Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 30249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1869
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2013, 09:37:30 AM »
Thanks for the response Jag.

I was more questioning the idea that shared physical traits suggests one common physical ancestor - why can't a creator have created many beings with shared physical traits?

Good to see you back mm. I was thinking about you just a few days ago, and here you are!

I'm struggling to find a way to answer this that doesn't sound sarcastic. My first response is, I guess he could, because as soon as you attribute anything to a creator, anything is possible in theory. Not a satisfying response for either of us.

But a better answer turns the question back to you. Why on earth would one do so? This is where it always breaks down for me - if your hypothesis is right, then that looks like evidence of a creator that is deliberately trying to hide itself from it's creation. Why would it do so? Doesn't that point toward a creator that does not want to be acknowledged if it's going to such lengths to hide it's involvement?

The answers suggested by ToE explain what we've found to date. ID explains that despite all the things that science has provided tangible proof of (see any of nogod's posts on evolution for concrete examples, she's a font of info on this topic) the biblical creation stories are the "real" truth.

Edited to add: we might be talking about ID in different ways. I'm speaking more of the ID religious movement, and I think you are speaking more of your personal beliefs. Clarify?
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 09:39:33 AM by Jag »
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #59 on: October 20, 2013, 09:37:58 AM »
When I see these lifeforms debating the origin of life, you'll have a point.  :)

To boldly mangle a  Dr. Dolittle quote, if you could talk to the animals, learn their languages, you might be surprised to discover what they talk about.  ;)

We humans tend to have a very narrow view of what qualifies as intelligence. We're a single species, inhabiting a single planet, in a single solar system, in a single galaxy, in the entirety of the universe. AND we think it all exists for, or because of, us. Pretty egotistical, don't you think? We got that idea out of our own heads by the way, long before we had any clue that other planets exist, much less other solar systems, much less.... you get the point.

Animals communicate with non-verbal communication but humans do that too and it isn't the best way to communicate, especially more complicated thoughts. 

The only way it seems animals could communicate efficiently is if they are telepathic and can read each others minds but that seems unlikely. 

Humans are the only lifeform with self awarnness.   I don't think animals sit around and ponder philosophy and what not.  Animals do have a certain intelligence and they can learn things but no where near the level of humans.   You can only learn so much if you can't read information.   :)
"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 #60 on: October 20, 2013, 09:43:23 AM »

A larger brain space (fossil record shows it evolved) and the invention of writing.  That's not a huge differentiation from apes, some of which have been shown to be faster and more accurate at certain math tasks than humans, and whales who can communicate across vast distances of ocean.  ...

The fossil record has shown that apes are more accurate at math tasks?  Apes can do math?  C'mon man. ...[/quote]


Quote from: William
  Not all humans are lucky enough to be sufficiently educated (exposed to knowledge accumulated before them by others) to be equipped to debate the origins of life.  If you and I were members of these tribes ...

You are conflating ignorance in humans  with lack of intelligence similar to animals.  These people have no doubt pondered God in on way or another because all humans think about death.   I don't think there is any evidence animals do. 
"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 magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #61 on: October 20, 2013, 09:44:16 AM »

Good to see you back mm. I was thinking about you just a few days ago, and here you are!


Quesi said the same thing. Hmm.

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble..
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #62 on: October 20, 2013, 09:49:13 AM »


I don't know what the evolution theory says about that.  I meant that as an implied question more or less.   I don't know how evolution would explain it as I understand evolution and I have the basic high school understanding of evolution, just a real basic overview. At least I think I do. 

I thought natural selection "selected" beneficial traits that would arise through mutations and I could not understand how reproduction was necessary for a specific lifeform's survival in its environment.     I've talked to advocates of evolution about this in the past, some friends and then some people on  a yahoo chatroom,  and I thought they said that reproduction is about survival of the lifeform,  which seems to be conflating survival with reproduction.    But, I guess if the lifeform does not reproduce,  evolution isn't even possible at all  as the lifeform will go extinct.       I don't know....I've always been confused about this aspect.

Why are you arguing about a subject you know nothing about? Get a book about evolution. Don't expect to learn everything from online chat rooms.

