666...the Devils Moving Average

[axeman]

Impressive sounding post which boils down to:

1) Nothing but attacks on darwin, which has supporting evidence.
2) Not the tiniest itsy bitsy piece of evidence for intelligent design.

And he has the nerve to call DE a weak hypothesis?
Ah... not so impressive after all.

A bunch of nothing wrapped in pretty sugar coated wordsmithing.
Kind of like the empty middle of sweet bubble gum ball

Is this the best the intelligent design guys can do?
Propose a supernatural hypothesis without a shred of evidence to support it?

Might as well propose the universe was created by unicorns,
and then attack darwinism, as if this will support my case.

peace

axeman

 

[stu]

Quote from darkhorse:

“As a dog returns to his vomit,
so a fool repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11

dark... a charming and inspiring piece of biblical enlightenment, perhaps one theists would choose as particularly suitable for a nation's children at the breakfast table

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


Morowitz DID say this in his 1968 work Energy Flow in Biology!

You see Morowitz, who grew up in a Jewish home but later stated that he was 'pantheist after the tradition of Spinoza, was willing to admit where his theories had difficulties. He wasn't afraid to admit that he couldn't understand everything.

Just where in his paper DID Morowitz say this ??
Morowitz's Energy Flow in Biology was a work which established a fact to do with the effects of maximized entropy on a chemical system and had nothing to do with the odds against life origination.

Harold Morowitz:
It is always possible to argue that "any unique event would have occurred" but "this is outside the range of probabilistic considerations and, really, outside of science."

And again….

"Analysis of the metabolic chart makes it very likely that the first chemistry was the reductive citric acid cycle. You now have a source of those compounds to jump start the process - to get life started "

And again:...

"So that you have the core, based on the modern metabolic chart, of the pathways to make everything you need to be a cell. And now we can get a number of these reactions to go without enzymes."

Morowitz's Arkansas Court Testament:...

"In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.

They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible.

But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive

......they play rather fast and loose with the use of the second law of thermodynamics to indicate that the natural origin of life would not be possible. "

Drifting off to discuss Morowitz's life story a IS avoiding the point! But looking at what he actually says does show up your emphatic statements on what he is supposed to have said, to be false.

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

[/B]
You are avoiding the point and I think you know it. The point is this. Chemists have thrown the precursors of amino acids and basic cells into thousands and thousands of "prebiotic soup experiments" in the most ideal of circumstances in the most ideal of ratios and nothing significant has happened.

You and I both know that if even a glimmer of hope had emerged from one of these experiments, it would have been front page news on virtually every newspaper on earth.

Here's the truth: the odds of RNA and DNA self-organization and self-replication are so bad that Morowitz essentially gave up on it! He began searching for origins in the Kreb's cycle of all things!

He wrote, "What the RNA people do is require that there be a world full of RNA and for that to happen w/o living cells, I just think is so massively improbable." [/B]

OK to get this clear. 1. It is scientific fact that DNA/RNA enzyme self-replicating proteins exist

2. The "Prebiotic soup experiment" has nothing to do with demonstrting self-replicating proteins replicate That has already been established.

To then go on and try to reproduce what conditions are required or might have been like in early earth history , to kick start the "Prebiotic soup experiment" is a quite separate issue.

It is like saying puppy dogs self replicate - the evidence and proof of that is now obvious...but how can the conditions which kick starts this self replication be recreated in a laboratory. (On second thoughts it would be more interesting if the subject matter were buxom blonde replication in a laboratory).

But these are laboratory conditions !!! The Universe as a laboratory has infinitely more forces and (yet) unknown phenomena about itself. It is has been impossible to emulate the sun's power or to create precious elements at will in the scientists' laboratory. If time is one ingredient which is essential for 'Prebiotic soup experiments' then they will be buggered from the get go. Billions of years is a long time to be hanging around to see if you can kick start life. A way around that complication is needed but "Prebiotic soup experiments" do not negate self-replicating proteins as creationists would have them do.

However notwithstanding all this, proteins from an amino acid chain (ie: organic polymers) have bloody well been produced in the lab. so have all 20 amino acids , so have the purine and pyrimidine bases found in DNA/RNA. So there

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


This is EXACTLY what I am saying, except it's not me saying it. The first 500 million years of our earth was a firestorm of unimaginable intensity. Ask the science community: you will see I am right.

And, again, you are imo avoiding the point. Early earth was a LIVING HELL for even the most primitive of life.

