Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism
david ford
for intelligent design by:
a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
What was around first: mind, or matter?
Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
biology out of matter?
Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
b) a not-human, material entity, or
c) a not-human, not-material entity?
I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
origination of that car?:
viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
origination of that car.
Ponder, if you would, the following:
the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
having been the product of mind/intelligence,
the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
unable to intelligently-design life starting with
non-living matter,
the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
and engineering within biology,
the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
question to operate,
correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
contribute to the appearance of new biological
structures having new functions,
the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
biological organisms' genomes,
the fossil record's pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
stasis,
breeders' and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
what changes can be brought about by the application
of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
the above data?:
viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
material matter exists, or
viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood that
same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of simplicity--
in addition created biology?
(Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
considering the second law, so the postulation of material designers of
biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable option:
we would have the problem of how they originated-- and they would've had
to have originated/ begun to exist-- and their postulation wouldn't help
at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
seeming-design of physics.
In short, postulating material designers of biology fails:
1) because the universe in which they reside began to exist, and
therefore they began to exist, and you would thus have to account for
_their_ origination, and
2) you would still have to account for the origination of physics via
the action of a non-material mind/intelligence.
It would be far simpler to say that the non-material intellect
responsible for the origination of physics was also responsible for the
origination of biology. +Schapiro, 119)
Humans have a much better perspective than do the fish that reside in
water, fish having limited awareness of what's out there, fish being
confined to a waterworld.
The mind/intelligence responsible for the origination of physics and
biology has a much better perspective than humans, humans having limited
awareness of what is out there, humans being confined to the spatial
dimensions of length width and height and confined to under 130 years'
worth of a temporal dimension in which humans can only go forward.
In short, humans are to waterbound fish, as the superintellect
responsible for physics and biology is to material-world-bound humans.
Humans have a far higher level of intelligence than do dolphins and
chimpanzees.
In a similar manner, the mind/intelligence responsible for physics and
biology and humans has a far, far higher level of intelligence than
humans have.
In short, in terms of degree/level of intelligence: humans are to
dolphins and chimpanzees, as the mind/intellect responsible for physics
and biology is to humans.
1962 Oparin: "embittered war... has been waged between the two
irreconcilable philosophic camps of idealism and materialism"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240610.4ae98f%40posting.google.com
1940 Haldane on materialism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=s0c890946imhfig6q7uq1cid7hhj68ppbs%404ax.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
+Cairns-Smith, 32-33.
====================================.
Table of Contents
Second law of thermodynamics
Big Bang
Order in physics
Origin of life
Complexity in biology
Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering within
biology
Information content in biology
Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Breeders' and fruit fly experiment observations
Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
Alleged "parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking
Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
place for human life
Shroud of Turin body image
====================================.
** Second law of thermodynamics
going forward:
There are some individuals who wish to believe that matter-energy
didn't begin to exist but rather is infinitely-old. However, such an
option is not possible given the second law of thermodynamics:
Premise 1: If the universe (or a collection of universes) was/is
infinitely old, then it would have run down by now in accord with the
second law of thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe (or a collection of universes) has not yet run
down-- it has not yet suffered "heat death," meaning that everywhere is
the same cold temperature, a fraction of a degree above absolute 0.
Conclusion: The universe (or a collection of universes) is not
infinitely old.
To summarize this modus tollens argument form,
if infinitely old, then rundown;
not rundown;
thus, not infinitely old.
going backward:
Eddington formulation of an argument involving the 2nd law
of thermodynamics for "a beginning of the present order of Nature":
Eddington, Sir Arthur S. 21 March 1931. "The End of the World: from
the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics" _Nature_, 447-453. This was a
presidential address to the Mathematical Association, delivered on 5
January 1931. On 449-450, starting with the opening lines of the
section "The Beginning of Time":
It is more interesting to look in the opposite
direction-- towards the past. Following time
backwards, we find more and more organisation
in the world. If we are not stopped earlier, we must come
to a time when the matter and energy of the world had the
maximum possible organisation. To go back further is
impossible. We have come to an abrupt end of space-time--
only we generally call it the 'beginning'. I have no
'philosophical axe to grind' in this discussion.
Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present
order of Nature is repugnant to me. .... I should like to
find a genuine loophole.
====================================.
** Big Bang
2nd law against infinitely-old many universes speculation: see above.
Matter-energy, the spatial dimensions of length, width, and height, and
our temporal dimension of time began to exist in the big bang.
In modus ponens argument form, an opening move in an argument from the
big bang for the God-of-deism's existence:
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist, whether through a conversion of
matter-energy into another form of matter-energy, or whether
through a creation out of absolutely nothing (what I need), has
one or more causes, i.e. has one or more precipitating factors,
responsible for its beginning to exist.
Premise 2: Expanding spacetime began to exist in a creation out of
nothing.
Conclusion: Expanding spacetime has factors responsible for its
beginning to exist.
The observed expansion of the universe is similar to the movement
following an explosion. When air is blown into a balloon with dimes
representing galaxy clusters taped to it, the balloon expands, and just
as it expands, so the universe expands. When going back in time, e.g.,
by deflating the balloon, the universe becomes smaller and smaller.
Hubble's discovery in the 1920s that the universe is expanding implies
that the universe's _expansion_ had a beginning, and _doesn't_
necessarily mean that material existence had a beginning.
According to Einstein's formulation of gravity (i.e. Einstein's general
theory of relativity) together with the fact that the universe is
expanding, it appears that the universe (and time itself) had a
beginning in the Big Bang creation-out-of-nothing event.
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
+explain: reinforced by origin of life.
Books:
Ross, Hugh. 2001. _The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest
Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God_ (Colorado
Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group), 266pp.
Heeren, Fred. 1995, ______. _Show Me God: What the Message from
Space is Telling Us About God_ (Wheeling, Illinois: Searchlight
Publications), 336pp.
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have
Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Order in physics
The world of physics exhibits the appearance of having been the product
of mind/intelligence. When a child, Albert Einstein became an atheist;
as a theoretical physicist, Einstein rejected atheism and thought a
superior mind designed physics.
Einstein thought physics was designed. Physics has the appearance of
having been designed. Unity of physics.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36k8s1F531btmU1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Origin of life
Because matter-energy began to exist, consequently the world of biology
began to exist. Mind/intelligence was needed for the first biological
lifeform to originate. Humans have not yet been able to create life
from non-living matter. Consequently, the mind/intelligence responsible
for the creation of the first biological lifeform was far, far more
brilliant than humankind's most brilliant biochemists.
a) experiment results
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith, 1986 Andrew Scott, 1999 Freeman Dyson
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33bltcF3rgbovU1%40individual.net
some 1915-1999 doses of reality
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33arf3F3vjdggU1%40individual.net
fabled primordial soup never existed
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37mt00F5fb7kmU1%40individual.net
+rework: origin of life thoughts
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960702214621.21174A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
b) theoretical considerations
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of
physics" presently known
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
Books
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin
of Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp.
Shapiro, Robert. 1986. _Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the
Creation of Life on Earth_ (Great Britain: Penguin
Books), 332pp.
