Idiocy alert re: mp3

From Edison cylinders to pre-amps to ProTools: talk about it here.
Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:29 am

krabapple wrote:…did you actually *look at* those talk.origins sites I posted? You'll see the term 'spontaneous generation' right up top.

Yes, I did look at the one that had a historical overview of “spontaneous generation.” I had a quick look at some of the “hard-core chemistry” stuff, and you weren’t exaggerating:

”If biosynthesis recapitulates biopoesis, then the synthesis of amino acids preceded the synthesis of the purine and pyrimidine bases. Furthermore the polymerization of the amino acid thioesters into polypeptides preceded the directed polymerization of amino acid esters by polynucleotides.”

I have no idea what that means, but I couldn’t help thinking of that quote I saw from Darwin -- "a mass of mud with matter decaying and undergoing complex chemical changes is a fine hiding-place for obscurity of ideas.”

That's simply the old 'argument from incredulity'.

Hold on. I did NOT say, “This is amazing; therefore, God did it.” I said that the design is intelligent, same as I would if I saw a well designed car, for example.

A theory involving intelligent design begs the question of where the 'intelligent designer' came from, and thus is no more parsimonious than one that doesn't.

I don’t understand what you mean by “thus is no more parsimonious than one that doesn't.”

If you find the naturalistic generation of complex patterns absurd , then i guess snowflakes must give you quite a giggle.

If you’re asking, “did God create this snowflake?” my answer is “of course, he created the whole universe.” But my meaning is that God designed the laws and processes that ended up making this particular snowflake, not that God’s snow-making elves just finished creating this one in their heavenly workshop!

And nature exhibits many examples of design that… (aren’t) even particularly competent. This is more charitably explained by current models of evolution, than by positing an absent-minded designer.

So, in effect, your argument is “come on, the design of life on earth isn’t that impressive.” Perhaps if I was more knowledgeable, I wouldn’t be as impressed? The funny thing is, the more I study, the more impressed I get.
…might I suggest again that you spend some time reading the materials at talk.origins?

I will do that.
Dob
-------------------
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:01 pm

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote:…did you actually *look at* those talk.origins sites I posted? You'll see the term 'spontaneous generation' right up top.

Yes, I did look at the one that had a historical overview of “spontaneous generation.” I had a quick look at some of the “hard-core chemistry” stuff, and you weren’t exaggerating:

”If biosynthesis recapitulates biopoesis, then the synthesis of amino acids preceded the synthesis of the purine and pyrimidine bases. Furthermore the polymerization of the amino acid thioesters into polypeptides preceded the directed polymerization of amino acid esters by polynucleotides.”

I have no idea what that means, but I couldn’t help thinking of that quote I saw from Darwin -- "a mass of mud with matter decaying and undergoing complex chemical changes is a fine hiding-place for obscurity of ideas.”


You admit complete incomprehension but feel free to criticize anyway?

The TA quote is saying that if the origin of life mimicked the way compounds are synthesized in the body today, then the synthesis of protein components came before the synthesis of DNA components.



That's simply the old 'argument from incredulity'.

Hold on. I did NOT say, “This is amazing; therefore, God did it.” I said that the design is intelligent, same as I would if I saw a well designed car, for example.



...yes, and that's still the argument from incredulity:
"It is inconceivable that ____ (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created/designed. "

A theory involving intelligent design begs the question of where the 'intelligent designer' came from, and thus is no more parsimonious than one that doesn't.

I don’t understand what you mean by “thus is no more parsimonious than one that doesn't.”

If you find the naturalistic generation of complex patterns absurd , then i guess snowflakes must give you quite a giggle.

If you’re asking, “did God create this snowflake?” my answer is “of course, he created the whole universe.” But my meaning is that God designed the laws and processes that ended up making this particular snowflake, not that God’s snow-making elves just finished creating this one in their heavenly workshop!


So, God set the whole thing in motion, but has pretty much sat back and watched since then? Or are you saying the God created life on earth, directly? OR did he create species directly, or did he create man directly?


And nature exhibits many examples of design that… (aren’t) even particularly competent. This is more charitably explained by current models of evolution, than by positing an absent-minded designer.

So, in effect, your argument is “come on, the design of life on earth isn’t that impressive.” Perhaps if I was more knowledgeable, I wouldn’t be as impressed? The funny thing is, the more I study, the more impressed I get.


Then perhaps you shouldl include some reading on on god's 'mistakes'.

Consider this: Maybe the universe is mysterious...because it's really , really big, old, and complex, and we are really, really small and young. Not because it was 'designed'. Maybe 'god; is just another manifestation of our ignorance.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:15 pm

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote: People who find evolution, for example, to be 'outrageously bogus' , tend to understand it poorly if at all…Meanwhile, people who do know a lot about evolution tend to find creationism 'outrageously bogus'.

Uh oh…
and how would you go about elevating this belief from the realm of faith?

I appreciate how your choice of the word “elevating” delicately implies the inferiority of faith-based beliefs in comparison with (I’m assuming) scientific ones. The reason I have faith is because the scientific method has no answer for “Why do I exist?” -- so your question doesn't make sense to me.
[/QUOTE]

But we aren't talking about 'why you exist' -- weare talking about the physical process of *how* you came to exist. That;s all science is interested in, becaseu that's all that can reasonably be answered by scientific means.

As for 'why': there are so many possible answers provided by so many 'faiths' and philosophies, and none of them are testable. So people tend to simply choose the one that makes them feel best. So long as they don't start making testable claims about the physical world, based on that, science doesn't care.


I'm of course referring to biological creati
onism -- the idea that species don't evolved, are not related by lineage: they are created 'as is' by God.. You don't see creationists militating against the teaching of cosmology in schools, do you?


OK, I think I get it. By “creationism,” you’re referring only to the specific arguments against evolution, correct?


Yes. The creationists haven't gotten around to pestering physics teachers yet,

The dictionary definition of creationism states “usually as described in Genesis”…I was obviously using the more liberal meaning.


If you posit a creator, you have to either posit the creator as being eternal, or as having been created...in both cases you've only raised the same questions again.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:01 pm

krabapple wrote:If you posit a creator, you have to either posit the creator as being eternal, or as having been created...in both cases you've
only raised the same questions again.

One of my favorite Bears' lyrics, from Caveman:

i named the constellations
and taught myself to swim
created my creator
and made me look like him

http://www.thebearsmusic.com/ccf_lyrics.htm
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Tue Jan 11, 2005 12:05 pm

I think we've moved way beyond MP3s here...time to move this lively discussion to the religion forum!
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken