quote:

---

Originally posted by Eponine:

That said, what Mr. Bill may have been referring to is the fact that there is proof of the existence of a higher being in nature.

---

Mr. Bill said:
Uh, whoah. I didn't mean "proof". The beauty of the universe is my reason for believing in a creator, not "proof" one exists. Thats why it's called faith.

You're right, bad choice of words.
If you read my last post,(nov. 3rd, 7:17 pm) you will see that I clarify my statement,and state that you can't prove faith.

Sainty:

You really didn't have to go to all that trouble, I was going to read the books, I promise!

"Even if nobody's mind is changed", "recommend" You're a dirty copper Eponine and you're busted! Come along quitetly.[b/]

I'm sorry, I really don't know what you're talking about. And I was not debating religion, I was debating evolution. In my book there's a difference.

[b] ...Now get with the program, or come the revolution you're going up against the wall

Umm, I really don't know what you're talking about there, either.

Like I said before, I haven't seen any proof of evolution. Even the evolutionists ( if they are honest with themselves) admit that there is no proof of evolution. Granted, there is no proof of creation, either, but that's why it is a faith, not a science. I still stand on my statement that science is a comfirmation of my beliefs, but I'm not trying to make anybody else think that, that's just what I think.

(Funny that this debate coincided with my evolution unit in Biology)

*eyes his flame resistant coat*

I hope that we all are going about this with aire of "agreeing to disagree" as I do not believe any of us will change our minds based upon these forum writings, humans are not that open minded

------------------
~Weirdo~
|Home Page|My Geek Code|Post Disclaimer|Bill of Rights

Tau:

I'm sorry... it just makes me mad when the loud, narrow-minded wrong people of similar beleifs to mine say things and people judge the entire population of belivers on that. I get a bad rap then. I wasn't angry at you, just the other morons who do things like that. And not just the scientists, either. (Jerry Falwell, cough cough)
Peace.

Actually, on another note, I have just begun to delve into Darwinian Evolution, and there is a lot of it that I agree with. And a lot of it that I don't. And I think I can find some refutations to some of his ideas, but I would have to do a lot more reading before I could refute those. So, is this highly explosive discussion over, or should I go back and hide behind the trenches again?

MaryM, are you still there?(*)
Has our info helped?

(*why does this sound like a song title?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blind Harper:
Jaysus, vituperation.

See, this is why I didn't want to start the whole thing off. I say, read the books, take them on their own merits, read the peer-reviews, then make your own judgements.

That being said, my position is, Apply Occam's Razor. There are many theories as to how 'the start of life on Earth' could have occurred through purely natural, physical means. Whether they're provable or merely plausible is not for me to decide; I leave that to the experts. But in any case, throwing up your hands and just saying 'God must have done it' is not a valid retreat from the problem.

---

I'm not retreating from anything.

I've read the theories of how life could have started by natural means (for excellent reviews of the main branches of said theories, see Origins : A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, and The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, by Charles B. Thaxton). I once even believed them --before I read into them. But they turn out to be intellectually shoddy. At critical points, there is lots of hand waving and "We'll call it 'Science,' but you have to take it on faith." Notice how often the word "belief" comes up in these discussions, compared with how seldom it comes up in, say, chemistry.

And notice especially that last rhetorical ploy: "Apply Occam's Razor." Well, Occam's razor is: don't multiply entities unnecessarily. If two theories provide equally good explanations of something, prefer the one that is simpler.

How does one apply this? By evalutating the theories, and seeing if the explanations the provide are adequate -- except you say "Whether they're provable or merely plausible is not for me to decide; I leave that to the experts." I'd call that throwing up your hands and just saying 'Natural Law must have done it.'"

What's lurking at the bottom of all this is an unstated premise: 'We must believe that life's origin and diversity are due to the operation of natural laws with no intervention by intelligence at any point. Any argument that seems to show differently is to be rejected out of hand, without any attempt to consider it seriously. We do not find non-natural law explanations of the origin and diversity of life emotionally acceptable, and we refuse to have anything to do with them.'

Well, I refuse the premise. If I find a plausible theory of the origin and diversity of life that depends solely on natural law, I will accept it under Occam's razor principles. If I find a plausible argument that God exists and directly intervened to create and/or diversify life, I will accept it under intellectual integrity principles. Lacking either, I will continue to critically examine all theories offered.

quote:

---

Eponine:
Sainty:

You really didn't have to go to all that trouble, I was going to read the books, I promise

---

I believe you. Only, I didn't do it for you, but for me. I'm weird. Also, see below, near the end.

quote:

---

Eponine:
And I was not debating religion, I was debating evolution. In my book there's a difference.

---

Well, I consider evolution a religion, but that's beside the point. Steen said,

quote:

---

C'mon everyone, let's not turn this thread into a religious debate

---

and you didn't correct him, so I commented on religous debate.

quote:

---

Saintonge:
<sarcasm> ...Now get with the program, or come the revolution you're going up against the wall</sarcasm>

Eponine:
Umm, I really don't know what you're talking about there, either.

---

That was my oblique way of noting that the people who defend evolution tend to get snippy when presented with argument, and start treating dissent as thoughtcrime. In other words, only people who don't believe in (there's those words again!) evolution are required to be polite, respectful of others, etc. People who do believe in the govt. approved religion of evolution get to be as abusive as they wish, and to change the rules of debate and argument at will. I take a sadistic pleasure in pointing out that they are doing that.

For further, see my reply to Tau below.

quote:

---

Eponine:
Like I said before, I haven't seen any proof of evolution. Even the evolutionists ( if they are honest with themselves) admit that there is no proof of evolution.

---

I'm not surprised that you haven't seen any proof of evolution, for, as far as I can determine, no such proof exists.

There is ample evidence of a succession of life forms on earth, and overwhelming evidence of the biochemical similarity of life on earth. Taken together, these provide a fair bit of evidence that evolution of some type may have occurred, though they don't constitute proof. There is a generally believed theory of how evolution is supposed to occur, namely neo-Darwinism, but its so weak that the reasons for belief in it must be sought, imao, in the realms of psychology, philosophy and theology, not logic and science.

