Properties of an inscribed clay tablet

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the markings.

What are these properties?

Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?

[John Harshman]

On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that
> indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to
> have produced the markings.

> What are these properties?

No, you're wrong. It doesn't indicate that intelligence was required. It
indicates that *human* intelligence (or something quite like it) was
required, and that it was written in a human language. The signs are
inscribed in the way that humans do it, and the symbols are repetitive
but not too repetitive, in just the way that humans use to record speech.

> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?

Because it doesn't fit our experience. No process we know of, other than
human activity, makes repetitive but not too repetitive marks on clay,
or makes tablets for that matter.

I hope you aren't trying to draw some lesson about evolution, because of
course we know of a natural process that causes the sort of thing we
observe in evolution, and we know that humans don't.

[Bill]

On Apr 2, 7:50�am, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it. �Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the markings.
>
> What are these properties?

It looks like things we've seen human beings make; we therefore
tentatively conclude that human beings made it.

>
> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?

We can't exclude the possibility that such a tablet was produced by
the laws of physics without help from an intelligent organism. We
certainly do not know everything that the laws of physics can do. So
if we'd never seen anything remotely like the clay tablet or the
writing on it produced by humans, then we'd have to say that we didn't
know how it got here. In the event, however, it's perfectly easy to
see that making clay tablets is something that people used to do and
still can do, so it makes more sense to conclude that people
manufactured it than that it appeared by some unknown natural process.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it.
> Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence
> was required to have produced the markings.
>
>What are these properties?

Here is a copy of part of the answer I already gave here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4bf7f67a926bd107?&noredirect=true

I don't know much about archeology so I can only guess. Also I
will limit my speculations to clear cases since I know there are
controversial and ambiguous samples.

Clay tablets that we know are the result of intelligence have the
following characteristics:

1) We have lots of samples of similar but slightly different tablets.

2) Most of the tablets are buried with other human artifacts like pots
inside structures that appear to have been constructed by people.
Sometimes tablets are buried with the bodies of dead people.

3) Often similar writing is found on pots, boats, chariots and walls etc
that we are reasonably certain were constructed by people.

4) Often the same material used to make tablets was also used for other
purposes like making pots and statues etc.

5) We frequently know what the tablets were made from and can identify
the quarry from which the material was taken.

6) Since the material tablets were made from is frequently found far
from the location where the tablets were found we can deduce that it was
transported to a location used by people.

7) The tablets we find from one culture are frequently the same or
similar to the tablets we find from other nearby cultures.

8) We can frequently read what is written on the tablets so we know
their purpose - commercial records, religious writings, commands from
leaders to subjects etc.

>
>Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?

Because of all the evidence we have that they were made by people?

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Robert Camp]

If you review the answers you've gotten so far you should be able to
see that your questions are insufficiently focused and include
unstated assumptions. People are giving you good responses but they
have to guess at what it is you're trying to get at.

You're fond of invoking "logic," so let me suggest that you take the
time to review and narrow the premises of your thought experiment.
Including such loaded and confused concepts as, "clearly legible
inscriptions" and, "all rational humans" make it seem as if you're
trying to lead the discussion to a preferred conclusion.

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

>Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the markings.
>
>What are these properties?
>
>Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?

Boy, you sure are going to make fools of us when you compare
evolution to markings on a clay tablet and show that godidit.

[pnyikos]

On Apr 1, 9:24�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
> > inscriptions upon it. �Such a tablet possesses properties that
> > indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to
> > have produced the markings.
>
> �> What are these properties?
>
> No, you're wrong. It doesn't indicate that intelligence was required. It
> indicates that *human* intelligence (or something quite like it) was
> required, and that it was written in a human language.

That's only if you take "legible" too literally. There could be a
code on that tablet for various numbers, along with such inscriptions
as ||||| = |0, |0|0|0|0|0 = |00, etc. that make it easy to
decipher the code. And the tablet could express some fairly
sophisticated mathematical facts.

Also, while clay tablets are well known artifacts of *humans* of a
certain era, there is no reason why an alien, seeing that this is the
common way humans of that era communicated, might not decide to leave
something like that behind.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

On 4/2/13 2:45 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:24 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that
>>> indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to
>>> have produced the markings.
>>
>> > What are these properties?
>>
>> No, you're wrong. It doesn't indicate that intelligence was required. It
>> indicates that *human* intelligence (or something quite like it) was
>> required, and that it was written in a human language.
>
> That's only if you take "legible" too literally. There could be a
> code on that tablet for various numbers, along with such inscriptions
> as ||||| = |0, |0|0|0|0|0 = |00, etc. that make it easy to
> decipher the code. And the tablet could express some fairly
> sophisticated mathematical facts.

How does that make anything any different?

> Also, while clay tablets are well known artifacts of *humans* of a
> certain era, there is no reason why an alien, seeing that this is the
> common way humans of that era communicated, might not decide to leave
> something like that behind.

I.e. "or something quite like it". Are you attempting to disagree with
me about something? If so, what?

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

Fair enough.
Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect text, line by line all in the same font. This would be completely outside of our experience yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have formed that way naturally (without intelligence).
Why not?

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

good point, will do

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

Not evolution, abiogenesis. It is a necessary semantic invented by people who want to be technically accurate while simultaneously marketing (in schools) the belief that science has it all figured out, as opposed to religion where people just follow along without questioning the wise tribal leaders.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

Friar enumerated basically the same argument, I responded there.

[sourceco...@yahoo.com]

Not my goal. If I am in error, I would hope someone will correct me, using logic. I just strive to be accurate. Don�t you?

[John Harshman]

I challenge you to find any example of anyone claiming, in school or out
of it, that science has it all figured out.

I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but I
think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent design,
which is perverse.

[John Harshman]

First, it isn't outside our experience; are you telling me you've never
seen or heard of skywriting. Surrender Dorothy! Second, even if the
medium were unknown, the text wouldn't be. We know where writing comes
from. Now if we saw weird-looking clouds with no connection to things
people do, we would certainly wonder why they looked like that, but we
wouldn't instantly conclude that they didn't form naturally.

Hey, if you're such a source code wizard, why can't you get a properly
configured newsreader?

[jonathan]

<sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae996fe5-e189-486e...@googlegroups.com...

There's an easy way to make a distinction between man-made objects
and objects produced by nature or physical laws.

With a naturally evolving object, we cannot know...in advance...
what the final product will be exactly, it emerges as it will from
the processes at work. In a man-made object we can know
....in advance...what the final product should look like and behave.

And what matters is if the output is emergent then it behaves as if
a natural object, regardless of which camp actually built the thing.

That old argument that isn't man a product of nature, so man-made
objects must be also, ignores the stark differences between the
two different methods of creating.

In nature the output feeds back into the input side, the only
way to have certainty between the input and output is to
eliminate that feedback. Then we can have that nice predictable
correlation between cause and effect that has built so many
wonderful inventions and allows us to think that all is
knowable eventually.

But if one wishes to go beyond mere technology, and to the
far higher realm of life, we have to give up that objective
precision like control. Build a natural process and let nature
take it's course with designing the final product.

And there lies the great duality of all reality. We can only
know or prove with certainty that which is the least
meaningful, or farthest from nature and truth.


So the reverse must be true.



Jonathan



"I Never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given."




By E Dickinson


s

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

You mean like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywriting

[John Harshman]

Have you ever considered that Emily might possibly have been wrong in
her certainty? Faith isn't just the evidence of things unseen; it's the
belief in things unevidenced.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:09OdnY-scp2...@giganews.com...

It doesn't appear you have considered that might be wrong.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com
wrote:

> Fair enough.

.

> Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect
> text, line by line all in the same font. This would be completely outside
> of our experience yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have
> formed that way naturally (without intelligence). Why not?

My knowledge of gas and atmospheric physics is extremely limited, so I
do not know if the chances of such well formed letters and lines
occurring from entirely natural causes is absurdly low or zero. My
suspicion is that you are describing a very very low probability event.

In either case, were there an investigation, unless I have missed
something, the only explanation I would accept would be the application
of some advanced technology. Space aliens or God could in principle be
responsible, but if these letters formed english words in the sky over
the US, I would expect it to be something like meteorologists
demonstrating their technology to create clouds with say: focused high
frequency waves.

So, in answer to your question; I would suspect the use of technology to
create the cloud letters because scientists have a fairly good knowledge
of the principles which govern cloud formation.

However, I expect that before cloud letter technology is available,
biochemists will have succeeded in creating *simple* self replicating
molecules in the lab thereby demonstrating the feasibility of life
arising from none life by natural processes.

[jonathan]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:09OdnY-scp2...@giganews.com...

I think she's saying no proof is needed once
she understands the abstract concepts.
And for her, in other poems, God and Truth
are one in the same. After all, creation is the
big question, once that answer is found, truth
and god are also found.

But a constant theme of much of her poems is the battle
between her naturalist or holistic perspective where nature
is known by its abstract behavioral properties, and the
newer reductionist or objective modern sciences which
were sweeping the naturalists like her aside.

These two competing views, part detail or abstract behavior, are
contrasted nicely in this poem.


Nature is what we see,
The Hill, the Afternoon-
Squirrel, Eclipse, the Bumble-bee,
Nay-Nature is Heaven.

Nature is what we hear, 5
The Bobolink, the Sea-
Thunder, the Cricket-
Nay,-Nature is Harmony.

Nature is what we know
But have no art to say, 10
So impotent our wisdom is
To Her simplicity.

To her the abstact system properties are listed
at the end of each stanza.

Simplicity, harmony and heaven.

