|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universal Perfection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'm beginning to suspect that calling attention to the Forum Guidelines and making some clarifications isn't going to be sufficient, but I'll try one more time. If this doesn't work the enforcement side of the guidelines might come into play.
For those of you who follow sports, you know how important it is for referees and umpires to exert their control over the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and players get hurt. On-lookers who aren't familiar with the game might wonder why the early ticky-tacky fouls are getting called. It's because the refs and umpires have called lots of games and can often recognize the warning signs of things getting out of hand. To get to the point, I think I'm seeing the warning signs of things getting out of control. There are at least a couple of very aggressive debaters from the evolution side on this thread, and if matters escalate further they may find themselves applying for reinstatement. For future reference, anyone who should find their posting privileges have been suspended can have them restored by sending email to Admin. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, and that's the one I've been using all along. It wasn't the one you were using when I jumped in. It certainly wasn't the dichotomy Rei was a part of. Nonetheless I'll let you move whatever goalposts you like; the arguments are largely the same.
Wrong. It is evidence for (1). What it isn’t is sufficient evidence to prove (1) or to rule out (2). Then why do you insist on using it to do just that? Why is it when we say "life could exist in other forms" you say "you're wrong; the fact that we don't observe such life proves it." If it's not enough to prove one way or the other then it's irrelevant to the discussion, as we're talking about what could be, not what is.
In the meantime, it would seem reasonable to go with one that all the empirical evidence to date supports. And as you say, it supports neither conclusion. As a result the empirical evidence is irrelevant to this discussion.
That makes more sense than going with the one that goes against all current empirical observations, and which lacks any support of its own, which suggests it may be wrong (absence of evidence is evidence of absence). I'm sure you know that isn't true.
And you can support yours? Nope. You are arguing from a sample size of 0...much worse off than I am. Yet, both positions are unconfirmable. Therefore neither position can be used in relevance to a discussion of fine-tuning. You don't know that the universe is fine-tuned, because you don't know the ratio between outcomes that could support life, and outcomes that couldn't, because you don't exhaustively know which outcomes could support life besides ours. You don't even know which outcomes couldn't support life. Since you've cut the legs out from your own position by admitting that it's not knowable at this time which outcomes could support life and which could not, how can you make a fine-tuning argument? After all, our position is that you can't know that the universe is in any way fine-tuned. The undecidability of your dichotomy is evidence for our view and a damning counterstroke against yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
A couple of points if I may:
1)
As a result the empirical evidence is irrelevant to this discussion
You are being too restrictive in what you include in the "emperical evidence". The chemical properites of silicon is, for example, additional emperical evidence. However, I haven't seen you (crash) post any references to either experiments or calculations to say that some life like properties are possible. Nor has DNA posted anything to exclude the possibility. 2)Crash The undecidability of your dichotomy is evidence for our view and a damning counterstroke against yours. [/qs]
I don't think this is doing any more than demonstrating it is undecidable with the present information. No one wins this arguement, there isn't enough data to settle it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Crash, silicon lacks all of the properties that make Carbon suitable for life, so why are you singling it out as a likely alternate life candidate? While Lawki is almost certainly not the only life that can be (as we are increasingly discovering; hyperthermophiles and all that), I fail to see why you consider Silicon a viable candidate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Hyperthermophiles are "life as we know it". They are based on organic compounds/biochemistry, using DNA to store their genetic information, proteins to catalyze metabolic reactions, etc. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Sure it was. You just hadn’t read my posts carefully. In fact, I already pointed this all out to youremember? Here, this is what I said BEFORE you jumped in to my exchanges:
quote: /*DNAunion*/ That is from post #62. You jumped in #68. Crashfrog, please stick to facts instead of fabricating distortions. Oh, and you can leave out the unfounded charges of wrong doing of my part, such as creating false dichotomies, moving goal posts, etc. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-04-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ You’re underhanded tactics are starting to get annoying. Please don’t stuff words into my mouth anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
That's right Mr Jack. That is one thing that is true. Even the archaea are LAWKI. We are all cousins .
The step to being able to talk about anything else is a big challenge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
How is this underhanded? Is what Crash quoted not a quote of yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Hi DNAunion!
DNAunion writes: You’re underhanded tactics are starting to get annoying. Please don’t stuff words into my mouth anymore. In an earlier post I alluded to the Forum Guidelines and likened them to traffic laws. To continue that analogy, not that there aren't others speeding around here, but your speed seems pretty noticeably above the other drivers. Your posting privileges are suspended. They can be restored by sending an email to Admin requesting reinstatement. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog, please stick to facts instead of fabricating distortions. We're starting to lose sight again of what we're talking about. I'll explain again what I see the argument as; hpefully that will prompt some substantial rebuttals from you. I see this as you arguing that you know the universe is fine-tuned for life because the physical parameters that allow for LAWKI are narrow and apparently arbitrary. Right? So the "odds" of them just "happening" to be the way they are are low indeed. Right? And we're saying that there's no way you can know that to be true, which you apparently agree with - there's just no telling - no evidence - about what physical parameters could support LAWDKI - life as we don't know it - because, by definition, we don't know that life. Ergo suggestions of "fine-tuning" imply considerably greater knowledge than you admit it's possible to have. So, where's your argument? If you've agreed with everything that supports our position and not yours, why do you insist on making a totally unsupported conclusion of "fine-tuning"? I repeat my argument - to know that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life, you would have to know exhaustively the ratio of universes that support life - not just LAWKI, which you seem to admit is not necessarily all the life that could be - compared to the universes that can't support life of any kind, not just LAWKI. You all seem pretty hung up on LAWKI, but we've established that since he have no idea of how large a subset of all possible life LAWKI is, I don't see why it's relevant in the least to the proposition that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
quote: Hi there Crash.As far as we know , and according to evidence, we are the only life. Aren't you a guy who sticks to evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Perhaps I am missing something from this debate.Is it the consensus of most posters here that the universe is fine tuned? I fail to see how,even though the properties of the universe are neccesary to allow for this universe we exist in,this tiny speck of water and dirt could be considered as part of a fine tuning for life when the incomphensibly vast expanses of the universe are devoid of life.
If the rest of the planets in our solar system were teeming with life it would still be not even a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the galaxy much less the cosmos.Life here on Earth is constantly riding on a razors edge and it is hardly inconcievable that one quick incoming asteroid or a close gamma ray burster could readily put our conjectures to rest.I think it is conceited to believe that the properties of the universe are neccesarily in place that life on Earth may flourish. To quote a great physicist "The stage is to big for the drama."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As far as we know , and according to evidence, we are the only life. Aren't you a guy who sticks to evidence? Of course I am. I'm also a guy who knows what evidence is. "As far as we know, we're the only life" isn't the same as "there's evidence that we're the only life." After all "as far as we know" consists of two planets around one star, in a corner of one galaxy, out of a universe with countless billions of both. The fact that we've only found life in one of the two places we've looked is hardly evidence that we're alone in the vast universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
That's right Mr Jack. That is one thing that is true. Even the archaea are LAWKI. We are all cousins. Yes, and no. No - When Hyperthermophiles were first discovered, they were a big shock to the biological community, no-one had any idea that life like that could exist. They work on energy channels fundamentally different to those in the everyday life we see around us, they can survive in conditions previously thought to be fatal to all forms of life. Yes - They are carbon based, they do use DNA/RNA, and have many other similarities. So, as you correctly state, we are cousins. I was not suggesting that they represented a complete non-LAWKI, but they do demonstrate that life can exist in very different ways to originally suspected. Hyperthermophiles could live on a great many more planets that more 'traditional' organisms. -Edit-: Also note that, by definition, all life we know about is LAWKI. [This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 11-05-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024