Btw, I haven't seen very many honest evolutionists, either.

quote:

---

Tau Zero:
I was attacking the dishonesty of people like Michael Behe (and Henry T. Morris, and others of the same stripe). ... it's quite possible to say things that are blatantly false because one trusts a source which is erroneous or lying. This isn't bad faith, this is a mistake. I try to point people to sources which might let them learn if they've made such a mistake. Enlightenment is always worthwhile, if not necessarily easy. ...

don't you see a contradiction in the position of people like Behe who seem to agree on the one hand that you have to take some things on faith, but then turn around and claim on the other hand that there is scientific evidence for those same things? That ought to smell funny. Knowing that some of the claims are erroneous, perhaps deliberately so, should smell even worse.
Or maybe the errors are compulsive, because the author can't handle having to believe something so important to him without evidence. He builds a belief supported by scraps of evidence taken where they can be found, like a shanty-town dwelling made from whatever's available. But why is he bothering, when faith is supposed to be enough? It sounds like his faith is weak, even weaker than his evidence. Maybe he really doesn't believe what he's writing. Maybe you shouldn't either.

---

This is a good example of intellectual double standards.

You haven't quoted a scrap of evidence that Behe believes the things he does because of faith, or that he is intellectually dishonest. I did, in examining the web sites you recommended, find evidence of intellectual dishonesty by Robison, but hey, he's on your side, so its OK, right?

Logic excercise: Assume for the sake of argument that athiesm and materialism are true, and that time travel is impossible. Given that life exists, how could it have begun?

Answer: Given those assumptions, life must have arisen by natural causes, and some theory of evolution is probably inevitable.

Now, consider that most scientists are athiests or agnostics. Does this mean that any argument they make for evolution should automatically be despised, because they are just trying to prop up their religous faiths anyway?

No, no one will argue that. Arguments that support a pre-existing religous position are perfectly acceptable if the position is athiesm. Only arguments that might undermine said position are to have this 'why are you trying to prop up your faith with science' criticism applied to them.

I find the self-appointed, self-contradictory defenders of intellectual integrity really quite amusing.

quote:

---

Eponine:
Oh for the love of...
Nobody ever expected anybody's mind to be changed... Isn't that what I have been saying the whole time?? Just for the sheer pleasure of a good discussion with intelligent people, that's all it was!
Granted, I didn't realize it would get so emotional... I'm just starving for good discussion. It seems like every time something controversial gets brought up, someone invariably says, "Oh, let's not get started on that", or " Can't we all just get along?" or something along those lines. I just frustrates me that no one ever wants to debate these things. I'm not trying to start fights, I hope I don't come across like that... eep!
Actually, on another note, I have just begun to delve into Darwinian Evolution, and there is a lot of it that I agree with. And a lot of it that I don't. And I think I can find some refutations to some of his ideas, but I would have to do a lot more reading before I could refute those. So, is this highly explosive discussion over, or should I go back and hide behind the trenches again?

---

First of, eepy, you're supposed to hide in the trenches. Behind them is open ground where you're likely to get shot!

I agree with you about discussion. I love it, and controversial discussion can be especially fun. Besides, I have a sadistic bully streak, and love to post vicious personal attacks disguised as objective arguments.

There might be something to be said for putting this discussion in another thread, but me, I hope it continues.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steen:

Eponine:

I believe Saintonge's "dirty copper" remark is in reference to you making a couple of spelling errors in a previous post while your sig says "Corrections Officer, Spelling Division".

Eponine:
Oh, I see now. There is a difference between typos and spelling errors! I checked my message before posting, but sometimes some slip through. I never feel like wasting the time to edit it so it usually stays. Heh, you should see my IM messages... Absolutely ridiculous. I'm thinking of changing the offical spelling of the word "with" to "wiht". I can do that you know, wiht my badge.

---

Weasel! 'Oh, it was a mere typo, not a spelling error.' LOL, and shaking my head in admiration.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by weirdo513:
I'm still here, but my lawyers have advised me not to comment in this thread at this date and time, as doing so could cause serious mental trauma from having to read another essay.

*eyes his flame resistant coat*

---

My pshrink tells me I should advise you that it isn't wise to take medical advice from lawyers, , though in this case, he thinks you're probably wise.

Mary M, don't be too intimidated, you probably have more info than you really asked for, but just ignore the tangent, ok? I hope that what relevant information you have was helpful, and I hope the other resources I gave you were helpful. If you have any other questions, I would be happy to answer them, and I bet the others would be too. Let us know how ut all works out, as I know my curiosity is getting the better of me...

According to my understanding of the definitions, you have neither flamed nor trolled anyone. Besides, I'd say it's others' responses to your comments that ultimately broke the thread. As I said in ARJ's thread on thread-deviance, it's an organic process which we cannot control.

And, as Saintonge Baptismically Ratified:
At critical points, there is lots of hand waving and "We'll call it 'Science,' but you have to take it on faith."

The fact that we don't yet know everything is not reason to throw out perfectly good theories.

My pont is, evolution is the only theory we have at this point that explains what has happened on Earth for the last several million years and has any sort of evidence to suport it. Maybe I need to do some more reading, but I have not yet encountered anyone offering something to replace neo-Darwinism. Yes, there are holes in neo-Darwinism. Said holes are smaller than the ones in other theories.

What's lurking at the bottom of all this is an unstated premise: 'We must believe that life's origin and diversity are due to the operation of natural laws with no intervention by intelligence at any point.

It seems to be a perfectly reasonable assumption to me.

What I mean by 'Apply Occam's Razor' is that we don't need to posit supernatural entities where natural causes can explain. For instance, say we have evolution and we have another theory which explains the facts just as well but relies on the intervention of God. In which case, though the theories are similarly capable of explanation and prediction, Occam's Razor bids you go with the former, because it does not require the introduction of an extraneous factor for which we have no other evidence.