Which translate fine to the new attractor theory
paradigm of

Static, dynamic and chaotic


One thing that the chaos and complexity sciences
that fascinates me is that it's a return to the system
or holistic view of some of the great naturalists of
a couple centuries ago. She was right when she
railed on and on that reducing to parts misses the
most important qualities of nature, the emergent
properties.

You just can't get around the fact that those self tuning
emergent properties only exist when the system is intact
and constantly changing, when the components
are behaving chaotically. When the components are
behaving simply enough for objective precision, the
whole cannot self organize or evolve.

This duality is shown in this poem, where looking
at the (dead) parts leads to a reality modeled by
two incompatible mathematics, which together only
overwhelm our ability to make sense of it all.


"As by the dead we love to sit,
Become so wondrous dear,
As for the lost we grapple,
Though all the rest are here,-

In broken mathematics
We estimate our prize,
Vast, in its fading ratio,
To our penurious eyes!"



s

[jillery]

I, and apparently several other posters, have a similar impression. I
have been waiting for him to make that claim explicitly, as he likes
to play the "I didn't say that" card.

Since you raised that point, it would be relevant to the topic to
mention a video of Neil Tyson making a similar point:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guvspR4UQys>

Short version: Throughout history, many very smart people have reached
the limits of their understanding, and at that point invoked an
interventionist God. Isaac Newton, whom Tyson regards as having the
most brilliant mind ever, dismissed most of the cosmic tinkerings of
God and gods that came before him, by describing the laws that
determined the motions of all the bodies in the Universe. But he got
stuck at the complexities of the 3-body problem, and so invoked God to
keep stable the orbits of the planets. Yet around 100 years later,
Laplace formally demonstrated that planetary orbits were stable and
predictable, and their motions "had no need" for a god hypothesis.

As the seminar was about ID, education, and public understanding of
science, Tyson made other points as well. But this is the one I make
here, that ignorance is very poor evidence for anything other than
itself.

[Dan Espen]

How about traditional sky writing being done by 1000 drones at high
altitude.

The image wouldn't last long but with enough nozzles, you can still get
momentary high resolution.

I think the OP needs a better phenomenon.
One that is so amazing that everyone agrees it can only be magic.

--
Dan Espen

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:19:20 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:

I think the phenomenon he picks is pretty close to irrelevant. His real
problem will be showing that whatever analog he picks has a likelihood
of occurring that is greater than or equivalent to abiogenesis.

Since he appears to be fighting desperately to prevent himself from even
thinking about how our case might be supported, it is almost certain
that he knows nothing whatever about the subject, and thus has no basis
for making such a probabilistic assessment.

If I can somehow convince him to read it, I think I can make a good
intuitive case showing that abiogenesis is likely.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief system�.exactly the same as religion.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

i specified of the same font

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

Unless I admit an error I stand behind what I say as consistent and logical- what part of what I say are you disputing. You seem to want to put me into a convenient category of labeled �we�ve already seen that and proved it wrong� without examining any of my logic. Religious people do the exact same thing.
What other people have done in the past is their business. Your does not address any of my specific points as if to say �see he�s one of those people��.Just like religion.

>ignorance is very poor evidence for anything other than itself.

Indeed! So take a look at my logic and find fault in it if you can, otherwise you are just proving my point of how science is indoctrinating people�.just like religion.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

The logic is so simple but you people are so brainwashed that you simply will not even consider any logic that contradicts the belief system that has been indoctrinated into you since childhood�.JUST LIKE RELIGION.

[Robert Camp]

On Apr 2, 4:44�pm, "jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae996fe5-e189-486e...@googlegroups.com...

<snip>

> In nature the output feeds back into the input side,

As it does in technology as well. We call it trial and error, and it's
fundamental to human design and manufacture.

> the only
> way to have certainty between the input and output is to
> eliminate that feedback. Then we can have that nice predictable
> correlation between cause and effect that has built so many
> wonderful inventions and allows us to think that all is
> knowable eventually.

You tend to staple unrelated concepts together as if one somehow
follows from the other.

> But if one wishes to go beyond mere technology, and to the
> far higher realm of life, we have to give up that objective
> precision like control. Build a natural process and let nature
> take it's course with designing the final product.
>
> And there lies the great duality of all reality. We can only
> know or prove with certainty that which is the least
> meaningful, or farthest from nature and truth.
>
> So the reverse must be true.

Sophistry.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

Read what?

I do consider the argument that abiogenesis is likely. I logically reject it because of the argument that I am making (or attempting to make). A simple argument that no one is even directly addressing, much less finding any error. Instead everyone chooses to micro analyze very minor points that have nothing to do with the overall reasoning itself. And mock both subtly and overtly.

Do you consider that what you have been taught since childhood could possibly be impacting your ability to reason clearly on this issue? Check out a guy named Stanley Milgram. His experiments showed the power that authority had over peoples decision making.

[Dan Espen]

> The logic is so simple but you people are so brainwashed that you
> simply will not even consider any logic that contradicts the belief

> system that has been indoctrinated into you since childhood….JUST LIKE
> RELIGION.

I'm done with you if you don't get a news reader/poster that works.

Meanwhile, try to answer the question.

I just showed that your fonts in the sky analogy is faulty.
A _logical_ person can figure out in a few seconds what is going on.

So, describe something that truly is miraculous.
Then tell us what we are supposed to conclude from that miracle.

Feel free to use logic as you do so.

--
Dan Espen

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design �because the universe is very old.� What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can�t admit how wrong they are.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:30:44 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:


> Read what?

I'll start with a question: Do you understand why *ONE* molecule (3
billion years ago) that could replicate itself, could be enough to get
all life on earth started?

> I do consider the argument that abiogenesis is likely. I logically reject it
> because of the argument that I am making (or attempting to make).

OK, I'll bite. What logical argument is causing you to reject something
you think is likely?

> A simple argument that no one is even directly addressing, much less finding
> any error. Instead everyone chooses to micro analyze very minor points that
> have nothing to do with the overall reasoning itself. And mock both subtly
> and overtly.

I am doing my very best to directly address your points. You said
yourself my assessment of the reason we know clay tablets are human
constructs was "fair".

> Do you consider that what you have been taught since childhood could possibly
> be impacting your ability to reason clearly on this issue?

I worry about it constantly. I tell everyone: I know I am irrational.
Most of the time others will agree that I may be irrational but deny
that they themselves are also irrational. It is very frustrating.

Note that the people in this group are not like that, many or most of
the people who are replying to you are well aware that they too are
irrational.

> Check out a guy named Stanley Milgram. His experiments showed the power that
> authority had over peoples decision making.

His experiment is very famous and I have read and heard about it dozens
of times. In addition within the last two years I have read:

A Mind of its Own by Cordelia Fine
Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely and
You are Not so Smart by David McRaney (actually I'm half way thru)

I've probably read more of the same type, those are just the ones I
could find quickly on my bookshelf.

[John Harshman]

Hey, there was nothing of substance in that response.

[John Harshman]

Sure I have. I have come to the tentative conclusion that it isn't. But
I'm always open to new evidence or argument. What do you have?

[John Harshman]

You are quite good at gibberish, and that's a talent, certainly.

> These two competing views, part detail or abstract behavior, are
> contrasted nicely in this poem.
>
>
> Nature is what we see,
> The Hill, the Afternoon-
> Squirrel, Eclipse, the Bumble-bee,
> Nay-Nature is Heaven.
>
> Nature is what we hear, 5
> The Bobolink, the Sea-
> Thunder, the Cricket-
> Nay,-Nature is Harmony.
>
> Nature is what we know
> But have no art to say, 10
> So impotent our wisdom is
> To Her simplicity.
>
> To her the abstact system properties are listed
> at the end of each stanza.
>
> Simplicity, harmony and heaven.
>
> Which translate fine to the new attractor theory
> paradigm of
>
> Static, dynamic and chaotic

OK, now you're just nuts. Emily Dickinson as complexity theory?

[jillery]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:19:20 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Yeppers. A problem here is that he sees magic in the most mundane
phenomena, I suspect he's incapable of recognizing the difference in
something that could only occur outside the bounds of natural laws.

[solar penguin]

> has been indoctrinated into you since childhood….JUST LIKE RELIGION.

Since you're so fond of asking about properties, do you mind if I turn
your own question back at you?

What are the unique properties that reveal a strongly-held opinion to be
the result of artificial brainwashing and indoctrination, rather than a
natural tendency towards strongly-held opinions? Just by looking at the
end result of someone expressing the opinion, how can we tell how it was
formed?

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:03:15 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> >Fair enough.
>> >Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect text, line by line all in the same font. This would be completely outside of our experience
>>
>> You mean like this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywriting
>>
>> >yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have formed that way naturally (without intelligence).
>>
>> >Why not?
>
>i specified of the same font

Meaningless and invalid pedantry. First, they are of the same font.
Second, changing fonts doesn't alter the ability to recognize that
skywriting is a manufactured process.

[solar penguin]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:30:44 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:49:42 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>
>> Since he appears to be fighting desperately to prevent himself from
>> even
>> thinking about how our case might be supported, it is almost certain
>> that he knows nothing whatever about the subject, and thus has no basis
>> for making such a probabilistic assessment.
>>
>> If I can somehow convince him to read it, I think I can make a good
>> intuitive case showing that abiogenesis is likely.
>>
>

> Read what?
>
> I do consider the argument that abiogenesis is likely. I logically
> reject it because of the argument that I am making (or attempting to
> make).

Whatever argument you're attempting to make, you're not ding a very good
job of it. Stripped down to its bare logic, your argument seems to be:

1. We know skywriting and/or inscribed clay tablets are artificial

2. ?????

