A Brick in the Foundation of ToC
zoe_althrop
of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
any hidden problems remaining.
And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
okay, the foundation:
The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
conscious, intelligent thought.
And the first brick:
CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
force.
OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
code.
Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
stop building beyond a certain point."
The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
----
zoe
Leonardo Dasso
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
I propose this for POTM, Chez Watt, Post of the Millenium, Masterpiece
Of All Times, Gold Standard, and Ultimate Wisdom Gem.
regards
leo
Bill Felton
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
Minor but significant correction -- you are *claiming* to place a theory of
creation in front of us. Whether or not it satisfies the criteria of theory
or
not is a truth condition for your claim.
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
Missing premise, and a crucial one as we shall shortly see:
Suppressed premise: There are objects which are designed and objects
which are not designed. The proposed standard is the basis by which
we may differentiate these adequately and correctly.
[Note, there's another suppressed premise here, or set of suppressed
premises. You need to justify the implied assertion that there exists a
single
set of identifying factors that apply to all objects created as a result of
conscious, intelligent thought and only to those objects. It may be that
there is no such singular set, but rather what Wittgenstein called a
'family resemblance'. Or many other possibilities.]
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
You see what the existence of the suppress premise costs your argument?
If things move or stop only if acted upon by another force, we have to find
at least one thing which moves or stops without the action of another force.
Otherwise, we have no distinction to draw, and no evidentiary basis for
claiming design.
So how are we to identify 'arbitrary decision making'? What shall count?
That's the core of your argument here, I believe. And you've provided
nothing
to answer the question, which you must.
[One does not need to resort to claims of 'arbitrary decision making by an
intelligent being' in order to claim that it is natural for things which are
"ordinarily" not found together might nonetheless sometimes be found
together without the agency of an intelligence of any sort. Examples
abound,
and are considered natural. It appears you must show that they are
'unnatural'
in the sense of requiring an intelligent agency in order to proceed -- or
show that
there are at least some cases of things "not normally found together" being
found together that have no other possible explanation whatsoever other than
conscious intervention of an intelligent agency.]
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
What makes something 'arbitrary'? It seems this term only makes sense in
the realm of choice, ie, outside of 'unconscious physical nature'. One may
well assert that there is nothing whatever 'arbitrary' about the behavior of
atoms and molecules. How would you demonstrate otherwise? Unless you
can, it seems unlikely you can demonstrate design in nature.
And regardless, you seem to toss the term 'arbitrary' around quite a lot;
what
exactly do you mean by it? You are perilously close to assuming your
conclusion,
given that most of us consider 'arbitrary' to describe only those things
which
are the result of conscious acts...
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do you
mean?
"Kind" is not, and needs to be, a well-defined term.
And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
'natural',
defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
As if that were the only possible falsification?
This is far too much like the old, oft-refuted and oft- (and deservedly-)
ridiculed
'747 in a hurricane' "argument".
The existence [note: not the concept] of arbitrary decision making in the
natural world must be demonstrated to exist. In order to do that,
'arbitrary'
needs to be precisely and unequivocally defined. 'Decision making'
likewise.
Then exemplary cases must be presented and withstand alternative, simpler,
explanations.
And note that an explanation proceeds to join the less well understood to
the
better understood; appeals to 'God did it' do not, ever, count as
explanatory
[or at least not without a vast amount of preparatory work, which has yet to
be
done].
cheers,
Bill
Caerbannog
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
>
And don't forget about the Thermos bottle as further evidence
of an "external intelligence". It keeps hot things hot, and cold
things cold. Without divine guidance, how could it tell the
difference between hot and cold?
--
To reply by mail, nuke the 'bago.
Boikat
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
>
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
>
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
How do you decide what is or is not arbitrary for what is or is not pure
chance?
In other words, how would you be able to decide if a flipped coin landed
"tales" randomly or due to an arbitrary decision made by the coin flipping
fairy?
>
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
>
How does that lead to the conclusion of external decision making?
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
>
The laws of inertia do not apply in the case of genetics.
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
How about the simple fact that a lot of the chromosomes don't match up?
>
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
"Arbitrary decision making" is meaningless. How do you distinguish between
"arbitrary *decision* making (Implying a "mind" that is making arbitrary
decisions", and a naturally occuring random event?
Your "brick" is made out of moist sand.
Boikat
>
> ----
> zoe
>
John Pieper
>Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my theory
>of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
>concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
>But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
>would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
>any hidden problems remaining.
>
>And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
>be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
>insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
>okay, the foundation:
>
>The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
>identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
>conscious, intelligent thought.
>
>And the first brick:
>
>CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
>indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
>behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
>that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>
>The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
>because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>force.
The law of inertia applies only to the motion of matter. And if we
observe matter whose motion starts or stops in an apparently arbitrary
way, it means only that we have not identified the force that caused
the change in motion. When we investigate, we find that the force
arises because of the interaction of the matter with other matter
or with energy, and is completely explained by the known interactions.
Any inference of creativity has to be pushed back at least another
step in the chain.
>OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
>code.
Which, of course, have nothing to do with inertia. But similarly to the
case of matter in motion, the way the chemical activity in the cell
changes as a result of a "stop" codon being encountered (assuming this
is what you are talking about) is completely explainable in terms
of known chemical kinetics.
You may ask, why is that stop codon there in the first place? Isn't
it arbitrary? No, because the gene it appears in was replicated from
another--again, explainable by known chemical processes.
So, then (going back yet another step) how did that codon happen to
take its place originally in the sequence of that gene that is replicated
from generation to generation?
One possible answer is, it came about as a result of imperfect copying
that substituted it for a previous codon at that location. In other
words, it could be the result of a point mutation. These have been
observed.
>
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
>cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
>kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
>stop building beyond a certain point."
This does not follow from your criterion. In fact, it does not follow
from anything you've said thus far. It's an assertion, nothing more.
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
>will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
>floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
>human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
>able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
>of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
So you are really asking, why does the genetic code exist at all?
This has nothing to do with any criteria about "arbitrary decision-
making". And your proposed test is useless unless it is established
that the proposed naturalistic explanation of the code's origin is
that it just came together after the molecules sat around in some
brine for a few hours. (Hint: it's not.)
--
John Pieper |"Politics and religion are obsolete; the time has come
jb...@mchsi.com | for science and spirituality."--Jawaharlal Nehru
|
Eric Rowley
> Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my
> theory of creation,
You missed at least 2!
Here's mine again.
From: muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
<snip>
> I want to lay the foundation first. If we cannot agree on the
> foundation, then I'm just talking to myself, and I might as well
> form my theory away from T.O. I would rather not do that, because
> you posters give good feedback for the most part.
<snip>
> creativity is defined here as mind imposed on matter to achieve a
> specific goal. The goal must be beyond instinct, and should
> reflect the process of purposeful thought.
That sounds ok as a definition but I don't think that helps us
recognize it.
<snip>
> If an artificial object is observed to self-assemble, without an
> originating cause,
Would it really be artificial in that case?
> then human creators are a fallacy.
I presume you mean human creation of that particular object?
Human creators _have_ been observed you know.
> And if the universe is observed to self-assemble,
We're hardly likely to observe the "assembly" (self or otherwise)
of the universe as a whole at this late date are we?
It's already happened after all.
>without an originating cause, then a Creator is a fallacy.
> I'm betting that your automatic response is going to be, "And we
> do not observe the originating cause for the universe today,
> therefore..."
That's beside the point, we aren't observing the origin of the
universe either.
> But hold it! Not so fast. The originating cause has been observed
> and reported on.
Says you!
> Such a claim demands investigation. Especially
> as there are indeed signs of such an originating cause in the
> systems of nature.
That is debatable.
<snip>
> Creativity on the natural level shows similar hallmarks:
> CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
That seems a somewhat arbitrary criterion to me. :-)
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers
> between kinds or families of species, due to instructions from
> the gene to stop building beyond a certain point."
Nothing like that has been found.
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and
> left floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if,
> without human intervention, it is observed that the four
> bases,C,G,T,A, are able to re-form into triplet codes that spell
> out specific sequences of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
What do you mean by "specific"?
Prespecified? If so why would we expect that?
Wouldn't any old sequence that codes for a protein do?
> Example B: The language of the genetic code contains instructions
> for each polypeptide chain to reproduce exact copies of itself,
> no more, no less.
Nonsense!
I don't think there are any polypeptides in modern cells that
copy themselves. The DNA is copied, not exactly, but well enough.
> DNA replication, based on instructions for exact duplication,
> rules out mutations as the means of propagating life.
This doesn't make much sense, obviously reproduction is the means
of propagating life.
Mutations (together with natural selection) are the means of
change.
> Mutations are the exception,
Depends on how you count, according to "The cartoon guide to
Genetics" <1983 Larry Gonick and Mark Wheelis> (it's pretty good
even if it is a bit old) one gene in 100,000 is mutated, thats
two new mutations per person!
>not the rule, and life is propagated through abundance not paucity.
See above.
> Prediction: Genome mapping will reveal that the genetic code
> instructs for boundaries to species or "kinds".
> The hypothesis wlll be falsified if it can be demonstrated that a
> bacterium's single chromosome can instruct to replicate for a
> higher number of chromosomes than its original single strand, and
> still survive and be fertile for indefinite generations, while no
> longer functioning as a bacterium, and while functioning as a
> different life form.
> Example C: Family lines do speciate but eventually come to an
> end.
If the linage goes extinct it does.
Otherwise there is no evidence of any limits.
> They do not morph into an entirely new family line from a
> common ancestor.
That makes no sense.
> If evolving across family lines were to occur,
This makes no sense either,
nobody says that linages evolve across existing family borders!
What is thought to happen is that the linages of decendents of
a common ancestor evolve in different ways ("directions") and when
they are different enough along come the zoologists and discover
them and catalog them and since they are so different they decide
to put them in different families.
> life forms would not be classifiable in tree or bush form, but
> would resemble a long, wandering single vine with leaves of
> speciation along the single chain.
Ridiculus!
Your wierd missunderstanding has nothing to do with the theory
of evolution or of common descent.
> Prediction: It will be discovered that the chimp and the human
> are not of the same family, but of two entirely different orders
> --orders as distinct as that of the mouse and the human. The 99
> percent similarity that is now misinterpreted to mean descent
> from the same ancestor
It's not just the level of similarity that leads to that conclusion,
it's the pattern of shared similarities AND differences.
But that has been explained to you many times before, no doubt you
will be as unable to understand why that is important this time
as you have been up to now.
>will be understood to be an uncrossable
> barrier due to a 1 percent difference that is so critical that
> the two kinds are clearly from different family lines. For
> example:
On the contrary,
as I understand it most of the differances have been shown to
be quite compatible with the idea that they are caused by simple
mutations.
> Compare sentence 1: Item A is closely related to Item B.
> and sentence 2: Item A is not closely related to Item B.
> Two sentences, 99 percent similar, but that single word "not" is
> the critical 1 percent difference.
That's not a very relevant example, the genome doesn't have a
meaning in the semantic sense.
Anyway, there is nothing to prevent sentence 1: from mutating
to sentence 2:
> Similarly, it is predicted
> that the 1 percent difference between chimp and human contains
> critical instructions in that 1 percent of DNA that puts man and
> chimps into separate families or kinds, with no common ancestor.
Wishful thinking!
> (At this point, I would make a change to my original post (thanks
> to insights from Walter ReMine's thread), and say that because
> the Creator has found joy in creating such a vast variety of
> kinds, it is an unwieldy, even impossible task to try to classify
> them except in the broadest of categories. This would be one
> piece of evidence for creativity
Or for evolution,
and evolution fits better with the observation of extinct "kinds"
which fit in between the current "kinds".
>--the proliferation of ideas and
> types and forms, yet all pulled together by a certain theme,
> plan, or mechanism.
What theme, plan and mechanism do you see in nature?
And why do you think your creator is a better explaination
then evolution?
Evolution _does_ provide a common mechanism
and your perceived plan and theme could be the result of a
common origin and similar selection presures.
> It is like an oil painting, in which the
> artist delighted in every imaginable color, shade, nuance, stroke
> so that it is difficult to classify the colors except in the
> broadest terms of the primary colors, and yet a theme runs
> through the whole, creating one glorious canvas worth thousands
> of dollars.)
> The hypothesis will be falsified if it is determined that
> speciation occurs without boundaries and limits, so that there
> occurs a general blend or concoction of a Heinz-variety soup of
> evolved life forms,
Why do you think that should be the result?
> monstrosities in light of what we are
> accustomed to seeing.
Some of the stuff we _do_ see is pretty monstrous! :-)
> Example D: Neurons that consist of axons, dendrites and synapses
> are emulated by human processing elements --axons and dendrites
> being the equivalent of wires; synapses being imitated by
> the use of resistors with weighted values.
So what?
> Prediction: It will be acknowledged that there is a direct
> connection between thoughts and the genetic code. It will be seen
> that thoughts release chemicals that affect the on-off sequences
> of the triplet coding, so as to issue new instructions for
> replication of protein that can cause changes in hereditary
> traits...up to a point. In lower life forms, it is already noted
> that environmental changes have a similar effect on genetic
> change --commonly called evolution or adaptation.
Hardly likely.
> The hypothesis will be falsified if it can be demonstrated that
> neural networks can be dismantled and then thrown together at
> random, and they can self re-assemble into a functioning neural
> network.
That doesn't seem like a very realistic request.
> Example E: The presence of boundaries, sharp arbitrary divisions
> in the atmosphere; i.e., tropopause, stratopause, mesopause.
> Example E will be discarded as support for the hypothesis if it
> is observed that the normal behavior of gases is that of
> self-layering, with the tendency to form distinct divisions
> between layers so that equilibirum does not occur.
Another example of a total missunderstanding that has been
corrected time after time to no avail!
> CRITERION 2: Evidence of an arbitrary blueprint as seen in the
> genetic code, the language of the species. There are arbitrary,
> complete instructions for development which are resident in the
> genome, derived (in the human) from some 5 billion hieroglyphics
> made up from an alphabet of four nitrogenous bases --adenine,
> thymine, cytosine, and guanine (uracil for RNA), variously
> combined in triplet codes.
So?
Any evidence that all that couldn't have developed naturaly?
I think you are overstating the similarities with human
design.
> The hypothesis will be falsified if it is determined, after
> comparative genome mapping is completed,
Why comparative mapping?
Any similarities are likely to be due to commen descent.
> that the genetic code is
> chaotic,
Why chaotic?
>random in its instructions, unpredictable.
Why?
Surely the presures of natural selection could have imposed
regularities and predictability.
> CRITERION 3: Raw materials as seen in the atom reduced to its
> most basic components --strings maybe? --vibrating at varying
> frequencies, each wave-per-unit-of-time a template of the
> properties of matter that are inherent to each frequency.
What is that supposed to mean?
And how is it relevant?
<snip>
> CRITERION 4: The mechanism for creation is instant organization
> of raw materials.
Huh?
> E=MC^2 is creation reversed. M=E/C^2 is creation completed,
Utter nonsense,
that doesn't mean anything!
Besides E=MC^2 is exactly the same thing as M=E/C^2,
just rearanged!
> evidenced in the intelligent, thoughtful
> organization and arrangement of particles that are held together
> by electromagnetic forces or bonds.
Any actual evidence for intelligence or thought in the above?
> Prediction: Superstrings, or something equivalent, will be the
> unifying theory between quantum mechanics and general and special
> relativity. It will be recognized that there is a non-human
> Creator behind the modus operandi of nature, who has a Mind that
> blazes at an incomprehensible speed of N^n gigahertz....
You're making a lot of predictions whose eventual (unlikely)
fulfillment would seem to be very far off.
Also most of your suggested refutations (apart from a couple
that have already come to pass) are pretty unrealistic.
How about something we can look at now?
> The hypothesis will be falsified if it is observed that raw
> energy, photons, lightwaves, without human intervention,
> spontaneously converts to atomic arrangements that form mass.
AIUI, that is what is understood to have happened just after the
big bang.
> CRITERION 5: A certain style of the Creator, seen in the
> repetitive use of certain mechanisms; i.e., repeated use of the
> genetic code in all life forms,
Also explained by common descent!
> use of opposites, spin, symbiosis, circles, mathematics,
How is that better explained by a creator then natural forces?
> "breath of life,"
What is that supposed to mean?
> superfluous beauty unnecessary to the basic functions of life.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> Prediction: A signature of nature's Creator will be found after
> searching the "fine print" of life. The Bible is that fine print.
Huh? How is the Bible the "fine print" of life?
The Bible is the story of God, any mention of God in the
Bible is only to be expected and proves nothing about the
supposed creation of nature.
Or what do you mean by God's "signature"?
Surely you aren't talking about a signed copy?
> The Creator will again reveal Himself to humans, as He has done
> repeatedly in the past, and as testified to by eyewitnesses.
You hope.
But until then what reason can you give us for believing in him?
> The hypothesis will be falsified if the above mechanisms of
> construction can be shown to occur as a result of chance,
> unpredictability, unreliability, inconsistency, lack of
> information.
If you add the consistant effect of the forces of nature,
I believe some of them have.
> If the objection is raised that it is impossible to have billions
> of years or the entire universe at our disposal as a lab in which
> to falsifiy the above criteria, then this objection has to be
> applied to the observation of macro-evolution.
Not really, there's a difference between absolute proof/disproof
and showing that something is a reasonable explanation
(or even the only reasonable explanation).
> If extrapolation is in order for macro-evolution, then it is
>acceptable for creation.
Certainly, show me a god creating something small ex nihilo and
I'll accept the reasonableness of extrapolation to the creation
of the universe.
That's really what we're doing with micro/macro evolution,
we have a observed mechanism with observed effects and no real
reason to assume any arbitrary limits to the accumulated
effect of repeated application of the mechanism.
> In order to further falsify the above criteria, a head start will
> be given by using materials that are at a stage that has already
> bridged the gap of millions of years worth of formation (from an
> evolutionary perspective).
Several steps along the way have been demonstrated.
Starting with the Miller/Urey Experiment,
followed by reports of self replicating molecules
and artificial cell like thingies.
But to get anything that would convince you would probably still
take tons and tons of raw material and hundreds of years.
<snip a lot of highly confused biology>
Eric
--
<my domain is rixtele>
Stephen Poley
wrote:
>Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my theory
>of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
"Unsatisfactory" as in "I didn't like them" or in some more substantial
sense?
>concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
>But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
>would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
>any hidden problems remaining.
>
>And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
>be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
>insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
Below you state that you are only placing the "first brick". So is this
your (complete) theory, or just a brick? If the latter, is it not fair
to say that there is no theory (yet)?
>okay, the foundation:
>
>The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
>identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
>conscious, intelligent thought.
Given that we only have evidence of one species capable of conscious,
intelligent thought (which counts for present purposes - no point in
quibbling about chimps here) how do you propose to identify "ALL objects
created as a result of conscious, intelligent thought"?
Come to that - how do you propose to identify "conscious intelligent
thought" in an arbitrary lifeform?
>And the first brick:
>
>CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
>indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
>behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
>that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
Er ... what happened to the "identifying factors"? Don't we first need
to state what they actually are? Or is "criterion" the same as
"identifying factors"? And if so, why change the name?
You appear to be stating that "arbitrary stop/start sequences" and
"juxtaposition of parts that normally would not be found together if
left on their own" are the sole evidence of "arbitrary decision making".
Is that right? If so, how have you determined this? What evidence do you
anticipate for non-arbitrary decision making? What indeed is the
difference between arbitrary and non-arbitrary decision making?
Looking out of my window, I see a Buddleia, an Austrian Pine, and a
Silver Birch. How do I determine whether these would normally be found
together if left on their own? Did they arrive there by means of
conscious intelligent thought or not?
>The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
>because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>force.
Erm ... so "Intelligent Grappling" is part of your theory? If so, I
really think you should have referenced Elf's post.
<snip rest ... may get back to it later after I've done some urgent
maintenance work ... >
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
Alan Wright
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
The other posters have adequately shown the many layers of flaws
in your argument, but I want to correct one misconception you seem
to have here.
A "prediction", in the scientific sense, does not mean making some
self-fulfilling prophecy about some future events. Rather, it means
specification of the expected outcome of an experiment which can
be conducted now or in some reasonable timeframe, and includes
an explanation of how the expected outcome would arise in light
of the theory.
Alan
Joe Cummings
wrote:
>Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my theory
>of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
>concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
I wouldn't think so, Zoė.
So far, you haven't made a satisfactory distinction btween
"created objects" and other objects. All you've attempted so far is
to distinguish between "created objects" and "objects ultimately
created by God in his role as Creator of All."
To the true believer, all things are created.
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
--
"If a probable solution, consistent with the ordinary
course of nature, can be found, we must not invoke
an abnormal act of Creative Power."
W.Thompson (aka Lord Kelvin)
Frank J
Did you run this by Behe and Dembski (who have there own design
criteria)? If it's good enough they may offer you a position at the
Discovery Institute, where you can try to convince THEM of "young
life."
Andy Groves
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
Zoe, Zoe, Zoe..... perhaps an alternative explanation is that rest of
the posters and the two "unsatisfactory" ones were actually in
agreement as to the quality of the word salad that you dished up last
time?
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
>
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
What you are, in effect, saying is that something is created if it
looks like something that humans created. The only conscious,
intelligent thought we know about is human thought. But it is formally
possible that there are many other kinds of intelligence of which we
presently know nothing, whose thought is very different from ours.
Do you agree that your "foundation" above is saying that something is
considered created if it looks like something that humans have
created?
If so, then we can rule out all life from the word go. Because humans
cannot create living things. We can modify them, we can breed them
artificially but we cannot create living things. At least not yet.
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
This is confused word salad again. What do you mean by "arbitrary
stop/start sequences"? Are you implying that the molecular apparatus
of protein translation is designed because DNA/RNA sequences exist
that indicate where transcription starts or translation ends?
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
>
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
Oh dear... you were suggesting that.
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
This is gibberish. Can you exaplin what you mean simply? What do you
mean by "instructions from the gene to stop building beyond a certain
point". Do you mean that genes have transcriptional start sites and
translational stop codons? Or do you mean that there is something
inherent to a gene that prebvents it mutating beyond a certain point?
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
What you are basically saying is that to falsify your hypothesis, you
require a primordial soup to turn into a system of proteins and
nucleotides that will form a genetic code.
How long are you going to allow for this experiment to run before you
say it hasn't worked?
Andy
Mark VandeWettering
> Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my theory
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
Well, we agree. I think the foundation for your theory of creation
is as solid as I thought as well.
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
Why not just concentrate on the obvious, unhidden problems?
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
You are getting ahead of yourself.
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
Even if you could enumerate features which are common to all created
objects, to be truly helpful you would have to show that these
features are NOT found in objects which aren't the result of
conscious, intelligent thought.
A slightly different problem is defining what you mean by conscious,
intellgient thought.
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
Could this criterion be objectively determined? What behavior is
"instinctual"? What parts would normally not be found together if
left on their own?
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
*blink blink* Inertia is a property of matter. Matter which has never
come in contact with "external decision making" still exhibits inertia.
If you think that ALL matter has come into contact with external decision
making, you need to provide some independent evidence, otherwise this
is merely begging the question.
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
>
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
It is unclear to me how start/stop sequences in the genome provide
"uncrossable barriers between kinds or families of species". Genome
mapping to date has illustrated the opposite of the effect that you
describe: namely that all organisms appear to be linked in a tree going
backward in time literally to the beginning of life on the planet.
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
Why do you think that DNA should form spontaneously in the cell?
But if your saying that your theory of creation would be falsified by a
working theory of abiogenesis, then I'd agree.
Mark
> ----
> zoe
Kat
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
>
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
>
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
Parts of what? What conditions are normal? Left on their own in the
void of space, in a laboratory, on the African Savana?
