Biology indicates character of what caused it
david ford
Set #1)
The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
in existence reflect the character of the
non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
animals' ancestors encountered.
Set #2)
Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
_The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
In this way the actual principles of construction of any
machine now in existence reflect the character of the
person who made it, his intellectual and technological
level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
in front of him.
Set #3)
The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
front of it.
Set #4)
_The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
God has created, people have always been able to see
what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
nobody has a good excuse.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
The idiot making them.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
johac
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
So where is you evidence for a god?
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
- Question authority. Now more than ever. -
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
Well, you may need help with your awkward language use.
>Set #1)
>The principles of construction of the plants and animals
Define/explain "principles of construction" as it is
used here.
now
>in existence reflect the character
Explain "character" as used here.
of the
>non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes
"processes" is sufficient.
that made
>them, the blindwatchmaking processes'
Evolutionary processes. This "blindwatchmaking" stuff makes
your posts nearly unreadable.
non-existent
>intellectual and technological level,
Do you think the natural world needs a "technological level"
the blindwatchmaking
>processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
>processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
>animals' ancestors encountered.
Ugh. They should bring back corporal punishment for
writing sentences like that. What on earth are you
trying to say? That we can study organisms and see
that they've evolved? We can and do. We see that they
look evolved by stepwise gradual common descent,
trial-and-error without planning ahead and without
mixing-and matching among designs..
>
>Set #2)
>Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
>_The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
>Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
This was translated from Russian. What's your excuse?
>Set #3)
>The principles of construction
What principles of construction? How were they constructed?
of the plants and animals now
>in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
>made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
>level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
>front of it.
If plants and animals [why ignore fungi and bacteria, etc?]
were manufactured, then yes, we should be able to study them
and learn something about their manufacturer and his methods.
Is that all? You have half a point there. Why don't "intelligent
design" creationists ever seem to propose to study organisms in
order to reach new conclusions about the designer[s] and his
[their] methods and goals?
["Beetles!" "It's all about the beetles!"]
>Set #4)
>_The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
>Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth.
Sounds like maybe he's upset with creationists?
But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
By taking a long and thoughtful look at "the creation", evolutionary
scientists have indeed been able to see quite a few things that
creationists can't or won't see.
cheers
Steven J.
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
> Set #1)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
> animals' ancestors encountered.
>
Scientists may, on occasion, in response to, e.g. demands that they consider
the evidence for "intelligent design," remark that they don't see any such
evidence. But they do not, generally, describe their theories in terms of a
laundry list (even a short one) of causes that are *not* believed to have
played a role in producing a phenomenon. That is reserved for creationists,
who don't have a mechanism, or even a description of the purposes, methods,
and/or design philosophy of the proposed Designer which evidence could
support or contradict. The scientists are concerned, more often, with
demonstrating how actually observed mechanisms can explain actually observed
data.
If you have some hypothesis that the origin of biological complexity and
diversity tends towards some particular aim, or requires some particular
technology, feel free to state hypotheses about these aims and technological
capabilities, and the evidence you see supporting them.
>
> Set #2)
> Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
>
I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this statement.
>
> Set #3)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
> made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
> level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
> front of it.
>
Really? What do they say about those aims, the technological level of that
intelligence, and its methods of solving problems -- indeed, its notions of
what constitute a problem that needs solving?
>
> Set #4)
> _The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
> Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
>
A rather interpretative translation, I think. Yet surely Paul's point is
not the mechanisms by which biological diversity and complexity developed,
but how people ought to live. "Eternal power and the mystery of his divine
being" is not "separate creation and the inadequacy of 'blind-watchmaking.'"
>
-- Steven J.
PeteM
>What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
>Set #1)
>The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
>in existence reflect the character of the
>non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
>them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
>intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
>processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
>processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
>animals' ancestors encountered.
Nothing, if I understand it correctly.
>
>Set #2)
>Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
>_The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
>Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
Nothing, provided you recognise that the author was talking about
machines constructed by people.