3. Therefore abiogenesis is impossible.

Perhaps you would care to actually fill in the missing gap, rather than
just repeating part 1 over and over again...?

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:58:47 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

>BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design �because the universe is very old.� What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can�t admit how wrong they are.


Ok, so you perceive genius in the workings of the brain, in comparison
to the inventions of mere humans. Would that be all brains? Or just
human brains? If just human brains, what are its distinguishing
characteristics from those of other species? If all brains, what
distinguishes 'brain' from 'enlarged ganglion' in basal bilaterians?

And since first life did not have anything like a brain, please
explain what the brain has to do with abiogenesis.

[alias Ernest Major]

"X is complex, therefore it is designed" is a fallacious argument.
"We don't know how X originated, therefore it is designed" is a
fallacious argument.

If you have any argument other than those, please state them clearly.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:00:13 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

[...]

>Unless I admit an error I stand behind what I say as consistent and logical-

I would be very surprised if you admit to errors.

>what part of what I say are you disputing.

If you refer to the context of the entire topic, you could just go
back to your OP:

<b69f508b-b691-4d69...@googlegroups.com>

**************************
"I have found no substantive evidence to explain how life originated.
That does not mean it does not exist. Yet, the more I search for
anyone who can supply me with evidence, the more I find that the
�scientific view� of the origin of life is held together by
indoctrination and social intimidation led by �wise tribal
leaders��.same as always."
***************************

There is good evidence that life originated by natural biochemical
processes. That you choose to ignore the evidence is your problem,
not science's.

And your characterizations of science are routine bald assertions
without any supporting evidence.



>You seem to want to put me into a convenient category of labeled �we�ve already seen that and proved it wrong� without examining any of my logic. Religious people do the exact same thing.


You keep saying that as if you think doing so you will make what I say
go away. Your problem is that what I say is the same as what others
say, and they aren't going away either.

>What other people have done in the past is their business.

So far you haven't said anything different from other pseudoskeptics.
Since you claim otherwise, I keep hoping you will surprise everyone,
and write something that distinguishes you from them.


>Your does not address any of my specific points as if to say �see he�s one of those people��.Just like religion.


I had no need to address any of your specific points in a reply to
John. Get over yourself.

OTOH I have addressed your specific points in other posts. You simply
dismissed my comments, apparently so you can then claim I didn't
address your points. How conveniently circular.

>>ignorance is very poor evidence for anything other than itself.

>Indeed! So take a look at my logic and find fault in it if you can, otherwise you are just proving my point of how science is indoctrinating people�.just like religion.


I and others have identified several flaws in your logic. You still
have not responded to the substance of my comments.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 03/04/2013 04:58, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
> BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design �because the universe is very old.� What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can�t admit how wrong they are.

Is this the argument that you claim is consistent and logical?

It's a strawman argument - one of the classic fallacies.
--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 03/04/2013 04:58, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:

> BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design �because the universe is very old.� What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can�t admit how wrong they are.

And by the way, your mask is slipping. You can't cite the human brain as
a reason to disbelieve in spontaneous abiogenesis. That would a bad
argument against evolution, rather than a bad argument against abiogenesis.

It also falsifies your claim to consistency.
--
alias Ernest Major

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 3 de abril de 2013 00:12:39 UTC+1, sourceco...@yahoo.com escribi�:

> On Monday, April 1, 2013 9:45:12 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>

> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@yahoo.com

>
> >
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible inscriptions upon it.
>
> >
>
> > > Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence
>
> >
>
> > > was required to have produced the markings.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >What are these properties?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > >Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Because of all the evidence we have that they were made by people?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > --
>
> >
>
> > Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>
> >
>
> > I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>
>
>
>
>

> Fair enough.
>
> Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect text, line by line all in the same font. This would be completely outside of our experience yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have formed that way naturally (without intelligence).
>
> Why not?

Because our experience of the natural, does not contain cloud
forming letters?
Just imagine a planet in which clouds use to present forms similar
to letters. Would you say this is a sign of intelligence?

What is natural is what occurs in nature. And intelligence is only
the result of the activity of some living beings, either animals
in general or humans in particular.

Then we call intelligence to the signs let out by living creatures.

I do not see any way to call intelligence to something else. Are
the gods something natural? If gods existed as living beings, the
actions of the gods would also show some intelligence. But I am
not sure the gods are part of nature, unless you will be able to
present some of those gods.

Eridanus

[alias Ernest Major]

On 03/04/2013 00:44, jonathan wrote:
> <sourceco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ae996fe5-e189-486e...@googlegroups.com...

>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to
>> all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the
>> markings.
>>
>> What are these properties?
>>

>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics
>> alone (without intelligence)?
>>
>
>

> There's an easy way to make a distinction between man-made objects
> and objects produced by nature or physical laws.
>
> With a naturally evolving object, we cannot know...in advance...
> what the final product will be exactly, it emerges as it will from
> the processes at work. In a man-made object we can know
> ....in advance...what the final product should look like and behave.

In neither case do we know what exactly the final product will be like
to an arbitrary degree of precision, which has the unfortunate
side-effect that unambiguous counterexamples are difficult to find.

However, (many) artisans and artists and authors would tell you that
they don't know in advance what their final product will look like. On
the other hand we have a pretty good idea what the result of natural
processes such as crystallisation or dissolution will look like.

>
> And what matters is if the output is emergent then it behaves as if
> a natural object, regardless of which camp actually built the thing.
>
> That old argument that isn't man a product of nature, so man-made
> objects must be also, ignores the stark differences between the
> two different methods of creating.
>
> In nature the output feeds back into the input side, the only
> way to have certainty between the input and output is to
> eliminate that feedback. Then we can have that nice predictable
> correlation between cause and effect that has built so many
> wonderful inventions and allows us to think that all is
> knowable eventually.
>
> But if one wishes to go beyond mere technology, and to the
> far higher realm of life, we have to give up that objective
> precision like control. Build a natural process and let nature
> take it's course with designing the final product.
>
> And there lies the great duality of all reality. We can only
> know or prove with certainty that which is the least
> meaningful, or farthest from nature and truth.
>
>
> So the reverse must be true.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[walksalone]

sourceco...@gmail.com wrote in
news:6c5bf67d-85ad-4e15...@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:36:59 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 4/2/13 4:18 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> >> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

Given the gmail addy, has anyone checked for a troll? Civility is a good
disguise for those that like to play mind games.

>> >>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of
>> >>> physics alone (without intelligence)?

One indicator of a troll or undereducated for the question. Life, clay
tablets, etc are the end products of chemistry. Not physics.

snip

>> I challenge you to find any example of anyone claiming, in school or
>> out
>>
>> of it, that science has it all figured out.
>>
>>
>>
>> I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
>>
>> questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but I
>>
>> think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent
>> design,
>>
>> which is perverse.
>
> From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
> indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
> to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief

> system….exactly the same as religion.
>
>

Strange, that is exactly what you are doing strikes me. There is an
oddity in chemistgry, that we may never understand. It works, albeit no
always the way we want.
There is an oddity in life, it works, again, not always the way you want.

In this case, you want a logical explanation after the fact. & yet,
nature is under no obligation to act in a logical ,manner. We are here,
& once there was no life on earth. It's called abiogenesis. The method
is i,mmaterial. For those that lack imagination, it could be a flying
purple people eater who wanted a fresh supply handy when it is visiting
this galaxy. Or a god. Or blind chemistry.
I go with the chemistry for a simple reason, & no, it's not Occam's razor
though that's applicable.
I've bothered to read the evidence.
From black smokers to volcanoes & everwhere inbetween, life is found.
Black smokers are a source of abiogenetic material, new life being formed
all the time. And as is typical of life, being edaten by local life
forms if they can't eat the predator first.

Now I did say life, not miscellanious organic compounds floating in the
water.

Do your own research for I've limited time to waste. Why did I say
waste? Fair question gov, because your conduct here is that of a
believer who can't change his mind. The answers you seek you already
have.
So why are you here?
Dunno.
To prove to yourself you are right.
Possible.
To prove to others how little they know or can possibly know.
Possible.
Boredom?
Likely.

[1]

walksalone who noted sometime back, not all questoons posed on usenet are
honest questions. Though they look good on the surface, frequently they
end up with the poster having an agenda. An undeclared agenda.
Then again, I may have been exposed to the varmirts on the atheist
newsgroups & learned my lesson better than I should have. This time I
suspect a troll, but would not mind being shown wrong.

Vigorous but honest debate is the best way to put my own
thoughts to the test; because honest but vigorous debate is the fire
in the crucible that helps you purify and clarify your own thoughts,
and burn away those that do not meet the test.

Andrew Lias

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:06udnSE4jcv...@giganews.com...

Your definitive claim.

[Glenn]

"walksalone" <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote in message news:XnsA197381...@127.0.0.1...

> sourceco...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:6c5bf67d-85ad-4e15...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:36:59 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 4/2/13 4:18 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Given the gmail addy, has anyone checked for a troll? Civility is a good
> disguise for those that like to play mind games.
>
>
>
>
> >> >>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of
> >> >>> physics alone (without intelligence)?
>
> One indicator of a troll or undereducated for the question. Life, clay
> tablets, etc are the end products of chemistry. Not physics.
>
> snip
>
> >> I challenge you to find any example of anyone claiming, in school or
> >> out
> >>
> >> of it, that science has it all figured out.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
> >>
> >> questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but I
> >>
> >> think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent
> >> design,
> >>
> >> which is perverse.
> >
> > From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
> > indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
> > to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief

> > system..exactly the same as religion.

Step away from the peyote.