There is ample evidence of a succession of life forms on earth, and overwhelming evidence of the biochemical similarity of life on earth. Taken together, these provide a fair bit of evidence that evolution of some type may have occurred, though they don't constitute proof. There is a generally believed theory of how evolution is supposed to occur, namely neo-Darwinism, but its so weak that the reasons for belief in it must be sought, imao, in the realms of psychology, philosophy and theology, not logic and science.

Once again, show me a better theory.

consider that most scientists are athiests or agnostics. Does this mean that any argument they make for evolution should automatically be despised, because they are just trying to prop up their religous faiths anyway?

No, no one will argue that. Arguments that support a pre-existing religous position are perfectly acceptable if the position is athiesm. Only arguments that might undermine said position are to have this 'why are you trying to prop up your faith with science' criticism applied to them.

There's a big difference. Atheism is a faith that the universe and natural laws exist. This can be proven. Other religions are faith that supernatural entities and forces exist. If this can be proven, it sure hasn't been yet.

I would not agree that any argument made by a religious person, or attempting to support a religious perspective, is automatically suspect. I have to say, though, check your assumptions. Creating a theory concerning the existence of a heretofore-undetected force using objective evidence, and attempting to interperet data in a way compliant with the existence of a preconcieved, undetectable, unprovable force, are very different things. Attempting to interperet data in a way compliant with the existence of a preconcieved, undetectable, unprovable force, and attempting to interperet it in a way compliant with the existence of forces the existence of which is already proven and demonstrated, are also very different things.

Intellectual responsibility means checking your own premises, as well as those of others. Operating with a closed mind is a terrible thing, but as the man said, if you keep a sufficiently open mind people will throw a lot of garbage into it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blind Harper:
There's a big difference. Atheism is a faith that the universe and natural laws exist. This can be proven. Other religions are faith that supernatural entities and forces exist. If this can be proven, it sure hasn't been yet.

---

Ahem... I told myself I would stay out of this for now... but I can't help myself. -sigh- -twinge of guilt-

Faith: n. 1. Belief without evidence
-The New International Webster's Pocket Dictionary of the English Language

It's not a faith if it can be proven. 'Nuff said. I know I said that proof of a higher being exists in a previous post, but I am officially withdrawing that statement. Like I said before, science is a confirmation of my beliefs, not proof for them. Evolution on the other hand, is suposedly a scientific theory. The evidence with which I have been presented in favor of it (mostly this week in Biology) is weak. I can't come back with an answer for everything, but some things have yet to be really "proven." Oh, there I go on a tangent again... sorry, guys.

------------------
Corrections Officer,
Spelling Division

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
At critical points, there is lots of hand waving and "We'll call it 'Science,' but you have to take it on faith."
Blind Harper:
The fact that we don't yet know everything is not reason to throw out perfectly good theories.

My point is, evolution is the only theory we have at this point that explains what has happened on Earth for the last several million years and has any sort of evidence to support it. Maybe I need to do some more reading, but I have not yet encountered anyone offering something to replace neo-Darwinism. Yes, there are holes in neo-Darwinism. Said holes are smaller than the ones in other theories.

---

quote:

---

:

You apppear to be using explain in the sense of "This makes me feel good, so I want to believe it." This is more usually known as 'having faith.'

Evolution in general, the theory that there is a succesion of life forms, with the new ones being descended from the old ones. It is somewhat compatible with the fossil record and the bio-chemical unity of life, but is rather vague. It's hard to see what would falsify it.

Neo-Darwinism makes falsifiable predictions, expecially, a fossil record full of intermediate forms. After 140 years of not finding them, the rational thinker must consider it falsified.

You want a theory to replace neo-Darwinism? Sorry, I'm not in the founding new religions game. If I don't have a scientific theory to explain something, I say, "It's unexplained." Less satisfying emotionally, but more honest intellectually.

[quote]Saintonge:
[b]What's lurking at the bottom of all this is an unstated premise: 'We must believe that life's origin and diversity are due to the operation of natural laws with no intervention by intelligence at any point.

Blind Harper: It seems to be a perfectly reasonable assumption to me.

What I mean by 'Apply Occam's Razor' is that we don't need to posit supernatural entities where natural causes can explain. For instance, say we have evolution and we have another theory which explains the facts just as well but relies on the intervention of God. In which case, though the theories are similarly capable of explanation and prediction, Occam's Razor bids you go with the former, because it does not require the introduction of an extraneous factor for which we have no other evidence.

---

What all this overlooks is the possiblilty that natural law can't explain everything. If you wish to believe that as an article of religous faith, go ahead, but if you wish to argue scientifically, you have to face the possibility that evolution just might happen to be false.

quote:

---

Saintonge:
There is ample evidence of a succession of life forms on earth, and overwhelming evidence of the biochemical similarity of life on earth. Taken together, these provide a fair bit of evidence that evolution of some type may have occurred, though they don't constitute proof. There is a generally believed theory of how evolution is supposed to occur, namely neo-Darwinism, but its so weak that the reasons for belief in it must be sought, imao, in the realms of psychology, philosophy and theology, not logic and science.

Blind Harper:
Once again, show me a better theory.

---

This illustrates my point nicely. You want a materialistic theory of the origin and diversity of life, and will cling to the 'best' one around, regardless of whether the evidence suggests that it is false. Psychologically interesting, but it has nothing to do with science.

quote:

---

Saintonge: consider that most scientists are athiests or agnostics. Does this mean that any argument they make for evolution should automatically be despised, because they are just trying to prop up their religous faiths anyway?

No, no one will argue that. Arguments that support a pre-existing religous position are perfectly acceptable if the position is athiesm. Only arguments that might undermine said position are to have this 'why are you trying to prop up your faith with science' criticism applied to them.

blind Harper:
There's a big difference. Atheism is a faith that the universe and natural laws exist. This can be proven. Other religions are faith that supernatural entities and forces exist. If this can be proven, it sure hasn't been yet.

