|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is another rub that is often overlooked. The scientists who are manipulating matter and supposed conditions in the lab, are by definition 'intelligent agents'. If they are able to produce some burnt slime after zapping a chemical soup (while making massive and unverifiable assumptions about theoretical atmospheric conditions on the early earth), can they really say that 'such an experiment proves that it is possible without intelligent guidance'? The scientists' intelligence in such a case would be used to simulate the conditions of nature, not to guide the process. --- Your complaint seems to be a variation of an old standby. Creationist: I won't believe it until scientists replicate it in a laboratory. Evolutionst: We did. Look! Creationist: That doesn't count, because scientists did it in a laboratory. The peculiar thing is that in this case you're using it to attack an experiment that hasn't been done yet. You like to keep your bases covered, don't you? I suppose that's why your fantasy includes the scientists "making massive and unverifiable assumptions". If such an experiment is ever done ssuccessfully, that's what you're going to say about it, no matter how much evidence the scientists have as to the composition of the prebiotic atmosphere.
Let me ask you this... Could an automobile have evolved without intelligent agents designing it? No. Machines do not reproduce with variation.
All man made things break down into simpler and simpler parts. Just like natural objects. Clearly the whole is always more complex than the part, because the whole contains all the parts. What's your point?
So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is natural, then why do we so with life? So what is easier to believe? If we would not expect to find an old car buried in the mud and immediately conclude it is SUPERnatural, then why do we so with life? Look at it this way. If we saw something which verifiably defied the laws of nature, like Jesus walking on Lake Galilee, then it would be sensible to think that this was a supernatural event. If we simply see something we are presently at a loss to explain according to our current knowledge, like ball lightning or the hexagon on Saturn, or the mysterious disappearance of my glasses, or a conjurer making an elephant disappear, then it is more reasonable to suppose that there is an explanation within the laws of nature and that it depends on facts and/or laws unknown to us. Certainly any research into the phenomenon must be done on that basis. I can't look for my glasses under the hypothesis that they were stolen by magical spectacle elves and taken to fairyland. Note that I am not talking about philosophical naturalism --- an a priori belief that there is no supernatural. But there is a case for empirical and methodological naturalism as a default possition with regards to any specific thing that needs explaining.
Forget theory and inuendo... where are the laws and evidence to explain these things with the observations we do have? You might want to find out the meaning of the word "theory" and the word "law". And possibly the word "innuendo", since that seems an odd kind of way to use it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But we would conclude that the old car came into being supernaturally. You think used cars are evidence of the divine will? No, of course you don't. What is your point?
I think one trap we too often fall into is thinking of the supernatural as 'unnatural'. That is not what supernatural means. Supernatural: supervening the laws of nature. Artificial: created by intelligent processes. That's what the words mean, you don't get to change the English language by fiat.
I suspect we will not even be able to agree upon that... No. Even if you wanted my permission to change the English language, it is not mine to give.
The equivilant comparison is mindlessness (randomness or chaos) vs. intelligence (order and harmony). If you think that "mindlessness" is the same as "randomness or chaos" then you know nothing of physics, and if you think that "intelligence" is the same as "order and harmony" then you know little of the way our poor species conducts its daily affairs.
Random events do not give you order... And random statements don't give you an argument. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If that which is 'artificial' (forgery) ... You do love redifining words. "Artificial" and "forgery" are not synonyms. Brackets do not have magical powers. You cannot make cat mean dog by writing "cat (dog)".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Intelligence is artificial? No. The manufactured products of intelligence are artificial.
you're saying that words do have an objective meaning and that I cannot interpret by what they mean to me? I'm saying that they have a conventional meaning, and, kiddo, if you "reinterpret" them arbitrarily then you will be unable to communicate with English-speaking people. A point amply proven by this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Every sentence in your post is grammatical English. but it doesn't refer to anything. It's like Chomsky's sentence: "Invisible green ideas sleep furiously". This is grammatical, but it doesn't refer to anything and it's impossible that it could mean anything to English-speaking people.
I realise now why you've started a whole thread to discuss the question of whether words mean anything. Yes, they do. When you can accept this, come back and debate us. --- Jeesh, I just tried to debate with someone who thinks that the meanings of words are arbitrary. Why did I do that? No, really, why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Was it Kant or Nietzche who said, 'Before we can get rid of God, we must get rid of Grammar'? Actually, I think it was you.
You have me confused with someone else Dr.A. I want to start that thread to prove that words do have an ontic referent. It is you, who by deferring to convention, leave no basis for the objective meaning of words. Reality is brought to light by the words we use to describe it (Him). The reason you have a hard time, is because you presume to examine all of reality as though you are outside of it. But you are in Him. Until you know where you are in relation to Him, you will never see reality for what it is. And yet it is you who redefines words capriciously to suit your whims, and it is I, out in the darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, who uses words to mean what they actually mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Wow, you have the capacity to misunderstand everything I say.
You must be so proud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What do you think the phrase "genetic encryption process" (zero hits on google) even means?
It is easier for me to believe with less faith, that the information arose from something rather than nothing.
Yeah, me too. No-one supposes that the genome is made out of "nothing". --- You might find the following article interesting:
Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. Yup, it's abiogenesis in a test-tube, such fun. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And if there is a disagreement with this argument, please engage the argument given and dispense with demeaning the character of the authority in question. Well, he's just saying stuff. And it's a whole lot of crazy. If he could be bothered to provide supporting evidence for what he says, then I'd spend some time either showing that he's wrong or admitting that he's right. But instead he just says a lot of stuff. As though saying it magically makes it true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The more complex, the less attributable to chance. This is, of course, not true.
And nothing that we have evidence for in this universe is as complex and sophisticated as life. What does that communicate to you? It tells me that life must be a consequence of the laws of nature, not as a consequence of whatever it is that you want "chance" to mean.
Why do you think very intelligent scientists talk about intelligent design? Why do others talk about Panspermia? "Talk about" is a far cry from "support", isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Kuresu actually took the time to pick at the ideas. All you have done is attack the character of the author. If you were capable of understanding plain English, you'd know what I actually said. Good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Abiogenesis? Yes that's what they do. They talk about abiogenesis.
Go back and read my post again until you understand it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Nothing more than the fact that a gene is a linear digital code that is encrypted on one nucleic acid and translated by another. But this is not true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Consider Websters 2004 definition #3 for information. Why did you have to pick definition number #3? Oh, oh, I know, because the definition of information which would apply to genetic information would for that very reason not prove your point. --- The White House has a lawn. Definition #2 of "lawn" from the Oxford English Dictionary: a fine linen or cotton fabric used for making clothes. Hence, the White House has a fine linen or cotton fabric used for making clothes. This is all your dishonest word-twisting comes down to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your example would be applicable If I were using a definition of information that is not in the context of Biology. Still spinning, eh? The definition you've cherrypicked and misread does not in any way say or imply that DNA "only exists for the purpose of communication." It does not. Whatever one's stance on evolution versus creationism, it doesn't have an intelligent recipient. DNA is not a message carrying meaning.
And btw... assuming I had been dishonest (which I was not)... is there anything wrong with dishonesty? Or is such moralizing useless convention and ultimately meaningless? Please don't reply to that, I am only making a point. You think you're making a point. The answers to your questions are "yes" and "no" respectively.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024