A lion and a gazelle are "normally" not "parts" of the African
ecosystem that would be "found together" except to have one digesting
the other. But no doubt you heard the curious case of a lioness who
adopted a gazelle-- at least I remember it as being a gazelle, don't
shoot me if it was an antelope or one of the endless number of horned
and hooved animals that roam the Savana. Was that a conscious mental
choice on the part of the lion? It was definitely over all
instinctual behavior we know lions exibit. So the gazelle was created
by an intellegence (it wasn't where it should be with its herd, but
rather in a lion's care) and the lion is the creator, on account of
making a choice outside what instinct would dictate.
God is a cat. I'm not surprised.
R. Baldwin
theory
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
>
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let
it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue
to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
>
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of
parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference between
an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have had
the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side of
a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling rock.
This is an intentionally trivial example to show that both natural and
arbitrary stop/start sequences exist. So the problem is, how do we
tell them apart?
The second problem is that surprising juxtaposition of parts happens
in the natural world all the time. They are surprising only when we do
not understand the process that caused the juxtaposition, or when the
process is understood but believed to be very rare. For example, a
huge granite boulder sitting on top of an extensive field of loess far
from any granitic source would, at first glance, seem a juxtaposition
of parts that normally would not be found together if left on their
own. But if you knew that the failure of an ice dam holding back a
glacial lake could discharge huge icebergs bearing such boulders
across the landscape, you would then have a natural explanation for
how the juxtaposition occured.
>
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
>
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
genetic
> code.
Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
zoe_althrop
<bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
zoe_althrop wrote:
>> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
>> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
>> conscious, intelligent thought.
>
>Missing premise, and a crucial one as we shall shortly see:
>Suppressed premise: There are objects which are designed and objects
>which are not designed. The proposed standard is the basis by which
>we may differentiate these adequately and correctly.
why do you consider this to be a suppressed premise? This is
blatantly my premise. I am using nature, (for now), as the undesigned
area, in order to first distinguish a human's created objects from
objects in nature. Anything that is determined to be "natural" will
be the contrast needed to point up human artifacts. Once a standard
for human creativity is established, it can next be applied to nature
to see if there is any human-like creation existing there. Call it
"pushing back the frontiers of creation."
>[Note, there's another suppressed premise here, or set of suppressed
>premises. You need to justify the implied assertion that there exists a
>single
>set of identifying factors that apply to all objects created as a result of
>conscious, intelligent thought and only to those objects. It may be that
>there is no such singular set, but rather what Wittgenstein called a
>'family resemblance'. Or many other possibilities.]
what you call an implied assertion is what I am calling my hypothesis.
If a consistent series of identifying factors can be applied to all
created objects, then we have a standard by which to measure articles
of creation, wherever they may be found.
>> And the first brick:
>>
>> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
>> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
>> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
>> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>>
>> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
>> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>> force.
>
>You see what the existence of the suppress premise costs your argument?
>If things move or stop only if acted upon by another force, we have to find
>at least one thing which moves or stops without the action of another force.
well, unless we are going to fly in the face of Newton's law that
things in motion remain in motion and things at rest stay at rest, I
would not expect to find anything which moves or stops without the
action of another force. But it is not at this basic level that I am
invoking the law of inertia. It is at the level of unexpected force
exercised over and above natural forces.
>Otherwise, we have no distinction to draw, and no evidentiary basis for
>claiming design.
the distinction can be drawn by comparing the unexpected force applied
by humans in creating objects, to natural agents that are already in
force due to the laws of nature.
in applying the standard for human creativity next to creativity in
the natural world, the new comparison would be between the natural
behavior of raw elements in chemistry and physics and forces applied
to these natural processes.
>So how are we to identify 'arbitrary decision making'?
by examining the characteristics of arbitrary decision making in the
human arena.
>What shall count?
what counts is whether the created object would exist without
conscious thought. For those items that are questionable, you would
have to set them aside, but if there are sufficient items that are
clear-cut in their evidence of conscious thought, a standard can begin
to be formed. And we have mountains of evidence for clear-cut
conscious thought in many created items.
>That's the core of your argument here, I believe. And you've provided
>nothing
>to answer the question, which you must.
I have provided one "brick," so far, and it is that there must be
evidence of arbitrary decision-making, indicative of conscious mental
choices over and above instinctual behavior; i.e., arbitrary
stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts that normally would not
be found together if left on their own.
Examples of such conscious mental choices are: computers and computer
programs, refrigerators, television sets, automobiles, clocks...and
the list is large. These items give evidence of arbitrary
decision-making, start/stop commands, purpose, juxtaposition of parts
not naturally found together.
>[One does not need to resort to claims of 'arbitrary decision making by an
>intelligent being' in order to claim that it is natural for things which are
>"ordinarily" not found together might nonetheless sometimes be found
>together without the agency of an intelligence of any sort.
examples?
>abound,
>and are considered natural. It appears you must show that they are
>'unnatural'
>in the sense of requiring an intelligent agency in order to proceed -- or
>show that
>there are at least some cases of things "not normally found together" being
>found together that have no other possible explanation whatsoever other than
>conscious intervention of an intelligent agency.]
In applying the standard to nature, consider chemiosmosis which is
part of how the genetic code is empowered. This is not a spontaneous
mechanism. The parts of this system do not, of themselves, perform
the function that is chemiosmosis. This activity in nature is
"unnatural" when compared to what the raw materials of this system are
known to naturally do if left to themselves.
consider also the currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate
-- which is the equivalent of the charged battery. ATP to ADP and
back again; this is a system that is not natural to the parts of its
whole. If the parts are observed outside the system, they do not
naturally form themselves into this kind of "battery." Why is this?
>
>> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>>
>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
>> code.
>
>What makes something 'arbitrary'? It seems this term only makes sense in
>the realm of choice, ie, outside of 'unconscious physical nature'. One may
>well assert that there is nothing whatever 'arbitrary' about the behavior of
>atoms and molecules.
for now, I am considering the laws of nature to be non-arbitrary.
This allows for comparison between arbitrary systems in nature and
those that are natural on the level of raw material.
>How would you demonstrate otherwise?
if raw materials naturally and consistently act in certain ways, and
then you find some of those raw materials acting contrary to their
natural tendencies, then you have evidence of an arbitrary imposition
of outside force upon material that otherwise would never form the
systems that they do.
>Unless you
>can, it seems unlikely you can demonstrate design in nature.
>And regardless, you seem to toss the term 'arbitrary' around quite a lot;
>what
>exactly do you mean by it?
arbitrary means the imposition of a decision to direct raw materials
into a process that they are not normally observed to follow.
>You are perilously close to assuming your
>conclusion,
>given that most of us consider 'arbitrary' to describe only those things
>which
>are the result of conscious acts...
right. The point is to discover what conscious acts consistently look
like so that when those hallmarks are seen, the item observed will be
classified as the creation of a conscious mind.
>
>> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
>> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
>> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
>> stop building beyond a certain point."
>
>By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do you
>mean?
I mean that species of life forms remain what they are, with some
variation, and never evolve into a different species.
>"Kind" is not, and needs to be, a well-defined term.
"Kind" is my creationist word for "species." I'll use "species" if
that is more comfortable for you.
>And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
>'natural',
>defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
>
>> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
>> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
>> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
>> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
>> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
>> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
>
>As if that were the only possible falsification?
>This is far too much like the old, oft-refuted and oft- (and deservedly-)
>ridiculed
>'747 in a hurricane' "argument".
the argument might be old, but should never be ridiculed, considering
that it is a common-sense argument that only those on the lunatic
fringe refuse to acknowledge.
>The existence [note: not the concept] of arbitrary decision making in the
>natural world must be demonstrated to exist. In order to do that,
>'arbitrary'
>needs to be precisely and unequivocally defined.
look at a computer program, for instance, and tell me if there is
evidence of arbitrariness there.
>'Decision making'
>likewise.
see above.
>Then exemplary cases must be presented and withstand alternative, simpler,
>explanations.
>And note that an explanation proceeds to join the less well understood to
>the
>better understood; appeals to 'God did it' do not, ever, count as
>explanatory
>[or at least not without a vast amount of preparatory work, which has yet to
>be
>done].
I believe God did it, but I'm not stopping there. This is about
discovering HOW He did it. That is what scientific research is about.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference between
>an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
>I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have had
>the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side of
>a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling rock.
a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
again?
>This is an intentionally trivial example to show that both natural and
>arbitrary stop/start sequences exist. So the problem is, how do we
>tell them apart?
by the stop/start process; by evidence of purpose and goal
orientation. A falling rock may be stopped by a ledge, but the ledge
does not fulfil all the criteria for arbitrary intervention. The
ledge cannot start the rock to falling again. The ledge does not show
a purpose by reaching out and stopping the rock, nor does it show goal
orientation by revving up and tossing the rock back out into space.
The ledge fails the test of an arbitrary creation that serves a
conscious purpose.
>The second problem is that surprising juxtaposition of parts happens
>in the natural world all the time. They are surprising only when we do
>not understand the process that caused the juxtaposition, or when the
>process is understood but believed to be very rare.
the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
when found within a system in nature.
>For example, a
>huge granite boulder sitting on top of an extensive field of loess far
>from any granitic source would, at first glance, seem a juxtaposition
>of parts that normally would not be found together if left on their
>own. But if you knew that the failure of an ice dam holding back a
>glacial lake could discharge huge icebergs bearing such boulders
>across the landscape, you would then have a natural explanation for
>how the juxtaposition occured.
this is a fuzzy case that would not be my first choice to study for
arbitrariness. But if you insist on using it, I would have to put it
on the back burner until the information about icebergs became
available. Meanwhile, there are clear-cut cases that are sufficient
in quantity to form a solid standard for identifying creation.
>>
>> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
>making
>> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>> force.
>>
>> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
>making.
>>
>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
>genetic
>> code.
>
>Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
>explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
snip>
----
zoe
R. Baldwin
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:56:50 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference
between
> >an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
> >I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have
had
> >the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side
of
> >a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling
rock.
>
> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
> again?
Depends upon how it bounces, of course.
Excelsior
wrote:
[]
>
>the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
>themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
>when found within a system in nature.
This criteria seems to indicate that the moon revolving around the
earth bears your hallmark of creativity since it is following a
pattern where it is within its system when it would simply float along
in a 'straight' line if it were not part of a system.
The fact that matter can and does arrange itself into patterns and
systems in which the materials within act differently than outside
such a system in no way indicates that the system is the result of
creativity.
[]
>>
>>Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
>>explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>
>I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
>materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
>not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
>
So if a vat of proteins, water, minerals, etc. will not form itself
into a living creature all on its own, then what we think of as the
natural processes of reproduction and growth must be artificial and
the results of some process of creativity?
The lack of function of a deconstructed system shows that the system
must have been the result of creativity in what way?
R. Baldwin
"zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3d30f187....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
How do you determine a goal orientation? How do you know when
something serves a conscious purpose? You stated that a start/stop
sequence is evidence of a conscious purpose, so I provided an example
of one that is not.
>
> >The second problem is that surprising juxtaposition of parts
happens
> >in the natural world all the time. They are surprising only when we
do
> >not understand the process that caused the juxtaposition, or when
the
> >process is understood but believed to be very rare.
>
> the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
> themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they
behave
> when found within a system in nature.
I don't follow you.
>
> >For example, a
> >huge granite boulder sitting on top of an extensive field of loess
far
> >from any granitic source would, at first glance, seem a
juxtaposition
> >of parts that normally would not be found together if left on their
> >own. But if you knew that the failure of an ice dam holding back a
> >glacial lake could discharge huge icebergs bearing such boulders
> >across the landscape, you would then have a natural explanation for
> >how the juxtaposition occured.
>
> this is a fuzzy case that would not be my first choice to study for
> arbitrariness. But if you insist on using it, I would have to put
it
> on the back burner until the information about icebergs became
> available. Meanwhile, there are clear-cut cases that are sufficient
> in quantity to form a solid standard for identifying creation.
You seem to be overlooking the point. Parts that you would not expect
to be juxtaposed could nonetheless be juxtaposed by a natural process,
therefore an unusual juxtaposition cannot be taken as evidence for
creation.
>
> >>
> >> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
> >making
> >> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by
another
> >> force.
> >>
> >> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
> >making.
> >>
> >> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
> >genetic
> >> code.
> >
> >Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
> >explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>
> I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
> materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They
do
> not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
How do you know this? When you observe a sequence you don't expect to
occur naturally, how can you be certain there is not some natural
process of which you are unaware?
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
SortingItOut
> of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
>
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
Well, with abrasive comments like this, you're setting the stage for
extreme scrutiny of your ideas, rather than constructive criticism.
>
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
This seems to say: "All objects known to be created by conscious,
intelligent thought share certain identifying properties. These
properties will be used as a standard for identifying created
objects."
The problem with this (besides being extremely vague for a theory) is
that to make your standard complete, you have to consider ALL objects
known to be created by conscious, intelligent thought. After that,
what's left? The alternative is to be specific about the standard (as
all standards should be).
>
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior;
There's a huge grey area between conscious mental choices and
instinctual behavior. Of all the behaviors in the animal kingdom
(including humans), is it clear which are instinctual and which are
not?
> i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
>
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
>
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
OK...but what does your statement below have to do with this?
Also, the criteria for identifying the uncrossable barrier is not
given. And a barrier implies that the movement or development of
something is impeded by the barrier. What movement are you talking
about?
>
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
Amino acids form by the gazillions without human intervention all over
the world. There are also many environments in which they do not
form. How does identifying one of these specific environments help
our understanding? If I find another enviroment where they DO form
without human intervention have I falsified the theory? If not, why
not?
>
> ----
> zoe
Bobby D. Bryant
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation,
> let it be known that I am placing one before them right now. To
> continue to insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
You seem blissfully unaware that the purpose of a theory is to
explain some body of observations, not to prop up some pre-existing
system of beliefs.
So, if you please, how does your ToC explain:
o the geological column?
o the tree of life derived from the fossil record?
o the tree of life derived from gene sequencing?
o the cosmic red shift?
o the cosmic background radiation?
o the depth of the human archaeological record?
o the great variety of creation myths?
o the deceit practiced by certain prominent creationists?
Looking forward to you answer,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>> >The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference
>between
>> >an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
>> >I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have
>had
>> >the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side
>of
>> >a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling
>rock.
>>
>> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
>> again?
>
>Depends upon how it bounces, of course.
do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
to do so? Besides, if the ledge succeeded in stopping the fall of the
rock, then the rock does not bounce. If it bounces, the ledge did not
stop its fall. It is merely the inanimate, unthinking object that
provides a means for the rock to ricochet.
I think your "natural" example does not qualify.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(Excelsior) wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 03:39:41 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
>[]
>>
>>the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
>>themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
>>when found within a system in nature.
>
>This criteria seems to indicate that the moon revolving around the
>earth bears your hallmark of creativity since it is following a
>pattern where it is within its system when it would simply float along
>in a 'straight' line if it were not part of a system.
right, but I'm leaving gravitation out of creation's hallmarks right
now. I'm allowing all natural law as a given, without calling upon a
creator for its existence. Eventually, down the road, I expect
(predict) that the organized motions and revolutions seen in the
universe will be evidence of thought, but for now it remains in the
realm of natural law. Against this natural law, I am trying to
identify the hallmarks of creation as observed in human creation.
>The fact that matter can and does arrange itself into patterns and
>systems in which the materials within act differently than outside
>such a system in no way indicates that the system is the result of
>creativity.
Then you must be quite certain that a computer program that runs
without any apparent outside intervention must not be a result of
someone's creativity. Excel or CAD was always there, part of the laws
of nature, right?
It is these kinds of leaps of logic that are used in the evolutionary
theory, causing a reasonable, unprejudiced person to seriously
question the agenda of the holder of such amazing illogic. This would
be on par with the idea that if I can jump into the air six inches,
then I can continue to jump higher and higher, using each last six
inches as the base for my new jump. That's what macroevolution
posits, you know, that many little micro steps will eventually lead to
coverage of a great big step.
>>>Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
>>>explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>>
>>I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
>>materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
>>not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
>>
>So if a vat of proteins, water, minerals, etc. will not form itself
>into a living creature all on its own, then what we think of as the
>natural processes of reproduction and growth must be artificial and
>the results of some process of creativity?
I expect that under examination, reproduction and growth would give
evidence of the same hallmarks found in human creativity, which
hallmarks we now label "artificial."
>The lack of function of a deconstructed system shows that the system
>must have been the result of creativity in what way?
if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
to consider other alternatives. I am proposing "thought" as another
alternative. That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:27:44 -0600, zoe_althrop wrote:
>
>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation,
>> let it be known that I am placing one before them right now. To
>> continue to insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
>You seem blissfully unaware that the purpose of a theory is to
>explain some body of observations, not to prop up some pre-existing
>system of beliefs.
my theory is in the beginning process of explaining a body of
observations. Patience.
>So, if you please, how does your ToC explain:
>
> o the geological column?
> o the tree of life derived from the fossil record?
> o the tree of life derived from gene sequencing?
> o the cosmic red shift?
> o the cosmic background radiation?
> o the depth of the human archaeological record?
> o the great variety of creation myths?
> o the deceit practiced by certain prominent creationists?
>
>Looking forward to you answer,
you're introducing many new and interesting threads, but I prefer to
first work on my foundation, if you don't mind, Bobby.
----
zoe
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
>to consider other alternatives.
True ... but that experiment hasn't been run yet, and probably never
will, since it will take millions of years.
You are assuming the results.
Note that the fact that we aren't willing to set up the experiment and
wait for the result does _not_ mean that abiogenesis is unfalsifiable.
> I am proposing "thought" as another
>alternative.
You are claiming that thought is required. You said "had to be
organized via intelligence".
>That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered
Yup, it's a valid proposal, but nobody yet has figured out a way to
investigate it scientifically. You're not any closer to it than
anybody else..
zoe_althrop
(SortingItOut) wrote:
snip>
>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
>> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
>> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
>Well, with abrasive comments like this, you're setting the stage for
>extreme scrutiny of your ideas, rather than constructive criticism.
I'm sorry if you got abraded, Mr. SortingItOut. I was only stating a
fact, not accusing you of anything. I trust that you are not a liar,
so please don't take my statement personally.
>> okay, the foundation:
>>
>> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
>> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
>> conscious, intelligent thought.
>
>This seems to say: "All objects known to be created by conscious,
>intelligent thought share certain identifying properties. These
>properties will be used as a standard for identifying created
>objects."
right.
>The problem with this (besides being extremely vague for a theory) is
>that to make your standard complete, you have to consider ALL objects
>known to be created by conscious, intelligent thought.
do you wait until ALL fossils are found before drawing your
conclusions? Do you wait until ALL experiments are successfully
concluded before promoting your theory of abiogenesis? Why are you
holding me to this impossible standard?
>After that,
>what's left? The alternative is to be specific about the standard (as
>all standards should be).
and that is what I am in the process of doing -- brick one, remember?
If I give it all at once, it is too much to chew at one bite.
>> And the first brick:
>>
>> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
>> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
>> behavior;
>
>There's a huge grey area between conscious mental choices and
>instinctual behavior. Of all the behaviors in the animal kingdom
>(including humans), is it clear which are instinctual and which are
>not?
there are gray areas in everything, including your evolutionary
theory. A scientist will not throw up his hands because there are
ambiguous areas. He will begin to examine the clear-cut areas, and if
there are sufficient examples to warrant a standard, he declares this
standard. Creation theory has mountains of evidence of what creation
is. A standard can be formed. Brick one is just one part of the
standard.
>> i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
>> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
>>
>> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
>> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>> force.
>>
>> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>>
>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
>> code.
>>
>> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
>> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
>> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
>> stop building beyond a certain point."
>
>OK...but what does your statement below have to do with this?
which statement below? There are a number.
>Also, the criteria for identifying the uncrossable barrier is not
>given.
the criteria is start/stop, on/off sequences. If a process is stopped
or turned off consistently, this provides a barrier to further action
beyond the point of stop.
>And a barrier implies that the movement or development of
>something is impeded by the barrier.
a command to stop whatever activity is in progress serves as a
barrier, doesn't it? When a computer programmer stops an iteration,
that stop command serves as a barrier to further development or
progression of the iterations. Consider, then, that any evidence of a
stop command will be evidence for a barrier.
>What movement are you talking
>about?
the stringing of polypeptides into an endless chain. Introns and
exons are good examples of stop/start commands.
>> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
>> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
>> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
>> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
>> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
>> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
>
>Amino acids form by the gazillions without human intervention all over
>the world.
I am talking only about amino acid combinations that form the kind of
protein with which life forms are known to grow and develop. If you
drag in gazillions of amino acids that do nothing, that will only
smoke up the mirror.
>There are also many environments in which they do not
>form. How does identifying one of these specific environments help
>our understanding? If I find another enviroment where they DO form
>without human intervention have I falsified the theory?
yes. If you find an environment where amino acids placed in a pool
are able to form muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc., then you are on
your way to falsifiying my theory. If the laws of nature are able, by
themselves, to assemble system-less amino acids into systems of skin
and bone and brain tissue, then there is no need for thought behind
the process.
>If not, why
>not?
there is no "not."
----
zoe
Excelsior
wrote:
Excuse me? Where did I say that matter/energy can/has arranged itself
into every possible pattern?
We observe that it does arrange itself. Nobody I know has claimed that
we know all of the ways in which natural processes can work.
Therefore, that distinction been results of natural processes and
required creative processes involves an undefined boundary. Your
attempt to define that boudary have not been satisfactory to many
respondents to your posts.
And your jumping analogy is farcical. Because you set the jumper back
down at ground level for each jump which defines away the possibility
of accumulation. Of course you can use the last six inches to start
from because there was indeed a change from the original.
>
>>>>Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
>>>>explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>>>
>>>I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
>>>materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
>>>not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
>>>
>>So if a vat of proteins, water, minerals, etc. will not form itself
>>into a living creature all on its own, then what we think of as the
>>natural processes of reproduction and growth must be artificial and
>>the results of some process of creativity?
>
>I expect that under examination, reproduction and growth would give
>evidence of the same hallmarks found in human creativity, which
>hallmarks we now label "artificial."
>
>>The lack of function of a deconstructed system shows that the system
>>must have been the result of creativity in what way?
>
>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
>to consider other alternatives. I am proposing "thought" as another
>alternative. That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered.
What do you mean by 'bypass all the millions of trials and errors'.
Where this seems to be leading is that you believe that what we think
of as natural processes were authored and put in motion by an outside
agancy (which means, of course that there are no natural processes,
which itself contradicts your original assertion that there is a
difference between natural and artificial).
Howard Hershey
muz...@aol.com wrote on 7/14/02 3:39 AM:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:56:50 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>> The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference between
>> an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
>> I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have had
>> the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side of
>> a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling rock.
>
> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
> again?
>
>> This is an intentionally trivial example to show that both natural and
>> arbitrary stop/start sequences exist. So the problem is, how do we
>> tell them apart?
>
> by the stop/start process; by evidence of purpose and goal
> orientation. A falling rock may be stopped by a ledge, but the ledge
> does not fulfil all the criteria for arbitrary intervention. The
> ledge cannot start the rock to falling again.
But a goat (or erosion of the ledge) can. Without doing so by intelligent
purpose or goal orientation. So is the goat or the rain an 'actor'
arbitrarily 'causing' these events?
> The ledge does not show
> a purpose by reaching out and stopping the rock, nor does it show goal
> orientation by revving up and tossing the rock back out into space.
> The ledge fails the test of an arbitrary creation that serves a
> conscious purpose.
>
>> The second problem is that surprising juxtaposition of parts happens
>> in the natural world all the time. They are surprising only when we do
>> not understand the process that caused the juxtaposition, or when the
>> process is understood but believed to be very rare.
>
> the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
> themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
> when found within a system in nature.
Huh? Are you comparing how raw materials act when left outside *any* system
with how they behave in an observable (aka natural) system? I assure you
that no one knows how raw materials behave in unobservable supernatural
systems? I can, of course, fantasize that raw materials act any way I want
them to in imaginary systems.
>
>> For example, a
>> huge granite boulder sitting on top of an extensive field of loess far
>> from any granitic source would, at first glance, seem a juxtaposition
>> of parts that normally would not be found together if left on their
>> own. But if you knew that the failure of an ice dam holding back a
>> glacial lake could discharge huge icebergs bearing such boulders
>> across the landscape, you would then have a natural explanation for
>> how the juxtaposition occured.
>
> this is a fuzzy case that would not be my first choice to study for
> arbitrariness. But if you insist on using it, I would have to put it
> on the back burner until the information about icebergs became
> available. Meanwhile, there are clear-cut cases that are sufficient
> in quantity to form a solid standard for identifying creation.
Bzzzzt. Wrong way turn. The fuzzy cases are particularly important in
determining the overall usefulness of your premises. The above example
clearly shows that one alternative explanation for apparently arbitrary
events is that you (or perhaps even everybody at the present time) are
ignorant of a natural solution. How do you then distinguish your claims of
the IDdidit from your personal level of ignorance? But aside from
human-made (not human-like-made) technology involving inanimate objects that
lack the necessary preconditions to be able to evolve, what clear-cut cases
do you think you have and why do you consider them clear-cut?
>
>>>
>>> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
>> making
>>> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>>> force.
Evolution is a theory about what happens to the genes and morphology based
on genes of living entities over many generations. But are you really
saying that all the actions of living entities are due to outside forces?
Sic transit free will. Perhaps angels are moving the planets?
>>>
>>> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
>> making.
>>>
>>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
>> genetic
>>> code.
Why is the existence of these sequences 'arbitrary decision making'?
>>
>> Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
>> explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>
> I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
> materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
> not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
The raw materials for generating organisms with modified genomes (evolution)
includes a requirement for pre-existing organisms. Evolution (as opposed to
abiogenesis) requires that there be imperfectly self-replicating entities
with genetic systems existing in environments that supply the raw materials
and requisite energy to self-replicate. Once you have a system with these
properties, it can evolve a Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis from previous
systems. At some point abiogenesis is needed to generate the first 'living
entity', but the evolution of the Kreb's cycle is well down the road from
that point.
I smell, behind your smoke and mirrors, the old tornado producing the 747
strawman.
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
R. Baldwin
You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I described a very
simple, natural situation in which you may have a series of starts and
stops. Since it was natural and not arbitrary, it clearly does _not_
have purpose. I was offering the example specifically _because_ it did
not have purpose.
You had argued that a stop/start sequence is evidence of
arbitrariness, or if I understand you properly, a stop/start sequence
is a hallmark of creation. I offered a trivial example of a stop/start
sequence that is not a hallmark of creation.
The question now is, how can you tell the difference between a created
stop/start sequence with a purpose and a natural stop/start sequence
with no purpose?
>
> snip>
>
> ----
> zoe
>
Ian H Spedding
muz...@aol.com says...
[...]
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
You can call this belief a theory of creation if you want but
that doesn't mean it qualifies as a theory in the scientific
meaning of the word, which the Merriam-Webster site defines as
follows:
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from
theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one
another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a
science, or an art <music theory>
4 : a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as
the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that
all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical
set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in
the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated
freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle
or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave
theory of light>
6 : a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or
investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a
body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a
subject <theory of equations>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS
What science means by "theory" is definition #5. When
creationists criticise evolution as "just a theory" they are
using #6a or #6b. In science, this would be called speculation
or conjecture - amongst other things.
In general, what distinguishes a theory is power and economy of
explanation and the breadth and depth of the evidence on which it
is based. Creationism explains everything as a manifestion of
God's will which, since there is no evidence for the existence of
a God, is pure speculation not theory.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
Ian H Spedding
muz...@aol.com says...
[...]
> I believe God did it, but I'm not stopping there. This is about
> discovering HOW He did it. That is what scientific research is about.
The work's already been done. He did it through abiogenesis and
evolution.
H,R.Gruemm
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 04:15:31 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> >The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference
> between
> >> >an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
> >> >I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have
> had
> >> >the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side
> of
> >> >a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling
> rock.
> >>
> >> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
> >> again?
> >
> >Depends upon how it bounces, of course.
>
> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
> to do so?
Do you really think that the absence of a mtDNA which would fit the
stop codons is a "purposefully applied external force" ?
BTW, a stop codon is not able to restart transcription.
HRG.
Patrick James
(in message <fd51d657.02071...@posting.google.com>):
As I recall, the lioness took on the antelope as a replacement for her dead
cubs after the antelope's mama became dinner for the pride. One of the other,
not so sentimental, lions later ate the adoptee, despite the efforts of
foster mom to protect it.
Boikat
> In article <3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> muz...@aol.com says...
>
> [...]
>
> > And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> > be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> > insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>
Since in earlier threads, what does or does not constitute science, and
theory, has been explained to you several times over, to insist that what
your are presenting constitutes a *scientific theory* is to willfully tell
an untruth.
Yes, that means you are lying.
Boikat
Ronald Stepp
>
> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
> to do so? Besides, if the ledge succeeded in stopping the fall of the
Prove that it didn't.
> rock, then the rock does not bounce. If it bounces, the ledge did not
> stop its fall. It is merely the inanimate, unthinking object that
> provides a means for the rock to ricochet.
If it bounces, the ledge purposefully decided to let it bounce.
> I think your "natural" example does not qualify.
Thinking is not enough. Provide evidence. The whole point to this is to
determine whether it did or didn't.. not whether you THINK it did or didn't.
I would rather think that I will live to be 300 years old, but because I
think I will doesn't mean I will. I have to somehow provide evidence
backing up my claim.
Ronald Stepp
> >earth bears your hallmark of creativity since it is following a
> >pattern where it is within its system when it would simply float along
> >in a 'straight' line if it were not part of a system.
>
> right, but I'm leaving gravitation out of creation's hallmarks right
> now. I'm allowing all natural law as a given, without calling upon a
How do you KNOW its natural? How do you know that there isn't a gravity
generator at the core of each body which causes it to simulate the effects
of natural gravity?
And how do you conveniently leave out the main factor which would cause the
orbit of one celestial body around another?
Alan Wright
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 05:26:58 +0000 (UTC), exce...@usexpress.net
> (Excelsior) wrote:
> It is these kinds of leaps of logic that are used in the evolutionary
> theory, causing a reasonable, unprejudiced person to seriously
> question the agenda of the holder of such amazing illogic. This would
> be on par with the idea that if I can jump into the air six inches,
> then I can continue to jump higher and higher, using each last six
> inches as the base for my new jump. That's what macroevolution
> posits, you know, that many little micro steps will eventually lead to
> coverage of a great big step.
OK, the above proves that you are not just stupid, but are indeed
clearly dishonest. You know darn well that your jumper cannot be
compared to a process based on accumulation.
You are not worthy of the time people are spending to correct you.
Alan
Mike Dunford
news:3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my
> theory of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I
> am already concluding that my foundation for creation is as
> solid as I thought. But before moving on to actual construction
> upon this foundation, I would like to double check each point
> made so far, in case there are any hidden problems remaining.
I don't think my response was unsatisfactory, but since you have
already moved on, I will as well.
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation,
> let it be known that I am placing one before them right now. To
> continue to insist that there is no theory is to persist in
> lying.
Incorrect. You are presenting portions of a hypothesis, not a theory.
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of
> those identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a
> result of conscious, intelligent thought.
In addition, to be useful for your purpose -- identifying "creation"
in nature and/or in objects not known to be created -- it is
necessary that at least some of those identifying factors not only
apply to ALL objects created as a result of conscious thought, but
also apply ONLY to objects created as a result of conscious thought.
Without that, you will be unable to prevent or identify false
positives.
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary
> decision-making, indicative of conscious mental choices over and
> above instinctual behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start
> sequences, juxtaposition of parts that normally would not be
> found together if left on their own.
How would you determine whether the decision making is consciously
arbitrary rather than instinctively arbitrary? How would this
criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a human tunnel
system, without also identifying an ant hill as produced by conscious
thought? How would this correctly identify a replica of a bird's nest
as created without also identifying a natural bird's nest as the
product of conscious thought? How would this criterion correctly
identify the Ode to Joy as created without also identifying the song
of a bird as created?
How would you determine whether the juxtaposition of parts is the
result of conscious mental choices rather than instinct or chance?
How would this criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a
human wood dam without also identifying either a natural dam or a
beaver dam as created? How would this avoid identifying the unnatural
juxtaposition of parts in a bird's nest as created? Would this
criterion identify the juxtaposition of feral cats, mongooses
(mongeese?), and rock wallabies found on Oahu as created, and would
it be correct if it does so?
I cannot see how this criterion identifies either a property posessed
by all created objects or one posessed only by created objects. You
need to show how you can distinguish instinctively arbitrary choices
from consciously arbitrary choices when you don't already know which
is which.
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
> making because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon
> by another force.
So, you are attempting to argue that the movement of a worm indicates
conscious thought?
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
> making.
Not so fast, Zoe. You need more than evidence of arbitrary decision
making -- you need to be able to demonstrate that all arbitrary
decision making is the result of conscious choice rather than
instinct or other processes.
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
> genetic code.
There are other problems with this example, such as the question of
whether those sequences are in fact arbitrary, but they are for the
moment dwarfed by the fact that you have not established that
arbitrary decision making is restricted to created objects.
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping
> for all cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable
> barriers between kinds or families of species, due to
> instructions from the gene to stop building beyond a
> certain point."
This is certainly a prediction of creation models. I fail to see,
however, how this prediction follows from this particular criterion.
Of course, that is moot at least until the problems with this
criterion are resolved.
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural
> world will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be
> dismantled and left floating in a solution similar to
> that of the cell, and if, without human intervention,
> it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are able
> to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific
> sequences of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
(1) This test only has relevance of any type IF
(a) you can demonstrate how you can distinguish CONSCIOUS
arbitrary decision making from INSTINCTIVE (or other
types of instinctive decision making
AND
(b) you can demonstrate that the genetic code exhibits
those arbitrary decision making of any type
AND
(c) you can demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making
of the cell exhibits the traits which distinguish
conscious decision making from unconscious arbitrariness.
Thus far, you have not shown any of this.
(2) This test is unreasonable for other reasons, mostly revolving
around the fact that the triplets do not self assemble at all
under those circumstances, for known reasons having nothing to
do with inteligence or lack thereof.
(3) I would think that the whole concept of arbitrary decision
making as a trait of intelligent creation is falsified unless
you can demonstrate how a human-built model of a bird's nest can
be distinguished ON THE BASIS OF DECISION MAKING from the
natural bird's nest. Or the natural logjam from the beaver dam
from the human dam.
--Mike Dunford
--
As in 1925, creationists are not battling for religion. They have
been disowned by leading church men of all persuasions, for they
debase religion even more than they misconstrue science.
--Stephen Jay Gould
Patrick James
(in message <3d31d2c0$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>):
and this is a surprise for what reason?
>
> Yes, that means you are lying.
And she's doing it with malice aforethought.
Boikat
"Alan Wright" <al...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d31f998$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
>
> "zoe_althrop" <muz...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3d317f45....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> > On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 05:26:58 +0000 (UTC), exce...@usexpress.net
> > (Excelsior) wrote:
> > It is these kinds of leaps of logic that are used in the evolutionary
> > theory, causing a reasonable, unprejudiced person to seriously
> > question the agenda of the holder of such amazing illogic. This would
> > be on par with the idea that if I can jump into the air six inches,
> > then I can continue to jump higher and higher, using each last six
> > inches as the base for my new jump.
If you land on a sucessively "higher" step on a stairway, yes. Leaving that
part out is either dishonest or ignorant of you. But now you'll probably
take the stairway analogy too far, and think evolution implies "higher".
> That's what macroevolution
> > posits, you know, that many little micro steps will eventually lead to
> > coverage of a great big step.
But unlike your "hopping", once a "small step" is atained via mutation, it
does not automatically un-mutate.
>
> OK, the above proves that you are not just stupid, but are indeed
> clearly dishonest. You know darn well that your jumper cannot be
> compared to a process based on accumulation.
>
> You are not worthy of the time people are spending to correct you.
>
> Alan
>
Boikat
>
Boikat
"Patrick James" <patj...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:01HW.B95766E00...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:39:19 -0500, Boikat wrote
> (in message <3d31d2c0$1...@news5.nntpserver.com>):
>
> >
> >> In article <3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> >> muz...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> >>> be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> >>> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
> >>
> >
> > Since in earlier threads, what does or does not constitute science, and
> > theory, has been explained to you several times over, to insist that
what
> > your are presenting constitutes a *scientific theory* is to willfully
tell
> > an untruth.
>
> and this is a surprise for what reason?
"Surprised"?
>
> >
> > Yes, that means you are lying.
>
> And she's doing it with malice aforethought.
>
Dishonesty in the first degree.
Boikat
>
Jon Fleming
I think there is a distinct possibility that she thinks her jumper
_is_ analogous to macroevolution. She's often missed obvious and
gigantic differences between her analogies and the real world.
>You are not worthy of the time people are spending to correct you.
No, she isn't. But I occasionally learn something, and others may
too. At least I'm forced to clarify my own thinking in order to
explain it to someone who hasn't mastered the logical abilities of the
average five-year-old.
Dick C
server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:05:59 +0000 (UTC), "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:27:44 -0600, zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation,
>>> let it be known that I am placing one before them right now. To
>>> continue to insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>>
>>You seem blissfully unaware that the purpose of a theory is to
>>explain some body of observations, not to prop up some pre-existing
>>system of beliefs.
>
> my theory is in the beginning process of explaining a body of
> observations. Patience.
I don't normally follow your threads, but I would like to point out
that creationists have been acting like a theory of creationism
has existed for many years. But none of them has ever produced one.
One would expect that all the creation scientists at the Institute
of Creation Research, or the luminaries at the CRSQ would have
produced one by now. However, you are doing far more in this regard
than anyone else has. That fact alone should tell you about the
likelyhood of you developing one. But good luck.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: crav...@msn.net
Glenn
Boikat wrote:
It's been explained to you several times that you're a moron. Because
you claim understanding about what does and does not constitute science
and theory doesn't make Zoe a liar.
It makes you a liar.
A theory is simply an explanation of certain observation(s) about
nature. Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory, you accuse her of
lying. That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
Boikat
"Glenn" <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:3D322AE7...@qwest.net...
>
>
> Boikat wrote:
>
> >>In article <3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> >>muz...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>
> >>>And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> >>>be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
> >>>insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
> >>>
> >
> > Since in earlier threads, what does or does not constitute science, and
> > theory, has been explained to you several times over, to insist that
what
> > your are presenting constitutes a *scientific theory* is to willfully
tell
> > an untruth.
> >
> > Yes, that means you are lying.
>
>
> It's been explained to you several times that you're a moron. Because
> you claim understanding about what does and does not constitute science
> and theory doesn't make Zoe a liar.
It does when it's been explained to her.
Or are you suggesting that she is simply stupid?
>
> It makes you a liar.
I've given up on irony meters, try again fool.
>
>
> A theory is simply an explanation of certain observation(s) about
> nature.
Wrong.
> Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory,
There was no theory to falsify, idiot.
> you accuse her of
> lying.
There are two possibilities, given that science, and the scientific method
has been explained to her before, several times. She is stupid, or she is
lying. I take it you propose she is simply stupid.
>That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
Like you'd know? Hah!
Boikat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alan Wright
> nature. Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory, you accuse her of
> lying. That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
Actually, it *is* essential in science that liars be exposed. This is
especially true when the lies are being sold to the public rather
than being subjected to peer review.
I still think there are some willful lies in Zoe's arguments, but I
suppose she may be just quite a bit more stupid than I thought.
And beyond the lies, there is still no "theory".
Alan
Carl M
[snip]
>
> why do you consider this to be a suppressed premise? This is
> blatantly my premise. I am using nature, (for now), as the undesigned
> area, in order to first distinguish a human's created objects from
> objects in nature. Anything that is determined to be "natural" will
> be the contrast needed to point up human artifacts. Once a standard
> for human creativity is established, it can next be applied to nature
> to see if there is any human-like creation existing there. Call it
> "pushing back the frontiers of creation."
This part isn't logical. First you compare "nature" to human activity
to find any identifiable differances, then you plan to compare "nature"
to itself. What the ...?
And you also seem to be implying that "intelligence" is an unnatural
phenomenon. Why?
[snip]
Glenn
Boikat wrote:
> "Glenn" <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3D322AE7...@qwest.net...
>
>>
>>Boikat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>In article <3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
>>>>muz...@aol.com says...
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
>>>>>be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue to
>>>>>insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>Since in earlier threads, what does or does not constitute science, and
>>>theory, has been explained to you several times over, to insist that
>>>
> what
>
>>>your are presenting constitutes a *scientific theory* is to willfully
>>>
> tell
>
>>>an untruth.
>>>
>>>Yes, that means you are lying.
>>>
>>
>>It's been explained to you several times that you're a moron. Because
>>you claim understanding about what does and does not constitute science
>>and theory doesn't make Zoe a liar.
>>
>
> It does when it's been explained to her.
>
> Or are you suggesting that she is simply stupid?
I've explained to you several times that you are a moron. Are you simply
stupid?
>
>
>>It makes you a liar.
>>
>
> I've given up on irony meters, try again fool.
You try again, dipstick.
>
>
>>
>>A theory is simply an explanation of certain observation(s) about
>>nature.
>>
>
> Wrong.
Right. That has also been explained to you many times, and you still
deny it, like you do here. So you must be lying, or stupid, according to
you.
>
>
>>Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory,
>>
>
> There was no theory to falsify, idiot.
Just like telling yourself over and over that you aren't a moron won't
make it true, turd bag.
>
>
>>you accuse her of
>>lying.
>>
>
> There are two possibilities, given that science, and the scientific method
> has been explained to her before, several times. She is stupid, or she is
> lying. I take it you propose she is simply stupid.
As always, what you "take" isn't based in reality. Just because you
"explain" something doesn't make it true, and doesn't mean that another
must accept it or be a liar.
Of course, this concept is too complex for a moron like you who can
barely do more than type "idiot" and "liar".
>
>
>>That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
>>
>
> Like you'd know? Hah!
>
> Boikat
Yes, accusing Zoe of lying is not part of the scientific method.
It's apparent that you think it is.
neil
>
> (1) This test only has relevance of any type IF
> (a) you can demonstrate how you can distinguish CONSCIOUS
> arbitrary decision making from INSTINCTIVE (or other
> types of instinctive decision making
> AND
> (b) you can demonstrate that the genetic code exhibits
> those arbitrary decision making of any type
> AND
> (c) you can demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making
> of the cell exhibits the traits which distinguish
> conscious decision making from unconscious arbitrariness.
> Thus far, you have not shown any of this.
>
> (2) This test is unreasonable for other reasons, mostly revolving
> around the fact that the triplets do not self assemble at all
> under those circumstances, for known reasons having nothing to
> do with inteligence or lack thereof.
>
> (3) I would think that the whole concept of arbitrary decision
> making as a trait of intelligent creation is falsified unless
> you can demonstrate how a human-built model of a bird's nest can
> be distinguished ON THE BASIS OF DECISION MAKING from the
> natural bird's nest. Or the natural logjam from the beaver dam
> from the human dam.
>
> --Mike Dunford
I agree it appears this hypothesis still needs a bit of work,
but,
why cant a birds nest , beaver dam or ants nest be considered "created"?
what is the test for instinctive Vs consious decision making?
is it vitaly important the the creator be Super intelligent,
not mearly compitant?
regards neil
Mike Dunford
news:1d86b018.02071...@posting.google.com:
[snip]
> I agree it appears this hypothesis still needs a bit of work,
> but, why cant a birds nest , beaver dam or ants nest be
> considered "created"? what is the test for instinctive Vs
> consious decision making? is it vitaly important the the creator
> be Super intelligent, not mearly compitant?
This question should really be directed to Zoe, since the requirement
for conscious rather than instinctive was her own, not mine. It does
seem to be a reasonable, however, since Zoe is trying to detect
objects which are created through some act of intelligence.
--Mike Dunford
--
Nothing interferes with my concentration. You could put on an orgy
in my office and I wouldn't look up. Well, maybe once.
--Isaac Asimov
Patrick James
(in message <3D33486D...@hotmail.com>):
she finds intelligence to be unnatural because she finds anything that she
lacks to be unnatural.
Bill Felton
wildly against zoe
and the so-called Theory of Creation(ism).
Some few comments below...news:3d30e466....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:34:07 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> >> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> >> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> >> conscious, intelligent thought.
> >
> >Suppressed premise: There are objects which are designed and objects
> >which are not designed. The proposed standard is the basis by which
> >we may differentiate these adequately and correctly.
>
> why do you consider this to be a suppressed premise? This is
> blatantly my premise. I am using nature, (for now), as the undesigned
> area, in order to first distinguish a human's created objects from
> objects in nature. Anything that is determined to be "natural" will
> be the contrast needed to point up human artifacts. Once a standard
> for human creativity is established, it can next be applied to nature
> to see if there is any human-like creation existing there. Call it
> "pushing back the frontiers of creation."
I consider it to be a suppressed premise because it was not explicitly
called
out. Further, it is, at best, disingenuous of you to take this tack due to
the
clearly spelled-out goal of ultimately showing that 'all things are
designed'.
But of course if 'all things are designed' you don't have any way to get to
that
conclusion. We only have a concept of designed things because we
distinguish
them from the 'prior' (or foundational) notion of naturally occuring
things.
> >[Note, there's another suppressed premise here, or set of suppressed
> >premises. You need to justify the implied assertion that there exists a
> >single
> >set of identifying factors that apply to all objects created as a result
of
> >conscious, intelligent thought and only to those objects. It may be that
> >there is no such singular set, but rather what Wittgenstein called a
> >'family resemblance'. Or many other possibilities.]
>
> what you call an implied assertion is what I am calling my hypothesis.
> If a consistent series of identifying factors can be applied to all
> created objects, then we have a standard by which to measure articles
> of creation, wherever they may be found.
You missed my point, but certainly exposed more of your agenda.
My point is that there may well be no such thing as a single set of criteria
which distinguish human-created artifacts, *other than the involvement of
human agency in their creation*.
For example, please identify for us what are the common elements of:
poems
pottery
theories
automobiles
novels
haiku
surrealist paintings
surrealist constructions
zoos
cities
symphonies
Those are all human created entities. What element(s) do they have in
common?
What are the factors of an auto and a symphony and a theory that are common
to
all, and unique to designed things, other than 'that they were created'?
Basically zoe, you're problem is that we do not proceed from thing to
concept of
design to deduction of designer. We proceed from designer to designed
thing,
not vice versa.
So to demonstrate 'intelligent design', you must *first* demonstrate
intelligent designer,
then connect the designer to the allegedly designed item.
> >> And the first brick:
> >>
> >> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> >> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> >> behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts
> >> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
> >>
> >> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> >> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> >> force.
> >
> >You see what the existence of the suppress premise costs your argument?
> >If things move or stop only if acted upon by another force, we have to
find
> >at least one thing which moves or stops without the action of another
force.
>
> well, unless we are going to fly in the face of Newton's law that
> things in motion remain in motion and things at rest stay at rest, I
> would not expect to find anything which moves or stops without the
> action of another force. But it is not at this basic level that I am
> invoking the law of inertia. It is at the level of unexpected force
> exercised over and above natural forces.
"Unexpected"? By whom? "over and above" natural forces? What would those
things be that are 'over and above' natural forces?
