| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2004 09:26:12 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
(Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407310005.63f542e0@posting.google.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407301708.cbcc4b1@posting.google.com>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0407300904.625588bb@posting.google.com>...
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote in message news:<Xns953584FC928E4joshblargnet@216.168.3.44>...
Francis Crick passes away at age 88.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040729/w072972.html
A sad, but not unexpected, day.
Crick was one of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen.
Directly or indirectly, he was an inspiration to all of us who
followed in his footsteps.
[AG]"he was an inspiration to all of us who followed in his footsteps"
Here is one of Crick's inspirational statements:
1988 Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407251846.6acacaef%40posting.google.com
Oh dear. I never realised that Crick was a scientist who based his
research on the principle of methodological naturalism.
Just think how much more he could have achieved if, rather than
mucking about with molecules and double helices he simply said
'godimeananintelligentdeisgner did it' and moved on to the next
problem.
Suppose humans get to Mars and find a spacecraft not constructed by
humans. The examiners of that spacecraft can say to themselves,
"intelligence/mind was responsible for the construction of this
spacecraft," and still proceed to attempt to answer questions such as,
How did this spacecraft operate when it was functional?
How was this spacecraft fabricated by the intelligent entity or
entities that created it?
What are all of the components of this spacecraft, and how did each of
those components work together within the functioning spacecraft?
What if any software was utilized in this spacecraft?
How technologically-advanced compared with humans was/were the
creator(s) of this spacecraft?
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
05 Aug 2004 04:11:01 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0408041834.13a1b656@posting.google.com>...
richard@plesiosaur.com (Richard Forrest) wrote in message news:<892cb437.0407310005.63f542e0@posting.google.com>...
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0407301708.cbcc4b1@posting.google.com>...
grovesa@cco.caltech.edu (Andy Groves) wrote in message news:<991ea4ae.0407300904.625588bb@posting.google.com>...
Josh Hayes <joshno@spamblarg.net> wrote in message news:<Xns953584FC928E4joshblargnet@216.168.3.44>...
Francis Crick passes away at age 88.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040729/w072972.html
A sad, but not unexpected, day.
Crick was one of the greatest scientists the world has ever seen.
Directly or indirectly, he was an inspiration to all of us who
followed in his footsteps.
[AG]"he was an inspiration to all of us who followed in his footsteps"
Here is one of Crick's inspirational statements:
1988 Crick: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407251846.6acacaef%40posting.google.com
Oh dear. I never realised that Crick was a scientist who based his
research on the principle of methodological naturalism.
Just think how much more he could have achieved if, rather than
mucking about with molecules and double helices he simply said
'godimeananintelligentdeisgner did it' and moved on to the next
problem.
Suppose humans get to Mars and find a spacecraft not constructed by
humans. The examiners of that spacecraft can say to themselves,
"intelligence/mind was responsible for the construction of this
spacecraft," and still proceed to attempt to answer questions such as,
How did this spacecraft operate when it was functional?
How was this spacecraft fabricated by the intelligent entity or
entities that created it?
What are all of the components of this spacecraft, and how did each of
those components work together within the functioning spacecraft?
What if any software was utilized in this spacecraft?
How technologically-advanced compared with humans was/were the
creator(s) of this spacecraft?
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
And how is this relevant?
If such a spacecraft were to be found, would the methods of
investigation be based on anything other than science?
If ID has any value as in science, please describe a methodology which
would be used in investigating this hypothetical spacecraft not based
100% on methodological naturalism.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
05 Aug 2004 05:07:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:26:12 +0000, david ford wrote:
Suppose humans get to Mars and find a spacecraft not constructed by
humans. The examiners of that spacecraft can say to themselves,
"intelligence/mind was responsible for the construction of this
spacecraft," and still proceed to attempt to answer questions such as,
How did this spacecraft operate when it was functional? How was this
spacecraft fabricated by the intelligent entity or entities that created
it?
What are all of the components of this spacecraft, and how did each of
those components work together within the functioning spacecraft? What
if any software was utilized in this spacecraft?
How technologically-advanced compared with humans was/were the
creator(s) of this spacecraft?
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
And "Were the humans natural or supernatural?" ???
The problem with the kind of analogy you and other evolution deniers are
so fond of offering, is that you always want to observe that humans or
hypothetical human-like creatures create human or hypothetical human-like
objects, and infer from that that a very non-human-like creature created
some very non-human-like objects. It simply doesn't follow.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
05 Aug 2004 08:29:35 PM |
|
|
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.05.10.15.28.479821@mail.utexas.edu>...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 david ford wrote:
Suppose humans get to Mars and find a spacecraft not constructed by
humans. The examiners of that spacecraft can say to themselves,
"intelligence/mind was responsible for the construction of this
spacecraft," and still proceed to attempt to answer questions such as,
How did this spacecraft operate when it was functional? How was this
spacecraft fabricated by the intelligent entity or entities that created
it?
What are all of the components of this spacecraft, and how did each of
those components work together within the functioning spacecraft? What
if any software was utilized in this spacecraft?
How technologically-advanced compared with humans was/were the
creator(s) of this spacecraft?
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
And "Were the humans natural or supernatural?" ???
What's a 'supernatural human'? I'm not familiar with that.
