Tuesday, 20 February 2007
Wednesday, 7 February 2007
A Nice Creationist Post
Sent in by Kevin T
absolute origin what is it? of life that is,the universe is another story
put a frog in a blender turn it on puree......what what do you get?
frog soup right? ok....lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree? let me continue....all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone dissagree? the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is proposterous to say the least. with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing. how did the eye develope? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible? the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once? complex machines dont just happen they are designed anyone disagree? the truth is evolution doesnt hold up to the standards of science....it is the best guess scenario science has to offer for now. you cant prove the existance of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,in the beholding there in lies the truth. is the glass half empty or is it half full? or is it simply a half glass of water? all three are correct but its how we chose to view the evidence that matters....so who is right? now we see in a mirror darkly, then i shall know even as i am known
Jim Arvo responds:
Good grief, Kevin T, those are some really ridiculous straw men you've erected. I'll briefly expose them for you, then you can attempt to shore them up if you wish, but with any luck you'll see the futility of it.
KT: "...lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree?"
Well, not exactly. Most of the long molecules will eventually break down and you'll probably be left a mixture of short organic molecules. But if you still want to call that "frog soup", that's okay by me.
KT: "...all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone disagree?"
Yes, all of the original components are still there. The only difference is the organization of the matter. Without an input of energy, and without other molecules to mediate the assembly, you are right, the short molecules will not re-assemble into a frog. Check.
KT: "...the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is preposterous to say the least."
Hold on! That was a huge leap you just made. The "frog soup" story is vastly different from the idea of life arising from a primordial soup. For example:
1) The "primordial soup" implies innumerable pockets of chemicals in different concentrations, at different temperatures, with various inputs of energy. In your scenario, the "soup" is presumably a uniform mixture of ingredients that is left to sit. It's absurd to think anything interesting will happen under those conditions. Life requires an environment that is far from equilibrium.
2) Only a vanishingly small proportion of the "primordial soup" need eventually find its way into a living organism. In your scenario, all of the material is needed for the organism, which is absurd.
3) The process of abiogenesis need only account for the simplest living organisms, with evolution then bootstrapping to higher forms. In your scenario the molecules must magically assemble into a higher organism directly, which is absurd.
4) Neither abiogenesis nor evolution have any foresight; if the process were to start anew, the chances of ending up with anything remotely similar to what we see today is effectively zero. In your scenario, the outcome is a specific higher organism, which is absurd.
KT: "...with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing."
Again you are making an enormous leap from one idea to another, probably paraphrasing something you heard from a creationist (and, frankly, I suspect that neither of you understands much of what you're talking about). First, it's very likely that the initial life forms were NOT DNA-based. Second, even if they were based on DNA, the sequence would be minute compared to what we see today. Third, your assertion about the statistical likelihood is no doubt based on ab initio assembly, which is a radically naive idea; nobody in their right mind is suggesting such a thing. So, if you wish to critique present theories about abiogenesis, a good starting point would be to learn something about what those theories are. Otherwise, you will continue to attack ridiculous straw men.
KT: "...how did the eye develop? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible?"
Again you attack a ridiculous straw man. The possible development of the eye has been explained in detail in many places (e.g. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins). No, all the parts that we see in eyes today are NOT necessary for a useful eye. Even a single light receptor (something akin to a single rod in the eye) confers an advantage to the organism.
KT: "...the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once?"
No, of course not! Only creationists make such outlandish claims. The rest of us are more concerned with doing real science and trying to solve real puzzles.
KT: "complex machines don’t just happen they are designed anyone disagree?"
It depends on what you mean by a "machine". Taken in the broad sense, which includes biological organisms, then obviously I disagree. Hundreds of complex self-assembling molecules have been identified and observed in the laboratory, and numerous adaptations in microorganisms have lead to radically new and useful structures and processes, such as the ability to metabolize nylon. So there are plenty of examples of highly complex things that arise through natural processes, without being "designed". The "argument from design" also has numerous other fatal flaws, so it never even gets past the stage of a logical fallacy, but that's another discussion.
KT: "the truth is evolution doesn’t hold up to the standards of science..."
Once again I'll make my usual observation and then challenge you to prove me wrong. I wager that you are completely ignorant of what the theory of evolution is, and what the evidence has shown. In my experience ONLY those who have no idea what science has shown with regard to evolution can make such absurd statements. You can easily shoot down my conjecture by showing me that you've actually studied evolution, and know what the major lines of evidence supporting it are. Can you do that? I strongly suspect that you cannot. It sounds to me that you've only availed yourself of creationist literature, which leaves you totally in the dark.
KT: "you cant prove the existence of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,..."
Nobody is demanding that you "prove" the existence of your god; however we do demand that you provide some EVIDENCE for her. Without credible evidence, we have no more reason to believe in your particular deity than Zeus, Osiris, Mithra, Isis, or Krishna, to name just a few. One could just as easily choose to have "faith" in any of them. If you think the onus is on us to disprove your fanciful notions, then I challenge you to disprove Zeus.
By the way, I don't expect you to actually take me up on any of the challenges I've issued; I predict that you will either ignore them, or twist them into something absurd that you will feel capable of attacking. But... please do try to prove me wrong.