I do not think 'the science community' would describe conditions as "a firestorm of unimaginable intensity" , that would fit more to a description of conditions when the Earth itself was forming.....scorched earth might be more appropriate. However that is me being a little picky.

Nevertheless I am not avoiding the point......

I said this....
Furthermore and using your data, during the 10% of remaining time, how many of the "AT LEAST 30" life exterminating impacts" do you know destroyed ALL life forms, ALL cell forms (including [deep] sea) and All bacteria??

We may have had several afterwards - again, another argument that something incredible may have happened in the early stages of this planet.

Now I have to admit, I do not encounter that as any sort of an answer. "We may have had several afterwards" and "something incredible may have happened"... is so tenuous, none of it amounts to even a rough explanation to my question

Well how about this being something "incredible may have happened" and which I alluded to in my answer to you.

At temperatures over 1,000 °C. (water boils@ 100 °C in the laboratory), and at 1.5 miles deep under what should be intolerable pressures for any life form to exist (including primitive bacteria), "a LIVING HELL for even the most primitive of life" The 'science community' was astonished to find abundant and unusual life on the sea floor, thriving in impossibly hostile conditions next to hot water vents.

But what would not be so incredible, is the idea that in early earth history, life would be unaffected from "AT LEAST 30" of your life exterminating impacts" in same or similar circumstances.

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I'll repeat the same thing I said to LongShot: the big numbers are not being used by a creationist conspiracy! Forget Creationists for a minute! These numbers are being used by guys like Harold Morowitz and others who do NOT believe in a personal God. ...

And it is that which I am contesting. I do not see anywhere Harold Morowitz and guys like him using these numbers anyway - let alone as scientific fact. I do however see guys like James Coppedge making bogus suppositions and assumptions around massive numbers and odds against, which are then attached to Morowitz and others work.

You keep trying to hold to the argument that this is a big theistic conspiracy. Theists, and Christians in particular, are definitely in the minority. It is skeptics, pantheists, agnostics, Spinozans, etc. that are the leaders. You guys are driving me crazy because you keep trying to make this a religious issue, some sort of weird conspiracy theory...

Now just calm down shoeshineboy Let me explain one thing here. I don't give a flying crap for arguing against a big theistic conspiracy. Theists generally do a pretty good job of destroying their own arguments without my help.

The big numbers you put forward, which are in the context of the 'odds against life', are NOT meaningful because for one thing THERE IS LIFE and for another nobody knows all the conditions to make valid probability assumptions .

If you then use these bogus numbers as fact, you are inviting criticism.

Odds against life forms being able to survive at 1.5 miles down, no light, horrendous sea pressure, someone could easily produce odds of 10 to the 100,000,000,000 against and say it was based on scientific fact and reality.

I'll say it again: the big numbers do mean something and a lot of genius-level non-Christians are willing to wrestle with them.

The big numbers you have used are given reasons why they are daft ,meaningless and bear no corresponding relationships to the issue.

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I said.....
There is room for 8 electrons in each Atom. Atoms are always trying to attain stability from holding 8 electrons. blah blah..

You completely lost me on this point.

I am sorry for that. I thought it was clear enough to be taken only as a simple analogy as to how molecules/atoms do not rely on chance, but rather that they are attracted to each other for specific observable reasons. I intended this to reflect toward similar observation where amino acid candidates seek to bond with each other in sequences.

In the first place virtually all heavy elements are made in "star factories": 3rd generation stars at least. It took around four billion years for the first galaxies to form and around 5 billion for any of the 3rd generation stars to form. This is where all the advanced elements were created and it closes the window even further for naturalistic porcesses to explain what we see on this earth.

"Four billion years for the first galaxies to from ...." where did you get that from???

13-15 billion years from Big Bang to now. The first billion years to get to gravity which causes gases to conflate forming the first stars. Galaxies as large as the Milky Way had formed when the Universe was about a billion years old. That was about 11 Billion years ago.

But even when using your figures...13 billion years ago = Bang... less 4 billion to first galaxy(incorrect but...) leaves 9 billion... less 5 billion for your "3rd generation stars" leaves... OH 4 billion !!. So this "closes the window even further "...does it??? How exactly?

Surely you are not suggesting that amino acid assembly is simple like the formation of a water molecule? Amino acids, especially sequences of them, are MUCH more complex. Furthermore, the first life was as complex as a city, incredibly intricate and complete.

