Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DNAunion · 12-08-2002, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Liquidrage: The problem DA is that a possibility does not equate to evidence.

DNAunion: I agree. But the mere fact that it is even very remotely possible to be correct does counter any claim that a regression problem is absolutely impossible to solve without calling upon a supernatural being.

Unless, of course, something is found that renders my speculation to be impossible.

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

DNAunion · 12-08-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

DNAunion: Next thing is, "The ETI's must be more complex than us". No, they'd only have to be more complex than bacteria - that which they designed.

Quote:

Victor Drake: If the Aliens are more complex than bacteria, and bacteria are too complex to exist without intelligent design, then the Aliens are too complex to exist without intelligent design.

DNAunion: Gee Victor, how could you have possibly overlooked my offered solution to that? It was the very next TWO sentences AFTER the one you quoted. Here, let me show you.

Quote:

DNAunion: In addition, the ETI's could have evolved for millions or billions of years, so it is their FINAL state that needs to be more complex than bacteria, not their INITIAL state. Perhaps their unknown form of life has a simpler foundation and can arise spontaneously much more easily than cellular life can: can this possibility be completely ruled out?

DNAunion: How’d you miss all of that?!?!?!

DNAunion · 12-08-2002, 02:58 PM

Quote:

DNAunion: Also, MUST a designer be more complex that what it designs? I don't think he/she/they MUST be. I would argue that the internet is possibly as complex as a human being - and if not now, what about in 50 years, or 100 years, or 1,000 years?

Quote:

Victor Drake: The internet is complex, but not irreducibly complex (a single computer by itself can perform the fuctions for which it was made. A single protein by itself cannot perform the fuctions it performs as part of a whole cell).

DNAunion: DNA polymerases as used in PCR come to mind.

Quote:

Victor Drake: Also, the internet was not designed by one person. Is it more complex than the sum complexity of all the people who have ever worked on it?

DNAunion: Even if we look at it that way, such a counter to my original position still fails. I am not suggesting that a bacterium would have been designed by a single alien, but by a civilization of ETIs. So it would only be their combined complexity that would need to surpass that of a single bacterium: the complexity of any individual ET could be less than that of a bacterium.

And that still assumes that it is IMPOSSIBLE for something to create something else that is more complex than itself. That may be true, but it may not be. Can someone demonstrate it?

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]

RufusAtticus · 12-08-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
Why couldn't the intelligent designer of life here on Earth be an ETI?

Because that puts the cart before the horse. Before you muse about the idenity of you know who, first you need to show that you know who exists or is needed to explain how we got here.

RufusAtticus · 12-08-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:

DNA polymerases as used in PCR come to mind.

Actually they don't work alone, if they work at all. PCR requires a lot of abiotic tinkering (like raising and lowering the temperature) to get the reaction to work.

Speaking of Taq, I found <a href="http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/molecules/pdb3_1.html" target="_blank">this site</a> interesting.

Victor Drake · 12-09-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DNAunion:
I agree. But the mere fact that it is even very remotely possible to be correct does counter any claim that a regression problem is absolutely impossible to solve without calling upon a supernatural being.

1. The fact that some bizarre alternative cannot be conclusively ruled out beyond the shadow of a doubt does not mean we should be teaching it in our schools as a viable alternative to a theory which is supported by tons of hard evidence.

2. I did not claim the regression was 'unsolvable without a supernatural being' I claimed that:
a) ID theorists claim nothing as complex as a cell could POSSIBLY come into being through ANY means except intelligent design, and
b) a designer must be very complex, and
c) ID theory does not address the problem of the designer's origin, therefore
d) ID theory is not logically consistent

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.