Rana, Fazale and Hugh Ross (creationists). 2004. _Origins
of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off_ (USA:
NavPress), 298pp.
chapter in Denton, Michael. 1986. _Evolution: A Theory in
Crisis_ (USA: Adler & Adler), 368pp.
chapter in Johnson, Phillip E. 1993. _Darwin on Trial_
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 220pp.
chapter in
Davis, Percival, Dean H. Kenyon, Charles B. Thaxton. 1993. _Of
Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological
Origins_ (Dallas, Texas: Haughton Publishing Company),
170pp.
Davies, Paul. 1999. _The Fifth Miracle: The Search for
the Origin and Meaning of Life_ (New York: Simon &
Schuster), 304pp.
_Mystery_, cite in
1984 Dean Kenyon
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-34j9b2F4a5gioU1%40individual.net
More recommended books
Johnson, Phillip E. 1997. _Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 131pp.
Johnson, Phillip E. 2000. _The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the
Foundations of Naturalism_ (Illinois: InterVarsity Press),
191pp.
Broom, Neil. 2001. _How Blind Is the Watchmaker?:
Nature's Design & The Limits of Naturalistic Science_
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press), 224pp.
Behe, Michael J. 1996. _Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical
Challenge to Evolution_ (NY: The Free Press), 307pp.
====================================.
** Complexity in biology
a) parts working-together/ in-collaboration to make a functioning whole,
as with much human-designed technology
+Cairns-Smith, 5, 22, 24, 39, 58, 63, 64.
b) fabulously complex and sophisticated, with that immense complexity
being necessary for the operation of something that fabricates copies of
itself
Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
Cambridge University Press), 131pp. A paragraph on 22:
This is perhaps the most technical chapter in the book
(although it is not that bad). Some readers may want
just to skim it (or skip all but this page if they must),
taking on trust the main burden of argument that it
presents-- that the workings of all life on the Earth are
seen to be fabulously complex and sophisticated on the
molecular scale. Present-day organisms are manifestly
pieces of 'high technology', and what is more seem to be
necessarily so.
On 29, a sentence and three paragraphs:
An _E. coli_ just is a complicated machine too, and I
think that _any_ free-living nucleic-acid-based forms of
life would have to be.
Take just part of our system-- the automatic protein
synthesiser. Any such machinery, however it is made,
is surely going to be clever, complicated engineering;
because it is a complicated and difficult job that has
to be done.
Ask any organic chemist how long it takes to put
together a small protein, say one with 100 amino acids
in it. Or go and look up the recipe for such an operation
as it is written out in scientific journals. You will find
pages and pages of tightly written instructions, couched
in terms that assume your expertise in handling
laboratory apparatus and require you to use many rather
specialised and well-purified chemical reagents and
solvents. And the result of following such instructions?
If you are lucky a few thousandths of a gram of product
from kilograms of starting materials.
Or go and read all the details and examine the
engineering drawings for a laboratory machine that can
build protein chains automatically. (If you want to buy
one it will cost you more than a video-recorder.) You
will be impressed by how clever such machines are--
and not surprised that _E. coli_'s machine is clever too.
It would have to be, wouldn't it?
unity in biology: Cairns-Smith.
====================================.
** Parallels between human-constructed engineering and engineering
within biology
in
Biology has the appearance of having been designed by intelligence.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-36pqk2F55ibnrU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Information content in biology
How does a seeingwatchmakingist account for the origin of
the recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information within:
a human? a bacterium? the first biological lifeform?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348nj6F47evohU1%40individual.net
1985 A.G. Cairns-Smith; How did recorded-in-DNA/ genetic information
originate?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-32gv43F3jsrelU1%40individual.net
on "order" and varieties of "complexity"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407211714.53153989%40posting.google.com
"Evolutionary biologists have failed to recognize that they work with
two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that
of matter.... These two domains can never be brought together in any
kind of the sense usually implied by the term 'reductionism.'... The
gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base
pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the
medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the
medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought
about evolution."[George C. Williams in 1992, 1994, or 1995. Cited in
Phillip E. Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds_ (1997), 70.]
DNA and the information it records are two entirely different things.
E.g., a biologist can sequence a genome, and put that sequence on paper.
The information, which was originally recorded on DNA, is now recorded
on paper. When one person said "There are already known processes which
can account for DNA," I wondered whether "There are already known
processes that can account for the existence of nucleotides" was meant,
or "There are already known processes that can account for the existence
of the information recorded via nucleotides."
====================================.
** Fossil record pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis
Cambrian explosion:
Starting 530 million years ago, a large proportion of biology's phyla
burst on the scene, appearing at least between 0 years and 10 million
years, and very probably between 0 years and 5 million years.
Schindewolf, Otto H. 1950, 1993. _Basic Questions in Paleontology:
Geologic Time, Organic Evolution, and Biological Systematics_,
translated from the 1950 German edition by Judith Schaefer, edited and
with an afterword by Wolf-Ernst Reif, foreword by Stephen Jay Gould
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), 467pp. Schindewolf was a
blindwatchmakingist, paleontologist, and saltationist. On 193-4, the
first seven paragraphs (out of 12 paragraphs total) of the section
"The Phases of Evolution":
More important than the general fact already discussed, that the
rate of evolution in individual animal and plant groups varies
considerably, is the circumstance that also _within one and the
same lineage_ there are far-reaching differences in the intensity
of transformation and that these follow a very particular
pattern.
Evolutionary transformation does not flow like a smooth, peaceful
river but rather like a stream with many series of waterfalls,
rapids, and sharply changing gradients. Evolutionary development
is episodic-- it proceeds in phases, or in _quantum leaps_; it
exhibits an unmistakable _periodicity_. The unfolding of
lineages is divided into evolutionary periods or cycles of
differing magnitudes, in each of which _three phases of differing
evolutionary rates and differing modes of development can be
distinguished_.
At the onset of a cycle, there is a brief period of abrupt
development of forms. In this phase, a number of different kinds
of structural organizations or types are established rapidly,
even explosively, in large transformationl steps; during the next
phase, these types continue to evolve while retaining their basic
nature unchanged. We call this _first phase_ the _origin of
types_, or _typogenesis_.
This is followed by a _second phase_, one of _type constancy_, or
_typostasis_, which entails a progressive elaboration,
diversification, and differentiation within the framework of the
basic form but does not alter the basic structural design itself.
In this phase, evolution is slow, very gradual, and smooth,
proceeding in small, individual steps.
This typostatic phase usually lasts much longer than the first,
typogenetic period and longer also than the _third phase_--
_typolysis_, or the _dissolution of types_, which brings each
evolutionary cycle to a close. This phase is characterized by
multiple indications of decline, degeneration, and the loosening
of the morphological constraints embodied in the type.
Overspecialization and gigantism in the lineages destined for
extinction give this period its special mark.
Because this periodicity is an extremely widespread and very
general phenomenon, it was recognized early and has been
described in various ways. Thus, Ernst Haeckel spoke of
_Epacme_, _Acme_, and _Paracme_-- of a rising, a flourishing, and
a fading away of lineages; later, Johannes Walther spoke of
_anastrophes_-- period[s] of profuse, turbulent diversification
of lineages alternating with periods of slower, more gradual
evolution. Rudolf Wedekind described this set of circumstances
in his _Virenz_ theory, which holds that from time to time
individual faunal lineages enter a climactic periods of expansion
(a period of _Virenz_), within which a phase of unstable
diversification, a second phase of stable, continuous
development, and a final one of excessive morphological
development can be distinguished.
Recently, Karl Beurlen, in particular, has elaborated upon the
pattern I have just described. He divides the evolutionary cycle
into an early phase of explosive development of forms, during
which the newly formed structural design breaks up into its
various morphological and ecological possibilities; a second
period of more gradual, unidirectional (orthogenetic) elaboration
of the basic forms created during the first phase; and a final
phase characterized by rampant complexity, degeneration, and
dissolution of the stable morphology of the preceding period
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
====================================.
** Breeders' and fruit fly experiment observations
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Burbank in
1983 Jeremy Rifkin, 1939 Luther Burbank, 2002 Judith Hooper, Darwin
Autobiography: I feel "compelled to look to a First Cause having an
intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man," 1921 George
Bernard Shaw
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404070956.1db2b888%40posting.google.com
Eiseley in
1958 Eiseley on "careful domestic breeding"; 1863 Darwin: "the belief
in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general
considerations"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405130534.8eee3f1%40posting.google.com
fruit fly URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com
Grasse in
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Theoretical considerations from genetics and known mutations
mutation URLs
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net
1992 Orr & Coyne on Fisher
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970329001049.19794A-100000%40umbc10.umbc.edu
1992 _American Naturalist_ paper by Orr & Coyne
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980614220859.6338A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
====================================.
** Alleged "parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking
Eyes are alleged to have blindwatchmaked independently 40-60+ times; the
40-60+ eyes can be categorized into about 10 different ways of going
about seeing/ having vision.
Light-sensitive spots supposedly blindwatchmaked independently 65+ times.
Bioluminescence is said to have blindwatchmaked numerous times.
What is the advocate of materialism's explanation of this alleged
"parallel" and "convergent" blindwatchmaking?
In stark contrast, a high level of intelligence has appeared/arisen only
once, as far as we know.
What is your explanation of this state of affairs?
Refs and for Further Reading
accounting for parallel and convergent supposed-blindwatchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990712220140.883597C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
ReMine, Walter James. 1993. _The Biotic Message: Evolution
Versus Message Theory_ (Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul
Science), 538pp. Some extracts:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37f9lqF5ed80kU1%40individual.net
====================================.
** Specialness of earth and the universe as a hospitable
place for human life
Theist philosopher William Lane Craig mentioned an excellent analogy on
a good interpretation of the numerous different things that had to be
for humans to exist. Imagine that a prisoner faces execution. A 100
person firing squad composed of sharpshooters bearing different types of
guns fires, and the prisoner discovers he is still alive. Now he could
imagine that his living was the result of luck, e.g., all 100 happened
to be terrible shots for that particular discharge, or all the assorted
bullets happened to be improperly manufactured duds, etc.
A more reasonable interpretation he could make would be that someone
purposed that he should live-- someone had blanks inserted into the guns
or directed that he not be aimed at. Likewise for us: we could say
that it was all an accident, and that we just happened to be the
beneficiaries of chance events, but it would make more sense to conclude
that some entity/entities or Someone purposed that we should live.
argument for physics' creator having person-hood
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.91.960816022002.6496G-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
RtB's "Evidence For Design"
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe
chapter in Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have
Enough Faith to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway
Books), 447pp.
====================================.
** Shroud of Turin body image
faulty carbon dating of:
1) must look at preponderance of evidence
2) C-14 tests are undependable
3) archeologists and chemists were needed during the 1988 testing,
faulty methodology in sample collection
4) bioplastic layer
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981224131117.5044D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
for what reasons would an artist go to all the _trouble_ of making the
Shroud?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.21L.01.0012262313360.12146-100000%40linux1.gl.umbc.edu
One problem with John Heller's insistence that science can never
demonstrate the Shroud to be Jesus' shroud is that by concluding
1) the body image, whether man-made or not, is that of Jesus-- as most
everybody agrees is the case,
2) the image is _not_ the product of an artist, and
3) the image is _not_ a naturally-formed image (it's much too good to be
naturally-formed),
that only leaves the possibility of
4) the image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural
means.
Writing within the pages of _The Skeptical Inquirer_, geologist Steven
D. Schafersman noted the existence of this problem:
The point is that there are really only two possibilities for the
origin of the shroud: either it was made by an artist or it is a
miraculous reproduction of the image of Jesus Christ. To
contemplate a third possibility for _this_ shroud (e.g., a natural
image transfer of a crucified man who was not Jesus of Nazareth) is
absurd. Therefore, by concluding that the shroud is not the work
of an artist, the STURP [Shroud of Turin Research Project]
members are concluding that it is authentic
(i.e., Jesus and supernatural). At the same time, they constantly
claim that science can never reach this conclusion.
Heller can claim [+JH]"all the science in the world is never, ever going
to prove the Shroud is authentic" as much as he likes, but the
obvious implication of the STURP team's conclusions is option 4), the
image is that of the actual Jesus and was formed by supernatural means.
Whether such a demonstration-by-elimination-of-alternatives actually is
"science" I leave to philosophers of science, but before doing so, note
that by Heller's own admission, science utilizes the technique of ruling
things out:
That was the end of that. Another exercise in futility.
Scientific research is filled with such dead ends, and it is in
this way that the scientific enterprise proceeds. We investigate
possibilities and rule them in or out. At the end, what is left
is probably the truth.[jh, 124]
"In fact, the perfection of the image rules out, to my mind, the
possibility of its being formed by _any conceivable_ natural process,
assuming, of course, that the shroud is authentic." Schafersman
continues, "It is this fact that has so greatly troubled
STURP. They at first proposed various radiation hypotheses to explain
the image, but these have now been retracted upon the realization that
they were proposing supernormal or supernatural phenomena."
[Schafersman, _The Skeptical Enquirer_ (Spring 1982), 41.]
Case, Thomas W. _The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco: A
Scientific Detective Story_ (Cincinnati: White Horse Press, 1996),
103pp.
Heller, John H. _Report on the Shroud of Turin_ (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1983), 225pp.
Schafersman, Steven D. "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin"
_The Skeptical Inquirer_ (spring 1982), 37-56, 43.
what the Shroud body image is
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981228235350.26179D-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Mitch...@aol.com
Neither, energy was around first. Matter is a condensed form of energy.
"Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter? "
As far as the evidence shows, yes, bilogy can emerge from the right
conditions starting with matter and energy and a suitable environment.
"Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist? "
The universe is some 13.7 +/- 0.2 Billion years old. Matter did not
condense out of the fireball until about 300,000 years after the big
bang.
"Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
biology out of matter?"
There is no evidence that this is the case.
Mitch
Richard Forrest
So basically:
1) A lot of systems in nature have the appearance of being designed.
2) Therefore they must be designed.
3) Therefore we should abandon methodolical naturalism as the
underlying principle in science.
There needs to be rather more evidence to support the transition from
point (1) to point (2);
1) More than two centuries of research have shown that living organisms
evolved, and there a vast amount of evidence for evolution.
