lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, Biff's point relies on being able to prove either that God changes, or that there are many candidates, all of which indeed could really be God! I think the latter possibility impossible, and Biff has to prove his case to make his point.

How have you estimated this probability, may I ask? Simply enumerating what people think does not give a probability.

Well, it seems this discussion has about run its course, so I will bow out for now...

Regards,
Lee

wyzaard

According to...? As it seems to me, some combinations are more likely than others.

Unless the arrangement of these three produce a molecular stability (as opposed to one that is unstable, such as in explosives) and a particular arrangement that opens up further possibilities.

If it was in an arragment in which it didn't, then the replicative cycles wouldn't have gotten stareted, and it wouldn't then be considered a building block of our cells... another moot point; we're here, functioning quite naturally, meaning that such reactions did occur... and those that did not broke down to become building blocks again.

This 'problem' is running into the same territory as the Weak Anthropic principle, in such a sense that....

If these other possibilities would have incurred instead, then we wouldn't be here complaining about it.

Huh???

What's the difference between how a molecule forms and how it acts afterward? The latter's capabilities are simply a more complex (I'm meaning this only descriptively) combination of the natural rules that govern the former constitutent parts. No real difference... no miracles needed.

All the premisies are there: ample material and energy, and natural laws that allow a rich assortment of different possibilities, none of which have been shown to have been broken in any way, from the simplest reactions to the most complex.

The onus lies on one who wishes to postulate additional, unneeded entities... an argument from ignorance isn't enough, and that's the best you're going to be able to hope for here.

wyzaard

Before giving us verification of the purported authority your chosen criteria about how you know what cosmicthingie is why?

Poor form, my boy.

Naked Ape

I didn't ask you what Biff said, I asked:
"How do you know god isn't changing?"
and
"How do you know how many gods exist?"

I didn't ask you about Biff, or what he said. If I wondered what Biff thought about these questions, they would have been directed to him, and not to you.

If you can't or won't answer these simple questions, just say so, but please don't go off on some tangent about what you think another poster relies on or has to prove. It gives people the impression that you have trouble understanding simple straightforeward questions. This also casts a shadow of doubt over any "knowledge" that you claim to have absorbed by reading, but that is another discussion.



Cheers,

Naked Ape

wyzaard

Oh Leeee...

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Oh, all right!

Perhaps we should start a new thread? The topic has changed quite a bit, and probably belongs over in the Evolution/Creation forum.

Well, why so? Each amino acid has an X molecule on one side, and a Y molecule on the other, and an X and a Y are linked to add another amino acid to the chain, it seems it is the same reaction in any case, regardless of the amino acid type.

Yes, but it seems to me more probable that the process continues! Especially with simple molecules, and small chains, and both sticky ends of the chain still there (which indeed they are).

But the anthropic principle is not an answer! I agree that there must have been some cause, but to say that our presence here proves naturalism is true, is really circular reasoning, I would say.

Because proteins generally have to fold in order to have their function. That is, the shape of the molecule is a critical element in how it reacts, and an unfolded protein (if its active form is a folded one) is useless.

Perhaps someone should tell Hubert Yockey? It seems he is not convinced, and his calculation ("Information Theory and Molecular Biology", published by Cambridge Press) demonstrates just that.

Well, I was asking Biff! That is why my answer to you was stated that way. But as far as how I know that God is not changing, well, I don't! That would require supernatural knowledge, I would really need to be God, in order to answer that directly. I guess in that case, I would be answering the second question too!

But this is like when you trust someone on other grounds, such as when some scientist tells you he has discovered a new type of photosynthesis at the bottom of the ocean, where there is no sunlight, and you have decided, based on other factors, that he is both knowledgeable and trustworthy, then you believe him.

About how many gods there are, I find no other gods with ability to predict the future so well! Everyone else is far behind. So I subscribe to God's claim here, this is part of the evidence that he is really The One, by such predictions as these:

Babylon will never be rebuilt, or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26).

