Something coming from something, or something coming from nothing: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Something coming from something, or something coming from nothing » Something coming from something, or something coming from nothing

Something coming from something, or something coming from nothing

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Something coming from something, or something coming from nothing

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3000

Posted 09/21/08 - 06:00 AM:	#31
I apologize. I left out some points that were obviously relevant to understanding. Tisthammerw wrote: Kwalish Kid wrote: First, it is hard to describe the universe as a whole as something that is an open or a closed system, since it is hard to say that there is causal contact between different areas of the universe that are extremely separated. None if which is relevant to the second law. The universe is still an isolated system because there is no matter or energy being entered into the system. Actually, the problem that I was pointing to there is that it is hard to consider the universe to be a system in the sense required to apply thermodynamical principles. As my college physics textbook says, every process increases (or at best ideally leaves unchanged) the entropy of the universe, with an increase in entropy being far more probable. Do you have a quote and a citation? It sounds like a fairly loose way of describing things. Actually, the second law is only probabilistic (it is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, to have entropy reversals in an isolated system), but as time approaches infinity the probability approaches certainty. OK, so you admit that as time goes on, we should expect a reversal of entropy. So are you abandoning the claim that the Second Law prevents an infinite sequence of events in the universe? As long as the second law of thermodynamics holds true, entropy will inevitably increase in an infinite duration. It's extremely unlikely there would be enough available energy for us humans. But, again, you just said it doesn't hold true. And perhaps create perpetual motion machines? Among other problems, all observations indicate the universe will not contract. Even if it did, calculations demonstrate that each cycle would get increasingly longer, eventually producing a non-contracting universe. So I guess you are giving up your objection. Good. So, let's look at what you said: 1. The second law only holds probabilistically, so over an infinite amount of events we expect a violation. 2. There could be a period of successive expansions and contractions eventually producing a universe that does not contract. Both of these indicate that there is no problem for a universe of infinite age or of infinite events. The singularity however is a boundary for space-time. The universe can't go back further than that or even reach it. That's why we have an age of 10 to 15 billion years for the universe rather than an infinite age. Yes, it may indicate that there is no infinite age, but not a finite number of events. And since any singularity is a failure of the ability of physics to describe a system, we can't say that it places actual limits on the history of the universe, it only places limits on our description.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 894

Posted 09/21/08 - 07:16 AM:	#32
swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: The definition of a "cause" is simply "that which brings about an effect." It's not logically impossible for the cause and effect to be simultaneous. If we look at it from the point of view of the universe at least, the cause happened at the same time as the effect. God is the provenance of creation. You said, "But if the universe is everything that exists, then it is a contradiction to talk about things that exist outside or "transcending" the universe." Obviously, the definition of the universe I was using was not literally everything (including God) I was speaking of the natural, physical universe--essentially what scientists mean when they use the term "universe." When you talk about "simultaneous causality", you should read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. In it, he states that, while the distance between cause and effect can be vanishingly small, the time must be determinable. If they were truly simultaneous, then you could no longer logically determine which was the cause and which was the effect. Just because an individual can't determine which caused which doesn't mean it can't happen. I don't see this is as a logical argument at all. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: But I didn't ignore it, I argued against it. If agency theory is true then the soul must exist (if the soul must exist it is necessarily the case that materialism is false). This is a good example of "begging the question". You have used your conclusion to re-assert your premise, (implicitly through the negation of an alternative premise). Er, my premise wasn't "materialism is false" it is "agency theory is true." Could you explain in a little more detail how I have begged the question here? You said, "Agency theory is indeterminate because it violates causality by definition." Agency is the notion that we cause our own actions and have the ability to choose among several available alternatives. Since we are the cause of our actions, it's rather unclear how agency implies a violation of causality, much less by definition. Are we using different definitions of causality here? "Anything that begins to exist requires a cause" is something I agree with, but by "causality" are you referring "any even that happens must have a cause that isn't an agent"? (Though it would seem arbitrary to me that agents "don't count.") swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Not necessarily. What you're describing is simple indeterminism, but recall that I was referring to agency theory. Agency theory is the idea that an agent (person, self) causes actions. An act of free will isn't uncaused, rather we cause our own actions. Notice the switch. I wasn't talking about the consequences of the act. "Free will" is defined as "the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies". That means that the choice itself is uncaused. Even if it was caused by an internal agency (e.g. the agent itself)? Agent-causation, by definition, implies causation. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Regarding the question of whether there is evidence for the supernatural, part of it will depend on what you're staring points are. For instance, not everyone believes in free will. Not everyone will find arguments for free will convincing. For example, in noting that hard determinism (all events are determined; no free will) would mean a complete lack of moral responsibility, that Mother Theresa is no more praiseworthy than Adolph Hitler, hard determinists would say moral responsibility is an illusion. Or suppose I test for myself whether I can control my own actions: I try to move my arm, and it moves. Again, the hard determinist would say that is yet another illusion. (At this point one might ask whether hard determinism is falsifiable; so far any contrary evidence is categorically denounced as illusory.) But for those who believe in free will and moral responsibility, such things can be compelling evidence for the supernatural. First, logic and evidence shouldn't depend on belief. A theory makes a prediction, and if the prediction is verified, then it is evidence, regardless of what you believe. Hmm, very good. I'll remember that. swstephe wrote: The argument from moral responsibility seems to be a straw man, who is being attacked with an appeal to emotion. I know where the argument is derived: the old discussion about whether it is righteous for God to punish someone for something for which they weren't the ultimate cause. Determinism is really just an encapsulation of causality and logic. It says that everything has a cause, even moral choices. It says nothing about how society or God should relate to those choices. Determinists say that Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler both made their choices after examining the consequences. On the contrary, hard determinism says that Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler had no choice at all in what they did. Chemical reactions wholly beyond their control determined their actions. The argument from moral responsibility is not a straw man at all. Hard determinism really does imply that people are not responsible for their actions. Side note: you said, "did you know that Christianity was initially fatalistic?" The truth of this statement is controversial, to say the least. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: It depends on the circumstances. Suppose for instance you knew you didn't commit a crime but all the objective evidence suggests you committed the crime between the hours of 6 and 7 a.m. on Tuesday. You are rational to believe your innocence, because you were with yourself between the hours of 6 and 7 a.m. on Tuesday and you know that you were watching television. Remember, in practice all evidence is subjective (perceived by a conscious mind) anyway. The point of gathering evidence to support logic is that it can help verify claims. If you can't verify where you were, you can't defend yourself in court, you can only defend yourself in your own personal beliefs. Since your subjective experience can be easily deceived, relying on your own evidence isn't conclusive. Subjective evidence can be rational if you're the one doing the perceiving. Again, take a look at my scenario above. What it be rational for you to believe that you are innocent of the crime you are accused of? Origins of Life To recap the definitions I've been using, by "abiogenesis" I mean the paradigm/theory that undirected natural processes created Earth-type life. By "intelligent design" (abbreviated ID) I mean the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create Earth-type life. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Well, the fact that the conditions in the lab weren't anything like the conditions of the primordial earth is actually a pretty valid criticism. Biochemist Michael Behe put it nicely: Whatever else Behe might have gotten wrong, he was quite correct on this point. If the experiment that creates life doesn't resemble the early earth at all, it has little relevance to whether the early earth can create life. The ID proponent is not disputing whether inorganic chemicals can create life--after all, it just might be possible that an intelligent designer (as a human scientist) could do it. The question is whether natural processes can do it. If we choose a starting point that did resemble the early earth and the experimenter kept her hands off, and the undirected chemical reactions produced a bacterium, this would falsify intelligent design, because it would demonstrate that intelligent causes are not necessary. Agreed? Nope. Behe is wrong on that point. Let's stop right there for a moment. Behe setup a scenario where one famous chef says natural processes could produce a cake. To support the truth of this statement, rather than simulating natural processes (as placing plants near a hot spring) he ends up having "measured the amounts of the components [e.g. refined sugar and cocoa purchased from the grocery store] carefully, mixed them in a bowl, placed them in a pan, and baked them in his oven." Behe claims that the "results [of the baker baking a cake that way] would have nothing to do with his original idea that natural processes could bake a cake." You think he's wrong about this? One of the reasons I'm skeptical of the majority's judgment is that many of them seem to disagree even with pro-ID points that are almost obviously true. swstephe wrote: Even if we modeled exactly the same conditions as the early earth, (a distraction), and a bacterium appeared, it doesn't discount the idea that there might have been a designer present how somehow manipulated these events. Any logically possible theory is never strictly falsifiable, in the sense of e.g. using a mathematical proof to demonstrate its falsehood. One could always come up with an ad hoc hypothesis no matter what happens, e.g. perhaps some extra-dimensional alien is interfering with the experiment in some undetectable way. But ID's prediction of not finding a possible mechanism is about as close to falsifiability we can get. How about this experiment that doesn't simulate it but is naturally occurring? Suppose we see a naturally occurring chemical soup formed by rain, underground liquids rising to the surface etc. and the resulting undirected chemical reactions produce a bacterium. For all practical purposes, this would falsify the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create such an organism, right? swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: You said, "ID makes the assertion, without any kind of evidence, about the existence of a designer being the cause for life existing on earth." That's not entirely true. Intelligent design predicts we would not find a mechanism for abiogenesis (and we haven't), it also predicts there would exist significant obstacles for abiogenesis to create Earth-type life (and there are). Do you deny that ID makes these predictions? Do you deny that, so far, these predictions have been empirically confirmed? I deny that ID, (the theory), makes this prediction. It's vastly unclear why you think that. If intelligent causes were necessary to create Earth-type life, you honestly do not think this belief would predict the non-existence of a realistic way for unintelligent causes to create Earth-type life? If nature was reasonably capable of creating Earth-type life, wouldn't this mean that "intelligent causes are necessary" is false? swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Again, maybe abiogenesis will someday find a way to overcome these barriers, but these barriers exist and we haven't found a way to overcome them yet. Maybe someday scientists will find a mechanism for abiogenesis, but we have not done so yet. Hence, these predictions of intelligent design have thus far been confirmed, even if they will be falsified sometime in the future. Agreed? Not at all. This is a big attempt at a "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy. I wasn't asking whether you think concluding that these empirically verified predictions constitute evidence is a "fallacy." I was asking whether you thought they were confirmed. Do you deny that we don't know how undirected chemical reactions could produce a single-celled organism? Do you deny that obstacles exist for abiogenesis? If you deny the latter, why is it that we know of a way an intelligent designer can create RNA and DNA but we don't know of a way the primordial earth can do it? Isn't it because undirected chemical reactions face obstacles that human scientists overcome (through e.g. laboratory equipment)? swstephe: There you go ... that is why ID is not falsifiable. We would need another earth with identical conditions and a billion years to reproduce what is supposed to have happened. Tisthammerw: I do believe you may have misunderstood what it means for a theory to be "falsifiable" in the scientific sense. It means that a theory is falsifiable in principle, not necessarily in practice. The experiment I mentioned (regarding undirected chemical reactions producing a bacterium) is certainly logically possible, even if it turns out that abiogenesis is inconveniently more difficult to experimentally demonstrate. swstephe: I am using the same definition of falsifiability. It didn't appear that way. Your reason of why ID is not falsifiable was, "We would need another earth with identical conditions and a billion years" had absolutely no bearing as to whether a theory is falsifiable in the scientific sense. Another earth and waiting a billion years might be impractical (at least given our current technologies), but such a thing is logically possible and ID theory is still falsifiable in principle. As the Wikipedia article on falsifiability says, "Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, 'it will be raining here in one million years' is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically." If you knew what falsifiability was all along, why did you give a reason that absolutely no relevance to the matter, as if you conflated between being falsifiable