[Bill]

On Apr 3, 10:15�am, sourcecodewiz...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:19:20 PM UTC-5, Dan Espen wrote:

> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0700 (PDT), sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com

>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>On Monday, April 1, 2013 9:45:12 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>

> > >>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT), sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >>>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>
> > >>>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to
>
> > >>>> all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the
>
> > >>>> markings.
>
> > >>>>What are these properties?
>
> > >>> Here is a copy of part of the answer I already gave here:
>

> > >>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4bf7f67a926bd107?&nor...
>
> > >>> I don't know much about archeology so I can only guess. �Also I

>
> > >>> will limit my speculations to clear cases since I know there are
>
> > >>> controversial and ambiguous samples.
>
> > >>> Clay tablets that we know are the result of intelligence have the
>
> > >>> following characteristics:
>
> > >>> 1) We have lots of samples of similar but slightly different tablets.
>
> > >>> 2) Most of the tablets are buried with other human artifacts like pots
>
> > >>> inside structures that appear to have been constructed by people.
>
> > >>> Sometimes tablets are buried with the bodies of dead people.
>
> > >>> 3) Often similar writing is found on pots, boats, chariots and walls etc
>
> > >>> that we are reasonably certain were constructed by people.
>
> > >>> 4) Often the same material used to make tablets was also used for other
>
> > >>> purposes like making pots and statues etc.
>
> > >>> 5) We frequently know what the tablets were made from and can identify
>
> > >>> the quarry from which the material was taken.
>
> > >>> 6) Since the material tablets were made from is frequently found far
>
> > >>> from the location where the tablets were found we can deduce that it was
>
> > >>> transported to a location used by people.
>
> > >>> 7) The tablets we find from one culture are frequently the same or
>
> > >>> similar to the tablets we find from other nearby cultures.
>
> > >>> 8) We can frequently read what is written on the tablets so we know
>
> > >>> their purpose - commercial records, religious writings, commands from
>
> > >>> leaders to subjects etc.
>

> > > �.

>
> > >>>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone
>
> > >>>> (without intelligence)?
>
> > >>> Because of all the evidence we have that they were made by people?
>
> > >> Fair enough.
>

> > > �.

>
> > >> Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect
>

> > >> text, line by line all in the same font. � This would be completely outside

>
> > >> of our experience yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have
>
> > >> formed that way naturally (without intelligence). Why not?
>
> > > My knowledge of gas and atmospheric physics is extremely limited, so I
>
> > > do not know if the chances of such well formed letters and lines
>

> > > occurring from entirely natural causes is absurdly low or zero. �My

>
> > > suspicion is that you are describing a very very low probability event.
>
> > How about traditional sky writing being done by 1000 drones at high
>
> > altitude.
>
> > The image wouldn't last long but with enough nozzles, you can still get
>
> > momentary high resolution.
>
> > I think the OP needs a better phenomenon.
>
> > One that is so amazing that everyone agrees it can only be magic.
>
> > --
>
> > Dan Espen
>
> The logic is so simple but you people are so brainwashed that you simply will not even consider any logic that contradicts the belief system that has been indoctrinated into you since childhood�.JUST LIKE RELIGION.

The logic may be simple, but it is incorrect. Here's why:

You keep looking for examples of things that are obviously designed,
like the clay tablet, or sky writing. Then you want to identify the
properties of those things that make it obvious that they are
designed. Then you want to show that those properties are present in
living things.

The problem is that anything you pick that we will all agree is
designed will be something actually manufactured by humans, or at
least something that could be thought up by humans and manufactured
with a technology that humans can imagine. When we look at one of
those things, e.g. the clay tablet, we do not think "Ah, look,
markings that are pretty regular, but not absolutely regular, just the
write sort of complexity to indicate intelligent design. Moreover I
cannot think of how such markings could have been produced by purely
non-intelligent, natural processes. Perhaps someone inscribed this
tablet" Instead we say "Ah ha, that looks like writing. Somebody must
have used a hard stylus to inscribe that on a soft clay tablet and
then baked it to make the writing permanent." It does not pass through
any archaeologists head that he must exclude non-intelligent natural
processes before concluding that the "perfectly legible" inscription
is really an inscription. He uses his knowledge of human activities
and manufacturing processes to conclude that humans made the tablet.

Even in the case of SETI, people are looking for signals which they
think would be made by intelligent aliens who, at least in some
respects, think like humans; and they look for signals produced by
technologies they can imagine. They use hypothesized goals and
technologies of a putative alien to determine whether they think a
signal might be intelligently designed. They do want to rule out
pulsars and the like, but if they found a repeating signal encoding
the first hundred prime numbers, the conclusion that it was
intelligent would not primarily be based on excluding non-intelligent
processes.

Now, consider the elephant. No human has ever manufactured an
elephant. We would not know how. On the other hand, we often enough
see mommy and daddy elephants making new elephants, by an entirely
natural, non-intelligent process. We have a fair idea how to trace
that process back a good ways towards the last common ancestor of
living things on earth. Once we get that far back, though, we clearly
do not know the details. If there were a thousand steps required to
get from inorganic chemistry on the young earth to the first life we
have some testable hypotheses about how a handful of those steps might
have happened. That's it. I do not see the rigidity and dogmatism you
see in the field; almost everybody working in the field is quite happy
to admit how little we know and how difficult the problem is. How you
can attach a probability to the occurrence of an unknown, poorly
understood natural process is beyond me.

On the other hand, if you want to hypothesize an intelligent agent
responsible for getting life started on earth, then you'd better start
making testable hypotheses. WHat sort of manufacturing process was
used? What by-products of that process might be detectable. Where is
that intelligent agent now? What were the motives? Is there evidence,
other than life itself, of such an agent visiting earth? Nobody seems
to be able to think up good experiments to address these sorts of
questions, but if you have ideas, go ahead and share them.

Invoking the action of undetectable intelligent agents to explain
poorly understood natural phenomena doesn't have a very good track
record through history. Abiogenesis might be an exception, but I
wouldn't bet on it.

[J. J. Lodder]

<sourceco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
> indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
> to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief

> system....exactly the same as religion.

See? You are -very- predictable.

Jan

[John Harshman]

I should have known better than to reply to you. Bye.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:33:43 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>sourceco...@gmail.com wrote in
>news:6c5bf67d-85ad-4e15...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:36:59 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 4/2/13 4:18 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>> >> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>Given the gmail addy, has anyone checked for a troll? Civility is a good
>disguise for those that like to play mind games.

I have wondered if some of these characters aren't just sock puppets,
designed to trot out the same old arguments under a different name.
Either way, I just regard them as more target practice.

>>> >>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of
>>> >>> physics alone (without intelligence)?
>
>One indicator of a troll or undereducated for the question. Life, clay
>tablets, etc are the end products of chemistry. Not physics.

To give him the widest latitude, chemistry is physics, but your point
remains valid. His expressed science is consistent with a lack of
education on current theories, his logic is circular, and his style is
pompous. Sound familiar?

>snip
>
>>> I challenge you to find any example of anyone claiming, in school or
>>> out
>>>
>>> of it, that science has it all figured out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
>>>
>>> questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but I
>>>
>>> think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent
>>> design,
>>>
>>> which is perverse.
>>
>> From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
>> indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
>> to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief
>> system�.exactly the same as religion.
>>
>>
>
>Strange, that is exactly what you are doing strikes me. There is an
>oddity in chemistgry, that we may never understand. It works, albeit no
>always the way we want.
>There is an oddity in life, it works, again, not always the way you want.
>
>In this case, you want a logical explanation after the fact. & yet,
>nature is under no obligation to act in a logical ,manner. We are here,
>& once there was no life on earth. It's called abiogenesis. The method

>is immaterial. For those that lack imagination, it could be a flying

Yeppers.

[walksalone]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:5ebol81g2tqo1cved...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:33:43 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
> <spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>
>>sourceco...@gmail.com wrote in
>>news:6c5bf67d-85ad-4e15...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:36:59 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 4/2/13 4:18 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>Given the gmail addy, has anyone checked for a troll? Civility is a
>>good disguise for those that like to play mind games.

> I have wondered if some of these characters aren't just sock puppets,
> designed to trot out the same old arguments under a different name.
> Either way, I just regard them as more target practice.

Alas, my eyes are weak, can't identify anything in the wild after about
2000 yards, my back is bent, & I am a high mileage model. So sometimes I
miss.

>>>> >>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of
>>>> >>> physics alone (without intelligence)?

>>One indicator of a troll or undereducated for the question. Life,
>>clay tablets, etc are the end products of chemistry. Not physics.

> To give him the widest latitude, chemistry is physics, but your point

Ah, but when I was a mere pup in high school, chemistry was used to
explain why the real world exist. Physics OTOH, was given to
constiopated people. So I suspenct I have to accept your variant to my
norm. & yes, I can understand how they need each other.

> remains valid. His expressed science is consistent with a lack of
> education on current theories, his logic is circular, and his style is
> pompous. Sound familiar?

Way to familiar. I've been on the atheist newsgroup since the mid-90's.
The name now, that varied, but the tap dance never really changed.
& asince google, it went ridiculous in quanity. & the quality dropped.

snip

>>>> I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
>>>> questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but
>>>> I
>>>> think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent
>>>> design,
>>>> which is perverse.

>>> From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
>>> indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely
>>> unable to even consider direct logical contradiction within that
>>> belief system….exactly the same as religion.

>>Strange, that is exactly what you are doing strikes me. There is an

>>oddity in chemistry, that we may never understand. It works, albeit

>>no always the way we want.
>>There is an oddity in life, it works, again, not always the way you
>>want.

snip

>>Vigorous but honest debate is the best way to put my own
>>thoughts to the test; because honest but vigorous debate is the fire
>>in the crucible that helps you purify and clarify your own thoughts,
>>and burn away those that do not meet the test.

