Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 13222 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #145 on: October 20, 2013, 12:41:56 PM »
I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.
For the last time, who are these people you keep referring to as Darwinists and Darwinians?

Edit: you just did it again in the post above - referencing Darwin evolution theory. This tells me again that you don't know what you are arguing against. THERE IS MORE TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION THAT NATURAL SELECTION.



Yes, I've acknowledged the mechanism of evolution is both random mutations and natural selection.  What are the additional mechanisms, if any?

Answer my first question first. I've asked repeatedly and you've ignored it each time. What are you referring to when you say "Darwinian" or "Darwinist" or Darwin evolutionist or whatever?

I essentially mean people who accept Darwin's theory and the modifications to it since Darwin.   What is your definition? 

I'd rather not get into semantics on every post because that is a debate trick used by some.  I think people understand who I mean when I say that.

Oh, my apologies for not being sure of your made up definition and expecting you to provide one. What on earth could I have been thinking?

I don't have a definition because I would never use that term. That's why I asked for yours, since you introduced the term to the discussion. If you want to avoid semantic debate, use terms as intended and supply a definition if you are asked for one.

Now I also asked you to provide me with one such person to discuss this with - good on you for detecting the sarcasm. You've more or less created a fake persona to argue against, thus my request that you produce one.

You insisted that I define something for you.  I did.  I asked you to define the same thing as you see it.  You say you wouldn't use that term.   But it is what it is regardless of what term.  There are people who are advocates of Darwin's beliefs.   You must call them something, it would seem.  Who else could I be talking about?   

What is this if not a semantics debate trick?    I'd rather focus on the empirical data and logical arguments for or against irreducible complexity which I thought was the topic of this thread. 

I only want to know the truth and I am in a relentless pursuit of the truth and therefore I must be open minded to all possibilities that have not been ruled out given none has been proven.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #146 on: October 20, 2013, 12:46:18 PM »
How many books or websites have you read by the intelligent design crowd  or people who dispute the validity of Darwin evolution?   I do understand the basic arguments Darwin people make because I am disputing them.
You can dispute something without understanding it - it's called an argument from ignorance, or argument from incredulity.  You've been doing it basically this entire thread.

Both intelligent design and irreducible complexity are arguments from incredulity.

I think you are missing the point.   The structure or system with irreducible complexity must have evolved to that state if Darwin evolution theory is valid.  Therefore,  it follows if the complex structure of system can not be reduced to parts that could have sequentially been added upon to form the final complex system or structure,  that evolution did not occur.    If I am wrong, walk me thru your logic.   I do not wish to be wrong and I have been wrong on things in the past.  I don't not fear being ignorant but I can only learn when somebody logically shows me I am wrong.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, it is an observation of the nature of a system or structure.  Do you deny that a complex structure or system will malfunction if just one part or process is removed? 

 Intelligent design is an argument.   IC is factual observation.

Do you accept that you are talking about how an animal works today? Not how it evolved?

I think you are missing the point.   The structure or system with irreducible complexity must have evolved from more simple structures with added functionality in a piecemeal and sequential manner to that complex state if Darwin evolution theory is valid.  Therefore,  it follows if the complex structure of system can not be reduced to parts that could have sequentially been added upon to form the final complex system or structure,  then evolution did not occur.    If I am wrong, walk me thru your logic.   I do not wish to be wrong and I have been wrong on things in the past.  I don't not fear being ignorant but I can only learn when somebody logically shows me I am wrong.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 12:48:14 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #147 on: October 20, 2013, 12:53:17 PM »
Quote
You insisted that I define something for you.  I did.  I asked you to define the same thing as you see it.  You say you wouldn't use that term.   But it is what it is regardless of what term.  There are people who are advocates of Darwin's beliefs.   You must call them something, it would seem.  Who else could I be talking about?
I don't have a need for that expression, because I don't discuss evolution in bits and pieces.   
Quote
What is this if not a semantics debate trick?   
It was a request that you clarify a term that you introduced to the discussion that does not have a set definition understood by everyone. I was very insistent on getting a response from you, as you have not yet provided any indication that you really do know what the ToE says as I have pointed out several times. Still waiting for you to get back to that request, by the way.
Quote
I'd rather focus on the empirical data and logical arguments for or against irreducible complexity which I thought was the topic of this thread. 
Yet you keep ignoring the posts that refute your position, without ever bothering to refute them with support that demonstrates that your position is valid to begin with.
Quote
I only want to know the truth
I'm not convinced of that.
Quote
and I am in a relentless pursuit of the truth
Well, you're relentless in picking and choosing what you will respond to, I'll give you that.
Quote
and therefore I must be open minded to all possibilities that have not been ruled out given none has been proven.
So you'll accept whatever validates your pre-suppositions, and ignore whatever doesn't? If we were discussing Zeus, would you take the same position?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +120/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #148 on: October 20, 2013, 12:55:01 PM »

My argument isn't "God did it",  it is natural selection and random mutations don't account for irreducible complexity so maybe there is a creator of some sort,
Irreducible complexity is a term fabricated by religious idiots who then state that it is a fact, without any evidence, and then use their manufactured worldview to support yet another manufactured worldview. Please understand: arguing from the standpoint of irreducible complexity is nothing more than a pseudo sophisticated attempt at argument from ignorance.
Quote
maybe there is another evolutionary pathway that does not involve random mutations and natural selection,
Maybe there is, and we have not discovered this yet. The best we could do is t say that we are not entirely certain as to the direct mechanisms of evolution, and that more evidence needs to be gathered. But, as more evidence is gathered, it all points in one direction: evolution has and still does occur and is the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
Quote
maybe there is another natural process that we have not uncovered that explains it.
Again, maybe. If this is the case, why not just say "I don't know" rather than assert that we are the result of an intelligent designer? If you want to assert Intelligent Design (as your arguments thus far clearly indicate) then you have to have the evidence to support this assertion, not just an empty philosophy based on made up terminology.
Quote
This demonstrates that I am open minded and not a zealot or ideologue on this issue. 
Well you certainly have done an effective job of convincing everyone here otherwise.

Quote
I did get into how the first lifeform originated
Which has nothing at all to do with evolution.
Quote
to make the point that we can not rule out a "God" because nobody has proven life can originate from non-life via a natural process of some sort.
Well, the explanations we have for virtually all other known phenomena was previously "God", and science has shown that it is "not God", ruling out God as an explanation seems far more helpful than including it. And using "God" as an explanation doesn't actually explain anything, doesn't predict anything, can't be applied in any meaningful way to the universe. It is simply not scientific. It is no different than saying "magic".
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #149 on: October 20, 2013, 12:55:17 PM »
I'm out for now -  have to get back to studying for my Biology test on the Theory of Evolution tomorrow.  ;D
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
  • Darwins +71/-10
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #150 on: October 20, 2013, 01:05:36 PM »
You have assumed that structures will breakdown based on what you see in animals today. It is not just the structure which changes but the function. If you really want to learn something you could try an online search for evolution of the bones in the inner ear. They were not always there but migrated. Also for the evolution of the eye. Every stage in the evolution of the eye still exists in various animals alive today. Try an online search.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5959
  • Darwins +643/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #151 on: October 20, 2013, 01:06:39 PM »
I'm out for now -  have to get back to studying for my Biology test on the Theory of Evolution tomorrow.  ;D

You should ask DrTesla if he could help.  :laugh:
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #152 on: October 20, 2013, 01:08:13 PM »
Resource:MIT Free online courses that teach biology

Now I'm really going to go study, with no help from DrT  :P
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4278
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #153 on: October 20, 2013, 01:10:08 PM »
I think you are missing the point.
No, she[1] (and by extension, I) understand your point quite well.

Quote from: DrTesla
The structure or system with irreducible complexity must have evolved from more simple structures with added functionality in a piecemeal and sequential manner to that complex state if Darwin evolution theory is valid.
Okay, this is a fallacy - you are assuming your conclusion (irreducible complexity) as part of your premise.  You do not get to claim by fiat that something is irreducibly complex unless you actually show evidence that it is.  So I will restate for you.  "A complex structure or system must have evolved from simpler structures by those structures incrementally adding functionality or increasing efficiency through a sequential process for evolutionary theory to be valid".

Quote from: DrTesla
Therefore,  it follows if the complex structure of system can not be reduced to parts
Incorrect.  Evolution doesn't work like Lego blocks, where you add or take away blocks in order to make something.  It doesn't work like plugging in a hard drive or extra RAM into a computer, or by plugging in a cornea or cones/rods into an eye.  You don't prove irreducible complexity by claiming that you have to be able to separate the eye into its various 'pieces' for evolution to be correct, and then claiming that you can't add or subtract pieces and still have a working eye.  That all proceeds from your circular assumption that the eye is like a machine, with parts that are plugged in.