Some hints for you. Intelligent Design is a fraud. Irreducible complexity is a fraud. The people who spread this know that it is a fraud. They hope that you know nothing about evolution so they can rope you in. If you don't want to be conned read some books about evolution.
The Foxy Freedom 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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #63 on: October 20, 2013, 09:52:06 AM »
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm
"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: 1869
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #64 on: October 20, 2013, 09:53:41 AM »
Hi Dr T, and welcome. (Edited to add: this is on reply to post @8:37:58, this topic took off quickly!)

I disagree with a lot of what you posted mostly because we don't share certain assumptions. I contend that intelligence is not the right word for what you are talking about - you are measuring intelligence by what is useful and important for YOU to know to survive and perhaps even thrive in your environment. I would call that knowledge, not intelligence, as it is specific to circumstances. Before you bellow "oh bullsh!t", let me illustrate:

I have all the skills, knowledge, and information to conduct my daily life in the environment I live in. These skills will serve me fine pretty much anywhere in the developed world, interacting with human beings that have similar environments. HOWEVER, those skills, which are central to my survival, are almost useless when taken out of my familiar surroundings. Plop me down in a third world country on my own and I could easily be dead inside of a week. I lack the necessary knowledge to survive in an environment that is so dissimilar to my own - ignore the language barrier, I'm literally too spoiled by my environment to adapt without a great deal of help from people who know useful things that I do not know. They probably lack a formal education but that does not mean they lack intelligence. In these circumstances, the ones that matter to THEIR survival, they are FAR more intelligent than I, despite my assumed educational advantage.

Animals know what they need to know to survive in their environment, some better than others. You can't measure animal intelligence by human standards, the needs being served are not the same, so the knowledge needed is not the same.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 09:55:54 AM by Jag »
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #65 on: October 20, 2013, 09:54:32 AM »
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm

Why are you quoting frauds? Do you like being conned?
The Foxy Freedom 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 shnozzola

Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2013, 10:01:15 AM »
Dr. Tesla,
   I know a little bit about plants, so I'll stick to them, although the eye seems to always create the stir.

   Maybe a poor example, but anyway - there is a weed known as mare's tail, or horseweed.   Roundup was developed in 1974.  For years horseweed was easily killed by Glyphosate (Roundup).  But these days almost all of this weed we now see where there is intensive agriculture is resistant to Roundup. Most of us know how well Roundup works to control common succulent weeds (not so good on trees).  For mare's tail to become resistant so quickly is a good simple example of evolution over a very small time.  Even though it has only become resistant to the chemical glyphosate, this is the step by step advancement of evolution that takes place with seeds receiving the genetic codes necessary to  pass on whatever attribute protects the plant from Roundup.
 

  Let's say in 150 years this weed mare's tail has become a scurge of the world, resistant to every herbicide, requiring physical removal.  IDists could say - see, how could one weed be resistant to all these newly developed chemicals?  It had to be designed.

Edit:  As many of us came from Christian backgrounds and once believed differently, I'm just asking you to keep an open mind.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 10:10:39 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2013, 10:01:21 AM »
I don't think you can deny that irreducible complexity exists.

Irreducible complexity does not exist.  The concept is intellectually bankrupt.

Quote
It makes sense that complicated things would need the parts to be assembled at once in such a way that they work  for it to have any functionality.

Just because something "makes sense" to you does not mean it is true.  There are many things that are true that are counterintuitive to common sense.

Quote
A partially formed structure would have been of no use.   Evolution by natural selection working on random mutations could not have assembled all the parts at once.

How the eye evolved has been quite thoroughly documented for many years.  Please do your research before saying things like this.

Quote
It isn't logical that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to achieve something even intelligent people could not design, like an eye for vision.

Seriously?  You don't think that human beings could design an eye?  That's just crazy.

Quote
Evolution can't explain how the first lifeform was created and evolutionist have not proven their theory that life originated on its own in some kind of chemical reaction.

Evolution does not address this question, nor does it claim to.  Evolution explains why and how lifeforms change over time, not how life began -- that is a separate field known as abiogenesis.  That you do not understand this is a clear indication that you know very little about the topic.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2013, 10:01:54 AM »


I don't know what the evolution theory says about that.  I meant that as an implied question more or less.   I don't know how evolution would explain it as I understand evolution and I have the basic high school understanding of evolution, just a real basic overview. At least I think I do. 

