Comments on: Design Inference, or the Difference Between DNA and a PDA http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bkhokie http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16898 bkhokie Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:58:33 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16898 The conclusion that i draw from all of Mr. Bennett's postings (and I have read them all...sigh...) is that if our current science cannot yet explain something complex, then it must be God. And no matter what Mr. Bennett may say, this same argument against the unexplained has been make throughout human history. His (and other ID proponents) is simply the latest example. Fortunately one day science will explain these "irreducibly complex machines" and the apologist will move on to some other unexplained natural occurrence. Either that or Armageddon will occur (the latest estimate for this is May 6th 2011, but do not hold me to that...) The conclusion that i draw from all of Mr. Bennett’s postings (and I have read them all…sigh…) is that if our current science cannot yet explain something complex, then it must be God. And no matter what Mr. Bennett may say, this same argument against the unexplained has been make throughout human history. His (and other ID proponents) is simply the latest example. Fortunately one day science will explain these “irreducibly complex machines” and the apologist will move on to some other unexplained natural occurrence. Either that or Armageddon will occur (the latest estimate for this is May 6th 2011, but do not hold me to that…)

]]> By: sonic http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16741 sonic Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:31:28 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16741 Mike- to say something could happen given enough time is to imply that you can't disprove it couldn't happen in a finite time. This is usually recognized as a version of an 'argument from ignorance'. Mike-
to say something could happen given enough time is to imply
that you can’t disprove it couldn’t happen in a finite time.
This is usually recognized as a version of an ‘argument from
ignorance’.

]]> By: Mike Bennett http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16738 Mike Bennett Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:52:58 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16738 Blah, blah, blah. You guys keep saying you have the scientific proof and then you don't produce. I don't think Redi had a microscope and yes we do have much better equipment than Pasteur. (Although we have much inferior brains to Pasteur). As you admit, you have no repeatable experiments that prove spontaneous generation or "abiogenisis" as you have renamed it, is possible. As you said, we have much better equipment than Pasteur so all you have to do is take that equipment and perform the experiments to disprove his proven scientific truth. There is a big difference between using intellegence in a laboratory to create a few proteins and life spontaneously generating in some imagined conditions millions of years ago. You say with an infinite amount of time something that is possible will definately happen. I would dispute that theory. Regardless, you don't have an infinite amount of time and you don't have one shred of scientific proof that it is possible, imagine it all you want. Pasteur proved otherwise. You want to go off on empiricism, which means you have a theory that is verifiable by experimentation, well show me the testable observation or experiment that verifies it. I can show you the ones that disprove it. BTW, I love your argument that a computer proves hundreds of years of science and intelligence and DNA proves creation by dumb luck. I mean you laid out the odds, see if Vegas will take those odds. Not a chance, even with an infinite amount of time! :-) Blah, blah, blah. You guys keep saying you have the scientific proof and then you don’t produce. I don’t think Redi had a microscope and yes we do have much better equipment than Pasteur. (Although we have much inferior brains to Pasteur). As you admit, you have no repeatable experiments that prove spontaneous generation or “abiogenisis” as you have renamed it, is possible.

As you said, we have much better equipment than Pasteur so all you have to do is take that equipment and perform the experiments to disprove his proven scientific truth.

There is a big difference between using intellegence in a laboratory to create a few proteins and life spontaneously generating in some imagined conditions millions of years ago.

You say with an infinite amount of time something that is possible will definately happen. I would dispute that theory. Regardless, you don’t have an infinite amount of time and you don’t have one shred of scientific proof that it is possible, imagine it all you want. Pasteur proved otherwise.

You want to go off on empiricism, which means you have a theory that is verifiable by experimentation, well show me the testable observation or experiment that verifies it. I can show you the ones that disprove it.

BTW, I love your argument that a computer proves hundreds of years of science and intelligence and DNA proves creation by dumb luck. I mean you laid out the odds, see if Vegas will take those odds. Not a chance, even with an infinite amount of time! :-)