There will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

There will be Egyptian and Assyrian people up until the fulfillment of Isa. 19:16-25.

Egypt will never again rule the other nations (Eze. 29:14-15).

Isaiah 41:22-23 "Bring in to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear."

Regards,
Lee

makebate dags

Have the "opponents" conceded to defeat yet? In the sense of a "game" and towards what is considered "victory" what would be some of the criterion for claiming such?

AFAIK Critical arguments are probably the least effective means of convincing anyone of anything. This is why politicians, advertisers, and those with a goal of persuading others don't use them.

"It is also important to understand that arguments based on critical thinking are not necessarily the most persuasive. Perhaps more often than not, the most persuasive arguments are those designed to appeal to our basic human/emotional needs rather than to our sense of objectivity. For that reason, it is common for highly persuasive arguments by politicians, TV evangelists, and sales people, among others, to intentionally lack critical thinking. (See pertinent examples in tables 1 through 4.)" (ref.1)

So if your goal is to persuade others to change their position or admit they've been "defeated" then it'd seem the obvious route would be using the tactics in tables 1 through 4 in the reference I've linked. Just a thought.

Yes, I remember this at least a year ago IIRC when discussing "truth" with you in the philosophy forum as d r i f t at that time. Glad to see your still enjoying such things and "doing battle" politely.

I noticed the discussion on whether or not god exist is central to this thread but haven't noticed much in the way of what constitutes "defeat". If you claim that you have been victorious in the debate. All an opponent need do is say "did not". If they don't admit defeat or concede then it seems both you and your opponent(s) can go away claiming "victory". If you would provide a link to this debate I'd like to see how that is going/went.

- Dags


(ref.1) http://www.skepdic.com/essays/haskins.pdf

wyzaard

Ummm... no. Different amino acids possess different properties in terms of their bonding strength and affinity to various reactions.

But HOW sticky? Not sticky enough in the sense you are thinking about it.

But what it does is deflate the argument from ignorance and highlight the problematic issues with ID ideas... namely, that the universe hasn't always fuctioned this way, and somehow something particular outside of it made it so. Both are unverifiable by any means... so who cares?

'Useless' according to whom? Not the molecular soup which could use such building blocks elsewhere, either as catylists or broken down building blocks... recycling!

Systemic processes like this are NOT linear.

Ahhh... so he assumes from the start that 'information' exists outside of our epistemic frameworks and models. His mistake.

John A. Broussard

You have a very strange idea of how science works. Religion may work this way, where you believe the scriptures because you feel they are trustworthy.

Science is very different. That scientist would publish his findings, they would be peer reviewed, criticized at length, other scientists would try to replicate the first scientist's findings--all of which might take years.

It is very likely that the original hypotesis advanced by the first scientist would be much modified. He might end up getting the Nobel prize for his work, but he wouldn't be "believed because he was both knowledgeable and trustworthy."

His findings are what would be trusted on the basis of the extensive evaluation of that work.

I hope I have clearly shown to you that science does NOT operate on the basis of authority. Religion does. I's authority is the pope, or scripture, or some direct "revelation" from god.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, if you mean their side chains, then I agree. If you mean the molecules that link up, I need more explanation. They are the same molecules reacting, when amino acids link up to form a protein, in every case.

Erm, I need more than just a flat denial here...

Well, how is the anthropic principle verifiable? And ID is an argument from present knowledge, the anthropic principle (both versions) require us to know what we don't know, that is, whether life did actually form naturally, or if there are (many!) other universes.

Certainly, but I meant useless as the protein that we were hoping would be made.

Perhaps you should write him a note! And also Cambridge Press...

And I meant how you and I trust a scientist when they tell of a new discovery. We don't ask for a personal replication of the experiment, or our own trip with them to the bottom of the ocean, so that we ourselves can verify the claim.

Regards,
Lee