I thought natural selection "selected" beneficial traits that would arise through mutations and I could not understand how reproduction was necessary for a specific lifeform's survival in its environment.     I've talked to advocates of evolution about this in the past, some friends and then some people on  a yahoo chatroom,  and I thought they said that reproduction is about survival of the lifeform,  which seems to be conflating survival with reproduction.    But, I guess if the lifeform does not reproduce,  evolution isn't even possible at all  as the lifeform will go extinct.       I don't know....I've always been confused about this aspect.

Why are you arguing about a subject you know nothing about? Get a book about evolution. Don't expect to learn everything from online chat rooms.

Some hints for you. Intelligent Design is a fraud. Irreducible complexity is a fraud. The people who spread this know that it is a fraud. They hope that you know nothing about evolution so they can rope you in. If you don't want to be conned read some books about evolution.

Evolutionists have been using frauds for decades, including the famous pepper moth experiment that is probably still in our kiddie's textbooks.   Here is a good summary of some of these fraudulent arguments used and some of the evidence against evolution:   www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Many Neo-Darwinists are directly or indirectly admitting they understand IC is something they need to address.  I think Darwin himself saw this as an obstacle.     IC can't be a fraud because we know a partially formed car is not going to function like a car and thus it is useless.   All the parts need to be present at once and able to work with each other for a complex structure / enzyme to have its functionality.    Darwian Evolution suggests things are assembled in a piecemeal and additive way but that can't explain IC.

Books about evolution are generally nothing but propaganda where they don't  prove anything but they speculate all the time.  If you read Darwin himself, you see he speculates and using conjecture throughout.   A lot of "imagine this"  and this "might"  have happened, but that means it might not and probably not. ?
"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 #69 on: October 20, 2013, 10:09:13 AM »
I don't think you can deny that irreducible complexity exists.

Irreducible complexity does not exist.  The concept is intellectually bankrupt.

Quote
It makes sense that complicated things would need the parts to be assembled at once in such a way that they work  for it to have any functionality.

Just because something "makes sense" to you does not mean it is true.  There are many things that are true that are counterintuitive to common sense.

Quote
A partially formed structure would have been of no use.   Evolution by natural selection working on random mutations could not have assembled all the parts at once.

How the eye evolved has been quite thoroughly documented for many years.  Please do your research before saying things like this.

Quote
It isn't logical that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to achieve something even intelligent people could not design, like an eye for vision.

Seriously?  You don't think that human beings could design an eye?  That's just crazy.

Quote
Evolution can't explain how the first lifeform was created and evolutionist have not proven their theory that life originated on its own in some kind of chemical reaction.

Evolution does not address this question, nor does it claim to.  Evolution explains why and how lifeforms change over time, not how life began -- that is a separate field known as abiogenesis.  That you do not understand this is a clear indication that you know very little about the topic.

I think abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory.  But regardless, my central point holds:  If we cannot prove that life originated as the result of some kind of freak accident in nature, which doesn't seem very likely,  then we can't rule out a "creator" of some sort.   And if the first lifeform was created, why couldn't many more be created?   You don't have to agree with me but I think you do have to concede I have a certain logic here.   :)

Humans can invent something like the eye?   So why are there still blind people? 
"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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2013, 10:10:12 AM »
... all humans think about death.  I don't think there is any evidence animals do.

Think harder.  You've not been out and about much have you? ;D
Prey animals deliberately avoid situations that could result in death.  When they are being attacked you can see the fear on their faces and body language.
Elephants clearly mourn their dead.
Chimps punish some members of their troop by killing them - they don't stop attacking till the offender is dead.

It's quite clear to me many animals know what the difference between life and death is.
Git mit uns

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2013, 10:11:41 AM »
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm

Why are you quoting frauds? Do you like being conned?

Always address the argument.  It doesn't matter who makes the argument if the argument is legit.   I don't know this people at this website but their points seem to be legit.  If  not, tell us why not.   
"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 #72 on: October 20, 2013, 10:13:59 AM »
... all humans think about death.  I don't think there is any evidence animals do.

Think harder.  You've not been out and about much have you? ;D
Prey animals deliberately avoid situations that could result in death.  When they are being attacked you can see the fear on their faces and body language.
Elephants clearly mourn their dead.
Chimps punish some members of their troop by killing them - they don't stop attacking till the offender is dead.

It's quite clear to me many animals know what the difference between life and death is.

I think fear and the survival instinct is much different from pondering death and what happens when we die.   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.
"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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2013, 10:17:06 AM »


I don't know what the evolution theory says about that.  I meant that as an implied question more or less.   I don't know how evolution would explain it as I understand evolution and I have the basic high school understanding of evolution, just a real basic overview. At least I think I do. 

I thought natural selection "selected" beneficial traits that would arise through mutations and I could not understand how reproduction was necessary for a specific lifeform's survival in its environment.     I've talked to advocates of evolution about this in the past, some friends and then some people on  a yahoo chatroom,  and I thought they said that reproduction is about survival of the lifeform,  which seems to be conflating survival with reproduction.    But, I guess if the lifeform does not reproduce,  evolution isn't even possible at all  as the lifeform will go extinct.       I don't know....I've always been confused about this aspect.

Why are you arguing about a subject you know nothing about? Get a book about evolution. Don't expect to learn everything from online chat rooms.

Some hints for you. Intelligent Design is a fraud. Irreducible complexity is a fraud. The people who spread this know that it is a fraud. They hope that you know nothing about evolution so they can rope you in. If you don't want to be conned read some books about evolution.

Evolutionists have been using frauds for decades, including the famous pepper moth experiment that is probably still in our kiddie's textbooks.   Here is a good summary of some of these fraudulent arguments used and some of the evidence against evolution:   www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Many Neo-Darwinists are directly or indirectly admitting they understand IC is something they need to address.  I think Darwin himself saw this as an obstacle.    IC can't be a fraud because we know a partially formed car is not going to function like a car and thus it is useless.  All the parts need to be present at once and able to work with each other for a complex structure / enzyme to have its functionality.    Darwian Evolution suggests things are assembled in a piecemeal and additive way but that can't explain IC.

Books about evolution are generally nothing but propaganda where they don't  prove anything but they speculate all the time.  If you read Darwin himself, you see he speculates and using conjecture throughout.   A lot of "imagine this"  and this "might"  have happened, but that means it might not and probably not. ?

A car is not an animal.

Darwin wrote long before DNA was discovered. He was honest so what do you expect.

Why do you think books about evolution are propaganda? What is the purpose of the propaganda? Why would everyone be independently involved in this propaganda? And most important what are your motives for arguing about a subject you know nothing about?
The Foxy Freedom 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 pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2013, 10:17:48 AM »
I think abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory.

No, it isn't.  It's a separate field.  Abiogenesis and evolution have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Quote
But regardless, my central point holds:  If we cannot prove that life originated as the result of some kind of freak accident in nature, which doesn't seem very likely,  then we can't rule out a "creator" of some sort.

Who says that we cannot prove that life originated by naturalistic processes?

Quote
And if the first lifeform was created, why couldn't many more be created?   You don't have to agree with me but I think you do have to concede I have a certain logic here.   :)

Since your premises are unsound, I most certainly do not have to make any such concession.

Quote
Humans can invent something like the eye?   So why are there still blind people?

Because it has only been in recent years that technology and research into pertinent fields has brought us within reach of creating artificial eyes.

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

Not being a futurist, I can't say how long it will be before one or more of the fourteen areas of research listed on that page will succeed in creating a bionic eye, but it is going to happen.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1561
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #75 on: October 20, 2013, 10:19:19 AM »
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm

Why are you quoting frauds? Do you like being conned?

Always address the argument.  It doesn't matter who makes the argument if the argument is legit.   I don't know this people at this website but their points seem to be legit.  If  not, tell us why not.

You are making the argument and the issue is why you are arguing about a subject you don't know.
The Foxy Freedom 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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1869
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #76 on: October 20, 2013, 10:24:26 AM »
I think abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory. 
Think what you want, but don't assume that because you think it, it must be true. Abiogenesis is not "part of the evolution theory" as you put it, and your mistake indicates that you are one of the many people who only think you know what you are arguing against.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #77 on: October 20, 2013, 10:24:37 AM »


I don't know what the evolution theory says about that.  I meant that as an implied question more or less.   I don't know how evolution would explain it as I understand evolution and I have the basic high school understanding of evolution, just a real basic overview. At least I think I do. 