I am unaware of the existence of anything 'unnatural' in the sense necessary
for your
statement to be meaningful...
> >Otherwise, we have no distinction to draw, and no evidentiary basis for
> >claiming design.
>
> the distinction can be drawn by comparing the unexpected force applied
> by humans in creating objects, to natural agents that are already in
> force due to the laws of nature.
>
> in applying the standard for human creativity next to creativity in
> the natural world, the new comparison would be between the natural
> behavior of raw elements in chemistry and physics and forces applied
> to these natural processes.
>
> >So how are we to identify 'arbitrary decision making'?
>
> by examining the characteristics of arbitrary decision making in the
> human arena.
>
> >What shall count?
>
> what counts is whether the created object would exist without
> conscious thought. For those items that are questionable, you would
> have to set them aside, but if there are sufficient items that are
> clear-cut in their evidence of conscious thought, a standard can begin
> to be formed. And we have mountains of evidence for clear-cut
> conscious thought in many created items.
And as pointed out above, they have no obvious common factors other than
the existence of 'creators'.
> >That's the core of your argument here, I believe. And you've provided
> >nothing
> >to answer the question, which you must.
>
> I have provided one "brick," so far, and it is that there must be
> evidence of arbitrary decision-making, indicative of conscious mental
> choices over and above instinctual behavior; i.e., arbitrary
> stop/start sequences, juxtaposition of parts that normally would not
> be found together if left on their own.
>
> Examples of such conscious mental choices are: computers and computer
> programs, refrigerators, television sets, automobiles, clocks...and
> the list is large. These items give evidence of arbitrary
> decision-making, start/stop commands, purpose, juxtaposition of parts
> not naturally found together.
>
> >[One does not need to resort to claims of 'arbitrary decision making by
an
> >intelligent being' in order to claim that it is natural for things which
are
> >"ordinarily" not found together might nonetheless sometimes be found
> >together without the agency of an intelligence of any sort.
>
> examples?
>
> >abound,
> >and are considered natural. It appears you must show that they are
> >'unnatural'
> >in the sense of requiring an intelligent agency in order to proceed -- or
> >show that
> >there are at least some cases of things "not normally found together"
being
> >found together that have no other possible explanation whatsoever other
than
> >conscious intervention of an intelligent agency.]
>
> In applying the standard to nature, consider chemiosmosis which is
> part of how the genetic code is empowered. This is not a spontaneous
> mechanism. The parts of this system do not, of themselves, perform
> the function that is chemiosmosis. This activity in nature is
> "unnatural" when compared to what the raw materials of this system are
> known to naturally do if left to themselves.
You are assuming your conclusion.
Further, I assert you are simply wrong. The parts of the system have, of
themselves,
performed chemiosmosis. That's what they do in that system.
This activity is *in* nature, and is natural.
> consider also the currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate
> -- which is the equivalent of the charged battery. ATP to ADP and
> back again; this is a system that is not natural to the parts of its
> whole. If the parts are observed outside the system, they do not
> naturally form themselves into this kind of "battery." Why is this?
Ditto. What is your ground for claiming that something which is
clearly natural (ie, of nature) is, in fact, not?
> >
> >> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
> >>
> >> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> >> code.
> >
> >What makes something 'arbitrary'? It seems this term only makes sense in
> >the realm of choice, ie, outside of 'unconscious physical nature'. One
may
> >well assert that there is nothing whatever 'arbitrary' about the behavior
of
> >atoms and molecules.
>
> for now, I am considering the laws of nature to be non-arbitrary.
> This allows for comparison between arbitrary systems in nature and
> those that are natural on the level of raw material.
>
> >How would you demonstrate otherwise?
>
> if raw materials naturally and consistently act in certain ways, and
> then you find some of those raw materials acting contrary to their
> natural tendencies, then you have evidence of an arbitrary imposition
> of outside force upon material that otherwise would never form the
> systems that they do.
>
> >Unless you
> >can, it seems unlikely you can demonstrate design in nature.
> >And regardless, you seem to toss the term 'arbitrary' around quite a lot;
> >what
> >exactly do you mean by it?
>
> arbitrary means the imposition of a decision to direct raw materials
> into a process that they are not normally observed to follow.
>
> >You are perilously close to assuming your
> >conclusion,
> >given that most of us consider 'arbitrary' to describe only those things
> >which
> >are the result of conscious acts...
>
> right. The point is to discover what conscious acts consistently look
> like so that when those hallmarks are seen, the item observed will be
> classified as the creation of a conscious mind.
>
> >
> >> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> >> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> >> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> >> stop building beyond a certain point."
> >
> >By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do
you
> >mean?
>
> I mean that species of life forms remain what they are, with some
> variation, and never evolve into a different species.
Sigh. Species change/evolve into other species *all the time*. We see it,
we study it, we know something of how it occurs.
Species evolve into other species, trivially.
[This has been well documented for at least two broad classes I'm familiar
with --
Orchids and killifish. Some of the work can be all but trivially reproduced
in the
home. Species evolve into other species, without a doubt.]
Further, members of a genus ( a 'family' of related species) can evolve into
members
of another, different, genus. Again, well documented, at least for orchids
and killifish.
It is simply wrong to assert otherwise. Pig-ignorant, too.
> >"Kind" is not, and needs to be, a well-defined term.
>
> "Kind" is my creationist word for "species." I'll use "species" if
> that is more comfortable for you.
>
> >And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
> >'natural',
> >defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
>
> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
Yup, you are ignorant. Cross-species breeding can cross species lines.
Across kind in your usage. Cross genus breeding can happen.
Crosses can happen which cannot back-breed. Other crosses can.
You clearly know nothing about biology or genetics.
I suggest you spend some time studying and learning.
>
> >
> >> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> >> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> >> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> >> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> >> able to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific sequences
> >> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
> >
> >As if that were the only possible falsification?
> >This is far too much like the old, oft-refuted and oft- (and deservedly-)
> >ridiculed
> >'747 in a hurricane' "argument".
>
> the argument might be old, but should never be ridiculed, considering
> that it is a common-sense argument that only those on the lunatic
> fringe refuse to acknowledge.
>
> >The existence [note: not the concept] of arbitrary decision making in the
> >natural world must be demonstrated to exist. In order to do that,
> >'arbitrary'
> >needs to be precisely and unequivocally defined.
>
> look at a computer program, for instance, and tell me if there is
> evidence of arbitrariness there.
>
> >'Decision making'
> >likewise.
>
> see above.
>
> >Then exemplary cases must be presented and withstand alternative,
simpler,
> >explanations.
> >And note that an explanation proceeds to join the less well understood to
> >the
> >better understood; appeals to 'God did it' do not, ever, count as
> >explanatory
> >[or at least not without a vast amount of preparatory work, which has yet
to
> >be
> >done].
>
> I believe God did it, but I'm not stopping there. This is about
> discovering HOW He did it. That is what scientific research is about.
Final point -- if God, allegedly omnipotent, 'did it', you must assume that
it is
possible to determine a mechanism. But an omnipotent entity does not
require
mechanism to act. So what's the point? And what's the possibility?
Can't wait to see brick #2, given how shoddy brick 1 turned out to be.
Bill
Wayne Bagguley
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:57:55 +0000 (UTC), eri...@home.com
> (SortingItOut) wrote:
> >> okay, the foundation:
> >>
> >> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> >> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> >> conscious, intelligent thought.
> >
> >This seems to say: "All objects known to be created by conscious,
> >intelligent thought share certain identifying properties. These
> >properties will be used as a standard for identifying created
> >objects."
>
> right.
What are the criteria?
> >The problem with this (besides being extremely vague for a theory) is
> >that to make your standard complete, you have to consider ALL objects
> >known to be created by conscious, intelligent thought.
>
> do you wait until ALL fossils are found before drawing your
> conclusions?
No, but identifying fossils is different from coming up with
a description of what all 'designed' things should look like.
> Do you wait until ALL experiments are successfully
> concluded before promoting your theory of abiogenesis?
This, too is totally different from claiming that all things
that are designed share common characteristics.
> Why are you holding me to this impossible standard?
You are claiming that all designed things share certain common
characteristic which make them clearly identifiable as being designed.
You still haven't told us what those criteria are and failed to give
us an example of what a non-designed animal should look like.
SortingItOut is wrong. You don't have to consider all objects
to produce your hypothesis. However, you need to come up with some
sort of hypothesis which is then testable with known 'created'
objects. If we can find something which we know has been 'created'
and it doesn't meet your criteria then your hypothesis will have
been falsified. You obviously know that this is true because otherwise
why whould do you withold your criteria as you are doing?
> >After that,
> >what's left? The alternative is to be specific about the standard (as
> >all standards should be).
>
> and that is what I am in the process of doing -- brick one, remember?
> If I give it all at once, it is too much to chew at one bite.
You haven't even given us brick one.
> >> And the first brick:
> >>
> >> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> >> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> >> behavior;
This is meaningless babble. In fact, it's a meaningless assertion. Where
is your reasoning? Why must there be evidence of decision-making? What
does that evidence look like? You never say.
> there are gray areas in everything, including your evolutionary
> theory.
But the grey areas in evolution or other proven scientific theories are
not so huge as to render the entire theory invalid. The grey areas in
your hypothesis are larger than the holes in the ozone layer.
> A scientist will not throw up his hands because there are
> ambiguous areas. He will begin to examine the clear-cut areas, and if
> there are sufficient examples to warrant a standard, he declares this
> standard. Creation theory has mountains of evidence of what creation
> is.
If there are mountains of evidence then please present them. You should
have no trouble. The fact that you haven't presented anything is evidence
in itself that you have not got a hypothesis, let alone anything approaching
a theory.
> A standard can be formed. Brick one is just one part of the
> standard.
Yet brick one is missing.
> >Also, the criteria for identifying the uncrossable barrier is not
> >given.
>
> the criteria is start/stop, on/off sequences. If a process is stopped
> or turned off consistently, this provides a barrier to further action
> beyond the point of stop.
What is the process you are talking about? More to the point, WHY would
start/stop sequences be the barrier between species? Why do you never provide
any logical reasoning? Why do you only provide baseless assertions?
> >And a barrier implies that the movement or development of
> >something is impeded by the barrier.
>
> a command to stop whatever activity is in progress serves as a
> barrier, doesn't it?
Only as a barrier to the activity, not a whole species.
> When a computer programmer stops an iteration,
> that stop command serves as a barrier to further development or
> progression of the iterations.
No, it's not a barrier to development. Yes, it's a barrier to the
continuation of the iterations. This has nothing to do with iter-species
barriers.
> Consider, then, that any evidence of a
> stop command will be evidence for a barrier.
But that's a totally wrong consideration. A 'stop' command which ends
the creation of a certain protein is not evidence of a barrier between
species.
> >What movement are you talking
> >about?
>
> the stringing of polypeptides into an endless chain. Introns and
> exons are good examples of stop/start commands.
Clearly you do not know anything about what you are talking about. Introns
and exons are not examples stop/start commands. An exon is a sequence of
DNA that codes for protein synthesis. An intron is a DNA sequence that lies
between exons and is not transcribed. A start/stop sequence is a 3 letter
DNA code that tells the synthesis machinary to start or stop transcription.
It's quite possible for a stop sequence to be mutated and then the intron
becomes transcribed and you have a new protein. It is not a barrier to
species.
> >There are also many environments in which they do not
> >form. How does identifying one of these specific environments help
> >our understanding? If I find another enviroment where they DO form
> >without human intervention have I falsified the theory?
>
> yes. If you find an environment where amino acids placed in a pool
> are able to form muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc., then you are on
> your way to falsifiying my theory. If the laws of nature are able, by
> themselves, to assemble system-less amino acids into systems of skin
> and bone and brain tissue, then there is no need for thought behind
> the process.
That's a straw-man. Amino acids on their own will not form
muscle tissue or nerve tissue. What they will form, under the right
conditions, is molecules that self-replicate and evolve so that in
a few billion generations you may get muscle tissue and nerve cells.
This has nothing to do with identifying the hallmarks of something which
has been designed by a conscious entity. What are those hallmarks? How
do you know that natural processes cannot produce those hallmarks? Does
the designer itself exhibit those hallmarks? Why do you never provide us
with any concrete answers to those questions? Could it be that you don't
know what the hallmarks are? Could it be that you don't have any evidence
of creation? Could it be that you are just spouting complete rhetoric
rubbish to placate your own intrigue? I rather think the answer to all
those is 'yes'.
-
Wayne
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm still waiting for the numbers you used in your last isochron
thread...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my theory
> of creation,
I've seen more...
> and those responses were unsatisfactory,
You mean, unsatisfactory to *you*. (but how could one satisfy someone
who has made up her mind long before and will dismiss every rebuttal?)
> I am already
> concluding that my foundation for creation is as solid as I thought.
Err, Zoe, you are the only one thinking this. You are the only one, too,
who didn't understand the math behind the isochron, even after five
months. I wonder if there could be a connection...
> But before moving on to actual construction upon this foundation, I
> would like to double check each point made so far, in case there are
> any hidden problems remaining.
You ignored every problem pointed out so far.
> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let it
> be known that I am placing one before them right now.
Err, no. What you present here is a bunch of speculations and
falsehoods.
> To continue to
> insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
To continue to insist that isochron dating is wrong without having
presented a single (mathematically right!) example showing this is to
persist in lying.
> okay, the foundation:
>
> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of those
> identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a result of
> conscious, intelligent thought.
Err, you can only find out these factors for objects created by
*humans*, as already pointed out several times.
> And the first brick:
>
> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary decision-making,
> indicative of conscious mental choices over and above instinctual
> behavior;
O.k. so far.
> i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences,
Why is this evidence of "arbitrary decision making"?
> juxtaposition of parts
> that normally would not be found together if left on their own.
What is "normally" here?
> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision making
> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
> force.
Yes. So what? What has this to do with start and stop sequences in the
DNA? Hint, Zoe: there are lots of forces involved in reading off the
DNA!
> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision making.
>
> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the genetic
> code.
And why do you think this is evidence of "arbitrary decision making",
again?
> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> kinds or families of species,
Please be more specific - "kinds" or "families"? If the first - what
*is* a "kind", please?
And as far as I know, it has already been shown that species from
different families aren't too distant from each other to have developed
from a common ancestor...
> due to instructions from the gene to
> stop building beyond a certain point."
Stop building what?
> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural world
> will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be dismantled and left
> floating in a solution similar to that of the cell, and if, without
> human intervention, it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are
> able to re-form into triplet codes
Err, Zoe, what have polypeptides to do with these four bases, please?
> that spell out specific sequences
> of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
What "specific" sequences are you talking about? Nearly *all* sequences
of these bases code for these 20 amino acids!
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:34:07 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
[snip]
> I am using nature, (for now), as the undesigned
> area, in order to first distinguish a human's created objects from
> objects in nature. Anything that is determined to be "natural" will
> be the contrast needed to point up human artifacts. Once a standard
> for human creativity is established, it can next be applied to nature
> to see if there is any human-like creation existing there. Call it
> "pushing back the frontiers of creation."
Err, that makes no sense! First you use nature to find the distinct
signs of human creativity (because these don't occur in nature), then
you claim that these signs could be found in nature, too???
[snip]
> >Otherwise, we have no distinction to draw, and no evidentiary basis for
> >claiming design.
>
> the distinction can be drawn by comparing the unexpected force applied
> by humans in creating objects, to natural agents that are already in
> force due to the laws of nature.
"unexpected force"? Unexpected by whom?
> in applying the standard for human creativity next to creativity in
> the natural world, the new comparison would be between the natural
> behavior of raw elements in chemistry and physics and forces applied
> to these natural processes.
Err, Zoe, forces are natural processes, too...
> >So how are we to identify 'arbitrary decision making'?
>
> by examining the characteristics of arbitrary decision making in the
> human arena.
And why are we justified to extrapolate this to non-human creativity?
> >What shall count?
>
> what counts is whether the created object would exist without
> conscious thought.
How do you determine this?
> For those items that are questionable, you would
> have to set them aside, but if there are sufficient items that are
> clear-cut in their evidence of conscious thought, a standard can begin
> to be formed.
Who determines if they are "clear-cut"? For example, the eye is for
creationists clearly designed, for evolutionists, it isn't.
> And we have mountains of evidence for clear-cut
> conscious thought in many created items.
In human artifacts or what?
> >That's the core of your argument here, I believe. And you've provided
> >nothing to answer the question, which you must.
>
> I have provided one "brick," so far, and it is that there must be
> evidence of arbitrary decision-making, indicative of conscious mental
> choices over and above instinctual behavior;
Depends on what means "arbitrary" here. The direction of the spin of an
electron is arbitrary, too, in a sense, an interaction with another
particle which "measures" this spin is "arbitrary decision making", too
- but nethertheless I wouldn't say that conscious mental choices are
involved there...
> i.e., arbitrary stop/start sequences,
I don't see why this is evidence for "arbitrary decision making". Why
couldn't such sequences appear by natural processes?
> juxtaposition of parts that normally would not
> be found together if left on their own.
What do you mean by "left on their own"? Do you *still* don't understand
that environmental conditions are important?
> Examples of such conscious mental choices are: computers and computer
> programs, refrigerators, television sets, automobiles, clocks...and
> the list is large. These items give evidence of arbitrary
> decision-making, start/stop commands, purpose,
How? Please elaborate.
> juxtaposition of parts not naturally found together.
One could argue that humans are a part of nature and hence everything
designed by humans *is* naturally found together... ;-)
[snip]
> In applying the standard to nature, consider chemiosmosis which is
> part of how the genetic code is empowered. This is not a spontaneous
> mechanism.
What do you mean by "spontaneous mechanism"?
> The parts of this system do not, of themselves, perform
> the function that is chemiosmosis.
But they do perform this function if the environmental conditions are
right - you still miss this point!
> This activity in nature is
> "unnatural" when compared to what the raw materials of this system are
> known to naturally do if left to themselves.
Huh? Nonsense. This is completely natural!
> consider also the currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate
> -- which is the equivalent of the charged battery. ATP to ADP and
> back again; this is a system that is not natural to the parts of its
> whole.
Why?
> If the parts are observed outside the system, they do not
> naturally form themselves into this kind of "battery." Why is this?
Depends on what you mean by "outside the system". Again, if the
environmental conditions are right, this system *will* work. Stop
neglecting the environment! These systems in general interact heavily
with their environment!
[snip]
> >How would you demonstrate otherwise?
>
> if raw materials naturally and consistently act in certain ways, and
> then you find some of those raw materials acting contrary to their
> natural tendencies, then you have evidence of an arbitrary imposition
> of outside force upon material that otherwise would never form the
> systems that they do.
*sigh* Depends on the environment...
[snip]
> >You are perilously close to assuming your
> >conclusion,
> >given that most of us consider 'arbitrary' to describe only those things
> >which
> >are the result of conscious acts...
>
> right. The point is to discover what conscious acts consistently look
> like so that when those hallmarks are seen, the item observed will be
> classified as the creation of a conscious mind.
Err, no. Of a *human* mind.
> >> Prediction: Genome mapping and comparative genome mapping for all
> >> cell types will reveal that there are uncrossable barriers between
> >> kinds or families of species, due to instructions from the gene to
> >> stop building beyond a certain point."
> >
> >By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do you
> >mean?
>
> I mean that species of life forms remain what they are, with some
> variation, and never evolve into a different species.
*sigh*
Zoe, do you again deny that speciation happens? We have been through
this before, remember?
(if you don't define species by "populations which are reproductively
isolated", please give *your* definition...)
[snip]
> >And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
> >'natural',
> >defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
>
> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
Oh, nice. Hence you *really* use this definition? Then your claom that
no new "kinds" can arise is wrong - it has been observed that mutations
can lead to populations which cannot interbreed with each other...
[snip]
> >As if that were the only possible falsification?
> >This is far too much like the old, oft-refuted and oft- (and deservedly-)
> >ridiculed '747 in a hurricane' "argument".
>
> the argument might be old, but should never be ridiculed, considering
> that it is a common-sense argument that only those on the lunatic
> fringe refuse to acknowledge.
Hint: common sense is often wrong in science.
> >The existence [note: not the concept] of arbitrary decision making in the
> >natural world must be demonstrated to exist. In order to do that,
> >'arbitrary' needs to be precisely and unequivocally defined.
>
> look at a computer program, for instance, and tell me if there is
> evidence of arbitrariness there.
The words of which the programming language consists were chosen
arbitrary, within some limits.
[snip]
> >Then exemplary cases must be presented and withstand alternative, simpler,
> >explanations.
> >And note that an explanation proceeds to join the less well understood to
> >the better understood; appeals to 'God did it' do not, ever, count as
> >explanatory
> >[or at least not without a vast amount of preparatory work, which has yet to
> >be done].
>
> I believe God did it, but I'm not stopping there. This is about
> discovering HOW He did it. That is what scientific research is about.
Nice! Hence we will finally get a definition what "create" means?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 04:15:31 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> >The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference
> >between
> >> >an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
> >> >I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have
> >had
> >> >the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side
> >of
> >> >a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling
> >rock.
> >>
> >> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
> >> again?
> >
>
> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
> to do so?
Do you really believe that the DNA purposefully applies start/stop
sequences?
> Besides, if the ledge succeeded in stopping the fall of the
> rock, then the rock does not bounce. If it bounces, the ledge did not
> stop its fall.
Err, yes, it does! After it bounces, it goes upwards - hence its fall
was stopped! If it goes back downwards later, it is a *new* fall!
> It is merely the inanimate, unthinking object that
> provides a means for the rock to ricochet.
>
> I think your "natural" example does not qualify.
I think your DNA example does not qualify, too.
And, BTW, I'm still waiting for your numbers in your last isochron
thread...
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:56:50 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >The first problem here is, Zoe, how do you know the difference between
> >an arbitrary stop/start sequence and a natural stop/start sequence?
> >I'll give you an example of a clearly natural one: most of us have had
> >the chance to observe a sequence of ledges protruding from the side of
> >a cliff. These make a natural stop/start sequence for a falling rock.
>
> a ledge may stop a falling rock, but where does it start its fall
> again?
It could start falling by being pushed over the edge by a glacier, for
example. A perfectly natural "start sequence". Zoe, you lose again...
> >This is an intentionally trivial example to show that both natural and
> >arbitrary stop/start sequences exist. So the problem is, how do we
> >tell them apart?
>
> by the stop/start process;
It has been shown above that natural things could be start/stop
processes, too...
> by evidence of purpose and goal orientation.
Who determines if there is purpose and goal orientation?
> A falling rock may be stopped by a ledge, but the ledge
> does not fulfil all the criteria for arbitrary intervention.
Says you.
> The ledge cannot start the rock to falling again.
So what? Stop sequences in the genome cannot start the reading off of
the DNA, too!
> The ledge does not show
> a purpose by reaching out and stopping the rock,
And where is the purpose in the stop sequences of the DNA, please?
> nor does it show goal
> orientation by revving up and tossing the rock back out into space.
Where is the goal orientation in the start sequences of the DNA, please?
> The ledge fails the test of an arbitrary creation that serves a
> conscious purpose.
Then the DNA fails this test, too.
> >The second problem is that surprising juxtaposition of parts happens
> >in the natural world all the time. They are surprising only when we do
> >not understand the process that caused the juxtaposition, or when the
> >process is understood but believed to be very rare.
>
> the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
> themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
> when found within a system in nature.
You cannot have materials outside of any systems ever.
> >For example, a
> >huge granite boulder sitting on top of an extensive field of loess far
> >from any granitic source would, at first glance, seem a juxtaposition
> >of parts that normally would not be found together if left on their
> >own. But if you knew that the failure of an ice dam holding back a
> >glacial lake could discharge huge icebergs bearing such boulders
> >across the landscape, you would then have a natural explanation for
> >how the juxtaposition occured.