Quote from: DrTesla
that could have sequentially been added upon to form the final complex system or structure,  then evolution did not occur.
Again, this is the same circular assumption you've been working from all along.  You're treating evolution as if it's like a process to build a machine by adding or subtracting parts, and it isn't.

Quote from: DrTesla
If I am wrong, walk me thru your logic.   I do not wish to be wrong and I have been wrong on things in the past.  I don't not fear being ignorant but I can only learn when somebody logically shows me I am wrong.
Look, we've been trying to show why you're wrong, and you keep blithely insisting that intelligent design and irreducible complexity have to be correct because they're 'logical' - to you.  The problem is, your logic is based on fallacies which you don't even know are fallacies due to your lack of knowledge.  In order to rectify that, you have to take the time to learn about things like evolution and biology, so you can understand that they really don't work the same way as designing and building a machine.
 1. I'm assuming from the picture, if I'm wrong, tell me
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5650
  • Darwins +677/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #154 on: October 20, 2013, 02:42:16 PM »
Dr Tesla, you do not understand what the theory of evolution is, or you would not keep bringing up the origin of the first life form. You have to demonstrate evidence that all life forms were created separately and in their final form at some point. There is no evidence that this happened. The evidence, including both fossils and DNA,  consistently support the TOE. You can't just keep saying that you don't know how it could be. You have to give some evidence that it happened some other way.

Evolution is about how life forms change, over time, in adaptation to the environment. There are tons of resources online that give step by step explanations, including the evidence that supports each step. Here is one from that well-known atheist propaganda arm, the American Museum of Natural History.[1]
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/human-origins/understanding-our-past/evolution-how-it-works

Here is an article that shows how DNA evidence supporting the divergence between chimps and humans is helping us to understand why people get cancer and chimps don't. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823142735.htm

Another point I want you to think about is this: we know that the TOE is valid because when we use it in applications, the TOE holds up. False theories do not produce consistent valid results. And the TOE has been consistently producing valid results so well, that no other theory comes anywhere close. The TOE works. That makes the TOE as true as science can be.

When we use the stuff we have learned by studying from the perspective of 150 years of evolutionary biology, we get really cool, useful applications. We get new cures for diseases, new prosthetics for amputees, new ways to track down criminals. We can solve murders that were committed decades ago. Damn, we can clone living beings now!  You can get an exact copy of your beloved dog, if you have enough money. We are now able to bring back extinct animal species-- have already done it with birds. That never would have happened without the TOE.

When the people who think that ID or some other theory is better develop some applications, ie, show that it actually has evidence in support of it, instead of trying to critique something that actually works, we will be willing to seriously consider it. 

We have largely eliminated polio and smallpox-- that alone should have the planet jumping for joy over the TOE. And, 99% of the planet is jumping for joy. Only a tiny minority of folks deny the TOE, and it is always over religious reasons. But no similar objections to germ theory, atomic theory, gravitational theory. Just evolutionary theory.....What is strangest is that the objections are mainly in the US where we, ironically, benefit more than anyone else from the TOE.

Someday in the near future, we will bring back extinct hominid species like Neanderthals. http://www.public.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/03_index.html
 
We have found that some of us have some of that extinct hominid DNA in us. I wonder what the ID/creationist crowd will say when there are other humanoid species walking around--when did the creator find the time to make them? And why?  :?
 1. Which, incidentally also sends each of us atheists weekly checks of $10,000, just to post pro-evolution crap known by all scientists to be false on this site. [Not.] &)
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 02:47:34 PM by nogodsforme »
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Graybeard

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
  • Darwins +407/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #155 on: October 20, 2013, 02:55:28 PM »
So are we down to you posting random quotes from people you've found online and ignoring the arguments we make?  That's called preaching, DrTesla, and it's against the rules of the forum.

It isn't preaching at all.  You guys have been been listed one citation after another on here while I have been essentially talking out loud and trying to explain things myself.   I just thought I wasn't explaining IC very well  because so many people were denying that a system or structure could be irreducibly complex.
I agree that your explanations of IC have been lacking clarity. Questions are often asked to elicit details that will clarify things in both the questioner's and the questioned's mind.

