Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
“You would have been out front of that school with pitchfork in hand had they been teaching islamic creationism.”
Strawman argument of the day.
I've watched lots of these threads degenerate into flame wars, starting with people making broad perjorative statements about "the other side".
I'm not sure how to avoid that but I've never seen anyone make those statements that didn't feel like they should be treated as an individual, and not part of some collective "evos" or "creationists" if asked.
I do indeed think it’s an airtight case against materialist evolution (as does the author IMHO). However, if my Creation and ID FRiends think otherwise, they are free to voice their opinions. If the argument does not hold up under scrutiny, then it needs to be scrapped. If there are a few weaknesses that can be shored-up, it will make the argument stronger. However, nothing I have seen so far weakens Williams’ argument in the slightest IMHO.
You are quite correct, and therefore I stand corrected!
Ooops...”doayy” = today
“Mass is mass. Energy is energy. No, they are not equivalent.”
I disagree.
E=mc^2
Therefore: m = E/c^2
Mass is “frozen” energy
Mass is the composition of the atomic nuclei: protons and neutrons; but these are shown to be made of other particles (quarks, etc.) which in turn are packets of energy (GeV/c^2)
==Actually, the crappy vacuum cleaner analogy refutes that...self-reproducing machines have been conceived of for decades in SF and in science speculation
I thought the vacuum cleaner analogy was quite good. Notice that the author states that his own analogy only takes us so far because life requires perfectly pure, single-molecule-specific biochemistry. However, the anology is very appropriate in illustrating the autopoietic structure of life, i.e. that each level of the hierarchy cannot by naturally explained by the one below it.
==Williams misstates and abuses Polany’s ideas
Williams does no such thing. He was not focusing on Polany’s musings with respect to the origin of life. Rather he was focusing in on what he calls “Polanyi impossibilities.” And he quotes the relevant passage from Polanyi’s paper to illustrate what he’s talking about. Namely,
“The recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry; similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.”
And let us not forget Polanyi’s unambiguous conclusion:
“Summary...Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of inanimate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry.”
Whatever Polanyi’s speculations with respect to origin of life research might have been, he clearly demonstrated that there are autopoietic “boundary conditions” that are “irreducible” to the “laws of inanimate nature.” Williams was right to point out that this renders naturalistic evolution a Polanyi impossibility, thus leaving Intelligent Design as the only historical inference that meets the criterion of the Law of Cause and Effect.
I don't agree with all of your arguments, but I agree with trying to keep the venue tolerably civil and I'm willing to help with that in my own posts.
His arguments render naturalistic abiogenesis an impossibility, leaving design as the only possible means of the initial creation of life.
There is nothing in his arguments that precludes naturalist evolution of the organism. Whether or not it can evolve once created is a question of design.
[[The science is for ID? LOL Can you point to a single scintilla of evidence that supports ID? ID is not even a hypothesis it is merely the pointing out that TOE does not explain origin of life questions.]]
you are free to ignore the facts and pretend evidnece doesn’t exist, and pretend ID isn’t ‘real science’ all you like- and you are free to keep posting that nonsense as much as youl ike, but as for us, We’ll examine the evidnces and draw objective conclusions abotu hte facts which contradict your petty snide claims, just don’t expect anyoen to take you seriously with your condescending remarks about ID- others here play that petty game and htey’ve lost all credibility here-
From Wikipedia (invariant mass),
"The invariant mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference. When the system as a whole is at rest, the invariant mass is equal to the total energy of the system divided by c2, which is equal to the mass of the system as measured on a scale. If the system is one particle, the invariant mass may also be called the rest mass.
Since the center of mass of an isolated system moves in a straight line with a steady velocity, an observer can always move along with it. In this frame, the center of momentum frame, the total momentum is zero, the system as a whole may be thought of as being "at rest", and the invariant mass of the system is equal to the total system energy divided by c2. This total energy in the center of momentum frame, is the minimum energy which the system may be observed to have, when seen by various observers from various inertial frames."
"In particle physics, the invariant mass is a mathematical combination of a particle's energy E and its momentum p which is equal to the mass in the rest frame. This invariant mass is the same in all frames of reference (see Special Relativity).
(mc^2)^2=E^2-|pc|^2,
or in natural units where c = 1,
m^2 = E^2 - |p|^2., "
Essentially Mass = Energy.
Every attempt at demonstrating abiogenesis has been done by scientists using pre-established conditions; just the right amount of this and that at just the right time, with just the right amount of (whatever). Even attempts to demonstrate speciation, are the results of human, presumably intelligent interference. The precedent has already been set and it exercised all the time in science. If you can show that it can happen without intelligent guidance, help, interference, meddling, whatever, you'd have your case.
As it is, the claim is made by scientists for methodical naturalism giving rise to life and producing evolution, and they have yet to provide objective observed evidence that it is possible. They are required by their own standards to provide such evidence. Where is it without assuming the conclusion?
[[I believe we established that the theory disallows abiogenesis, but not evolution.]]
we did? The whole paper addresses not just abiogensis, but the whole completed systems- If you’ll note, “(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect. “
[[Once designed and created, there is nothing in the theory that disallows a design that permits the organism to evolve.]]
That’s not what the article states- The whole issue of Metainfo dissallows Macroevolution (Not to mention we STILL have several serious impossibilites such as Entropy, Mathematical, Chemical, and biological to deal with as well as a complete lack of fossil and biological evidence to back the claims of Macroevolution up at any level- all we have are assumptions, and the claim that homological systems mean common descent and not common design.
