Re: The Cosmological Argument

On 6/9/2008 4:25 PM, Bill went clickity clack on the keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
On Jun 8, 8:45 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Jun 8, 4:04 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Jun 8, 10:58 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 7, 11:56 pm, Bill <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've responded to him lots of times. All it's come to so far is that
we don't agree on how some words should be understood. From his
replies to me it seems that he's pretty sure of what he's talking
about while less sure of what I'm talking about.
Rather, that you are using words as mere talismans that allow you to
pretend you are saying something profound whereas your usage shows you
are merely saying those words as a way to avoid thinking analytically
or communicating meaning to others.
Your understanding of my understanding is fundamentally flawed on
several levels. I have no real interest in establishing any particular
point of view, I'm not even sure why all this even interests me the
first place. To me the universe is incomprehensible in a general sense
regardless of how well understood in any particular detail. Science
discovers lots of really cool stuff and makes even more really cool
guesses about what might be. I'm especially fascinated by cosmology
since that's where all profoundest (to me) guesses originate. Even
then none of the current best guesses aren't necessarily convincing,
but they're always stimulating.
From what you've posted I get the impression that you believe
everything is all just one great huge machine driven by innumerable
little cogs. Each cog is knowable to science and, eventually, all the
pieces will be fit into a tidy, fully comprehensible, whole. Your
optimism boggles my mind since I see nothing to justify it. While I
can see where there is some philosophical value for desiring a simple
and straightforward Explanation of Everything, I've yet to see a
persuasive case made for it however.
I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its
inherent molecular complexity and its function as a blueprint for the
development of other cells and, ultimately, entire organisms. It's
like a mold: pour something into the mold and it takes the shape of
the mold. The mold itself is evidence of some design regardless of
what actually fills it. You don't see this so, for you, it's not
there.
To me, your view is no different that claiming that, since a sand
castle is made of the same stuff as the beach its sitting on, there
are the same thing. Beach, sand castle, identical. For you the sand
castle is nothing but an irregularity on the beach, the product of
wave and wind.
Here's the difference: a sandcastle is *quantifiably* different from the
rest of the beach. The angle of the walls is greater than any naturally
occurring pile of sand, the towers are more consistently circular than
other features of the same size. The angles of the crenelations are
sharper than those found in other features.
Here's another difference: sandcastles are positively correlated with
the presence of children on the beach. Inaccessible beaches do not have
sandcastles. Suburban beaches have lots, particularly at weekends and
particularly in the summer. A research program suggests itself: observe
a suburban beach each weekend one summer, and see if we can see a
sandcastle in the process of being built (I would like to see the
response to *that* funding proposal!). Eventually we will observe a
child in the act of making a sandcastle. It won't prove that all
sandcastles are made by children, but the burden then lies on the
opponents of intelligent sandcastle design to find a sandcastle that was
positively not built by an intelligent agent.
Frankly, I know that you don't understand what you are talking about.
I am asking you to clarify your terms so that you can say something
that is not just your personal opinion and show us that you are
capable of analytic thought. I will let others judge whether they
think you are.
I've done all that, you don't see it so you assume I don't either.
Since I don't see yet I persist in saying I do I can be easily
dismissed and your odd beliefs remain unchallenged.
There's a difference between clarification and restatement.
My newsreader got very confused last Friday and appears to have
forgotten everything. If I missed a post where you did explain how we
can tell whether something is designed or not (see the sandcastle
example above) please point me to it.
Bill
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com-*Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
The post you were responding to has the example: DNA. No one likes
that example though.
That's because you won't quantify the designedness of DNA. As other
posters have pointed out to you, there's nothing that DNA does that RNA
doesn't also do.

Why do you use DNA as an example, and not, say, polysaccharides, which
can be considerably more complex?

Seems that DNA was not designed but rather
evolution, through the mechanism of natural selection, developed DNA
from innumerable small steps to exactly mimic something that has every
appearance of being designed.
When you say "has the appearance of design", what is that appearance?
How can we quantify it so someone other than you can reach the same
conclusions as you about what is designed and what is not?

Since the theory of evolution requires
that everything be explained as the result of natural selection and,
since DNA is explained as the product of natural selection, the theory
is thus established. When there is only one possible explanation
there's no point in considering any other.
When there's only one explanation that explains all the evidence, and no
evidence that contradicts the explanation, and the person complaining
about this state of affairs is doing so on purely subjective grounds,
then I'd agree that there's no point.

If the only explanation
allowed is evolution through natural selection, then of course it will
explain everything.
Only if that's what happened. In fact, natural selection fails to
explain most speciations, which is why evolution by neutral drift is now
considered more important.

You have your example, you will not see it.
Then make me see it. If you had evidence, or an argument, or even a
plausible story to tell I might be convinced. But all you are doing is
whining that the universe is big and cold and uncaring and it shouldn't
be that way. Well it is. Grow up and deal with it.



Bill
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

I've said lots of stuff, mostly in reply to those who've already
figured everything out. I believe I started out with the very simple
observation that there are things in nature that appear designed which
has since spun off into a variety of dead ends. The most common
quibble is that there is no such appearance because there is no design
to begin with. My example of DNA is no good because, it seems, it's
just another molecule and nature makes molecules all the time. Since
some molecules require no design, no molecule is designed. Might be
true of course, but it doesn't address the original question.

It's also interesting that DNA (or RNA if you prefer) only exists in
living organisms and is absolutely necessary to the organism's
development and eventual replication. That is enough to differentiate
DNA from most other molecules. DNA is a unique molecule, having unique
properties essential to life. Just blowing it off as just another
collection of boring atoms isn't very useful and certainly not
accurate. But we can't even get that far.

I'm not a chemist and I'd welcome a chemist who can comment on this, but it seems to me that DNA is what was evolved on this planet to form self-replicating life and that there may be other molecules which could do the same thing which would definitely put DNA into the "just another molecule" category. Or perhaps there could be other molecules which could do the same thing without being self-replicating themselves. This is, of course, pure conjecture but this universe is a weird place and lots of unexpected and amazing things are out there that we have yet to find out.

--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
Pinky: I think so, Brain. But if I put on two tutu's, would I really be wearing a four-by-four?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... >>> I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... >> child in the act of making a sandcastle. ... > The post you were responding to has the example: DNA. ... just another molecule and nature makes molecules all the time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... child in the act of making a sandcastle. ... That's because you won't quantify the designedness of DNA. ... just another molecule and nature makes molecules all the time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... Beach, sand castle, identical. ... child in the act of making a sandcastle. ... That's because you won't quantify the designedness of DNA. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... child in the act of making a sandcastle. ... That's because you won't quantify the designedness of DNA. ... just another molecule and nature makes molecules all the time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... > I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... Beach, sand castle, identical. ... a sandcastle is *quantifiably* different from the ... Seems that DNA was not designed but rather ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading