|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican official refutes intelligent design |
19 Nov 2005 01:41:55 AM |
|
|
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
I'm not here to pass judgment on anyone particularly but rather to
investigate and identify trends and patterns. The Catholics just seem
more open to experience. (I am of Protestant descent and I know they
are _not_ open to any sort of experience or idea except the very most
boring ones.)
Perhaps I generalize too widely as screwballs flourish under every
banner.
The whole problem with intelligent design is that it supposes a creator
that is more complex than his creation but does not explain how
complexity itself arose (this is Dawkin's argument). It's an empty
idea.
If someone could convince me of why ID is reaonable I'd be as pleased
as punch for then I would no longer be so deep-damned.
"If someone could convince me of why ID is reaonable"
Please see this, and I can also present more:
Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
for intelligent design by:
a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind
that
is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of
intelligence.
What was around first: mind, or matter?
Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
biology out of matter?
Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
b) a not-human, material entity, or
c) a not-human, not-material entity?
I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
origination of that car?:
viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
origination of that car.
Ponder, if you would, the following:
the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
having been the product of mind/intelligence,
the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
unable to intelligently-design life starting with
non-living matter,
the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
and engineering within biology,
the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
question to operate,
correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
contribute to the appearance of new biological
structures having new functions,
the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
biological organisms' genomes,
the fossil record's pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
stasis,
breeders' and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
what changes can be brought about by the application
of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
the above data?:
viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
material matter exists, or
viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood that
same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of
simplicity--
in addition created biology?
(Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
considering the second law, so the postulation of material designers of
biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable option:
we would have the problem of how they originated-- and they would've
had
to have originated/ begun to exist-- and their postulation wouldn't
help
at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
seeming-design of physics.
In short, postulating material designers of biology fails:
1) because the universe in which they reside began to exist, and
therefore they began to exist, and you would thus have to account for
_their_ origination, and
2) you would still have to account for the origination of physics via
the action of a non-material mind/intelligence.
It would be far simpler to say that the non-material intellect
responsible for the origination of physics was also responsible for the
origination of biology. +Schapiro, 119)
Humans have a much better perspective than do the fish that reside in
water, fish having limited awareness of what's out there, fish being
confined to a waterworld.
The mind/intelligence responsible for the origination of physics and
biology has a much better perspective than humans, humans having
limited
awareness of what is out there, humans being confined to the spatial
dimensions of length width and height and confined to under 130 years'
worth of a temporal dimension in which humans can only go forward.
In short, humans are to waterbound fish, as the superintellect
responsible for physics and biology is to material-world-bound humans.
Humans have a far higher level of intelligence than do dolphins and
chimpanzees.
In a similar manner, the mind/intelligence responsible for physics and
biology and humans has a far, far higher level of intelligence than
humans have.
In short, in terms of degree/level of intelligence: humans are to
dolphins and chimpanzees, as the mind/intellect responsible for physics
and biology is to humans.
1962 Oparin: "embittered war... has been waged between the two
irreconcilable philosophic camps of idealism and materialism"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240610.4ae98f%40posting.google.com
1940 Haldane on materialism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
+Cairns-Smith, 32-33.
====================================.
Table of Contents
Second law of thermodynamics
Big Bang
Order in physics
Origin of life
Complexity in biology
Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering within
biology
Information content in biology
Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Breeders' and fruit fly experiment observations
Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
Alleged "parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking
Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
place for human life
Shroud of Turin body image
====================================.
** Second law of thermodynamics
going forward:
There are some individuals who wish to believe that matter-energy
didn't begin to exist but rather is infinitely-old. However, such an
option is not possible given the second law of thermodynamics:
Premise 1: If the universe (or a collection of universes) was/is
infinitely old, then it would have run down by now in accord with the
second law of thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe (or a collection of universes) has not yet run
down-- it has not yet suffered "heat death," meaning that everywhere is
the same cold temperature, a fraction of a degree above absolute 0.
Conclusion: The universe (or a collection of universes) is not
infinitely old.
To summarize this modus tollens argument form,
if infinitely old, then rundown;
not rundown;
thus, not infinitely old.
going backward:
Eddington formulation of an argument involving the 2nd law
of thermodynamics for "a beginning of the present order of Nature":
Eddington, Sir Arthur S. 21 March 1931. "The End of the World: from
the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics" _Nature_, 447-453. This was a
presidential address to the Mathematical Association, delivered on 5
January 1931. On 449-450, starting with the opening lines of the
section "The Beginning of Time":
It is more interesting to look in the opposite
direction-- towards the past. Following time
backwards, we find more and more organisation
in the world. If we are not stopped earlier, we must come
to a time when the matter and energy of the world had the
maximum possible organisation. To go back further is
impossible. We have come to an abrupt end of space-time--
only we generally call it the 'beginning'. I have no
'philosophical axe to grind' in this discussion.
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present
order of Nature is repugnant to me. .... I should like to
find a genuine loophole.
====================================.
** Big Bang
2nd law against infinitely-old many universes speculation: see above.
Matter-energy, the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height, and
our temporal dimension of time began to exist in the big bang.
In modus ponens argument form, an opening move in an argument from the
big bang for the God-of-deism's existence:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist, whether through a conversion of
matter-energy into another form of matter-energy, or whether
through a creation out of absolutely nothing (what I need), has
one or more causes, i.e. has one or more precipitating factors,
responsible for its beginning to exist.
Premise 2: Expanding spacetime began to exist in a creation out of
nothing.
Conclusion: Expanding spacetime has factors responsible for its
beginning to exist.
The observed expansion of the universe is similar to the movement
following an explosion. When air is blown into a balloon with dimes
representing galaxy clusters taped to it, the balloon expands, and just
as it expands, so the universe expands. When going back in time, e.g.,
by deflating the balloon, the universe becomes smaller and smaller.
Hubble's discovery in the 1920s that the universe is expanding implies
that the universe's _expansion_ had a beginning, and _doesn't_
necessarily mean that material existence had a beginning.
According to Einstein's formulation of gravity (i.e. Einstein's general
theory of relativity) together with the fact that the universe is
expanding, it appears that the universe (and time itself) had a
beginning in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
+explain: reinforced by origin of life.
Books:
Ross, Hugh. 2001. _The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest
Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God_ (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group), 266pp.
Heeren, Fred. 1995, ______. _Show Me God: What the Message from
Space is Telling Us About God_ (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight
Publications), 336pp.
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have
Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Order in physics
The world of physics exhibits the appearance of having been the product
of mind/intelligence. When a child, Albert Einstein became an atheist;
as a theoretical physicist, Einstein rejected atheism and thought a
superior mind designed physics.
Einstein thought physics was designed. Physics has the appearance of
having been designed. Unity of physics.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36k8s1F531btmU1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Origin of life
Because matter-energy began to exist, consequently the world of biology
began to exist. Mind/intelligence was needed for the first biological
lifeform to originate. Humans have not yet been able to create life
from non-living matter. Consequently, the mind/intelligence
responsible
for the creation of the first biological lifeform was far, far more
brilliant than humankind's most brilliant biochemists.
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
a) experiment results
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
b) theoretical considerations
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of
physics" presently known
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
Books
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin
of Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp.
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin
Books), 332pp.
Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross (creationists). 2004. _Origins
of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off_ (USA:
NavPress), 298pp.
chapter in Denton, Michael. 1986. _Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis_ (USA: Adler & Adler), 368pp.
chapter in Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. _Darwin on Trial_
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 220pp.
chapter in
Davis, Percival, Dean H. Kenyon, Charles B. Thaxton. 1993. _Of
Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological
Origins_ (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company),
170pp.
Davies, Paul. 1999. _The Fifth Miracle: The Search for
the Origin and Meaning of Life_ (New York: Simon &
Schuster), 304pp.
_Mystery_, cite in
1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net
More recommended books
Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 131pp.
Johnson, Phillip E. 2000. _The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the
Foundations of Naturalism_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press),
191pp.
Broom, Neil. 2001. _How Blind Is the Watchmaker?:
Nature's Design & The Limits of Naturalistic Science_
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 224pp.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press), 307pp.
====================================.
** Complexity in biology
a) parts working-together/ in-collaboration to make a functioning
whole,
as with much human-designed technology
+Cairns-Smith, 5, 22, 24, 39, 58, 63, 64.
b) fabulously complex and sophisticated, with that immense complexity
being necessary for the operation of something that fabricates copies
of
itself
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. A paragraph on 22:
This is perhaps the most technical chapter in the book
(although it is not that bad). Some readers may want
just to skim it (or skip all but this page if they must),
taking on trust the main burden of argument that it
presents-- that the workings of all life on the Earth are
seen to be fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
molecular scale. Present-day organisms are manifestly
pieces of 'high technology', and what is more seem to be
necessarily so.