---

Nonsense! Show me a dozen 'religous' people who don't believe in the existence of the universe around them. Athiesm is the belief that the 'natural universe' is all there is. It may be true, but it may not be.

quote:

---

Blind Harper:I would not agree that any argument made by a religious person, or attempting to support a religious perspective, is automatically suspect. I have to say, though, check your assumptions. ... Intellectual responsibility means checking your own premises, as well as those of others. Operating with a closed mind is a terrible thing, but as the man said, if you keep a sufficiently open mind people will throw a lot of garbage into it.

---

This is the kind of hypocrisy I love about this debate. 'Religous' people should check their assumptions. Materialists are allowed to keep their minds closed, because the things they don't believe in are garbage.

It makes a nice substitute for logic, but only if the opponent plays along.

------------------
Saintonge

It's not a faith if it can be proven. 'Nuff said.

Pardon my incorrect use of the word 'faith'. I should have said 'belief'.

And, as Saintonge Cloacically Mediated:
What all this overlooks is the possiblilty that natural law can't explain everything. If you wish to believe that as an article of religous faith, go ahead, but if you wish to argue scientifically, you have to face the possibility that evolution just might happen to be false.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that evolution may be false, as soon as I see a theory that explains the facts better. I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are forces and beings beyond the light of what we know, as soon as I recieve evidence to that effect.

Blind Harper:
Once again, show me a better theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This illustrates my point nicely. You want a materialistic theory of the origin and diversity of life, and will cling to the 'best' one around, regardless of whether the evidence suggests that it is false. Psychologically interesting, but it has nothing to do with science.

Science is the forming, testing, and confirming or rejecting of axioms. Those who wish to reject a theory had best have another one that fits the facts better. What if Einstein had noticed the inconsistencies in Newtonian cosmology but hadn't had any idea of what to replace it with? Would it then have germain to simply reject newtonian theory, to claim that the movement of planets is not understandable or say 'gee, it must be the hand of God moving all them thingies around'?

Nonsense! Show me a dozen 'religous' people who don't believe in the existence of the universe around them. Athiesm is the belief that the 'natural universe' is all there is. It may be true, but it may not be.

That's not the issue. I never claimed that religious people don't believe in the universe. What I'm saying is that atheists believe what has been proven (or at least demonstrated) whereas religious people believe things which are unprovable (or at least undemonstrable). This is the meaning of the word 'faith', as Eponine so conveniently pointed out. If you want to believe in God and the Bible, or in Karma and Reincarnation for that matter, more power to you; but don't make it the basis of a scientific theory until you can show me some evidence.

This is the kind of hypocrisy I love about this debate. 'Religous' people should check their assumptions. Materialists are allowed to keep their minds closed, because the things they don't believe in are garbage.

The only assumption I make is that that which can be proven or at least demonstrated is a reasonable faxcimile of the truth. Which I think is the most reasonable assumption imaginable, and questioning it almost by definition leads to irrationality.

------------------
"Computer geeks know they're geeks, but that's okay, because they control the invisible world inside their computer. Classic geeks know they're geeks, but that's okay, because they control the invisible world the Dungeon Master creates for them. But drama geeks don't know they're geeks! They think they're so cool, with their devil sticks and their cat-in-the-hat-hats..." - Sandy Donaldson, Binary Opposition
Worship the Mighty Froglord!

There are two problems with the second school:

1. It is every bit a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.
2. More importantly, many examples of <pet theory or doctrine> preclude the possibility of testing.  They thus declare that knowledge is impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
I'd call that throwing up your hands and just saying 'Natural Law must have done it.'"
...
What's lurking at the bottom of all this is an unstated premise: 'We must believe that life's origin and diversity are due to the operation of natural laws with no intervention by intelligence at any point. Any argument that seems to show differently is to be rejected out of hand, without any attempt to consider it seriously. We do not find non-natural law explanations of the origin and diversity of life emotionally acceptable, and we refuse to have anything to do with them.'

---

Think about that for a minute.  The people who have decided to take supernatural explanations for X and Y on faith have effectively removed any possibility of gaining true knowledge of the causes of X and Y.  Once you have removed a cause from the realm of natural law and placed it in the sphere of supernatural whim, explanation is no longer possible (and can you really claim to be keeping an open mind?).  You stop being able to seek causes, and start having to do theology.  You might as well seek explanations for an abstract impressionist painting.

Saintonge's claim is consistent with a "God of the gaps":  those things which cannot (yet) be explained by natural causes are due to God, and as the gaps between natural explanations narrow, so does God.  This works just fine in a pre-scientific society where nobody knows the causes of rain and seasons, not to mention lightning and floods and droughts and hurricanes and tornadoes, heat waves and cold snaps, crop failures and plagues.  In the modern age, this weltanschauung, this world-view, compresses God into a mighty uncomfortable little box that gets smaller all the time.  I find it grossly unsatisfying from both a philosophical and an epistemological standpoint.

To be consistent, you cannot seek naturalistic explanations for anything you have placed in the category of divine choice.  It's off-limits; God is, by definition, smarter than all the human beings who ever lived or ever will live and cannot be understood by them.  To investigate is blasphemous.

I am very happy that this school of thought has been long discredited and disregarded by the scientific establishment.  It's not pleasant to contemplate what would have happened if it had held sway.  Here are a few examples I can think of:

Diseases.  If the official doctrine was that sickness was a curse from God, then there would be no reason to look for other causes.  Bacteria, viruses, and nutritional deficiencies would never have been discovered.  Antibiotics, vaccines and vitamin supplements would never be invented.  We would not have any science of bacteriology, virology, immunology, oncology or even nutrition.  We would have no treatments for cancer, arthritis, heart disease, polio, or even whooping cough, diptheria, pellagra or rickets.

Weather.  If the official doctrine was that hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and floods were curses from God, there would be no reason to look for other causes.  Weather patterns would never be investigated.  The superstitious would continue to smash people's barometers, instead of using them as a cue to take cover.

