ScholasticSpastic wrote:

rainbow wrote:
Love to, hack - but then we haven't quite established the truth of an objective reality.

Then we are not having a science discussion, but rather a more general sort of philosophical discussion. I will concede that science is a philosophy, but I would point out that not all (and probably not even most) philosophy is science. When discussing science, we pretty much premise all that follows upon the truth of an objective reality. Science just doesn't work without this premise. Given that science has been demonstrably more productive than any other philosophy, I think it reasonable to accept the premise of an objective reality until a more successful philosophy comes along.

Indeed, and it would be nice if rainbow stopped using these goal-post shifting strategies and actually engaged with the responses.

UnderConstruction wrote:
So we are still talking about purposes?

Yes.

In that case, do the oxygen atoms that react with the iron atoms demonstrate purpose in any of these examples?

No. How would iron atoms of a car move of themselves to a swamp?

What about if the car is take to a location where it is more likely to rust, but this factor is not considered and the real purpose of the trip had nothing to do with testing oxidisation rates in different conditions? Would it then be directed or undirected?

It would be undirected.

Point of order but I never said anything about boiling water. I said burning wood. There are numerous reasons why I might burn wood. Not all show any sign of purpose. For example, I could simply be careless with a match. Would the resulting forest fire and the related chemical reactions be directed or undirected?

To repeat, if it is done without purpose, it can't be directed.
...so if you burn wood to boil water to make tea, then you have a series of actions directed toward the purpose of making a cuppa.
Surely this is not difficult to understand?

Spearthrower wrote:

I've clearly shown that no teleology is required for either of those processes to occur.

Good.
Please explain how this is in contradiction of anything said so far.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

rainbow wrote:
Love to, hack - but then we haven't quite established the truth of an objective reality.

Then we are not having a science discussion, but rather a more general sort of philosophical discussion.

...which is exactly why I suggested to hack, that he takes that point of order to a philosophy forum. We don't want to derail this discussion, do we?

xrayzed wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Your entire argument rests upon the serial trials and one true sequence fallacies, and have done from the start.

I beg to differ. I have yet to see rainbow actually present an argument.

Quite. I'm still trying to get some to understand the idea of 'directed reactions' - which by the way I was asked to do.

How can I present any thesis if some people here don't understand the terminology used?

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
So we are still talking about purposes?

Yes.

In that case, do the oxygen atoms that react with the iron atoms demonstrate purpose in any of these examples?

No. How would iron atoms of a car move of themselves to a swamp?

What about if the car is take to a location where it is more likely to rust, but this factor is not considered and the real purpose of the trip had nothing to do with testing oxidisation rates in different conditions? Would it then be directed or undirected?

It would be undirected.

Point of order but I never said anything about boiling water. I said burning wood. There are numerous reasons why I might burn wood. Not all show any sign of purpose. For example, I could simply be careless with a match. Would the resulting forest fire and the related chemical reactions be directed or undirected?

To repeat, if it is done without purpose, it can't be directed.
...so if you burn wood to boil water to make tea, then you have a series of actions directed toward the purpose of making a cuppa.
Surely this is not difficult to understand?

It's only your own sense of personal incredulity that makes you think that life arising was a directed process, and not just a random happenstance on an insignificant little planet orbiting a boring little sun at the edge of an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

If you start with the premise that the universe exists for the sole purpose of creating you, then yes I can see how you would find that process to be unlikely here. However if you start with the idea that the universe is just here, and the rules are the rules, then it follows that life should arrive by random occurrence at multiple places throughout it, and each of these conscious entities will have people like you thinking how unlikely it all was.

This, I think, is your problem. You introduce your term 'Directed' because you believe the entire universe exists to create you, and therefore every step along the way is a step towards creating you.

I am not quite as egocentric as that.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

I've clearly shown that no teleology is required for either of those processes to occur.

Good.
Please explain how this is in contradiction of anything said so far.

'directed'

'Purpose'

95Theses wrote:
It's only your own sense of personal incredulity that makes you think that life arising was a directed process, and not just a random happenstance on an insignificant little planet orbiting a boring little sun at the edge of an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

Well 95The, it works like this - I present my views, you present your's. Would you like to rewrite your posting as YOUR THESIS, and then we can discuss it.

I'm not going to entertain strawman arguments.
OK?

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

I've clearly shown that no teleology is required for either of those processes to occur.

Good.
Please explain how this is in contradiction of anything said so far.

'directed'

'Purpose'

Sorry, not good enough.
Please show which statements are in contradiction, and why.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
So we are still talking about purposes?

Yes.

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

In that case, do the oxygen atoms that react with the iron atoms demonstrate purpose in any of these examples?

No. How would iron atoms of a car move of themselves to a swamp?

Why would the oxygen atoms care if they are in a swamp or not? They will still react in other environments, even if the reaction is more limited.

What about if the car is take to a location where it is more likely to rust, but this factor is not considered and the real purpose of the trip had nothing to do with testing oxidisation rates in different conditions? Would it then be directed or undirected?

It would be undirected.

So the exact same reaction can occur whether it is "directed" or "undirected". Interesting...

Point of order but I never said anything about boiling water. I said burning wood. There are numerous reasons why I might burn wood. Not all show any sign of purpose. For example, I could simply be careless with a match. Would the resulting forest fire and the related chemical reactions be directed or undirected?

To repeat, if it is done without purpose, it can't be directed.
...so if you burn wood to boil water to make tea, then you have a series of actions directed toward the purpose of making a cuppa.
Surely this is not difficult to understand?

But I never said anything about boiling water. Therefore, the "purpose" could be anything from the desire for a cup of tea to the need to warm myself to the sheer desire to satisfy my pyromaniac tendencies. Not to mention the possibility that there was no purpose at all. You brought boiling water into it, I did not.

Surely this is not too difficult to understand?

Furthermore, what we have is another example of something that can be "directed" and "undirected".

rainbow wrote:

95Theses wrote:
It's only your own sense of personal incredulity that makes you think that life arising was a directed process, and not just a random happenstance on an insignificant little planet orbiting a boring little sun at the edge of an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

Well 95The, it works like this - I present my views, you present your's. Would you like to rewrite your posting as YOUR THESIS, and then we can discuss it.

You have not exactly presented any views have you? Why don't you first clearly state your views? I still can't understand what we are really talking about. Are we talking about abiogenesis? Are we talking about directed and undirected processes, what is the meaning of the words directed and undirected, and similar?

If so, then we need to change the topic title to something that better describes this so-called discussion. [Any offers are welcome]. And if we go to the 'intelligent design' road then maybe this needs to be moved to the debunking section.

rainbow wrote:
I'm not going to entertain strawman arguments.
OK?

Which strawman argument is that?

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

I've clearly shown that no teleology is required for either of those processes to occur.

Good.
Please explain how this is in contradiction of anything said so far.

'directed'

'Purpose'

Sorry, not good enough.
Please show which statements are in contradiction, and why.

It's perfectly clear why rainbow, stop playing silly buggers.

'directed' and 'purpose' infer teleology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Teleology (from the Greek τέλος - telos, root: τελε-, "end, purpose") is the philosophical study of design and purpose. A teleological school of thought is one that holds all things to be designed for or directed toward a final result, that there is an inherent purpose or final cause for all that exists. The word teleology was first used by the German philosopher Christian Wolff in Philosophia rationalis, sive logica (1728).

I'm really quite bored with your continual evasiveness - the only person I ever met that so gloried in obfuscation was Doug.

Darkchilde wrote:Are we talking about abiogenesis? Are we talking about directed and undirected processes, what is the meaning of the words directed and undirected, and similar?