> Yeppers.

Sometimes a jewel is found, in spite of the dross.

walksalone who has been on usenet so long he can recall what a TOS was, &
the result of a willing violation. Can I reminisce? Dam n right I can.

Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys
to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 2 April 2013 01:50:18 UTC+1, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly
> legible inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties
> that indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required

> to have produced the markings. What are these properties? Why could

> such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone
> (without intelligence)?

Actually there are clay tablets in existence in which "writing" is not
easily distinguished from the footprints of a number of chickens.
Maybe the birds came down to the water's edge to drink, and stepped
in the wet clay.

I also am doubtful of, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1205638.stm>

[Kermit]

On 2 Apr, 20:58, sourcecodewiz...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 9:49:42 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 22:19:20 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
>
> > wrote:
>

> > >Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0700 (PDT), sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com

>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>>On Monday, April 1, 2013 9:45:12 PM UTC-5, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>

> > >>>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:50:18 -0700 (PDT), sourcecodewiz...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>
> > >>>>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that indicate to
>
> > >>>>> all rational humans that intelligence was required to have produced the
>
> > >>>>> markings.
>
> > >>>>>What are these properties?
>
> > >>>> Here is a copy of part of the answer I already gave here:
>

> > >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4bf7f67a926bd107?&nor...
>
> > >>>> I don't know much about archeology so I can only guess. �Also I

>
> > >>>> will limit my speculations to clear cases since I know there are
>
> > >>>> controversial and ambiguous samples.
>
> > >>>> Clay tablets that we know are the result of intelligence have the
>
> > >>>> following characteristics:
>
> > >>>> 1) We have lots of samples of similar but slightly different tablets.
>
> > >>>> 2) Most of the tablets are buried with other human artifacts like pots
>
> > >>>> inside structures that appear to have been constructed by people.
>
> > >>>> Sometimes tablets are buried with the bodies of dead people.
>
> > >>>> 3) Often similar writing is found on pots, boats, chariots and walls etc
>
> > >>>> that we are reasonably certain were constructed by people.
>
> > >>>> 4) Often the same material used to make tablets was also used for other
>
> > >>>> purposes like making pots and statues etc.
>
> > >>>> 5) We frequently know what the tablets were made from and can identify
>
> > >>>> the quarry from which the material was taken.
>
> > >>>> 6) Since the material tablets were made from is frequently found far
>
> > >>>> from the location where the tablets were found we can deduce that it was
>
> > >>>> transported to a location used by people.
>
> > >>>> 7) The tablets we find from one culture are frequently the same or
>
> > >>>> similar to the tablets we find from other nearby cultures.
>
> > >>>> 8) We can frequently read what is written on the tablets so we know
>
> > >>>> their purpose - commercial records, religious writings, commands from
>
> > >>>> leaders to subjects etc.
>

> > >> �.

>
> > >>>>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone
>
> > >>>>> (without intelligence)?
>
> > >>>> Because of all the evidence we have that they were made by people?
>
> > >>> Fair enough.
>

> > >> �.

>
> > >>> Suppose you looked up in the sky and saw a bunch of clouds formed into perfect
>

> > >>> text, line by line all in the same font. � This would be completely outside

>
> > >>> of our experience yet 99.99% of people would agree that they could not have
>
> > >>> formed that way naturally (without intelligence). Why not?
>
> > >> My knowledge of gas and atmospheric physics is extremely limited, so I
>
> > >> do not know if the chances of such well formed letters and lines
>

> > >> occurring from entirely natural causes is absurdly low or zero. �My

>
> > >> suspicion is that you are describing a very very low probability event.
>

> > �.

>
> > >How about traditional sky writing being done by 1000 drones at high
>
> > >altitude.
>
> > >The image wouldn't last long but with enough nozzles, you can still get
>
> > >momentary high resolution.
>
> > >I think the OP needs a better phenomenon.
>
> > >One that is so amazing that everyone agrees it can only be magic.
>

> > I think the phenomenon he picks is pretty close to irrelevant. �His real

>
> > problem will be showing that whatever analog he picks has a likelihood
>
> > of occurring that is greater than or equivalent to abiogenesis.
>
> > Since he appears to be fighting desperately to prevent himself from even
>
> > thinking about how our case might be supported, it is almost certain
>
> > that he knows nothing whatever about the subject, and thus has no basis
>
> > for making such a probabilistic assessment.
>
> > If I can somehow convince him to read it, I think I can make a good
>
> > intuitive case showing that abiogenesis is likely.
>
> > --
>

> > � Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
>
> > � �I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>
> BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. �I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it.

Here's the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Abiogenesis
How old *are* you?

If you don't "believe in" abiogenesis, do you think that life has been
here for eternity, or that nothing is alive yet? The word simply
refers to the process that resulted in life. If you think that divine
or alien intervention was required, then please present your evidence.

> �Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. �Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed.

What binary encoding are you thinking of - do you have a link ? I was
under the impression that brains were largely analog and parallel
processors.

>�I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design �because the universe is very old.� �What a crutch. �But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. � �What a joke. �What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can�t admit how wrong they are.

You should listen to actual scientists, then, who will tell you that
they do not have all the answers. But what they do know (testable
beliefs, contingent on continued evidential support) has produced the
internet, developed GPS, sent robot probes to Mars, reattached severed
limbs, and wiped out smallpox. I note that, no longer being the
arrogant kid you used to be, you will now happily claim that you know
more than the scientific community, even though this "knowledge" of
yours makes no testable claims.

kermit

[Kermit]

On 2 Apr, 20:15, sourcecodewiz...@gmail.com wrote:

> > How about traditional sky writing being done by 1000 drones at high
>
> > altitude.
>
> > The image wouldn't last long but with enough nozzles, you can still get
>
> > momentary high resolution.
>
> > I think the OP needs a better phenomenon.
>
> > One that is so amazing that everyone agrees it can only be magic.
>

> > --
>
> > Dan Espen
>
> The logic is so simple but you people are so brainwashed that you simply will not even consider any logic that contradicts the belief system that has been indoctrinated into you since childhood�.JUST LIKE RELIGION.

We haven't actually found any messages in nature that say "Surrender
Dorothy"...

kermit

[eridanus]

El mi�rcoles, 3 de abril de 2013 13:28:26 UTC+1, Bill escribi�:

> making testable hypotheses. What sort of manufacturing process was

> used? What by-products of that process might be detectable. Where is
> that intelligent agent now? What were the motives? Is there evidence,
> other than life itself, of such an agent visiting earth? Nobody seems
> to be able to think up good experiments to address these sorts of
> questions, but if you have ideas, go ahead and share them.
>
> Invoking the action of undetectable intelligent agents to explain
> poorly understood natural phenomena doesn't have a very good track
> record through history. Abiogenesis might be an exception, but I
> wouldn't bet on it.

I have the pleasure to add an argument from Dawkins, or someone else.

Some people postulate that nothing exist without a cause. Then the
elaborate that life is extremely complex to have been cause by inert
matter; life, then, had to be the work of being with infinite intelligence.
Well, if life is too complex to arise by itself in nature, then god has to
be infinitely more complex, than common life. Then, a being of such
complexity could not exist by itself surging out of nothing. A god of
in infinite complexity has to have been created by a super god, or much
greater power that itself could not exist by itself by it must had been
created by a much greater super-god, etc.

a note: To ancient Greeks thunder and lightning was so mysterious and
incomprehensible that they needed a god to explain them. Zeus was the
god that gathered the clouds and threw bolts, and produced those tremors
we call thunder.

That's all

Eridanus

[Kalkidas]

On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:24:30 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that
>> indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to
>> have produced the markings.
>
> > What are these properties?
>

>No, you're wrong. It doesn't indicate that intelligence was required. It
>indicates that *human* intelligence (or something quite like it) was
>required, and that it was written in a human language. The signs are
>inscribed in the way that humans do it, and the symbols are repetitive
>but not too repetitive, in just the way that humans use to record speech.
>

>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?
>

>Because it doesn't fit our experience. No process we know of, other than
>human activity, makes repetitive but not too repetitive marks on clay,
>or makes tablets for that matter.
>
>I hope you aren't trying to draw some lesson about evolution, because of
>course we know of a natural process that causes the sort of thing we
>observe in evolution, and we know that humans don't.

Whoa. The structure of DNA is also "repetitive but not too
repetitive". So the conclusion should be that "human intelligence"
produced it.

[John Harshman]

Nope. We know a fine, natural process that causes DNA to have the
structure it does, and it isn't human intelligence that does it.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/2/13 7:53 PM, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]

> From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
> indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
> to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief

> system . . . .exactly the same as religion.

You cannot get much less logical than that. Note that your complaint
(it cannot be called an argument) says absolutely nothing about whatever
you are complaining against. You can use it to dismiss *anything* you
disagree with, regardless of its validity. Just pretend that I repeated
what you just wrote, and your position is dismissed, too.

But more about the indoctrination issue, since it seems to be a pet
peeve of yours. Obviously, you have never, ever gotten to know any
scientists, because any scientist will tell you that science does not,
by any stretch of the imagination, hold all the answers. The
indoctrination that you complain about is, quite simply, not real. It
is a figment of your imagination, nothing more.

