The Car Analogy

[Adam Nagy 49]

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

The way I put when introducing the interaction of science and technology to my students is: "A scientist makes a discovery about how something works...

Hmmm... that could be a little vague. I discover and rediscover how things are working all the time. I even set up experiments to demonstrate things discovered to managers in the most unambiguous way to garner support for changes or actions.

 

Am I a scientist?

 

I don't wear a white lab coat but I do use trigonometry, measure stuff and make predictions.

 

Do you have to be the original discoverer maybe, to be a scientist? Sort of how Sheldon Cooper mocks Leonard Hofstadter for not doing original work? Though to be truly original would assume perfect knowledge. It's very common that multiple people are making the same discovery in parallel.

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

...An engineer applies the science to make useful technology...

Engineers discover stuff all the time.

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

...A technician makes it work."

Technicians discover stuff all the time too!

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

There is nothing wrong with any of those as even a technician will have far more knowledge of the relevant subject than a typical layman.

Right on. And the delineation lines really don't mean much because you can't sanitize professions in any exacting sense. In fact, the artificial delineation lines the public at large has accepted has provided a cover for a scientist, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, to make some novel observations about the center of the Milky Way and help downgrade Pluto from its status as a planet then spend the balance of his life preaching his godless worldview is if it is as plain as gravity.

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

Keeping in mind the difference between scientists, engineers, and technicians..... are you a scientist?

My radar is up that this is potentially intended to impugn Gilbo's capacity.

 

...But what do I know? I'm just a 'C' student that graduated from a public high school?

[gilbo12345 859]

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

The question I'm about to ask is in no way intended to minimize what I'm sure are your excellent qualifications in biology, but I am curious. Your profile says:

"Currently studying Biotechnology, (the commercialisation of Biology into a novel product or service)." The statement leads me to think you are studying to be a technician or engineer, not a scientist.

 

I've recently finished my Biotech studies, (am now doing Masters of Teaching).

 

I think your confusion is coming from your own interpretation of what Biotechnology is. Here, let me help you

 

Biotechnology is the use of living systems and organisms to develop or make useful products, or "any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use" (UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Art. 2).^[1] Depending on the tools and applications, it often overlaps with the (related) fields of bioengineering and biomedical engineering.

For thousands of years, humankind has used biotechnology in agriculture, food production, and medicine.^[2] The term itself is largely believed to have been coined in 1919 by Hungarian engineer Károly Ereky. In the late 20th and early 21st century, biotechnology has expanded to include new and diverse sciences such as genomics, recombinant gene technologies, applied immunology, and development of pharmaceutical therapies and diagnostic tests

 

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

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 9:01 AM, piasan said:

The way I put when introducing the interaction of science and technology to my students is: "A scientist makes a discovery about how something works. An engineer applies the science to make useful technology.

 

Keeping in mind the difference between scientists, engineers, and technicians..... are you a scientist?

 

My degree enables me to be employed as a research scientist, thus making discoveries and fulfilling your definition.

[piasan 1,402]

  On 3/29/2014 at 5:47 AM, Bonedigger said:

 

Pi, I've read your article on SN1987a, and conspicuous by its absence is any attention to the question of gravitational time dilation. As I challenged you before, as a result of deriving a new (non Schwarzschild) Einstein metric to explain the Pioneer anomaly, Humphreys has modified his white hole cosmology to give a better explanation of distant (deep time) astronomical phenomena as occurring over millions/billions of years while little (if any) time passed on the earth. I'm curious if you have had a chance to look deeper into this.

 

See new topic "It's a matter of time."

[piasan 1,402]

  On 3/29/2014 at 11:01 AM, gilbo12345 said:

My degree enables me to be employed as a research scientist, thus making discoveries and fulfilling your definition.

Fair enough. Thank you.

[Adam Nagy 49]

That's really cool, Gilbo. I wish I would have stayed in school to become what I wanted to be... Oh, wait! I love my career.

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 11:01 AM, gilbo12345 said:

My degree enables me to be employed as a research scientist, thus making discoveries and fulfilling your definition.

All as a creationist?!? What has this world come to? Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!