I agree, complex it is. I was trying to make the simple point that you do not know that complex amino acid sequences cannot be formed by the candidates seeking out their preferred position. You do not know either that these have to be sequentially constructed, you sound as if you know that just one single DNA replicator per go is the rule. With billions upon billions of simultaneous sequences forming in the oceans alone, you could just as easily say the chances of viable life forms are odds on inevitable.

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

A reducing environment is favorable to amino acid assembly and is one in which molecules/atoms bond with hydrogen. An oxidizing environment is unfavorable to amino acid assembly and is one in which molecules/atoms bond with oxygen.

As I stated previously science now has shown that the earth's environment was oxidizing to at least the 4 billion year point. This means that reactions occur at least 30 MILLION times slower.

And, just as important, in an oxidizing environment only glycine (a very simple acid) would be present. You would never even get the more complex acids!

Well I think we are just batting back and forth here. >>We now seem to be agreeing<< though that a reducing atmosphere IS conducive to the synthesis of organic molecules. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the early primitive atmosphere of earth was mostly formed from volcanic out gassing. Volcanic vapor consists of shit loads of of water vapour, comparatively small amounts of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen gas and yes .... very little oxygen. That leaves a nice big "friendly" environment for the primitive anaerobic bacteria which can't live in oxygen.

Oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere about 2.5 billion years ago (not 4 billion years.. that's supposed to be how old the earth is) kicked off the 'Biological Era'. A free oxygen atmosphere would not in any event interfere with 'amino acid assembly'.... in the sea !!!

So now as free oxygen gradually accumulates there is potential for land based 'amino acid assembly' AND life form evolution - from sea based 'amino acid assembly' - just what is the problem here? Is it "this "reactions occur at least 30 MILLION times slower" assumption?? So you KNOW for a fact the exact amount of free oxygen present in primitive earth's atmosphere, which could slow down molecular synthesis to "at least 30 MILLION times" .......even where there is no free oxygen for around 1.5 Billion years or so!! ???

But wait one second. aren't you now saying that there WAS amino acid assembly at this time, albeit that you state it is slow ("...at least 30 MILLION times slower).??

Therefore doesn't it follow - there is amino acid assembly and as the 'scientific community' knows of DNA/RNA self-replicants (Nobel Prize stuff) - then this sorta now fucks up (no offence intended) your overall 'fantastic odds' hypothesis anyway??

 

[stu]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

No, this is not "sound bite" psychology, that is unless you assume people like Paul Davies, Harold Morowitz and other geniuses are really idiots underneath.

Isn't that the kind of patronizing supercilious pomposity that you wanted people not to assault YOU with. Using big numbers to misrepresent theses people is where the fault lies.

The numbers I have laid out here come from people like this. And, as I have pointed out, almost all that I write about is coming from individuals who are not traditional theists.

And, yes, I admit I am the geek's geek when it comes to numbers.

A true geek would deal only in true numbers.
Again I say yours are not the numbers of reputable scientists, they are the construction of people who want to practice the art of misrepresentation.

You keep assuming that I'm arguing for theism. I'm not. I'm simply battling what I'll call "GordonGeckoism" where one does not admit the huge problems with their own theory and labels everyone else's a myth believing, fairy tale, brainwashed concoction (laced with a few expletives generally).

I do not see why you cannot admit the weaknesses in your own paradigm. Every theory has its seeming weaknesses. I have already admitted several points where on the face of it, things do not look theistic.

But you guys will not admit even a small chink in the armor. It is as if you think that your enitre house will collapse if you admit one even one area of difficulty...

Science does not go about ignoring problems with it's theories. If it is doing that, then it isn't science. Observation evidence and experiments, repeatable, testable conclusion is not faith. It offers natural explanations of how things are and in biology, how life may have come about.

It is usually the recidivist theist who says that in place of all that, only a metaphysical - invisible - incorporeal - deity, whose claimed existence has exactly the same testable validation as a pink flying poo with fairy wings attached....... can create life et al. Now that IS a requirement of (blind) faith.

It is starting to appear to me, that it is you is sounding worried of conspiracies shoeshineboy.
You were supposed to addressing my responses and then responding in turn to me, not confusing this with any problems you may feel you have with GG !!

