Jump to content


Photo

On Evolution's Credibility


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
135 replies to this topic

#101 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 04 July 2012 - 01:17 PM

Since you do not know if abiogenesis is possible or impossible, you cannot claim abiogenesis is definitely possible.


I don't make a distinction between "possible" and "definitely possible". To me, "possible" means "not impossible". (There's that pesky law of non-contradiction again.) Additional qualifications like "definitely possible" or "probably might be a little bit possible" don't add anything.

#102 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 July 2012 - 07:54 PM

I don't make a distinction between "possible" and "definitely possible". To me, "possible" means "not impossible". (There's that pesky law of non-contradiction again.) Additional qualifications like "definitely possible" or "probably might be a little bit possible" don't add anything.


To say that something is possible is to say that it can happen, which is a positive claim. Your claim that "abiogenesis is possible, or 'not impossible'" is a positive claim, and since it is not based on evidence it is a statement of faith. Either abiogenesis is possible or impossible, and which it is is unknown without confirming evidence.

I used "definitely possible" to mean "known to be possible (able to happen) based on evidence" as opposed to "potentially possible" (when the possibility of something has not been confirmed). Me driving to Wal-Mart is definitely possible. Me flying to Mars is potentially possible, to me it is unknown if I could or not. The word "definitely" added the level of certainty in the statement of possibility. Make sense?

#103 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 08:56 AM

The word "definitely" added the level of certainty in the statement of possibility. Make sense?


I understood the distinction you were making. I agree that there's a difference between "possible" and "already done". The problem is that some people in this thread seem to equivocate "not done yet" and "impossible".

#104 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:15 AM

I understood the distinction you were making. I agree that there's a difference between "possible" and "already done". The problem is that some people in this thread seem to equivocate "not done yet" and "impossible".


Yet the stance on claiming "yet" implies that it is not only possible it assumes that it will happen, and that its only a matter of time.

#105 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:41 AM

Yet the stance on claiming "yet" implies that it is not only possible it assumes that it will happen, and that its only a matter of time.


That's right. Unless there's a solid reason to think something is impossible, we assume it's possible. If we didn't do that, we'd never accomplish anything.

#106 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:22 AM

That's right. Unless there's a solid reason to think something is impossible, we assume it's possible. If we didn't do that, we'd never accomplish anything.

Which is no evidence for abiogenesis.

It's another logical fallacy from you - this being the appeal to future knowledge.

#107 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:51 AM

It's another logical fallacy from you - this being the appeal to future knowledge.


Nobody's making any claims based on future knowledge. We're looking for evidence before we decide whether something is impossible - as opposed to those who are hoping aginst hope that we won't find any evidence that might challenge their beliefs.

#108 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 06:00 PM

That's right. Unless there's a solid reason to think something is impossible, we assume it's possible. If we didn't do that, we'd never accomplish anything.


Again you haven't read my post properly and therefore are taking it out of context....



"Yet the stance on claiming "yet" implies that it is not only possible it assumes that it will happen, and that its only a matter of time."

I am pointing out that you are not claiming it as merely possible, your stance implies that it will happen. You are assuming that it will happen and time is the only reason you have given for this assumption.




Nobody's making any claims based on future knowledge. We're looking for evidence before we decide whether something is impossible - as opposed to those who are hoping aginst hope that we won't find any evidence that might challenge their beliefs.


Actually you are, since you are assuming what I mention above.

"We're looking for evidence before we decide whether something is impossible"

and we have looked at the evidence and the current evidence overwhelmingly points to abiogenesis being impossible... Unless you are talking about future evidences, of which means that you are basing a claim on future knowledge.

Yet the evidence we have supports our beliefs so that little dig can be followed by this- as opposed to those who hope to one day find any shred of evidence for their belief since the current evidence claims that their belief is illogical and irrational.

#109 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:57 AM

Nobody's making any claims based on future knowledge.

Great! So what evidence are you going to produce for abiogenesis?

#110 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:44 AM

A discussion about whether or not something can, or cannot happen, is philosophical.

Scientists seek to minimize all intrusions of chance whenever seeking to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

A theory reliant on chance is a philosophical theory not a scientific one.
Which is fine if anyone wants to theorize with no conclusions ever being possible.

It is interesting to me to see how neither side of the special-creation/macro-evolution debates admit that there is no such thing as a science of past events. All existing evidences must be interpreted as to their cause and placement within natural history.

It is my opinion, a claim as to possibilities is not evidence. At a minimum, all possibilities should be numerically expressed instead of philosophically.

I don't think that very many debators have comprehended the improbability of any creation event, or macro-evolutionary one.

I like to try and bring the comprehension of readers into the framework of the real world we live in, and avoid some fairytale land of possibility thinking that is not rooted in natural facts.

For example....