At least at the moment, I'd say we are banging our heads against a brick wall, trying to get Rainbow to define his terms. The minor derail into discussion of "directed" chemical reactions was my bad, but seemed reasonable in anticipation of this term coming up again as it was such a staple of his in past discussions. Who'da thunked it would 8 pages and counting just to get a straight answer out of Rainbow?

UnderConstruction wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Are we talking about abiogenesis? Are we talking about directed and undirected processes, what is the meaning of the words directed and undirected, and similar?

At least at the moment, I'd say we are banging our heads against a brick wall, trying to get Rainbow to define his terms. The minor derail into discussion of "directed" chemical reactions was my bad, but seemed reasonable in anticipation of this term coming up again as it was such a staple of his in past discussions. Who'da thunked it would 8 pages and counting just to get a straight answer out of Rainbow?

LOL, in the other forum we had two threads, and at least triple the amount of pages and posts and we still had not gotten a straight answer...

Darkchilde wrote:
LOL, in the other forum we had two threads, and at least triple the amount of pages and posts and we still had not gotten a straight answer...

It's at the point where I feel I am just satisfying attention-seeking and that no genuine discussion is going to arise out of this thread.

However, if rainbow can keep his outdated philosophy via the stalking horse of abiogenesis in one thread, then I shan't complain.

In other threads, we'll actually try to get somewhere!

Spearthrower wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:
LOL, in the other forum we had two threads, and at least triple the amount of pages and posts and we still had not gotten a straight answer...

It's at the point where I feel I am just satisfying attention-seeking and that no genuine discussion is going to arise out of this thread.

And increase your post count

Spearthrower wrote:
However, if rainbow can keep his outdated philosophy via the stalking horse of abiogenesis in one thread, then I shan't complain.

What philosophy? We are running around in circles trying to understand what exactly is rainbow's philosophy.

Spearthrower wrote:
In other threads, we'll actually try to get somewhere!

True. Consider that not all threads have posts by rainbow, so it is probably easier to get somewhere.

Darkchilde wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
However, if rainbow can keep his outdated philosophy via the stalking horse of abiogenesis in one thread, then I shan't complain.

What philosophy? We are running around in circles trying to understand what exactly is rainbow's philosophy.

He's given away far more than he thinks over the time he's been chatting with us. Now we're entering into a phase that indicates an Aristotelian bent, and it seems rainbow, like our old friend Doug, thinks that this is a valid attack on methodological naturalism.

However, as he spends so much time being carefully opaque in everything he writes, he's always in a position to move the goal-posts.

This thread should be moved to another forum - it's never going to have any chemistry in it.

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:

95Theses wrote:
It's only your own sense of personal incredulity that makes you think that life arising was a directed process, and not just a random happenstance on an insignificant little planet orbiting a boring little sun at the edge of an arm of an unremarkable galaxy.

Well 95The, it works like this - I present my views, you present your's. Would you like to rewrite your posting as YOUR THESIS, and then we can discuss it.

You have not exactly presented any views have you? Why don't you first clearly state your views? I still can't understand what we are really talking about. Are we talking about abiogenesis? Are we talking about directed and undirected processes, what is the meaning of the words directed and undirected, and similar?

Please read the thread. I was asked to define 'directed reactions', which I've done.
If you had followed this thread, you'd know that.
Why do you have to come in at such a late stage and demand explanations that have been given already?

I have already asked that the discussion go forward on the basis of my answer, but it gets derailed by further nitpicking.
If I don't answer I get accused of evasion, if I do I get accused of not getting to the point.

You staerted the thread, how about you espouse what you think about abiogenesis first?

I haven't seen you anywhere provide an answer for what you think. If you have I've missed it, I have to say i tire of your threads pretty quickly.

All I can make out is that you appear to behave regarding Abiogenesis in the same way as ID proponents do about 'Irreducible Complexity' in that you seek desperately to pick holes in science but resist the urge to shout 'THEREFORE GODDIDIT' while simultaneously offering no alternative hypothesis.