So where does one get the idea of science dogma indoctrination? I am no
expert in sociology, but I imagine it comes from the enemies of science.
Science, obviously, does have *some* of the answers, and some of those
answers are things people do not want to hear -- too much ice cream is
bad for your health, the globe is warming dangerously quickly, humans
evolved from earlier apes. The people who do not like these answers
cannot argue against the science supporting them, so they revile science
in general. That "indoctrination" label you keep using is one of their
poisons, and you fell for it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/2/13 8:30 PM, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> I do consider the argument that abiogenesis is likely. I logically
> reject it because of the argument that I am making (or attempting to
> make).

Your argument seems to be thus:

A. All clay tablet writing is created by humans.
B. All humans are intelligent (at least, if they make clay tablets).
1. Therefore, all clay tablet writing is created by intelligence.
C. All life is clay tablet writing.
2. Therefore, all life is created by intelligence.

The problem is, your premise C is not merely wrong, it is blatantly,
painfully, absurdly wrong. To make it true, you would say instead,
C. No life is clay tablet writing.
which rather bollixes the argument. (Premise A is false, too, but
that's a subject for another post.)

You could recast premise C to "Life is similar to writing," except (a)
no, it isn't, and (b) the logical structure still gets lost.

I have probably been somewhat unfair to your argument, since I do not
know it as well as you do. Please correct any oversights I have made.
I do hope, however, that you got the message that you have not yet
communicated a valid truly logical argument.

[Kalkidas]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:47:15 -0700, John Harshman

You're bluffing. If you really did "know" of such a "natural" (i.e.
unguided and unintelligent) process, you would be able to utilize the
same kind of process to produce writings which are utterly
indistinguishable from human language.

But you're bluffing. You don't "know", you only guess.

The problem of explaining the origin of language is the same problem
as explaining the origin of the genetic information present in DNA.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 4:16:58 AM UTC-5, alias Ernest Major wrote:
> On 03/04/2013 04:58, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
>

> > BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design “because the universe is very old.” What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can’t admit how wrong they are.

>
>
>
> And by the way, your mask is slipping. You can't cite the human brain as
>
> a reason to disbelieve in spontaneous abiogenesis. That would a bad
>
> argument against evolution, rather than a bad argument against abiogenesis.
>
>
>
> It also falsifies your claim to consistency.
>
> --
>
> alias Ernest Major

Wrong. It’s what led me to the concrete logic shown in that same paragraph, specifically: If life can form spontaneously why not clay tablets?
No one answers.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

It’s not intended as an insult but more of the central point.
Look at this point from my view. (even though you don’t agree):
I view logic like an arithmetic problem. When people don’t agree it is because someone is in error or the problem is not stated clearly. In my view my argument is so simple that any rational, intelligent person should be able to understand it as valid. If life was generated spontaneously then why not an inscribed tablet? One sentence. But people still don’t agree and provide no valid counter point, just a lot of mockery, insults, vague descriptions etc. Considering the religion and mythology of all human history, I conclude that it is very likely that you are all simply indoctrinated….just like religion.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

Neurons fire and send voltage potentials through axons. Experimentally modulating the frequency of these potentials stimulates muscles in that same way as moto-neurons. Digital.

I do not claim more knowledge. I agree that the vast majority of science is accurate. When I see that it is inaccurate I say so. I also know that humans have a way of joining what is popular even though it may not be accurate. I claim that is what is happening here.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 4 April 2013 03:48:56 UTC+1, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
> It’s what led me to the concrete logic shown in that same paragraph,
> specifically: If life can form spontaneously why not clay tablets?
>
> No one answers.

I've answered, with the thing with chickens. The picture here
<http://proteus.brown.edu/greekpast/4689> is believed to be writing
called "Linear A", but it may as well be the piece of clay bank
that a flock of chickens used to stand on to drink water from
a stream.

Note that the spontaneously originated life doesn't have to be very
good. It only has to be better at survival than abiotic chemistry is.
Present-day life is probably much, much "better" than life as it
first originated - because it's evolved.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

Nice.
Let�s reduce any manufacturing out of it.
Assume that life originated by some process consistent with the laws of physics (without intelligence).
Then why could a legible tablet not have also formed by the same or similar process?
To say �because we recognize it to be made by humans� is circular because that is the point we are now trying to prove.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

Predictable is good when using logic, thanks. Also, I do not claim any religion (other than my belief in logic and the results of applying it).

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 3:37:36 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 20:58:47 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >BTW. I know exactly how it is to believe that abiogenesis is likely. I used to believe in it back before they had a word for it. Back when I was an arrogant snot nosed punk who thought I had all the answers. Then I started studying how the brain worked and found a binary encoding more sophisticated than the combined total of anything humans have ever designed. I realized how totally clueless I had been thinking that something so clearly the work of genius could have happened without any design because the universe is very old. What a crutch. But a chunk of clay with some scratches in it: Must be Intelligence. What a joke. What an obvious contradiction that anyone could see, except people who refuse to even look because they can t admit how wrong they are.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ok, so you perceive genius in the workings of the brain, in comparison
>
> to the inventions of mere humans. Would that be all brains? Or just
>
> human brains? If just human brains, what are its distinguishing
>
> characteristics from those of other species? If all brains, what
>
> distinguishes 'brain' from 'enlarged ganglion' in basal bilaterians?
>
>
>
> And since first life did not have anything like a brain, please
>
> explain what the brain has to do with abiogenesis.

Perceive genius? Do you doubt that the engineering of the human mind is a greater genius than anything that humans have ever built? Please respond directly (a yes or no) followed by your explanation. I've got to hear this.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

> "We don't know how X originated, therefore it is designed" is a
>
> fallacious argument.

Agreed.


> "X is complex, therefore it is designed" is a fallacious argument.

This is an example of repeating something over and over until everyone just parrots it back, believing it to be true. Statistical probability governs our belief system. Examine some number spaces:
Estimated number of atoms in the universe < 10E100
Estimated age of the universe in plank time units < 10E100
So if we count atom-plank-time units (like man hours) we get < 10E200
That is a number with 200 zeros.
Compare that to:
Number of possible different images printable on a typical office computer > 10E1000000
That is a number with A MILLION ZEROS.
Complexity is central to the entire issue. When I was a kid Carl Sagan talked about billions and billions of stars. Wholly insignificant next to the number spaces produced by complexity.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

> We are here,
& once there was no life on earth. It's called abiogenesis

Mythology was built by people using the exact same argument substituting abiogenesis for whatever their Mythology was. And they had the same amount of evidence to support their claim.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:48:56 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

Instead of acting like an idiot and pretending that nobody has
answered, why don't you just come out and say what the answer is you
want to hear?

[jillery]

Care to cover these bald assertions with anything resembling reasoned
argument and evidence?

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/3/13 7:48 PM, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> It’s what led me to the concrete logic shown in that same paragraph,
> specifically: If life can form spontaneously why not clay tablets?
> No one answers.

If Joe can peel potatoes, then why can't my water bottle?
Same basic question. Same answer.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/3/13 8:05 PM, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:41:15 AM UTC-5, Kermit wrote:

>> [...]

>> You should listen to actual scientists, then, who will tell you that
>> they do not have all the answers. But what they do know (testable
>> beliefs, contingent on continued evidential support) has produced the
>> internet, developed GPS, sent robot probes to Mars, reattached severed
>> limbs, and wiped out smallpox. I note that, no longer being the
>> arrogant kid you used to be, you will now happily claim that you know
>> more than the scientific community, even though this "knowledge" of
>> yours makes no testable claims.
>

> Neurons fire and send voltage potentials through axons.
> Experimentally modulating the frequency of these potentials stimulates
> muscles in that same way as moto-neurons. Digital.

You need to study more neurology; there's a whole lot more to thinking
than that. Neurons aren't even the whole of the brain.

> I do not claim more knowledge. I agree that the vast majority of
> science is accurate. When I see that it is inaccurate I say so.
> I also know that humans have a way of joining what is popular even
> though it may not be accurate. I claim that is what is happening here.

While you are studying psychology, pay particular attention to the many
ways people have of fooling themselves.

Here's a logic and statistics question for you. Out of 25 people, 21 of
them answer a certain knowledge-based question with option A. Two
answer with option B, and two are undecided. Of those 25 people, 15 of
them have a high level of expertise in the knowledge base that the
question is about, and all of them answered A. Which answer, A or B, is
more likely to be correct?

Now, same situation, except this time you are one of the two who
answered "B". Which answer is more likely to be correct?

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:13:55 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> Invoking the action of undetectable intelligent agents to explain
>>
>> poorly understood natural phenomena doesn't have a very good track
>>
>> record through history. Abiogenesis might be an exception, but I
>>
>> wouldn't bet on it.
>
>Nice.

>Let’s reduce any manufacturing out of it.

>Assume that life originated by some process consistent with the laws of physics (without intelligence).
>Then why could a legible tablet not have also formed by the same or similar process?

>To say “because we recognize it to be made by humans” is circular because that is the point we are now trying to prove.


The point you were trying to prove is that abiogenesis somehow proves
design. When did you change to trying to prove that your clay tablets
are not designed? It sounds like you have confused yourself.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:23:52 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

Yes, you do have to hear this, and understand this. I respond
directly to you by saying that your question is meaningless rhetoric.
Even accepting that your comparison makes any sense, your question
assumes the human brain is engineered. Circular reasoning is not
logical reasoning.

Once again, please identify those physical characteristics that
distinguish the designed human brain from the presumably non-designed
non-human brains found on Earth.

Once again, please explain what the human brain has to do with
abiogenesis.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:31:51 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

Are you incapable of recognizing that those images to which you refer
are contained within the Universe? So by your reasoning, that means
the complexity of the Universe sans images needs to be added to the
complexity of the images sans Universe in order to get the total
complexity of the Universe.

If you had paid closer attention, Carl Sagan would have taught you
that.

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:05:28 -0700 (PDT), sourceco...@gmail.com
wrote:

[...]

>> You should listen to actual scientists, then, who will tell you that
>> they do not have all the answers. But what they do know (testable
>> beliefs, contingent on continued evidential support) has produced the
>> internet, developed GPS, sent robot probes to Mars, reattached severed
>> limbs, and wiped out smallpox. I note that, no longer being the
>> arrogant kid you used to be, you will now happily claim that you know
>> more than the scientific community, even though this "knowledge" of
>> yours makes no testable claims.
>>
>> kermit
>
>Neurons fire and send voltage potentials through axons. Experimentally modulating the frequency of these potentials stimulates muscles in that same way as moto-neurons. Digital.
>I do not claim more knowledge. I agree that the vast majority of science is accurate. When I see that it is inaccurate I say so. I also know that humans have a way of joining what is popular even though it may not be accurate. I claim that is what is happening here.

Take kermit's advice to heart, and consider the likelihood that what
you see are not errors of science, but confusion within yourself.
Until you show that isn't the case, your claims are empty rhetoric.

[alias Ernest Major]

Is that supposed to be a defence of a claim of the validity of that "X
is complex, therefore it is designed" as an argument?

I'll note that "X is improbable, therefore it is designed" is also a
fallacious argument.

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

> It�s not intended as an insult but more of the central point.
> Look at this point from my view. (even though you don�t agree):
> I view logic like an arithmetic problem. When people don�t agree it is because someone is in error or the problem is not stated clearly. In my view my argument is so simple that any rational, intelligent person should be able to understand it as valid. If life was generated spontaneously then why not an inscribed tablet? One sentence. But people still don�t agree and provide no valid counter point, just a lot of mockery, insults, vague descriptions etc. Considering the religion and mythology of all human history, I conclude that it is very likely that you are all simply indoctrinated�.just like religion.
>

A valid counterpoint (which has been presented to you several times) is
that we have lots of evidence for the human manufacture of cuneiform
writing on clay tablets. We don't have any evidence that life was
manufactured, nor for the existence of any candidate manufacturer. In
the absence of such Occam's Razor leads us the adoption of spontaneous
abiogenesis as a working hypothesis.

To demonstrate the insubstantiality of your argument, let's turn it
round. If the markings on graphic granite were generated spontaneously
why not life?

--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

On 04/04/2013 01:04, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 4/2/13 8:30 PM, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [...]
>> I do consider the argument that abiogenesis is likely. I logically
>> reject it because of the argument that I am making (or attempting to
>> make).
>
> Your argument seems to be thus:
>
> A. All clay tablet writing is created by humans.
> B. All humans are intelligent (at least, if they make clay tablets).
> 1. Therefore, all clay tablet writing is created by intelligence.
> C. All life is clay tablet writing.
> 2. Therefore, all life is created by intelligence.
>
> The problem is, your premise C is not merely wrong, it is blatantly,
> painfully, absurdly wrong. To make it true, you would say instead,
> C. No life is clay tablet writing.
> which rather bollixes the argument. (Premise A is false, too, but
> that's a subject for another post.)
>
> You could recast premise C to "Life is similar to writing," except (a)
> no, it isn't, and (b) the logical structure still gets lost.
>
> I have probably been somewhat unfair to your argument, since I do not
> know it as well as you do. Please correct any oversights I have made. I
> do hope, however, that you got the message that you have not yet
> communicated a valid truly logical argument.
>

Part of his argument seems to be that if we ignore everything we know
about cuneiform tablets and life other than that both are "complex" we
have no justification for concluding that one is manufactured and that
the other isn't, but he hopes that we don't notice the clause about
ignoring what we know. (Even that is insufficient to get to his
conclusion that life is designed.)
--
alias Ernest Major

[alias Ernest Major]

How many more times are you going to repeat that falsehood?

--
alias Ernest Major

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:57:16 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

>
> It’s not intended as an insult but more of the central point. Look at
> this point from my view. (even though you don’t agree): I view logic
> like an arithmetic problem.

Have you ever seen the 1960s Doctor Who story "The Wheel In Space"?

There's a marvellous scene where a character treats the real world like a
logic or arithmetic problem, and the Doctor tells her: "Logic merely
enables one to be wrong with authority."

It's a great line because it's true.

> When people don’t agree it is because
> someone is in error or the problem is not stated clearly.

You're not doing a very good job of stating your case. That's true.

> In my view my
> argument is so simple that any rational, intelligent person should be
> able to understand it as valid. If life was generated spontaneously
> then why not an inscribed tablet? One sentence.

Because life and clay tablets have nothing in common. It's up to you to
demonstrate they do have something in common as part of stating your
case. And you've repeatedly failed to do this.

> But people still don’t
> agree and provide no valid counter point, just a lot of mockery,
> insults, vague descriptions etc.

People have made very good counter points. You're just too stubborn to
see it.

> Considering the religion and mythology
> of all human history, I conclude that it is very likely that you are all
> simply indoctrinated….just like religion.

Ever heard of projection?

[alias Ernest Major]

Since you seem to be so good with logic, here's a simple argument.

1) Once there was no life in the universe.
2) Now there is.
3) Therefore there is some process which can produce life where there
was previously no life.

Where do disagree with it.

Note that we label that process abiogenesis.
--
alias Ernest Major

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:19:31 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:15:04 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> <sourceco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > From your response I see a perfect example of a person who has been
>> > indoctrinated into a belief system since childhood, completely unable
>> > to even consider direct logical contradiction within that belief
>> > system....exactly the same as religion.
>>
>> See? You are -very- predictable.
>>
>

> Predictable is good when using logic, thanks. Also, I do not claim any
> religion (other than my belief in logic and the results of applying it).

There ought to be a law of the Internet, similar to Godwin's law, stating
that in an online discussion, the more a poster boasts about being
logical, the less actual logic there is in their posts.

In your case, your so-called logic goes something like this:

1. We know inscribed clay tablets are artificially created.

2. ?????

3. Therefore abiogenesis is impossible.

In order to be truly logical, you'll need to fill in the gap, and explain
how the process that inscribes clay tablets is connected to the process
that creates life.

And in order to be truly right, not just logical, you'll have to go
further and demonstrate that this process actually works in the real
world.

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:13:55 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:

>
> Nice.
> Let’s reduce any manufacturing out of it.

> Assume that life originated by some process consistent with the laws
> of physics (without intelligence).
> Then why could a legible tablet not have also formed by the same or
> similar process?

> To say “because we recognize it to be made by humans” is circular

> because that is the point we are now trying to prove.

Because clay tablets and life have nothing in common. More specifically,
the unintelligent processes that created life have nothing in common with
whatever unintelligent processes would be needed to create inscribed clay
tablets.

If you think they do have something in common, then you should tell us
what!

[eridanus]

El jueves, 4 de abril de 2013 04:13:55 UTC+1, sourceco...@gmail.com escribi�:

Ok, you are making false analogies. Life is all around us and it is very
complex. Science cannot explain how it started not even how it works
other than a little lightly.
Then, if scientists say life started itself by an unknown process, they
are not telling any daring thing. They are telling almost nothing.
And in your saying you making the scientists to look stupid by implying
they say that "life stated by the laws of physics". By saying "the laws
of physics" it is implied that "scientist know the laws of physics" but
this is a lie. Scientist are confident that "they know some laws of
physics". We are very far from this.
Why have had so much success the book of Darwin? Because scientists do
not believe in the supernatural and they were rather pissed off by the
tyranny of Christian dogmas that impregnated most civil laws.

Then, you pretend you are using logic, and must people here fell into this
trap, because they "believe in logic" as a general artifact of human
intelligence. But other than on trivial matters, logic is mostly a blunt
instrument. That is how you feel so sure vomiting all this silly
statements here.

If you are waiting for a train in Victoria Station and your train does
not arrive, you can use some logic trying to discern why the train has
not arrived. The train could had been delayed by some reason, like an
accident, or simple some fault that made it to stop. But the perhaps
the reason was not that. You have your watch in a wrong time, or perhaps
you took wrong the time your train should arrive. Perhaps it was not
any accident, or any fault on the train, no even your watch had a wrong
time, but you were waiting for the train in a wrong platform and your
train had arrived and left some ten minutes ago. With this trivial
example I pretend to show how unreliable can be our logic even on trivial
considerations.

Then, the success of Darwin with his book on evolution was caused by
the failure of the religious people to show that "supernatural events
occur". Our knowledge comes from our experience of daily life, not
from abstract or incomprehensible speeches. If in daily life nobody
experiences "supernatural events" the people acquires the intimate
conviction that "supernatural events are a swindle". I said "intimate
conviction" because Christian rulers had some influence with political
powers to make your life miserable if you declared openly to be an
"incredulous". All those scientists that read Darwin's Origins of Species
felt comforted that someone had wrote such an extensive and detailed
book of what most of them had been thinking sometimes but with less
persistence and patience.

Then, the very concept that life aroused from nature by unknown natural
causes, simply means that we do not believe in the supernatural. If we
were believers in the supernatural, we would had not any qualm to accept
that "god did it all in seven days".
But if you never had witnessed any "supernatural event" your patience gets
taxed and you tire of believing in them. Because it only can be real,
what you experience on your daily life, when not drunk or under a nightmare.
Of course you can get the notion that some people here voices, and says
he is being persecuted, had visions or other sort of weir experiences. In modern times, some people says he had seen UFOs, or had been abducted by
extraterrestrials, but you do not accept those stories as real, till you
start to hear voices, or to watch UFOs during. I remind that in these days
some people affirm they has witnessed UFOs, but in Medieval times they do
no see any UFOs but demons or witches flying on a boom.
Then there must exist some psychological reason for some people elling
they hear voices, of watch UFOs, or demons, or witches doing weird things.

