Should science be secular?

[buffalo]

You are not using scientific terms. They are highly organized, they have a natural complexity and they form without supernatural or human intervention. “Purpose” is in the eye of the beholder, usually human, but not always.

.

These are natural patterns. Waves form patterns in the sand. There are patterns in snowflakes.

Designs contain patterns, but patterns never contain symbols or designs.

 

[larkin31]

These are natural patterns. Waves form patterns in the sand. There are patterns in snowflakes.

Designs contain patterns, but patterns never contain symbols or designs.

What? This is not scientific talk. I don’t know what this means.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know what this means.

I can see this form your last posts.

 

[larkin31]

I can see this form your last posts.

So, you are simply snide now?



Have you read about the flagellar precursors yet or not? Behe stated that they were evidence of “irreducible” complexity. Turns out they aren’t irreducible at all.

 

[buffalo]

So, you are simply snide now?



Have you read about the flagellar precursors yet or not? Behe stated that they were evidence of “irreducible” complexity. Turns out they aren’t irreducible at all.

Because the components existed elsewhere or in the past does not disprove it.

You did not answer my mousetrap post. The mousetrap has no function until the trip bar is long enough.

I will up the ante. Note that these motors were present at the beginning.

ATP Synthase: Two rotary molecular motors working together

 

[buffalo]

So, you are simply snide now?

Just funnin…

 

[larkin31]

Because the components existed elsewhere or in the past does not disprove it.

Yes, it does. And it existed prior in the same line of organism. Irreducible complexity argues that the components cannot be broken down further or removed. This has shown to be false. He was wrong concerning flagellar components, and this was one of his most famous examples.

Sorry. This is really just a God-of-the-gaps argument in disguise, and the disguise has been removed. It is a statement of faith, not science. This is another reason that science needs to remain empirical and material and not argue from the premise that certain processes are impossible. We must let the discoveries lead us where they go. THAT is the process of collection of empirical knowledge.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, it does. And it existed prior in the same line of organism. Irreducible complexity argues that the components cannot be broken down further or removed. This has shown to be false. He was wrong concerning flagellar components, and this was one of his most famous examples.

Sorry. This is really just a God-of-the-gaps argument in disguise, and the disguise has been removed. It is a statement of faith, not science. This is another reason that science needs to remain empirical and material and not argue from the premise that certain processes are impossible. We must let the discoveries lead us where they go. THAT is the process of collection of empirical knowledge.

If I take a bunch of lego blocks I can build a lot of very different things. I can also build similar things. I am using basic components in various ways. This is using common blocks to achieve different function.

Would you consider a car engine IC? What if I remove the crankshaft? How about the fuel rail? Spark Plugs? Now one could well maintain that fuel rails are used in other devices and they would be right. But a car engine without one goes nowhere.

If I build something for a specific purpose then it is designed. If I build the mousetrap with the trip bar too short it does not work. In this manner for it to perform the function of catching mice it must be fully functional.

If the flagellar motor does not spin is it useful to the bacteria?

 

[larkin31]

If I take a bunch of lego blocks I can build a lot of very different things. I can also build similar things. I am using basic components in various ways. This is using common blocks to achieve different function.

Would you consider a car engine IC? What if I remove the crankshaft? How about the fuel rail? Spark Plugs? Now one could well maintain that fuel rails are used in other devices and they would be right. But a car engine without one goes nowhere.

If I build something for a specific purpose then it is designed. If I build the mousetrap with the trip bar too short it does not work. In this manner for it to perform the function of catching mice it must be fully functional.

You keep changing the subject from Behe and actual cell components.

Behe has been discredited, and that is my point. I keep referring you to the flagellar research that has pushed beyond where he said it was “irreducible.”

And now you are talking lego blocks.

You should stop talking in toy analogies and read some actual research about bio mechanisms and bio-chemical processes…

 

[tonyrey]

In what way are water crystals purposeful?

Inanimate substances are quite different from living organisms with regard to their physical complexity and organization. A crystal lacks directiveness and has no urge to survive.

“Purpose” is in the eye of the beholder, usually human, but not always.

So you believe living organisms are not goal-seeking and cannot be differentiated from inorganic compounds?

Can you understand those processes? If so explain precisely how they unwittingly transformed themselves.

I am a high school English teacher. I understand grammar much better than I understand electro-chemical brain processes. But I have had to read a good bit about Parkinson’s Disease lately, and I have read a bit about other brain processes. But I am no expert in this field, nor do I claim to be. I really don’t understand the relevance of your question in this regard.

The relevance is that your inability to give an explanation weakens your hypothesis.

So you maintain that all reasoning can ultimately be reduced to electrochemical processes?

Can now? No. There is much in science that is still not understood fully, particularly about the brain.

But you do believe that all reasoning can in principle be reduced to electrochemical processes?

In other words electrochemical processes have become capable of grasping the truth about themselves and the nature of reality?

No. That is a silly summary of current neurological work.

Please explain why you regard it as silly even when it is the logical consequence of your hypothesis.

How do you justify those beliefs?

I don’t. I am not here to bother to justify a simple summary of material empiricism about brain function. If you don’t want to believe it, then don’t.

If you cannot be bothered to justify your argument than why bother to discuss the subject at all?

And don’t ever take a medication for your brain, either (to be consistent).

That remark is not only irrelevant but discourteous.

I DO believe that ALL my thoughts have physical causes. Yes.

In that case you cannot choose what to think and you have no guarantee that your conclusions are reliable.

Your faith doesn’t make you despair? Or your lack of knowledge?

Neither.

Then your remark does not further the discussion in any way…

 

[larkin31]

Inanimate substances are quite different from living organisms with regard to their physical complexity and organization. A crystal lacks directiveness and has no urge to survive.

So you believe living organisms are not goal-seeking and cannot be differentiated from inorganic compounds?

The relevance is that your inability to give an explanation weakens your hypothesis.

But you do believe that all reasoning can in principle be reduced to electrochemical processes?

Please explain why you regard it as silly even when it is the logical consequence of your hypothesis.

If you cannot be bothered to justify your argument than why bother to discuss the subject at all?

That remark is not only irrelevant but discourteous.

In that case you cannot choose what to think and you have no guarantee that your conclusions are reliable.

Then your remark does not further the discussion in any way…

You continue to make efforts to misconstrue my remarks. I don’t see much purpose in discussing. With you. Especially not about “purpose” and “organization.” You are clearly speaking from faith rather than from science, and your faith pushes you to misconstrue my remarks.

I don’t care if you keep your opinions or not. I am here for conversation, learning. It has become clear that I have learned from you all that I will. THAT is why I am not interested in justifying anything to you.

Maybe someone else will evoke something more from me. It’s like sitting at a coffee bar for me. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. Maybe it is more for you. Good luck with that!

 

[buffalo]

You should stop talking in toy analogies and read some actual research about bio mechanisms and bio-chemical processes…

Sometimes analogies unlock locked minds. The IC opponents think they have proven a case by showing these components exist elsewhere. Design theorists are happy to see many different functional designs built of common components.

I am trying to illustrate to you why the flagellar motor is an example of IC.

How about the ATP Synthase motor?

Doesn’t it bother you to see that biological features are now known to have evolved several times?

Oh man - you do not know of what you speak.

 

[larkin31]

Sometimes analogies unlock locked minds. The IC opponents think they have proven a case by showing these components exist elsewhere. Design theorists are happy to see many different functional designs built of common components.

I am trying to illustrate to you why the flagellar motor is an example of IC.

How about the ATP Synthase motor?

Doesn’t it bother you to see that biological features are now known to have evolved several times?

Doesn’t bother me at all. Does it bother you? Why?

Oh man - you do not know of what you speak.

Really? On which part? On the flagellum? If you are openly claiming that the flegellar motor has NOT been shown to have component parts with other, simpler forms and functions, then I KNOW that you have not read on this subject the ACTUAL abstracts on the research.

The way you could unlock my mind on this topic is to demonstrate that that research was actually WRONG. Discussing toys won’t do it. The empirical research is not on toys; it is on bio-chemical processes.

I repeat: you are simply arguing a disguised form of God-of-the-gaps: what we don’t fully understand in the material world we attribute to God. I reject that thinking personally, and name it what it is: an act of faith, not of science.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The simple fact remains that it was not evolution that created the first life form in all its complexity, from which all other life forms have evolved. There is no evidence or proof of that, and the likelihood is so remote as to be nigh onto impossible. Nor can there ever be such evidence since the time has passed when the exact circumstances prevailed that produced the first life form. Those circumstances cannot even be simulated with certainty. And even if they were, guess what, the simulation (by atheistic scientists no doubt) would have been intelligently designed.

That does not stop atheistic scientists from denying the reality. They simply cannot allow intelligent design, because then there would have to be, as Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton said (even Einstein grudgingly admitted) some kind of Designer God.

 

[larkin31]

…That does not stop atheistic scientists from denying the reality.

Which “reality” do scientists deny? So you know, I have seen most scientists state exactly what you have: that we will likely never be able to recreate the conditions of first life on this planet. Who has ever claimed that we likely WILL be able to reproduce this?

And what does whether they are believers or not have to do with their science?

 

[buffalo]

Doesn’t bother me at all. Does it bother you? Why?

Really? On which part? On the flagellum? If you are openly claiming that the flegellar motor has NOT been shown to have component parts with other, simpler forms and functions, then I KNOW that you have not read on this subject the ACTUAL abstracts on the research.

The way you could unlock my mind on this topic is to demonstrate that that research was actually WRONG. Discussing toys won’t do it. The empirical research is not on toys; it is on bio-chemical processes.

I repeat: you are simply arguing a disguised form of God-of-the-gaps: what we don’t fully understand in the material world we attribute to God. I reject that thinking personally, and name it what it is: an act of faith, not of science.

Did the flagellar motor evolve from the TTSS or vice versa?

Perhaps this will help:

STILL SPINNING JUST FINE: A RESPONSE TO KEN MILLER

 

[buffalo]

Since we are getting too deep let’s jump it to the back fence.

Should science be secular? cont’d

 

[wanstronian]

If that is the case we cannot be sure that you are not mindless…

We’ve had this conversation before, I’ve no reason to expect you to make any more sense this time, so I’m out.

 

[wanstronian]

That sums up the basis of your conclusions perfectly…

Just the sort of brainless, misrepresentational snipe we’ve come to expect from you. Well done, you must be so proud of your sense of humour.

 

[inocente]

Could you point me at some of the papers published by the researchers? (I like to look at the original experimental results but so far, with my meager knowledge of the subject, have only found speculations and interpretations).

I will up the ante. Note that these motors were present at the beginning.

ATP Synthase: Two rotary molecular motors working together

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I can’t find in the paper.

Could you post some examples of research papers that confirm your hypothesis?

Thanks.