I thought natural selection "selected" beneficial traits that would arise through mutations and I could not understand how reproduction was necessary for a specific lifeform's survival in its environment.     I've talked to advocates of evolution about this in the past, some friends and then some people on  a yahoo chatroom,  and I thought they said that reproduction is about survival of the lifeform,  which seems to be conflating survival with reproduction.    But, I guess if the lifeform does not reproduce,  evolution isn't even possible at all  as the lifeform will go extinct.       I don't know....I've always been confused about this aspect.

Why are you arguing about a subject you know nothing about? Get a book about evolution. Don't expect to learn everything from online chat rooms.

Some hints for you. Intelligent Design is a fraud. Irreducible complexity is a fraud. The people who spread this know that it is a fraud. They hope that you know nothing about evolution so they can rope you in. If you don't want to be conned read some books about evolution.

Evolutionists have been using frauds for decades, including the famous pepper moth experiment that is probably still in our kiddie's textbooks.   Here is a good summary of some of these fraudulent arguments used and some of the evidence against evolution:   www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Many Neo-Darwinists are directly or indirectly admitting they understand IC is something they need to address.  I think Darwin himself saw this as an obstacle.    IC can't be a fraud because we know a partially formed car is not going to function like a car and thus it is useless.  All the parts need to be present at once and able to work with each other for a complex structure / enzyme to have its functionality.    Darwian Evolution suggests things are assembled in a piecemeal and additive way but that can't explain IC.

Books about evolution are generally nothing but propaganda where they don't  prove anything but they speculate all the time.  If you read Darwin himself, you see he speculates and using conjecture throughout.   A lot of "imagine this"  and this "might"  have happened, but that means it might not and probably not. ?

A car is not an animal.

Darwin wrote long before DNA was discovered. He was honest so what do you expect.

Why do you think books about evolution are propaganda? What is the purpose of the propaganda? Why would everyone be independently involved in this propaganda? And most important what are your motives for arguing about a subject you know nothing about?

The car thing was an analogy to explain IC in lifeforms.

That is right, Darwin wrote his theory prior to DNA.  To me, it seems like you would have to understand DNA to submit a theory on the origin of life in an ostensibly scientific way.   

For many people,  the evolution vs intelligent design debate is really just a proxy war for atheist vs Christianity.   So there is some propaganda and people wanting their theory to be right to prove or not prove God.      A lot of people really fear the idea of a "creator" and let's face it is a scary concept.   

We need to make sure we are not letting our biases about the existence of a God  prevent us from being open minded on the evolution theory.   You can be an atheist and still think evolution is nonsense. 
"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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11136
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #78 on: October 20, 2013, 10:26:48 AM »
I don't think you can deny that irreducible complexity exists.   It makes sense that complicated things would need the parts to be assembled at once in such a way that they work  for it to have any functionality.   A partially formed structure would have been of no use.   Evolution by natural selection working on random mutations could not have assembled all the parts at once.    It isn't logical that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to achieve something even intelligent people could not design, like an eye for vision.

So what you're saying is that light sensors, for example, in living beings only exist in the form of an eye. You'd be right, if you weren't wrong. Ever seen a sunflower? It doesn't have any eyes, yet it always faces the sun. It has sensors that, while not as advanced as an eye, can still detect sunlight pretty well.

Evolution can't explain how the first lifeform was created
<snip>

You know what? Neither can the theory of gravity. I sure hope we don't all go floating off the planet! The theory of DNA replication can't explain it either! Holy shit!
All kidding aside, the reason evolution can't explain the first life form is simply because it doesn't have to. The theory of evolution concerns itself with life since the moment it first appeared. Not before.
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/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #79 on: October 20, 2013, 10:29:18 AM »

why can't a creator have created many beings with shared physical traits?




But a better answer turns the question back to you. Why on earth would one do so? This is where it always breaks down for me - if your hypothesis is right, then that looks like evidence of a creator that is deliberately trying to hide itself from it's creation. Why would it do so? Doesn't that point toward a creator that does not want to be acknowledged if it's going to such lengths to hide it's involvement?