On 29, a sentence and three paragraphs:
An _E. coli_ just is a complicated machine too, and I
think that _any_ free-living nucleic-acid-based forms of
life would have to be.
Take just part of our system-- the automatic protein
synthesiser. Any such machinery, however it is made,
is surely going to be clever, complicated engineering;
because it is a complicated and difficult job that has
to be done.
Ask any organic chemist how long it takes to put
together a small protein, say one with 100 amino acids
in it. Or go and look up the recipe for such an operation
as it is written out in scientific journals. You will find
pages and pages of tightly written instructions, couched
in terms that assume your expertise in handling
laboratory apparatus and require you to use many rather
specialised and well-purified chemical reagents and
solvents. And the result of following such instructions?
If you are lucky a few thousandths of a gram of product
from kilograms of starting materials.
Or go and read all the details and examine the
engineering drawings for a laboratory machine that can
build protein chains automatically. (If you want to buy
one it will cost you more than a video-recorder.) You
will be impressed by how clever such machines are--
and not surprised that _E. coli_'s machine is clever too.
It would have to be, wouldn't it?
unity in biology: Cairns-Smith.
====================================.
** Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering
within biology
in
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Information content in biology
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
"Evolutionary biologists have failed to recognize that they work with
two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that
of matter.... These two domains can never be brought together in any
kind of the sense usually implied by the term 'reductionism.'... The
gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base
pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is
the
medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the
medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of
thought
about evolution."[George C. Williams in 1992, 1994, or 1995. Cited in
Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds_ (1997), 70.]
DNA and the information it records are two entirely different things.
E.g., a biologist can sequence a genome, and put that sequence on
paper.
The information, which was originally recorded on DNA, is now recorded
on paper. When one person said "There are already known processes
which
can account for DNA," I wondered whether "There are already known
processes that can account for the existence of nucleotides" was meant,
or "There are already known processes that can account for the
existence
of the information recorded via nucleotides."
====================================.
** Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Cambrian explosion:
Starting 530 million years ago, a large proportion of biology's phyla
burst on the scene, appearing at least between 0 years and 10 million
years, and very probably between 0 years and 5 million years.
Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions in Paleontology:
Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and Biological Systematics_,
translated from the 1950 German edition by Judith Schaefer, edited and
with an afterword by Wolf-Ernst Reif, foreword by Stephen Jay Gould
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 467pp. Schindewolf was a
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist. On 193-4, the
first seven paragraphs (out of 12 paragraphs total) of the section
"The Phases of Evolution":
More important than the general fact already discussed, that
the
rate of evolution in individual animal and plant groups varies
considerably, is the circumstance that also _within one and the
same lineage_ there are far-reaching differences in the
intensity
of transformation and that these follow a very particular
pattern.
Evolutionary transformation does not flow like a smooth,
peaceful
river but rather like a stream with many series of waterfalls,
rapids, and sharply changing gradients. Evolutionary
development
is episodic-- it proceeds in phases, or in _quantum leaps_; it
exhibits an unmistakable _periodicity_. The unfolding of
lineages is divided into evolutionary periods or cycles of
differing magnitudes, in each of which _three phases of
differing
evolutionary rates and differing modes of development can be
distinguished_.
At the onset of a cycle, there is a brief period of abrupt
development of forms. In this phase, a number of different
kinds
of structural organizations or types are established rapidly,
even explosively, in large transformationl steps; during the
next
phase, these types continue to evolve while retaining their
basic
nature unchanged. We call this _first phase_ the _origin of
types_, or _typogenesis_.
This is followed by a _second phase_, one of _type constancy_,
or
_typostasis_, which entails a progressive elaboration,
diversification, and differentiation within the framework of
the
basic form but does not alter the basic structural design
itself.
In this phase, evolution is slow, very gradual, and smooth,
proceeding in small, individual steps.
This typostatic phase usually lasts much longer than the first,
typogenetic period and longer also than the _third phase_--
_typolysis_, or the _dissolution of types_, which brings each
evolutionary cycle to a close. This phase is characterized by
multiple indications of decline, degeneration, and the
loosening
of the morphological constraints embodied in the type.
Overspecialization and gigantism in the lineages destined for
extinction give this period its special mark.