[[Once designed and created, there is nothing in the theory that disallows a design that permits the organism to evolve.]]
IF you are talking abotu Microevolution, then yes, that is correct- the metainfo designed into species does allow for adaptive changes to help preserve hte species, but this metainfo has designed built in parameter which dissallow Macroevolution and the fact is that there is no known process in nature that can create the necessary new ifnromation- informaiton that isn’t unique to the species, which is an absolutelute necessity to move a species beyond it’s own kind- Here again we coem back to the concepts being proposed by the paper that hieararchy’s prevent moves forward and upward beyond kinds because there is nothign higher to draw from in the first place.
If someone wants to argue for macroevolution, they woudl then need to suggest God created a myriad of fully completed and functional species, at all different levels of complexities, and it was from these original species that other species that came later evolved from- this woudl be the only way they could biologically derive higher information from that wasn’t specific to hte species that was ‘evolving’. (In other words, the process would be lateral gene transference- much like hte lateral pass in football, one species hands off their info to another- well, not literally ‘hands it off’ but htrough some mechanism, info gets passed along from one species kind to another.) Mutations just are not capable of creating non species psecific info
This paper makes this precept more clear and more reasonable for hte reasons mentioned- mainly hte metainfo, and the heiararchy issue, as well as the chemical purity and increasing mutaitons over time corrupting htese chemically pure systems and subsystems’ functions. And again, the Mitochodrial EVE project just backs up these propositions
Would you support teaching of islamic Creationism?
I told you I had things to do and people to help - you even acknowledged the message so why are you now trying to spin the events in your favor?
I will be honest - it makes you appear to be less than honest.
Not quite correct. A Katyuskha doll is not made of other katuskha dolls. It is a doll itself. Mass is mass, energy is energy. It is not "frozen" mass. We might speak of transformations, for energy can become mass and mass become energy. Yet each thing is itself, as it was observed.
Observations are the key to the tumbler -- they are purposeful. Some fools have equations and think they are kings of all knowledge. Yet those equations are not events -- the event of observation.
To transform from mass to energy does not just happen, and in happening it is an event. Events do not happen at random.
To write an equation "E=M" or "E=mc^2", is not a statement of reality, not a proof, more of a tautology. What is the reality? -- A neutron-rich nucleus shakes a bit (why then?), a neutron is emitted when the shaking is at some level (why?), the neutron is absorbed by a heavy nucleus rich in bosons and neutrons (why is it there, then?), that fatty shakes itself apart, and in that final event there is more energy and less mass. But the equation only describes an accounting rule. It doesn't say by the buyer came into the store, why a particular product caught his eye, and how it was he mad the money to pay for it, or why the shop was there in the first place. The equation E equals M C squared does not describe events, or answer why.
Just as the accountant's equation NET = SALES - COSTS, doesn't describe a business, it doesn't even explain a business. It doesn't answer "Why?" the business is.
==His arguments render naturalistic abiogenesis an impossibility, leaving design as the only possible means of the initial creation of life.
It also renders materialist evolution a polanyi impossibility, even if you start with the first proto-cell. That is, for a proto-cell to evolve naturalistically, it would need to steadily increase its ability to comprehensively regulate its information-driven metabolic functions. How would it do this? Through random mutation and natural selection? The idea that random mutations and natural selection could achieve such a feat is a non-starter given recent discoveries with respect to DNA complexity. Gone are the days when we conceived of DNA as “a linear, one-dimensional, on-way, sequential code.” And gone are the days when we could think of genes as discrete, linear arangements. We now know (thanks to the ENCODE project) that genes are comprised of interleaved and overlapping segments, with multiple transcripts that serve differenct functions coming from each gene. So a random mutation in one gene can affect between five and seven different functions simultaneously (and that number will likely grow as we learn more).
[[The lessons of Dover are two:
(1) Local School Boards are not a good vehicle for a long legal fight, because the electoral turnover is too quick — as quick as a whim.
(2) Judges make science. In today’s culture science is dicta. That is what you wanted, right?]]
Bingo- Ignore Coyoteman’s repeated attempts to belittle Creationism and ID by citing activists judges and hteir decisions as some supposed support that ID isn’t science- Nothign of hte sort was determined in that case- The truth ios that judges and lawyers all across the world were stunned at How ‘Judge’ (and I use that word loosley) Jones overstepped his role as a judge and turned activist law creator. (Btw- over 40 states have allowed discussions abotu ID and allowing people to expose the problems of Darwinism in school science classes now- So, while an activist judge shirked his sworn oath to judge objectively, it has brought the issue to hte forefront, and people are now questioning why a judge was so activist in his ruling, and they are now investigating hte claism of Macreovolution much more carefully insteado f just accepting what they are told without quesiton- and what they are finding is quite shocking- The claims of Macroevolutionists are not nearly as ‘settled’ as they were told- so Jone’s descision, while a setback, has proved more than helpful to get the REAL science into our classes and discussed hte way it should be.
I already apologized for overgeneralizing. The point I was making is that I pinged a dozen or so of FR’s evos with the papers several days in advance, and almost none of them showed up. Many of them specifically asked for the papers, and said they would be here to take it apart. That’s what I meant by hearing crickets. But as Tacticalogic pointed out, I overgeneralized by not treating those who did show up as individuals. For that I apologize.
Seems to me that "the atomic level" is level (i) of the AP hierachy. A living being requires all five levels. This is the sense of "irreducible complexity" intended by Williams: If any of the levels is "missing," then you don't have life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.