| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
09 Aug 2004 11:03:13 PM |
| Object: |
Dembski's "Information as a Measure of Variation" |
Information as a Measure of Variation
by William Dembski (a creationist)
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000534.html
(which has a link to an 18-page PDF)
Abstract: Within information theory, information typically measures
the reduction of uncertainty that results from the knowledge that an
event has occurred. But what if the item of knowledge learned is not
the occurrence of an event but, rather, the change in probability
distribution associated with an ensemble of events? This paper takes
the usual account of information, which focuses on events, and
generalizes it to probability distributions/ measures. In so doing,
it facilitates the assignment of "generalized bits" to arbitrary state
transitions of physical systems. In particular, it provides a
theoretical framework for characterizing the informational continuity
of evolving systems and for rigorously assessing the degree to which
such systems exhibit, or fail to exhibit, continuous change.
.
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
30 Aug 2004 08:59:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:39:49 +0000, William wrote:
To put it another way, can we say with certainty that science could
never devise a test where a positive result would logically rule out the
possibility of a scientific explanation?
The paradox seems to be that, to say that, it would have to be expressed
as a proof - something we cannot do in science.
Without such a proof, however, it would seem that we cannot entirely
rule out the possibility that an explanation has to include a
non-naturalistic element. Labelling it perpetually 'not knowable' would
seem to amount to the same thing. This is not saying that some
supernatural intelligence has to be invoked.
Unless "non-natural" has some actual property that can be detected, I
don't see how you could ever say decisvely one way or the other. For that
matter, how do we know that, say, gravity isn't "non-natural"?
You seem to be mixing two concepts. In your last paragraph quoted above
you're talking about "non-natural" stuff, but in your first you're talking
about "scientific" stuff. Who's to say we can't do scientific
explanations for the non-natural, if the proponents of the non-natural
ever tell us what it is and how to detect it?
I think your conundrum is a result of you assuming that "scientific" and
"non-natural" are two distinct classes. Yet without some kind of
definition we don't even know whether the second class exists, let alone
whether it is outside the purview of science.
If you want to offer some working definition of "non-natural", maybe we
can answer your questions. The trick is coming up with a definition of
"non-natural" that isn't just a synonym for "unknown" or "unknowable",
which would seem to answer your questions trivially.
Of course, you could define "non-natural" as "resulting from the activity
of unicorns", but then your concerns are about as interesting as the
question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
30 Aug 2004 02:57:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 13:59:41 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 11:39:49 +0000, William wrote:
To put it another way, can we say with certainty that science could
never devise a test where a positive result would logically rule out the
possibility of a scientific explanation?
The paradox seems to be that, to say that, it would have to be expressed
as a proof - something we cannot do in science.
Without such a proof, however, it would seem that we cannot entirely
rule out the possibility that an explanation has to include a
non-naturalistic element. Labelling it perpetually 'not knowable' would
seem to amount to the same thing. This is not saying that some
supernatural intelligence has to be invoked.
Unless "non-natural" has some actual property that can be detected, I
don't see how you could ever say decisvely one way or the other. For that
matter, how do we know that, say, gravity isn't "non-natural"?
You seem to be mixing two concepts. In your last paragraph quoted above
you're talking about "non-natural" stuff, but in your first you're talking
about "scientific" stuff. Who's to say we can't do scientific
explanations for the non-natural, if the proponents of the non-natural
ever tell us what it is and how to detect it?
I think your conundrum is a result of you assuming that "scientific" and
"non-natural" are two distinct classes. Yet without some kind of
definition we don't even know whether the second class exists, let alone
whether it is outside the purview of science.
If you want to offer some working definition of "non-natural", maybe we
can answer your questions. The trick is coming up with a definition of
"non-natural" that isn't just a synonym for "unknown" or "unknowable",
which would seem to answer your questions trivially.
Of course, you could define "non-natural" as "resulting from the activity
of unicorns", but then your concerns are about as interesting as the
question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I was to a large extent using 'scientific' and 'naturalistic'
interchangeably. But your point about 'natural' not having a
detectable property is a valid one.
I think this particular discussion has been quite useful. I have
always argued against the notion of adding 'unnecessary entities' and
have had a gut feeling that science could never (even conceivably)
legitimately take account of possible non-natural entities as part of
a scientific explanation. These few exchanges in this thread have
helped to clear that up.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
29 Aug 2004 01:37:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:26:23 +0000, William wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:07:27 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event inherently
had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the surroundings.
Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under rigorously
monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at the behest of
some religious sage. What would the scientific position be? Is there, in
principle, any test where science would accept that there was a
non-natural element as part of the explanation?
I suppose we'd have to start by defining what "non-natural" means.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
29 Aug 2004 02:24:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:37:35 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:26:23 +0000, William wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant"<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event inherently
had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the surroundings.
Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under rigorously
monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at the behest of
some religious sage. What would the scientific position be? Is there, in
principle, any test where science would accept that there was a
non-natural element as part of the explanation?
I suppose we'd have to start by defining what "non-natural" means.
Probably means that 'natural' would always be extended to include the
new observation.
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
29 Aug 2004 03:10:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:24:06 +0000, William wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:37:35 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 18:26:23 +0000, William wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant"<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have
a natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird'
science waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event
inherently had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the
surroundings. Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under
rigorously monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at
the behest of some religious sage. What would the scientific position
be? Is there, in principle, any test where science would accept that
there was a non-natural element as part of the explanation?
I suppose we'd have to start by defining what "non-natural" means.
Probably means that 'natural' would always be extended to include the
new observation.
Historically, that has been the case. For many of us, life and lightning
are every bit as natural as air and dirt.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
29 Aug 2004 02:06:53 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:07:27 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event inherently
had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the
surroundings. Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under
rigorously monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at
the behest of some religious sage. What would the scientific position
be? Is there, in principle, any test where science would accept that
there was a non-natural element as part of the explanation?
We have examples of such things, such as the orbit of Mercury, which
Newtonian mechanics could not explain. Now, at that point, physicists
had two choices, either invoke magic (angels pushing Mercury, etc.), or
realize that the current theory doesn't fit the data.
If we simply say "it was supernatural", that is the end of the road. No
further understanding can be gained. It is magic, beyond this point
there be monsters, all that rot. The scientists might as well walk
away, lock up the shop and throw away the keys.
Or just perhaps the current understanding of the phenomona isn't
correct, or at least adequate for all conditions. In that case, the
theory has to be modified or a new one is required. But to simply say
"Goddidit", or what ever magical invocation you feel is relevant based
upon your particular supernatural leanings, is nothing more than a tacit
admission that the phenomona is unknowable. Science simply cannot deal
with the supernatural, as it is, after all, based upon methodological
naturalism.
So, if you saw this odd behavior in molecules, what would be *your*
first reaction?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
30 Aug 2004 06:42:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:06:53 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
William wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant"<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event inherently
had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the
surroundings. Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under
rigorously monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at
the behest of some religious sage. What would the scientific position
be? Is there, in principle, any test where science would accept that
there was a non-natural element as part of the explanation?
We have examples of such things, such as the orbit of Mercury, which
Newtonian mechanics could not explain. Now, at that point, physicists
had two choices, either invoke magic (angels pushing Mercury, etc.), or
realize that the current theory doesn't fit the data.
Yes, but I was asking whether there could be a point where science has
to say that a particular phenomenon inherently *cannot* (rather than
doesn't yet) have a naturalistic explanation. If not, then can this be
deduced logically or do we just assume that what is naturalistic (ie,
what can be explained scientifically) can be extended to any
phenomena?
Or to put it the other way, can we say with certainty that science
could never devise a test where a positive result would rule out the
possibility of a scientific explanation?
If so, the paradox seems to be that it would have to be expressed as a
proof - something we cannot do in science. But wouldn't such a proof
be required in order for the non-naturalistic element to be
superfluous in the explanation of any phenomena?
William
If we simply say "it was supernatural", that is the end of the road. No
further understanding can be gained. It is magic, beyond this point
there be monsters, all that rot. The scientists might as well walk
away, lock up the shop and throw away the keys.
Or just perhaps the current understanding of the phenomona isn't
correct, or at least adequate for all conditions. In that case, the
theory has to be modified or a new one is required. But to simply say
"Goddidit", or what ever magical invocation you feel is relevant based
upon your particular supernatural leanings, is nothing more than a tacit
admission that the phenomona is unknowable. Science simply cannot deal
with the supernatural, as it is, after all, based upon methodological
naturalism.
So, if you saw this odd behavior in molecules, what would be *your*
first reaction?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
30 Aug 2004 10:19:46 AM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:06:53 +0000 (UTC), AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
William wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant"<bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:54:29 +0000, William wrote:
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
How, in principle, would you observe that some natural event inherently
had no natural cause?
I don't know but I guess it would have to be done on the basis of the
sum of current scientific knowledge. Maybe where a molecule could gain
momentum where there was vastly insufficient energy in the
surroundings. Pushing it a bit further - maybe if it was done under
rigorously monitored scientific conditions and occurred repeatably at
the behest of some religious sage. What would the scientific position
be? Is there, in principle, any test where science would accept that
there was a non-natural element as part of the explanation?
We have examples of such things, such as the orbit of Mercury, which
Newtonian mechanics could not explain. Now, at that point, physicists
had two choices, either invoke magic (angels pushing Mercury, etc.), or
realize that the current theory doesn't fit the data.
Yes, but I was asking whether there could be a point where science has
to say that a particular phenomenon inherently *cannot* (rather than
doesn't yet) have a naturalistic explanation.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, knowledge of the
position of a subatomic particle inherently prevents you from knowledge
of momentum of that particle (and vice versa). That is an example where
science admits it cannot have full knowledge and, as far as it currently
knows, never will be able to have full knowledge. There are many things
that science readily admits it is unlikely to ever know in absolute
detail (including the evolutionary history of jellyfish and worms)
*because* scientific explanations are constrained by material evidence.
If not, then can this be
deduced logically or do we just assume that what is naturalistic (ie,
what can be explained scientifically) can be extended to any
phenomena?
Any *natural* phenomena.
Or to put it the other way, can we say with certainty that science
could never devise a test where a positive result would rule out the
possibility of a scientific explanation?
If a material test of a hypothesis is possible, so is a scientific
explanation. It is the lack of such tests that make ID Creationism a
non-science fall-back to the God of the Gaps. Science is perfectly able
to test material intelligent agents with material properties. It is
unable to test intelligent agents that are invisible and are merely
claimed to have done something, somehow, somewhere, sometime, by some
unspecified and untestable mechanism.
If so, the paradox seems to be that it would have to be expressed as a
proof - something we cannot do in science. But wouldn't such a proof
be required in order for the non-naturalistic element to be
superfluous in the explanation of any phenomena?
The non-naturalistic element is superfluous in the explanation of any
phenomenon because it is indistinguishable from the statement "We don't know."
William
If we simply say "it was supernatural", that is the end of the road. No
further understanding can be gained. It is magic, beyond this point
there be monsters, all that rot. The scientists might as well walk
away, lock up the shop and throw away the keys.
Or just perhaps the current understanding of the phenomona isn't
correct, or at least adequate for all conditions. In that case, the
theory has to be modified or a new one is required. But to simply say
"Goddidit", or what ever magical invocation you feel is relevant based
upon your particular supernatural leanings, is nothing more than a tacit
admission that the phenomona is unknowable. Science simply cannot deal
with the supernatural, as it is, after all, based upon methodological
naturalism.
So, if you saw this odd behavior in molecules, what would be *your*
first reaction?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
30 Aug 2004 02:45:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:19:46 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
<hersheyh@indiana.edu> wrote:
William wrote:
[snip]
Yes, but I was asking whether there could be a point where science has
to say that a particular phenomenon inherently *cannot* (rather than
doesn't yet) have a naturalistic explanation.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, knowledge of the
position of a subatomic particle inherently prevents you from knowledge
of momentum of that particle (and vice versa). That is an example where
science admits it cannot have full knowledge and, as far as it currently
knows, never will be able to have full knowledge. There are many things
that science readily admits it is unlikely to ever know in absolute
detail (including the evolutionary history of jellyfish and worms)
*because* scientific explanations are constrained by material evidence.
If not, then can this be
deduced logically or do we just assume that what is naturalistic (ie,
what can be explained scientifically) can be extended to any
phenomena?
Any *natural* phenomena.
Or to put it the other way, can we say with certainty that science
could never devise a test where a positive result would rule out the
possibility of a scientific explanation?
If a material test of a hypothesis is possible, so is a scientific
explanation. It is the lack of such tests that make ID Creationism a
non-science fall-back to the God of the Gaps. Science is perfectly able
to test material intelligent agents with material properties. It is
unable to test intelligent agents that are invisible and are merely
claimed to have done something, somehow, somewhere, sometime, by some
unspecified and untestable mechanism.
If so, the paradox seems to be that it would have to be expressed as a
proof - something we cannot do in science. But wouldn't such a proof
be required in order for the non-naturalistic element to be
superfluous in the explanation of any phenomena?
The non-naturalistic element is superfluous in the explanation of any
phenomenon because it is indistinguishable from the statement "We don't know."
I think I agree with all that. I raised this question about whether
science could ever take the non-naturalistic into it's explanation
because it was something that needed to be answered.
Many folk (myself included) often just point out the fallacy of the
God-of-the-Gaps and the pointlessness of adding "unnecessary entities"
but do not address the issue of whether there could ever conceivably
be a case where the non-natural could legitimately be included in a
scientific explanation. Even when debating ID proponents the issue is
sometimes argued on whether a particular observation could or couldn't
be evidence for a supernatural intervention.
William
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Howard Hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
29 Aug 2004 10:14:40 PM |
|
|
William wrote:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:28:28 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
<hersheyh@indiana.edu> wrote:
david ford wrote:
[snip]
Aaron, is your rejection of the hypothesis of intelligent design of
the first lifeform [AC]"nothing more than an argument from
incredulity, propped up by" your adherence to atheism?
I do not reject the hypothesis of intelligent design that IDeologues
present. It is, in fact, an unrejectable and untestable hypothesis,
since one can always invent an intelligent designer to explain whatever
exists. I merely point out that it is a nonscientific explanation.
But to answer the question, scientific hypotheses are always a-theistic
and non-supernatural. Science constrains itself to such explanations.
But would it not be possible for science to identfy some non-natural
agent if it could be observed that a natural event inherently had no
natural cause? Non-natural would simply mean that it could not have a
natural cause (not just that no natural cause had yet been found).
Or would it always have to be put into the category of 'weird' science
waiting for a rational explanation?
It would be put into the category of *unknown* causation if it were a
consistent finding in nature and into the category of anomoly if it were
a rare oddity, both waiting for a natural explanation (which may or not
be found or, in the worst case, not findable). It would never, in
science, move from those categories to the category of "a supernatural goddidit".
Of course, some (maybe even most) of the natural forces that shape (and
can shape) evolutionary change (genetic sequence change and modification
of expression of sequences in populations of organisms) are not at all *unknown*.
William
If you wish to present a scientific ID explanation, there are ways to do
so, as evidenced by anthropology, forensics, and other scientific
disciplines. But those disciplines always (unlike ID creationism) are
interested in the motives, capacities, and *naturalistic* methodologies
of the *naturalistic* designers. Supernatural designers simply have no
place in the methodology of science, whether they exist or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
28 Aug 2004 05:42:50 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncipocd.97j.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you understand that Haeckel and Wald were talking about the
falsified early hypothesis of "spontaneous generation" i.e. of
specific life forms over very short time-frames (days), but Barrow and
Dawkins were referring to the "spontaneous generation" of the building
blocks of life over millions of years? It should be obvious that these
are totally different concepts, even to you.
And this is the root problem. David considers muddying the waters with
rhetorical tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. By using abiogenesis,
it is quite clear what is being referred to.
You know what I'm referring to by "spontaneous generation." When did
the term "abiogenesis" first appear?
I know what you're trying to do, David. As I said, you believe
rhetorical victories are scientific victories. You can use "spontaneous
generation" if you wish, but I know why you do. You would think, to
further productive conversation, that you would use terminology that
wasn't meant to confuse.
David is deliberately trying
to confuse things by using the term "spontaneous generation" which also
holds to an older, long-debunked notion.
What are some ways in which the hypothesis of abiogenesis can be
[AC]"debunked"?
Well, if the chemistry don't work, David, then I'd say a proposed
process has a problem.
In this way he can drag in
irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense and equate it with the modern scientific
concept of abiogenesis, and have everyone running around explaining why that
isn't the same as the old idea of spontaneous generation, rather than
discussing abiogenesis.
If I ever do [AC]"drag in irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense" let us
know.
I just did, DAvid. That's why you are using a term that refers to an
old, debunked concept. It's part of your bag of rhetorical tricks.
In short, David Ford uses dishonest tactics, because he considers a
rhetorical win to be the equalivalent of actually demonstrating that
abiogenesis cannot produce life. This is why I would like David to explain
why specific theories of abiogenesis are wrong,
Are you going to be replying to the opening post's questions directed
to you?:
Are you ever going to have a real conversation, David?
What piece of experimental evidence do you find most impressive on
behalf of the spontaneous generation hypothesis?
Proteinoid microspheres are pretty impressive, as are the various ways
in which amino acids have been to shown form, even in strange places
like outer space.
What book is arriving at your local library soon?
Will you be getting Rana & Ross's book?
_How_ did the DNA-RNA-protein system originate?