Earthquakes.  If tremblors are a curse from God, there's no reason to examine faults, nor try to design buildings to withstand the forces which quakes will exert upon them.  Or is it a sign of one's blessed nature that one's house stands while someone else's falls?  Our skeptical science has shown us otherwise, but if it hadn't become predominant...

You get the idea.  Rejecting natural explanations - throwing up your hands and declaring "God must have done it!" - would have been an unmitigated disaster in all of these areas.  The mind recoils at the consequences.

To be consistent, you cannot accept the fruits of the tree while rejecting the tree itself.  You cannot accept modern medicines and treatments or even water-treatment practices drawn from skeptical scientific investigation, nor weather prediction nor seismic science or anything else - while also holding the view that "anything that cannot currently be explained must be due to the whim of God."  All of those things were unexplained a relatively short time ago, and you cannot just say "whoops!  I was wrong about that, but I'm still right about everything else!"

From there we arrive at the question of the origin of life, biogenesis.  We have numerous examples of natural origins for biological chemicals, the Miller-Urey experiment being one, discoveries of sugars in interstellar space being another, and the abiological generation of pyruvate under the conditions of deep-sea hydrothermal vents being another.  If it's divine whim, it's occurring everywhere all the time; carbon wants to form bio-chemicals given half a chance.  It's not on the level of some horribly improbable event that would take intricate tinkering to happen just once, it happens wholesale by itself.  It's built into the fabric of the universe.  The building blocks of life are favored by the processes of natural law.

I'd also like to take issue with Saintonge's appraisal of one theory (a very speculative theory, I might add).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
In a later and worse book, The Blind Watchmaker, he reveals he doesn't really take this seriously, and offers another scenario, in which clay spontaneously evolved life, [I am not making this up], and then the clay life evolved into carbon-based life.

---

There are other arguments against intelligent design.  There are the variations in vitally important genes across the spectrum of life (wouldn't an intelligent designer have gotten things right just once?), and there are even two different genetic codes in use by life on Earth to this very day (one for bacteria, plants, animals and fungi, and the other by archaebacteria, the so-called blue-green algae; the latter genetic code is also in use in the mitochondria of every oxygen-breathing eukaryotic cell, including every human cell inside you and me).  This means that the genetic code itself was invented at least twice.  Or would you rather posit a bumbling creator who couldn't make up his mind which way to go?

That's my beef with the concept of intelligent design.  A design requires a designer (backdoor religion in the science classroom) and the idea blocks off routes of inquiry which have been extremely fruitful and beneficial to human beings in the past.  To declare a designer is to claim that the processes are almost certainly unknowable.  One might as well try to get an ant to explain a Picasso.  Fortunately for us, while the universe as a whole is complex it isn't capricious.  If intelligent design was the rule, we would have had no possibility at all of understanding as much as we have.  If we accept the claims of its advocates, we have little or no possibility of understanding anything more.  These are more than sufficient reasons for rejecting all intelligent design arguments out of hand.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge: What all this overlooks is the possiblilty that natural law can't explain everything. If you wish to believe that as an article of religous faith, go ahead, but if you wish to argue scientifically, you have to face the possibility that evolution just might happen to be false.

Blind Harper:
I'm perfectly willing to admit that evolution may be false, as soon as I see a theory that explains the facts better. I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are forces and beings beyond the light of what we know, as soon as I recieve evidence to that effect.

---

The weasal words here are "better" and "evidence." Evidence that neo-Darwinism can not account for the origin and diversity of life, in principle or by the historical record, is to be rejected. Neo-Darwinian evolution is to be accepted, without evidence (no one has seen any new species evolve, much less new phylla, in a neo-Darwinian way).

No matter how you repeat or rephrase it, it comes down to 'Start out by accepting my position as true, without evidence, and then let me decide, ad hoc, what is acceptable as a 'better' argument or 'evidence' for things I don't believe.'

Rational argumentation requires that such questions be settled beforehand, and that position not be adopted, even in a pre-liminary fashion.

As for Newton and Einstein: if Einstein had only the flaws in Newtonian theory to publish, the proper conclusion would have been, NOT, "the movement of planets is not understandable or say 'gee, it must be the hand of God moving all them thingies around'?" It would be, "We don't have a satisfactory theory of orbital dynamics, and can't claim to understand planetary motion. We do have a theory that predicts some things correctly, and we should label it "Known to be erroneous. To be used for calculational convenience only, till we have a satisfactory theory." (IIRC, something similar was done with black body radiation until quantum theory was straightened out.)

Btw, as far as I know, there were no "inconsistencies in Newtonian cosmology." It's just that it was wrong.

I think the unbridgeble gulf between our positions lies here:

quote:

---

Science is the forming, testing, and confirming or rejecting of axioms. Those who wish to reject a theory had best have another one that fits the facts better.

---

An axiom, after all, is something assumed to be true. Silly me, I am interested in testing assumptions, and finding the truth, if possible, and think that when there is no rational foundation for a belief, it should be either discarded, or held on grounds admittedly non-rational. You apparently are interested in finding beliefs that make you comfortable.

------------------
Saintonge

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tau Zero:
Let me try addressing the two major schools of thought here.� One of them says, "We have explanations for V, W and Z, and we're still looking for X and Y."� The other one says, "There's no explanation for X and Y, so it must be due to ".

---

Since you quote no one, I do not whom, if anyone, is a member of either school of thought. But I do know that neither is mine.

As for the first, I don't think that anyone has any explanation for much of any phenonenon concerning the origin and diversity of life, except for the fairly trivial (the Galapagos Island finch species are probably due to a Darwinian evolutionary scheme, Ditton the Hawaiian Islands fruit fly and fruit moth species.) Evolutionists say that since they have a fairly adequate explanation for those few things, we should accept their explanations for new kingdoms, phylla, classes, orders, and genera uncritically. I refuse, and insist on examining the arguments and looking for evidence, rather than taking it on faith.

As for Tau's second school, I don't insist on putting in my preferred explanation. I insist on not putting in any explanation at all, till we get far better evidence than we have now.