Perhaps you could respond to a few (esp. jaimehlers's) and then continue from there?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #156 on: October 20, 2013, 03:22:14 PM »
So are we down to you posting random quotes from people you've found online and ignoring the arguments we make?  That's called preaching, DrTesla, and it's against the rules of the forum.

It isn't preaching at all.  You guys have been been listed one citation after another on here while I have been essentially talking out loud and trying to explain things myself.   I just thought I wasn't explaining IC very well  because so many people were denying that a system or structure could be irreducibly complex.
I agree that your explanations of IC have been lacking clarity. Questions are often asked to elicit details that will clarify things in both the questioner's and the questioned's mind.

Perhaps you could respond to a few (esp. jaimehlers's) and then continue from there?


You can read up on irreducible complexity on your own at various websites.  I don't think it is that complicated.   Darwin himself said that if a system or structure could be shown to be irreducibly complex then it would prove his theory was wrong.   Scientists have submitted the bacterial flagellum as an example of a structure that is irreducibly complex.  Same with the eye.   And other examples.  I've been told that I don't understand evolution but clearly people on here don't understand arguments against evolution and these arguments have been out there for at least 17 years.    And there were several people who subscribe to evolution here that were confusing variation within species as the result of natural selection  with cross species evolution as the result of natural selection and random mutations.   I have shown respect to these people even as some of them argue that I don't know what I am talking about. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:42:10 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #157 on: October 20, 2013, 03:27:13 PM »
Oh goody you're back. Are you planning to sweep up the hanging chads you've littered about the thread yet?
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #158 on: October 20, 2013, 03:29:58 PM »
Irreducible complexity is a term fabricated by religious idiots who then state that it is a fact, without any evidence, and then use their manufactured worldview to support yet another manufactured worldview. Please understand: arguing from the standpoint of irreducible complexity is nothing more than a pseudo sophisticated attempt at argument from ignorance.

I would say "religious idiots" (love that civility there)  are trying to piggyback on the back of scientists who are poking logical holes in the Darwin evolution much like atheists who know nothing about science piggyback on the back of the scientists who agree with the evolution theory.   Keep in mind religious idiots have also asserted in the past that God invented evolution to create us so they are always going to argue the science matches their belief in God regardless if it is contradictory.   You dont' say evolution is invalid because some religious people think it is legit too, right?  But you do that when they support a theory that counters evolution.

I have not made any references to biblical God so to insert religion into this debate is strawman flogging.  You can flog it all day but it doesn't refute me because I have not inserted religion in here.    I  tend to believe in some kind of "creator" that can code DNA somehow but I do not claim to be able to prove that.  I don't believe in the afterlife.  What is a person who believes in some kind of "designer" or intelligent design process but doesn't believe in God?  Moreover, is it relevant if I making logical arguments not religious arguments?    I don't think the idea that there is an an intelligent designer of some sort is anymore "crazy" than the idea that life could have originated on its own from non-life and have the ability to reproduce from the start. 

  All I am doing on here is poking holes in the evolution theory.   If Darwin evolution isn't right doesn't not necessarily mean there is a God, and I have made this point numerous times.  People act that way though, on both sides.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:40:51 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #159 on: October 20, 2013, 03:31:10 PM »
You can read up on irreducible complexity on your own at various websites. 
You could do the same for basic biology. I even gave you a link.

My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #160 on: October 20, 2013, 03:39:36 PM »
Animals may mourn the loss of another that was always around but that doesn't mean they ponder the meaning of life and think about what happens when they die.

Actually you are right and I concede.  Humans, to the best of my knowledge, are the only species that has "pondered" what might befall them after death and has invented gods and heavens etc to fill the void.  A complete bumpluck to satisfy wishful thinking.
Git mit uns

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #161 on: October 20, 2013, 03:40:34 PM »
ID does not merit the designation of "theory", not the way you are trying to use it. Theory is not applicable and you've already been given the explanation of why. Could you do us the courtesy of reading what is written to you before you make snippy remarks about "loving the civility", you rude little twerp?

Inigo Montoya stopped by and asked me to give you a message. He said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."  8)
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #162 on: October 20, 2013, 03:45:12 PM »
You can read up on irreducible complexity on your own at various websites. 
You could do the same for basic biology. I even gave you a link.

lol, you guys want me to respond to all of you at once and read all of your many citiations at the same time.  Meanwhile I have to eat and try to spend some time off the computer on a nice sunny day.   I am only a man, ostensibly evolved from simpler lifeforms.  :)
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #163 on: October 20, 2013, 03:50:04 PM »
ID does not merit the designation of "theory", not the way you are trying to use it. Theory is not applicable and you've already been given the explanation of why. Could you do us the courtesy of reading what is written to you before you make snippy remarks about "loving the civility", you rude little twerp?