]]> By: shirimasen http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16714 shirimasen Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:08:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16714 Sorry friend, but claiming the development of early lifeforms (viruses and extremely simple cellular organisms that are simple relative to the complexity of other organisms) out of complex carbon structures is "abiogenisis" is a straw man argument. As you said, early lifeforms don't appear out of nothing, but you can observe some of the processes that allow for the possibility of early lifeforms to occur with a microscope a tad bit more powerful than our friends Pasteur or Redi had at their disposal. You see, the building blocks of life are things like proteins and protein-like structures that we can observe occasionally occur naturally in certain environments that are conducive. Thus it is not "abiogenesis," but an empirically based theory that uses mechanical operations to explain how life forms and develops in a way that is useful to us. Don't argue against something simply because you're too lazy to pick up a biology text book. Now, as to your argument of whether or not a conducive environment hints at God, the fallacy is a bit more complicated isn't it? You are claiming that no amount of random occurrence could ever lead to conducive environments and thus everything must have intention behind it. Even if the possibility was extremely remote, say one in ten to the twenty-sixth power or any other number really, given a universe with enough space and time it would probably occur at least once. Heck, with infinite space and time, it is likely to occur so many times you can't even count them all. So, in fact, a randomly occurring conducive circumstance is not all that special. If you think that's neat, look up Boltzmann Brains - now there's something that looks like "abiogenesis." Still, statistically speaking it can happen eventually. Also, your claims suffer from an inability to be falsified because you are not really interested in finding the truth because you are confident you have already found it (or at least you are comfortable with what you have and are afraid of digging any deeper). Thomas Aquinas's students thought the same thing nearly a thousand years ago and Scholasticism achieved next to nothing (other than making fodder for some good jokes). Then empiricism came along and really took all the hot air out of the rationalist's arguments. In fact, I would say that you using a computer rebuttals your own claims. The computer is produced using empirically based theories that were formed from five hundred plus years of painstaking observation and measurement. You trust empiricism enough when it is convenient, but fear it when it is inconvenient and run back to Scholasticism(in the case of evolution). Don't belittle the millions of people who have poured their lives into helping us come at least this far just because you are afraid of questioning yourself. Oh, and I apologize about saying earlier that you must not read this very often because I see, empirically might I add, that you do, in fact, seem to come here quite often. I hope you may learn something yet. After all, even though your arguments are not logically sound, as J.S. Mill pointed out, a collision of adverse opinions allows for us to better understand our own opinions and gives us a rare chance to possibly find some truth or understanding in the mix. Also, sorry for the size of this post to any who bother to read it. Sorry friend, but claiming the development of early lifeforms (viruses and extremely simple cellular organisms that are simple relative to the complexity of other organisms) out of complex carbon structures is “abiogenisis” is a straw man argument. As you said, early lifeforms don’t appear out of nothing, but you can observe some of the processes that allow for the possibility of early lifeforms to occur with a microscope a tad bit more powerful than our friends Pasteur or Redi had at their disposal. You see, the building blocks of life are things like proteins and protein-like structures that we can observe occasionally occur naturally in certain environments that are conducive. Thus it is not “abiogenesis,” but an empirically based theory that uses mechanical operations to explain how life forms and develops in a way that is useful to us. Don’t argue against something simply because you’re too lazy to pick up a biology text book.
Now, as to your argument of whether or not a conducive environment hints at God, the fallacy is a bit more complicated isn’t it? You are claiming that no amount of random occurrence could ever lead to conducive environments and thus everything must have intention behind it. Even if the possibility was extremely remote, say one in ten to the twenty-sixth power or any other number really, given a universe with enough space and time it would probably occur at least once. Heck, with infinite space and time, it is likely to occur so many times you can’t even count them all. So, in fact, a randomly occurring conducive circumstance is not all that special. If you think that’s neat, look up Boltzmann Brains – now there’s something that looks like “abiogenesis.” Still, statistically speaking it can happen eventually.
Also, your claims suffer from an inability to be falsified because you are not really interested in finding the truth because you are confident you have already found it (or at least you are comfortable with what you have and are afraid of digging any deeper). Thomas Aquinas’s students thought the same thing nearly a thousand years ago and Scholasticism achieved next to nothing (other than making fodder for some good jokes). Then empiricism came along and really took all the hot air out of the rationalist’s arguments. In fact, I would say that you using a computer rebuttals your own claims. The computer is produced using empirically based theories that were formed from five hundred plus years of painstaking observation and measurement. You trust empiricism enough when it is convenient, but fear it when it is inconvenient and run back to Scholasticism(in the case of evolution). Don’t belittle the millions of people who have poured their lives into helping us come at least this far just because you are afraid of questioning yourself.
Oh, and I apologize about saying earlier that you must not read this very often because I see, empirically might I add, that you do, in fact, seem to come here quite often. I hope you may learn something yet. After all, even though your arguments are not logically sound, as J.S. Mill pointed out, a collision of adverse opinions allows for us to better understand our own opinions and gives us a rare chance to possibly find some truth or understanding in the mix.
Also, sorry for the size of this post to any who bother to read it.

]]> By: Mike Bennett http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16644 Mike Bennett Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:37:16 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16644 BTW, get your own word for this screwball idea and leave Genesis out of it. BTW, get your own word for this screwball idea and leave Genesis out of it.