in principle and being falsifiable in practice? swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: I notice once again that you ignored my questions. To see why I think they're important, consider this hypothetical scenario. Astronauts land on Pluto and find robots inhabiting it. Some astronauts believe that intelligent causes were necessary to create them, thinking that natural processes are not reasonably capable of producing these robots. Others shrug off that explanation as unscientific. "You insist the natural-origins theory should be rejected because it is too difficult to prove." It's not that exactly, it's the notion that natural processes are not reasonably capable of overcoming the obstacles before it. Why else would their design inference be rational in this scenario? To these astronauts (and many ID proponents), there is already substantial evidence that a designer was necessary. On the surface, the term "robot" already implies intention to create. Lets change that to "metal creatures". To be fair, Pluto is also covered in metal to the degree that the earth is covered with carbohydrates. These "robots" would also be composed of metal interacting at the level of chemical reactions, (not chips and wires with "Made in China" printed on them). It would be perfectly reasonable, then, to assume a natural origin, (the metal components would appear to naturally give rise to metalic life forms), by default. Suppose these "metal creatures" have the type of complexity similar to what we would call a "robot." That is, they have metal plates, wires, electro-hydraulic limbs, electronic circuitry etc. Would it still be irrational for astronauts to claim that intelligent causes are necessary to create these "metal creatures" and that natural processes are not reasonably capable of doing the job? I'll ask my questions again. What if we found a mechanism for an intelligent designer to create a bacterium, but the obstacles for abiogenesis are still a prebiotic chemist's nightmare? Would it be rational to accept ID then? How long do you think we should wait for abiogenesis adherents to find a possible mechanism to overcome the obstacles? Ten years? Twenty? Never? If the answer is "never," can you see why I might expect tenacity to be a real problem here? swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: No conspiracy is even remotely needed here, just human nature. All it takes is people who sincerely believe that their belief is correct and that they hold on to it tenaciously, such that they aggressively interpret any allegedly contrary evidence differently. Take for instance caloric theory of heat (heat being a fluidic substance) versus the kinetic theory of heat (heat being a manifestation of atomic motion). My physics textbook describes an experiment that Count Rumford did in 1798 in which he had a brass gun-barrel blank, surrounded by several gallons of cold water, rotated against a dull steel borer. The temperature rose until the water actually boiled. My physics textbook further describes the experiment as a "death blow to caloric theory." Yet the majority of scientists accepted caloric theory for another fifty years, because they chose to interpret the evidence differently. Given how abiogenesis is part of an even more deeply rooted paradigm, it would not at all surprise me that something similar would happen here. Nobel prize winning physicist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." This is certainly true for at least some scientific theories. No conspiracy, just human nature. The "conspiracy theory" part is to attempt to convince the audience that one theory is supported by a concerted effort to suppress it. So would astronomers not wanting to give "equal time" to geocentricism constitute a "conspiracy" because of a concerted effort to suppress it? Or would it be simply scientists not wanting a theory so scientifically inferior to be taught alongside mainstream science? I really don't see why it has to be a conspiracy theory with intelligent design or any other theory the majority deems fundamentally scientifically flawed. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Of course they accept their own theory, and while I'm not sure about any patents, it is true they publish papers, at least within their own circles. You also have to remember that orthodoxy frowns upon papers that don't fit the established paradigm. Take for instance this example when ID adherent Michael Behe tried to get something published in a scientific journal. Even if it should have been rejected, it appears it was rejected for the wrong reasons. Another conspiracy theory. It implies that the "orthodoxy" deliberately censors papers it disagrees with, then, through a series of steps, arrives at the conclusion that the paper states something valid, but threatening. You're taking what I'm saying to a misguided extreme. I'm not at all saying that these people think there was "something valid, but threatening." I have little doubt that these people thought what they were doing is right. In this example of Behe trying to get something submitted, the person rejecting it seems sincere, it's just that the person seems to be rejecting it for terribly irrational reasons brought forth by tenacity and emotion. Again, no conspiracy, just human nature. swstephe wrote: The more sinister reason as to why there are not more published papers on "intelligent design" is because they don't get submitted by their adherents: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_th... Sinister? I don't think I'm the one vilifying the opposition here (recall you seemed to accuse me of putting forth conspiracy theories). In any case, I have a counterexample. You don't think it's possible that after trying a few times, ID proponents like Behe might have just given up because they thought it was fruitless? Incidentally, there are published papers on intelligent design that get peer reviewed. Behe's Darwin's Black Box was one of them. And it is the case that they nonetheless do publish peer review scientific papers in their own circles (see here for instance). One recent example of a pro-ID article being published in a non-ID scientific journal is the one in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, though the article published there is controversial and has been attacked by ID critics as being scientifically flawed. Incidentally, the link you gave didn't say anything about ID proponents not submitting their work to scientific journals. It only claims those articles never got published. swstephe wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: Thank you for at least responding to this question. What does "I have never seen a designer" mean? Take literally, it obviously is the case that we've seen designers; humans. Perhaps you're saying we've never seen a designer create earth-type life. Although this is true, (1) we've never seen natural processes create earth-type life either (without pre-existing biochemical machinery); (2) imagine if someone used this reason in the robots-on-Pluto scenario. It is true no one saw someone create the robots, but this isn't a valid reason to reject ID theory. After all, no one saw natural processes create the robots either. So again I ask you, can you give me one specific scientific reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design? I'm not rejecting the theory, I'm trying to provide a reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design. Maybe I should say I have never seen the designer that is responsible for intelligently creating the first bacteria. Well, that isn't a reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design, because we haven't seen the natural processes create the first bacterium either. ID and abiogenesis are on equal footing there. So I ask again, what specific, scientific reason do you have for favoring abiogenesis over intelligent design? Why exactly should one consider abiogenesis as scientifically superior to intelligent design? I have yet to see a reason. Edited by Tisthammerw on 09/21/08 - 07:04 PM. Reason: quote fix
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Maloy
Perception seeker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2008
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 94