 

[stu]

Quote from darkhorse:
well said stu!

i wish i had more time for these boards. i appreciate the clarity of your thinking and the high standards you hold me to.

in regards to the notion that an upside requires a downside, i'm not sure if there is an essential argument that can 'prove' the assertion any more than there is a single essential argument that can resolve the broader debate one way or the other. there are only myriad observations of reality as it stands; when we are looking to assign cause we are forced to speculate within the bounds of our rational faculties, just as when we try to figure out what happened just before the big bang or how certain properties of quantum particles seem to contradict the laws of time and space. as in a courtroom where bodies of evidence are presented, there is usually no 'argument to end all arguments' that silences all dissent, only a process of reasoning.

The process of reasoning may well lead to conclusion, it often can.

A lack of evidence in the courtroom appears to leave arguments of science in a quest for ever more rationale, whereas the arguments of divinity are regularly dismissed for too much unsafe testimony.

i respect axeman's general line of argument, however i think the flaw in the argument is that it is unintentionally anthropocentric and thus rests on flawed presuppositions. If God existed before man and God created man, then God is the measure of man and not vice versa. To properly conceive of a possible world in which God exists, it is necessary to conceive of God as being the first mover and the source of first principles. If God exists, it is not a matter of setting him above man's standards, below man's standards, or anywhere at all in relation to man's standards; it is a matter of reasoning how man stands in relation to his Creator.

I see no substantive reasons why there must be something intrinsically flawed because it is anthropocentric?? A lot of IF’s there darkhorse but I am glad of that. Thinking back I seem to recall no If’s but just determinate assertion.

Reasoning how man stands in relation to his creator first requires a reasoning that man has a Creator.

I think part of the problem is that the question of whether God exists and the question of whether God is moral / worthy of worship etc. are distinctly separate and have to be asked separately. Many atheistic arguments tend to conflate the two and use arguments against one to attack the other (if God is not worthy of worship then why should I believe he exists, and/or if God exists why should he be worthy of worship). To properly debate the second one must hypothetically accept the first in toto for the sake of debate, which is hard to do because many do not realize the large number of hidden presuppositions that color their arguments below the surface.

I agree with you , those are two distinct questions. But a hypothetical acceptance of the first only requires the questioners to establish another IF. If God exists is God moral etc
But even before that, a definition of God is essential , before the hypothetical acceptance for the sake of argument. If not God may well be being argued as nothing more than a quantum flux by both questioners, without either side of the argument realizing it.

If God exists in omnipotent form, is the source of all rational and moral faculties, and has ordered and created the universe in line with His precepts and desires, then He is the measure of all things whether we like it or not. To dismiss God's position as first mover and author of all things throws logical argument into disarray where theistic morality is concerned. Roles are significantly defined by position- it is right for a father to discipline a child, but not for a child to discipline a father, and so forth. There are many reasons why it is not consistent to assume that if God exists then He is assigned all the same rules and regulations that are applied to man. There is also the philosophical question of who is given authority to assign responsibility to whom, and who has claims on reality. We say things like "if I ruled the world then such and such" without considering that even hypotheticals have significant boundaries and that many things that can be imagined or hypothesized cannot actually be actualized.

Then examine what an omnipotent form must entail. It is possible that it is inconceivable and/or it may be that an omnipotent form can apply to anything....including fairies.

Is it right to value an invisible, absent, hurtful, violent father the same as a living, breathing, loving, physical father. Is it not right for a child to refuse a father who is unreasonably cruel within a set of experiential events. For a God to give rationality but then say rationality is useless when thinking of God.,,, Isn’t that by any rational standard simply self defeating contradiction .

But then again I agree with what you say in essence.... "many things that can be imagined or hypothesized cannot actually be actualized" --- unfortunately for the theist that must include the proposition for God along with anti gravity ointment , invisibility pills, and Pink Unicorns.

Final point before I have to run, you may be able to conceive of a painless world in which man could live but I cannot because man is by and large the source of pain. How can a world of moral agents exercising their natural wills be free of evil when the option of choosing evil is necessary? And by what standard is evil determined other than the eternal and omnipotent first mover's?

I don’t agree man is by and large the source of pain. Any number of parasitic microbes or cancerous tumors cause of all sorts and type of pain and suffering to man. The choice to combat these in any way possible does not become the option of choosing to have such ‘evil’ present.

Having the option of being free to choose evil does not require you to choose evil.
It’s the being free to choose which is the free will, not the choice itself. And in the absence of other worthy standards, then man’s worthy standards set by mankind itself must be the crucial benchmark. Standards which are then essential to assess even the things which ‘cannot actually be actualized’.