2) The overwhelmingly vast majority of people with real knowledge of
the field support the theory of evolution, and use it as a theoretical
framework without which little of their research would make sense.
3) All of the examples proffered as indication intervention by an
intelligent designer have been shown to be explicable in terms of
well-studied natural processes.
4) The principle of methodologial naturalism has proved it's value over
several centuries as the most powerful tool ever devised for the
investigation of the natural world and there is no reason to suppose
that it has outlived its usefulness.
5) There is no theory of Intelligent Design.
When you have something of any substance to offer, please do.
RF
bud...@gardener.com
rosebud:
Seems like a lot of supposing to me. Whatever the latest theory must
be true. I doubt we really know how old anything might really be.
Life just happened and the material universe from which it exists just
popped out all at once from non existence. How religous is this
concept?
John Harshman
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
Is there a reason for this ridiculous circumlocution? Do you think that
not saying "god" makes you sound more scientific?
> What was around first: mind, or matter?
> Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
> Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
> Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
> biology out of matter?
>
> Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> b) a not-human, material entity, or
> c) a not-human, not-material entity?
>
> I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
I think there are better reasons than that to believe that a car began
to exist. Perhaps you should try a field trip to a car factory.
> Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
> origination of that car?:
> viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
> for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> origination of that car.
b. Now, let's extend that, as you would like to, to life. Does it make
any sense to compare cars to life? (Hint: no.)
> Ponder, if you would, the following:
> the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
> and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
> the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
> having been the product of mind/intelligence,
> the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
> brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
> unable to intelligently-design life starting with
> non-living matter,
> the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
> and engineering within biology,
I like the 3rd and 4th ones: #3 claims life must be designed because we
can't do similar things, and #4 claims life must be designed because we
can do similar things. I believe we have a White Queen sighting.
The second alternative seems to be gibberish, so I'll pick the first one
for now. Any coherent statement is better than gibberish.
This is a great deal of unsupported assertion which you seem to be
confusing with reasoned argument.
[snip vast amounts of regurgitated text]
Michael Altarriba
david ford wrote:
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind
that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of
intelligence.
>
<content snipped>
These arguments have been presented, and refuted, many times so far.
Why continue presenting them? They are no more valid or convincing now
than they were the first time.
Chris Thompson
news:1109092117.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>> "What was around first: mind, or matter? "
>>
>> Neither, energy was around first. Matter is a condensed form of
> energy.
>>
>> "Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
>> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter? "
>>
>> As far as the evidence shows, yes, bilogy can emerge from the right
>> conditions starting with matter and energy and a suitable
> environment.
>>
>> "Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist? "
>>
>> The universe is some 13.7 +/- 0.2 Billion years old. Matter did not
>> condense out of the fireball until about 300,000 years after the big
>> bang.
>>
>> "Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and
> construct
>>
>> biology out of matter?"
>>
>> There is no evidence that this is the case.
>>
>> Mitch
>
> rosebud:
> Seems like a lot of supposing to me. Whatever the latest theory must
> be true.
That last sentence would be correct, if you add "...to the best of our
knowledge" at the end.
> I doubt we really know how old anything might really be.
I doubt you know what you're talking about. Why would you simply brush
off dozens of validated dating techniques? Do you know how much science
you are dismissing with that single sentence?
> Life just happened and the material universe from which it exists just
> popped out all at once from non existence. How religous is this
> concept?
I don't think any religion subscribes to that notion.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Bobby D. Bryant
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
>
> What was around first: mind, or matter?
> Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
> Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
> Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
> biology out of matter?
>
> Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> b) a not-human, material entity, or
> c) a not-human, not-material entity?
>
> I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
> Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
> origination of that car?:
> viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
> for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> origination of that car.
Surely a disembodied mind explains it best.
> ====================================.
> ** Shroud of Turin body image
Are you really this desperate?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Thomas Faller
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
Is there something wrong in David Ford's cerebral cortex that he can't find
words for the concepts he wants to express and instead engages in these
circumlocutions of words-that-are-strung-together-to-try-and-force-
nonsense-into-an-argument?
>
>
> What was around first: mind, or matter?
Neither. Energy. The 3 degree K background proves it.
>
> Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Yes. Certainly. It does so every day, taking "simply matter" and
winding up with complicated cellular components and DNA.
Ask any plant for instructions. You don't have any explanation
for any process of any living cell that requires anything other than
simple chemistry to exist. Not one. There are no processes, including
human thought, that can be shown to require anything beyond chemistry
and physics, or that can be maintained in the absense of the same.
>
> Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
We have evidence that matter condensed out of energy, a finite time ago.
>
> Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
> biology out of matter?
There is no indication that this happened. Your use of specifically vague
workaround phrases does nothing to help your question. Treating biology
as a single term is not consistant with normal usage, and points to the
weakness of your argument. I'd expect to be chastised if I asked a scientist
if anything created geology out of matter. Stop beating around the bush.
You can't make better arguments by diluting your terminology.
>
>
> Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> b) a not-human, material entity, or
> c) a not-human, not-material entity?
Since you haven't defined mind or high-level, the question is meaningless,
but if you go by common usage, (a) is the best answer from the choices
you list.
>
>
> I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
> Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
> origination of that car?:
> viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
> for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> origination of that car.
Your argument is trivial, since you are regarding an object which you know
was consciously designed by humans. Human design is a function of the
material properties of their material brain. If you can find a car which was
designed or manufactured by humans totally without conscious funtioning
of the human brain - i.e., by a designer who was sedated to unconsciousness
during the process, by a designer who was alive but brain-dead, or by a
designer who can demonstrate direct control over matter without physical
processes, you might have an interesting argument. Otherwise, you're just
shooting yourself in the foot over and over. "Mind" can not achieve anything.
The physical workings of the brain have to be involved to influence the
physical universe.
>
>
> Ponder, if you would, the following:
> the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
> and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
>
> the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
> having been the product of mind/intelligence
>
> the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
> brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
> unable to intelligently-design life starting with
> non-living matter,
> the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
> and engineering within biology,
>
> the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
> in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
> parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
> question to operate,
> correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
> neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
> could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
> contribute to the appearance of new biological
> structures having new functions,
> the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
> biological organisms' genomes,
> the fossil record's pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
> stasis,
> breeders' and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
> what changes can be brought about by the application
> of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
You're begging the question again, assuming that the appearance of design
implies intelligence and using that to demonstrate purpose. You've
thrown together "facts" that aren't so and have ignored equally relevant
facts that completely destroy your argument.
Your "argument from design" implies that you can even recognise the
traits of design used by a higher intelligence than yours. Would a sand
crab recognise a watch on a beach as designed? Would a dog recognize
a stone arrowhead in a field? By your example, your "designer" is just
a slightly more advanced version of the human brain, which is a strikingly
poor argument for something that designed nucleosynthesis in stars.
>
>
> Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
> the above data?:
> viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
> material matter exists, or
> viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
> not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
> least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
> to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood that
> same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of simplicity--
> in addition created biology?
David, your central failing in this argument is that you have absolutely no
idea how any intelligence/mind/non-material entity - whatever buzzword
you want to argue, can affect matter or energy. None at all. Every argument
you make assumes that it can do so, but you don't have any evidence for this.