By the way, please learn to spell "empirical".
absolute origin what is it? of life that is,the universe is another story
put a frog in a blender turn it on puree......what what do you get?
frog soup right? ok....lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree? let me continue....all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone dissagree? the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is proposterous to say the least. with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing. how did the eye develope? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible? the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once? complex machines dont just happen they are designed anyone disagree? the truth is evolution doesnt hold up to the standards of science....it is the best guess scenario science has to offer for now. you cant prove the existance of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,in the beholding there in lies the truth. is the glass half empty or is it half full? or is it simply a half glass of water? all three are correct but its how we chose to view the evidence that matters....so who is right? now we see in a mirror darkly, then i shall know even as i am known
Jim Arvo responds:
Good grief, Kevin T, those are some really ridiculous straw men you've erected. I'll briefly expose them for you, then you can attempt to shore them up if you wish, but with any luck you'll see the futility of it.
KT: "...lets put it(the frog soup) in the perfect environment for lets say a couple trillion years or so...what do you get? a couple trillion year old frog soup...anyone disagree?"
Well, not exactly. Most of the long molecules will eventually break down and you'll probably be left a mixture of short organic molecules. But if you still want to call that "frog soup", that's okay by me.
KT: "...all the components needed to PUT the frog together again are all there however there is no way possible no matter how long you wait for it to become a frog again...anyone disagree?"
Yes, all of the original components are still there. The only difference is the organization of the matter. Without an input of energy, and without other molecules to mediate the assembly, you are right, the short molecules will not re-assemble into a frog. Check.
KT: "...the idea of primordial soup being an absolute origin is preposterous to say the least."
Hold on! That was a huge leap you just made. The "frog soup" story is vastly different from the idea of life arising from a primordial soup. For example:
1) The "primordial soup" implies innumerable pockets of chemicals in different concentrations, at different temperatures, with various inputs of energy. In your scenario, the "soup" is presumably a uniform mixture of ingredients that is left to sit. It's absurd to think anything interesting will happen under those conditions. Life requires an environment that is far from equilibrium.
2) Only a vanishingly small proportion of the "primordial soup" need eventually find its way into a living organism. In your scenario, all of the material is needed for the organism, which is absurd.
3) The process of abiogenesis need only account for the simplest living organisms, with evolution then bootstrapping to higher forms. In your scenario the molecules must magically assemble into a higher organism directly, which is absurd.
4) Neither abiogenesis nor evolution have any foresight; if the process were to start anew, the chances of ending up with anything remotely similar to what we see today is effectively zero. In your scenario, the outcome is a specific higher organism, which is absurd.
KT: "...with what we know about DNA today it is a statistical zero that life arose from nothing."
Again you are making an enormous leap from one idea to another, probably paraphrasing something you heard from a creationist (and, frankly, I suspect that neither of you understands much of what you're talking about). First, it's very likely that the initial life forms were NOT DNA-based. Second, even if they were based on DNA, the sequence would be minute compared to what we see today. Third, your assertion about the statistical likelihood is no doubt based on ab initio assembly, which is a radically naive idea; nobody in their right mind is suggesting such a thing. So, if you wish to critique present theories about abiogenesis, a good starting point would be to learn something about what those theories are. Otherwise, you will continue to attack ridiculous straw men.
KT: "...how did the eye develop? in whole working all at once? anyone think thats possible?"
Again you attack a ridiculous straw man. The possible development of the eye has been explained in detail in many places (e.g. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins). No, all the parts that we see in eyes today are NOT necessary for a useful eye. Even a single light receptor (something akin to a single rod in the eye) confers an advantage to the organism.
KT: "...the eye is a very complex machine and requires many working parts all at the same time: optic nerve, pupil ,retina are you really saying it all just happened at once?"
No, of course not! Only creationists make such outlandish claims. The rest of us are more concerned with doing real science and trying to solve real puzzles.
KT: "complex machines don’t just happen they are designed anyone disagree?"
It depends on what you mean by a "machine". Taken in the broad sense, which includes biological organisms, then obviously I disagree. Hundreds of complex self-assembling molecules have been identified and observed in the laboratory, and numerous adaptations in microorganisms have lead to radically new and useful structures and processes, such as the ability to metabolize nylon. So there are plenty of examples of highly complex things that arise through natural processes, without being "designed". The "argument from design" also has numerous other fatal flaws, so it never even gets past the stage of a logical fallacy, but that's another discussion.
KT: "the truth is evolution doesn’t hold up to the standards of science..."
Once again I'll make my usual observation and then challenge you to prove me wrong. I wager that you are completely ignorant of what the theory of evolution is, and what the evidence has shown. In my experience ONLY those who have no idea what science has shown with regard to evolution can make such absurd statements. You can easily shoot down my conjecture by showing me that you've actually studied evolution, and know what the major lines of evidence supporting it are. Can you do that? I strongly suspect that you cannot. It sounds to me that you've only availed yourself of creationist literature, which leaves you totally in the dark.
KT: "you cant prove the existence of GOD either, it is a faith in something not being seen,..."
Nobody is demanding that you "prove" the existence of your god; however we do demand that you provide some EVIDENCE for her. Without credible evidence, we have no more reason to believe in your particular deity than Zeus, Osiris, Mithra, Isis, or Krishna, to name just a few. One could just as easily choose to have "faith" in any of them. If you think the onus is on us to disprove your fanciful notions, then I challenge you to disprove Zeus.
By the way, I don't expect you to actually take me up on any of the challenges I've issued; I predict that you will either ignore them, or twist them into something absurd that you will feel capable of attacking. But... please do try to prove me wrong.
By the way, please learn to spell "empirical".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
