| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
09 Oct 2004 12:11:06 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Help with an argument |
(Prospero) wrote in message news:<ee0b7858.0410071013.60126207@posting.google.com>...
I am an English teacher (with a strong interest in science and
evolutionary theory). I have been debating with a chemistry teacher
at my school about his claims that there are convincing rational
arguments for the existence of a creator.
I would like to quote one of his recent emails to me, and get your
advice on the best line of response. My inclination is to attack the
whole notion the theists "probability" argument against life emerging
from non-life (as per Smith's argument in Atheism: The Case Against
God_). But perhaps the folks on talk.origins understand this argument
better than I.
Thanks for any help in advance. --Prospero
Here it is:
"As I view the evidences of science it actually points me toward a
creator not away. For example there are micro-machines that are within
cells that direct the division and then replication of DNA to
successfully replicate. These micro machines had to be in place in
order to for the FIRST successful division to occur. Now here we have
a major problem. These cells had to have the correct micro-machines
necessary to do that first replication. The information needed to make
these machines is within the DNA that is being replicated ? which is
circular and illogical. In other words, the mechanisms needed to
correctly replicate a cell must have been in place before the cell
could have replicated.
One must conclude that since the proper replication of a cell
necessitates all the working components needed for the replication to
be present, that the first cell had to exist in a complex form before
it could successfully replicate.
[Rana]"_Chicken-and-egg systems:_ Many biochemical systems are
called chicken-and-egg systems (after the old conundrum,
"Which came first: the chicken or the egg?") because they
consist of components that require each other for the
components to be produced. For example, ribosomes make
proteins, yet they in turn consist of proteins. Proteins can't be
formed without ribosomes (proteins), and ribosomes (proteins)
can't be made without proteins.^2"
Rana on Design Hypothesis Evidence
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405071913.10142d50%40posting.google.com
The adherence to classical Darwinian origins is therefore flawed I
reject this idea based upon logic.
Let us suppose that aliens brought these "ready-to-replicate" cells to
earth, or that a meteor brought them to earth in their complex forms.
This idea is actually circling and considered in modern academia.
A sequence of space aliens making other space aliens cannot be
extended back indefinitely, because the universe (in which the aliens
reside) began to exist in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
Could these single cell organisms break the 2 nd Law of
Thermodynamics,
Huh?
not only one or two or seventy times, but to an
astronomically and statistically crippling number of times? Logic and
current scientific academia are not comfortable with this idea."
.
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
09 Oct 2004 12:27:29 PM |
|
|
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0410090916.1839456a@posting.google.com>,
(david ford) wrote:
<SNIP>
A sequence of space aliens making other space aliens cannot be
extended back indefinitely, because the universe (in which the aliens
reside) began to exist in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
<SNIP>
1. Aliens creating life on earth, removes one obstacle, perhaps they had
an easier form of life for abiogenisis. Perhaps they were composed of
dark matter, for example.
2. Aliens came from another universe.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
09 Oct 2004 12:33:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:27:29 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Walter Bushell
<proto@panix.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
In article <dford3-b1c67abe.0410090916.1839456a@posting.google.com>,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
<SNIP>
A sequence of space aliens making other space aliens cannot be
extended back indefinitely, because the universe (in which the aliens
reside) began to exist in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
<SNIP>
1. Aliens creating life on earth, removes one obstacle, perhaps they had
an easier form of life for abiogenisis. Perhaps they were composed of
dark matter, for example.
2. Aliens came from another universe.
True enough. A sequence of cosmi (plural of cosmos) emerging from previous
cosmi can be extended back indefinitely. A sequence of aliens from earlier
cosmi producing new cosmi in which new aliens make even newer cosmi, this can go
on forever. It's a sequence of aliens within one cosmos emerging from earlier
aliens within that same cosmos - that's what can't be extended back
indefinitely.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
09 Oct 2004 01:42:21 PM |
|
|
It's pretty basic.
We do not know how life began. We have theories but no proof. We do not know
from whence we came not where we go - period.
This does not in any way prove the existence of Christian or other gods.
There is NO objective evidence for the existence of ANY religious gods.
There is only evidence of the existence of the Universe and theories of how
it evolved.
--
Bill
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0410090916.1839456a@posting.google.com...
magicprospero@yahoo.com (Prospero) wrote in message
news:<ee0b7858.0410071013.60126207@posting.google.com>...
I am an English teacher (with a strong interest in science and
evolutionary theory). I have been debating with a chemistry teacher
at my school about his claims that there are convincing rational
arguments for the existence of a creator.
I would like to quote one of his recent emails to me, and get your
advice on the best line of response. My inclination is to attack the
whole notion the theists "probability" argument against life emerging
from non-life (as per Smith's argument in Atheism: The Case Against
God_). But perhaps the folks on talk.origins understand this argument
better than I.
