Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaranth · 05-23-2003, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Don't bet on it. I took a quick look at Ed's replies: he's using the exact same lines that he used a year ago! There isn't a single argument logical and well supported enough to dent the mind of Ed

How disappointingly true. His arguments utterly annihilated by Lobstrosity, Ed responds by...ignoring their existance.

Sad.

Amaranth

Ed · 05-24-2003, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity

Originally posted by Ed
Actually we do not KNOW that quantum events occur without a cause. It just appears that they do. There could be a cause that we have yet to discover. No great scientist of the past ever looked for the cause of an event for awhile then threw up his arms and said "well there must not be a cause". This would be terrible science. Also, without the law of causality science becomes impossible. But even if we grant that a quantum event could create the universe, it would require an interval time to occur but at the origin of the space-time universe time=0. So a quantum event could not occur.

lob: We also don't KNOW that Neptune orbits the sun. It just appears that it does. There could be a path that Neptune takes that we have yet to discover. Perhaps it's time we discard all our scientific theories! Or, perhaps we should stick with the theories that have overwhelming empirical support (such as quantum) until they are falsified. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of established theories you want to believe based on which parts require the existence of God. Oh no, this aspect of the theory means that the universe could have formed without God...quick, burn it, BURN IT!

Basically, Ed, you're just arguing from ignorance, here. You don't seem to understand causality or quantum theory. For example, quantum assumes as given that classical causation is mere fiction and yet it is one of the most successful theories ever developed. This assumption is not considered a weakness of the theory, it is a strength. Furthermore, the assumption has since been strongly supported by Aspect's experiments in the eighties that demonstrate violations of Bell's inequalities. Your assertion that "science is now impossible in the quantum domain" is rather ridiculous, don't you think? Perhaps you should actually learn what quantum implies before making such grandiose claims. This would give you a glimpse at what causation really seems to mean at the most basic level. Your idea of causation is simply an approximation of the truth that holds true only in the macroscopic world. In reality, A does not cause B, A collapses a wave function, resulting in either B, C, or D. The result is perfectly random but governed by known probability distributions. It is the probability distributions that allow science to continue. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about a world in which nothing is as simple as A causes B.

No, if something as "macro" as a universe can come into existence without a cause then almost anything could. If some event occurs that appears to not have a cause some lazy scientist could just say " Well it must have just popped into existence." But even if quantum events actually do not have a cause they DO require a time interval to occur as I stated above. At the origin of the universe t=0 so a QE is still cannot be the cause of the universe. I notice you did not respond to this fact when I brought it up above. Maybe it is because you are unable to?

Quote:

Ed: No, uncaused events are logically impossible because they would have to both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship thereby violating the law of noncontradiction.

lob: Ever hear of Schrodinger's cat? Yeah, kind of "logical impossibility" is now considered perfectly reasonable so long as one has not collapsed the wavefunction governing the quantum superposition of states. Once again you're using intuition, and once again, it's failing you. You know what else you might call "logically impossible"? The idea that one particle can simutaneously pass through two separate slits on the way to a target. I mentioned this in my previous post, but interestingly you neglected to address it. Is it not logically impossible for one thing to be in two places at the same time? By your naive application of the law of noncontradiction you'd have to say yes. By your naive application of the law of noncontradiction you'd be completely wrong.

How do you know it is the same particle? Our knowledge of reality at the quantum level may be probabilistic and not deterministic, but that does not mean that no causes operate at that level. It means only that we have no ability to predict them with certainty.

Quote:

Ed: We also can logically assume that the cause of the universe has a personal aspect to it because of the law of sufficient cause. The universe contains personal beings and we know from experience that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore we can logically deduce that the cause of the universe is an intelligent personal being. As far as some uberverse, yes that may be the case but unlike theism there is absolutely no rational basis for believing such a thing exists.

lob: And this leaves me wondering whether you even know what logic is. I'm honestly dumbfounded...you can deduce from experience? What experience? You are in reality deducing from lack of experience, from ignorance. There is zero logic in the above quote.