Inigo Montoya stopped by and asked me to give you a message. He said "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."  8)

I have not gotten into the bulk of intelligent design outside of their argument of irreducible complexity which Darwin understood would be an obstacle if IC occurs.  I quoted Darwin saying this in a previous post.   He assumed there was no IC, but he didn't know anything about DNA and molecular biology.   

I might peruse the Google machine for some alternative explanations because sometimes how something is conveyed makes a difference in the message getting across to others.

I don't think referring to Christians as "religious idiots"  is an act of civility or necessary.  They have a different belief about the afterlife and the origin of life than you,  so what?   Why make it a contentious thing.   They don't even claim to be able to prove it, they take it on faith. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 03:53:08 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #164 on: October 20, 2013, 03:52:50 PM »
Well, you could accept the request for a one-on-one debate that One Above All has asked you for.

Or you could just start posting actual responses. It's not like you haven't had plenty to say. why is so little of it in response to what has been asked of you? Notice that I continue asking questions? It's because you keep pretending you aren't aware of them, while responding to my posts. It's a fun distraction for me to see how long you can avoid addressing anything of substance in any of the posts you've been avoiding.

My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #165 on: October 20, 2013, 03:57:21 PM »
I might peruse the Google machine for
a basic primer in Biology perhaps?
Quote
some alternative explanations
Start with the theory of evolution.
Quote
because sometimes how something is conveyed makes a difference in the message getting across to others.
I'm going to suggest, once again, that you are mistaking the source of the problem.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #166 on: October 20, 2013, 03:57:33 PM »
Well, you could accept the request for a one-on-one debate that One Above All has asked you for.

Or you could just start posting actual responses. It's not like you haven't had plenty to say. why is so little of it in response to what has been asked of you? Notice that I continue asking questions? It's because you keep pretending you aren't aware of them, while responding to my posts. It's a fun distraction for me to see how long you can avoid addressing anything of substance in any of the posts you've been avoiding.

I've been responding to numerous people on here it seems.  I just respond to the posts that I see which are generally the  most recent ones.   I plan to respond to some that I haven't if I find them good arguments and not just a personal insult of some kind.   Some of the arguments are they just don't accept something I have said and I obviously cannot force you to accept anything I say.   So I could just repeat it but then you will repeat your previuos response to it and round and round we go.  At some point you just have to let the audience decide who has the better argument and I can live with them thinking me a fool.   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #167 on: October 20, 2013, 04:03:36 PM »
Animals may mourn the loss of another that was always around but that doesn't mean they ponder the meaning of life and think about what happens when they die.

Actually you are right and I concede.  Humans, to the best of my knowledge, are the only species that has "pondered" what might befall them after death and has invented gods and heavens etc to fill the void.  A complete bumpluck to satisfy wishful thinking.

the ability to ponder things and come to wrong conclusions is still evidence of a higher lifeform than one who cannot be right or wrong about something and "invent" various imaginary things. 

but if you want to believe you are no different from a cockroach then don't let me stop you.  lol  I don't see what the problem is in conceding humans at the most evolved species, or most complex creation, depending on how you see our origin.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +154/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #168 on: October 20, 2013, 04:04:19 PM »
Well, you could accept the request for a one-on-one debate that One Above All has asked you for.

Or you could just start posting actual responses. It's not like you haven't had plenty to say. why is so little of it in response to what has been asked of you? Notice that I continue asking questions? It's because you keep pretending you aren't aware of them, while responding to my posts. It's a fun distraction for me to see how long you can avoid addressing anything of substance in any of the posts you've been avoiding.

I've been responding to numerous people on here it seems.  I just respond to the posts that I see which are generally the  most recent ones.   I plan to respond to some that I haven't if I find them good arguments and not just a personal insult of some kind.   Some of the arguments are they just don't accept something I have said and I obviously cannot force you to accept anything I say.   So I could just repeat it but then you will repeat your previuos response to it and round and round we go.  At some point you just have to let the audience decide who has the better argument and I can live with them thinking me a fool.

