the self replicating watch argument

[Bungle_Bear]

Right it is not self replicating....so that does not count as one...

That's why I've asked for an example of one before we worry about design. If there is no such thing then the question of design is entirely irrelevant.

 

[quatona]

Can someone show me a real example of a self-replicating motor that doesn't need a designer?

The flagellum?

 

[pshun2404]

What's next, the self replicating television set?

First I guess Bear did not pick up on my sarcasm...but yes perhaps they will evolve from radios if given enough time (Sorry! Did it again).

There are a few self-replicating machines though, but the original always follows a plan or design devised by an intelligent force(s).

 

[pshun2404]

That's why I've asked for an example of one before we worry about design. If there is no such thing then the question of design is entirely irrelevant.

Right, if there are not any? So then when scientists (non-ID theorists) see this as a type of "motor" because of how the intricate parts interact to bring about the total motor like function, they are mistaken. Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?

 

[Speedwell]

Right, if there are not any? So then when scientists (non-ID theorists) see this as a type of "motor" because of how the intricate parts interact to bring about the total motor like function, they are mistaken. Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?

Or because a plausible pathway for its development by variation and selection can be described?

It's all very well to make the (unfalsifiable) statement that God's purpose is embodied in it, but IDers want to be able to show that the naturalistic (Aristotole: Efficient) causes have been manipulated by the "designer" also.

 

[pshun2404]

Or because a plausible pathway for its development by variation and selection can be described?

It's all very well to make the (unfalsifiable) statement that God's purpose is embodied in it, but IDers want to be able to show that the naturalistic (Aristotole: Efficient) causes have been manipulated by the "designer" also.

Well we have two choices here:

a. Either the laws and principles governing the behavior of matter/energy formed as matter/energy behaved in these ways and the seeming purpose and direction are purely coincidental OR

b. The laws and principles existed prior to matter/energy which they follow and conform to and the seeming purpose and direction were inherent in these laws and principles

What we do KNOW is that matter/energy did not create the laws and principles matter/energy itself is subject to. So do laws just evolve from chaos, on their own, for no reason, or do they evolve as a product of that which they govern, or does the presence of laws indicate intention? Hmm?

 

[Speedwell]

Well we have two choices here:

a. Either the laws and principles governing the behavior of matter/energy formed as matter/energy behaved in these ways and the seeming purpose and direction are purely coincidental OR

b. The laws and principles existed prior to matter/energy which they follow and conform to and the seeming purpose and direction were inherent in these laws and principles

What we do KNOW is that matter/energy did not create the laws and principles matter/energy itself is subject to. So do laws just evolve from chaos, on their own, for no reason, or do they evolve as a product of that which they govern, or does the presence of laws indicate intention? Hmm?

Not a question which involves ID theory. Your two options amount to atheism and theistic evolutionism. ID posits the periodic supernatural intervention of a designer to adjust certain phenomena by superseding natural "laws and principles." As I have pointed out already, theistic evolution is an unfalsifiable proposition. This will not do for creationists with a political agenda, as it provides no basis for imposing the existence of their god/designer on unbelievers.

 

[pshun2404]

Not a question which involves ID theory. Your two options amount to atheism and theistic evolutionism. ID posits the periodic supernatural intervention of a designer to adjust certain phenomena by superseding natural "laws and principles." As I have pointed out already, theistic evolution is an unfalsifiable proposition. This will not do for creationists with a political agenda, as it provides no basis for imposing the existence of their god/designer on unbelievers.

I agree, but some would claim God as the source of those laws and principles...and yes anything involving God is pretty much unfalsifiable but again because something cannot be proven false does not make it less true.

Can we show that when the original matter/energy emerged and it all arranged in specific ways into stars and planets (everywhere that this happened), that there were already physical laws at work governing these processes to which matter/energy conformed? Of course we cannot PROVE it, but if we are thinking scientifically we must admit the inference. Do you at least agree with this?

 

[Speedwell]

I agree, but some would claim God as the source of those laws and principles...and yes anything involving God is pretty much unfalsifiable but again because something cannot be proven false does not make it less true.

Can we show that when the original matter/energy emerged and it all arranged in specific ways into stars and planets (everywhere that this happened), that there were already physical laws at work governing these processes to which matter/energy conformed? Of course we cannot PROVE it, but if we are thinking scientifically we must admit the inference. Do you at least agree with this?

Given that we don't know what was going on before the "big bang" it would be hard to say. If one thinks of the 'big bang' as an act of creation ex nihilo then probably not. The question becomes, do physical laws exist in the absence of mass/energy? Remember that physical laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. Mass/energy behaves the way it does according to its nature, not because it is "governed."

 

[pshun2404]

"Mass/energy behaves the way it does according to its nature, not because it is "governed."

So in this you reveal your position on the choices I offered. For YOU these alleged laws and principles are an inherent aspect of matter/energy itself.

