Re: The Cosmological Argument

In message <b1f4b942-86f7-4321-9590-f9b343a98376@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill <bil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
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.

Your example of DNA is no good because you are incapable of or unwilling to say clearly what it designed about DNA, and how we can tell that it is.

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.

It's a pity (for your credibility) that the claim that DNA only exists in living organisms is a falsehood. (Many years ago people used to think that there was something special - vitalism - about organic chemicals; then urea was synthesised.)

Bill


--
alias Ernest Major

.

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. ... 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 ... 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)