From: duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Logic and God (was: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:11:56 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas

In article <BtyMx3.BMn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.205004.17772@asl.dl.nec.com> duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes:
>
>
>>Yes, but my point would be that the reason we're able to conclude that
>>pyramids were built by humans is that they bear the marks of something
>>that be can compare with our current knowledge and conclude that it took
>>more than a hurricane to build them. We know that it took intelligent
>>creatures using some sort of tooling to construct them. If some one
>>came along and said that the pyramids obviously were formed by the
>>actions of glaciers we would strongly oppose their position. If someone
>>said given billions and billions of years they could have formed even
>>if the odds were 1 in 10^100 we would (almost dogmatically) tell them
>>they are nuts. So yes we are nondogmatically convinced that life began
>>or that a cell formed at some distant time in the past beyond our observation,
>>or that the pyramids were built but in your words do we "have the foggiest 
>>notion" of how it was done? 
>
>Read this very carefully, and remember it every time you comment on
>evolution:
>
>The analogy you try to make above is _wrong_.
>>
>>If our only present knowledge of complex things being produced (things of
>>a functional or mechanistic complexity) requires intelligent intervention
>>then when we see other things with these marks we can only conclude that
>>they originated in a similar fashion. 
>
>True.  If our only present knowledge, etc., etc., requires intellegent
>intervention, etc., etc.  However, Matthew never claimed that our only
>present knowledge of complex things being produced requires intelligent
>intervention.  In fact, this is _not_ the case.  It is the case for 
>pyramids, but not for life.  Why are pyramids not analogous to life
>in this case?  Because _pyramids cannot reproduce_.  Once we have
>reproduction, we have a mechanism for the production of "complex things"
>without intelligent intervention.  It's called natural selection.
>>
>>So my question then is this: What present mechanisms are there that
>>would strongly allow us to conclude that cells were organized by natural
>>(non intelligent) processes?
>>
>It's called natural selection.
>
>
>-- 
>* Andy Peters                     * "Evolution . . . does not support     *
>* Program in Evolution,           * atheism, Marxism, or fascism any more *
>*      Ecology, and Behavior      * than mathematics is a plank of the    *
>* Indiana University, Bloomington * Republican Party" -Dr. Mark Wilson    *

Andy, please note that the point of this whole thread has been the origin
of the first cell/life. As you say, reproduction is necessary for natural
selection but is natural selection  sufficient for abiogenesis?

I keep trying to discuss origin and keep getting post origin responses.

Thanks for your comments.
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA