04 Jan 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd it is also reasonable to assume you have no intention of taking any of this seriously. I would like to say this was fun, but all I can say is it has been enlightening. Good night.
It is reasonable to assume that beings with strongly developed engineering capabilities would leave archeological evidence.
04 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeI'm not sure why the word creator elicits such a strong emotion in you. I merely said "creator" because it's shorter than "intelligent guidance" or something like that.
No, you didn't ask me about a creator, you were telling me about a creator. You made comments about evolution and a creator, both of which I have said nothing about until you brought it up. And now you're telling me that you didn't ask about a creator. Well, I didn't ask about a creator either, so what are you going to do now? Build m ...[text shortened]... ng this little game with me you are demanding an answer. Wow, I'm very impressed... pffft, NOT!!
But forget about that. I have given you my honest answer (to the best I could) to your initial question ("How do we discriminate between natural and unnatural" ) and I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
lemon lime
You asked in your OP:
Imagine no one ever seeing or knowing about computers or automobiles, and then one day coming across one or both of these things. Using all of the knowledge we have available today, knowledge of physics, chemistry, information systems, biology, statistical analysis, etc. etc., is there any logical way to determine (without knowing) whether or not these objects were able to self assemble through the agency of the physical forces of nature? Or, can we confidently assert (without having direct knowledge) that these objects would not exist (and do what they do) without purposeful and intelligent guidance?
We then answered this question. Here is yet another way of answering your question:
Yes, because;
If something X reproduces and can evolve, then, applying Occam's razor, until if or when we have evidence to the contrary, the default assumption should be it evolved and therefore we determine that it was created by nature and without intelligence involved. BUT, we know that computers cannot reproduce so that, unlike with life (which you DID bring up in your OP so please don't say it is irrelevant here ) which we know CAN reproduce, we know that computer cannot reproduce and therefore cannot evolve. We know that computers cannot reproduce because we know that reproductive organs or cell division etc allows reproduction which computers don't have and, applying Occam's razor again, we should determine that something X (where X could be a computer ) cannot reproduce until if or when we have evidence to the contrary and, therefore, we determine computers cannot reproduce.
If something X does NOT reproduces, then, logically, it cannot evolve (Via Darwinian natural evolution) and therefore we can rule out evolution as being created by natural means although that doesn't rule out other kinds of natural means. In that case, applying Occam’s razor, we should STILL assume natural causes of computers (if we had no prior knowledge that they are created via intelligence ) until if or when we have evidence to the contrary. Note that this determination of it being natural and not involving intelligence is not guaranteed to be correct but rather, because it uses Occam's razor, is probabilistic with subjective probability because it depends on you current personal knowledge without the benefit of hindsight.
But, we may then observe, for example, some screws inserted in the back of the computer and then, using our knowledge of physics and other natural processes, conclude that there is no known natural process not involving intelligence that could have possibly turned all those screws in although that would not rule out an unknown natural process. But we may then also note that a human hand with a screwdriver could easily have put those screws in thus we DO have a known possible Unnatural cause of those screws going in. So lets summarize that: we have a known Unnatural cause of those screws going in with intelligence involved but no known natural cause -this is surely evidence that an intelligence was involved. Now, suddenly, since we have evidence that an intelligence was involved with the assembly for part of the computer, it doesn't seem nearly as far fetched that intelligence may have been involved with the assembly with the rest of the computer. But this would not yet be enough to determine with confidence that intelligence was involved for the assembly of the WHOLE computer.
But if we were then to open up the computer and observed wires soldered together, then we would similarly note that no known natural process without intelligence could put that solder there but we know that a human with a soldering iron could have put it there thus the solder there is evidence of intelligence involved but for yet another part of the computer. Now we can extrapolate from those two bits of evidence inductively and say it is probably the case that the WHOLE of the computer was assembled with intelligence involved. If we then find yet more evidence of other parts being assembled, we can determine from that a higher probability of intelligence involved with the assembly of the whole computer and, with sufficiently more evidence, we can eventually determine that the probability of the whole computer NOT being assembled via intelligence is so low that we can then call it a proven scientific fact that it was created with intelligence and then we would have certainly determined that intelligence was involved.
In other words, as exemplified from the above, the answer to your question is:
yes, because:
In the initial absence of evidence, we can determine by applying Occam's razor that X was NOT created via an intelligence until if or when we have evidence that determines that it WAS created via an intelligence.
(Note how that determination is probabilistic and involves subjective probabilities that is dependent on personal knowledge. This cannot be avoided. )
Now, exactly how on earth does that above (esp the bit in bold type ) NOT answer your question? please explain.
04 Jan 14
2 edits
Bravo, couldn't have said better myself. I think humy's post deserves a proper response from you lemon lime. You can't say you're not being taken serious.
Perhaps another way of saying it is this: "If you come across something unknown, how many unproven assumptions must you make when you claim it's natural and how many unproven assumptions must you make when you claim it's unnatural?"
In the absence of futher evidence the claim with the least unproven assumptions must be considered the one closest to the truth.