I don't know David. Why not ask some of the folks here who have an
idea? Of course, they have tried to explain, but, as part of your
rhetorical bag of tricks which you use because you can't really debate
them, you simply ask the same question over and over again.
rather than just
quote-mining researchers and playing his word games. I don't think David
will. He'll flee the thread long before he ever actually has to explain, in
his own words, and not in the disjointed, out-of-context quotes, what he
feels to be the major issues with abiogenesis.
It will be interesting to see how long you stick around and offer
substantive responses to my posts in this thread.
Hey, DAvid, you are the one that flees threads. Where's your comments
to the Atheocracy thread, DAvid? What about the conversation we were
having about alient intelligent designers? The record is clear.
Judging by past
experience, it probably won't be long.
I agree. You'll run away before too long.
I'm still hoping, though, that
your participation in this thread won't be characterized by sniping
from the sidelines, but will instead reflect immersion in the
nitty-gritty details of the debate.
Nitty-gritty details have been offered by others. Why haven't you
responded David? Is there a problem?
And that, dear friends, is
because David Ford's objections to abiogenesis are nothing more than an
argument from incredulity, propped up by his religious beliefs, old quotes
and deliberate quote-mines.
Aaron, is your rejection of the hypothesis of intelligent design of
the first lifeform [AC]"nothing more than an argument from
incredulity, propped up by" your adherence to atheism?
No, it is because you haven't provided any evidence, and are capable of
only rhetorical games.
Provide some evidence David.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
25 Aug 2004 06:14:51 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 02:48:18 +0000 (UTC),
Eros <eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you understand that Haeckel and Wald were talking about the
falsified early hypothesis of "spontaneous generation" i.e. of
specific life forms over very short time-frames (days), but Barrow and
Dawkins were referring to the "spontaneous generation" of the building
blocks of life over millions of years? It should be obvious that these
are totally different concepts, even to you.
And this is the root problem. David considers muddying the waters with
rhetorical tricks to be a legitimate form of debate. By using abiogenesis,
it is quite clear what is being referred to. David is deliberately trying
to confuse things by using the term "spontaneous generation" which also
holds to an older, long-debunked notion. In this way he can drag in
irrelevant pre-Pasteur nonsense and equate it with the modern scientific
concept of abiogenesis, and have everyone running around explaining why that
isn't the same as the old idea of spontaneous generation, rather than
discussing abiogenesis.
In short, David Ford uses dishonest tactics, because he considers a
rhetorical win to be the equalivalent of actually demonstrating that
abiogenesis cannot produce life. This is why I would like David to explain
why specific theories of abiogenesis are wrong, rather than just
quote-mining researchers and playing his word games. I don't think David
will. He'll flee the thread long before he ever actually has to explain, in
his own words, and not in the disjointed, out-of-context quotes, what he
feels to be the major issues with abiogenesis. And that, dear friends, is
because David Ford's objections to abiogenesis are nothing more than an
argument from incredulity, propped up by his religious beliefs, old quotes
and deliberate quote-mines.
Which is why I killfiled him long ago. If David was actually interested
in engaging this debate he'd address at least some of the issues I
raised in the Spontaneous Generation FAQ (shameless self-promotion
over). It is widely understood that spontaneous generation meant ongoing
generation of life as a normal part of current biology, while
abiogenesis was understood to be something that could only occur in
certain conditions of a lifeless world.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Life cheats
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pericope" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
24 Aug 2004 01:51:28 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408230552.47df9705@posting.google.com>...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> in "Re: Gould and Racism" on
2004-08-21
in message news:<slrncieo1d.1e6.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On 21 Aug 2004 david ford < > wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncicgl8.7s5.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
On 20 Aug 2004 david ford < > wrote:
Can [Wilson]"scientific materialism explai[n]" how life originated
through the transformation of matter into life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence/mind whatsoever?
The ol' argument from incredulity, eh DAvid? Why don't you
tell us what is wrong with current theories of abiogenesis, David?
Pick a favorite theory of yours, and I will see what I can present
about it.
By that I don't mean:
A. Quote-mining researchers
B. Fallacious arguments
C. Long, turgid essays made up of A or B.
As usual, I won't read your self-referential links.
You see, David, I have this suspicion that you actually no
damn little about abiogenesis research. There's nothing wrong
with that. I don't know very damn much myself.
I cannot think of a better way for both of us to learn more about the
subject of spontaneous generation than for you and I to discuss the
topic and do the library research necessary for us to continue the
discussion.
Is there a problem with the term abiogenesis?
Not really. Feel free to continue using "abiogenesis," and I'll
continue using "spontaneous generation."