Logic is only valid for trivial matters. Even if they are inventing an
steam engine, or a jet motor for an airplane. Even a computer, or a complex
program to be run on a computer, it is possible for it had become after
a training some sort of trivial matter. To play very well the piano is not
a trivial matter, but after some ten fifteen thousand hours of practice.

Then after some thousand years of practice you can be good playing chess,
or tennis or whatever other people could do. You only need to acquire the
instrumentation to do it. The logic is a result of what you are doing daily.
There is some logic in the predator hunting, and logic in the prey fleeing
the predator. There is some logic in wars and in peace. There is some
logic in the conflicts, and some logic in people like you trying to put
scientist in the light that show them as a bunch of stupid fellows.

Eridanus

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 4 April 2013 09:13:27 UTC+1, solar penguin wrote:
> Have you ever seen the 1960s Doctor Who story "The Wheel In Space"?
> There's a marvellous scene where a character treats the real world
> like a logic or arithmetic problem, and the Doctor tells her:
> "Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority." It's a
> great line because it's true.

Someone in a Star Trek episode said "One does not thank logic".
Logic doesn't get any respect, not that I'd expect any from a madman
with a box that is bigger on the inside than out and that if you go
inside it, when you come out again it's liable to be a later time.

Logic would say: Doctor Who, why don't you go back in time to before
any of this happened, and stop it then?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 4 April 2013 04:19:31 UTC+1, sourceco...@gmail.com wrote:
> Predictable is good when using logic, thanks. Also, I do not claim any
> religion (other than my belief in logic and the results of applying it).

If you believe in a god, but you don't announce it, particularly when
people ask you, then the god is liable to be angry. Look at St. Peter.

If confessing your god gets you crucified then you still have to do it.
If you do it /here/ then you almost certainly won't be /literally/
crucified for it.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 4 April 2013 09:39:25 UTC+1, solar penguin wrote:
> Clay tablets and life have nothing in common. More specifically,

> the unintelligent processes that created life have nothing in
> common with whatever unintelligent processes would be needed to
> create inscribed clay tablets. If you think they do have
> something in common, then you should tell us what!

What about my chicken tablet? I posted a link to a picture.
Is anyone getting this when I send it?

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

It is a form of deductive reasoning.
Assume you are right, abiogenesis is true.
Then why would it not then why would this reasoning not apply to inscribed tablets as well? Why could not the characters be formed by some natural process?

I noticed you didn't answer. Try.

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

There are numerous inconsistencies in the Bible. I have listed one in another post (New Testament Book 1, chapter 1, verse 1). For this and other reasons I do not believe it. I do believe in evidence and basic simple logic like the kind I am trying to show in my posts here. These indicate that intelligence was required for life to exist. Label it how you will, my position is consistent.

[solar penguin]

I've seen it. I just didn't think it had much to do with whatever
sourcecodewizard was trying (and failing) to say in this discussion. But
I'll leave him to answer that, since I don't want to be accused of
putting words in his mouth.

[eridanus]

El jueves, 4 de abril de 2013 09:13:27 UTC+1, solar penguin escribi�:

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:57:16 -0700, sourcecodewizard wrote:
>

> > It�s not intended as an insult but more of the central point. Look at
> > this point from my view. (even though you don�t agree): I view logic

> > like an arithmetic problem.
>
> Have you ever seen the 1960s Doctor Who story "The Wheel In Space"?
>
> There's a marvellous scene where a character treats the real world like a
> logic or arithmetic problem, and the Doctor tells her: "Logic merely
> enables one to be wrong with authority."
> It's a great line because it's true.
>

A phrase deserving to be inscribed in bronze,

"Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority."

I loved it!

> > When people don�t agree it is because

> > someone is in error or the problem is not stated clearly.
>
> You're not doing a very good job of stating your case. That's true.
>
> > In my view my
> > argument is so simple that any rational, intelligent person should be
> > able to understand it as valid. If life was generated spontaneously
> > then why not an inscribed tablet? One sentence.
>
> Because life and clay tablets have nothing in common. It's up to you to
> demonstrate they do have something in common as part of stating your
> case. And you've repeatedly failed to do this.
>

He is presenting the variation on the worn out argument about the watch
and the watchmaker of Mr Paley. Then, presenting the cuneiform inscribed
clay tablets it looks a little different.
There are a lot of things more complex than an inscribed clay tablet, or a
book full of lies or worthless statements. But there not exists any analogy
between a living creature and a inscribed clay tablet. Even if the clay tablet
was the work of a human being.

If he wants to suggest that "god didit" he can tell it openly. We are only
going to ask him "show us this god". If he says god or his minions can
perform supernatural deeds, we can ask him, "let's watch any of these deeds."

He is too attached to "arguments from logic". I cannot blame him. A lot
of people use to do that. But very few are aware how unreliable is logic.
Even in a trivial problem of calculus we can easily be wrong. I am trying to
write in English correctly, but as I had to pay attention to the complexity
of what I am trying to say, some commit some errors of prosody and grammar
writing.
If logic would had been such a powerful tool to reason and solve problems,
as some people pretend there would had not remained any unsolved problem
to us in this planet. The bubble boom of construction had not occurred, the
crash of Wall Street would had not happened 1,929, not even the WWI or WWII
even had occurred. If logic would had been such a powerful tool, Germany
in during the times of economic depression would had solved their economic
problems and Hitler and the Nazis would had not rise to power. If logic were
such a powerful tool Hitler would had not started a war in Europe, and so on.

If logic would had been such a powerful tool we would had achieved the fusion
of hydrogen to solve our problems of energy, etc. If logic would had been such
a powerful tool, humans would had not had grown to become seven billion
people, etc.
If logic would had been such a powerful tool we would be foreseeing where
is going to send us the present course of humanity in this planet.

Eridanus

[alias Ernest Major]

I notice that you are continuing to ignore the answer, which is that we
have evidence that the inscribed tablets are the result of human
manufacture. You can't justifiably assume that just because cuneiform
tablets and life are both complex that we can ignore everything else
that we know about them.

BTW, natural process is an ambiguously defined term, in that natural can
constrast with artificial, supernatural, paranormal or unnatural.

>
> I noticed you didn't answer. Try.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[sourceco...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:36:59 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 4/2/13 4:18 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> > On Monday, April 1, 2013 8:24:30 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 4/1/13 5:50 PM, sourceco...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Suppose an archeologist unearths a clay tablet with clearly legible
>
> >>
>
> >>> inscriptions upon it. Such a tablet possesses properties that
>
> >>
>
> >>> indicate to all rational humans that intelligence was required to
>
> >>
>
> >>> have produced the markings.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> > What are these properties?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> No, you're wrong. It doesn't indicate that intelligence was required. It
>
> >>
>
> >> indicates that *human* intelligence (or something quite like it) was
>
> >>
>
> >> required, and that it was written in a human language. The signs are
>
> >>
>
> >> inscribed in the way that humans do it, and the symbols are repetitive
>
> >>
>
> >> but not too repetitive, in just the way that humans use to record speech.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Why could such a tablet not have been produced by the laws of physics alone (without intelligence)?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Because it doesn't fit our experience. No process we know of, other than
>
> >>
>
> >> human activity, makes repetitive but not too repetitive marks on clay,
>
> >>
>
> >> or makes tablets for that matter.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I hope you aren't trying to draw some lesson about evolution, because of
>
> >>
>
> >> course we know of a natural process that causes the sort of thing we
>
> >>
>
> >> observe in evolution, and we know that humans don't.
>
> >
>
> >
>

> > Not evolution, abiogenesis. It is a necessary semantic invented by
>
> > people who want to be technically accurate while simultaneously
>
> > marketing (in schools) the belief that science has it all figured
>
> > out, as opposed to religion where people just follow along without
>
> > questioning the wise tribal leaders.
>
>
>
> I challenge you to find any example of anyone claiming, in school or out
>
> of it, that science has it all figured out.
>
>
>
> I would also like to know what that has to do with your little
>
> questions. We don't know of a process that causes abiogenesis, but I
>
> think you're trying to turn lack of knowledge into intelligent design,
>
> which is perverse.


I wrote marketing, not claiming.
Part of the marketing was introducing the term abiogenesis. Just like when a division of a company is not doing well so the parent company disowns it by giving it a different name. Political semantics to keep Evolution unblemished. Note that most people have never heard of abiogenesis they think Evolution explains the origin of life. That’s because the marketers want to have it both ways: solid name recognition but they don’t have to admit that there is no evidence supporting the fundamental predication of the theory: The origin of life because, after all, that is abiogenesis not Evolution.

[eridanus]

You read the genesis? perhaps the true god was not Jehovah but Brahma.
Have you read the Vedas?

Other than the holy books, what reasons have you to believe in gods?
Life around us is a mystery, the cosmos is a mystery, even our sun is
a mystery, even if physicist pretend to understand how it works. But it
is not so easy to be 100% sure that our model of the sun is like we had
thought. Perhaps they are missing something, like we were missing
something before someone began to say that 84% of our galaxy is an
invisible stuff called "dark matter". Or even worse that dark energy
and dark matter accounts for 95% of all stuff in the universe.
I am not telling that this is wrong. I am simple asking "where was the
logic of cosmologists and theoretical physicists before telling this?

Then, you come here bragging about logic, and that you follow logic,
and I am asking you "what virtue has your logic that do not have the
logic of the other people like us?" It is your logic much better than
mine? Why?

Eridanus