You keep saying that a "designer" can do things, but you have no mechanism
for how this happens, and waving your hands and saying that "it just has to"
is not an argument.
Your designer, at this point, works his design the same way Harry Potter
waves his wand and does magic - there is no effective cause except that we
can imagine it so. Your "mind" can not make things happen, even to the
point of raising your little finger, unless physical, material processes are
invoked to make it so.
You can prove this to yourself anytime. Have someone inject Novocaine into
your hand, and then try to make your little finger move by mentally issuing
commands to it. You can't. The physical means to move your arm have been
shut down, and there is no mental process, no immaterial "mind" that can
reach them.
You can design and build all the cars you want, but if your physical brain is
kept from physically affecting the rest of the world, you won't build a single
one. You have no evidence, beside your own imagination that any mind, of
any power or extent, can change the universe without a physical means to do so.
As much as it pains you, the only processes which can effect design are physical
ones, and the only processes which could have effected life from non-life are
the "blindwatchmaking" ones you hate to identify with their proper names:
chemistry, physics, mutation, variation and selection.
> fallacy of false extrapolation
<snipped the rest as misdirection - lots of bogus material that's been
refuted countless times already>
Tom Faller
Joe Blow
> david ford wrote:
>
>
>>Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
>>for intelligent design by:
>>a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind that
>>is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of intelligence.
>
>
> Is there something wrong in David Ford's cerebral cortex that he can't find
> words for the concepts he wants to express and instead engages in these
> circumlocutions of words-that-are-strung-together-to-try-and-force-
> nonsense-into-an-argument?
Reminds me of the issue of trying to create in IQ test for those who are
smarter than you are. I suspect DF falls in that catagory of not being
in position to effectively function (or perhsps he is just dishonest).
Joe
There She Was Just A-Clayton Down The Street...
"Michael Altarriba" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109094730.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Don't you know? If you tell a lie enough times, the universe rearranges
itself to make it the truth!!!! That's the basis of creationism!
RAM
Big snip.
The reality is that you suffer from a religious OCD.
Your reality is highly skewed toward religious kookiness.
It is neither veritably real, philosophical or relevant to theology,
science or the vision needed for every day survival.
Step back from TO and take some deep breaths. Read something other
than biology.
Develop a "weltanschauung" rather than accepting a religious
interpretation of everything. You can be saved by just taking that
first step toward a secular understand of the world. Most religious
people survive it. Or are your religious convictions so fragile you
are afraid to understand the world scientifically? Only you can answer
this question. Regardless, your present life trajectory on TO is
painful to watch.
Good luck!
RAM
SortingItOut
david ford wrote:
<snip>
>
> Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> b) a not-human, material entity, or
> c) a not-human, not-material entity?
Can you give me an example of a non-human, non-material entity? I
mean, of course, an example for which we have evidence. I'm asking
because I don't see the reason for including this in your list if none
of these have ever been observed.
It's like asking what caused the existence of a particular game trail
through a patch of grass. Was it
a) deer,
b) rabbits, or
c) unicorns?
>
> I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
> Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for
the
> origination of that car?:
> viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are
responsible
> for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> origination of that car.
>
> Ponder, if you would, the following:
> the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
> and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
> the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
> having been the product of mind/intelligence,
> the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
> brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
> unable to intelligently-design life starting with
> non-living matter,
So have you also given up on a cure for cancer? Should we stop
looking? After all, brilliant people have been looking at this problem
for a long time. What about fusion power? Should we throw in the
towel now? What about all the discoveries that have been made in the
last 200 years? How many brilliant people do you think tried and
failed before these discoveries were made?
Incidentally, do you apply the same standard to creating and/or
observing non-material entities?
> <snip>
bud...@gardener.com
> >>
> >> Neither, energy was around first. Matter is a condensed form of
> > energy.
> >>
> >> "Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> >> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter? "
> >>
> >> As far as the evidence shows, yes, bilogy can emerge from the
right
> >> conditions starting with matter and energy and a suitable
> > environment.
> >>
> >> "Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist? "
> >>
> >> The universe is some 13.7 +/- 0.2 Billion years old. Matter did
not
> >> condense out of the fireball until about 300,000 years after the
big
> >> bang.
> >>
> >> "Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and
> > construct
> >>
> >> biology out of matter?"
> >>
> >> There is no evidence that this is the case.
> >>
> >> Mitch
> >
> > rosebud:
> > Seems like a lot of supposing to me. Whatever the latest theory
must
> > be true.
> That last sentence would be correct, if you add "...to the best of
our
> knowledge" at the end.
rosebud:
No, my point is that their all theories. I like science, but I do
think as a society those interpreting science tend to extrapolate too
far.
> > rosebud:
> > I doubt we really know how old anything might really be.
> Chris Thompson:
> I doubt you know what you're talking about. Why would you simply
brush
> off dozens of validated dating techniques? Do you know how much
science
> you are dismissing with that single sentence?
>
rosebud:
In the end all these dating techniques rely on some sort guessing. I
am not dismissing science; I am simply understanding that when it comes
to deciding that we can properly date something because of where some
lies in a soil sample or how much carbon exists within it we are making
some assuptions about the life of that something.
> > rosebud:
> > Life just happened and the material universe from which it exists
just
> > popped out all at once from non existence. How religous is this
> > concept?
> Chris Thompson:
> I don't think any religion subscribes to that notion.
>
rosebud:
I agree with you. Yet, it seems often times we are asked to believe
the above statement when we are told of some folks versions of what
science proves about how the universe formed and how life began on
this and other planets. My meaning is that it is science become
religion.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
>
> rosebud:
> In the end all these dating techniques rely on some sort guessing. I
> am not dismissing science; I am simply understanding that when it comes
> to deciding that we can properly date something because of where some
> lies in a soil sample or how much carbon exists within it we are making
> some assuptions about the life of that something.
>
The guessing is corroborated to a high degree, high enough so that the
results are not likely to have come about by chance. This is how
science works. Results are measured by their likelihood of coming about
by chance or alternate hypotheses. If they are shown to be at or above
a specified probability level they are accepted until proven otherwise.
Science works by disproving the null hypothesis, not by proving the
hypothesis.
>
>>>rosebud:
>>>Life just happened and the material universe from which it exists
>
> just
>
>>>popped out all at once from non existence. How religous is this
>>>concept?
The universe was an undefinably small bit of enormous energy before it
started expanding in a big hurry. The energy converted to matter and,
well, 13.7 billion years later here we are. That we have no way of
measuring the original nature of the universe at the time of the Big
Bang doesn't make it religious. The measurements of the redshift and
other cosmological facts lead to this conclusion, but unlike religion,
it is certainly open to another explanation. So far, none are
forthcoming. At least nothing based on observational evidence anyway.
>
>
>>Chris Thompson:
>>I don't think any religion subscribes to that notion.
>>
>
> rosebud:
> I agree with you. Yet, it seems often times we are asked to believe
> the above statement when we are told of some folks versions of what
> science proves about how the universe formed and how life began on
> this and other planets. My meaning is that it is science become
> religion.
>
The only "religious" belief is that verifiable and repeatable
observations and measurements indicate the most probable explanation.