Dude, so far I'm not saying you're a fool. I am saying, quite clearly, that you have not given any reader any reason to think you know what you are talking about. I've asked you repeatedly to provide something that will demonstrate that you understand what the ToE says, and you've ignored me every time. What makes you think you are qualified to judge a good argument? You can't even clearly prove that you understand the topic at hand!



My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #169 on: October 20, 2013, 04:07:31 PM »
Well, you could accept the request for a one-on-one debate that One Above All has asked you for.

Or you could just start posting actual responses. It's not like you haven't had plenty to say. why is so little of it in response to what has been asked of you? Notice that I continue asking questions? It's because you keep pretending you aren't aware of them, while responding to my posts. It's a fun distraction for me to see how long you can avoid addressing anything of substance in any of the posts you've been avoiding.

 
I've been responding to numerous people on here it seems.  I just respond to the posts that I see which are generally the  most recent ones.   I plan to respond to some that I haven't if I find them good arguments and not just a personal insult of some kind.   Some of the arguments are they just don't accept something I have said and I obviously cannot force you to accept anything I say.   So I could just repeat it but then you will repeat your previuos response to it and round and round we go.  At some point you just have to let the audience decide who has the better argument and I can live with them thinking me a fool.

Dude, so far I'm not saying you're a fool. I am saying, quite clearly, that you have not given any reader any reason to think you know what you are talking about. I've asked you repeatedly to provide something that will demonstrate that you understand what the ToE says, and you've ignored me every time. What makes you think you are qualified to judge a good argument? You can't even clearly prove that you understand the topic at hand!

Ok, well I have demonstrated a basic understanding of what the TOE.   You don't accept that.  What is it if not the idea the lifeforms became more complex over time due to random mutations and natural selection.   Do you find that too simplistic?  Or do you think that is the wrong definition.   I want to know because why would I want to try to refute something nobody has proposed.   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #170 on: October 20, 2013, 04:09:38 PM »
Not the actual mechanism, but surely the fact that there was a mechanism was stating the obvious, even back then?

Was it?

I'd have thought so, yes. But I'm willing to be corrected.

and a "designer" has no need of a mechanism by which to transfer traits that makes it look exactly as if organisms shared a common ancestry, and where the relationships are exactly as are evident elsewhere in nature (in anatomy, and in the fossil record), unless the "designer" in question wanted us to believe that evolutionary Theory were essentially true and that organisms shared a common ancestry. Which raises the question "why would such an entity do so, save to yank our collective chains?"

I've never understood why designer and common ancestry have to be mutually exclusive.

Logically, I don't think common ancestry and a Creator have to be mutually exclusive. There's no obvious incompatibility between a Deistic "Creator" and common ancestry. And there are plenty of Deists out there who would adopt this position.

However, the more you move into specific sets of quite complex claims about said "Creator", the more baggage those notions carry and the greater the risk to their compatibility with the notion of common ancestry. The minute said "Creator" intervenes in the natural process and starts "designing" organisms, you're bypassing natural selection. What you have is either a kind of artificial selection (like we've done with wheat, dogs, cats, horses, cattle and sheep) or something akin to genetic modification (like we've done with an assortment of agricultural products). At that point you're no longer talking about evolution; and in the latter case, even the notion of common ancestry starts to look shaky.

This is why supposed "refutations" of evolutionary Theory, and common misconceptions about it, stem chiefly from certain brands of monotheism, where there are clear doctrinal views on the question of how the world and humanity emerged. Those brands of monotheism operate on the premise that if any part of their canon is wrong, then their God cannot be true, and the entire edifice of their belief-system comes crumbling down.

And it seems that they treat the bits of science they don't like in the same way. Despite numerous attempts to explain to such people that abiogenesis and evolutionary Theory are different things, that plate tectonics and geology are also not the same as evolutionary Theory, and that cosmology is as far from evolutionary Theory as one can possibly get and still be in a scientific discipline (pretty much the only ways to go from cosmology are maths and philosophy), these kinds of theists demand that science - in the guise of its biggest bugbear for them, which is evolutionary Theory - provide some sort of overarching omni-explanatory narrative, that encompasses absolutely everything from the origin of the Universe, to the existence of carrots, handbags, cheese, toilets, Russians, planets, hamsters, weddings, poets, Stalin, Kuala Lumpur and Internet memes, to why it's a bad idea to act like a jerk and park across two bays in an shopping mall parking lot, to what the point is of anything and what meaning is there to life anyway.