>
> this is a fuzzy case that would not be my first choice to study for
> arbitrariness. But if you insist on using it, I would have to put it
> on the back burner until the information about icebergs became
> available. Meanwhile, there are clear-cut cases that are sufficient
> in quantity to form a solid standard for identifying creation.
Zoe, could it be that in these "clear-cut cases", simply information is
missing, too?
[snip]
> >Before we can call this observed data for your criterion, you must
> >explain how you know the sequences are arbitrary and not natural.
>
> I would know the sequences are arbitrary by observing how the raw
> materials that make up a system act when left to themselves. They do
> not naturally form the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis, for instance.
Yes, they do, if the conditions are right.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> >On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 03:39:41 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
> >wrote:
> >
> >[]
> >>
> >>the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
> >>themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
> >>when found within a system in nature.
> >
> >earth bears your hallmark of creativity since it is following a
> >pattern where it is within its system when it would simply float along
> >in a 'straight' line if it were not part of a system.
>
> right, but I'm leaving gravitation out of creation's hallmarks right
> now. I'm allowing all natural law as a given, without calling upon a
The point was not if gravity is created or not - the point was that
gravity, a natural force, can create patterns!
[snip]
> >The fact that matter can and does arrange itself into patterns and
> >systems in which the materials within act differently than outside
> >such a system in no way indicates that the system is the result of
> >creativity.
>
> Then you must be quite certain that a computer program that runs
> without any apparent outside intervention must not be a result of
> someone's creativity. Excel or CAD was always there, part of the laws
> of nature, right?
False analogy, as usual. We know already that computer programs are
created (and we don't know this because they *look* created).
> It is these kinds of leaps of logic that are used in the evolutionary
> theory,
Huh? I don't see a leap of logic here.
> causing a reasonable, unprejudiced person
Err, you mean someone unprejudiced like yourself who takes it as a given
fact that God created the world?
> to seriously
> question the agenda of the holder of such amazing illogic.
I haven't seen serious questioning so far - only illogic on your side.
> This would
> be on par with the idea that if I can jump into the air six inches,
> then I can continue to jump higher and higher, using each last six
> inches as the base for my new jump.
False analogy. Gravity causes you to fall back - what is the analogous
"force" which causes organisms to return to their previous state after
mutations?
> That's what macroevolution
> posits, you know, that many little micro steps will eventually lead to
> coverage of a great big step.
And that's perfectly right! Add a mountain in your example above, and
you surely will agree that it is likely that you can climb it with many
small steps, right?
[snip]
> >The lack of function of a deconstructed system shows that the system
> >must have been the result of creativity in what way?
>
> if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
> were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
> functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
> millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
> finally found each other,
Err, Zoe, obviously you don't understand chemistry. For molecules to
react with each other, it isn't sufficient that they "find" each other.
You need something called activation energy, too. You have to wait a
long time often, too (ever heard of "reaction speeds"?). You need a
selection process, too, which sorts out the molecules which are "better"
(are more likely to lead to self-reproducing molecules). And so on...
> and if you place them in your proposed
> deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form,
How long do propose to wait?
> then you have
> to consider other alternatives. I am proposing "thought" as another
> alternative. That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
> investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered.
As long as you provide valid criteria, fine. So far, you haven't. (your
"arbitrary decision making" isn't a good criteria, as demonstrated
several times now)
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm still waiting for your numbers you used in your last isochron
thread...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 08:57:55 +0000 (UTC), eri...@home.com
> (SortingItOut) wrote:
>
[snip]
> >Also, the criteria for identifying the uncrossable barrier is not
> >given.
>
> the criteria is start/stop, on/off sequences. If a process is stopped
> or turned off consistently, this provides a barrier to further action
> beyond the point of stop.
What has the fact that reading of the DNA when forming a protein is
stopped somewhere to do with uncrossable barriers for mutations???
> >And a barrier implies that the movement or development of
> >something is impeded by the barrier.
>
> a command to stop whatever activity is in progress serves as a
> barrier, doesn't it?
A barrier to further reading of the DNA, yes. But what has this do to
with barriers to mutations???
[snip]
> >What movement are you talking about?
>
> the stringing of polypeptides into an endless chain.
No, it's not endless - precisely because of these stop "commands".
> Introns and exons are good examples of stop/start commands.
Huh? I think you confuse something here... AFAIK, introns and exons have
nothing to do with start/stop commands.
[snip]
> >Amino acids form by the gazillions without human intervention all over
> >the world.
>
> I am talking only about amino acid combinations that form the kind of
> protein with which life forms are known to grow and develop.
How do you know that life isn't possible with other proteins, too?
> If you
> drag in gazillions of amino acids that do nothing, that will only
> smoke up the mirror.
But you don't know which of these gazillions do something and which
don't...
> >There are also many environments in which they do not
> >form. How does identifying one of these specific environments help
> >our understanding? If I find another enviroment where they DO form
> >without human intervention have I falsified the theory?
>
> yes. If you find an environment where amino acids placed in a pool
> are able to form muscle tissue, nerve tissue, etc.,
Err, did it ever occur to you that these tissues consist of more things
than amino acids?
And, as usual: how long do you propose to wait?
> then you are on your way to falsifiying my theory.
The problem is, this falsification would take much longer than our life
times...
[snip rest]
Greetings,
Bjoern
Alan Wright
"Bill Felton" <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1MzY8.167167$%U3.57...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
> You missed my point, but certainly exposed more of your agenda.
> My point is that there may well be no such thing as a single set of
criteria
> which distinguish human-created artifacts, *other than the involvement of
> human agency in their creation*.
> For example, please identify for us what are the common elements of:
> poems
> pottery
> theories
> automobiles
> novels
> haiku
> surrealist paintings
> surrealist constructions
> zoos
> cities
> symphonies
> Those are all human created entities. What element(s) do they have in
> common?
Conjecture: as soon as any set of criteria for determining human creation
can
be listed, we can immediately create something which violates the rule.
> Can't wait to see brick #2, given how shoddy brick 1 turned out to be.
Yes, brick #1 has crumbled to dust.
Alan
Boikat
I believe this is called "projection" on your part. Or you are simply
lying. Typical.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>It makes you a liar.
> >>
> >
> > I've given up on irony meters, try again fool.
>
>
> You try again, dipstick.
Why? I only need to show that you are a fool once.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>A theory is simply an explanation of certain observation(s) about
> >>nature.
> >>
> >
> > Wrong.
>
>
> Right. That has also been explained to you many times, and you still
> deny it, like you do here. So you must be lying, or stupid, according to
> you.
Whowwould you know?
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory,
> >>
> >
> > There was no theory to falsify, idiot.
>
>
> Just like telling yourself over and over that you aren't a moron won't
> make it true, turd bag.
More projection on your part.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>you accuse her of
> >>lying.
> >>
> >
> > There are two possibilities, given that science, and the scientific
method
> > has been explained to her before, several times. She is stupid, or she
is
> > lying. I take it you propose she is simply stupid.
>
>
> As always, what you "take" isn't based in reality. Just because you
> "explain" something doesn't make it true, and doesn't mean that another
> must accept it or be a liar.
So, you agree she is simply stupid.
>
> Of course, this concept is too complex for a moron like you who can
> barely do more than type "idiot" and "liar".
Like I said before, I no longer use irony meters.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
> >>
> >
> > Like you'd know? Hah!
> >
> > Boikat
>
>
> Yes, accusing Zoe of lying is not part of the scientific method.
You are also obtuse. Her claim to have a valid scientific "theory of
creation" os based upon her faulty understanding and usage of the therm
"theory". In order to be a valid scientific theory, her whimsical attempt at
a "scientific theory" is invalid to begin with.
>
> It's apparent that you think it is.
>
Her "theory" contained nothing but faulty logic, and in no way could be
tested scientifically using the standard scientific method, even if it were
used a loose guide line. The faults of her understanding, or rather, the
lack of understanding has been explained to her before, and the scientific
method has been explained to her before. Yet she continues to apply proper
methodology to build her "theory". I say again, she is either willfully
ignoring the proper scientific method, which is dishonest, I.E., a lie, or
she is stupid.
Boikat
Ben Potter
zoe_althrop wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:34:07 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> >And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
> >'natural',
> >defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
>
> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
>
Sooo, how would you deal with Anagenesis? Would you call Homo habilis
and Homo sapiens the same species?
How would you deal with ring species? Where A, B, and C are subspecies,
separated geographically but A-B, B-C overlap, whereas A-C do not overlap.
Species A and B can breed, and species B and C can breed, but species
A and C are not interfertile.
You're displaying some Woeful ignorance about biology.
Cheers,
Ben
John Harshman
<bpo...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
Spelling flame: I presume you meant to say "Zoeful ignorance".
By the way, the entire family Anatidae, of around 150 species, is famous
for becoming confused about who should mate with whom. Inter-genus,
inter-tribe, and even inter-subfamily hybrids are known. Zoe: does that
mean that all ducks, geese, and swans are a single species?
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
Patrick James
(in message
<harshman.diespamdi...@user-2ivfjas.dialup.mindspring.com>):
> In article <3D332D95...@pobox.alaska.net>, Ben Potter
> <bpo...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
>> zoe_althrop wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:34:07 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
>>> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> zoe_althrop wrote:
>>>
>>>> And, fwiw, cross-generic hybridization and speciation is known in the
>>>> 'natural',
>>>> defined here as 'without modification by human intervention' world...
>>>
>>> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
>>> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
>>> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
>>>
>>
>> Sooo, how would you deal with Anagenesis? Would you call Homo habilis
>> and Homo sapiens the same species?
>>
>> How would you deal with ring species? Where A, B, and C are subspecies,
>> separated geographically but A-B, B-C overlap, whereas A-C do not overlap.
>> Species A and B can breed, and species B and C can breed, but species
>> A and C are not interfertile.
>>
>> You're displaying some Woeful ignorance about biology.
>
> Spelling flame: I presume you meant to say "Zoeful ignorance".
>
> By the way, the entire family Anatidae, of around 150 species, is famous
> for becoming confused about who should mate with whom.
And there were those who thought that "The Ugly Duckling" was _fiction_.
> Inter-genus,
> inter-tribe, and even inter-subfamily hybrids are known. Zoe: does that
> mean that all ducks, geese, and swans are a single species?
>
>
thy're all heathens. Shameless. Not at all the kind of thing that a
well-brought-up Xian lady would ever discuss. So she won't mention them.
Glenn
John Harshman wrote:
Instincts can be confused?
Who "should" they mate with?
What is "species"?
zoe_althrop
<bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>Well, it's been an 'interesting' thread -- so far it's running roughly
>wildly against zoe
>and the so-called Theory of Creation(ism).
I would expect it to run wildly against me, Bill. This forum is but a
tiny subculture -- a ghetto, if you will -- in a world with much
broader interests. T.O. consists of a majority of staunch believers
in macroevolution. Their job is to knock down any challenge to their
worldview, regardless. So, of course, there will be no support from
those quarters -- strictly on principle.
>> >Missing premise, and a crucial one as we shall shortly see:
>> >Suppressed premise: There are objects which are designed and objects
>> >which are not designed. The proposed standard is the basis by which
>> >we may differentiate these adequately and correctly.
>>
>> why do you consider this to be a suppressed premise? This is
>> blatantly my premise. I am using nature, (for now), as the undesigned
>> area, in order to first distinguish a human's created objects from
>> objects in nature. Anything that is determined to be "natural" will
>> be the contrast needed to point up human artifacts. Once a standard
>> for human creativity is established, it can next be applied to nature
>> to see if there is any human-like creation existing there. Call it
>> "pushing back the frontiers of creation."
>
>I consider it to be a suppressed premise because it was not explicitly
>called
>out. Further, it is, at best, disingenuous of you to take this tack due to
>the
>clearly spelled-out goal of ultimately showing that 'all things are
>designed'.
my hypothesis is that all things are created. And what's wrong with
clearly spelling out my goal? Every hypothesis should be clearly
spelled out. I'm not trying to sneak up on you, you know. If my
hypothesis is validated, then I will have an acceptable theory that
says that all things are created, which would mean that all things
have a creator.
And I would expect to show that the First Cause, the Creator of all
things, will have no creator because He is not Himself created.
>But of course if 'all things are designed' you don't have any way to get to
>that
>conclusion. We only have a concept of designed things because we
>distinguish
>them from the 'prior' (or foundational) notion of naturally occuring
>things.
and we can use this concept of designed things to learn more about
other designed things. True or false?
>> >[Note, there's another suppressed premise here, or set of suppressed
>> >premises. You need to justify the implied assertion that there exists a
>> >single
>> >set of identifying factors that apply to all objects created as a result
>of
>> >conscious, intelligent thought and only to those objects. It may be that
>> >there is no such singular set, but rather what Wittgenstein called a
>> >'family resemblance'. Or many other possibilities.]
>>
>> what you call an implied assertion is what I am calling my hypothesis.
>> If a consistent series of identifying factors can be applied to all
>> created objects, then we have a standard by which to measure articles
>> of creation, wherever they may be found.
>
>You missed my point, but certainly exposed more of your agenda.
my agenda is on the table: I want to show that the universe has a
Creator. Nothing to hide; nothing to inadvertently expose.
>My point is that there may well be no such thing as a single set of criteria
>which distinguish human-created artifacts, *other than the involvement of
>human agency in their creation*.
>
>For example, please identify for us what are the common elements of:
>poems
1. Arbitrary decision making: choice of certain words versus other
words. Use of periods, pauses, new beginnings.
2. A plan: thoughts expressed in ordered progression towards a goal.
3. Raw materials: paper, ink, alphabet.
4. Mechanism: writing, typing, dictation.
5. Identification of the creator: characteristic style of thought;
signature of poet.
>pottery
1. Arbitrary decision making: choice of certain shapes versus other
shapes. Use of start-and-stop sculpting, so that the pottery takes a
shape not normally found in nature.
2. A plan: purpose, intended use.
3. Raw materials: clay.
4. Mechanism: handbuilding, throwing, glazing, firing.
5. Identification of creator: characteristic style; signature of
potter.
>theories
1. Arbitrary decision making: choice of one concept over another.
2. A plan: Hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion.
3. Raw materials: Ideas, data.
4. Mechanism: Logic.
5. Identification of creator: Name attached to theory.
>automobiles
1. Arbitrary decision making: take your pick -- this too easy
2. A plan: a blueprint for the particular model.
3. Raw materials: take your pick
4. Mechanism: factory assembly.
5. Identification of creator: Manufacturer's name attached.
>novels
1 - 5. Similar to poetry.
>haiku
1 - 5. Similar to poetry and novels.
>surrealist paintings
this is more difficult.
1. Arbitrary decision making: choice of one color and brush stroke
over another, choice of a framework for the colors, arbitrary
beginning and ending of various colors and strokes to fit on a canvas
or framed area.
2. A plan: Evidenced by a frame that contains a series of colors and
brush strokes.
3. Raw materials: acrylic, oil, pastels, charcoal, pencil, water
color.
4. Mechanism: use of hands, feet, or mouth.
5. Identification of creator: Signature usually in a corner of the
canvas.
>surrealist constructions
Similar to surrealist paintings, but identifiable by its placement and
signature.
>zoos
1. Arbitrary decision making: presence of animals normally not found
in this setting.
2. A plan: For education and entertainment of the public.
3. Raw Materials: artificial housing.
4. Mechanism: gathering, collecting, maintaining.
5. Identification of creator/s: Name given to the zoo.
>cities
1. Arbitrary decision making: layout of infrastructure, with copious
use of stop/start devices such as signals, traffic lights, speed
limits, etc.
2. A plan: laws to facilitate harmonious communal living.
3. Raw Materials: concrete, asphalt, rubber, plastic, etc.
4. Mechanism: people.
5. Identification of creator/s: Names given to cities.
>symphonies
1. Arbitrary decision making: start/stop of musical notes,
arrangement of notes.
2. A plan: music sheet, score, composition.
3. Raw materials: notes.
4. Mechanism: Arrangement of notes.
5. Identification of creator/s: Name attached to musical composition.
>Those are all human created entities. What element(s) do they have in
>common?
arbitrary decision making, a plan or blueprint, raw materials that by
themselves would not arrange into the final product, a mechanism for
arranging the raw materials, and identification of the creator
somewhere. All five characteristics must be present, or the item will
be set aside until further evaluation. Only the most clear-cut
examples will be retained. A standard can begin to take shape if
there are sufficient clear-cut examples. And there are.
>What are the factors of an auto and a symphony and a theory that are common
>to
>all, and unique to designed things, other than 'that they were created'?
see above.
>Basically zoe, you're problem is that we do not proceed from thing to
>concept of
>design to deduction of designer. We proceed from designer to designed
>thing,
>not vice versa.
say again? No, don't bother.
Do YOU proceed from your first common ancestor to the species? No,
you don't. You observe the species currently available for
observation and then extrapolate backwards to an assumed common
ancestor. Allow me the same liberty.
>So to demonstrate 'intelligent design', you must *first* demonstrate
>intelligent designer,
do YOU demonstrate your first common ancestor? You haven't even
identified it yet, but you have formed an elaborate theory on common
ancestry. Allow me the same liberty of extrapolation backwards.
>then connect the designer to the allegedly designed item.
and having not yet been able to identify your first common ancestor,
how do you then feel free to connect it to the present species of
today?
snip>
>> well, unless we are going to fly in the face of Newton's law that
>> things in motion remain in motion and things at rest stay at rest, I
>> would not expect to find anything which moves or stops without the
>> action of another force. But it is not at this basic level that I am
>> invoking the law of inertia. It is at the level of unexpected force
>> exercised over and above natural forces.
>
>"Unexpected"?
if oil paints begin to assemble, blend and form a picture, would that
be unexpected? That is what I mean by unexpected in the world of
color mediums. The human artist is the unexpected force for oils that
would otherwise lie around doing nothing.
in nature, if electrons, hydrogen, protons, or oxygen molecules were
observed in a lab setting, outside of a life form, they do not
normally assemble themselves into the operating system known as
chemiosmosis, do they? The formation of such a cycle is what I call
unexpected.
> By whom?
Both human and certain clearly identifiable "natural" systems require
an unexpected force that manipulates and arranges the raw materials.
>"over and above" natural forces? What would those
>things be that are 'over and above' natural forces?
creators.
>I am unaware of the existence of anything 'unnatural' in the sense necessary
>for your
>statement to be meaningful...
see above.
snip>
>> In applying the standard to nature, consider chemiosmosis which is
>> part of how the genetic code is empowered. This is not a spontaneous
>> mechanism. The parts of this system do not, of themselves, perform
>> the function that is chemiosmosis. This activity in nature is
>> "unnatural" when compared to what the raw materials of this system are
>> known to naturally do if left to themselves.
>
>You are assuming your conclusion.
>Further, I assert you are simply wrong. The parts of the system have, of
>themselves,
>performed chemiosmosis. That's what they do in that system.
>This activity is *in* nature, and is natural.
you can't have the system as your evidence. It is the system that is
being examined. You are trying to leave the raw materials in the
"artificial" environment of the body. Take them out. What happens to
them? What do these raw materials do if found outside of the body?
They do not assemble into the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis. That is
what I mean by "left to themselves." What happens to raw materials
that are outside of their assembled environment, as posited for the
early earth?
>> consider also the currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate
>> -- which is the equivalent of the charged battery. ATP to ADP and
>> back again; this is a system that is not natural to the parts of its
>> whole. If the parts are observed outside the system, they do not
>> naturally form themselves into this kind of "battery." Why is this?
>
>Ditto. What is your ground for claiming that something which is
>clearly natural (ie, of nature) is, in fact, not?
take the raw materials (hydrogen, oxygen, electrons, protons) out of
their "natural" setting (the system), and they do not act the way they
do in their system's setting. They give evidence of manipulation
beyond their normal reactions.
shucks, this is all so elementary, that I feel that you guys are
really pretending to not recognize the difference -- strictly out of
the principle that your worldview must be defended at all costs.
snip>
>> >By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do
>you
>> >mean?
>>
>> I mean that species of life forms remain what they are, with some
>> variation, and never evolve into a different species.
>
>Sigh. Species change/evolve into other species *all the time*. We see it,
>we study it, we know something of how it occurs.
I see it, too. Such change and adaptation (you call it evolution) I
acknowledge -- because it is observable.
>Species evolve into other species, trivially.
such as? Don't tell me that gulls evolve into gulls that do not
interbreed, because the gulls remain gulls. If they no longer
interbreed, it is because of change of habits due to geographical
location, not because we have a gull that is now a crow or an eagle.
>[This has been well documented for at least two broad classes I'm familiar
>with --
>Orchids and killifish.
the killifish found in Trinidad adapt to the presence of predators,
that's all. They do not become non-killifish. And have orchids
become roses? I think we both agree that there is variation of the
species, and adaptation and change. We part ways when you try to
enter the mists of time and extrapolate the observed adaptations into
potentially new species that no longer resemble fish or flowers.
>Some of the work can be all but trivially reproduced
>in the
>home. Species evolve into other species, without a doubt.]
then you must mean something else by "species" than I do. I imagine
you must mean that a life form becomes a new species whenever it
develops new adaptive skills and habits. But that is not sufficient
to carry the change back or forward into the mists of time to produce
a new type of life form altogether.
>Further, members of a genus ( a 'family' of related species) can evolve into
>members
>of another, different, genus. Again, well documented, at least for orchids
>and killifish.
not at all. Orchids remain flowers of some variety, they do not
become apples. And killifish remain killifish. They just give
evidence of the ability to adapt to the presence or lack thereof of a
predator in their environment.
snip>
>> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
>> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
>> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
>
>Yup, you are ignorant. Cross-species breeding can cross species lines.
if they can "cross breed," that is an indication that they are of the
same kind -- or species. That is how species are identified, by if
they can interbreed. So if they do what might be called
cross-breeding, then it is not because they are crossing species
lines, but because they are of the same species. We don't tell the
species what they are. The species tell us what they are by how they
act.
>Across kind in your usage. Cross genus breeding can happen.
>Crosses can happen which cannot back-breed.
like the mule? End of line. No further evolution.
like the gulls that do not mate? There are other reasons for life
forms of the same species to not mate, besides inability to do so.
Environmental factors, habits, lifestyle developed from being in
different geographical areas, all these can produce barriers to
interbreeding, even though the life forms are of the same species.
All factors have to be considered before announcing that, hey, these
cannot interbreed, therefore they are a new species.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
snip>
>Err, that makes no sense! First you use nature to find the distinct
>signs of human creativity (because these don't occur in nature), then
>you claim that these signs could be found in nature, too???
it is comparison between how raw materials act when left to
themselves, or when taken out of their observed environments, and how
they act when manipulated or organized.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
harshman....@sjm.infi.net (John Harshman) wrote:
snip>
>By the way, the entire family Anatidae, of around 150 species, is famous
>for becoming confused about who should mate with whom. Inter-genus,
>inter-tribe, and even inter-subfamily hybrids are known. Zoe: does that
>mean that all ducks, geese, and swans are a single species?
if they are able to interbreed, then they are of the same species. If
they are unable to interbreed, I don't think you can jump to the
conclusion immediately that therefore they are not of the same
species. Other variables would need to be considered first --
environment, habits, lifestyle, geographical barriers that cause
different preferences to develop, etc.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
snip>
>You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I described a very
>simple, natural situation in which you may have a series of starts and
>stops.
explain to me again how a ledge causes a series of starts and stops in
the fall of a rock. Give me a concrete example. What I envision is a
rock that falls and comes to rest on a ledge. How does it get started
again, without the aid of an outside force?
and, anyway, why are we wasting time on these obscure examples when
there are mountains of evidence for clear-cut creation from which to
build a standard of what a created item looks like? I don't see
scientists doing that with their isochron, for instance. The
ambiguous samples are discarded as unfit and the best and the most
clear-cut samples are used to plot their values on a graph.