We know that there exists strings of data set in a particular orders, such that, after translation into a strings of amino acids, those strings can finally be folded into various structures that always cosistently evidence design parameters of fitness, form and function in a higher functioning, more complex system.
And, we know that the original data string has no known feedback mechanism available for error correction.
We have regulation of production and results but, no regulation of the original coded data string.
We are confronted with systems that produce only, "Go/No Go"..."Pass/Fail", non analytical, results.
That is, within the macro-evolution paradigm there exists no analytical mechanism providing feedback to the input stage of a process.

When we observe control loop technologies, we see that there are OPEN LOOP stages of process systems, and CLOSED LOOP stages of process systems.
When we confront a closed loop process stage we discern that there is feedback of results being looped back to the input of the process to correct for errors in outputs that tend toward exceeding the acceptable parameters of the system at large.
There are such closed loops in biological systems. In each closed loop an analysis is performed to determine the control measure useful to achieve optimum systsem functioning.
These loops are much like a seesaw, that is, they are a very precisely balanced forces.
As we all know, balancing is seldom achieved by luck, such as balanced rocks on pinnacles left there after the flood waters of Noah's flood removed the surrounding sediments. That is, the balanced rocks are far fewer in number than the ones distributed on the ground.
But, in a system the likehood of achieving balance is nil, because, within the system all components of the system must meet the three parameters of fit, form and function.

But, let me point to the more curiouser problem evidenced in biological systems.
The OPEN LOOP.
The open loop is a loop that exhibits no feedback mechanism providing a analytical control of the input based on objective knowledge of the output of the controlled loop.
So, how are open loops possible?
They are onlymade possible, in the real world of science and technology, by the former analysis effort of a designer/designers.
That is, all things that have a useful function, are things that are confronted with problems that must be solved, which is why analytical design is a must. Otherwise, one is left with only the hope that something will arise by luck, time and time again. And then, of course, added to that strange situation is the problem of timeliness. It is, the time frame that is the death nell of wishful hopes and dreams of some fortuitous event. I think God created all things in six days lest he otherwise be thought incompetent and waiting on luck. And, that he didn't created instantaeneously lest man have no measure of skills involved, and presume his ability conforms to magic and not science aforethougt.

So, when I see a open loop, and a beautifully, precisely balanced one, then I know that not only is a skilled designer responsible for that balanced system function, but, the designer had to have been wise. For, wisdom is proven by a intellectual's ability to foresee all possibilities ahead of time and know that the open loop stage he has designed will meet those possible challenges adequately. Kind of like, the wise man who counts the cost before he begins to build.

So, we have that string of coded data that is an open looped input to the system to which it provides its benefictial data.
If the string is compromised the system loses a function.
We find in cell that the copy mechanisms provide for correction of errors and so, the original data is kept as free of ruination as copying of official copies can achieve.
But, lets look at the possibilities required to achieve the correct result.

If a protein required two codons, we see that each codon makes available 1 of twenty possibilities, if the codon is functioning as it should. And, since there are two codons required for the protein, then the possibilities multiply, and so, the possibilities become 1 out of 400 as a correctly matched pair. And, since the two could be in the wrong order that is 800 to 1.

And, from there we look at the real world of 480 ordered codons? and, we supposedly are to reason it scientific to think there is a possibility of achieving a useful protein possessing fit, form and funtion within a higher sytsem function? by luck? without feedback of errors that caused untold possibilities of ruination of the system whole?

If you stood and watched a man strike a cue ball into another ball and drive that second ball into the required pocket, you might begin to wonder if the man was skilled or lucky.
IF the man did it consistently you would deem him a skilled designer of his outcomes.

But, what if the man drove the cue ball into set of balls that combinated to achieve a required result. Then you would immediately suspect skill by design.
But, note that if the combinatory ability reached, lets say, ten balls, then we might suspect magical manipulations.

And that is a good analogy about possibilities because, the balls are spheres presenting a infinity of possible angles from which to be struck at, and thus well lends itself the seeming infinity of possibilities in the cosmos at large.

Or, consider a less difficult, yet impossible thing.
A labyrinth for a marble.
One way in.
Each subsequent path ends with two choices.
When a marble arrives at the end of a blind alley it falls out a hole and vanishes out of the labyrinth.
All paths taken are taken by chance.
How long will it take a recycling marble to get out of the labyrinth of ten choices?
Much less, out of hundreds and thousands of choices.
Much less ten marbles exiting in a particularly useful order?

You see?
This notion of possibility is the biggest fairytale reasoning of all that is presented as a scientific explanation of causation.



  • gilbo12345 likes this

#111 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:07 AM

But, lets agree to accept philosophically that possibilities are possible regardless of any measure of improbability.

Then, are we not confronted philosophically with the dilemma of determining the best possible choice?

That is...
Given the vastness of the orderly chance possibilities needed to achieve a functioning system without a designer, as compared to, the voiding of chance by a skilled designer, keeping in mind that neither can be proven scientifically....

Which is the more probable to believe?

I think this shows that a person claiming to be reliant on rationales based on possibilty must rationally choose the most likely thing, which is, that God, exists as the supreme designer of natural systems.