The Pope has now said that all the evils of the Twentieth Century can be
traced to the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th Century because at that
time, man discovered that we can answer questions through reason.
Imagine that - thinking is evil.
I am going to hell, I guess. Who wants to join me?
Joe Blow
<snip>
> I am going to hell, I guess. Who wants to join me?
Dunno, can you keep your Erectus to yourself?
Joe
Pithecanthropus Erectus
I'll leave it up to you not to blow it.
Chris Thompson
news:1109166244.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Would you care to tell me what you mean by "theory"? In science
terminology, a theory is considerably more than a wild-ass guess. A
theory has supporting evidence from many directions, all converging on
that single explanation. Sometimes scientists do speculate. People are
always proposing new ideas about their particular field of study.
Sometimes they are vindicated, sometime they get cut off at the knees.
Would you care to tell me which theories are being extrapolated from to
an unreasonable degree? And also, please tell me the reasoning behind
your statements. And evidence. Please don't forget evidence that you
have that contradicts the theories in question.
>> > rosebud:
>> > I doubt we really know how old anything might really be.
>
>> Chris Thompson:
>> I doubt you know what you're talking about. Why would you simply
> brush
>> off dozens of validated dating techniques? Do you know how much
> science
>> you are dismissing with that single sentence?
>>
> rosebud:
> In the end all these dating techniques rely on some sort guessing. I
Absolutely incorrect. They rely on evidence. They are tested constantly
against other, independent methodologies. What do you say when a date
arrived at through a radiometric method agrees with one arrived at
through tree-ring dating, and they both agree with palynological data,
and all three match the ice-core samples, and all of them were done
multiple times in different labs? Is it guesswork to arrive at the
conclusion that the methods are reliable?
> am not dismissing science; I am simply understanding that when it
> comes to deciding that we can properly date something because of where
> some lies in a soil sample or how much carbon exists within it we are
> making some assuptions about the life of that something.
All science is based on assumptions, to some degree or other- true. Some
assumptions are consistently and reliable met. Assumptions like rates of
radioactive decay, and the speed of light. Do you think the people who
do this sort of thing haven't accounted for these problems in the
decades since radiometric dating became possible? Do you honestly think
they haven't been _more_ assiduous in making their data ever more and
more reliable than anyone outside the field could be?
>> > rosebud:
>> > Life just happened and the material universe from which it exists
> just
>> > popped out all at once from non existence. How religous is this
>> > concept?
>
>> Chris Thompson:
>> I don't think any religion subscribes to that notion.
>>
> rosebud:
> I agree with you. Yet, it seems often times we are asked to believe
> the above statement when we are told of some folks versions of what
> science proves about how the universe formed and how life began on
> this and other planets. My meaning is that it is science become
> religion.
The difference being, of course, that science relies on evidence,
instead of baseless assertions.
DanHill
> the fact that [...] exhibit the appearance [...]
Nice one ;). It looks like a nice way to put the word 'fact', where it
doesn't belong.
--
DanHill
DanHill
> Premise 2: The universe (or a collection of universes) has not yet
> run down-- it has not yet suffered "heat death," meaning that
> everywhere is the same cold temperature, a fraction of a degree
> above absolute 0. Conclusion: The universe (or a collection of
> universes) is not infinitely old.
As far as I know, the second law of thermodynamics assumes there are
no nuclear reactions occuring. In a world, where energy and matter
are the same things (which is probably the world we are living in),
this simple modell doesn't work.
--
DanHill
Mitchell Coffey
charles foster kane:
Can you give some examples?
>I am not dismissing science; I am simply understanding that when it comes
>to deciding that we can properly date something because of where some
>lies in a soil sample or how much carbon exists within it we are making
>some assuptions about the life of that something.
charles foster kane:
We make assumptions when we get out of bed in the morning. To the
extent your point is true it is trivial. You also ignore the fact
that the assumptions to point at are few, simple, robust and
independently supporting.
Mitchell Coffey
gregwrld
david ford
[snip]
Reply is in
the 'high-tech' approach is present in car engines and certain
biological systems; 1942 D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson; "immaterial" vs.
"material"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a19o0F65ij6fU5%40individual.net
scooter
david ford wrote:
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind
that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of
intelligence.
Blowhard. First, you havn't the slightest clue as to what your talking
about. Secondly, 500 word sentences, while mind-numbing, do not serve
any purpose with the exception of making you look like a blowhard.
John Harshman
You could have posted the whole thing here, just to make it easier.
Here, I'll do that now:
>>JH Is there a reason for this ridiculous circumlocution? Do you think that
> >JH not saying "god" makes you sound more scientific?
>
> 36. I generally try to be precise in my writing. Meaning of "'god'"?
Pick a meaning and stick with it. And you don't try to be precise, you
try to be obsessive.
> >df What was around first: mind, or matter?
> >df Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> >df starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
> >df Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
> >df Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and construct
> >df biology out of matter?
> >df
> >df Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> >df a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> >df b) a not-human, material entity, or
> >df c) a not-human, not-material entity?
> >df
> >df I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> >df the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
> >JH I think there are better reasons than that to believe that a car began
> >JH to exist. Perhaps you should try a field trip to a car factory.
>
> You believe that a car began to exist. Have you been "to a car
> factory"? (If "no," having gone to a car factory could not be one of
> the reasons you think cars began to exist.)
Well, I have been to a car factory. Of course I haven't been to all car
factories in the world. But I don't think either of those is necessary.
Do you, really? Because most people, if they asked you how you knew
their car began to exist, and you said because the universe began to
exist, would consider you a nut. This is all an attempt at some bizarre,
unstated rhetorical point, but I don't really know what.
> >df Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for the
> >df origination of that car?:
> >df viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are responsible
> >df for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> >df viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> >df origination of that car.
> >JH b. Now, let's extend that, as you would like to, to life. Does it make
> >JH any sense to compare cars to life? (Hint: no.)
>
> In car engines, there is a core set of components that are
> interdependent/collaborative, i.e. that work together to make for a
> functional car engine. If any one of that core set of components is
> missing, the car engine doesn't work. The components pre-suppose the
> whole: the parts all by themselves, i.e. the components separate and
> not interlocked in a whole system, are useless. Functionality is
> attained through the cooperation of various different components.
>
> In certain biological systems, there is a core set of components that
> are interdependent/collaborative, i.e. that work together to make for a
> functional system. If any one of that core set of components is
> missing, the system doesn't work. The components pre-suppose the whole:
> the parts all by themselves, i.e. the components separate and not
> interlocked in a whole system, are useless. Functionality is attained
> through the cooperation of various different components.
That's your claim. It's never actually been backed up by anything. We
search in vain for the true IC system.
> Cairns-Smith, A.G. 1985. _Seven Clues to the Origin of
> Life: A Scientific Detective Story_ (Great Britain:
> Cambridge University Press), 131pp. On 63:
> The 'high-tech' approach is quite different. Here the
> whole idea is that an overall function (say personal
> transport) is achieved through a collaboration of
> diverse components (things like pistons, rubber
> tyres, spark plugs, a tank of highly inflammable
> liquid...).