In short, these people see scientific advancement as a threat to their "holy book", are looking for a kind of scientific "holy book" to compare with the one they've currently got. Some of them are genuinely seeking answers, though from a position of such overwhelming alienness that communication is often slow, frustrating, and very often heated. But they need those answers. They need that narrative, at least as compelling, at least as moving as they one they have. And if science can't do that, well, science has failed. That's how the thinking goes.

The problem is that the human quest to find out how the natural world works doesn't easily provide such a nice, neat narrative. Reality isn't obliged to work that way. Sacred texts and doctrines work that way, pandering to human desires for explanations because essentially, they were constructed by humans, for humans. The Universe, on the other hand, wasn't so obviously constructed with humans in mind, nor is it under any obligation to reveal its secrets to humans - so those secrets are harder to obtain, and not necessarily obtained in an order that gives us a nice neat story to tell.

Further, anyone coming to a forum like this with such a mountain of questions, combined with such a poor grasp of evolutionary Theory (often made worse by having been fed misrepresentations of the same by well-meaning peers) and often armed with a series of somewhat random and haphazard questions seeking explanations for everything from cosmology to sociology, inserted into discussions like random trap-doors that take one to an entirely new level of labyrinthine discourse, often try to bite off more than they can chew.

It's hard enough to resolve just one issue, such as irreducible complexity, unless there's a genuine willingness on the part of the person concerned to discard their own preconceptions, do some research and learn why the objection they've raised is silly (and frankly, it invariably is). It's made ten times worse when they fire off an entire volley of barely-related questions, many of the answers to which apparently fall on deaf ears. And it's even worse when none of the answers elicited really satisfy the understated or even unstated desire for an overarching narrative, for them to have something to plug into their matrix as a replacement for the bits of their own creed that they're not really comfortable with any longer, but are not confident enough to shed.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Online One Above All

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9429
  • Darwins +223/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #171 on: October 20, 2013, 04:15:14 PM »
<snip>

That still doesn't answer the question. I'll post it in big, bold letters for you:
DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE FOR A ONE-ON-ONE DEBATE?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #172 on: October 20, 2013, 04:19:38 PM »
<snip>

That still doesn't answer the question. I'll post it in big, bold letters for you:
DO YOU, OR DO YOU NOT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE FOR A ONE-ON-ONE DEBATE?

I find it unseemly for you to assert that I should only debate with one person on here because it assumes that you are the superior debater of your position which may not be true.  I am trying to answer all the criticisms by everybody but it takes some time.  Many of them are the same points that I've addressed already  or the same argument expressed in a different way.   

If I am not mistaken, you sent me a negative Darwin with a nastygram wishing sterilization on me which was most vile. So really why should I  want to talk to you and not other polite people
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 04:21:30 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #173 on: October 20, 2013, 04:20:18 PM »
Ok, well I have demonstrated a basic understanding of what the TOE.   You don't accept that.  What is it if not the idea the lifeforms became more complex over time due to random mutations and natural selection.   Do you find that too simplistic?  Or do you think that is the wrong definition.   I want to know because why would I want to try to refute something nobody has proposed.

I think it would be more accurate to say that populations change over time due to genetic changes (random mutation is one mechanism of genetic change, but it's not the only one) combined with natural selection. Those populations may "become more complex" as a consequence of "arms races" between different species, though complexity isn't exactly a prerequisite, just a likely outcome in some scenarios.

Going back to IC, though, since this still isn't resolved. Seriously, check out the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board trial transcript on the subject of IC, and/or check out Ken Miller's video:



Check up on the Wikipedia entry. Look it up on TalkOrigins (where, incidentally, you'll probably find the answers to a great many other questions you have about the ToE). IC is totally discredited as a postulate, overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific establishment, and was absolutely demolished in court - as I already mentioned several pages ago, though sadly my post wasn't one of those deemed worthy of a reply, it seems.

You don't need to have us tell you all this, though: if you can find Harun Yahya (shame on you) using a search engine, you can find the Web sites that'll tell you in no uncertain terms why IC is bunk.

You can if you like keep asserting that black is white and that IC has some actual substance behind it, but if you do so, you are frankly wrong, you will have proven yourself incapable of error-correction, and discussion will get nowhere fast.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 04:24:19 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.