Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Somkid]

I hardly think he is shooting down anyones religion rather he is pointing out valid philosophical and scientific facts perhaps to aid in the evolution, education and future of our species. It is odd that you very rarely see say an atheist, Buddhist or non-theist engaged in harmful activity, why is that? (Thats a rhetorical question).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It is odd that you very rarely see say an atheist, Buddhist or non-theist engaged in harmful activity, why is that? (Thats a rhetorical question).

As far as Buddhism, I would agree. But have you ever heard of Mao Zedong? Joseph Stalin? Adolf Hitler? Pol Pot? Since the ideas of Darwin, Nietzsche, and Marx spread through our cultures, we have witnessed more violence than any other century.

Furthermore, if someone condones violence under the banner of Christianity, they are not being Christian.. however, they may still see it as beneficial to claim God is commanding them to go to war to gather support. There are many wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[camanintx]

No, of course not. There was no intent to kill. Thanks to your rebuttal, I should append that to my definition of murder.

So would you agree that it is the motive and not the action that determines morality? If I shoot at someone with the intent to kill them, is it any less immoral if I missed them? If I believe someone is walking towards me in a dark alley pointing a weapon at me, would it be immoral of me to shoot them even if they were not actually holding a weapon?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

rocketman,

Thanks for your reply. I will let you have the last word on our discussion (with your permission).

I disagree. If you can show that a person's intuition is in contradiction with their assumptions about the world, or empirical information, then you have successfully argued against it.

I have cited numerous studies and articles which show (i.m.o.) that your intuition on the subject is unfounded, both with respect to the empirical evidence and with respect to the inuitions of countless researchers in the field. If I remember correctly, you have also not been able to provide an operational definition of 'complexity'--which indicates that your 'inuition' does not know what it is 'intuiting' in the first place.

I guess I should have said that I cannot argue against an intuition which stands undisturbed and uninterested in the face of all of that. I'm perfectly willing to stack up the scientific literature on thermodynamics and biomolecules on one side, and Nick Soapdish's intuition on the other side, and let readers judge for themselves which end of the see-saw is seated firmly on the ground.

All I am saying is that in the absence of reliable empirical data, we should not be reluctant to follow our intuitions. We have these intuitions for a reason (whether you believe in creationism or not).

If by "follow" you mean simply to speculate, and imagine, and be inspired, then sure, I agree. But to declare--without evidence--that self-replicating molecules must have come from conveniently unspecified magical processes is neither imaginative nor inspired, i.m.o.

Of course it is not a serious contender... because these volumes are produced under the assumption of methodological naturalism.

Yes indeed....I am sure that if we drop the implausible assumption that experiments and mathematics are to some extent reliable, all manner of contenders become 'serious'. And yet, it is precisely the same assumption necessary for the development of medicine, computers, etc.

Anyhow, I do not find rocketman's position to be unscientific. Assuming the laws of physics are uniform throughout time is useful for making predictions. But to argue that we know exactly what could have happened is absurd. All we have is an extrapolation of the evidence we have today.

Indeed, that is all we have in any scientific field, ever. I appeal to the careful reading of RFers that this is not a fair characterization of my discussion with rocketman.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So would you agree that it is the motive and not the action that determines morality? If I shoot at someone with the intent to kill them, is it any less immoral if I missed them? If I believe someone is walking towards me in a dark alley pointing a weapon at me, would it be immoral of me to shoot them even if they were not actually holding a weapon?

Yes, I believe morality rests on intent and matters of the heart.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I have cited numerous studies and articles which show (i.m.o.) that your intuition on the subject is unfounded, both with respect to the empirical evidence and with respect to the inuitions of countless researchers in the field. If I remember correctly, you have also not been able to provide an operational definition of 'complexity'--which indicates that your 'inuition' does not know what it is 'intuiting' in the first place.

I did provide a definition of complexity... it is taken from the dictionary of all crazy places..

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.

I guess I should have said that I cannot argue against an intuition which stands undisturbed and uninterested in the face of all of that. I'm perfectly willing to stack up the scientific literature on thermodynamics and biomolecules on one side, and Nick Soapdish's intuition on the other side, and let readers judge for themselves which end of the see-saw is seated firmly on the ground.

Do you not believe in common sense? If someone told you that they rolled a "6" on a die 10,000 times consecutively, which would you conclude to be reasonable conclusions: 1) they are truthful, 2) the die is fixed or weighted, or 3) the person was lying.

So, based on all of your scientific literature, what is the best argument for the natural cause of abiogenesis and the ability for enzymes/RNA to develop self-replication spontaneously?

 

[yossarian22]

Do you not believe in common sense? If someone told you that they rolled a "6" on a die 10,000 times consecutively, which would you conclude to be reasonable conclusions: 1) they are truthful, 2) the die is fixed or weighted, or 3) the person was lying.

Just when I though probability had left this discussion for good...
This is in no way comparable to a dice.
Probability can only be determined empirically.
Discussion of probability in this situation is useless as every scenario is equally unlikely.

So, based on all of your scientific literature, what is the best argument for the natural cause of abiogenesis and the ability for enzymes/RNA to develop self-replication spontaneously?

Stability.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Just when I though probability had left this discussion for good...
This is in no way comparable to a dice.
Probability can only be determined empirically.
Discussion of probability in this situation is useless as every scenario is equally unlikely.

I agree that this probability cannot be calculated empirically with a reasonable degree of accuracy for abiogenesis... my argument was for common sense. It is possible that the person rolled '6' 10,000 times... but our common sense out to tell us that the probability -- even if we don't actually calculate it -- seems far fetched.

 

[yossarian22]

I agree that this probability cannot be calculated empirically with a reasonable degree of accuracy for abiogenesis... my argument was for common sense. It is possible that the person rolled '6' 10,000 times... but our common sense out to tell us that the probability *even if we don't actually calculate it* seems far fetched.

Probability can only be determined empirically. Furthermore, we cannot trust our intuition when it comes to probability. There have been numerous studies showing how ridiculously poor we are at judging odds.
Our poor grasp of probability is compounded by are inability to quantify.
This is not as simple as rolling a dice. And it is possible to roll a 6 with a balanced dice 10,000 times in a row. I can flip a coin so it lands the same way every time, so I imagine somebody can do something similar with a dice.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Probability can only be determined empirically. Furthermore, we cannot trust our intuition when it comes to probability. There have been numerous studies showing how ridiculously poor we are at judging odds.

Such as?

Our poor grasp of probability is compounded by are inability to quantify.

I don't have a problem quantifying things.. what do you mean by this?

 

[camanintx]

Yes, I believe morality rests on intent and matters of the heart.

Would you say then that morality is an objective measure for subjective motives?

 

[camanintx]

I agree that this probability cannot be calculated empirically with a reasonable degree of accuracy for abiogenesis... my argument was for common sense. It is possible that the person rolled '6' 10,000 times... but our common sense out to tell us that the probability -- even if we don't actually calculate it -- seems far fetched.

You forget that the improbability of any event must be factored against how often it may be happening. If 10,000 people were rolling a dice every 10 seconds, would you still be surprised if eventually they all rolled a '6'?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Would you say then that morality is an objective measure for subjective motives?

In my belief, God knows all of our motives... they are not subjective to Him.

It seems you are insinuating the morality is for judging others (subjective view). However, I see morality more for applying to our own actions. And I can recognize my own motive and judge it against objective standards.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You forget that the improbability of any event must be factored against how often it may be happening. If 10,000 people were rolling a dice every 10 seconds, would you still be surprised if eventually they all rolled a '6'?

Sure, but I do not see abiogenesis occurring in a 1 in 6 chance. What are the odds if these people could role a one on a 1,000,000,000 sided dice?

 

[yossarian22]

Such as?

The most famous one is the green and red dice.
You have a dice. 4 faces are red, 2 are green
Three sequences were given and people were asked to determine which was the most likely. The most popular answer was the least likely. The least popular answer was the most likely.

I don't have a problem quantifying things.. what do you mean by this?

We can't quantify this. Its not a 1,000,000,000 sided dice. Its an effectively infinite sided dice.

 

[camanintx]

Sure, but I do not see abiogenesis occurring in a 1 in 6 chance. What are the odds if these people could role a one on a 1,000,000,000 sided dice?

If they rolled it enough times, wouldn't the odds eventually be better than even?

 

[camanintx]

In my belief, God knows all of our motives... they are not subjective to Him.

It seems you are insinuating the morality is for judging others (subjective view). However, I see morality more for applying to our own actions. And I can recognize my own motive and judge it against objective standards.

What I'm saying is that morality actually applies to the motives of our actions, which is a completely subjective characteristic. Thousands of years ago, many societies practiced human sacrifice. Up until a couple hundred years ago many societies supported slavery. Until just a few decades ago interracial relationships were considered unnatural. If the measure of morality is constantly changing, then how can you know what the objective measure of morality really is?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, but I do not see abiogenesis occurring in a 1 in 6 chance. What are the odds if these people could role a one on a 1,000,000,000 sided dice?

Depends how long you try. The more dice you have and the more times you roll them, the better your odds. Do it long enough and you'd have almost an absolute certainty.

This couple won the lottery twice in the same drawing, apparently at an odds of 1 in 24,000,000,000,000. Do you think they were lying?

How about this woman or this couple, who also won twice?

Improbably things do happen occasionally. Consider Frane Selak, who fell from an airplane and lived, survived a train derailment, escaped from a bus that crashed into a river, and then won $1,000,000 in the lottery. What do you think the odds of all that happening to one man are?

If all that can happen over the lifespan of a single person, imagine what might happen over a million or a billion years.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I did provide a definition of complexity... it is taken from the dictionary of all crazy places..

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system.
2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.
3. so complicated or intricate as to be hard to understand or deal with: a complex problem.

By 'operational' definition, I meant one that can be used to measure the 'complexity' of something. Even if we accept this dictionary definition of complexity, it is evident that self-replicating things are not (in general) more complex than anything else. For example, a molecule of DNA (which can replicate by itself in solution) may be composed of fewer interconnected "parts" (whether defined as atoms, electrons, etc.) than molecules which cannot replicate.

Do you not believe in common sense? If someone told you that they rolled a "6" on a die 10,000 times consecutively, which would you conclude to be reasonable conclusions: 1) they are truthful, 2) the die is fixed or weighted, or 3) the person was lying.

I would conclude #2 or #3 to be more reasonable. But here you're appealing to calculations of probability, whereas we put aside this "improbability" argument earlier: I asked you to show me some calculation and you responded you had none.

So, based on all of your scientific literature, what is the best argument for the natural cause of abiogenesis and the ability for enzymes/RNA to develop self-replication spontaneously?

In brief: simple chemistry gives rise to many complex molecules which interact with each other in surprising ways; a molecule which forms copies of itself need only to have happened once; the number of opportunities for this to happen in the universe is astronomical; this explanation does not appeal to unevidenced or unknowable fundamental forces in the universe.

 

[yossarian22]

Not like this is directed to anyone in particular, but supramolecular chemistry is interesting and quite relevant to this discusson.