]]> By: Mike Bennett http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16643 Mike Bennett Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:35:09 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16643 Max, OK, I will except that Ole' Jerry in 1188 believed in "The obsolete theory of spontaneous generation". This is an anecdotal argument that since one guy in a group believed something, then everyone in the group believed it. That doesn't fly. Now explain to me why you are making fun of our Welsh friend when every evolutionist believes the same thing now? You can call it "abiogenisis" but is the same exact outdated theory with more technical terms thrown in to appear valid. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF ABIOGENESIS. Max,
OK, I will except that Ole’ Jerry in 1188 believed in “The obsolete theory of spontaneous generation”. This is an anecdotal argument that since one guy in a group believed something, then everyone in the group believed it. That doesn’t fly. Now explain to me why you are making fun of our Welsh friend when every evolutionist believes the same thing now? You can call it “abiogenisis” but is the same exact outdated theory with more technical terms thrown in to appear valid. THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE THE VALIDITY OF ABIOGENESIS.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16422 Max Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:48:17 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16422 I brought up spontaneous generation to show that in the past, Christians could accept that living things spring from inanimate matter every day, and some even tied this to scripture. The Wikipedia article's author mistakenly said the Immaculate Conception, and I corrected it. Gerald of Wales said, "from female without male," referring to the Virgin birth of Jesus. I brought up spontaneous generation to show that in the past, Christians could accept that living things spring from inanimate matter every day, and some even tied this to scripture.

The Wikipedia article’s author mistakenly said the Immaculate Conception, and I corrected it. Gerald of Wales said, “from female without male,” referring to the Virgin birth of Jesus.

]]> By: Mike Bennett http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16373 Mike Bennett Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:58:08 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16373 "abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter" "Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously." Wiki... Apparently, you guys believe in spontaneous generation, you just believe that only life you can't see with the naked eye can magically appear! Pastuer proved that life can't occur unless the environment was "polluted" with pre-existing life. this includes microscopic and so called "simple life forms". (There is no such thing as a simple life form) I can repeat Pastuer's experiment, I haven't seen the "abiogenesis" experiments proving him wrong. Did I miss them? Let's see, because some guy said something in 1188 that means that Christians believe in some outdated idea. Well, I guess something that was believed in 1188 would be outdated. BTW, the Immaculate Conception is not the Virgin birth of Jesus. It's a weird thing that Catholics believe about the virgin birth of MARY so they can promote her to "god" status. “abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter” “Francesco Redi, an Italian physician, proved as early as 1668 that higher forms of life did not originate spontaneously, but proponents of abiogenesis claimed that this did not apply to microbes and continued to hold that these could arise spontaneously.” Wiki…

Apparently, you guys believe in spontaneous generation, you just believe that only life you can’t see with the naked eye can magically appear! Pastuer proved that life can’t occur unless the environment was “polluted” with pre-existing life. this includes microscopic and so called “simple life forms”. (There is no such thing as a simple life form) I can repeat Pastuer’s experiment, I haven’t seen the “abiogenesis” experiments proving him wrong. Did I miss them?

Let’s see, because some guy said something in 1188 that means that Christians believe in some outdated idea. Well, I guess something that was believed in 1188 would be outdated. BTW, the Immaculate Conception is not the Virgin birth of Jesus. It’s a weird thing that Catholics believe about the virgin birth of MARY so they can promote her to “god” status.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16337 Max Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:16:50 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16337 New species evolved from ancestor species via inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. Living cells formed from chemicals via chemical reactions and natural selection. Planets formed from nebular gas and dust through accretion. Nothing magic about that. By the way, Christians once accepted the obsolete theory of spontaneous generation, whereby for example maggots arise spontaneously from rotting meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation "In 1188, Gerald of Wales, after having traveled in Ireland, argued that the 'unnatural' generation of barnacle geese was evidence for the [virgin birth of Jesus]." New species evolved from ancestor species via inheritance, mutation, and natural selection. Living cells formed from chemicals via chemical reactions and natural selection. Planets formed from nebular gas and dust through accretion. Nothing magic about that.

By the way, Christians once accepted the obsolete theory of spontaneous generation, whereby for example maggots arise spontaneously from rotting meat.

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

“In 1188, Gerald of Wales, after having traveled in Ireland, argued that the ‘unnatural’ generation of barnacle geese was evidence for the [virgin birth of Jesus].”

]]> By: Mike Bennett http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/12/15/design-inference/#comment-16285 Mike Bennett Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:51:45 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=5542#comment-16285 You guys are the ones saying everything was magically created from nothing. I was just pointing out that you guys saying that science never considers things that are "supernatural" when in fact it does. Designing and creating is not magic it's done all the time. Things appearing by accident with no cause is magic! You guys are the ones saying everything was magically created from nothing. I was just pointing out that you guys saying that science never considers things that are “supernatural” when in fact it does. Designing and creating is not magic it’s done all the time. Things appearing by accident with no cause is magic!

]]>