Imao, the biggest, loudest, most obnoxious, and least justified members of the second school are the neo-Darwinians.

I also believe that it is evil to try to force people to believe that things are true without evidence, but that's off topic.

quote:

---

Tau Zero:
There are two problems with the second school:

1. It is every bit a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.
2. More importantly, many examples of preclude the possibility of testing.� They thus declare that knowledge is impossible.

Saintonge's argument exemplifies this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
I'd call that throwing up your hands and just saying 'Natural Law must have done it.'"
...
What's lurking at the bottom of all this is an unstated premise: 'We must believe that life's origin and diversity are due to the operation of natural laws with no intervention by intelligence at any point. Any argument that seems to show differently is to be rejected out of hand, without any attempt to consider it seriously. We do not find non-natural law explanations of the origin and diversity of life emotionally acceptable, and we refuse to have anything to do with them.'

---

---

I agree that arguing from ignorance is fallacious. I however, am arguing to ignorance. For instance, suppose X is accused of a burglary, because his fingerprints were found there, and he has no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Suppose, further, we then find out the fingerprint identification was faulty, and they are not those of X. We should conclude that we don't know who did it. We are not entitled to conclude that X did do it, because we don't have a 'better suspect.'

Similarly, the many holes in neo-Darwinism logically require rejecting it, and replacing it with a frank admission of ignorance, however humbling to our pride it is to admit that there is something important we don't know.

quote:

---

Tau:
I dispute the characterization of the premise as "unstated". It is implicit, and essential, or you no longer have any basis for research.

---

Given that implicit premises are unstated, I am not sure what you think you are disputing with your first clause. ('implicit' 1 a : capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed: IMPLIED b : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed ...
2 : being without doubt or reserve : UNQUESTIONING from Meriam Webster Online Dictionary.)

As for being essential for scientific research I think that would have somewhat surprised Kepler and Newton, to name two.

It is, of course, essential for finding [i]materialistic explanations of phenomena. But what if the truth is that a certain phenomena was caused non-materialisticaly? Your research strategy would guarantee that you can't find a true explanation.

quote:

---

Tau:
Think about that for a minute.� The people who have decided to take supernatural explanations for X and Y on faith have effectively removed any possibility of gaining true knowledge of the causes of X and Y.� Once you have removed a cause from the realm of natural law and placed it in the sphere of supernatural whim, explanation is no longer possible (and can you really claim to be keeping an open mind?).� You stop being able to seek causes, and start having to do theology.� You might as well seek explanations for an abstract impressionist painting.

---

Completely wrong from begining to end.

First, I refuse to take explanations on faith.

Second, if it is true that the origin and diversity of life is due to supernatural causes, then those who believe in them have better knowledge of the true causes then those who reject them a priori.

Third, the question of whether you are keeping an open mind is determined by whether any fact or logical argument would cause you to give up your position. If the answer is 'yes,' then your mind is open. If the answer is 'no' then your mind is closed. I have an open mind on the question of the origin and diversity of life. It appears you don't have.

Fourth, the explanation of an abstract expressionist painting? Are you talking about why paint reflects like? Or why the artist chose to paint as they did? In principle, the first is answerable by physics, chemistry, and biology, the second by psychology and aesthetics. What could you possibly mean by it being unexplainable?

In sum, you are simply asserting that materialism must be true. "What may be freely asserted may be freely denied." I deny that materialism must be true.

quote:

---

Saintonge's claim is consistent with a "God of the gaps":� those things which cannot (yet) be explained by natural causes are due to God, and as the gaps between natural explanations narrow, so does God.� This works just fine in a pre-scientific society where nobody knows the causes of rain and seasons, not to mention lightning and floods and droughts and hurricanes and tornadoes, heat waves and cold snaps, crop failures and plagues.� In the modern age, this weltanschauung, this world-view, compresses God into a mighty uncomfortable little box that gets smaller all the time.� I find it grossly unsatisfying from both a philosophical and an epistemological standpoint.

---

So would I, but I don't hold that position.

If there is anything like that being argued, it is by the neo-Darwinians, who use our ignorance of the origin and diversity of life as 'evidence' for neo-Darwinism. I find the approach invalid no matter who uses it.

quote:

---

To be consistent, you cannot seek naturalistic explanations for anything you have placed in the category of divine choice.� It's off-limits; God is, by definition, smarter than all the human beings who ever lived or ever will live and cannot be understood by them.� To investigate is blasphemous.

---

There are theologians who express the point of view that you can not seek explanations for what God is presumed to have willed. Other theologians believe it is possible to understand at least part of God's will.
I have expressed no particular opinion on the issue.

It is, of course, logically self-contradictory to seek naturalistic explanations of the supernatural, presuming you know in advance what is and isn't supernaturally caused. If you believe you have such a test, I would be interested in hearing more about it. In the absence of such a test, it seems sensible to me to seek naturalistic explanations of things, and when you find good ones, adopt them (Occam's Razor, etc.). When you don't find them, you should admit ignorance and keep an open mind, at least till someone makes a breakthrough that allows direct testing for supernatural causation.

quote:

---

I am very happy that this school of thought has been long discredited and disregarded by the scientific establishment.� It's not pleasant to contemplate what would have happened if it had held sway.� Here are a few examples I can think of:

Diseases.� If the official doctrine was that sickness was a curse from God, then there would be no reason to look for other causes.� Bacteria, viruses, and nutritional deficiencies would never have been discovered.� Antibiotics, vaccines and vitamin supplements would never be invented.� We would not have any science of bacteriology, virology, immunology, oncology or even nutrition.� We would have no treatments for cancer, arthritis, heart disease, polio, or even whooping cough, diptheria, pellagra or rickets.

Weather.� If the official doctrine was that hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts and floods were curses from God, there would be no reason to look for other causes.� Weather patterns would never be investigated.� The superstitious would continue to smash people's barometers, instead of using them as a cue to take cover.