Posted 09/21/08 - 08:48 AM:	#33
Tisthammerw wrote: The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of mass-energy. The quantity remains the same, but the quality (ability to do useful work) degrades. The second law says the energy is still there but it is no longer available to do useful work. The non-available energy doesn't spontaneously transform itself into useful potential energy. Who said anything about spontanaity? Non-available energy? Everything changes... EVERYTHING! Energy couldn't stay in a non-usful form forever... Everything goes in cycles. Remember that I'm using "universe" as in "physical universe." A non-physical agency (as God) creating the universe wouldn't change the idea that the universe was caused. The non-physical is still part of the universe. If you are using the term to cannote only the physical part of the universe, you are not talking about the whole universe. Any non-physical agency being able to interact with the universe is still within the universe. So "supernatural" is meant to imply something wehich is natural? Well, no. It means the exact opposite. Then logically, there is no such thing as the supernatural. Edited by Maloy on 09/21/08 - 09:44 AM. Reason: cycles
In the infinite library, there are no two identical books. -- The library of Babel. The only true nihilist is a dead nihilist.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 894

Posted 09/21/08 - 11:12 AM:	#34
Kwalish Kid wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: None if which is relevant to the second law. The universe is still an isolated system because there is no matter or energy being entered into the system. Actually, the problem that I was pointing to there is that it is hard to consider the universe to be a system in the sense required to apply thermodynamical principles. Why wouldn't it? The universe is the totality of all matter and energy. Obviously, no matter or energy is entering or leaving the system. Kwalish Kid wrote: As my college physics textbook says, every process increases (or at best ideally leaves unchanged) the entropy of the universe, with an increase in entropy being far more probable. Do you have a quote and a citation? In page 593 of Physics: Calculus second edition by Eugene Hecht, it says "Every process increases (or at best ideally leaves unchanged) the entropy of the universe." Kwalish Kid wrote: Actually, the second law is only probabilistic (it is possible, albeit extremely unlikely, to have entropy reversals in an isolated system), but as time approaches infinity the probability approaches certainty. OK, so you admit that as time goes on, we should expect a reversal of entropy. I don't think you understand. It is possible a reversal of entropy somewhere occurs, but far more often a process will increase the universe's entropy. As the universe ages one minute, it is possible though extremely unlikely that the universe will decrease in entropy; it is more probable that the universe will increase in entropy. With one hour, it is even more likely entropy will increase. With a year, even more probable. In fact, as the age of the universe approaches infinity, the probability approaches certainty. Fast forward 10^10000 years or so from now, by then we'll have a heat death and not enough available energy for us humans to survive. The universe probably isn't infinitely old. Kwalish Kid wrote: As long as the second law of thermodynamics holds true, entropy will inevitably increase in an infinite duration. It's extremely unlikely there would be enough available energy for us humans. But, again, you just said it doesn't hold true. Er, no I didn't. Kwalish Kid wrote: And perhaps create perpetual motion machines? Among other problems, all observations indicate the universe will not contract. Even if it did, calculations demonstrate that each cycle would get increasingly longer, eventually producing a non-contracting universe. So I guess you are giving up your objection. Good. The problem is that if the universe did not contract, the universe will end in a heat death, which means not enough available energy for humans like us to survive. If the universe were infinitely old, we'd have a heat death according to those calculations. The universe couldn't have cycled forever. Kwalish Kid wrote: The singularity however is a boundary for space-time. The universe can't go back further than that or even reach it. That's why we have an age of 10 to 15 billion years for the universe rather than an infinite age. Yes, it may indicate that there is no infinite age, but not a finite number of events. How do you figure this? Planck time is the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and with a finite amount of mass only a finite amount of events can happen in that interval. Kwalish Kid wrote: And since any singularity is a failure of the ability of physics to describe a system, we can't say that it places actual limits on the history of the universe, it only places limits on our description. No, a singularity really does place a limit on the history of the universe. The singularity didn't actually exist, if anything it only serves as a boundary point. Atheist Quentin Smith puts it really well: Quentin Smith wrote: [T]he Big Bang singularity is metaphorically said that if it did exist, it would have infinite temperature. It would be infinitely hot. But temperature is the motion of molecules, or particles against each other. But the Big Bang singularity is a single zero-dimensional point. Nothing is moving. So it can't have infinite temperature. Temperature doesn't apply to it at all. And this zero-dimensional point is supposed to be infinitely dense. Well, it can't be infinitely dense, because it's got no matter in it. It's just a point. It's really nothing. And this singularity, if you try and mathematically represent it, it comes out to be mathematically ill-defined. Meaning that it is undefined mathematically and has no mathematical meaning. Because if you try to define it, you would have to have zero spatial dimensions. And then say the density - let's say there are trillions of tons of matter in the universe, but let's just imagine that there are 15 tons - so you have 15 tons divided by 0. But, you know from mathematics that you are not allowed to divide by 0. It's an undefined term in mathematics. It makes no sense.....And further, the contradiction is even worse what we know with this. That the matter is 3 dimensions of space. Height, width and depth. Well, this has zero dimensions! Zero "d"! So how could something with 3 dimensions fit inside something with zero dimensions? Well, it can't, it's a contradiction. So that's why physicists agree that the singularity does not exist. So there are a whole lot of good reasons to think that the singularity didn't really exist. It pretty much can't exist.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 894

Posted 09/21/08 - 11:20 AM:	#35
Maloy wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of mass-energy. The quantity remains the same, but the quality (ability to do useful work) degrades. The second law says the energy is still there but it is no longer available to do useful work. The non-available energy doesn't spontaneously transform itself into useful potential energy. Who said anything about spontanaity? Non-available energy? Everything changes... EVERYTHING! Energy couldn't stay in a non-usful form forever... I suggest you pick up a physics textbook. The second law of thermodynamics really does say that an isolated system tends towards higher entropy (increasing non-availability for energy to do useful work). I'm not making this up. Maloy wrote: Remember that I'm using "universe" as in "physical universe." A non-physical agency (as God) creating the universe wouldn't change the idea that the universe was caused. The non-physical is still part of the universe. If you are using the term to cannote only the physical part of the universe, you are not talking about the whole universe. You kind of have to understand what people mean when they talk about "the universe." When theists say "God created the universe" they mean our physical universe. That's just what the word means in that context. Also, some people speak of "multiple universes" and in that context "the universe" just means the conglomeration of matter that exploded at our Big Bang. Maloy wrote: So "supernatural" is meant to imply something wehich is natural? Well, no. It means the exact opposite. Then logically, there is no such thing as the supernatural. Huh?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3000