Feel free to keep using "Intelligent Design," and we'll start using
"mysterious generation." ;-)
<snippping>
For clarification, let's use this entry from Wikipedia, found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
"Abiogenesis, in its most general sense, is the hypothetical
generation of life from non-living matter. Today, the term is
primarily used in the context of biology and the origin of life. Some
confusion exists on this topic, because early concepts of abiogenesis
were later proven to be incorrect. These early concepts of spontaneous
generation (referred to here as 'Aristotelian abiogenesis' for
clarity) held that living organisms could be "born" out of decaying
organic substances, et cetera, which we now know does not occur."
So, as long as you understand that we're all talking here about the
modern definition of abiogenesis and not the Aristotlean one Pasteur
dealt with under the name 'spontaneous generation', then as far as I'm
concerned you can call it "bartyflintagulosis" if you want. People
will think you're odd, but...
<snipping>
<snip>
_How_ did the DNA-RNA-protein system originate?
As most folks will gladly tell you, science doesn't have an answer to
this question--yet. But there are some interesting hypotheses about
it, and a fair amount of discussion, and probably even some actual
research going on.
On the other hand, what does the rhetorical theory of ID have to
say--even hypothetically--about just _how_ the designer(s) got the
ball rolling?
- F.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
26 Aug 2004 06:26:26 AM |
|
|
(Frank Pericope) wrote in message news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
(Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson as
you avoid answering the
question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question "_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
26 Aug 2004 11:54:01 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden
sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological
structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for
all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson
as
you avoid answering the
question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question
"_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the
question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively
trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science
for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Sienkiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 06:54:50 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-CMoXc.1552$Yf1.34583@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden
sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological
structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for
all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson
as
you avoid answering the
question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question
"_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the
question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively
trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science
for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
Let me be the first, "major:"
Naturedidit.
Of course, I'm not a scientist, so I'm not sure of the mechanisms,
though I know a bit about them - enough to know that, whatever
happened, it wasn't intelligent design and it wasn't creationism.
By the way, "major," do you recall telling us that it's scientific to
"posit" an intelligent designer?
I asked about that a lot.
Did you ever come up with an answer?
Oh, I know, I know...sometimes it takes you YEARS to come up with some
lame excuses, usually after you've ignored the issue for a long time
and you hope, being the liar that you are, that most have forgotten
and you can twist and spin your way around it.
We saw that again just recently, didn't we, "majormyass?"
But hey, I'm a reasonable guy. And even though I'm here to fight, too
- and I have better ammunition than you can ever dream of - I'd like
to see if you can answer one question honestly, without your normal
idiotic, cowardly and evasive games, and WHEN the question is asked.
So we'll pretend it's never been asked.
How is it "scientific" to "posit" an intelligent designer?
And, by the way, if nature didn't do it, who or what did?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pericope" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 07:34:26 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-CMoXc.1552$Yf1.34583@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden
sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological
structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for
all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson
as
you avoid answering the
question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question
"_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the
question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively
trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science
for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
Rather, for evolution: "It appears nature did it, and here's _how_..."
or for abiogenesis, which is more or less what were discussing here
"We're not sure how, but we're looking at it, and at the moment the
most likely means appear to be..."
On the other hand, for creationists it ends at 'goddidit', and any
further inquriy is considered a ticket to hell.
And for IDists, it ends at 'adesignerdidit', and any further inquiry
is considered (quoting DF) "dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit."
Neither of these latter two premature conclusions adds a single
applicable piece of information to the sum of human knowledge, which
ISTM means they fail as explanitory tools.
- F.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 06:06:04 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-CMoXc.1552$Yf1.34583@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson as
you avoid answering the question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question "_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
"naturedidit" is an apt description. Dr Forrest has invoked
"naturedidit" several times in responding to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 02:09:54 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408270318.39108ecd@posting.google.com>...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-CMoXc.1552$Yf1.34583@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson as
you avoid answering the question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question "_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
"naturedidit" is an apt description. Dr Forrest has invoked
"naturedidit" several times in responding to me.
Excuse me, David, but I have never used that response. I invited you
to obtain an education in evolutionary theory, offered you several
books which deal with the intricacies of the theory, and offered to
try to clarify any aspects of that theory you don't understand. You
claim to have read a number of books by Dawkins but it is clear from
what you write on this forum that you have not understood the
contents.
I provided you with several references dealing with the early
evolution of whales in response to your claim that there are no
'transitional forms' showing the adaptation of the ancestors of whales
to a marine environment. When you either
1) demonstrate through argument and evidence that the material
described and the arguements offered in those papers does not
demonstrate such a transitional series
or
2) make a public statement that such a transitional series exists
I am prepared to resume corresponence with you.