Because this periodicity is an extremely widespread and very
general phenomenon, it was recognized early and has been
described in various ways. Thus, Ernst Haeckel spoke of
_Epacme_, _Acme_, and _Paracme_-- of a rising, a flourishing,
and
a fading away of lineages; later, Johannes Walther spoke of
_anastrophes_-- period[s] of profuse, turbulent diversification
of lineages alternating with periods of slower, more gradual
evolution. Rudolf Wedekind described this set of circumstances
in his _Virenz_ theory, which holds that from time to time
individual faunal lineages enter a climactic periods of
expansion
(a period of _Virenz_), within which a phase of unstable
diversification, a second phase of stable, continuous
development, and a final one of excessive morphological
development can be distinguished.
Recently, Karl Beurlen, in particular, has elaborated upon the
pattern I have just described. He divides the evolutionary
cycle
into an early phase of explosive development of forms, during
which the newly formed structural design breaks up into its
various morphological and ecological possibilities; a second
period of more gradual, unidirectional (orthogenetic)
elaboration
of the basic forms created during the first phase; and a final
phase characterized by rampant complexity, degeneration, and
dissolution of the stable morphology of the preceding period
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Breeders' and fruit fly experiment observations
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Burbank in
1983 Jeremy Rifkin, 1939 Luther Burbank, 2002 Judith Hooper, Darwin
Autobiography: I feel "compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man," 1921 George
Bernard Shaw
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404070956.1db2b888%40posting.google.com
Eiseley in
1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"; 1863 Darwin: "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Grasse in
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
mutation URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Alleged "parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking
Eyes are alleged to have blindwatchmaked independently 40-60+ times;
the
40-60+ eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going
about seeing/ having vision.
Light-sensitive spots supposedly blindwatchmaked independently 65+
times.
Bioluminescence is said to have blindwatchmaked numerous times.
What is the advocate of materialism's explanation of this alleged
"parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking?
In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has appeared/arisen
only
once, as far as we know.
What is your explanation of this state of affairs?
Refs and for Further Reading
accounting for parallel and convergent supposed-blindwatchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990712220140.883597C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
ReMine, Walter James. 1993. _The Biotic Message: Evolution
Versus Message Theory_ (Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul
Science), 538pp. Some extracts:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37f9lqF5ed80kU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
place for human life
Theist philosopher William Lane Craig mentioned an excellent analogy on
a good interpretation of the numerous different things that had to be
for humans to exist. Imagine that a prisoner faces execution. A 100
person firing squad composed of sharpshooters bearing different types
of
guns fires, and the prisoner discovers he is still alive. Now he could
imagine that his living was the result of luck, e.g., all 100 happened
to be terrible shots for that particular discharge, or all the assorted
bullets happened to be improperly manufactured duds, etc.
A more reasonable interpretation he could make would be that someone
purposed that he should live-- someone had blanks inserted into the
guns
or directed that he not be aimed at. Likewise for us: we could say
that it was all an accident, and that we just happened to be the
beneficiaries of chance events, but it would make more sense to
conclude
that some entity/entities or Someone purposed that we should live.
argument for physics' creator having person-hood
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960816022002.6496G-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
RtB's "Evidence For Design"
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have
Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Shroud of Turin body image
faulty carbon dating of:
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
2) C-14 tests are undependable
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
faulty methodology in sample collection
4) bioplastic layer
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981224131117.5044D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
for what reasons would an artist go to all the _trouble_ of making the
Shroud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0012262313360.12146-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
One problem with John Heller's insistence that science can never
demonstrate the Shroud to be Jesus' shroud is that by concluding
1) the body image, whether man-made or not, is that of Jesus-- as most
everybody agrees is the case,
2) the image is _not_ the product of an artist, and
3) the image is _not_ a naturally-formed image (it's much too good to
be
naturally-formed),
that only leaves the possibility of
4) the image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural
means.
Writing within the pages of _The Skeptical Inquirer_, geologist Steven
D. Schafersman noted the existence of this problem:
The point is that there are really only two possibilities for the
origin of the shroud: either it was made by an artist or it is a
miraculous reproduction of the image of Jesus Christ. To
contemplate a third possibility for _this_ shroud (e.g., a
natural
image transfer of a crucified man who was not Jesus of Nazareth)
is
absurd. Therefore, by concluding that the shroud is not the work
of an artist, the STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project]
members are concluding that it is authentic
(i.e., Jesus and supernatural). At the same time, they
constantly
claim that science can never reach this conclusion.