>
>Set #3)
>The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
>in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
>made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
>level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
>front of it.
The problem with this is that it assumes that plants and animals were
designed by an "intelligence". People who do not accept that assumption
will therefore disagree with it, and you will have to find evidence to
present in its favour.
>
>Set #4)
>_The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
>Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
>
Nothing wrong with this. Paul was entitled to his opinion, just as
everyone else is. But he was writing 1,930-odd years ago. People today,
who have access to more observational evidence than he did, may wish to
disagree with him.
--
PeteM
Liz
<sjt195...@nts.link.net.INVALID> in news message
<10076ar...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
>news:b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com...
>> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>>
>> Set #1)
>> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
>> in existence reflect the character of the
>> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
>> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
>> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
>> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
>> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
>> animals' ancestors encountered.
>>
>This is an English-language group, and that isn't English?
Thank you. For a moment, I thought I had woken up and lost my ability
to parse sentences overnight.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
Thomas H. Faller
david ford wrote:
>
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
> Set #1)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
> animals' ancestors encountered.
Anthromorphism. Processes not directed by intelligence can not
be said to have character, aims or goals. You could tell how these
processes operate, but could not discern anything about the "mind"
of a mindless process. That's like noting the wind is caused by
adjacent high and low pressure zones and trying to investigate the
"goals" or "attitude" of these air masses.
>
> Set #2)
> Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
>
The quote is incomplete, and the process being referred to is
missing. Both the original edition and its retranslation are
over half-a-century old, and this gives the impression that the
quotation is not being chosen for its applicability to present
issues, but because it can be "quote-mined" to appear to support
a particular position.
If applied to a machine, the quotation appears to make sense and be
consistant. Designed machines generally reflect the design methods
of a designer. Machines designed by algorithm do not necessarily
follow this principle, since the algorithm can remove traces of
the design process.
> Set #3)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
> made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
> level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
> front of it.
Wishful thinking. Study of the principles of construction of existing
and past plants and animals does not suggest a natural designer
(one working within the bounds of natural laws), and if a super-
natural designer is posited, no conclusions about the motives of
the designer are possible, since without means to test such designer,
"hidden" motives are always possible. Thus, one could posit motives
of incredible cruelty on such designer's part, due to study of some
natural process, say disease or parasitism, but it could also be
argued that "hidden" motives of love or necessity are acting.
Therefore, the statement #3 is not valid for either case.
>
> Set #4)
> _The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
> Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
Invalid for several reasons: if people are able to discern consistant
characteristics about an ineffable being, there should be consistancy
in their descriptions and their attitude towards such a being. This
has not been the case, especially for the Judeo-Chrisian entity
referred to above. As a statement of real techniques, looking at
the world has the worst track record of getting consistant deductions
about its origin and causes. As a spritual guide, it asks you to
consider the real world and deduce two supernatural qualities about
it. This is much like a game of Twenty Questions played in a foreign
language. Finally, it places the blame for not getting the "right"
answer on the shoulders of the questioner instead of the "designer".
This begs the question of why the designer couldn't make his presence
more clear, and his motives for not doing so.
Tom Faller
neepy
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
> Set #1)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
> animals' ancestors encountered.
What's wrong: The use of the term "character"... people have
"characters" (distinct personalities) and different people's
"characters" can be compared. It makes no sense to claim that a
biological process has a "character".
>
> Set #2)
> Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
There is nothing wrong with this... N.B. the use of "character" here
refers to a person who invents or makes something.
> Set #3)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
> made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
> level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
> front of it.
What's wrong: The ridiculous assumption that plants and animals are
made by people with characters.
> Set #4)
> _The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
> Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
What's wrong: It's utterly meaningless. The person who wrote this
understood nothing about the nature of the world he lived in. That's
excusable in someone living 2000 years ago... but not today in a
country that claims to be interested in having well-educated citizens.
Steve Watson
You mean the three-point sermon, followed by the altar call? Nothing
wrong with that as such, though it supports the impression that you're
not here to discuss; only to preach. Feel free to prove me wrong by
responding in a meaningful way to anyone on the thread (OK, you can
ignore Lenny if you like).
> Set #1)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
> animals' ancestors encountered.
#1 is long-winded and obfuscated, and continues your obsession with
the term "blindwatchmaking" as if it meant something.
> Set #2)
> Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
#1 (despite its faults) and #2 together basically just say that, by
studying an object we can learn a lot about the processes that brought
it into being. As it happens, comparing organisms against machines of
known human construction suggests that their respective design and
construction processes resemble each other very little.
> Set #3)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
> made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
> level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
> front of it.
What is this supposed to be? A conclusion drawn from #1 and #2? It's
just a mish-mash of the two. FWIW, the "character" reflected by the
"principles of construction of the plants and animals now in
existence" is that whatever made them (intelligent or otherwise) was
at best quirky and inconsistent.
And now comes the altar call (cue the organist to start in on "Just As
I Am"):
> Set #4)
> _The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
> Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
...which relates to the foregoing in what way? #1,2,3 are supposed to
make us all realize how stupid we've been for not seeing the Hand Of
God in Nature, and this is where we fall on our knees in repentance?
Could you please be bothered to construct an actual argument here?
--Steve
Nathan Baum
> What, if anything, is wrong with the following 4 sets of claims?:
>
> Set #1)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the
> non-intelligence-directed-at-any-level processes that made
> them, the blindwatchmaking processes' non-existent
> intellectual and technological level, the blindwatchmaking
> processes' non-existent aims, and the blindwatchmaking
> processes' methods of solving the problems plants' and
> animals' ancestors encountered.
The blind watchmaker doesn't have 'methods of solving' problems. Other than
that, it's spot on.
> Set #2)
> Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> in front of him.
That's correct, for machines that have an intelligent creator.
> Set #3)
> The principles of construction of the plants and animals now
> in existence reflect the character of the intelligence(s) who
> made them, the intelligence's intellectual and technological
> level, its aims, and its methods of solving the problems in
> front of it.
That's correct, for plants and animals that have intelligent creators.
> Set #4)
> _The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
> Language_ (1993, 2002), Romans 1:18 on:
> But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human
> mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as
> people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic
> reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and
> there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what
> God has created, people have always been able to see
> what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for
> instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So
> nobody has a good excuse.
This passage makes several claims. To which do you refer?
david ford
> > Set #2)
> > Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> > _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> > Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> > In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> > machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> > person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> > level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> > in front of him.
I made a mistake. The correct citation is:
Oparin, A.I. 1962. _Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development_ (New
York: Academic Press Inc., Publishers), translated from the Russian by
Ann Synge, 207pp., a paragraph on 26.
AC
david ford
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > In article <b1c67abe.04011...@posting.google.com>,
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> >
> >> > Set #2)
> >> > Oparin, A.I. 1938 English edition, 1936 Russian edition.
> >> > _The Origin of Life_, translated by Sergius Morgulis (USA:
> >> > Dover Publications, Inc., in 1953), 270pp. A paragraph on 26:
> >> > In this way the actual principles of construction of any
> >> > machine now in existence reflect the character of the
> >> > person who made it, his intellectual and technological
> >> > level, his aims and his methods of solving the problems
> >> > in front of him.
> >
> > I made a mistake. The correct citation is:
> > Oparin, A.I. 1962. _Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development_ (New
> > York: Academic Press Inc., Publishers), translated from the Russian by
> > Ann Synge, 207pp., a paragraph on 26.
>
> You also neglected to explain the point.
One point of making the correction was to make me feel
better. Confession is good for the soul.
1982 Richard Morris, 1992 Antony Flew
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
AC
I'm not talking about the correction. I'm talking about the point of the
quotation. Please explain, but if it's just going to be more
self-referential URLs, don't bother.