in the 1969 kit the society used a book by bible scholar justus lipsius as source material for their upright stake "stauros" doctrine of the death of christ.
they used an image of a man hung on an upright stake with no crossbeam attached to it.
then they placed a caption under it saying that the illustration came from lipsius.
Why do they talk about a tree "He died upon a tree, to set all mankind free" Kingdom song..when the scriptures clearly show that he carried it to the place Golgotha???
As I mentioned earlier, Jesus carried the cross-piece. Then, the cross-piece is nailed to a tree. So Jesus died in a cross-like position upon a tree, and this makes a lot of sense when you consider all the scriptural references.
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Caedes,
There is nothing wrong with my English comprehension, but claiming in your hypothetical scenario that some scientists would say that something was just a theory shows that you do not understand the scientific meaning of the word. Do you now accept that even hypothetical scientists would not refer to something as just a theory?
Look, first you claim I said something, which I did not. I put it in the mouths of the characters in my story. Now you say I put it in the mouths of the scientists in my story, which I did not. If you look carefully I put it in the mouths of the 'believers' in my story. It's time to admit you're barking up the wrong tree without a paddle.
How on earth is admitting that we do not know for certain, wriggling? The only assumption I would make is that life and the origins of life are the result of entirely natural processes.
Good. So you accept that you have made the assumption that life began spontaneously. A hypothesis for which you have no evidence.
Since you cannot prove that abiogenesis is impossible then the question is rather a moot point.
Likewise, you cannot prove that abiogenesis is possible. It is a matter of faith to you that it happened.
On the Behe thing, I can only suggest you read his latest, The Edge of Evolution. I guarantee you will learn some valuable things from it. One of the most amazing things that comes out of the book is the excellent basis he lays for the theory that diseases such as malaria will become preventable, with no possibility of adaption, by drugs which target three (or more) areas of the parasite instead of one. If he is correct, then one of the biggest problems facing the medical community, the adaption of bacteria to antibiotics will be solved.
All the best,
BFS
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Spook,
No, the original evolutionary hypothesis did not create a new hypothetcal entity. It was based off of a known phenomena, a fact plainly observable to all: Natural selection.
But this is not the issue at hand, since we agreed (I thought) that natural selection applies to nanotechnological life as well as organic life. The issue at hand is spontaneous generation of life, and in both cases (organic and inorganic origin) that is a hypothetical entity.
That's why pulling the designer out of thin air has always been and will always be illogical and an irrational reason for believing in a designer.
Irrational to believe in a designer, but rational to believe in spontaneous generation? Lol, there's no other profession where it would be regarded as irrational to infer a designer on examining something that has apparently been designed. So, your position is that it would be irrational to believe in alien intelligence should we find advanced lifelike nanotechnology on the moon, so long as we have alternative hypotheses as to their origin.
The traits of life (or definition if you preamble with "an entity is alive which posesses all of the following traits") as contained in the original post still hold. You would either find organic life or a synthetic machine...or, I suppose, a virus. Let's not go there.
Probably best not, since a virus does not fit your definition of life. But you seem to be saying that a 'synthetic machine' could be 'alive'? So the only difference between my nanobots and life is if they can be nominated as synthetic?
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Caedes,
Did I mention that I am an engineer? I am more than capable of telling if something is manufactured and hence artificial. On what basis are you telling me that I do not know my job? Other posters have pointed out that genetic manipulation would also be evident.
What a coincidence, I'm also an engineer and I also like to think I'm capable of telling if something is manufactured. The difference between us is that I think it possible that one day it might be very difficult to tell whether something is manufactured. That time is almost upon us with regard to organic life, since, not just genetic manipulation but whole bespoke lifeforms might be designed by a scientist, and it would be very difficult if not impossible to independently determine their origin.
Quoted from your post 41 "On one side the scientists who claim there is sufficient evidence for artificiality and that all can be explained using Darwinian principles, and on the other those who claim that those are just theories and it is more likely that an alien intelligence designed them." A simple apology will suffice!
I'd love to apologise if it would help, but we already covered this and I thought you had got the point. Here it is again: I put those words into the mouths of one of the parties in the debate. I didn't say it. You get the difference, right?
I have clearly stated that there is no evidence to conclude one way or another on the exact mechanism for abiogenesis.
Wriggle wriggle wriggle. The fact is, no matter however it happened, you believe life originated spontaineously.
If you are going to state that the cause of abiogenesis was a creator then it is a perfectly valid scientific position to ask 'where did the creator come from?' since adding a creator just shifts the problem of abiogenesis elsewhere. When you have answered my point then I will address yours.
First, I never stated the cause of abiogenesis was a creator, for one thing that seems to me to be a self contradictory statement. My point is that science is not expected, or responsible, or required to answer all the questions in one go. If it turned out that spontaneous generation of life was proven to be impossible, the problem of the origin of the creator, whether God or some alien intelligence is a separate issue that cannot possibly negate that conclusion. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, where did the creator come from? But first, you have to have reached the conclusion that a creator exists.
Behe admitted in court that his definition of science includes astrology (this is a matter of record) as such his opinion as a 'scientist' is of no merit, whenever mr Behe manages to get something peer reviewed in a respected journal I will be interested in what he has to say. I have no interest in his career or his appointments to religious institutions.
I doubt there's been a single great scientist who wasn't ridiculed by his peers for his scientific views. The character assisination of Behe is evidence that he has rattled the establishment since they have no scientific answer to the facts he has presented. To correct the impression you give, actually Behe is a practising scientist, he is a professor in his field of biochemistry and employed at a university. I'm disapointed that you would dismiss him on the say-so of others without giving him a fair hearing for yourself.
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Crashfire,
Does anyone else thoroughly enjoy reading the first few posts in a thread and then skipping to the last few? The evolution of any given thread never ceases to amaze me, nor does the wealth of varied knowledge and experience that the members here bring to the table. I've been offline for a few months and trying to catch up with the different debate topics is almost as fun as searching a used bookstore for an overlooked treasure.
I find I skip to the end and then have to read the posts backwards. A stupid way to proceed, but there it is.
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Spook,
Fine, you have very small robots with no nano-techknowledgy. Cells are biological, so you're not talking about bots at all.
Why do cells have to be 'biological'? The arrangement works very well for organic life forms, why should it not also work for inorganic life forms?
You either have very small robots (synthetic non-life) or you have organisms.
'organism' would seem to be a combination of 'organic' and 'ismitsm' (old red-indian word for active), so no, I don't suppose you can have an inorganic organism. But my nanobots meet your original criteria for life, so why are you kvetching about it now?
The bottom line is that in your illustration ...
1. The fact is the presence of "nanobots."
Check!
2. Seeking to explain this, you form an hypothesis.
Check!
3. The factthat there are "nanobots" can not be evidence for this hypothesis used to explain the existence of nanobots. Because "nanobots" are the artifact in question.
What hypothesis? That an inorganic 'life' form can originate and evolve? Isn't that exactly what evolution hypothesises about organic life? On exactly the same premise but inversed? Or do you mean the hypothesis that someone designed them and put them there?
4. If you already knew aliens existed for sure as a fact, but were unsure if they had created nanobots, then and only could you use the traits of the "nanobots" by comparison to OTHER objects of known alien design and create an argument from comparison that aliens created the nanobots.
Eh? We can only create an-argument-from-comparison that aliens created the nanobots if we already knew aliens existed for sure as a fact and already have some artifacts that we know for a fact they designed? Well, we won't 'cos we don't and we don't. Now what?
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Caedes,
No, you would have to get a biologist to look at it, if it were a miniature robot then yes I could.
The point is that neither you nor a biologist can say for certain whether a biological object is designed or natural. In principle, the same uncertainty must apply to inanimate objects too.
If you did, you would understand why no scientists would say something was "just a theory".
I never said scientists would say something was "just a theory". Please do not misquote me.
Starting with a planet with a developed eco-system and robots that were entirely organic would give a great deal of uncertainty, your scenario with artificial robots is absolutely certain.
One more time: They are not artificial robots. They evolved. So they say. But you prefer organic robots? So there is great uncertainty as to whether they evolved or were created? You realise you are now simply describing organic life, which cannot exist on the moon? Well, at least you seem to agree that the origin of organic life is uncertain.
I haven't accepted any hypothesis regarding abiogenesis
Of course you have, you go even further, you take it as a fact that life started spontaneously. Or don't you?
I have an aversion to answering questions when my own are not answered.
There was no question to answer. I was responding to your statement
"since this can only mean we have to look for a cause for the abiogenesis of our sky daddy, it only shifts the problem elsewhere and makes it an even larger problem"
when I said
"This is not a valid scientific position. A conclusion that there is alien intelligence (for the origin of life, or nanobots) is not contingent on knowing the origin of that alien intelligence. That is a quite different question."
So, no, I didn't miss your point, and yes, you did duck mine and now you're obfuscating.
Why would I want to read the opinions of a discredited hack whose "science" is on a par with astrology?
Really, does this reflect the quality of information you bring to the argument? Behe is no hack and his science has nothing to do with astrology. He is a professor of Biochemistry and evidently he is the subject of some blatant smears by his opponents:
Michael J. Behe (born 1952) is an Americanbiochemist and intelligent design advocate. He currently serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute'sCenter for Science and Culture.
in the 1969 kit the society used a book by bible scholar justus lipsius as source material for their upright stake "stauros" doctrine of the death of christ.
they used an image of a man hung on an upright stake with no crossbeam attached to it.
then they placed a caption under it saying that the illustration came from lipsius.
As a matter of interest, Professor E. Martin offered some convincing evidence that Christ died (which is what it actually says in the scriptures) on a tree. He carried the cross-beam, which was nailed to the tree, a very practical and simple process for the Romans to implement. Think about how much more sense it all makes if Jesus died on tree (tree of life, "if they do this while the tree is green...", "anyone hung on a tree is cursed...").
There is no evidence that Jesus died on an upright stake, since the word stauros can be interpreted in different ways.
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
Hi Caedes,
I believe that I have already outlined a slightly more plausible scenario for you, myself and others have outlined how it would be possible to recognise a clearly artificial organism.
Really? So if I put a piece of goo in front of you, you can tell me with certainty whether it is artificial or natural? Er, no, you cannot, as I believe you admit later. The 'recognition' system you have proposed is based on nothing but assumptions.
There is nothing wrong with my English comprehension, I was aware that you were attributing the comment to a character in your scenario, you still need to look up the scientific definition of the word.
Thank you, but I know what the word means.
I have stated the opposite, that the use of organic materials does not automatically make something natural!
Good, then following the same logic you should also be able to agree that the use of inorganic materials does not automatically make it something artificial.
The application of a design process using natural selection to an electronic circuit makes no difference to the fact that the circuit is artificial. Material analysis of the circuit would be sufficient to conclude the circuit was artificial with no assumptions required.
Actually, that is still an assumption, unless you saw the person making it. But a reasonable one. But I was referring to the design itself rather than the physical item. You cannot know, for sure, whether the circuitry and software running your computer right now was designed by a human or is the result of evolutionary processess. With your convictions, that is what you must believe.
An example of that being?
I gave several previously.
In fact the more plausible scenario I suggested would have less certainties than the one you outlined.
Please explain how defining at the start that my nanobots are/are not artificial adds uncertainty.
If my faith in the unending curiosity of human beings (being based on constant observation of other human beings) makes you think I have "Faith" in the supernatural, you are mistaken.
What I said was that you have faith that one day there will be a scientific explanation for abiogenesis - or do you think that that is a supernatural explanation?
I think you missed my point entirely.
I think you ducked my point entirely.
The wild claim that artificial life can start spontaneously.
LOL! You think that claim is wild, yet you are quite happy to accept the hypothesis that organic life started spontaneously.
I have no confidence that mr Behe is a credible scientist. Sorry.
So you haven't read his books for yourself. Shame.
Cheers,
BFS
campos: the atheist's dilemmaby paul camposwhy is stanley fish so much smarter than richard dawkins?
that question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:.
"no believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong.".
A nanobot would not be composed of cells. And when theorizing about "nanobots" they are usually single functional, like nanotech now (super thin coatings, single strands of carbon, etc.) . The one function being immediately inferrable.
I don't know why you say a nanobot would not be composed of cells. Actually, the moon nanobots are composed of cells, there are groups of machines within a cellular protective structure, that's one of the amazing things about them. I did say that my nanobots are far more advanced than anything humans have on the drawing board.
Being single functional, nanobots would not have functional organization, metabolism or homeostasis. I also don't know how you'd really conceive of them growing or reproducing.
The individual nanobots, at the sub-cellular level, have specific functions. One of the functions at this 'cellular' level is to be able to create new groups of nanobots which are split off to create new cells. Groups of different types of nanocell are organised to provide higher functions which convert raw materials for energy and to synthesise into materials for building work. Thus they grow and reproduce.
Now as far as I can see there is nothing here that says my nanobots are not a form of life (please don't get pedantic about size, which wasn't mentioned in your life 'traits').
If an unexplained entity or occurance X appears non-natural for some characteristic Y, it can only appear so by comparison to the set of known natural entities or occurances, Z. Z, for the sake of discussion, could be all, some or none of all entities or occurances. What you're missing is that X is the entity which requires explanation. There are infinite hypothetical explanations for X posessing Y. Postulating an additional "designer" does nothing but create a hypothetical entity for which there is no evidence.
This looks great but rests on an assertion that what is natural is "known". It is thus a circular argument, and meaningless.
