Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 02-18-2002, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Ed on Jesus Christ as a Mythic Hero:
See my post where I show the similarities are superficial.

Then why don't you score him on Lord Raglan's scale?

Quote:

lp: I will concede that there is much that is poorly understood in this field. But I don't think that abiogenesis has been convincingly ruled out, at least not yet.
Ed:
The key words are "not yet", it is looking weaker every year.

I don't see how this is supposed to support any theological hypotheses; this could support planting of the ancestral organism by extraterrestrial visitors or time travelers.

Quote:

Ed:
There is more evidence that the gospels are historically accurate than there is for abiogenesis.

I disagree. Can two statements that contradict each other both be true at the same time? I wonder why a great logician such as Ed continues to ignore that principle regarding the Bible.

Ed · 02-19-2002, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:

...sigh...

Ed, this is bunk. And no matter how often you repeat it, it will remain bunk. Hydrogen and helium from the Big Bang IS sufficient to produce personal beings! We now understand the key stages in sufficient detail to see how it can happen.[/b]

No, there are major gaps that have never been adequately explained. And for which there is no hard evidence. They are: going from nothing to something, i.e. the cause of the BB, going from non-life to life, and going from the impersonal to the personal. No adequate naturalistic explanation has ever been found to bridge these huge gaps. Of course, evolutionists have come up with many "just so" stories but provide no empirical evidence to back them up other than historical extrapolations.

[b]

Quote:

Jack: Therefore your statement that "no form of unguided impersonal process could do so according to the law of sufficient cause" is refuted. What you're saying is equivalent to "factories cannot produce automobiles because factories aren't mounted on wheels". A wheeled vehicle can be produced by a non-wheeled structure, just as an intelligent being can be produced by unguided evolution: to argue otherwise, you must demonstrate that the mechanism isn't up to the task, not simply declare that it's impossible just because the created entity has something that the creating mechanism lacks.

Evolution sure looks like a "suficient cause" to me.

No, you have misunderstood the law of sufficient cause. Factories are adequate to produce automobiles because they are guided by intelligent beings (human factory workers and automobile engineers), so my point is not refuted. Because by looking at characteristics of life and personal beings plainly require an intelligence, ie DNA a complex languagelike code. In any other circumstance the finding of such a code would immediately be recognized as a product of intelligence. But because it is in "nature", an intelligent cause is automatically ruled out without any rational basis for doing so.

Ed · 02-19-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Ed:
I guess I should have qualified my statement. What I should have said is that mutations either result in a loss of information or a maintenance of information. However neither of these things will produce macroevolution. For macoevolution to occur, especially the development of more complex morphologies, an increase in information is required. And all the experimental evidence shows that this has not occurred.

jack: No, this is an outright creationist lie. There is no theoretical barrier to the creation of information, and plenty of experimental evidence that it does indeed occur. Where are you getting this claim that "this has not occurred"? From a creationist website? Such claims are invented, Ed![/b]

No, from studies on penicillin resistant bacteria.

[b]

Quote:

Ed: In fact, if more than one duplication of a genome occurs a loss of information is likely to begin to occur. For example sentences are similar to genomes. Take the sentence "See Spot run." Say "run" is duplicated. "See Spot run run." What is "run run"? You maybe could say that you understand it as run faster. But if another run is added it eventually becomes unintelligible. And results in a net loss of information.

jack: You have a very strange notion of how genomes work. Each "word" codes for the creation of a specific trait. For instance, "See Spot run" could produce something required for vision, one which causes spots to appear on the animal's coat, and one which makes the legs more suitable for running: "Spot run See" would be just as good. With "See Spot run run", the creature still has the same number of traits, it's just that one is now coded twice. This can become "See Spot run rur": a meaningless change, but it's OK because the essential traits remain ("See Spot rur" would have been fatal, as the critter would be unable to run: a harmful mutation eliminated by natural selection). This can then become "See Spot run fur": a critter that can see well, has camouflage spots, can run, and has a furry coat for insulation.

No, genes work in concert with other genes in the
genome, just like word order in a sentence. So a genome like "Spot run see" would result in a loss of information because the genes would not be transcripted in the proper sequence.

Vorkosigan · 02-20-2002, 03:20 AM

If I closed this thread, it would be a mercy killing....it's hard to believe it's still going on.

Why don't you guys take this over to E/C? I'm closing this thread, and copying the last post to E/C.

Michael

{Added by Pantera: After two more months and another 250 posts this thread is still going ove in E/C <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000275&p=" target="_blank">here</a>}

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]

02-20-2002, 03:20 AM	#304
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If I closed this thread, it would be a mercy killing....it's hard to believe it's still going on. Why don't you guys take this over to E/C? I'm closing this thread, and copying the last post to E/C. Michael {Added by Pantera: After two more months and another 250 posts this thread is still going ove in E/C <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000275&p=" target="_blank">here</a>} [ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.