Heller can claim [+JH]"all the science in the world is never, ever
going
to prove the Shroud is authentic" as much as he likes, but the
obvious implication of the STURP team's conclusions is option 4), the
image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural means.
Whether such a demonstration-by-elimination-of-alternatives actually is
"science" I leave to philosophers of science, but before doing so, note
that by Heller's own admission, science utilizes the technique of
ruling
things out:
That was the end of that. Another exercise in futility.
Scientific research is filled with such dead ends, and it is in
this way that the scientific enterprise proceeds. We
investigate
possibilities and rule them in or out. At the end, what is
left
is probably the truth.[jh, 124]
"In fact, the perfection of the image rules out, to my mind, the
possibility of its being formed by _any conceivable_ natural process,
assuming, of course, that the shroud is authentic." Schafersman
continues, "It is this fact that has so greatly troubled
STURP. They at first proposed various radiation hypotheses to explain
the image, but these have now been retracted upon the realization that
they were proposing supernormal or supernatural phenomena."
[Schafersman, _The Skeptical Enquirer_ (Spring 1982), 41.]
Case, Thomas W. _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A
Scientific Detective Story_ (Cincinnati: White Horse Press,
1996),
103pp.
Heller, John H. _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983), 225pp.
Schafersman, Steven D. "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin"
_The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 37-56, 43.
what the Shroud body image is
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981228235350.26179D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican official refutes intelligent design |
20 Nov 2005 09:14:13 PM |
|
|
going forward:
There are some individuals who wish to believe that matter-energy
didn't begin to exist but rather is infinitely-old. However, such an
option is not possible given the second law of thermodynamics:
Premise 1: If the universe (or a collection of universes) was/is
infinitely old, then it would have run down by now in accord with the
second law of thermodynamics.
This is as silly as the claim that the hyperbola branch should have
reached the asymptote by now. The approach to thermodynamic equilibrium
is an asymptotic process, and entropy as a function of time could
behave like the logistic curve f(t)=1/(1+exp(-t)): strictly increasing
in an unbounded interval, yet with a finite total increase.
Trigonometrophiles can use the arctan as well :)
HRG.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beautiful and Damned" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican official refutes intelligent design |
20 Nov 2005 10:29:17 PM |
|
|
Is it so silly? Apparently there are good arguments for why "actual
infinites" cannot be physical. One would need an infinite regress of
cause(s) and effect(s) for the universe to be infinitely old and thus
logical contradictions creep in. I'm not sure how to resolve that with
the concept of entropy as being heat flow through a temperature
differential. dS = dQ/T?
Are you a mathematician/physicist? Can actual infinities be physically
possible? Do you know the difference between actual infinity and
infinity (the indefinite, actually)?
Also, if we say God is infinite (let's say in kg) if we divide Him into
1 kg units does that not constitute an actual infinite?
See:
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican official refutes intelligent design |
20 Nov 2005 11:20:23 PM |
|
|
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
Are you a mathematician/physicist? Can actual infinities be physically
possible? Do you know the difference between actual infinity and
infinity (the indefinite, actually)?
There is no evidence that any physical substance or extent comes in
non-finite amounts, sizes or quantities. That mathematics used to ground
physical theories does have infinite domains. But one should not confuse
the machinery of the model with the thing being modeled.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican official refutes intelligent design |
19 Nov 2005 01:28:28 PM |
|
|
On 18 Nov 2005 17:41:55 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
I'm not here to pass judgment on anyone particularly but rather to
investigate and identify trends and patterns. The Catholics just seem
more open to experience. (I am of Protestant descent and I know they
are _not_ open to any sort of experience or idea except the very most
boring ones.)
Perhaps I generalize too widely as screwballs flourish under every
banner.
The whole problem with intelligent design is that it supposes a creator
that is more complex than his creation but does not explain how
complexity itself arose (this is Dawkin's argument). It's an empty
idea.
If someone could convince me of why ID is reaonable I'd be as pleased
as punch for then I would no longer be so deep-damned.
"If someone could convince me of why ID is reaonable"
Please see this, and I can also present more:
Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
for intelligent design by:
a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind
that
is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of
intelligence.
[snip]
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
A completely useless essay, because it confuses Natural Selection with
Gradualism.
[snip]
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
The same useless essay as above, useless for the same reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