 

All joking aside good for you!

[Adam Nagy 49]

[Dig4gold 100]

piasan: I went to religious schools from first grade thru my first three years of university. For that reason, I can honestly say I've studied, researched, discussed these things with religious mentors who were professors of theology and philosophy, and prayed on this matter for more than 60 years.... and continue to do so. My students ask how I know so much "stuff." The response is that I'm old and I've never stopped learning and I still learn something new nearly every day. After a while, that "stuff" starts to pile up. Still studying. Still learning. But if you think a strawman like a unicycle evolving to a DeLorian is going to convince me, you're way behind the curve.

 

Maybe I need to point this out again..... physics, not evolution, is my reason for rejecting a literal reading of Genesis.

 

 

 

I did not know that about you, thanks for sharing it. I have had a few friends that went to Catholic schools and they were some of the most ardent anti-religion people I know. Apparently there is something about that kind of school system that can turn a person away from wanting to continue in the ways of God. So, was that your experience as well?

 

I hope you understand that the "car analogy" is an example of reductio ad absurdem. It is not a strawman argument.

 

 

Thanks for supplying a reason for your unbelief in a universe that is around 6 thousand years old. That is by earth's perspective though.

I believe that Bonedigger gave a good response to your objections. Maybe you should check that out as it may restore some of the faith that you once had.

 

 

 

popoi, I would be lying if I said that didn't have trouble with you trying to support a chance for spontaneous generation. So I won't keep beating a dead rock on that one.

 

 

popoi: A car does not possess the necessary properties to evolve (i.e. the ability to reproduce with modification) or produce abiogenesis (various organic components, depending on the theory).

 

Neither do rocks. (OK, one more time)

You could put a healthy living frog in a blender and blend it up then take the compound and wait and wait and wait but no life will spontaneously arise from it even though it started as a living entity. Even though you began with all of the components of life you would not observe life spontaneously arising from this mixture. Why? Because life only comes from life. (No frogs were harmed in this thought experiment)

 

Hence the car analogy reductio ad absurdem.

[popoi 1,078]

  On 3/29/2014 at 8:58 AM, Adam Nagy said:

If you want to believe it:

 

-- It must be proven impossible.

No, people are claiming that it has been proven impossible, and that any attempt at providing empirical support is futile. I want to know why.

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 12:20 PM, Dig4gold said:

Neither do rocks. (OK, one more time)

What's missing?

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 12:20 PM, Dig4gold said:

You could put a healthy living frog in a blender and blend it up then take the compound and wait and wait and wait but no life will spontaneously arise from it even though it started as a living entity. Even though you began with all of the components of life you would not observe life spontaneously arising from this mixture. Why?

Does a frog in a blender match any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

[gilbo12345 859]

  On 3/29/2014 at 3:58 PM, popoi said:

No, people are claiming that it has been proven impossible, and that any attempt at providing empirical support is futile. I want to know why.

 

Does a frog in a blender match any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

 

I already addressed your concerns.... Evolutionary formation of life is impossible because it defies prerogatives of nature, (unless you add imaginary mechanisms to compensate )

 

Actually a frog in a blender is a huge concession for the evolutionist since they claim life started from non-life in the sense that no organic structure was present and thus had to be created.. A frog in a blender gives you all the organic components!!! Meaning IF life could form by itself it would be much easier to do so from a frog in a blender than it would from rocks.... Meaning if the easier option is wrong then the harder option is also.

[piasan 1,402]

  On 3/29/2014 at 3:58 PM, popoi said:

Does a frog in a blender match any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

 

  On 3/30/2014 at 1:05 AM, gilbo12345 said:

I already addressed your concerns.... Evolutionary formation of life is impossible because it defies prerogatives of nature, (unless you add imaginary mechanisms to compensate )

 

Actually a frog in a blender is a huge concession for the evolutionist since they claim life started from non-life in the sense that no organic structure was present and thus had to be created.. A frog in a blender gives you all the organic components!!! Meaning IF life could form by itself it would be much easier to do so from a frog in a blender than it would from rocks.... Meaning if the easier option is wrong then the harder option is also.

