Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:29 pm
Well, you said you don't trust scientists re design,
Evidence for God from Science
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Math Proves God?
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:36 pm
1) Why can't I use an argument similar to the mathematical argument for design to suggest that crystals must be designed and not the result of random chance? Sure, crystals are simple compared to DNA or proteins, but still some information is needed to assemble a crystal. Where does it come from?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't think that's quite the entire argument...crystals contain a low level of information-it's just a single repeating pattern that can be represented with a single molecule, just copy and paste basically. There's no specified complexity.It is just another example (albeit a much more simpler one) in which a similar mathematical argument could be made: it is statistically unlikely that molecules would align by random chance in such patterns, therefore crystals must be designed.
2) Crystals are not quite as simply repetitious as described in the article (I assume this was done to make the article easier to read and does not reflect a lack of knowledge on the part of the author). If I give you the name of a compound, can you predict its crystal structure in advance ? If it's just cut-and-paste, it ought to be trivial to predict crystal structures.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:39 pm
I'd assume you'd have to take into consideration heat and pressure...to say the least.If I give you the name of a compound, can you predict its crystal structure in advance ? If it's just cut-and-paste, it ought to be trivial to predict crystal structures.
Because it's called a strawman.1) Why can't I use an argument similar to the mathematical argument for design to suggest that crystals must be designed and not the result of random chance? Sure, crystals are simple compared to DNA or proteins, but still some information is needed to assemble a crystal. Where does it come from?
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:39 pm
Your quote was that you won't believe what scientists have to say concerning design.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, you said you don't trust scientists re design,
http://www.answers.com/topic/re-5?method=6
re2 (rē) pronunciation
prep.
In reference to; in the case of; concerning.
[Latin rē, ablative of rēs, thing.]
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:41 pm
Not true. And, second, why do you think I'd know latin? I thought you missed the keys you wanted or something...sandy_mcd wrote:Your quote was that you won't believe what scientists have to say concerning design.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, you said you don't trust scientists re design,
http://www.answers.com/topic/re-5?method=6
re2 (rē) pronunciation
prep.
In reference to; in the case of; concerning.
[Latin rē, ablative of rēs, thing.]
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:51 pm
One major problem I see with the article is it is saying that the chances of a DNA sequence to correctly encode for a functioning protein are very small. The problem with this is that if I mixed nucleic acids in a vial and shake them around the chances of some of the chains encoding for a protein becomes almost 100%. Its like a quantum computer, all the solutions resolve at once and nature sorts out the ones which work.Mystical wrote:BGood:
Probability is discussed in the article I posted. Did you read it? Says alot.
Here's a link to quantum computing if you're interested. If you have any question's let me know.
=)
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html
Also one cannot say that there are no known processes for the abiotic synthesis of life, as sandy pointed out we can't argue from what we do not know. As i stated in the original reply, and I will reiterate it here
"there is little we know about the properties necessary for the creation of life due to the fact that we have never observed such a process ourselves. "
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:54 pm
Please explain how this is a strawman.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Because it's called a strawman.1) Why can't I use an argument similar to the mathematical argument for design to suggest that crystals must be designed and not the result of random chance? Sure, crystals are simple compared to DNA or proteins, but still some information is needed to assemble a crystal. Where does it come from?
1) You believe that life is too complex to have risen by chance, therefore it must have been designed.
2) I say that crystals, which are admittedly much less complex than lifeforms, also contains an element of order which presumably doesn't occur by chance. So if you can argue probability shows life is designed, why can't I argue that probability shows a crystal is designed ?
3) Do you think this is inappropriate because:
a) crystals are so simple they can form by random chance arrangement of molecules (if so, what would be a back of the envelope calculation of that probability be?)
b) some other reason not apparent to me ?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html wrote:Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man
1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:00 pm
You have distorted my position, that's why.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:03 pm
Eh? "Re" is found in English dictionaries.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:why do you think I'd know latin?
PS Did you ever wonder why so many return emails start with "RE:" in the subject line ?
PPS Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres ... ubi sub ubi
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:05 pm
Recta verum Deum cognoscendi et colendi ratio!
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:06 pm
How so ? You need to supply a tad more information than that.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You have distorted my position, that's why.
1) Do crystals not contain some minimal amount of order or information as described in the article ?
2) Why are crystals not random arrangements of atoms ?
PS "Tad" is not a typo either.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:12 pm
Crystals do not contain specified complexity. That's why you're playing with a strawman.sandy_mcd wrote:How so ? You need to supply a tad more information than that.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You have distorted my position, that's why.
1) Do crystals not contain some minimal amount of order or information as described in the article ?
2) Why are crystals not random arrangements of atoms ?
PS "Tad" is not a typo either.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time. You're also using...part of the argument, and not the argument as a whole. It's not just sheer improbabilities that lead to concluding design.
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 10:50 pm
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:sandy_mcd wrote:How so ? You need to supply a tad more information than that.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You have distorted my position, that's why.
1) Do crystals not contain some minimal amount of order or information as described in the article ?
2) Why are crystals not random arrangements of atoms ?...
Crystals do not contain specified complexity. That's why you're playing with a strawman.
... You're also using...part of the argument, and not the argument as a whole. It's not just sheer improbabilities that lead to concluding design.
[I was trying to avoid specified complexity and keep to simpler topics. I don't see that specified complexity adds much other than increasing the odds that random chance is not involved.]
You are correct. I am just looking at part of the argument. What is wrong with that ? I am just examining one part at a time.http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/mathproofcreat.html wrote:Crystals have low information content, but examples of things which are information-rich would be: human artifacts, computer programs, written messages, and ---most pertinent to the discussion in this article--- DNA and functional types (classes) of proteins. ...Now, we must remember that for something to be information, there is a requirement: If the set of parts is quite short, it lacks complexity to be sure that it constitutes information. For example, if we had a two-letter word, then there could easily be a very good chance that the word may have arisen from a random choice of letters. In such an instance, we could not make a good case for proving that the small word is actually information that came from an intelligent source --because there is not enough complexity. ... But how much information is necessary to solidly conclude that random selection is no longer reasonable, and intelligent selection is necessary?
Crystals have information (vide supra). Where did it come from? Consider the two letter word example as described above. E.g., "re". According to the above argument, "re" is either
a) information that came from an intelligent source, or
b) a random choice of letters.
Now consider a crystal, which as described above, also has minimal information content. Why does the crystal have even this low level of information ?
a) the crystal was designed
b) the atoms are arranged randomly by chance
c) one of the above two, but the crystal is too simple for use to conclude which
If there are more choices than these two, what are they and why are they not mentioned above ?
Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 11:01 pm
Posted: Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:51 pm
oops. 