06 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatThat has a razor of truth in it🙂
Bravo, couldn't have said better myself. I think humy's post deserves a proper response from you lemon lime. You can't say you're not being taken serious.
Perhaps another way of saying it is this: "If you come across something unknown, how many unproven assumptions must you make when you claim it's natural and how many unproven assumptions must you ...[text shortened]... e the claim with the least unproven assumptions must be considered the one closest to the truth.
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI merely said "creator" because it's shorter than "intelligent guidance" or something like that.
I'm not sure why the word creator elicits such a strong emotion in you. I merely said "creator" because it's shorter than "intelligent guidance" or something like that.
But forget about that. I have given you my honest answer (to the best I could) to your initial question ("How do we discriminate between natural and unnatural" ) and I would like to hear your thoughts on this matter.
That was clever, but I think we both know what you meant. The idea of this was to see if anyone could define the difference between something formed only by the forces of nature and something showing signs of intelligent guidance in its formation. Period.
Every one of you jumped ahead to a presumed conclusion, probably because I used DNA as one of my first examples. That was a mistake on my part, because I never intended to make a point about DNA other that it appeared to be an organized system not normally seen in nature. The defensive nature of your arguments by introducing 'facts not in evidence' (having nothing to do with the OP) tells me that no matter how careful I might be in framing an idea or question, the standard evolution vs creation debate would inevitably come into play.
And If you're wondering what this means, it means I'm not terribly disappointed by how this has played out.
-Cheers-
08 Jan 14
You've been given some very well thought out ideas on your initial question. That you focus so much on one small part - that was, as you say, initiated by yourself in the first three paragraphs of your OP - and disregard the rest is simply weak.
Unfortunately, this website seems to be filled with people who will simply leave any thread in a hissy fit when they're not given precisely those answers that they want to hear.
Whatever. Wallow in your own selfpity if it pleases you.
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatUnfortunately, I have reached exactly all the same conclusions. And I think this is a case of him having self-pity.
You've been given some very well thought out ideas on your initial question. That you focus so much on one small part - that was, as you say, initiated by yourself in the first three paragraphs of your OP - and disregard the rest is simply weak.
Unfortunately, this website seems to be filled with people who will simply leave any thread in a hissy f ...[text shortened]... hose answers that they want to hear.
Whatever. Wallow in your own selfpity if it pleases you.
08 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyWhy would you need Occams' razor to explain how an archaeologist is able look at a stone that can function as a bowl and know if it's been naturally formed or not? And why would you need to consider if the appearance of human heads on Mount Rushmore were able to reproduce and evolve in order to decide if they were naturally formed or not? Please explain how your (one) answer applies in either one of those examples.
lemon lime
You asked in your OP:
[quote] Imagine no one ever seeing or knowing about computers or automobiles, and then one day coming across one or both of these things. Using all of the knowledge we have available today, knowledge of physics, chemistry, information systems, biology, statistical analysis, etc. etc., is there any logical way to determi ...[text shortened]... w on earth does that above (esp the bit in bold type ) NOT answer your question? please explain.
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatI may have an opinion, but I do not have an answer. Where do you see me saying I have the answer?
You've been given some very well thought out ideas on your initial question. That you focus so much on one small part - that was, as you say, initiated by yourself in the first three paragraphs of your OP - and disregard the rest is simply weak.
Unfortunately, this website seems to be filled with people who will simply leave any thread in a hissy f ...[text shortened]... hose answers that they want to hear.
Whatever. Wallow in your own selfpity if it pleases you.
08 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell sure, evolution is easy to understand if you can somehow disconnect it from abiogenesis. What I usually hear is that abiogenesis is necessarily connected to evolultion, but is not relevant to the study of evolution.
Abiogenesis is a much more difficult topic than evolution, both from a theoretical and experimental point of view. I suggest you start by understanding evolution first, which is pretty simple and is supported by overwhelming evidence. This puts abiogenesis in the proper perspective.
It's easy enough to make this distinction and see abiogenesis as being separate from evolution, because by definition the first organism could not have evolved. It would not have evolved because there was nothing preceding it to evolve from. But it can't be ignored, because the foundation of evolution is dependent on how that evolution began. You can't simply dismiss the birth of anything or claim it has little to do with the existence of what develops later. Beginnings have everything to do with what comes later... because without a beginning, there is nothing to come later.
The fact that it's a more difficult topic from a theoretical and experimental point of view doesn't mean it is any less relevant. If origins were irrelevant we would, for example, reverse engineer the formation of the universe and then make it a point to stop before reaching its origin, because it doesn't matter how the universe started. Nonsense! Origins may be difficult to determine, but they are most certainly not irrelevant.
08 Jan 14
Originally posted by Great King RatIn a previous message you said you had given an answer, and then demanded I give you an answer (my answer). I can go find it, then copy and paste it onto my next message to you. But seriously, are you telling me you can't find it... why, too many pages to look through? Come on lazy bones, the least you can do is to keep track of your own statements.
?????????????????????????????????????
Where did you see me saying you were saying you have the answer?
Did you quote the wrong post or something?