So in the beginning of the this Universe, matter just did as matter does...it automatically forms together in these specific ways to make planets, thus the matter was not subject TO parameters that determined how it should form planets, save those that are part of its own nature. Is that correct? So chaotic materiality in a vacuum (which just came into existence) will automatically come together and form spinning spherical shapes that balance off (by their centrifugal force) the gravitational tendency of the greater stars to sucjkthem in and absorb them?

 

[Speedwell]

"Mass/energy behaves the way it does according to its nature, not because it is "governed."

So in this you reveal your position on the choices I offered. For YOU these alleged laws and principles are an inherent aspect of matter/energy itself.

So in the beginning of the this Universe, matter just did as matter does...it automatically forms together in these specific ways to make planets, thus the matter was not subject TO parameters that determined how it should form planets, save those that are part of its own nature. Is that correct? So chaotic materiality in a vacuum (which just came into existence) will automatically come together and form spinning spherical shapes that balance off (by their centrifugal force) the gravitational tendency of the greater stars to sucjkthem in and absorb them?

So who was it decided what the nature of mass/energy should be?

 

[pshun2404]

So who was it decided what the nature of mass/energy should be?

But wait...is post 70 your position? The laws of physics and chemistry are inherent in matter energy and do not govern them? They do not "follow" these but demonstrate these in how they (by nature) behave?

I am not saying it is incorrect, as there are two options that are plausible. Just want to be clear.

 

[Speedwell]

But wait...is post 70 your position? The laws of physics and chemistry are inherent in matter energy and do not govern them? They do not "follow" these but demonstrate these in how they (by nature) behave?

I am not saying it is incorrect, as there are two options that are plausible. Just want to be clear.

Yes.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes.

So nature forms and directs nature in its development and the way it functions thus the nature of things is responsible for the nature of things. Nature then, appears to have created nature, and controls its developments and outcomes, making what we have come to call nature bring about itself from itself...it makes itself that which already exists!

Okay...I on the other hand do hold the other view, and do not believe something can create and guide itself (since it must already be to do so) outside of the laws and principles that exist, nor that the laws of physics are materially based, and that they do indeed govern the behavior of matter/energy (which must conform).

So no need to go on because this is fundamental. I will leave you with this thought:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Planck

 

[Speedwell]

Yes.

So nature forms and directs nature in its development and the way it functions thus the nature of things is responsible for the nature of things. Nature then, appears to have created nature, and controls its developments and outcomes, making what we have come to call nature bring about itself from itself...it makes itself that which already exists!

Okay...I on the other hand do hold the other view, and do not believe something can create and guide itself (since it must already be to do so) outside of the laws and principles that exist, nor that the laws of physics are materially based, and that they do indeed govern the behavior of matter/energy (which must conform).

So no need to go on because this is fundamental. I will leave you with this thought:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Planck

How Manichean of you. So God created mass/energy but must impose His will on it constantly or it would lapse into chaos. He could not create it with a nature which causes it to behave as it does?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Right, if there are not any? So then when scientists (non-ID theorists) see this as a type of "motor" because of how the intricate parts interact to bring about the total motor like function, they are mistaken. Or is it because this was first observed by ID scientists, like re-discovering the functionality of alleged Junk DNA (another observation they were first to point out) so they must not be allowed to receive proper credit?

Nice try! We already established that we're talking about a motor on its own, not as an integral part of an organism. Show me one of those and let's go from there.

 

[pshun2404]

Nice try! We already established that we're talking about a motor on its own, not as an integral part of an organism. Show me one of those and let's go from there.

Did you not follow the link to the article? This part of the organism acts and functions as a motor.

 

[pshun2404]

How Manichean of you. So God created mass/energy but must impose His will on it constantly or it would lapse into chaos. He could not create it with a nature which causes it to behave as it does?

He could have, but instead placed established laws and principles in place that these follow and conform to...I guess it could be called pseudo-Manichaenism. Somethings are black and white (that which we call blue is not what we call red), others are not (allele transmission in multiple offspring can produce differences) and there is lots of room for variance, but matter/energy when in the formative stage of our Universe all formed in the same ways respectively in all places with the same results.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Did you not follow the link to the article? This part of the organism acts and functions as a motor.

One of us reads the other's posts, understands them and responds to what has actually been said rather than what he thinks has been said. The other clearly doesn't.

Which one do you think you are?

 

[pshun2404]

One of us reads the other's posts, understands them and responds to what has actually been said rather than what he thinks has been said. The other clearly doesn't.

Which one do you think you are?

Sure I am the one that does...the OP references "the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below" and provides a link which I asked you if you looked at...

Guess you did not read my post either...

here is another...take look this time

A Rotary Motor Drives Bacterial Motion - Biochemistry - NCBI Bookshelf