Earthquakes.� If tremblors are a curse from God, there's no reason to examine faults, nor try to design buildings to withstand the forces which quakes will exert upon them.� Or is it a sign of one's blessed nature that one's house stands while someone else's falls?� Our skeptical science has shown us otherwise, but if it hadn't become predominant...

You get the idea.� Rejecting natural explanations - throwing up your hands and declaring "God must have done it!" - would have been an unmitigated disaster in all of these areas.� The mind recoils at the consequences.

To be consistent, you cannot accept the fruits of the tree while rejecting the tree itself.� You cannot accept modern medicines and treatments or even water-treatment practices drawn from skeptical scientific investigation, nor weather prediction nor seismic science or anything else - while also holding the view that "anything that cannot currently be explained must be due to the whim of God."� All of those things were unexplained a relatively short time ago, and you cannot just say "whoops!� I was wrong about that, but I'm still right about everything else!"

---

Brilliant ad hominem, but not valid even if anyone here were expressing that opinion. Since no one is, it is irrelevant, and intellectually dishonest.

quote:

---

From there we arrive at the question of the origin of life, biogenesis.� We have numerous examples of natural origins for biological chemicals, the Miller-Urey experiment being one, discoveries of sugars in interstellar space being another, and the abiological generation of pyruvate under the conditions of deep-sea hydrothermal vents being another.

---

The Miller-Urey experiments were most certainly not "natural conditions." They were laboratory conditions, and of the four attempts I know enough about to discuss, three out of four did not result in bio-chemicals. Miller showed that if you tweak things just right, you can get some of the chemicals that show up in living organisms, plus many chemicals that don't, plus a lot of tarry junk. Every once in a while it is proposed that an actual attempt be made to simulate the presumed conditions of life on the primitive a-biological earth, and see what happens. The proposal is always dropped. I wonder why?

Since we didn't observe the formation of the sugars in outer space, we have no explantion for them, though a naturalistic explanation is certainly possible, and in my judgement probable.

I don't know enough about pyruvate to comment.

quote:

---

� If it's divine whim, it's occurring everywhere all the time; carbon wants to form bio-chemicals given half a chance.� It's not on the level of some horribly improbable event that would take intricate tinkering to happen just once, it happens wholesale by itself.� It's built into the fabric of the universe.�

The building blocks of life are favored by the processes of natural law.

---

First, the use of "wants" and "built in" in a supposedly natural law explantion is rather interesting, from a psychological point of view. But that would take us off the subject of evolution and the invalid arguments made for it, so I'll just note it and go on.

After straining the animism out of that claim, however, what's left can be rephrased as a naturalistic origin for the first steps in the origin of life. Unfortunately, it is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, untrue. See the books I mentioned above by Thaxton and Shapiro for what's wrong with them, chemically.

quote:

---

I'd also like to take issue with Saintonge's appraisal of one theory (a very speculative theory, I might add).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saintonge:
[b]In a later and worse book, The Blind Watchmaker, he reveals he doesn't really take this seriously, and offers another scenario, in which clay spontaneously evolved life, [I am not making this up], and then the clay life evolved into carbon-based life.

---

If I understand the theory in The Blind Watchmaker correctly, you are mis-characterizing it.� After the Miller-Urey experiment there is no longer any doubt that bio-chemicals up through amino acids can be created without any life whatsoever, but the leap from free molecules to self-contained, replicating, free-living cells is a big one.� The association of proteins and nucleotides (BTW, the central machinery of protein assembly is made of RNA, supporting the theory that proteins were later inventions!) with lipid bilayer membranes to enclose and contain them is a big leap.� Without such membranes, it's hard to see how proto-life could make use of what it created.� Someone noted that the surfaces of clay particles are electrically charged and might have offered a place where bio-molecules could have been preferentially attracted and concentrated.�[/B]

---

You are 2/3rds wrong. It is not true that the Miller-Urey experiments showed that the formation of signifigant amounts of bio-chemicals can be formed naturally, though you'll have to read at least one of the books I mentioned to find out why.

It is true that it is a mighty big step from bio-chemicals to cells.

Your understanding of the "theory" in The Blind Watchmaker (it's so sketchy there it would be better called a 'just so story,' though the originator is said to have worked out a more detailed version) is wrong. The theory was created by Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith. It is outlined in his book Seven Clues to the Origin of Life : A Scientific Detective Story , which Dawkins credited and I have read, and it does indeed postlulate mineral life later evolving into carbon based life.

You neatly evade the point, of course: that Dawkins and those like him are willing to take anything seriously, no matter how fantastic and incomplete, as long as it is materialistic, while rejecting out of hand any non-materialistic theories. I do not share this philosophical fanaticism.

Question: did you confuse the theory I discussed with someone else's? Did you misunderstand Dawkins (who did summarize Cairns-Smith fairly well)? Or did you just bullshit that alternate explanation without reading Dawkins book?

quote:

---

There are other arguments against intelligent design.� There are the variations in vitally important genes across the spectrum of life (wouldn't an intelligent designer have gotten things right just once?), and there are even two different genetic codes in use by life on Earth to this very day (one for bacteria, plants, animals and fungi, and the other by archaebacteria, the so-called blue-green algae; the latter genetic code is also in use in the mitochondria of every oxygen-breathing eukaryotic cell, including every human cell inside you and me).� This means that the genetic code itself was invented at least twice.� Or would you rather posit a bumbling creator who couldn't make up his mind which way to go?

---

Unlike you, I don't believe either that I am smart enough to sneer at the allegedly All-Knowing, or wise enough to understand It's motives (assuming It exists), or that arguing against one position argues for an alternative.

Come to think of it, that last point has been made frequently by evolutionists. Nice to see they and I agree on something.

quote:

---

That's my beef with the concept of intelligent design.� A design requires a designer (backdoor religion in the science classroom)

---

Necessarily, a design implies a designer, but if there are scientific arguments for design, that is not religion.

quote:

---

and the idea blocks off routes of inquiry which have been extremely fruitful and beneficial to human beings in the past.�

---

I have no desire to block off any routes of inquiry. I simply refuse to take what is supposed to be science on faith. Unlike you.

quote:

---

To declare a designer is to claim that the processes are almost certainly unknowable.� One might as well try to get an ant to explain a Picasso.�

---

If the processes accounting for the origin and diversity of life are unknowable, that is just one more fact about the universe that we will just have we should accept. Insisting that whatever we want to know must be knowable is irrational.