> Since it was natural and not arbitrary, it clearly does _not_
>have purpose. I was offering the example specifically _because_ it did
>not have purpose.
fine. Neither does it demonstrate start/stop similarities to a
computer program, for instance.
>You had argued that a stop/start sequence is evidence of
>arbitrariness, or if I understand you properly, a stop/start sequence
>is a hallmark of creation. I offered a trivial example of a stop/start
>sequence that is not a hallmark of creation.
I reject your example of a ledge performing a stop/start sequence,
since you have yet to show that a falling rock that is stopped by an
inanimate ledge is able to get started again, absent an outside force
that is not the ledge.
Do you have a better example?
>The question now is, how can you tell the difference between a created
>stop/start sequence with a purpose and a natural stop/start sequence
>with no purpose?
well, for starters, I can tell the difference between a ledge that
stops a falling rock and a string of symbols that serve as code to
stop a particular iteration in a computer program. Do you really
truly have a problem telling the difference?
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
snip>
>Do you really believe that the DNA purposefully applies start/stop
>sequences?
I do not believe that DNA purposefully applies start/stop sequences.
I believe that the evidence of start/stop sequences in the genetic
code reflect intent and purpose and thus thought behind the sequences.
Just as the evidence of start/stop commands in a computer program give
evidence of thought, intent and purpose.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
(H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
snip>
>Do you really think that the absence of a mtDNA which would fit the
>stop codons is a "purposefully applied external force" ?
>
>BTW, a stop codon is not able to restart transcription.
shucks, the answers I'm getting on this thread are becoming more and
more pointless. Consider one: Ledges that stop and start the fall of
a rock. This is supposed to be confusing to the human observer. Hey,
maybe that ledge is creative, if we are going to use Zoe's standard
for creativity.
And now a stop codon that is proffered as evidence that transcription
cannot be restarted. HRG, a stop codon does the work of a stop codon.
It's presence is evidence of an outside force arbitrarily inserting a
stop command. Starting of transcription is done by an entirely
different command.
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>> >Depends upon how it bounces, of course.
>>
>> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
>> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
>> to do so? Besides, if the ledge succeeded in stopping the fall of the
>
>Prove that it didn't.
I wouldn't waste my time. If evolutionary theory causes its holders to
lose all common sense, so that they call upon ledges to disprove that
there is such a concept as creation of human artifacts, then that
theory is one to be avoided.
snip>
----
zoe
zoe_althrop
<jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>wrote:
>
>>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
>>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
>>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
>>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
>>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
>>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
>>to consider other alternatives.
>
>True ... but that experiment hasn't been run yet, and probably never
>will, since it will take millions of years.
Jon, I explicitly said that I have bypassed the millions of years. I
am giving you the entire system, dismantle but in one place, ready to
be assembled. Where, according to your theory, it took millions of
years of trial and error in order to find the right combinations that
made the system work, I am GIVING you the right combinations in one
place at one time. No need to wait millions of years to see if the
parts will recognize each other. They are already there in one place,
ready to go.
>You are assuming the results.
>
>Note that the fact that we aren't willing to set up the experiment and
>wait for the result does _not_ mean that abiogenesis is unfalsifiable.
then the fact that I am not willing to set up an experiment that will
conjure up the Creator before your eyes does not mean that the Creator
is unfalsifiable. You have no ability to command billions of years at
your disposal. I have no ability to command the Creator of the
universe to appear on demand. But according to your standard, that
inability does not make my theory or your theory of origins
unfalsifiable. Thank you. It's a level playing field after all.
>
>> I am proposing "thought" as another
>>alternative.
>
>You are claiming that thought is required. You said "had to be
>organized via intelligence".
do you have an alternative if your abiogenetic hypothesis fails? Or
is it that it will never fail because always, sometime, somewhere,
billions of years in the future, you expect that it will finally work?
And this is called science?
>>That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
>>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered
>
>Yup, it's a valid proposal, but nobody yet has figured out a way to
>investigate it scientifically. You're not any closer to it than
>anybody else..
I'm not only closer to it, I'm already there. Of course I don't
expect to convince you of that.
----
zoe
John Harshman
Yes, they can. Do you find that confusing?
> Who "should" they mate with?
If they want to maximize their fitness, with members of their own species.
> What is "species"?
Now that's a can of worms. Most of the time, though, all the various
definitions refer to the same groups. To a first approximation, a species
is a separate gene pool. The occasional mistake doesn't destroy the
integrity of the gene pool, especially since hybrids are almost always
selected against. At least in ducks.
zoe_althrop
(Excelsior) wrote:
snip>
>Excuse me? Where did I say that matter/energy can/has arranged itself
>into every possible pattern?
I don't know what you're talking about. For sure, I don't see you
saying that anywhere.
snip>
>And your jumping analogy is farcical. Because you set the jumper back
>down at ground level for each jump which defines away the possibility
>of accumulation.
no, I am pointing up the impossibility of jumping six inches into the
air, and expecting that you will stay aloft long enough to jump
another six inches.
> Of course you can use the last six inches to start
>from because there was indeed a change from the original.
if the change is one that has no support system, and, indeed, is faced
with proofreading and correction to protect the integrity of the
original system, then you cannot use the last six inches to start your
next jump.
snip>
>>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
>>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
>>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
>>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
>>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
>>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
>>to consider other alternatives. I am proposing "thought" as another
>>alternative. That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
>>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered.
>
>What do you mean by 'bypass all the millions of trials and errors'.
I mean that I am GIVING you material that supposedly took millions of
years of trial and error to get to where it is today. And I am GIVING
you every single part of the whole, but dismantled. You no longer
need to wait millions of years to see if the parts will find each
other. They are now hanging out together in the same experimental
pool. Your abiogenetic theory should get evolution rolling in quick
time, wouldn't you expect?
>Where this seems to be leading is that you believe that what we think
>of as natural processes were authored and put in motion by an outside
>agancy (which means, of course that there are no natural processes,
>which itself contradicts your original assertion that there is a
>difference between natural and artificial).
eventually, it may come to that. But for now, I concede to you that
natural laws are possibly unauthored. Therefore, the distinction is
made in relation to natural laws.
----
zoe
Excelsior
wrote:
[]
>
>my hypothesis is that all things are created. And what's wrong with
>clearly spelling out my goal? Every hypothesis should be clearly
>spelled out. I'm not trying to sneak up on you, you know. If my
>hypothesis is validated, then I will have an acceptable theory that
>says that all things are created, which would mean that all things
>have a creator.
Fine. But you do realize that in that case, the premise you started
this whole thing out with, that natural processes could be
distinguished from the results of creativity, is rendered false by a
conclusion that all things are the results of creativity?
Which means the very basis of the argument is without merit? Which
means the conclusions cannot be depended upon?
[]
Excelsior
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC),
IOW you cannot define a species boundary, but you're nonetheless
absolutely sure that currently operating evolutionary mechanisms can't
cross it.
zoe_althrop
<hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
snip>
zoe wrote:
>> by the stop/start process; by evidence of purpose and goal
>> orientation. A falling rock may be stopped by a ledge, but the ledge
>> does not fulfil all the criteria for arbitrary intervention. The
>> ledge cannot start the rock to falling again.
>
>But a goat (or erosion of the ledge) can. Without doing so by intelligent
>purpose or goal orientation. So is the goat or the rain an 'actor'
>arbitrarily 'causing' these events?
if you consider the actions of a goat or of rain to be arbitrary, then
I guess you will have a problem differentiating between an artifact
and a goat/rain. An archeological dig in which strange artifacts are
unearthed would be really confusing, wouldn't it?
And, anyway, in sorting through the mountains of evidence for
creation, why would a scientist get bogged down with the
ledge/goat/rain example, when he has a wealth of human artifacts that
are clear-cut from which to build a standard for creation?
snip>
>> the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
>> themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
>> when found within a system in nature.
>
>Huh? Are you comparing how raw materials act when left outside *any* system
>with how they behave in an observable (aka natural) system?
exactly. You understand me!
>I assure you
>that no one knows how raw materials behave in unobservable supernatural
>systems?
so what do all those chemists in white lab coats know about how raw
materials behave? Do you consider the laboratory to be an
unobservable supernatural system?
>I can, of course, fantasize that raw materials act any way I want
>them to in imaginary systems.
chemists do not have to fantasize. They observe the behavior of raw
materials in their labs. Maybe you might want to ask them how raw
materials behave outside of systems.
snip>
>>>> The law of inertia points up the presence of external decision
>>> making
>>>> because, normally, things move or stop only if acted upon by another
>>>> force.
>
>Evolution is a theory about what happens to the genes and morphology based
>on genes of living entities over many generations. But are you really
>saying that all the actions of living entities are due to outside forces?
>Sic transit free will. Perhaps angels are moving the planets?
all action is a result of force. Directed energy. The idea is to
determine which forces are "natural" and which are artificial at the
level of human creativity, and then move on beyond that, keeping
"natural" always in the realm of raw materials that act only in a
certain way when left to themselves.
>>>>
>>>> OBSERVED DATA FOR CRITERION 1. Evidence of arbitrary decision
>>> making.
>>>>
>>>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
>>> genetic
>>>> code.
>Why is the existence of these sequences 'arbitrary decision making'?
because they do not occur by themselves. They require goal-directed
outside force and thought.
snip>
>The raw materials for generating organisms with modified genomes (evolution)
>includes a requirement for pre-existing organisms.
creation gives you those preexisting organisms.
>Evolution (as opposed to
>abiogenesis) requires that there be imperfectly self-replicating entities
>with genetic systems existing in environments that supply the raw materials
>and requisite energy to self-replicate.
how about I allow you imperfectly self-replicating entities -- virii
would be a start -- would you be able to observe the evolution of
fully functioning genetic systems? You should, with this kind of head
start.
> Once you have a system with these
>properties, it can evolve a Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis from previous
>systems.
but I haven't given you the system, because it is the system itself
that is being studied. I am giving you the raw materials.
>At some point abiogenesis is needed to generate the first 'living
>entity', but the evolution of the Kreb's cycle is well down the road from
>that point.
>
>I smell, behind your smoke and mirrors, the old tornado producing the 747
>strawman.
so you are one of those who believes that a tornado can produce the
747, if given a billion years maybe? Oh, the power of belief -- some
beliefs more rational than others, to be sure.
----
zoe
Excelsior
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:29:17 +0000 (UTC), psych...@xpoint.at
But in the other message, you said the ledge (the stop) had to restart
the rock. Now you say that something else can start it.
How about rain. Undermining the ledge. The rock falls. To the next
ledge. Where rain...
Starts and stops and not a hint of unnatural or creative work
involved.
Excelsior
wrote:
[]
>
>And, anyway, in sorting through the mountains of evidence for
>creation, why would a scientist get bogged down with the
>ledge/goat/rain example, when he has a wealth of human artifacts that
>are clear-cut from which to build a standard for creation?
You're the one who said (and made the basis of this hypothesis) that
there are two distinct sets: the natural and the results of
creativity. No matter how many members you put in either set, that is
NOT a *definition* of the sets..
Giving examples (and rather trivial ones at that) which you cannot
sort shows that you have no definition of the sets (beyond 'I know it
when I see it').
[]
R. Baldwin
news:3d338965....@news-server.cfl.rr.com...
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:07:11 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I described a
very
> >simple, natural situation in which you may have a series of starts
and
> >stops.
>
> explain to me again how a ledge causes a series of starts and stops
in
> the fall of a rock. Give me a concrete example. What I envision is
a
> rock that falls and comes to rest on a ledge. How does it get
started
> again, without the aid of an outside force?
I didn't say the ledge causes the series of starts and stops in the
fall of rock; however, the interaction of the ledge with the moving
rock results in starts and stops. Similarly, the start and stop
genetic codons do not cause any kind of reaction by themselves.
>
> and, anyway, why are we wasting time on these obscure examples when
> there are mountains of evidence for clear-cut creation from which to
> build a standard of what a created item looks like? I don't see
> scientists doing that with their isochron, for instance. The
> ambiguous samples are discarded as unfit and the best and the most
> clear-cut samples are used to plot their values on a graph.
Having kept out of the isochron thread, I can't really follow what
your allusion to it means. I do not agree with you that there are
mountains of evidence for clear-cut creation.
>
> > Since it was natural and not arbitrary, it clearly does _not_
> >have purpose. I was offering the example specifically _because_ it
did
> >not have purpose.
>
> fine. Neither does it demonstrate start/stop similarities to a
> computer program, for instance.
It wasn't intended to. It was intended to point out that a stop/start
sequence is too vague to be a hallmark of creation, and that you have
not satisfactorily demonstrated that a stop/start sequence reliably
distinguishes the non-created from the created.
>
> >You had argued that a stop/start sequence is evidence of
> >arbitrariness, or if I understand you properly, a stop/start
sequence
> >is a hallmark of creation. I offered a trivial example of a
stop/start
> >sequence that is not a hallmark of creation.
>
> I reject your example of a ledge performing a stop/start sequence,
> since you have yet to show that a falling rock that is stopped by an
> inanimate ledge is able to get started again, absent an outside
force
> that is not the ledge.
It is the same with the genetic code.
>
> Do you have a better example?
Certainly. Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone National Park. It
clearly has stop/start sequences, yet we understand it to result from
natural processes. We do not need to imagine an angel turning the
spigot on and off.
>
> >The question now is, how can you tell the difference between a
created
> >stop/start sequence with a purpose and a natural stop/start
sequence
> >with no purpose?
>
> well, for starters, I can tell the difference between a ledge that
> stops a falling rock and a string of symbols that serve as code to
> stop a particular iteration in a computer program. Do you really
> truly have a problem telling the difference?
As I explained at the start, the ledge was offered as a deliberately
trivial example of a stop/start sequence that clearly results from
natural processes, in order to point out that a stop/start sequence is
not helpful as a hallmark of creation.
Suppose we step aside from the discussion of the Theory of
Creationism, and posit some kind of intelligent alien life form
elsewhere in the Universe. We don't know, a priori, anything about its
psychological make-up, its values, its technology, its physical
capabilities, or even whether it consists of what we consider organic
matter. We can hypothesize that, since it is intelligent, it creates
something. How will we recognize its creations? The problem is far
from trivial.
Your two examples, stop/start sequences and unexpected juxtapositions,
are not useful as hallmarks of creation because they are (a) not
described with sufficient clarity, and (b) not clearly shown to only
apply to the created objects but never to non-created objects.
>
> ----
> zoe
>
zoe_althrop
<mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
>news:3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
>
>> Since only two posters even attempted to answer my data for my
>> theory of creation, and those responses were unsatisfactory, I
>> am already concluding that my foundation for creation is as
>> solid as I thought. But before moving on to actual construction
>> upon this foundation, I would like to double check each point
>> made so far, in case there are any hidden problems remaining.
>
>I don't think my response was unsatisfactory, but since you have
>already moved on, I will as well.
Mike, I am really referring to my post in response to Harlequin's
request for a full description of my theory. You did not respond to
that particular post, as I recall.
>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation,
>> let it be known that I am placing one before them right now. To
>> continue to insist that there is no theory is to persist in
>> lying.
>
>Incorrect. You are presenting portions of a hypothesis, not a theory.
and those portions are bricks in the foundation that is being laid for
my theory. Can you guys be patient or what?
>> okay, the foundation:
>>
>> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of
>> those identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as a
>> result of conscious, intelligent thought.
>
>In addition, to be useful for your purpose -- identifying "creation"
>in nature and/or in objects not known to be created -- it is
>necessary that at least some of those identifying factors not only
>apply to ALL objects created as a result of conscious thought, but
>also apply ONLY to objects created as a result of conscious thought.
exactly. I am at the point of applying the standard for creation ONLY
to objects created as a result of conscious thought. Once I have my
standard, I can use it as a yardstick to measure other items of which
one may not yet be sure.
>Without that, you will be unable to prevent or identify false
>positives.
>
>> And the first brick:
>>
>> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary
>> decision-making, indicative of conscious mental choices over and
>> above instinctual behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start
>> sequences, juxtaposition of parts that normally would not be
>> found together if left on their own.
>
>How would you determine whether the decision making is consciously
>arbitrary rather than instinctively arbitrary?
by observing the behavior of the creators who consciously and
arbitrarily create, to the behavior of the creators that instinctively
create. The first is predicted to involve choice diverging from
expected and repeated behavior, and the latter is predicted to repeat
behavior over and over, without new choices.
>How would this
>criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a human tunnel
>system, without also identifying an ant hill as produced by conscious
>thought? How would this correctly identify a replica of a bird's nest
>as created without also identifying a natural bird's nest as the
>product of conscious thought? How would this criterion correctly
>identify the Ode to Joy as created without also identifying the song
>of a bird as created?
by the behavior of the creator
>
>How would you determine whether the juxtaposition of parts is the
>result of conscious mental choices rather than instinct or chance?
by what is is expected of raw materials when left to themselves,
versus what is observed when these raw materials are found in
arrangements that they would not normally be found in, if left to
themselves.
>How would this criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a
>human wood dam without also identifying either a natural dam or a
>beaver dam as created?
you are bypassing mountains of evidence of clear-cut examples to
wonder about a more ambiguous example. Why? The dams might not be as
easily identified as created or instinctive, but chemiosmosis or the
cell's battery is more readily identified with the characteristics of
human creation. Why not consider the clear-cut examples?
> How would this avoid identifying the unnatural
>juxtaposition of parts in a bird's nest as created? Would this
>criterion identify the juxtaposition of feral cats, mongooses
>(mongeese?), and rock wallabies found on Oahu as created, and would
>it be correct if it does so?
>
>I cannot see how this criterion identifies either a property posessed
>by all created objects or one posessed only by created objects. You
>need to show how you can distinguish instinctively arbitrary choices
>from consciously arbitrary choices when you don't already know which
>is which.
I am betting that you can instantly identify the instinctive behavior
of a bird flying south at winter and the arbitrary choice of a human
taking an airplane flight to Florida in the winter. Why not start
with the easy and multitudinous clear-cut examples first?
snip>
>> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural
>> world will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be
>> dismantled and left floating in a solution similar to
>> that of the cell, and if, without human intervention,
>> it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are able
>> to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific
>> sequences of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
>
>(1) This test only has relevance of any type IF
> (a) you can demonstrate how you can distinguish CONSCIOUS
> arbitrary decision making from INSTINCTIVE (or other
> types of instinctive decision making
Through observation of nature and humans. Do you have a problem
discerning between the instinctive behavior of animals and the
creative behavior of human beings? Do I really need to list these
differences?
> AND
> (b) you can demonstrate that the genetic code exhibits
> those arbitrary decision making of any type
would you accept them if I could demonstrate them?
> AND
> (c) you can demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making
> of the cell exhibits the traits which distinguish
> conscious decision making from unconscious arbitrariness.
the cell makes no arbitrary decision. The cell reflects conscious
decision making from an outside source.
> Thus far, you have not shown any of this.
I certainly do not expect to show that the cell makes arbitrary
decisions. I think you're misunderstanding me.
>
>(2) This test is unreasonable for other reasons, mostly revolving
> around the fact that the triplets do not self assemble at all
> under those circumstances, for known reasons having nothing to
> do with inteligence or lack thereof.
>
>(3) I would think that the whole concept of arbitrary decision
> making as a trait of intelligent creation is falsified unless
> you can demonstrate how a human-built model of a bird's nest can
> be distinguished ON THE BASIS OF DECISION MAKING from the
> natural bird's nest. Or the natural logjam from the beaver dam
> from the human dam.
until missing background information is supplied, you just might not
be able to tell the difference between the natural bird's nest and the
man-made bird's nest. This does not invalidate the mountains of
evidence for clear-cut creation in more easily observed cases.
----
zoe
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:58:46 +0000 (UTC), "Bill Felton"
> <bfe...@twmi.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, it's been an 'interesting' thread -- so far it's running roughly
> >wildly against zoe
> >and the so-called Theory of Creation(ism).
>
> I would expect it to run wildly against me, Bill. This forum is but a
> tiny subculture -- a ghetto, if you will -- in a world with much
> broader interests.
Err, hence all catholics are a "tiny subculture", a "ghetto", too? If
you didn't notice: catholics think that evolution has happened...
> T.O. consists of a majority of staunch believers
> in macroevolution.
Err, did you ever notice that most biologist think that macroevolution
happened? Did you ever notice that their is a strong correlation between
education and thinking that evolution has happened?
> Their job is to knock down any challenge to their
> worldview, regardless.
No, our "job" is to demand for evidence if someone comes up with wild
hypotheses, and to show where logic and reason are shoddy.
> So, of course, there will be no support from
> those quarters -- strictly on principle.
Wrong.
[snip]
> >I consider it to be a suppressed premise because it was not explicitly
> >called
> >out. Further, it is, at best, disingenuous of you to take this tack due to
> >the
> >clearly spelled-out goal of ultimately showing that 'all things are
> >designed'.
>
> my hypothesis is that all things are created.
In order to have this hypothesis, you should first explain in detail
what "to create" means.
> And what's wrong with
> clearly spelling out my goal? Every hypothesis should be clearly
> spelled out. I'm not trying to sneak up on you, you know. If my
> hypothesis is validated, then I will have an acceptable theory that
> says that all things are created, which would mean that all things
> have a creator.
And who judges if your hypothesis is validated? Only you, right?
> And I would expect to show that the First Cause, the Creator of all
> things, will have no creator because He is not Himself created.
I'm very interested in evidence for this assertion!
> >But of course if 'all things are designed' you don't have any way to get to
> >that conclusion. We only have a concept of designed things because we
> >distinguish
> >them from the 'prior' (or foundational) notion of naturally occuring
> >things.
>
> and we can use this concept of designed things to learn more about
> other designed things. True or false?
But, Zoe, if *all* things are designed, we cannot have a concept of
designed things, because there is no possibility to distinguish them
from "naturally occuring" things (because these don't exist)!
[snip]
> >You missed my point, but certainly exposed more of your agenda.
>
> my agenda is on the table: I want to show that the universe has a
> Creator. Nothing to hide; nothing to inadvertently expose.
And that's the difference to science: we don't start with the premise:
"there is a creator" or "there is no creator". We simply start from the
assumption: "Well, *perhaps* this can happen on this own - let's look if
it works!"
> >My point is that there may well be no such thing as a single set of criteria
> >which distinguish human-created artifacts, *other than the involvement of
> >human agency in their creation*.
> >
> >For example, please identify for us what are the common elements of:
> >poems
>
[snip]
I don't want to comment on every thing specifically - I only want to
note that there were several stretches, and what you called "mechanism"
wasn't one in many cases.
> >Those are all human created entities. What element(s) do they have in
> >common?
>
> arbitrary decision making, a plan or blueprint, raw materials that by
> themselves would not arrange into the final product, a mechanism for
> arranging the raw materials, and identification of the creator
> somewhere.
I dispute this.
> All five characteristics must be present, or the item will
> be set aside until further evaluation. Only the most clear-cut
> examples will be retained. A standard can begin to take shape if
> there are sufficient clear-cut examples. And there are.
Even if we accept this as standard - I still don't see "arbitrary
decision making", "raw materials that by themselves would not arrange
into the final product" and "identification of the creator somewhere" in
the DNA! And there is no "plan or blueprint" for building the DNA, too -
it's a blueprint itself!
And I don't understand why a "mechanism" is indicative for design -
mechanism appear in nature, too!
[snip]
> >Basically zoe, you're problem is that we do not proceed from thing to
> >concept of design to deduction of designer. We proceed from designer to
> >designed thing, not vice versa.
>
> say again? No, don't bother.
Sorry, he is right.
> Do YOU proceed from your first common ancestor to the species?
We try.
> No, you don't. You observe the species currently available for
> observation and then extrapolate backwards to an assumed common
> ancestor.
Err, ever heard of the fossil record? There we can go backward and
forward!
> Allow me the same liberty.
I don't see why this is "liberty".
> >So to demonstrate 'intelligent design', you must *first* demonstrate
> >intelligent designer,
>
> do YOU demonstrate your first common ancestor?
We try.
> You haven't even
> identified it yet, but you have formed an elaborate theory on common
> ancestry.
Err, Zoe, the twin nested hierarchy is evidence for a common ancestor.
> Allow me the same liberty of extrapolation backwards.
Problem is, you have no data to extrapolate so far...
> >then connect the designer to the allegedly designed item.
>
> and having not yet been able to identify your first common ancestor,
> how do you then feel free to connect it to the present species of
> today?
DNA connects it. Fossils connect it.
> >> well, unless we are going to fly in the face of Newton's law that
> >> things in motion remain in motion and things at rest stay at rest, I
> >> would not expect to find anything which moves or stops without the
> >> action of another force. But it is not at this basic level that I am
> >> invoking the law of inertia. It is at the level of unexpected force
> >> exercised over and above natural forces.
> >
> >"Unexpected"?
>
> if oil paints begin to assemble, blend and form a picture, would that
> be unexpected? That is what I mean by unexpected in the world of
> color mediums. The human artist is the unexpected force for oils that
> would otherwise lie around doing nothing.
Err, have you ever seen oil films on water? They, too, form intricate
patterns.
> in nature, if electrons, hydrogen, protons, or oxygen molecules were
> observed in a lab setting, outside of a life form, they do not
> normally assemble themselves into the operating system known as
> chemiosmosis, do they?
If you give them enough time and the conditions are right, they do.
> The formation of such a cycle is what I call unexpected.
But in the second example, it isn't unexpected.
Zoe, what mechanism do *you* propose for the formation of this cycle? Do
you think the organisms somehow design them???
> > By whom?
>
> Both human and certain clearly identifiable "natural" systems require
> an unexpected force that manipulates and arranges the raw materials.
No.
> >"over and above" natural forces? What would those
> >things be that are 'over and above' natural forces?
>
> creators.
If you include humans, then you are wrong. Humans are not 'over and
above' natural forces.
> >I am unaware of the existence of anything 'unnatural' in the sense necessary
> >for your statement to be meaningful...
>
> see above.
See above, too.
> >> In applying the standard to nature, consider chemiosmosis which is
> >> part of how the genetic code is empowered. This is not a spontaneous
> >> mechanism. The parts of this system do not, of themselves, perform
> >> the function that is chemiosmosis. This activity in nature is
> >> "unnatural" when compared to what the raw materials of this system are
> >> known to naturally do if left to themselves.
> >
> >You are assuming your conclusion.
> >Further, I assert you are simply wrong. The parts of the system have, of
> >themselves, performed chemiosmosis. That's what they do in that system.
> >This activity is *in* nature, and is natural.
>
> you can't have the system as your evidence. It is the system that is
> being examined. You are trying to leave the raw materials in the
> "artificial" environment of the body.
Huh? Why do you call the body an "artificial" environment?
> Take them out. What happens to
> them? What do these raw materials do if found outside of the body?
Depends on the conditions in which you leave them!
> They do not assemble into the Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis.
Under the right conditions, they do.
> That is what I mean by "left to themselves."
Apparently, you mean by "left to themselves": "exposed to other
conditions than general". If yes, then it's logical that other things
will happen, in general!!!
> What happens to raw materials
> that are outside of their assembled environment, as posited for the
> early earth?
Depends on the conditions...
> >> consider also the currency of the cell, ATP -- adenosine triphosphate
> >> -- which is the equivalent of the charged battery. ATP to ADP and
> >> back again; this is a system that is not natural to the parts of its
> >> whole. If the parts are observed outside the system, they do not
> >> naturally form themselves into this kind of "battery." Why is this?
> >
> >Ditto. What is your ground for claiming that something which is
> >clearly natural (ie, of nature) is, in fact, not?
>
> take the raw materials (hydrogen, oxygen, electrons, protons) out of
> their "natural" setting (the system), and they do not act the way they
> do in their system's setting.
How long do you propose to wait? What conditions do you propose?
> They give evidence of manipulation beyond their normal reactions.
Wrong.
> shucks, this is all so elementary, that I feel that you guys are
> really pretending to not recognize the difference -- strictly out of
> the principle that your worldview must be defended at all costs.
Zoe, would you *please* try to understand that the behaviour of things
depends on their environment!?!
> >> >By "kinds or families of species", do you mean genera? If not, what do
> >> >you mean?
> >>
> >> I mean that species of life forms remain what they are, with some
> >> variation, and never evolve into a different species.
> >
> >Sigh. Species change/evolve into other species *all the time*. We see it,
> >we study it, we know something of how it occurs.
>
> I see it, too. Such change and adaptation (you call it evolution) I
> acknowledge -- because it is observable.
Zoe, do you acknowledge speciation or not???
> >Species evolve into other species, trivially.
>
> such as? Don't tell me that gulls evolve into gulls that do not
> interbreed, because the gulls remain gulls.
Zoe, you yourself said that the inability to interbreed tells us that
two organisms are different species. Hence if two "kinds" of gulls
cannot interbreed, they *are* different species!!!
> If they no longer
> interbreed, it is because of change of habits due to geographical
> location,
Or because of changes in bodyform!!! Or because of a different amount of
chromosomes!!! All of this has been observed!!!
> not because we have a gull that is now a crow or an eagle.
No, but another species of gull!!!
> >[This has been well documented for at least two broad classes I'm familiar
> >with -- orchids and killifish.
>
> the killifish found in Trinidad adapt to the presence of predators,
> that's all. They do not become non-killifish.
They cannot interbreed with other killifish, hence they are a new
species!
> And have orchids become roses?
No, but "orchids" isn't a species, it is a wide group!!!
Zoe, as well I could say: The evolution from ape-like ancestors to
humans is only adaption - they are still Hominidae!
> I think we both agree that there is variation of the
> species, and adaptation and change.
But if two groups of organisms cannot longer interbreed, they form two
different species!
> We part ways when you try to
> enter the mists of time and extrapolate the observed adaptations into
> potentially new species that no longer resemble fish or flowers.
Zoe, look into the fossil record! There are clear sequences of
transitional fossils!
> >Some of the work can be all but trivially reproduced
> >in the home. Species evolve into other species, without a doubt.]
>
> then you must mean something else by "species" than I do.
The usual definition: two populations form two distinct species if they
cannot interbreed.
> I imagine
> you must mean that a life form becomes a new species whenever it
> develops new adaptive skills and habits.
No.
> But that is not sufficient
> to carry the change back or forward into the mists of time to produce
> a new type of life form altogether.
But the fossil record *is* sufficient.
> >Further, members of a genus ( a 'family' of related species) can evolve into
> >members
> >of another, different, genus. Again, well documented, at least for orchids
> >and killifish.
>
> not at all. Orchids remain flowers of some variety, they do not
> become apples.
Zoe, this makes about as much sense as saying: When ape-like creatures
adapted into humans, they remained mammals of some variery, they did not
become reptiles.
> And killifish remain killifish.
So what? Humans remained Hominidae, too!
> They just give
> evidence of the ability to adapt to the presence or lack thereof of a
> predator in their environment.
Humans give just evidence of the abilities of apes to adapt.
> >> as long as cross-breeding is successful, the species remain the same.
> >> One characteristic of a species is its ability to interbreed and
> >> cross-breed with others of its kind (or species).
> >
> >Yup, you are ignorant. Cross-species breeding can cross species lines.
>
> if they can "cross breed," that is an indication that they are of the
> same kind -- or species. That is how species are identified, by if
> they can interbreed. So if they do what might be called
> cross-breeding, then it is not because they are crossing species
> lines, but because they are of the same species. We don't tell the
> species what they are. The species tell us what they are by how they
> act.
Err, I'm no biologist, but could there be a difference between
interbreeding and cross-breeding?
> >Across kind in your usage. Cross genus breeding can happen.
> >Crosses can happen which cannot back-breed.
>
> like the mule? End of line. No further evolution.
> like the gulls that do not mate? There are other reasons for life
> forms of the same species to not mate, besides inability to do so.
> Environmental factors, habits, lifestyle developed from being in
> different geographical areas, all these can produce barriers to
> interbreeding, even though the life forms are of the same species.
Ever heard of ring species?
> All factors have to be considered before announcing that, hey, these
> cannot interbreed, therefore they are a new species.
Zoe, these factors *are* considered. Thanks for believing that
biologists are all stupid and don't think of such factors!
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:09:28 +0000 (UTC), Bjoern Feuerbacher
> <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Err, that makes no sense! First you use nature to find the distinct
> >signs of human creativity (because these don't occur in nature), then
> >you claim that these signs could be found in nature, too???
>
> it is comparison between how raw materials act when left to
> themselves,
Depends on the conditions!!!!!!!!
> or when taken out of their observed environments,
And put into which new environments?
> and how
> they act when manipulated or organized.
Manipulated or organized by whom?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Wayne Bagguley
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Bjoern Feuerbacher
> <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Do you really believe that the DNA purposefully applies start/stop
> >sequences?
>
> I do not believe that DNA purposefully applies start/stop sequences.
> I believe that the evidence of start/stop sequences in the genetic
> code
There is not 'evidence of start/stop sequences in the genetic
code', there *ARE* start and stop sequences in the genetic code.
> reflect intent and purpose and thus thought behind the sequences.
> Just as the evidence of start/stop commands in a computer program give
> evidence of thought, intent and purpose.
The BIG question is...........why?
Why are start/stop codes indicitive of thought, intent and purpose?
Why?
Why? Why? Why?
Is it just the start/stop codes in computer programs that give evidence
of thought, intent and purpose? What about the other instructions?
Again, the question is 'why?'. You need to show your reasoning.
-
Wayne
Bjoern Feuerbacher
John Harshman wrote:
[snip]
> By the way, the entire family Anatidae, of around 150 species, is famous
> for becoming confused about who should mate with whom. Inter-genus,
> inter-tribe, and even inter-subfamily hybrids are known. Zoe: does that
> mean that all ducks, geese, and swans are a single species?
If they can interbreed, why are they considered to be different species?
What definition of "species" is used there?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 18:07:11 +0000 (UTC), "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >You appear to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I described a very
> >simple, natural situation in which you may have a series of starts and
> >stops.
>
> explain to me again how a ledge causes a series of starts and stops in
> the fall of a rock.
Why do you ask for a *series* of starts and stops suddenly? (*faint
sound of moving goalposts in the background...*)
> Give me a concrete example.
Already done! A rock falling down and bouncing off!
> What I envision is a
> rock that falls and comes to rest on a ledge.
And what about bouncing?
> How does it get started
> again, without the aid of an outside force?
Bouncing?
> and, anyway, why are we wasting time on these obscure examples
Because your theory should be able to explain these, too! And I don't
think they are "obscure", they are quite natural!
> when there are mountains of evidence for clear-cut creation
> from which to build a standard of what a created item looks like?
Zoe, we have shown only that at least one of these standards applies to
non-created things, too, and hence isn't reliable...
> I don't see
> scientists doing that with their isochron, for instance. The
> ambiguous samples are discarded as unfit and the best and the most
> clear-cut samples are used to plot their values on a graph.
Liar. This has been explained over and over again: if some samples don't
fit, we don't discard the samples - we discard the *rock* from which the
samples came! And then we try to find an explanation *why* the method
didn't work for this rock!
> >Since it was natural and not arbitrary, it clearly does _not_
> >have purpose. I was offering the example specifically _because_ it did
> >not have purpose.
>
> Fine. Neither does it demonstrate start/stop similarities to a
> computer program, for instance.
It *does* display starts and stops!
> >You had argued that a stop/start sequence is evidence of
> >arbitrariness, or if I understand you properly, a stop/start sequence
> >is a hallmark of creation. I offered a trivial example of a stop/start
> >sequence that is not a hallmark of creation.
>
> I reject your example of a ledge performing a stop/start sequence,
> since you have yet to show that a falling rock that is stopped by an
> inanimate ledge is able to get started again, absent an outside force
> that is not the ledge.
BOUNCING!!!
> Do you have a better example?
The sample is good enough!
> >The question now is, how can you tell the difference between a created
> >stop/start sequence with a purpose and a natural stop/start sequence
> >with no purpose?
>
> well, for starters, I can tell the difference between a ledge that
> stops a falling rock and a string of symbols that serve as code to
> stop a particular iteration in a computer program. Do you really
> truly have a problem telling the difference?
As far as we look only at the "stopping" abilities (which you
proposed!), there is no difference.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:29:17 +0000 (UTC), psych...@xpoint.at
> (H,R.Gruemm) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Do you really think that the absence of a mtDNA which would fit the
> >stop codons is a "purposefully applied external force" ?
> >
> >BTW, a stop codon is not able to restart transcription.
>
> shucks, the answers I'm getting on this thread are becoming more and
> more pointless.
Read: I cannot answer the objections, hence I call them pointless.
Zoe, you objected to the ledge because it doesn't start the rock falling
again. HRG simply pointed out that stop codons don't start transcription
again, too! Hence the ledge is a perfectly valid example!
> Consider one: Ledges that stop and start the fall of a rock.
Why do you want a ledge which starts the fall of the rock again? Stop
codons in the DNA don't start transcription again, too!
> This is supposed to be confusing to the human observer. Hey,
> maybe that ledge is creative, if we are going to use Zoe's standard
> for creativity.
Yes, if we use only your "start/stop criterion", the ledge is
creative...
> And now a stop codon that is proffered as evidence that transcription
> cannot be restarted.
No. It is offered as evidence that a stop codon doesn't start
transcription again, and hence it makes no sense to require that the
ledge starts the rock falling again.
> HRG, a stop codon does the work of a stop codon.
Yes, and a ledge does the work of a ledge.
> It's presence is evidence of an outside force arbitrarily inserting a
> stop command.
Why? According to this logic, a ledge is evidence of an outside force
arbitrarily inserting a stop "command", too.
> Starting of transcription is done by an entirely different command.
Yes! So why do you want the ledge doing a start again?
And, BTW, I'm still waiting for the numbers you used in your last
isochron thread...
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
isochron thread... How long do you plan to ignore this question?
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:21:30 +0000 (UTC), Bjoern Feuerbacher
> <feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >Do you really believe that the DNA purposefully applies start/stop
> >sequences?
>
> I do not believe that DNA purposefully applies start/stop sequences.
Then why did you ask the same for the ledge? Quote:
>>> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
>>> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
>>> to do so?
> I believe that the evidence of start/stop sequences in the genetic
> code reflect intent and purpose and thus thought behind the sequences.
Why? Why couldn't they have arisen on their own?
> Just as the evidence of start/stop commands in a computer program give
> evidence of thought, intent and purpose.
Computer programs cannot arise on their own, hence this is a false
analogy, as usual.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:02:27 +0000 (UTC), "Ronald Stepp"
> <rst...@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Depends upon how it bounces, of course.
> >>
> >> do you really believe that if a rock bounces so that it continues its
> >> fall, that the ledge purposefully applied external force to cause it
> >> to do so? Besides, if the ledge succeeded in stopping the fall of the
> >
> >Prove that it didn't.
>
> I wouldn't waste my time. If evolutionary theory causes its holders to
> lose all common sense,
Err, Zoe, where did we show no common sense here?
> so that they call upon ledges to disprove that
> there is such a concept as creation of human artifacts,
We simply showed that your criterion of "start/stops" isn't a good one
to show that something is created!!!
> then that theory is one to be avoided.
Zoe, are you lying or are you really to stupid to understand our
argument?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for the numbers you used in your last thread on
isochrons...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Jon Fleming wrote:
>
[snip]
> >True ... but that experiment hasn't been run yet, and probably never
> >will, since it will take millions of years.
>
> Jon, I explicitly said that I have bypassed the millions of years. I
> am giving you the entire system, dismantle but in one place, ready to
> be assembled.
Ever heard of something like reaction speeds?
> Where, according to your theory, it took millions of
> years of trial and error in order to find the right combinations that
> made the system work, I am GIVING you the right combinations in one
> place at one time.
No, you are not giving the right combinations, you are giving the *raw
materials* for the right combinations! Fitting them together *still*
takes trial and error!
> No need to wait millions of years to see if the
> parts will recognize each other. They are already there in one place,
> ready to go.
That they are already there doesn't change the fact that they *still*
have to "recognize" each other! Zoe, *please* try learning some
chemistry! Your ignorance hurts, again!
> >You are assuming the results.
> >
> >Note that the fact that we aren't willing to set up the experiment and
> >wait for the result does _not_ mean that abiogenesis is unfalsifiable.
>
> then the fact that I am not willing to set up an experiment that will
> conjure up the Creator before your eyes does not mean that the Creator
> is unfalsifiable.
You could at least demonstrate some small steps in the process of
creating a life form. *We* have demonstrated steps in the process of
life forms arising on their own!
> You have no ability to command billions of years at
> your disposal. I have no ability to command the Creator of the
> universe to appear on demand. But according to your standard, that
> inability does not make my theory or your theory of origins
> unfalsifiable. Thank you. It's a level playing field after all.
No. *We* have data to extrapolate. *You* have none.
> >> I am proposing "thought" as another
> >>alternative.
> >
> >You are claiming that thought is required. You said "had to be
> >organized via intelligence".
>
> do you have an alternative if your abiogenetic hypothesis fails?
Zoe, again, "abiogenesis" means only "life from non-life". You say, too,
that this happened at some time in the past! You say this happened by
God creating, we say that it possibly happened on its own, that's the
whole difference! *You* have an "abiogenetic hypothesis", too!
> Or is it that it will never fail because always, sometime, somewhere,
> billions of years in the future, you expect that it will finally work?
> And this is called science?
No. We demonstrate that some small steps are possible. When time passes
on, more and more of the steps will be demonstrated to be possible.
> >>That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
> >>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered
> >
> >Yup, it's a valid proposal, but nobody yet has figured out a way to
> >investigate it scientifically. You're not any closer to it than
> >anybody else..
>
> I'm not only closer to it, I'm already there.
Good laugh!
> Of course I don't expect to convince you of that.
Try convincing some other creationists, for starters.
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for the numbers you used in your last isochron
thread...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> Excelsior wrote:
[snip]
> >And your jumping analogy is farcical. Because you set the jumper back
> >down at ground level for each jump which defines away the possibility
> >of accumulation.
>
> no, I am pointing up the impossibility of jumping six inches into the
> air, and expecting that you will stay aloft long enough to jump
> another six inches.
Zoe, no one expects this. But what has this to do with evolution?
> >Of course you can use the last six inches to start
> >from because there was indeed a change from the original.
>
> if the change is one that has no support system,
What does this mean?
> and, indeed, is faced
> with proofreading and correction to protect the integrity of the
> original system,
Zoe, mutations happen *in spite of* this "proofreading and correction".
You cannot deny this!!!
> then you cannot use the last six inches to start your
> next jump.
The analogy is still false! Mutations happen, and they are not
"corrected" *after* they have been already included in the genome!
> >>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
> >>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
> >>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
> >>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
> >>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
> >>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
> >>to consider other alternatives. I am proposing "thought" as another
> >>alternative. That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
> >>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered.
> >
> >What do you mean by 'bypass all the millions of trials and errors'.
>
> I mean that I am GIVING you material that supposedly took millions of
> years of trial and error to get to where it is today. And I am GIVING
> you every single part of the whole, but dismantled.
So what? Even if you put all the materials together, you will *still*
need trial and error! Zoe, try learning some chemistry!
> You no longer
> need to wait millions of years to see if the parts will find each
> other. They are now hanging out together in the same experimental
> pool.
Zoe, even if they are all together in one "pool", they still have to
find each other, they still have to overcome barriers. Ever heard of
activation energy and reaction speeds? Again, you demonstrate that you
are totally ignorant of chemistry!
> Your abiogenetic theory should get evolution rolling in quick
> time, wouldn't you expect?
No. Try learning some chemistry!
[snip rest]
Greetings,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for the numbers you used in your last isochron
thread...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 17:10:21 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hershey
> <hers...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> zoe wrote:
>
> >> by the stop/start process; by evidence of purpose and goal
> >> orientation. A falling rock may be stopped by a ledge, but the ledge
> >> does not fulfil all the criteria for arbitrary intervention. The
> >> ledge cannot start the rock to falling again.
> >
> >But a goat (or erosion of the ledge) can. Without doing so by intelligent
> >purpose or goal orientation. So is the goat or the rain an 'actor'
> >arbitrarily 'causing' these events?
>
> if you consider the actions of a goat or of rain to be arbitrary,
Err, yes. Do you think they aren't???
> then I guess you will have a problem differentiating between an artifact
> and a goat/rain.
Yes, this was the point!
> An archeological dig in which strange artifacts are
> unearthed would be really confusing, wouldn't it?
Err, Zoe, artifacts are usually recognized by comparing them with other
artifacts which are *known* to be made by humans, not by some strange
"design features".
> And, anyway, in sorting through the mountains of evidence for
> creation, why would a scientist get bogged down with the
> ledge/goat/rain example, when he has a wealth of human artifacts that
> are clear-cut from which to build a standard for creation?
Zoe, this example showed that your "standard for creation" isn't
reliable!
> >> the surprise comes from observing how raw materials act when left to
> >> themselves, outside of any system, and then observing how they behave
> >> when found within a system in nature.
> >
> >Huh? Are you comparing how raw materials act when left outside *any* system
> >with how they behave in an observable (aka natural) system?
>
> exactly. You understand me!
And why do you do such nonsense??? In nature, raw materials are *always*
in a system! There is *always* an environment with which they interact!
> >I assure you
> >that no one knows how raw materials behave in unobservable supernatural
> >systems?
>
> so what do all those chemists in white lab coats know about how raw
> materials behave? Do you consider the laboratory to be an
> unobservable supernatural system?
No, but a system in which more isolation occurs than in general in
nature.
> >I can, of course, fantasize that raw materials act any way I want
> >them to in imaginary systems.
>
> chemists do not have to fantasize. They observe the behavior of raw
> materials in their labs. Maybe you might want to ask them how raw
> materials behave outside of systems.
Why? On the early earth, the raw materials weren't outside of systems!
[snip]
> >Evolution is a theory about what happens to the genes and morphology based
> >on genes of living entities over many generations. But are you really
> >saying that all the actions of living entities are due to outside forces?
> >Sic transit free will. Perhaps angels are moving the planets?
>
> all action is a result of force.
Depends on what you mean by "action".
> Directed energy.
Force isn't "directed energy".
> The idea is to
> determine which forces are "natural" and which are artificial at the
> level of human creativity,
Err, humans are a part of nature, hence all of their forces are natural.
[snip]
> >>>> Example A: Start/stop, on/off sequences as found in the
> >>> genetic code.
>
> >Why is the existence of these sequences 'arbitrary decision making'?
>
> because they do not occur by themselves.
The examples with the ledge and with the geysir demonstrate that they
*do* occur by themselves.
> They require goal-directed outside force and thought.
Wrong.
> >The raw materials for generating organisms with modified genomes (evolution)
> >includes a requirement for pre-existing organisms.
>
> creation gives you those preexisting organisms.
Abiogenesis by the laws of chemistry and physics, too.
> >Evolution (as opposed to
> >abiogenesis) requires that there be imperfectly self-replicating entities
> >with genetic systems existing in environments that supply the raw materials
> >and requisite energy to self-replicate.
>
> how about I allow you imperfectly self-replicating entities -- virii
> would be a start -- would you be able to observe the evolution of
> fully functioning genetic systems? You should, with this kind of head
> start.
How much time do you propose?
> >Once you have a system with these
> >properties, it can evolve a Kreb's cycle or chemiosmosis from previous
> >systems.
>
> but I haven't given you the system, because it is the system itself
> that is being studied. I am giving you the raw materials.
And how much time?
> >At some point abiogenesis is needed to generate the first 'living
> >entity', but the evolution of the Kreb's cycle is well down the road from
> >that point.
> >
> >I smell, behind your smoke and mirrors, the old tornado producing the 747
> >strawman.
>
> so you are one of those who believes that a tornado can produce the
> 747, if given a billion years maybe?
No, he (and I) is one of those who believe that this analogy makes no
sense.
> Oh, the power of belief -- some
> beliefs more rational than others, to be sure.
Speaking about yourself?
Greetings,
Bjoern
Mike Dunford
news:3d3392f1....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:28:33 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop) wrote in
>>news:3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com:
[snip]
>>> And for those who complain that there is NO theory of
>>> creation, let it be known that I am placing one before them
>>> right now. To continue to insist that there is no theory is
>>> to persist in lying.
>>
>>Incorrect. You are presenting portions of a hypothesis, not a
>>theory.
>
> and those portions are bricks in the foundation that is being
> laid for my theory. Can you guys be patient or what?
I am more than patient. I would prefer, however, if you refrain from
calling those who do not consider the incomplete portions of your
hypothesis to constitute a *THEORY* of Creation liars.
>>> okay, the foundation:
>>>
>>> The standard for identifying created objects will consist of
>>> those identifying factors that apply to ALL objects created as
>>> a result of conscious, intelligent thought.
>>
>>In addition, to be useful for your purpose -- identifying
>>"creation" in nature and/or in objects not known to be created
>>-- it is necessary that at least some of those identifying
>>factors not only apply to ALL objects created as a result of
>>conscious thought, but also apply ONLY to objects created as a
>>result of conscious thought.
>
> exactly. I am at the point of applying the standard for
> creation ONLY to objects created as a result of conscious
> thought. Once I have my standard, I can use it as a yardstick
> to measure other items of which one may not yet be sure.
Let me try again.
Your "yardstick" cannot possibly be useful for determining whether or
not an unknown item is created unless _both_ of the following
conditions are met:
(1) The "yardstick" can correctly identify created objects
AND
(2) The "yardstick" DOES NOT identify as created objects
which are known to be natual.
The reason that both conditions need to be met is simple. Your
ultimate goal, as I understand it, is to be able to determine whether
something of unknown origin is or is not created. In order to do this
with any confidence, you need to be able to eliminate (or at least
_greatly_ reduce) the possibility that whatever test you choose might
incorrectly identify things as created. The easiest way to do this --
and quite possibly the only way -- is to find some identifying
feature which is found in created objects ONLY. I am skeptical that
this can be done at all, but I think that if you want to develop your
hypothesis as far as you reasonably can, that is what you have to try
to do.
You are working on finding criteria which fit the first condition
right now -- I do understand that. I am trying to suggest that it is
not worth your time (or ours) for you to invest a great deal of time
by looking in detail at a criterion which meets the first condition
until you put some thought into whether that criteria has any chance
of fulfilling the second requirement. This is because it will be
harder to find a feature which is ONLY found in created things than
it is to find a feature which is common to created things, but also
shared by natural objects, and as I pointed out above, a criterion
which is based on a feature shared by both created objects and some
natural objects will generate false positive results when used to
identify objects of unknown origin.
>>Without that, you will be unable to prevent or identify false
>>positives.
>>
>>> And the first brick:
>>>
>>> CRITERION 1: There must be evidence of arbitrary
>>> decision-making, indicative of conscious mental choices over
>>> and above instinctual behavior; i.e., arbitrary stop/start
>>> sequences, juxtaposition of parts that normally would not be
>>> found together if left on their own.
>>
>>How would you determine whether the decision making is
>>consciously arbitrary rather than instinctively arbitrary?
>
> by observing the behavior of the creators who consciously and
> arbitrarily create, to the behavior of the creators that
> instinctively create. The first is predicted to involve choice
> diverging from expected and repeated behavior, and the latter is
> predicted to repeat behavior over and over, without new choices.
That's all well and good, but I fail to see how such an approach
could possibly aid in classifying objects of unknown origin. Unless
you can distinguish the _objects_ created through conscious choice
from the _objects_ which are created through instinctive actions or
natural causes, this is a pointless excercise. Remember, the goal is
to be able to identify as created or not-created objects of
_*unknown*_ origin.
You are telling me that you can identify something as created if you
can watch it being constructed. That's good, and I can to. But if you
cannot identify something as created through a process of conscious
choice rather than instinctive behavior WITHOUT knowing how it was
created, by who or what, and when, this criterion is useless for the
purposes of your ToC.
>>How would this
>>criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a human tunnel
>>system, without also identifying an ant hill as produced by
>>conscious thought? How would this correctly identify a replica
>>of a bird's nest as created without also identifying a natural
>>bird's nest as the product of conscious thought? How would this
>>criterion correctly identify the Ode to Joy as created without
>>also identifying the song of a bird as created?
>
> by the behavior of the creator
Again, that's fine, but if that is the _only_ way to tell the
difference between the two, then this criterion is in no way, shape,
or form going to be able to help you figure out if an unknown is
created.
>>How would you determine whether the juxtaposition of parts is
>>the result of conscious mental choices rather than instinct or
>>chance?
>
> by what is is expected of raw materials when left to themselves,
> versus what is observed when these raw materials are found in
> arrangements that they would not normally be found in, if left
> to themselves.
That might help you eliminate chance in some circumstances, but it
will not help you eliminate chance in all cases, and it does
absolutely nothing to eliminate instinct. A natural log jam is not an
entirely unexpected event when a big storm hits a forest which is
near a stream -- lots of downed trees and lots of rain can do that.
But beavers build dams out of logs as well, through a process which
is at least arguably instinctive, and one summer a couple of friends
and I tried to imitate the beavers, and build ourselves a pond
(although, with boys, that might be an instinctive behavior as well).
Once again, while your criterion might be able to identify creation,
it does very little to exclude natural causes.
>>How would this criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in
>>a human wood dam without also identifying either a natural dam
>>or a beaver dam as created?
>
> you are bypassing mountains of evidence of clear-cut examples to
> wonder about a more ambiguous example. Why? The dams might not
> be as easily identified as created or instinctive, but
> chemiosmosis or the cell's battery is more readily identified
> with the characteristics of human creation. Why not consider
> the clear-cut examples?
Two reasons:
(1) In general, bypassing clear-cut examples and hunting for problems
as hard as possible early on is a good way to find the bugs in a
hypothesis. Your "brick" might look solid on one side (looking at the
clear-cut examples) but if it has a gaping hole on the other side
(such as an inability to handle the ambiguous cases), it is not good
for a foundation.
(2) As I have tried to make clear before, if this criterion cannot
eliminate natural causes or instinct, then it is useless for
classifying unknown objects. It might or might not be able to
identify portions of the cell as created. However, if that same
criterion identifies any pile of wood blocking a stream as created,
then the fact that it also tells us that cell is created really
proves nothing at all. Unless you can find a criterion which is
shared _ONLY_ by created objects, you will never be able to tell us
for certain that an object was created. The most you will be able to
say is that it might be created, but it might be natural.
>> How would this avoid identifying the unnatural
>>juxtaposition of parts in a bird's nest as created? Would this
>>criterion identify the juxtaposition of feral cats, mongooses
>>(mongeese?), and rock wallabies found on Oahu as created, and
>>would it be correct if it does so?
>>
>>I cannot see how this criterion identifies either a property
>>posessed by all created objects or one posessed only by created
>>objects. You need to show how you can distinguish instinctively
>>arbitrary choices from consciously arbitrary choices when you
>>don't already know which is which.
>
> I am betting that you can instantly identify the instinctive
> behavior of a bird flying south at winter and the arbitrary
> choice of a human taking an airplane flight to Florida in the
> winter.
Only because I am a human, and I know humans. It might not
necessarily be so clear cut a distinction for an alien. Remember, you
want to be able to identify objects in cases where you have no idea
how they got there.
> Why not start with the easy and multitudinous clear-cut
> examples first?
I am starting with the easy examples first -- the easiest ones for
determining whether your criterion can eliminate natural causes. Thus
far, you have not shown than it can. If it cannot, then no matter how
many clear-cut examples you have, it is worthless for identifying
unknowns.
> snip>
>>> The concept of arbitrary decision making in the natural
>>> world will be falsified if polypeptide chains can be
>>> dismantled and left floating in a solution similar to
>>> that of the cell, and if, without human intervention,
>>> it is observed that the four bases,C,G,T,A, are able
>>> to re-form into triplet codes that spell out specific
>>> sequences of the 20 amino acids that build proteins.
>>
>>(1) This test only has relevance of any type IF
>> (a) you can demonstrate how you can distinguish CONSCIOUS
>> arbitrary decision making from INSTINCTIVE (or other
>> types of instinctive decision making
>
> Through observation of nature and humans. Do you have a problem
> discerning between the instinctive behavior of animals and the
> creative behavior of human beings? Do I really need to list
> these differences?
I should have been clearer. You need to be able to distinguish
the products of conscious choice from the products of instinctive
behavior. If you cannot do so without observing how it was created,
then you obviously will be unable to do so for unknowns.
>> AND
>> (b) you can demonstrate that the genetic code exhibits
>> those arbitrary decision making of any type
>
> would you accept them if I could demonstrate them?
I might if it were demonstrated to my satisfaction. However, I
consider this to be a moot point at the moment, given the problems
with this criterion.
>> AND
>> (c) you can demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making
>> of the cell exhibits the traits which distinguish
>> conscious decision making from unconscious arbitrariness.
>
> the cell makes no arbitrary decision.
I apologize; I should have stated that more clearly. What I meant was
that you need to demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making *seen
in the cell* exhibits the traits which distinguish conscious decision
making from unconscious arbitrariness. I certainly did not mean to
imply that the cell makes decisions.
> The cell reflects
> conscious decision making from an outside source.
>
>> Thus far, you have not shown any of this.
>
> I certainly do not expect to show that the cell makes arbitrary
> decisions. I think you're misunderstanding me.
See above. Your response only covers one of the three points,
however.
>>(2) This test is unreasonable for other reasons, mostly
>>revolving
>> around the fact that the triplets do not self assemble at
>> all under those circumstances, for known reasons having
>> nothing to do with inteligence or lack thereof.
>>
>>(3) I would think that the whole concept of arbitrary decision
>> making as a trait of intelligent creation is falsified
>> unless you can demonstrate how a human-built model of a
>> bird's nest can be distinguished ON THE BASIS OF DECISION
>> MAKING from the natural bird's nest. Or the natural logjam
>> from the beaver dam from the human dam.
>
> until missing background information is supplied, you just might
> not be able to tell the difference between the natural bird's
> nest and the man-made bird's nest. This does not invalidate the
> mountains of evidence for clear-cut creation in more easily
> observed cases.
Your inability to tell the difference between a natural bird's nest
and a man-made bird's nest _completely_ invalidates your ability to
use this criterion to identify unknowns, because you cannot know if
something that this criterion identifies as created is really natural
unless you know how it was made. Essentially, with this criterion,
the only way you'd know if the test was right is if you already know
the answer going in. You can claim that the cell demonstrates
arbitrary decision making until you turn blue, but unless you can
demonstrate that EVERYTHING which exhibits that trait is consciously
created, your claims are essentially meaningless.
When you are dealing with an unknown, it is insufficient to say that
it has many things in common with created things. You must also
demonstrate that some (or at least one) of the traits it has is a
trait ONLY posessed by created things. Otherwise, you cannot conclude
with any degree of confidence that this unknown isn't (like logjams
or bird nests) just another natural object that happens to have some
of the same traits as created objects.
--Mike Dunford
--
Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of
science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.
--Charles Darwin
Bjoern Feuerbacher
I'm *still* waiting for the numbers you used in your last thread on the
isochron...
zoe_althrop wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 22:28:33 +0000 (UTC), Mike Dunford
> <mdun...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> >Incorrect. You are presenting portions of a hypothesis, not a theory.
>
> and those portions are bricks in the foundation that is being laid for
> my theory. Can you guys be patient or what?
So you admit that you haven't yet presented your theory?
[snip]
> >How would you determine whether the decision making is consciously
> >arbitrary rather than instinctively arbitrary?
>
> By observing the behavior of the creators who consciously and
> arbitrarily create, to the behavior of the creators that instinctively
> create. The first is predicted to involve choice diverging from
> expected and repeated behavior, and the latter is predicted to repeat
> behavior over and over, without new choices.
You still neglect that the environment can have influences on the
behaviour of systems...
And, hint: evolution is perfectly consistent with the latter. The
"repeated behaviour" is mutations and natural selection.
> >How would this
> >criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a human tunnel
> >system, without also identifying an ant hill as produced by conscious
> >thought? How would this correctly identify a replica of a bird's nest
> >as created without also identifying a natural bird's nest as the
> >product of conscious thought? How would this criterion correctly
> >identify the Ode to Joy as created without also identifying the song
> >of a bird as created?
>
> by the behavior of the creator
Ant hills look each differently. Beaver dams, too. Hence according to
your standards above, they were created by a conscious thought...
> >How would you determine whether the juxtaposition of parts is the
> >result of conscious mental choices rather than instinct or chance?
>
> by what is is expected of raw materials when left to themselves,
> versus what is observed when these raw materials are found in
> arrangements that they would not normally be found in, if left to
> themselves.
Depends on the environment, for the 100th time!
> >How would this criterion correctly indicate conscious thought in a
> >human wood dam without also identifying either a natural dam or a
> >beaver dam as created?
>
> you are bypassing mountains of evidence of clear-cut examples to
> wonder about a more ambiguous example. Why?
Because he wonders if your "standards" give the correct answer in
specific examples!
> The dams might not be as
> easily identified as created or instinctive,
Then please give better standards!
> but chemiosmosis or the
> cell's battery is more readily identified with the characteristics of
> human creation.
No. Why?
> Why not consider the clear-cut examples?
Because they aren't clear-cut.
[snip]
> >I cannot see how this criterion identifies either a property posessed
> >by all created objects or one posessed only by created objects. You
> >need to show how you can distinguish instinctively arbitrary choices
> >from consciously arbitrary choices when you don't already know which
> >is which.
>
> I am betting that you can instantly identify the instinctive behavior
> of a bird flying south at winter and the arbitrary choice of a human
> taking an airplane flight to Florida in the winter. Why not start
> with the easy and multitudinous clear-cut examples first?
Zoe, you propose to use these "clear-cut" examples to develop your
standard. We simply show that this standard isn't reliable!
[snip]
> >(1) This test only has relevance of any type IF
> > (a) you can demonstrate how you can distinguish CONSCIOUS
> > arbitrary decision making from INSTINCTIVE (or other
> > types of instinctive decision making
>
> Through observation of nature and humans. Do you have a problem
> discerning between the instinctive behavior of animals and the
> creative behavior of human beings? Do I really need to list these
> differences?
And what about cases which we can't observe?
> > AND
> > (b) you can demonstrate that the genetic code exhibits
> > those arbitrary decision making of any type
>
> would you accept them if I could demonstrate them?
Read: "would you accept them if I [Zoe] *think* that I have demonstrated
them?"
> > AND
> > (c) you can demonstrate that the arbitrary decision making
> > of the cell exhibits the traits which distinguish
> > conscious decision making from unconscious arbitrariness.
>
> the cell makes no arbitrary decision.
> The cell reflects conscious decision making from an outside source.
How does it do this?
[snip]
> >(3) I would think that the whole concept of arbitrary decision
> > making as a trait of intelligent creation is falsified unless
> > you can demonstrate how a human-built model of a bird's nest can
> > be distinguished ON THE BASIS OF DECISION MAKING from the
> > natural bird's nest. Or the natural logjam from the beaver dam
> > from the human dam.
>
> until missing background information is supplied, you just might not
> be able to tell the difference between the natural bird's nest and the
> man-made bird's nest.
Err, Zoe, this is the whole point!!! Designed things and natural things
aren't distinguishable without background knowledge!!!
> This does not invalidate the mountains of
> evidence for clear-cut creation in more easily observed cases.
Zoe, the evidence is *not* clear-cut in the examples you bring up (The
Krebs cycle, for example).
Greetings,
Bjoern
Jon Fleming
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 14:25:18 +0000 (UTC), Jon Fleming
><jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC), muz...@aol.com (zoe_althrop)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>if the evolutionary theory proposes that the parts of a system once
>>>were able to eventually find each other and click together and begin
>>>functioning according to natural laws, then if you bypass all the
>>>millions of trials and errors that would occur before these same parts
>>>finally found each other, and if you place them in your proposed
>>>deoxygenated environment, and yet systems do not form, then you have
>>>to consider other alternatives.
>>
>>True ... but that experiment hasn't been run yet, and probably never
>>will, since it will take millions of years.
>
>Jon, I explicitly said that I have bypassed the millions of years. I
>am giving you the entire system, dismantle but in one place, ready to
>be assembled. Where, according to your theory, it took millions of
>years of trial and error in order to find the right combinations that
>made the system work, I am GIVING you the right combinations in one
>place at one time. No need to wait millions of years to see if the
>parts will recognize each other. They are already there in one place,
>ready to go.
Sorry, it takes millions of years because the _process_ of "assembly"
takes millions of years. Having al the right materials in the same
place doesn't matter.
That is, there is no way to bypass the trial and error. The trial and
error is _the_ key part of the process.
It's like trying to bake a cake with no oven or source of heat ...
having all the components there won't work. You have to put the cake
in an oven and wait while it cooks.
>>You are assuming the results.
>>
>>Note that the fact that we aren't willing to set up the experiment and
>>wait for the result does _not_ mean that abiogenesis is unfalsifiable.
>
>then the fact that I am not willing to set up an experiment that will
>conjure up the Creator before your eyes does not mean that the Creator
>is unfalsifiable. You have no ability to command billions of years at
>your disposal. I have no ability to command the Creator of the
>universe to appear on demand. But according to your standard, that
>inability does not make my theory or your theory of origins
>unfalsifiable. Thank you. It's a level playing field after all.
>
>>
>>> I am proposing "thought" as another
>>>alternative.
>>
>>You are claiming that thought is required. You said "had to be
>>organized via intelligence".
>
>do you have an alternative if your abiogenetic hypothesis fails?
No. So what? Your claim is that your one experiment falsifies all
possibilities except one. It does not do that.
>Or
>is it that it will never fail because always, sometime, somewhere,
>billions of years in the future, you expect that it will finally work?
>And this is called science?
>
>>>That is a valid proposal, and as deserving of scientific
>>>investigation as any other alternative that might next be offered
>>
>>Yup, it's a valid proposal, but nobody yet has figured out a way to
>>investigate it scientifically. You're not any closer to it than
>>anybody else..
>
>I'm not only closer to it, I'm already there.
You are still assuming your conclusion.
> Of course I don't
>expect to convince you of that.
Because your logic is fatally flawed.
Boikat
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsloth.net> wrote in message
news:3d33049e$1...@news5.nntpserver.com...
>
> "Glenn" <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> news:3D325FE5...@qwest.net...
> >
> >
> > Boikat wrote:
> >
> > > "Glenn" <gshe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3D322AE7...@qwest.net...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Boikat wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>In article <3d302a93....@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
> > >>>>muz...@aol.com says...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>[...]
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>And for those who complain that there is NO theory of creation, let
> it
> > >>>>>be known that I am placing one before them right now. To continue
to
> > >>>>>insist that there is no theory is to persist in lying.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
and
> > >>>theory, has been explained to you several times over, to insist that
> > >>>
> > > what
> > >
> > >>>your are presenting constitutes a *scientific theory* is to willfully
> > >>>
> > > tell
> > >
> > >>>an untruth.
> > >>>
> > >>>Yes, that means you are lying.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>It's been explained to you several times that you're a moron. Because
> > >>you claim understanding about what does and does not constitute
science
> > >>and theory doesn't make Zoe a liar.
> > >>
> > >
> > > It does when it's been explained to her.
> > >
> > > Or are you suggesting that she is simply stupid?
> >
> >
> > I've explained to you several times that you are a moron. Are you simply
> > stupid?
>
> I believe this is called "projection" on your part. Or you are simply
> lying. Typical.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>It makes you a liar.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I've given up on irony meters, try again fool.
> >
> >
> > You try again, dipstick.
>
>
> Why? I only need to show that you are a fool once.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>A theory is simply an explanation of certain observation(s) about
> > >>nature.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> >
> > Right. That has also been explained to you many times, and you still
> > deny it, like you do here. So you must be lying, or stupid, according to
> > you.
>
> Whowwould you know?
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>Rather than trying to falsify Zoe's theory,
> > >>
> > >
> > > There was no theory to falsify, idiot.
> >
> >
> > Just like telling yourself over and over that you aren't a moron won't
> > make it true, turd bag.
>
> More projection on your part.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>you accuse her of
> > >>lying.
> > >>
> > >
> > > There are two possibilities, given that science, and the scientific
> method
> > > has been explained to her before, several times. She is stupid, or
she
> is
> > > lying. I take it you propose she is simply stupid.
> >
> >
> > As always, what you "take" isn't based in reality. Just because you
> > "explain" something doesn't make it true, and doesn't mean that another
> > must accept it or be a liar.
>
> So, you agree she is simply stupid.
>
> >
> > Of course, this concept is too complex for a moron like you who can
> > barely do more than type "idiot" and "liar".
>
> Like I said before, I no longer use irony meters.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>That, moron, is not the "scientific method".
> > >>
> > >
> > > Like you'd know? Hah!
> > >
> > > Boikat
> >
> >
> > Yes, accusing Zoe of lying is not part of the scientific method.
>
> You are also obtuse. Her claim to have a valid scientific "theory of
> creation" os based upon her faulty understanding and usage of the therm
> "theory". In order to be a valid scientific theory, her whimsical attempt
at
> a "scientific theory" is invalid to begin with.
>
> >
> > It's apparent that you think it is.
> >
>
> Her "theory" contained nothing but faulty logic, and in no way could be
> tested scientifically using the standard scientific method, even if it
were
> used a loose guide line. The faults of her understanding, or rather, the
> lack of understanding has been explained to her before, and the scientific
> method has been explained to her before. Yet she continues to apply
proper
"improper", that is..
> methodology to build her "theory". I say again, she is either willfully
> ignoring the proper scientific method, which is dishonest, I.E., a lie, or
> she is stupid.
>
>
> Boikat
>
>
John Harshman
<feuerba...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Just about any definition you like. Contrary to frequent popular belief,
nobody's species definition, including the widely used Biological Species
Concept, requires total inability to breed. It just requires that there be
some mechanism to keep gene pools mostly separate. In the case of the
ducks, hybrids generally have a big disadvantage in attracting mates, and
the experiment ends in the first generation without affecting either of
the two gene pools involved. Isolating mechanisms need not be absolutely
perfect, just good enough so that species don't meld.
--
*Note the obvious spam-defeating modification
to my address if you reply by email.
John Harshman
(zoe_althrop) wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC),
> harshman....@sjm.infi.net (John Harshman) wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >By the way, the entire family Anatidae, of around 150 species, is famous
> >for becoming confused about who should mate with whom. Inter-genus,
> >inter-tribe, and even inter-subfamily hybrids are known. Zoe: does that
> >mean that all ducks, geese, and swans are a single species?
>
> if they are able to interbreed, then they are of the same species. If
> they are unable to interbreed, I don't think you can jump to the
> conclusion immediately that therefore they are not of the same
> species. Other variables would need to be considered first --
> environment, habits, lifestyle, geographical barriers that cause
> different preferences to develop, etc.
But all these ducks etc. have different environments, habits, lifestyles,
etc. Are they still the same species?
What do you mean by species? What feature of reality are you trying to
capture there? If it doesn't worry you that 150 species by my definition
are only one by your definition, what would worry you?
I should also point out that many of these species have been separate for
at least 20 million years, and maybe longer. Though of course you don't
believe that, despite any evidence there may be.