You didn't answer the question. As a biological scientist, do you know of any proposed theory of abiogenesis that is a match for a frog in a blender?

 

Wouldn't a frog in a blender be a better match for the Resurrection than any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

[popoi 1,078]

  On 3/30/2014 at 1:05 AM, gilbo12345 said:

I already addressed your concerns.... Evolutionary formation of life is impossible because it defies prerogatives of nature, (unless you add imaginary mechanisms to compensate )

If by "imaginary mechanisms" you mean "new testable predictions", sure. Making new testable predictions as a counter to potential falsification is a pretty legitimate science move.

 

  On 3/30/2014 at 1:05 AM, gilbo12345 said:

A frog in a blender gives you all the organic components!

The thing you're missing is that the components present in life aren't necessarily the same components that you need to initially produce life. The reason I asked for reference to a specific theory is that it seems like unless you appeal to the specific requirements of that theory, you're making your own judgment about what's close to that theory and what isn't.

[piasan 1,402]

  On 3/29/2014 at 12:20 PM, Dig4gold said:

I did not know that about you, thanks for sharing it. I have had a few friends that went to Catholic schools and they were some of the most ardent anti-religion people I know. Apparently there is something about that kind of school system that can turn a person away from wanting to continue in the ways of God. So, was that your experience as well?

Not me personally. My class ('64) had a "65th birthday party" a couple years ago and I saw a lot of people for the first time since then. Before we ate, we said "Grace" but I noticed it was introduced with the words "For those who still pray .... "

 

 

  On 3/29/2014 at 12:20 PM, Dig4gold said:

Hence the car analogy reductio ad absurdem.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

A false argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy.^[5] A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

 

Here's the "slightly different or inaccurate" part of the argument. Life is based on organic chemistry. So far as I know, all proposals for abiogenesis are based entirely on organic chemistry. Rocks are not composed of organic chemicals.

 

Call it what you like, I will call it a "strawman."

[Dig4gold 100]

piasan: You didn't answer the question. As a biological scientist, do you know of any proposed theory of abiogenesis that is a match for a frog in a blender?

 

 

I'm not a biological scientist and I don't play one on TV but from what I understand all of non-theistic theories of abiogenesis is that life arose from non-life. That non-living chemicals joined together and formed the first cell or proto-cell. This was accomplished without the more complex remains of an emulsified frog. So why do you ask? Are you suggesting that the frog slushy is too complex and simpler chemicals are needed? As gilbo said, and I agree, it would be "a huge concession for the evolutionist" to begin with a pre-existing organism but why don't you share your favorite theory as to how life began and we can see what you are getting at.

 

 

 

popoi: The thing you're missing is that the components present in life aren't necessarily the same components that you need to initially produce life.

 

 

It sounds like you are suggesting the same thing as piasan. I'll ask you the same thing, please share your favorite theory as to how life began so we can see the point you are asserting.

 

 

 

piasan: Here's the "slightly different or inaccurate" part of the argument. Life is based on organic chemistry. So far as I know, all proposals for abiogenesis are based entirely on organic chemistry. Rocks are not composed of organic chemicals.

 

It is not inaccurate I believe that you are just leaving out a step. Where did these organic chemicals come from based on the Big Bang?

 

Also, I wasn't clear if your went to a Catholic school or not.

[gilbo12345 859]

  On 3/30/2014 at 6:15 AM, piasan said:

 

You didn't answer the question. As a biological scientist, do you know of any proposed theory of abiogenesis that is a match for a frog in a blender?

 

Wouldn't a frog in a blender be a better match for the Resurrection than any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

 

Actually you said...

 

popoi, on 30 Mar 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

  On 3/29/2014 at 3:58 PM, popoi said:

Does a frog in a blender match any proposed theory of abiogenesis?

 

 

As I attempted to explain before, (perhaps I need to be more blunt), starting with the components of a blended frog is a huge concession for the evolutionist. In terms of your question I do not see how it applies since no alternative theory is being presented rather the starting materials, "blended frog" is being allowed rather than rocks...