If Christianity is true, it is also the Deadly Sin of Pride.

quote:

---

Fortunately for us, while the universe as a whole is complex it isn't capricious.� If intelligent design was the rule, we would have had no possibility at all of understanding as much as we have.�

---

Nonsense! It could be that the Universe is intelligently designed, and that one of the design criteria is that we be able to figure out everything important about it, including that it is designed.

Then again, it may be that it is not designed. Unlike you, I don't take these matters on faith.

quote:

---

If we accept the claims of its advocates, we have little or no possibility of understanding anything more. These are more than sufficient reasons for rejecting all intelligent design arguments out of hand.

---

So I should believe in evolution, not because it's true, but for some other reason? Sorry, I refuse.

quote:

---

Nothing personal, you understand.

---

Ditto.

------------------
Saintonge

Real Life is putting a crimp in my posting

Here are some languages to consider:

C
C++
Java
Html (writes web pages)
Visual Basic

Don't bother with:

Hexdecimal :- too complex
Low end languages :- "
Pascall :- too old
Basic 1-8 :- "
Q Basic :- "

_____________________________________________

Das ist alles

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary-Mike aka Principessa:

What makes you almost a geek?
I am not a geek...I am a Multi-Clique Adaptable Quasi-Humanoid Warrior Drone.

What was the last major purchase you made this year?
I bought a car....A 1989 Chevy Cavalier Convertable...A red one.

What was the last purchase in general?
I bought a cup of coffee this morning.

Are there geek traditions?
I don't know..I live on a rock in the middle of the Pacific..This is my only line of contact with the rest of the world.

How do you know who a wanna be is?
Yes. A wanna-be is someone who uses big words and complicated sounding phrases to try and impress people with their superior intellect, but when actually challenged they instantly fold.

What do geeks look for in their relationships?
A "relationship"? Isn't that one of those things where two people go places together and do, you know, things together and stuff? Ya know, I've always wanted to try one of those...Hmmmm.

How old is the AVERAGE geek?
Well, I'm 20...But I'm also not exactly what you'd call average. "Average" indicates a certian amount of normalcy...You'll find that I am quite abnormal, thank you.

Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
No..Like I said I'm Muli-Clique Adaptable...I can comfortably fit into any niche of society...Its great!

What is the last non work/school related book you read?
"The Spiral Dance" by Starhawk

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
Myself! No, wait...I already do that now anyway. Well, I guess it would have to be Bill Gates...Cause I want to see if I could get him to lend me some money.

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
About 5 to 8 hours

Do you ever purchase online?
Yes
If so what?
Books, religious materials, plane tickets, and memberships to *ehem* certain websites.

Do geeks do drugs?
What do I need drugs for? I'm high on life! Seriously, though, I think the military has me addicted to Motrin.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
Do military regs count...Cause I definately push the limits of those.

Should there be internet regulation?
Hell, no. I think parents need to take more responsibility for what their children look at on the internet..I think they should also try and become a little mor knowledgable of, and a little more technically proficient at using the internet before they start slamming it, because if they were they would know that pornographic websites do not just "pop up" on the screen while your on the internet...In the 10+ years I've been on-line, I've never once had that happen. The "pop-up" thing is a lie! Belive me, I know! I played on the lack of knowledge and gullibility of my parents and used the exact same excuse when I would get caught....and it worked...every time.

Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
No, I'm sorry, I don't speak english.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
Kind of...yes and no. I'm an Infantryman in the Army. For the first year and a half I was just a SAW gunner, so no..But then came that fatefull day 6 months ago that someone actually noticed my prowess with electrical devices and said, "Rusty, your gonna carry the radio"...So now, I'd have to say, yes, my geekish talents have helped me alot.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
Me personally, I'm Wiccan. It plays a very important part of my life...As for others; To each their own, I say.

Family?
My family is very important to me..Messing with my family is the only button a person can push that will really set me off. One can mess with me indefinately and I really could care less, but screw with my family once and you will feel my wrath.

Politics?
I don't even bother with it.

---

What do geeks look for in their relationships?
same thing anyone else does: compatibility and mutual respect.

How old is the AVERAGE geek?
damfino.

Are all your freinds geeks? If not, what draws you to them?
no, some are car nuts (mutual interests), some are artists (mutual interests), some are rednecks (damfino).

What is the last non work/school related book you read?
p.n. elrod, lady crymsyn. david drake, lt. leary commanding. melissa scott, trouble and her friends (3rd? 4th? time). william forstchen, down to the sea. (read about 2-4 books at a time. currently reading harry turtledove's into the darkness and steven pressfield'd gates of fire.)

If you could spend a day talking to anyone who would it be?
i don't know anyone who could stay awake talking to me that long...

How many hours a day do you spend at the keyboard...online...gaming?
@ the keyboard, like 4-5 (not counting work, add 6-8 for that). online 3-5. gaming .5-2.

Do you ever purchase online? If so what?
usually computer parts. sometimes videos or books that are hard to find locally.

Do geeks do drugs?
yes. but no more than any other group. probably less than many.

Do geeks push the envelope of federal regulation?
often.

Should there be internet regulation?
hell no.

Do geeks speek english, Klingon, and a Tolkein dialect?
some do. some don't speak english.

Do you earn your living as an extension of your geekish tallents?
not unless you consider a bizarre ability to remember minutia a geekish talent.

How does spirituality figure into a geeks life?
depends on the geek. i don't go to church as much as i should, but God knows where i am...

Family?
also depends on the geek. some i know are very anti-social with their own family, but most are very close...

Politics?
well, i'm a centrist. have no ide about the "geek population" at large.

------------------
Hoc futui quam lude militorum....

(oops. typo)