Thanks for any help in advance. --Prospero
Here it is:
"As I view the evidences of science it actually points me toward a
creator not away. For example there are micro-machines that are within
cells that direct the division and then replication of DNA to
successfully replicate. These micro machines had to be in place in
order to for the FIRST successful division to occur. Now here we have
a major problem. These cells had to have the correct micro-machines
necessary to do that first replication. The information needed to make
these machines is within the DNA that is being replicated ? which is
circular and illogical. In other words, the mechanisms needed to
correctly replicate a cell must have been in place before the cell
could have replicated.
One must conclude that since the proper replication of a cell
necessitates all the working components needed for the replication to
be present, that the first cell had to exist in a complex form before
it could successfully replicate.
[Rana]"_Chicken-and-egg systems:_ Many biochemical systems are
called chicken-and-egg systems (after the old conundrum,
"Which came first: the chicken or the egg?") because they
consist of components that require each other for the
components to be produced. For example, ribosomes make
proteins, yet they in turn consist of proteins. Proteins can't be
formed without ribosomes (proteins), and ribosomes (proteins)
can't be made without proteins.^2"
Rana on Design Hypothesis Evidence
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405071913.10142d50%40posting.google.com
The adherence to classical Darwinian origins is therefore flawed I
reject this idea based upon logic.
Let us suppose that aliens brought these "ready-to-replicate" cells to
earth, or that a meteor brought them to earth in their complex forms.
This idea is actually circling and considered in modern academia.
A sequence of space aliens making other space aliens cannot be
extended back indefinitely, because the universe (in which the aliens
reside) began to exist in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
Could these single cell organisms break the 2 nd Law of
Thermodynamics,
Huh?
not only one or two or seventy times, but to an
astronomically and statistically crippling number of times? Logic and
current scientific academia are not comfortable with this idea."
.
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
10 Oct 2004 08:09:53 PM |
|
|
true, but we know it's nature (life), have defined what it is and, created
(applying the same definition) it the lab under the same conditions as exist
in nature.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
09 Oct 2004 12:45:25 PM |
|
|
as for the second, second law of thermodynamics...one must remember that
universal law does not change and that law determines the "order" of a
system and not the the type of system itself. this is an adaptation of the
first, second law of thermodynamics and was made in defense (poorly) that
external actors are required to augment, restore, or preserve the "order" of
our universe so that higher orders of things be allowed to form within it.
that argument is one of inferenced assumption...the true laws of
thermodynamics cover the dispersment of energy within system types...the
inference is wrong because "order" is a man-made convention, lest we see
that energy seeks to be "orderly" in its dispersement. this provides
contradiction to the second, second law as well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Help with an argument |
09 Oct 2004 12:33:33 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
magicprospero@yahoo.com (Prospero) wrote in message news:<ee0b7858.0410071013.60126207@posting.google.com>...
I am an English teacher (with a strong interest in science and
evolutionary theory). I have been debating with a chemistry teacher
at my school about his claims that there are convincing rational
arguments for the existence of a creator.
I would like to quote one of his recent emails to me, and get your
advice on the best line of response. My inclination is to attack the
whole notion the theists "probability" argument against life emerging
from non-life (as per Smith's argument in Atheism: The Case Against
God_). But perhaps the folks on talk.origins understand this argument
better than I.
Thanks for any help in advance. --Prospero
Here it is:
"As I view the evidences of science it actually points me toward a
creator not away. For example there are micro-machines that are within
cells that direct the division and then replication of DNA to
successfully replicate. These micro machines had to be in place in
order to for the FIRST successful division to occur. Now here we have
a major problem. These cells had to have the correct micro-machines
necessary to do that first replication. The information needed to make
these machines is within the DNA that is being replicated ? which is
circular and illogical. In other words, the mechanisms needed to
correctly replicate a cell must have been in place before the cell
could have replicated.
One must conclude that since the proper replication of a cell
necessitates all the working components needed for the replication to
be present, that the first cell had to exist in a complex form before
it could successfully replicate.
[Rana]"_Chicken-and-egg systems:_ Many biochemical systems are
called chicken-and-egg systems (after the old conundrum,
"Which came first: the chicken or the egg?") because they
consist of components that require each other for the
components to be produced. For example, ribosomes make
proteins, yet they in turn consist of proteins. Proteins can't be
formed without ribosomes (proteins), and ribosomes (proteins)
can't be made without proteins.^2"
Nice claim, but it's wrong. Ribosomes consist of proteins and RNA, and
the RNA is the important part. This can be shown by isolating intact
ribosomes and then digesting all the protein away. The ribosomes still
work with RNA only.
I wouldn't trust Rana on anything, factual or theoretical, if I were you.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