Posted 09/21/08 - 03:44 PM:	#36
For the record, Tisthammerw is a great example of a Christian apologist at work in a somewhat scientific area. He (she?) immediately grasps at any scientific statement that he can use to try to prove a point, even when these points contradict the other points that he makes. That being said, let's get to the meat of things. Tisthammerw wrote: Why wouldn't it? The universe is the totality of all matter and energy. Obviously, no matter or energy is entering or leaving the system. But it's not just the transfer of matter and energy that matter, it's the question of whether or not the universe is a system. You have to establish that there is some reason to apply thermodynamic principles over a range where we cannot say that there has been a shared causal influence. I don't think you understand. It is possible a reversal of entropy somewhere occurs, but far more often a process will increase the universe's entropy. As the universe ages one minute, it is possible though extremely unlikely that the universe will decrease in entropy; it is more probable that the universe will increase in entropy. With one hour, it is even more likely entropy will increase. With a year, even more probable. In fact, as the age of the universe approaches infinity, the probability approaches certainty. Fast forward 10^10000 years or so from now, by then we'll have a heat death and not enough available energy for us humans to survive. The universe probably isn't infinitely old. Actually, you are ignoring the rules of probability here. The rules of probability say not only that, as time goes on, we expect that there will be an event where entropy increases. As time goes on, we also expect that there will be an event where probability decreases. The problem is that if the universe did not contract, the universe will end in a heat death, which means not enough available energy for humans like us to survive. If the universe were infinitely old, we'd have a heat death according to those calculations. The universe couldn't have cycled forever. You have no reason to claim that the universe did not contract in the past. You are simply making things up. We have no reason to believe that, during the cosmological eras available to investigation, there was contraction. This, however, does not limit the behaviour of the universe in regions that we cannot yet investigate. How do you figure this? Planck time is the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and with a finite amount of mass only a finite amount of events can happen in that interval. Again, you are simply making up scientific claims. There is a mythology about the Plank length out there, which apparently you have bought into, yet this does not make it valuable. No, a singularity really does place a limit on the history of the universe. The singularity didn't actually exist, if anything it only serves as a boundary point. Atheist Quentin Smith puts it really well: So here you quote someone saying that the singularity isn't physically realizable, yet you seek to use it in a physical way. This is you trumpeting your ignorance of these matters in front of us. Thank you.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 894

Posted 09/21/08 - 06:57 PM:	#37
Kwalish Kid wrote: For the record, Tisthammerw is a great example of a Christian apologist at work in a somewhat scientific area. He (she?) immediately grasps at any scientific statement that he can use to try to prove a point, even when these points contradict the other points that he makes. Uh, thanks? Kwalish Kid wrote: Tisthammerw wrote: hy wouldn't it? The universe is the totality of all matter and energy. Obviously, no matter or energy is entering or leaving the system. But it's not just the transfer of matter and energy that matter, it's the question of whether or not the universe is a system. It really isn't much disputed that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as a whole. The universe counts as an isolated system (no matter and energy leaving it) and entropy will increase in it. Kwalish Kid wrote: I don't think you understand. It is possible a reversal of entropy somewhere occurs, but far more often a process will increase the universe's entropy. As the universe ages one minute, it is possible though extremely unlikely that the universe will decrease in entropy; it is more probable that the universe will increase in entropy. With one hour, it is even more likely entropy will increase. With a year, even more probable. In fact, as the age of the universe approaches infinity, the probability approaches certainty. Fast forward 10^10000 years or so from now, by then we'll have a heat death and not enough available energy for us humans to survive. The universe probably isn't infinitely old. Actually, you are ignoring the rules of probability here. The rules of probability say not only that, as time goes on, we expect that there will be an event where entropy increases. As time goes on, we also expect that there will be an event where probability decreases. You're a bit vague here. We also expect that there will be an event where what probability decreases? It isn't the probability of entropy increasing, that probability (well, the core probability that we use in physical laws) stays constant. As we approach infinity, entropy increasing is a near certainty. If you flip a coin, on average it'll come up heads half the time and tails the other, but you could well see fluctuations of that if you only flip it four times. On the other hand, flip it a trillion times and it's a near-guarantee that it will be extremely close to exactly half. Probabilities are like that. If an entropy reversal for a given event is extremely unlikely, gazillians of events while approaching infinite time will for all practical purposes cement an entropy increase of the universe into a heat death. Kwalish Kid wrote: The problem is that if the universe did not contract, the universe will end in a heat death, which means not enough available energy for humans like us to survive. If the universe were infinitely old, we'd have a heat death according to those calculations. The universe couldn't have cycled forever. You have no reason to claim that the universe did not contract in the past. Even if true, the calculations I speak of suggest the universe could only have cycled a finite number of times before not cycling any more. Again, no infinite past here. Kwalish Kid wrote: How do you figure this? Planck time is the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and with a finite amount of mass only a finite amount of events can happen in that interval. Again, you are simply making up scientific claims. No I'm not. See this link for example. Kwalish Kid wrote: No, a singularity really does place a limit on the history of the universe. The singularity didn't actually exist, if anything it only serves as a boundary point. Atheist Quentin Smith puts it really well: So here you quote someone saying that the singularity isn't physically realizable, yet you seek to use it in a physical way. This is you trumpeting your ignorance of these matters in front of us. Thank you. Using it in a physical way? All I said is that it provides a boundary for the universe's space-time. I didn't say it physically existed. The standard model of the big bang has a singularity for the universe as a limit, but I didn't say the universe actually gets there. Sheesh.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 253

Posted 09/21/08 - 07:30 PM:	#38