.

#112 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:51 AM

"Yet the stance on claiming "yet" implies that it is not only possible it assumes that it will happen, and that its only a matter of time."


No, the word "yet" does not imply any assumption that something will happen. Saying, "I haven't been to Australia yet," makes no assumption that I will ever go. It only affirms the possibility.

"We're looking for evidence before we decide whether something is impossible"
and we have looked at the evidence and the current evidence overwhelmingly points to abiogenesis being impossible...


Nonsense. Why would biochemists spend their whole careers looking for something that they thought was impossible? It's only a handful of creationists who hope it's impossible and most of them aren't qualified to assess the evidence.

#113 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:53 AM

So what evidence are you going to produce for abiogenesis?


What kind of evidence would you accept?

#114 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:10 AM

What kind of evidence would you accept?

We'd need to see a demonstration of life from non-life. Seal away an environment and let it run on until you find life.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#115 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:27 AM

We'd need to see a demonstration of life from non-life. Seal away an environment and let it run on until you find life.


Yes, that's the end result that we're working on but what evidence can we show you now that will convince you that it's possible? Do you need a 747 to convince you that manned flight is possible or can we show you a 1902 Wright Flyer?

#116 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:31 AM

I've given you my answer. I don't consider ad hoc reasons to be "real".


It also represents a possibility of the truth, whether you consider it "real" or not. Actually, each possibility of truth requires you to have faith to believe it is the truth or not. The Big Bang Theory is still a faith based theory even when 100% scientists buy into it. You still need faith to believe it is so as it only represents a possibility in the end.

It simultaneously means that it can still be false (possibility-wise). It means even when 100% experised scientists agree that BBT is the truth, it can still be a false. That's the possibility. In this case, expertise won't guarrantee truth. Truth is already the truth occurred in the past, how many experts buy into it or not has nothing to do with the truth itself. As long as it's possibility is not equal to 1, it still may not be the truth. You still need faith to believe it is so. 100% scientists buy into it only makes it more believable (instead of more true) to people like you, but not necessarily where the truth is.

To drill a little deeper, the truth itself has already happened long time ago. So the actually possibility doesn't even exist. The possibility we are talking about is actually a human brain manifested result. In reality, for things already occurred, the possibility of its truth is either 0 or 1, anything else only measures "how believable it is" instead of how true it is. Until you are 100% sure, then you have reached the truth itself. Before that every possibility is simply.....well possible.

#117 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:41 AM

Nonsense. Why would biochemists spend their whole careers looking for something that they thought was impossible? It's only a handful of creationists who hope it's impossible and most of them aren't qualified to assess the evidence.


Only a handful of biochemists will spend their whole careers looking for proof of abiogenesis. The rest will spend their time researching real world applications of their craft so they can make more money instead of wasting it.

#118 ringo

ringo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 60
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Canada

Posted 06 July 2012 - 09:52 AM

Only a handful of biochemists will spend their whole careers looking for proof of abiogenesis. The rest will spend their time NOT wasting money, and researching real world applications of their craft so they can make more money.


Only a handful of people tried to make manned flight a reality. The rest spent their time trying to make more money on buggy whips.

It's different today. The handful who are working on abiogenesis are supported and encouraged by the rest.

#119 Stripe

Stripe

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Taipei, Taiwan
  • Interests:Rugby, cricket, earthquakes.
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Taipei, Taiwan.

Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:30 AM

Yes, that's the end result that we're working on but what evidence can we show you now that will convince you that it's possible?

None, obviously.

Do you need a 747 to convince you that manned flight is possible or can we show you a 1902 Wright Flyer?

If you have an example of life from non-life, let's hear it.

#120 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:46 PM

Yes, that's the end result that we're working on but what evidence can we show you now that will convince you that it's possible? Do you need a 747 to convince you that manned flight is possible or can we show you a 1902 Wright Flyer?


You are comparing apples to oranges, (again).. Flight and evolution / abiogenesis are totally different things hence your attempt to make one seem more possible by referring it with the other is a slight of hand.


The evidence I would accept is this


- observed yet uninterupted synthesis of DNA / RNA /Protein chain which is sufficiently long. (enough for a few genes or so)
- observed under normal UV conditions / oxygen content for that time period (mentioned earlier)
- observed with all normal physical stresses predicted for that time period (mentioned earlier)
- observed to occur with NO human interference, (once humans have interfered then the assembly cannot be claimed to be self-formed)
- can be repeated with a high degree of accuracy, (empirical)
- doesn't require use of any tools or methods that would not have existed at that time period, (there is an article claiming about the evolution of multi-cellular organisms.... yet it uses a centrifuge... centrifuges didn't exist before multi-cellular life.....Oops)


Possibly missed some other points however all of these criteria must be met for the "evidence" to be deemed actual evidence in my opinion. Yet all these points are fair and rational and are what one should expect of evidence of such a claim




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users