The problem with the kind of analogy you and other evolution deniers are
so fond of offering, is that you always want to observe that humans or
hypothetical human-like creatures create human or hypothetical human-like
objects, and infer from that that a very non-human-like creature created
some very non-human-like objects. It simply doesn't follow.
Here are several examples of things in biology that are similar to
human creations:
1) the human eye has been compared to a highly-sophisticated camera
2) the human brain has been likened to a highly-advanced computer
3) the bacterial flagellum contains a motor with components similar
to the components in a human-made motor
4) the transmission of genetic sequences that code for living
organisms has been likened to a highly-advanced version of human's
transmission of digitally-encoded information.
Both humans and the intelligent designer(s) of biological complexity
have at least one thing in common: the possession of
intelligence/mind.
For Further Reading
highly-advanced 'computer' found in nature; Benyus; Tomlin
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9911172232160.1113971-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Julie Thomas noted that a genetics article states about the
flagellum, "we need to think almost in engineering terms about
transmission shafts, mounting plates and bushing."
Citation in
The Bacterial Flagellum and IC
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5o2793%24r49%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
For some flagellum components analogous to motor structures that
intelligent humans have created, see "Table V. Modified Thematic IC
Scoring" in
Flagella, minimal complexity, and evolutionary noise
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7faih8%24eio%241%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
Another Julie T. post on the flagellum is
Re: The Bacterial Flagellum and IC
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=5s3caq%24djh%40alexander.INS.CWRU.Edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
06 Aug 2004 01:51:44 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 01:29:35 +0000, david ford wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.08.05.10.15.28.479821@mail.utexas.edu>...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 david ford wrote:
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
And "Were the humans natural or supernatural?" ???
What's a 'supernatural human'? I'm not familiar with that.
Ooops. I meant "creator(s)".
The problem with the kind of analogy you and other evolution deniers
are so fond of offering, is that you always want to observe that humans
or hypothetical human-like creatures create human or hypothetical
human-like objects, and infer from that that a very non-human-like
creature created some very non-human-like objects. It simply doesn't
follow.
Here are several examples of things in biology that are similar to human
creations:
1) the human eye has been compared to a highly-sophisticated camera
Only to the extent that they both use the optical properties of a lens to
project an image on a receiver. Otherwise, the average camera is very
different from the eye in its "design", materials, construction, and
function.
2) the human brain has been likened to a highly-advanced computer
The brain is neither a von Neuman machine nor a Turing machine nor a stack
machine. The only computer even _vaguely_ like a brain is the artificial
neural network, which is directly inspired by biology and which almost
always exists merely as a simulation on a von Neuman machine.
3) the bacterial flagellum contains a motor with components similar to
the components in a human-made motor
And skyscrapers are "similar to" trees.
4) the transmission of genetic sequences that code for living organisms
has been likened to a highly-advanced version of human's transmission of
digitally-encoded information.
Neither the encoding nor the construction nor the "transmission" are
similar to what humans use.
Both humans and the intelligent designer(s) of biological complexity
have at least one thing in common: the possession of intelligence/mind.
That's what the analogy asserts; what the assertion lacks is support.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Francis Crick: RIP |
05 Aug 2004 09:05:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 01:29:35 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.08.05.10.15.28.479821@mail.utexas.edu>...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 david ford wrote:
Suppose humans get to Mars and find a spacecraft not constructed by
humans. The examiners of that spacecraft can say to themselves,
"intelligence/mind was responsible for the construction of this
spacecraft," and still proceed to attempt to answer questions such as,
How did this spacecraft operate when it was functional? How was this
spacecraft fabricated by the intelligent entity or entities that created
it?
What are all of the components of this spacecraft, and how did each of
those components work together within the functioning spacecraft? What
if any software was utilized in this spacecraft?
How technologically-advanced compared with humans was/were the
creator(s) of this spacecraft?
Did the creator(s) of this spacecraft communicate with humans?
And "Were the humans natural or supernatural?" ???
What's a 'supernatural human'? I'm not familiar with that.
This just points out the equivocation used by ID proponents. "Natural"
has two meanings, one contrasts with supernatural, the other with
artificial.
The problem with the kind of analogy you and other evolution deniers are
so fond of offering, is that you always want to observe that humans or
hypothetical human-like creatures create human or hypothetical human-like
objects, and infer from that that a very non-human-like creature created
some very non-human-like objects. It simply doesn't follow.
Here are several examples of things in biology that are similar to
human creations:
1) the human eye has been compared to a highly-sophisticated camera
2) the human brain has been likened to a highly-advanced computer
3) the bacterial flagellum contains a motor with components similar
to the components in a human-made motor
4) the transmission of genetic sequences that code for living
organisms has been likened to a highly-advanced version of human's
transmission of digitally-encoded information.
I love how you went from "similar to" to "have been likened to". The
small deception obscures the more important one, that the issue had to
do with the "creation" of the items, not the "use". Yes, cameras and
eyes deal with imaging light. Do you want to make an argument that
cameras and eyes have similar origins? Do you want to say that
computers and brains are made the same way?
Both humans and the intelligent designer(s) of biological complexity
have at least one thing in common: the possession of
intelligence/mind.
Talk about asserting the conclusion.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