 

Do you understand that for life to form independently it would be far far far easier to start with the organic components of a blended frog rather than have the additional steps of organic component formation via rocks. Therefore the argument given is demonstrating how even with a huge concession- allowing a blended frog rather than rocks- life STILL doesn't form.. So if it cannot form naturally when all the organelles and components are already given in solution, then why on Earth do evolutionists assume that somehow it could happen when the components etc are required to form by themselves, (even though such a thing defies prerogatives of nature as I already explained- aka chirality).

 

As the nursery rhyme goes, "and they couldn't put humpty together again"

[gilbo12345 859]

  On 3/30/2014 at 7:01 AM, piasan said:

Not me personally. My class ('64) had a "65th birthday party" a couple years ago and I saw a lot of people for the first time since then. Before we ate, we said "Grace" but I noticed it was introduced with the words "For those who still pray .... "

 

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

A false argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy.^[5] A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition.

 

Here's the "slightly different or inaccurate" part of the argument. Life is based on organic chemistry. So far as I know, all proposals for abiogenesis are based entirely on organic chemistry. Rocks are not composed of organic chemicals.

 

Call it what you like, I will call it a "strawman."

 

As you said rocks also inorganic and lifeless.... so why can't the car argument be used?... Since it is the same as rocks and rocks are claimed to be the source of the inorganic chemicals used in the prebiotic soup....

 

You claim its a strawman because life is based on organic chemistry, true... Yet where do you think the organic chemicals come from, at some stage the atheist MUST hypothesize some form of life from non-life, and it is on this basis the car analogy is founded.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  On 3/30/2014 at 10:27 AM, Dig4gold said:

I'm not a biological scientist and I don't play one on TV...

But did you stay at an Holiday Inn Express last night?

[Dig4gold 100]

I can neither confirm or deny that, Adam.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  On 3/30/2014 at 3:52 PM, Dig4gold said:

I can neither confirm or deny that, Adam.

haha! You're making me suspicious... o.O

[popoi 1,078]

  On 3/30/2014 at 10:57 AM, gilbo12345 said:

Do you understand that for life to form independently it would be far far far easier to start with the organic components of a blended frog rather than have the additional steps of organic component formation via rocks.

I don't think this is actually true. It seems like claiming that you should be able to make a cake out of a smashed cake easier than you can make one out of the raw ingredients, therefore if you can't make a smashed cake into a cake, you can't bake one. What you're missing is that "the hard way" involves specific processes that aren't necessarily reversible or recoverable. The blended frog has organic components, but not necessarily the specific components you need or the state you need them in.

[Adam Nagy 49]

  On 3/30/2014 at 4:43 PM, popoi said:

I don't think this is actually true. It seems like claiming that you should be able to make a cake out of a smashed cake easier than you can make one out of the raw ingredients, therefore if you can't make a smashed cake into a cake, you can't bake one. What you're missing is that "the hard way" involves specific processes that aren't necessarily reversible or recoverable. The blended frog has organic components, but not necessarily the specific components you need or the state you need them in.

Great analogy!

 

Now show us how to "bake the cake" of life.

[Dig4gold 100]

I'm not sure I can agree with your point, popoi. One could argue that you still have a cake only it is not shaped. Hey, I would still eat it!

What you do not have when you scramble a frog is life. Compressing the cake back to shape and add a little more icing and you would simply call it a crumb cake I suppose. But using all of the components of a previously living frog and you not have life again.

 

As gilbo mentioned, "you can't put humpty together again".

[Mike Summers 453]

I think one of the biggest mistakes science makes is to conclude that the only ingredients In biological life are matter and energy.

[Dig4gold 100]

You can say that again. ; )

 

I started to mention that life is more than the sum total of its parts.

 

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

[gilbo12345 859]

  On 3/29/2014 at 11:33 AM, Adam Nagy said:

That's really cool, Gilbo. I wish I would have stayed in school to become what I wanted to be... Oh, wait! I love my career.

 

All as a creationist?!? What has this world come to? Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!

All joking aside good for you!

Thanks Adam

 

I will admit that Expelled has me a little worried about employment as a scientist, though lucky for me Biotechnology has very little to do with evolution so I think it should be ok.