Nice debate! Tisthammerw wrote: (2) A number of theists posit God as not existing for an infinite duration of time but transcending time and space altogether; God is atemporally timeless sans the universe. Raugust wrote: And is it clear that this is even meaningful to say? Is it clear that this is an actual possibility? Tisthammerw wrote: It is at least logically possible. Outside of time there would be no change, only being and non-being. Since God is in some sense changeless anyway, why think this is not possible? On what grounds could you argue it is metaphysically impossible? Impossible? No. Far-fetched perhaps, but not logically impossible. Yet for any such entity it is impossible to interact with our world, rendering (intelligent design) aid to abiogenesis impossible. Clearly changes happen, like me typing this, which implies time, perhaps a few minutes or so. How could such an immutable God then suddenly have decided to create the world? And, subsequently, after a few days, Adam? It seems more sensible that an a-temporal God was created in the minds of the Adams and Eves. swstephe wrote: The kind of environment where there is no time, no change, then initiating an act of creation would be impossible. I concur. Tisthammerw wrote: If we include the idea that the cause (God) and the effect (the universe being created) are simultaneous, it is at least logically possible for God to be the provenance of Creation. Why think otherwise? Quite the creation event there, bringing everything into existence simultaneously, rocks, RNA, life, consciousness, selfawareness, eternal souls, an'all. Seems even more sensible that the a-temporal God was created in the minds of the Adams and Eves now.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3000

Posted 09/21/08 - 07:32 PM:	#39
Tisthammerw wrote: It really isn't much disputed that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the universe as a whole. The universe counts as an isolated system (no matter and energy leaving it) and entropy will increase in it. Really? It isn't? Wow, you'll have to tell that to the philosophers and cosmologists working on the problem of how to discuss the entropy of the entire universe. Perhaps you'd like to start with Adolf Grünbaum? One certainly doesn't have to agree with all of his positions, but if he disputes something, it's a fair bet to say that there is significant dispute. Or perhaps you might try to dissuade those who read the Landau and Lifshitz text on statistical mechanics. You're a bit vague here. We also expect that there will be an event where what probability decreases? It isn't the probability of entropy increasing, that probability (well, the core probability that we use in physical laws) stays constant. As we approach infinity, entropy increasing is a near certainty. If you flip a coin, on average it'll come up heads half the time and tails the other, but you could well see fluctuations of that if you only flip it four times. On the other hand, flip it a trillion times and it's a near-guarantee that it will be extremely close to exactly half. Probabilities are like that. If an entropy reversal for a given event is extremely unlikely, gazillians of events while approaching infinite time will for all practical purposes cement an entropy increase of the universe into a heat death. If thermodynamic behaviour is really the result of statistical mechanics, then for any event where a system moves from one state to the other, it is more probable that this event will be one that increases entropy. However, this does not mean that there will not be an event that reduces entropy and this does not mean that there will not be a string of events that reduce entropy. Indeed, we expect that, given an infinite string of events, there will be several long sub-strings that will significantly reduce entropy. Even if true, the calculations I speak of suggest the universe could only have cycled a finite number of times before not cycling any more. Again, no infinite past here. I'm not sure what you are talking about. Perhaps you have a reference. No I'm not. See this link for example. Unfortunately, Dan Simmons, Physics Undergrad Student, UOS, Souhampton, is not a good source for this information. You, and he, have been taken in. Using it in a physical way? All I said is that it provides a boundary for the universe's space-time. I didn't say it physically existed. You are making a physical claim about spacetime: that it cannot go past a certain point. If you are willing to abandon this claim, then fine. The standard model of the big bang has a singularity for the universe as a limit, but I didn't say the universe actually gets there. Sheesh. The standard model is about the history of the universe that it can describe. The high temperatures of what we might call the very, very early universe bar us from providing a physical description of that time that is very meaningful.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 09/21/08 - 07:48 PM:	#40
Tisthammerw wrote: Just because an individual can't determine which caused which doesn't mean it can't happen. I don't see this is as a logical argument at all. Correction: logic can't determine what caused what. Your assertion doesn't exclude other possibilities, (even assuming the events happened). Tisthammerw wrote: Er, my premise wasn't "materialism is false" it is "agency theory is true." Could you explain in a little more detail how I have begged the question here? You said, "Agency theory is indeterminate because it violates causality by definition." Agency is the notion that we cause our own actions and have the ability to choose among several available alternatives. Since we are the cause of our actions, it's rather unclear how agency implies a violation of causality, much less by definition. Are we using different definitions of causality here? "Anything that begins to exist requires a cause" is something I agree with, but by "causality" are you referring "any even that happens must have a cause that isn't an agent"? (Though it would seem arbitrary to me that agents "don't count.") "Agency theory is true, therefore we have souls. We have souls, therefore agency theory is true". Doesn't that sound just a tiny bit circular? A free agent is one which is not affected by external influences, by definition. Nothing caused the agent to make their choice. Therefore, there is no cause for their choice. Therefore, it violates or is independent of causality. No logical statement can be made about what choice an agent will make. Tisthammerw wrote: Even if it was caused by an internal agency (e.g. the agent itself)? Agent-causation, by definition, implies causation. You aren't talking about the same thing. I'm talking about what external factor caused the agent's choice. You are talking about what the agent's choice caused. Tisthammerw wrote: On the contrary, hard determinism says that Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler had no choice at all in what they did. Chemical reactions wholly beyond their control determined their actions. The argument from moral responsibility is not a straw man at all. Hard determinism really does imply that people are not responsible for their actions. If I flip a coin in the air, hard determinism can't say which side it will land on, it can only say that each side is equally likely. The coin has two "choices", why do people not have any, (actually it should be 'one')? It can also say that a coin landing on its edge and standing up that way is possible, but highly unlikely. Argument from moral responsibility is much more strict than determinism. It says that if someone makes a choice, it is either all their choice, or not their choice. It is impossible that some external force is partially responsible, so it tries to argue that there is no influence -- based on the consequence of the fairness of divine punishment, (which is a "post hoc" fallacy). Okay, maybe argument from moral responsibility isn't a straw man. But it is a system of morality that isn't applied anywhere outside of theistic philosophy and rhetoric. If it were straw man, then the system of morality would be attacked. But in this case, it is being used to attack a viewpoint on an emotional basis, (a sense of fairness). Tisthammerw wrote: Subjective evidence can be rational if you're the one doing the perceiving. Again, take a look at my scenario above. What it be rational for you to believe that you are innocent of the crime you are accused of? There are studies on injected memories. The most famous example is a group of people who distinctly remember meeting the Bugs Bunny mascot at Disney World. They remembered it, subjectively, and