression which, by reason of quantum uncertainty, can approach but never equal zero. Since the probability that matter is present can never reach zero, matter is always present everywhere. This takes the form of particle pairs (opposites in charge and spin) flitting into existence to temporarily borrow against the rules of 1LOT for a short period before combining to pay the debt and flit back out of existence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:13 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 121 (8384)
04-09-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 8:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
1)I retract the claim then.
2)Well, I can't really get into deep discussion here due to ignorance, but I have to ask one thing. If material "spontaneously appears", then why haven't we gotten rid of the first law of thermodynamics?
3)I'd like to point out that his first submition was about the fact that gene duplication was an inadequate mechanism for the blood clotting cascade. The second submition was an attempted reply to critics. I would only think it fair that a scientist has a chance to defend his theory after it being attacked repeatedly. I am obviously not as knowleadgable in the way of fairness as are evolutionary scientists, I suppose.
I challenge you to document the page in the book in which Behe suggests this in any way, otherwise retract it as an irrational and false claim.
He's tried at least twice and was dismissed irrationally twice, go figure.
4)I don't dispute that natural systems have the appearance of design, the point is that it is not NATURAL design.
So everything has evolved until proven otherwise?
Yes I know the "old" alphabet soup argument. Muller didn't point out that IC structures evolve, at the most he pointed out that it could happen. Thus, reasonable processes should be easy to find, especially with all of the imagination of the evolutionary scientists.
5)Fine, I meant atheistic humanism.
And I'll also admit that it's not really a religion.
P.S. I'm still waiting for your "limits" of mutational change.

1)Good....
2)a)Because as Percy said it is all to do with the uncertainty principle, if the particles are only extant for short times the universe doesn`t have time to realise that they are there...
Bit of a simplified anthropomorphic explanation but hey we didn`t want to get into details right?
b)Also the Mass-energy is balanced by negative gravitational energy, total energy of the system is zero. Ergo no violation of 1LOT....
3)Maybe its because blood clotting is not IC:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
(The bit entitled adding complexity is particularly relevant)
Try the whole book, he thinks he has proven non naturalistic origins scientificaly, if its true it is on par with Newton et al, his problem is that it isn`t.....
Not irrationaly science is about looking at a puzzling piece of evidence amd working out the how and why of it, Behe`s approach is to find the most fiendishly difficult puzzle he can, give up and write a pop press book claiming "Goddidit", Goddidit can never be science untill we can show that God exists......
4)Wow thats an amazing imitation of a parrot CS but you ballsed up the second from last word....
"Everything" didn`t evolve CS, all currently extant organisms yes but not everything the computer you are sitting in front of did not evolve did it?
Behe certainly thinks so, or was it someone else who said that all life evolved over billions of years from a single ancestor.....
As for Mullers "alphabet soup" argument once again look at the piece on that link entitled adding complexity....
Oh shocking, is that Mullers alphabet soup in TRW, in a system that is supposed by Behe (according to you CS-"gene duplication was an inadequate mechanism for the blood clotting cascade") to be IC....
5)Good lad...
Limits to mutational change huh....
How about harmful mutations? The hopefull monster argument? The laws of physics? Chemistry? Any of that sound potentially limiting to you?
P.S are you waiting for an answer from me anywhere else? I thought we were having a discussion on another thread but I can`t find it for love nor money....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:13 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 121 (10472)
05-28-2002 11:25 AM


Noticed JP had been around again so I thought I`d repost this....
quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
1)Yes us joz. As in the people that actually read your tripe, myself included.
2)Are you saying DNA is an indisputable example of CSI originating via purely natural processes? If you really think so, perhaps it's time you read this:
Unraveling the DNA Myth
3)This phrase caught my eye: "DNA did not create life; life created DNA".
4)Time is not on your side joz. The more we are finding out the more obvious it becomes that life is the direct result of an act of intelligence- ie ID.
5)What flaw? That never has anyone observed CSI arising via purely natural processes? Sorry, that's part of life. Bring us an indisputable example of CSI arising via purely natural processes and you will have exposed a flaw. But remeber, it it still the design INFERENCE. What criteria do you use for determining a purposely designed object to a naturallydesigned one?
6)If the implications of the article I linked to are any indication, that is all but a foregone conclusion.
7)What is really amazing is that of all the people who have tried to refute Behe's premise, not one has brought up Muller to do so. Go figure.
8)Apparently he did more than Muller was capable of.

1)Look up this thread JP everyother poster (apart from Ludvan who said he didn`t see what the fuss was about) is critical of ID and IC which means that "we" should have been "I" (unless you are schizophrenic or royalty)....
2)Hey your disputing it so its obviously not (indisputably so), the discussion has now moved on to your method of assessing whether it was designed or not....
Mark seems to have beaten me to it but did you bother to read that article JP? It suggests that Cricks "central dogma" has been shown to be false.
Somehow you seem to have warped that to DNA was designed, How? Where in that article does it even mention design?
What do you think the fact that genes code for more than one protein does to any claims that DNA is specified? Remember if it isn`t specified it can`t be CSI and thus ain`t designed under the EF....
3)Your "DNA did not create life; life created DNA" is hardly unexpected given that we think that RNA or PNA arose before DNA, it also doesn`t say "DNA did not create life; An IDer designed DNA" and thus really doesn`t support your point at all....
4)Really guess we`ll have to wait untill Behe follows his own advice to "publish or perish" to find out....
Whats it been 6 years now?
5)Wow not only is the EF flawed but so is your logic...
Look up to post 5 on this board, there you will find my explanation of why I see the EF as flawed...
You keep asking for an example (which you will never accept) of naturaly occuring CSI, your method of verifying if it occured naturaly or not? Run it through the EF which doesn`t permit the possibility of naturaly occuring CSI...
This isn`t even circular reasoning JP, its not that elegant, its merely the equivalent of deciding that CSI must be designed and putting your brain on standby and screaming DESIGN, DESIGN at the top of your lungs....
6)The only foregone conclusion I got from reading that article JP was that you hadn`t...
7)H. Allen Orr:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html
I posted this on page 8 of the study of ID debate thread to you, have you not been reading again JP?
8)Yeah thats why one of them has a Nobel prize and the other has acquired a reputation as a crank...
Lets see Muller comes across IC and works out how evolution can produce it, Behe comes across IC and gives up goes home early and writes a popular press book claiming Goddidit....
Honestly now who do you think achieved more?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024