>
> [Cairns-Smith]"Present-day organisms are manifestly pieces of 'high
> technology', and what is more seem to be necessarily so."
> cite in
> On the Origin of Life
> http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
That doesn't seem to be saying anything relevant, except that
Cairns-Smith mentions cars. Just mentioning cars doesn't seem to be your
central point, unless I'm mistaken. You do understand that Cairns-Smith
is talking about the natural, materialistic origin of life in that book,
don't you?
> >df Ponder, if you would, the following:
> >df the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
> >df and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
> >df the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
> >df having been the product of mind/intelligence,
> >df the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
> >df brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
> >df unable to intelligently-design life starting with
> >df non-living matter,
> >df the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
> >df and engineering within biology,
> >JH I like the 3rd and 4th ones: #3 claims life must be designed because we
> >JH can't do similar things, and #4 claims life must be designed because we
> >JH can do similar things. I believe we have a White Queen sighting.
>
> Perhaps so.
I notice you make absolutely no attempt to address the contradiction.
> What is the basis for your belief that starting with simply
> physics, life can come from non-living matter? I note that brilliant
> biochemists have not yet been able to intelligently-design life in the
> laboratory. You think that physics can on its own give rise to life,
> while brilliant biochemists presently can't create life with the
> application of all of their intellect.
Well, as far as I know none of the brilliant biochemists have actually
made an attempt to create life. They've done experiments with potential
precursors to life, in a number of suggestive ways. It's all quite
speculative, but I think they're on to something too. We may never
actually know how it happened. If you want to think god (or someone) was
involved at the start, I can't show that you're wrong. We do however
have no good evidence for the existence of any such being, and it's hard
to turn into a working hypothesis.
> Here's an illustration of [df]"the strong parallels between
> human-constructed engineering and engineering within biology":
>
> Thompson, D'Arcy Wentworth. 1942, reprinted 1992. _On Growth and Form:
> The Complete Revised Edition_ (New York: Dover Publications, Inc.),
> 1116pp. This was originally printed in 1942 by Cambridge University
> Press. On 976-977:
> A great engineer, Professor Culmann of Zurich, to
> whom by the way we owe the whole modern method
> of "graphic statics," happened (in the year 1866) to
> come into his colleague Meyer's dissecting-room,
> where the anatomist was contemplating the section
> of a bone. The engineer, who had been busy
> designing a new and powerful crane, saw in a
> moment that the arrangement of the bony trabeculae
> was nothing more nor less than a diagram of the
> lines of stress, or directions of tension and
> compression, in the loaded structure: in short, that
> Nature was strengthening the bone in precisely the
> manner and direction in which strength was
> required; and he is said to have cried out, "That's my
> crane!"
Do you know how this works, by the way? It's quite a simple,
physiological mechanism. The arrangement of bone was not itself
designed, but the product of mindless processes at work during
individual development, not evolution. Now, you may argue that the
processes themselves were designed, but that's a whole nother matter.
The fact remains that your little example here argues quite nicely
against your claim, not for it.
> 1997 Robert Dorit
> http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411180714.f671793%40posting.google.com
>
> >df the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
> >df in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
> >df parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
> >df question to operate,
> >df correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
> >df neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
> >df could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
> >df contribute to the appearance of new biological
> >df structures having new functions,
> >df the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
> >df biological organisms' genomes,
> >df the fossil record's pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
> >df stasis,
> >df breeders' and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
> >df what changes can be brought about by the application
> >df of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
> >df
> >df Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates better,
> >df the above data?:
> >df viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
> >df material matter exists, or
> >df viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
> >df not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
> >df least at the moments it created, existed without having had a beginning
> >df to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood that
> >df same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of simplicity--
> >df in addition created biology?
> >JH The second alternative seems to be gibberish, so I'll pick the first one
> >JH for now. Any coherent statement is better than gibberish.
>
> 39. When you say you'll "pick the first one for now," does that mean
> "accept as true the first one for now"? If "yes," upon what
> basis/grounds do you accept the first one?
You gave me a choice, so I had to accept one. The first one was
coherent, and the second was gibberish. So I picked the first one.
> Which of these statements do you deem "coherent," and which "gibberish"?:
>
> There is no such thing as immaterial/ not-material things.
> My reasoning is solely the product of the operation of the material
> forces and processes of physics and chemistry.
> This book and this rock are material in nature.
> The message of this book is material in nature.
> The human mind is material in nature.
> The number three is material in nature.
> The concepts of freedom, liberty, and happiness are material in nature.
> The philosophy of materialism is material in nature.
> The emotions of love and hate are material in nature.
> The dream I had last night was material in nature.
Strawman alert. If all that existed in the universe were two billiard
balls (strictly material in nature), and they were moving relative to
each other (that's why we need two), then you could say that "motion"
existed too, and that motion was not material. But that's just playing
with words. There are things and there are relationships among things
and there are qualities abstracted from things. All unimportant to you,
because what you need are "things" that are like material things in that
they have separate existence free of any instantiation in matter/energy,
but are not themselves material. Can you give an example of such a
"thing" for which there is any evidence?
> Statements inspired by
> Geisler, Norman L. and Frank Turek. 2004. _I Don't Have Enough Faith
> to Be an Atheist_ (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books), 447pp., 128-130.
>
> >df (Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
> >df resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
> >df considering the second law, so the postulation of material designers of
> >df biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable option:
> >df we would have the problem of how they originated-- and they would've had
> >df to have originated/ begun to exist-- and their postulation wouldn't help
> >df at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
> >df seeming-design of physics.
> >df
> >df In short, postulating material designers of biology fails:
> >df 1) because the universe in which they reside began to exist, and
> >df therefore they began to exist, and you would thus have to account for
> >df _their_ origination, and
> >df 2) you would still have to account for the origination of physics via
> >df the action of a non-material mind/intelligence.
> >df It would be far simpler to say that the non-material intellect
> >df responsible for the origination of physics was also responsible for the
> >df origination of biology. +Schapiro, 119)
> >df
> >df Humans have a much better perspective than do the fish that reside in
> >df water, fish having limited awareness of what's out there, fish being
> >df confined to a waterworld.
> >df The mind/intelligence responsible for the origination of physics and
> >df biology has a much better perspective than humans, humans having limited
> >df awareness of what is out there, humans being confined to the spatial
> >df dimensions of length width and height and confined to under 130 years'
> >df worth of a temporal dimension in which humans can only go forward.
> >df In short, humans are to waterbound fish, as the superintellect
> >df responsible for physics and biology is to material-world-bound humans.
> >df
> >df Humans have a far higher level of intelligence than do dolphins and
> >df chimpanzees.
> >df In a similar manner, the mind/intelligence responsible for physics and
> >df biology and humans has a far, far higher level of intelligence than
> >df humans have.
> >df In short, in terms of degree/level of intelligence: humans are to
> >df dolphins and chimpanzees, as the mind/intellect responsible for physics
> >df and biology is to humans.
> >JH This is a great deal of unsupported assertion which you seem to be
> >JH confusing with reasoned argument.
> >JH
> >JH [snip vast amounts of regurgitated text]
>
> 41. Are you aware of any "reasoned argument" in support of the
> philosophy of materialism? If "yes," please present some of that
> "reasoned argument."