believed it to be true. However, since Bugs Bunny is a Warner Brother's character, not a Disney character, there is verifiable objective evidence that the memory was false. If all objective evidence unambiguously says that you committed a crime, then it is rational to cast doubt on your claim, your memory and your interpretation of that memory. Tisthammerw wrote: Origins of Life Let's stop right there for a moment. Behe setup a scenario where one famous chef says natural processes could produce a cake. To support the truth of this statement, rather than simulating natural processes (as placing plants near a hot spring) he ends up having "measured the amounts of the components [e.g. refined sugar and cocoa purchased from the grocery store] carefully, mixed them in a bowl, placed them in a pan, and baked them in his oven." Behe claims that the "results [of the baker baking a cake that way] would have nothing to do with his original idea that natural processes could bake a cake." You think he's wrong about this? Yes, he is wrong. Notice he is presenting a completely different scenario just to distract from the real issue. If I find living things in an environment that only contains natural processes, (before sentient being came along), then it is reasonable for me to assume, until proven otherwise that natural processes led to living things. If it has been my experience that I only find cakes in bakeries and never in uninhabited natural environments, then it is reasonable for me to assume that bakeries have something to do with the origin of cakes, until proven otherwise. Arguing for a natural process creating cakes would be pure speculation until some evidence is provided. Tisthammerw wrote: One of the reasons I'm skeptical of the majority's judgment is that many of them seem to disagree even with pro-ID points that are almost obviously true. That's because you are biased toward "design" vs "undirected". Science is neutral about one side or the other, but looks for cause-and-effect. They encounter living things in a natural environment and assume one is the cause of the other. They see most cakes in bakeries and assume that bakeries are the cause for cakes. It should be clear that this is the default assumption and independent of belief or bias. Tisthammerw wrote: Any logically possible theory is never strictly falsifiable, in the sense of e.g. using a mathematical proof to demonstrate its falsehood. One could always come up with an ad hoc hypothesis no matter what happens, e.g. perhaps some extra-dimensional alien is interfering with the experiment in some undetectable way. But ID's prediction of not finding a possible mechanism is about as close to falsifiability we can get. How about this experiment that doesn't simulate it but is naturally occurring? Suppose we see a naturally occurring chemical soup formed by rain, underground liquids rising to the surface etc. and the resulting undirected chemical reactions produce a bacterium. For all practical purposes, this would falsify the theory that intelligent causes are necessary to create such an organism, right? No, you were making the claim that ID would be falsified by excluding the predominate alternative. Many claims are very falsifiable. If I claim the moon is made of cheese, it was falsified by going to the moon, gathering samples and showing that it wasn't made of cheese. That hypothesis falls within scientific method. The claim of ID is "life was created by a designer". The direct falsification is "there was no designer". Since you can't prove negative existential assertions even potentially, then ID isn't falsifiable. It is just a distraction to imply that ID and abiogenesis are the only two possible alternatives and that proving or disproving abiogenesis makes ID any more or less true. It is argument from lack of imagination. Just because you can only conceive of two possible solutions, doesn't mean they are the only two solutions. We have already thought up two more. That means you have two more potential theories to disprove before any theory can become the only one remaining. I don't think your scenario would stop ID. Let's make it easy. Say that a bacterium is confirmed to be found on Mars. Does ID call it quits, or does ID start making claim "oh, the designer stopped there", or does it dismiss it with, "oh, the bacterium was on the ship we sent there or got there by other means than natural processes". If I can imagine these arguments, and they sound reasonable, then it hasn't been falsified. Tisthammerw wrote: It's vastly unclear why you think that. If intelligent causes were necessary to create Earth-type life, you honestly do not think this belief would predict the non-existence of a realistic way for unintelligent causes to create Earth-type life? If nature was reasonably capable of creating Earth-type life, wouldn't this mean that "intelligent causes are necessary" is false? No, because I'm arguing from logic, not personal belief. Logically, even if a planet was capable of producing life through natural processes, it doesn't exclude a designer showing up and creating life too. That's a "false dichotomy". You are assuming that either life came about by natural processes or life came about by a designer, but never both. If we were talking about a single event, maybe you could apply the "law of excluded middle", but not when discussing a complex, massive, event like the origin of life. Would it be reasonable for me to claim that all my hair fell out because of stress or genetics, but not both? It doesn't work that way in the real world. Tisthammerw wrote: I wasn't asking whether you think concluding that these empirically verified predictions constitute evidence is a "fallacy." I was asking whether you thought they were confirmed. Do you deny that we don't know how undirected chemical reactions could produce a single-celled organism? Do you deny that obstacles exist for abiogenesis? If you deny the latter, why is it that we know of a way an intelligent designer can create RNA and DNA but we don't know of a way the primordial earth can do it? Isn't it because undirected chemical reactions face obstacles that human scientists overcome (through e.g. laboratory equipment)? First, it is a fallacy when you say "we don't know", and try to suggest something to fill the gaps. Either we know or we don't. If we know, then we have the solution. If we don't know, we don't know and no argument is reasonable until we know. You are making the implicit assumption that "we will never know". Like I said, I can't assert that you are the killer just because we don't know who is the killer. Do we know how undirected chemical reactions could produce a single-celled organism? We know many of the steps from A to B, and seem to be pretty close to a clear picture. Are there "obstacles"? If you mean "problems to be solved", then yes. If you mean "problems which can never be logically solved", then no. An insurmountable problem would falsify abiogenesis. ID dismisses all the steps from A to B and inserts character C, but offers no specific knowledge about C. We don't know anything about the designer or how he came to exist. Because we don't know, the proposition that there was or wasn't a designer is equally valid. Tisthammerw wrote: It didn't appear that way. Your reason of why ID is not falsifiable was, "We would need another earth with identical conditions and a billion years" had absolutely no bearing as to whether a theory is falsifiable in the scientific sense. Another earth and waiting a billion years might be impractical (at least given our current technologies), but such a thing is logically possible and ID theory is still falsifiable in principle. As the Wikipedia article on falsifiability says, "Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, 'it will be raining here in one million years' is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically." If you knew what falsifiability was all along, why did you give a reason that absolutely no relevance to the matter, as if you conflated between being falsifiable in principle and being falsifiable in practice? That's not my reason for ID being unfalsifiable. I believe ID would only be falsifiable by demonstrating that no designer existed. Since it is