Until then, you are simply a dishonest poseur who has no argument to
offer and no evidence to support it.
As I have said many times, David, get an education.
RF
PS: Your silly little game of calling me 'Dr' Forrest is wearing a bit
thin, isn't it? You are making yourself look stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "howard hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
27 Aug 2004 03:45:14 PM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408270318.39108ecd@posting.google.com>...
[snip everything]
Until then, you are simply a dishonest poseur who has no argument to
offer and no evidence to support it.
I look upon him as a fundamentalist apologist who is using the only
types of argument (dishonest and dishonorable ones though they be) that
are available to him, given his fundamentalist position. After all, he
certainly can't fairly present the evolutionary position and use the
types of evidence that science uses. That is why all fundamentalists
end up use these bogus arguments and quote mined tidbits, some more
smoothly than the others.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models FaceOff |
27 Aug 2004 06:41:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:45:14 +0000 (UTC),
howard hershey <hersheyh@indiana.edu> wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408270318.39108ecd@posting.google.com>...
[snip everything]
Until then, you are simply a dishonest poseur who has no argument to
offer and no evidence to support it.
I look upon him as a fundamentalist apologist who is using the only
types of argument (dishonest and dishonorable ones though they be) that
are available to him, given his fundamentalist position. After all, he
certainly can't fairly present the evolutionary position and use the
types of evidence that science uses. That is why all fundamentalists
end up use these bogus arguments and quote mined tidbits, some more
smoothly than the others.
The difference here is that David seems to fancy himself some sort of
scientific historian and scholar. By dredging ancient quotes, and by
quote-mining researchers, I'm fairly certain he has deluded himself into
thinking that he is punching a hole in what he perceives as the soft
underbelly of science (or at least those portions of science that he views
as violating his Creationist views). I doubt very much that David reads
books by people like Dawkins for comprehension, but rather reads them
looking for phrases, sentences, paragraphs and the like which he can then
post here to claim that some scientist is declaring major flaws that will
bring down evolutionary theory.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that David doesn't start at the
Table of Contents, but rather starts at the Index looking for keywords like
"problems" or "design", zeroing in on passages that he thinks he can use.
It would explain how he can post quotations and yet seem extraordinarily
ignorant of how those fit into the full context. I even wonder, in some
cases, if he is consciously aware that he misrepresents the views of many of
those scientists he quotes.
But there is a conscious dishonesty as well. He insists upon asking his
"mindless forces" question over and over, and ignores the responses, simply
repeating the question. I think this is likely a rhetorical trick. He
thinks he can play it up to appear that no one has answered his question, or
that they haven't given a satisfactory answer, without ever actually having
to deal with so much as a single word of the content of an answer to the
question.
He also has a trollish side, such as with his "Atheocracy at work: China
arrests 100 church leaders" thread, where he started the thread and clearly
had no intention of taking part in it. I say trollish side, but I bet he
thinks this is as public-service announcements.
What I've learned over the course of a couple of years of attempts at
jousting with David is that, when you discount the quotes and
self-referential URLs, he is probably the Creationist on TO with the *least*
amount to say. What little original content there is to be found in his
posts is just simply the same phrases "blindwatchmaker hypothesis" and
"mindless forces" repeated ad nauseum.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 05:14:32 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0408270318.39108ecd@posting.google.com>...
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-CMoXc.1552$Yf1.34583@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" < > wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0408260339.635c4724@posting.google.com...
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) wrote in message news:<bc772a6d.0408241103.38a6428f@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
frank_pericope@yahoo.com (Frank Pericope) in "Re: Quote Mine Project:
Gould,Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes" in message
news:<bc772a6d.0408240936.74b46a74@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote:
An Impressive response, Dr Forrest.
But I do have one question. _How_ did totally-blind,
mindless-at-every-level processes generate the meaning-laden sequences
of nucleotides that code for all the different biological structures
and body plans and organisms in biology? Feel free to draw on
explanations by Dawkins and Darwin as you go about answering the
question.
</Channelling DF>
An unimpressive evasion, Nurse ford.
But I have a similar question: _How_ did intelligent designer(s)
generate the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all
the different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology? Feel free to draw on the rhetoric of Dembski and Johnson as
you avoid answering the question.
<\channeling DF>
I don't know.
Suppose a spacecraft not made by humans was found crashed on the moon.
I similarly wouldn't know _how_ the intelligent designer(s) of that
spacecraft created that spacecraft.
Suppose we receive a non-human electronic signal containing
instructions for building a spacecraft. I wouldn't know how the data
contained in that meaningful transmission was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of the instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a dragonfly. I don't
know how the instructions for making a dragonfly was generated by the
intelligent designer(s) of those dragonfly instructions.
Suppose we examine the instructions for building a bacterium. I don't
know how the instructions for making a bacterium-- which is far more
complicated/ intricate than anything people have created-- was
generated by the intelligent designer(s) of those bacterium
instructions.
I _do_ know that a high-enough level of intelligence/mind can do
things that totally-mindless-at-every-level processes cannot do, for
example:
making spacecraft,
generating instructions for making spacecraft, and
generating instructions for making dragonflies and bacteria.
In my opinion, any scientist that expends much time and energy
attempting to discover how totally-mindless-at-every-level processes
could have produced the instructions for building a spacecraft or
dragonfly or bacterium is wasting his or her time and energy in a
dead-end, futile, quixotic pursuit.
Or would ID rather not concern itself at all with the question "_How_
did the designer do it?"
Because, even if 'science' has only tentative answers to the question
of how abiogenesis occured, there scientists have been actively trying
to figure it out--forming hypotheses and performing experiments to
test them. I'm not aware of any IDers looking at the equivalent
question from their angle. They're happy just to assert that it
happened. "How?" seems to be out of scope for ID.
And so for you to again and again and again ask mainstream science for
a definitive answer to a question your pet rhetorical hypothesis
doesn't even bother to ask--let alone begin to answer--is rather
hypocritical, I think.
Nice word, [FP]"hypocritical."
1. Has Dr Forrest answered to your satisfaction the question I have
repeatedly asked him?
2. Also, what is your answer to my question,
_How_ did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate
the meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the
different biological structures and body plans and organisms in
biology?
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
"naturedidit" is an apt description. Dr Forrest has invoked
"naturedidit" several times in responding to me.]
Oh dear, David, I missed this little snippet in all the garbage you
post.
You asked the question, and I gave the answer 'evolution', and pointed
you in the direction of several books on the subject. Though you claim
to have read Dawkins, it is evident from your postings on this forum
that you have failed to understand what he writes. I suggest, as I
have suggested before that you re-read his books, and this time strive
for the comprehension which has eluded you rather than confusing the
concept of 'reading' with 'looking for snippets of text I can present
out of context to support my facile arguments'.
I can't remember if I have suggested that you read books such as 'The
Problems with Evolution', or 'Evolution' by Mark Ridley, or Steve
Jones 'Almost like a Whale', or any one of a number of other excellent
and readable books on the subject. It seems in any case to be a
complete waste of time. You are so blinded by the fanatasy of your own
intellect that you seem incapable of even attempting to understand the
basics of evolutionary theory.
If you think that 'naturedidit' is an adequate description of 200
years of research and libraries full of books and journals, you are
merely trumpetting your ignorance as if it is a virtue.
It is typical of your fundamental and fundamentalist dishonesty that
when presented with evidence which refutes your arguments you simply
pretend that it doesn't exist. You have been presented by myself and
other people with references which refute your claims of lack of
transitional forms. You are either too lazy to seek out those
references yourself, or too ignorant to formulate a reasoned
refutation to the arguments presented by those references; furthermore
you are too dishonest to admit that you were in error.
If you think that your behaviour on this forum will persuade anyone to
your viewpoint you are badly mistaken. You show a lack of integrity,
and a combination of ignorance and arrogance which reveal you as an
intellectual midget. I should add that in referring to me as 'Dr'
Forrest - a title which I have not yet earned, and which I have
repeated told you I have not earned, you are showing yourself to have
the emotional maturity of a ten-year old. You may think that it
irritates me - it doesn't. What it does is expose your basic
silliness.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Origins of Life: Intelligence and No-Intelligence Models Face Off |
27 Aug 2004 01:38:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:54:01 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
<snip>
You know they will never admit it..."naturedidit".
Ah yes, the other consumate quote-miner returns, after a brief period
attributable, no doubt, to the extraordinary way that this Warrior for
Christ managed to beat all us evilutionists up with his incredible knowledge
of science and brilliant command of the English language (including such
universally recognized witticisms as "you're a moron" and "you're a liar").
Perhaps, Glenny ol boy, you could describe how we could ever know anything
about the origin of life if something else other than natural forces were at
work. Nothing in depth, just your basic opinion will do.
I eagerly await your answer.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
.
|
|
|
|
| | |