We observe the material universe. We don't seem to be observing anything
else. You may choose to postulate entities not in evidence if you want.
Then the question becomes, "Are they necessary?" Neutrinos, for example,
are necessary to make particle physics balance out nicely. But then the
question becomes, "Can we detect them?" or "Can we predict an effect
these entities would have, and then test for the existence of that
effect?" It has definitely worked with neutrinos. So far, no test for
your immaterial entities, nor do they seem necessary as far as I can
see. So there is no "philosophy of materialism" here, merely acceptance
of those entities we can find some evidence in favor of, and provisional
lack of acceptance of those entities we can't.
There. I've answered a number of your questions for free. How come you
never answer any of *my* questions?
unrestra...@hotmail.com
david ford wrote:
> Below appears arguments and lines of evidence against materialism and
> for intelligent design by:
> a non-material existing-yet-never-beginning-to-exist intellect/mind
that
> is far superior to humans in terms of abilities and level of
intelligence.
Isn't "God" shorter and clearer?
>
> What was around first: mind, or matter?
Do you have any evidence for minds that exists other than behavior of
matter, properly arranged?
> Can matter do all the formation of what is seen in biology, i.e.
> starting with simply matter, can biology come out of matter?
Everything we see happening at the molecular level in biology is
explicable in terms of chemistry.
> Is matter infinitely-old, or did matter begin to exist?
We don't know yet.
> Did not-material mind/intelligence create matter-energy, and
construct
> biology out of matter?
No evidence for it.
>
> Was the first mind, the first high level of intelligence, present in
> a) biological organisms, specifically humans,
> b) a not-human, material entity, or
> c) a not-human, not-material entity?
When was the first French-speaking man born?
>
> I'm looking at a car, which I know for a fact began to exist (because
> the universe in which the car resides began to exist).
Evidence that the universe began to exist?
REasoning that this belief is sufficient to explain a car?
> Question: Which viewpoint accounts well, and accounts better, for
the
> origination of that car?:
> viewpoint a) totally-mindless-at-every-level processes are
responsible
> for that car's beginning-to-exist, or
> viewpoint b) the input of mind/intelligence was involved in the
> origination of that car.
Answer: car factory. Human design and human-built machines made that
car. I thought you were talking about biology.
Are you going to conclude that Henry Ford made the universe?
>
> Ponder, if you would, the following:
> the second law of thermodynamics and the Big Bang theory's
> and gravity's implications that physics began to exist,
A strange way of putting it. Are you saying they imply there was a
*begining?
K'.
> the fact that physics and biology exhibit the appearance of
> having been the product of mind/intelligence,
Whoah, partner. Evidence?
> the origin-of-biological-life question and the fact that
> brilliant chemists and biologists have thus far been
> unable to intelligently-design life starting with
> non-living matter,
And when they do, will you stop this tirade? No. You and others like
you will then use it as evidence that it takes "a mind" to create life.
<snicker>
> the strong parallels between human-constructed engineering
> and engineering within biology,
How about the many differences? Human construction does not limit
itself to using modifying precursors.
>
> the many instances of interrelatedness/ connectedness present
> in biological systems in which an indispensable core of
> parts must be present and functioning for the systems in
> question to operate,
So?
> correspondingly, the enormous number of harmful and
> neutral mutations versus an absence of mutations that
> could plausibly be construed as possibly being able to
> contribute to the appearance of new biological
> structures having new functions,
Let's see:
The absense of the myostin inhibitor gene in the German superbaby.
Sickle cell syndrome.
That Italian village with many inhabitants immune to heart disease.
And I am not a geneticist.
The development of numerous structures has been teased out in detail.
> the enormous quantity of meaningful information encoded in
> biological organisms' genomes,
?
> the fossil record's pattern of abrupt appearance followed by
> stasis,
To be expected. The fact that particular genera don't turn up until a
certain level, and more so for species, indicates *at *best that
special creation of species took place over several hundred million
years. Why would a creator make it *look like he took no part in it?
> breeders' and fruit fly experiment results revealing limits to
> what changes can be brought about by the application
> of intelligent breeders and laboratory scientists.
>
No, time is the limitation.
> Question: Which viewpoint accommodates well, and accommodates
better,
> the above data?:
> viewpoint a) the philosophy of materialism, which says that only
> material matter exists, or
> viewpoint b) the intelligent design viewpoint, which says that a
> not-material entity-- perhaps a committee of designers, and that at
> least at the moments it created, existed without having had a
beginning
> to its existence-- created matter/physics, and-- in all likelihood
that
> same not-material entity, in keeping with considerations of
simplicity--
> in addition created biology?
>
All the evidence points to the former, if by "philosophy of
materialism" you mean the naturalistic method. It so far has not
indicated any divine intervention at any point.
> (Biology clearly began to exist since the universe in which biology
> resides began to exist, and almost as clearly physics began to exist
> considering the second law,
This is really confusing. Do you mean the 2LoT indicates that the
universe (that is, matter and energy and space) had a begining? Not
necessarily. There is still the now un-fashionable bang, crunch, bang,
crunch, scenario. There are others which postulate a begining to our
universe, but hypothesize a metaverse of some kind, which in some way
births universe like ours, or some recycling process.
> so the postulation of material designers of
> biology who themselves must have begun to exist is not a viable
option:
> we would have the problem of how they originated-- and they would've
had
> to have originated/ begun to exist-- and their postulation wouldn't
help
> at all with the question of how to account for the origination of and
> seeming-design of physics.
>
Alien creators may be true, but that just begs the question, yes. No
evidence for them anyway.
> In short, postulating material designers of biology fails:
> 1) because the universe in which they reside began to exist,
Not established.
> and
> therefore they began to exist,
Not established.
> and you would thus have to account for
> _their_ origination, and
Doesn't follow.
> 2) you would still have to account for the origination of physics via
> the action of a non-material mind/intelligence.
Why? Not if it was "always" here (for sufficiently large values of
always).
If we come up with one or more reasonable scenarios for infinite
existence (e.g. branes touching) then the simplest explantion would be
the universe has alway been here - in some form or other. "Ours" may be
finite, but not the material substrate from which it sprang.
<snip more of the same, plus Shroud of Turin and other sad stuff>
Kermit
Tim Tyler
> david ford wrote:
> > What is the basis for your belief that starting with simply
> > physics, life can come from non-living matter? I note that brilliant
> > biochemists have not yet been able to intelligently-design life in the
> > laboratory. You think that physics can on its own give rise to life,
> > while brilliant biochemists presently can't create life with the
> > application of all of their intellect.
>
> Well, as far as I know none of the brilliant biochemists have actually
> made an attempt to create life. They've done experiments with potential
> precursors to life, in a number of suggestive ways. It's all quite
> speculative, but I think they're on to something too. We may never
> actually know how it happened. [...]
People are working on the problem:
"Alive! The race to create life from scratch"
- http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18524861.100
Folk have been trying to create life at least since Artificial Life I -
in 1987 - and probably from a much earlier date - perhaps since somewhere
about the time of Shelley's "Frankenstein".
I speculate that a reasonable level of success will come within the next
hundred years ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.