not possible to prove a negative existential statement, it can't even potentially be falsified. Trying to shift attention to falsifying abiogenesis in an attempt to show ID as the only alternative is not a valid falsification test. You were the one trying to redefine scientific method. Actually, a theory doesn't have to be falsifiable to be accepted as scientific theory. Gravity, if I remember correctly, isn't falsifiable, but we accept it because it has plenty of direct evidence. The only reason for wanting ID to be falsifiable is in order to discredit any opposing theory on scientific grounds. Tisthammerw wrote: Suppose these "metal creatures" have the type of complexity similar to what we would call a "robot." That is, they have metal plates, wires, electro-hydraulic limbs, electronic circuitry etc. Would it still be irrational for astronauts to claim that intelligent causes are necessary to create these "metal creatures" and that natural processes are not reasonably capable of doing the job? No, it wouldn't be irrational. In our experience, we see things with metal plates, wires and the rest only as the result of designers. We may have even seen robots being manufactured. We know that metal must be forged from ore, that wires must be extruded. We can meet with and talk with designers and read their instructions, if necessary. When encountering objects with that kind of similarity on another planet, we would have to admit a designer due to the evidence. There is no such evidence for a designer for life. All the raw materials exist as natural processes. Until we see a designer, factories, plans or something that couldn't be grown from natural processes, we have to assume that life is derived from natural processes. Again, you are biased toward the source, while science is making objective connections between cause-and-effect. Tisthammerw wrote: I'll ask my questions again. What if we found a mechanism for an intelligent designer to create a bacterium, but the obstacles for abiogenesis are still a prebiotic chemist's nightmare? Would it be rational to accept ID then? How long do you think we should wait for abiogenesis adherents to find a possible mechanism to overcome the obstacles? Ten years? Twenty? Never? If the answer is "never," can you see why I might expect tenacity to be a real problem here? Yes, tenacity against a total disregard for logic and scientific method. I guess you are right. As long as ID has the insurmountable obstacle of being incapable of producing any direct evidence of a designer, then abiogenesis is the only problem that is currently being solved. ID is trying to do an end-run around the requirement to do their homework. It is perfectly reasonable to apply the same tenacity toward unscientific speculation as they would apply to themselves. Tisthammerw wrote: So would astronomers not wanting to give "equal time" to geocentricism constitute a "conspiracy" because of a concerted effort to suppress it? Or would it be simply scientists not wanting a theory so scientifically inferior to be taught alongside mainstream science? I really don't see why it has to be a conspiracy theory with intelligent design or any other theory the majority deems fundamentally scientifically flawed. You are focused on the subject. It shouldn't matter what the subject is as long as the author is willing to follow scientific method and present evidence. Conspiracy theories try to imply ambiguous intentions in order to lend validity to their premise. There is no suppression, in the public, of ID. Forcing scientific organizations or educational institutions to teach unscientific speculation along with critical examination of thoughts borders on propaganda. Tisthammerw wrote: You're taking what I'm saying to a misguided extreme. I'm not at all saying that these people think there was "something valid, but threatening." I have little doubt that these people thought what they were doing is right. In this example of Behe trying to get something submitted, the person rejecting it seems sincere, it's just that the person seems to be rejecting it for terribly irrational reasons brought forth by tenacity and emotion. Again, no conspiracy, just human nature. You are right, the person corresponding with Behe doesn't seem to be part of a conspiracy. But they have rational reservations about publishing what appears to be a religious article in a scientific journal. When I say "conspiracy theory", I don't mean that there is a conspiracy, just that the idea of a conspiracy is used to try to support the validity of the issue. Tisthammerw wrote: Sinister? I don't think I'm the one vilifying the opposition here (recall you seemed to accuse me of putting forth conspiracy theories). In any case, I have a counterexample. You don't think it's possible that after trying a few times, ID proponents like Behe might have just given up because they thought it was fruitless? Incidentally, there are published papers on intelligent design that get peer reviewed. Behe's Darwin's Black Box was one of them. And it is the case that they nonetheless do publish peer review scientific papers in their own circles (see here for instance). One recent example of a pro-ID article being published in a non-ID scientific journal is the one in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, though the article published there is controversial and has been attacked by ID critics as being scientifically flawed. Incidentally, the link you gave didn't say anything about ID proponents not submitting their work to scientific journals. It only claims those articles never got published. I'm saying that ID doesn't get published. You are saying that ID criticisms against evolution do get published. That's not the same thing. If you can find a single paper that describes a specific model and predictions of ID, independent of abiogensis, evolution or any other theory, then please let me see that. Anything that is an attack against another theory without proposing anything specific is unscientific in my opinion. Tisthammerw wrote: Well, that isn't a reason to favor abiogenesis over intelligent design, because we haven't seen the natural processes create the first bacterium either. ID and abiogenesis are on equal footing there. So I ask again, what specific, scientific reason do you have for favoring abiogenesis over intelligent design? Why exactly should one consider abiogenesis as scientifically superior to intelligent design? I have yet to see a reason. You are shifting backwards again. The actual event of creating life has no direct evidence. In our daily experience, we see biological organisms arising from natural processes, not from design. We don't have the living from purely inorganic by design experience yet, so we can reasonably assume that there were no human scientist, on earth, who were capable of doing this before life, on earth began. It is obvious that the only one standing around holding the smoking gun is natural process. Until you produce a designer or evidence of a designer, ID is only speculation and natural processes are the default, scientific, assumption. Actually, I'm sure you assume I'm an atheist. Actually, I'm a theist. I accept that there was a designer. I just don't think that it is possible to find evidence unless it was placed there deliberately. I'm arguing from the scientific and logical perspective in this instance because I think "ID" borders on criminal abuse of scientific theory. If I draw any conclusions on intention, then I'm engaging in conspiracy theory myself. If it is there intention that ID be treated as scientific theory so they can promote associated religious views, then they are on the verge of criminal evangelical propaganda. If they are sincere, but ignorant of the ramifications of their promotion of ID-as-scientific-theory, then they are holding all religions hostage while they go on a suicidal offensive run. They will leave a stain on all religions as being illogical and contrary to evidence. ID has done far more damage to religious belief than they have to any scientific theories. They turn potential theories into political debates which helps add to the tenacity to resist what is rightly seen as an obvious charade.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.