Empirical experience. Throughout all of human experience only persons can produce the personal.

Quote:

lob: To illustrate this point, allow me to counter the statement "only persons can produce the personal" with the following arguments based on similar "logic":
* Only cows can produce the cowish (you know, that intangible quality that represents all it means to truly be a cow), therefore this universe was created by a cow.
* Only rocks can produce the rocky, so therefore this universe was created by a rock.

No, persons are much more complex than rocks or cows therefore a cause with the characteristics of a cow or rock would be inadequate to produce this universe which contains persons.

Quote:

Ed: But you contradicted yourself above where you said that the law of causality and noncontradiction are not always true, if that is the case then good science is impossible.

lob:I did not contradict myself. So long as one knows when noncontradiction fails, how it fails, and why it fails, it's hardly an impediment to science. Similarly, so long as the true nature of causality is understood (and this nature need not be classical-- there can be spontaneous events that occur in this world as guided by predictable probability distributions), there is no impairment of science. This is why quantum theory actually works. This is why quantum theory is one of the most phenomenal scientific achievements to date. This is why you're sitting at a computer right now.

See above. Just because a theory works does not necessarily mean it represents reality. The theory of epicycles "worked" to make predictions but it did not represent the actual motions of the planets.

Quote:

lob: And Creationism is still the equivalent of logical horseshit. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and can be molded to fit any arbitrary data. It's the opposite of a theory--an antitheory, if you will. Instead of explaining things, it serves only to prevent anyone else from even trying to explain things. According to current data, all we know is that Creationism mandates that God was trying to fool us into believing in evolution, which makes Creationism seem ridiculous beyond measure (still unfalsifiable, but ridiculous nonetheless).

Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything.

lpetrich · 05-25-2003, 02:51 AM

(a lot of argument about quantum mechanics...)

(why only personal objects can produce other personal ones)
Ed:
Empirical experience. Throughout all of human experience only persons can produce the personal.

Which could "demonstrate" that the human species is eternal, since nobody in recorded history has ever seen a human being come into existence as a result of some nonhuman cause.

lob: And Creationism is still the equivalent of logical horseshit. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and can be molded to fit any arbitrary data. ...

Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything.

Like what does Ed expect to see and why? He always likes to seem bitterly disappointed, but he does not make clear what makes him that way.

Duvenoy · 05-25-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything.

Damn Ed, how many times must I post these links before you finally read one of them?

From a recent newspaper article -- I haven�t found the scientific paper, yet, but it seems that the fossil has survived peer review.

Quote:

Dr Jenny Clack, who has studied the specimen, says it illustrates how life on Earth made the transition from a purely water-borne existence to one where creatures were able to forage on the shoreline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2089873.stm

Quote:

Mammal-Like Reptiles
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Quote:

Recent Findings (Fishes With Legs)
Until the 1980s, the fossil record of early tetrapods was essentially limited to Ichthyostega, a Late Devonian tetrapod from eastern Greenland. (Another Greenland form and an Australian form were known only from fragmentary remains.) But the early tetrapod record has expanded dramatically since 1987. Moreover, the fossil record of their fish ancestors has also been greatly enlarged in recent years. These enhanced records, together with findings from other scientific disciplines has engendered a new understanding of how tetrapods evolved. Instead of fish escaping drought, the first tetrapods are now seen as fishes with legs.

http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html

Quote:

Paleontologists in China have discovered the fossil remains of a four-winged dinosaur with fully developed, modern feathers on both the forelimbs and hind limbs.
The new species, Microraptor gui, provides yet more evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and could go a long way to answering a question scientists have puzzled over for close to 100 years: How did a group of ground-dwelling flightless dinosaurs evolve to a feathered animal capable of flying?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...omaeosaur.html

If you want to falsify evolution, find a mammal fossil in the Devonian strata, or something similar. Piece o� cake, right? Wrong! The fossils don't exist and even their absence supports the toE because they appear where the ToE predics they will. But The ToE is certainly falsifiable. Just find that out-of-place fossil.

doov

Lobstrosity · 05-25-2003, 06:38 PM

Damn, I made a nice long reply last night, but now it seems to have vanished. I swear I posted it, but perhaps I somehow just hit preview? Arg. Anyway, maybe I'll write it all again sometime later.

Ed · 05-25-2003, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
Well that�s just tough, Ed.

�Toes are terminated by a short phalanx carrying a convex hoof, as in mesonychids...�

Ambulocetus had hooves.

and

�The same bed also contains impressions of leaves and abundant Turritella and other marine molluscs, indicating that the carcass was buried in a shallow sea.�

It plainly spent time in the sea.

(Thewissen, Science, vol 263 p 210-212.)

So Ed, what does it take for you to admit error?

TTFN, Oolon

Just because a carcass is found in a shallow sea does not necessarily mean that the animal is aquatic. It may have been a seashore scavenger and died near the shore, or it may have gotten in a flood on a river and was washed down to the sea.

Doubting Didymus · 05-25-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Just because a carcass is found in a shallow sea does not necessarily mean that the animal is aquatic. It may have been a seashore scavenger or it may have gotten in a flood on a river and washed down to the sea.

Why do you have a problem with ambulocetus being aquatic? Its obviously not impossible, because we have aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals alive today. How is ambulocetus different from, say, platypus in the important respects?

Ed · 05-25-2003, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: Taxonomy among both evolutionists and creationists is a very complex and detailed process.

jtb: Not for creationists, it isn't. Creationist "taxonomy" is based on the principle of the "200% critter". If a transitional form can be judged to resemble creature A more than creature B, it is "100% A". If it's closer to B, it's "100% B". If it's squarely between the two, it's both. Thus, archaeopteryx is claimed by creationists to be 100% reptile and 100% bird, and Homo Erectus is 100% ape and 100% human (and hence 200% primate).

No, archaeopteryx is probably a mosaic species of bird like the platypus is a mosaic mammal and not a transition of anything. There is evidence that fully developed birds lived before archaeopteryx so it is unlikely to be a transitional form. Homo erectus is plainly human. There is evidence of erectus and sapiens interbreeding. See the website I mention in my post to lpetrich above where modern Australian aborigines have many of the same characteristics of erectus.

Quote:

Ed: As we learn more about genetics we can gain greater confidence of how organisms should be classified. And we can learn what may have been the original kinds.

jtb: No, we will not. Why do you use the future tense here? The research has been done, and creationism is dead (or, rather, even more dead).

No, beginning with the discovery of DNA, the evidence for creation has grown with each passing year.

Coragyps · 05-26-2003, 04:53 AM

Quote:

No, beginning with the discovery of DNA, the evidence for creation has grown with each passing year.

Why am I reminded of a scene from Monty Python?

GunnerJ · 05-26-2003, 05:32 AM

Because this entire thread is a Python-esque farce?

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

05-25-2003, 02:51 AM	#823
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	(a lot of argument about quantum mechanics...) (why only personal objects can produce other personal ones) Ed: Empirical experience. Throughout all of human experience only persons can produce the personal. Which could "demonstrate" that the human species is eternal, since nobody in recorded history has ever seen a human being come into existence as a result of some nonhuman cause. lob: And Creationism is still the equivalent of logical horseshit. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, and can be molded to fit any arbitrary data. ... Actually you sound like you are talking about Evolution. Evolution is the theory that is unfalsifiable. For example, if there are no transitions then that means that it occured too fast for fossils to be left behind or the transitionals did not have any hard parts to be fossilized or etc. Also survival of the fittest does not explain anything. Like what does Ed expect to see and why? He always likes to seem bitterly disappointed, but he does not make clear what makes him that way.

05-25-2003, 06:38 PM	#825
Lobstrosity Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 719	Damn, I made a nice long reply last night, but now it seems to have vanished. I swear I posted it, but perhaps I somehow just hit preview? Arg. Anyway, maybe I'll write it all again sometime later.

05-26-2003, 05:32 AM	#830
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	Because this entire thread is a Python-esque farce?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.