Look at it this way: A master craftsman creates a series of fine furniture pieces over, say, a 6 day period.[1] He makes intricately carved chairs, tables, wardrobes, bookshelves, cabinets. The level of design was incredible, each article of furniture unique in its function and appearance. So intricate the design and so varied the features of these fine pieces of furniture that you would seriously struggle to ever look at them and realise that they were all from the one master craftsman. A justifiably proud man, the craftman guards against this threat to his renown by using the same teak in his construction, harvested from the same forest and growing nowhere else. His furniture is now easily recognisable as his.

I can't agree that similarities in all life is evidence of a creator hiding itself. Quite the opposite.


Edited to add: we might be talking about ID in different ways. I'm speaking more of the ID religious movement, and I think you are speaking more of your personal beliefs. Clarify?

Its correct to assume that I am always looking at things from my personal beliefs, which you know well.

Edited to add a bit more context at the start
 1. He was a hard worker. So hard, he really needed a rest the next day.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 10:41:15 AM by magicmiles »
Go on up you baldhead.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5072
  • Darwins +585/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #80 on: October 20, 2013, 10:30:25 AM »
Are you conceding our discussion, DrTesla?  Or is it starting to get too busy in this topic?  I would appreciate a response at some point, though.

I don't think you can deny that irreducible complexity exists.   It makes sense that complicated things would need the parts to be assembled at once in such a way that they work  for it to have any functionality.   A partially formed structure would have been of no use.   Evolution by natural selection working on random mutations could not have assembled all the parts at once.    It isn't logical that all these random mutations occurred in such a way to achieve something even intelligent people could not design, like an eye for vision.
Didn't you read my and Deus ex's posts?  We both covered some of the problems with irreducible complexity.  But here, I'll cover another one.  Irreducible complexity is basically a Lego block argument - that you have to put together the pieces a complex organ (like the eye or the flagellum) all at once, and if you take pieces (Lego blocks) out, it won't function.  The problem is, that's based on a faulty understanding of how organs develop and work, and on the false premise that organs have pieces that can be taken out or put together in the first place.

Irreducible complexity is the same as the bad argument that states that if you blew apart an E.coli bacterium into its component molecules, those molecules will have such a ludicrously small chance of coming back together to form an E.coli bacterium that it must have been put together by a designer to begin with.  Except that the only thing demonstrated by this is entropy; it has nothing to do with how the bacterium developed.  Both arguments are made to look logical, but only to people who are not actually knowledgeable about the subject.  In actual point of fact, they're both arguments from incredulity.

Quote from: DrTesla
Evolution can't explain how the first lifeform was created and evolutionist have not proven their theory that life originated on its own in some kind of chemical reaction.   This is actually a key aspect of evolution, that the first lifeform   just came to be due to natural processes.    So to think the first lifeform could have been created,  given we have no evidence life can originate from some kind of random event,  is a legit theory.   And if the first lifeform was created,  why not many more?
Evolution is about how lifeforms differentiate, not about how life came to be.  Claiming that "evolution doesn't explain where life came from" is like claiming that "germ theory doesn't explain where bacteria came from".  To put it bluntly, even if someone did design the very first lifeform on Earth, evolution would still accurately describe how that lifeform differentiated itself and ultimately propagated into the life-forms we observe every day.  If you want theories about where life came from, you need to look outside of evolution, not buy into propagandistic arguments that "evolution requires that life just came to be due to natural processes".  Because it doesn't, it never has, and it never will.

I realize you're not knowledgeable about this subject, and that you want to learn.  That's fine.  But you need to stop assuming you can substitute logic for knowledge.  That's just a form of ignorance, because logic is no better than the premise used to form it.  If you don't have sufficient knowledge about a subject to make an accurate premise, then any logic you develop from your inaccurate premise will also be inaccurate.

For example:
I think this website has a good summary of some undeniable truths that seem to contradict evolution in an comprehensive way:

http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v12i6f.htm
This website is a good example of how it's possible to be logical and blatantly wrong.  For one thing, it claims "Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved."  Except that what it means by supernatural is "something we don't understand and that goes beyond nature".  In other words, they're just saying, "we don't know what could have caused it, so it must have been supernatural".  Furthermore, they're also claiming that since scientists have not found a natural process for developing life for more than 50 years, then there's no point in continuing to look, and thus evolution is a dead theory.  This is a horrible approach to science, and it clearly demonstrates that this group isn't interested in scientific discovery.

Their goal is to try to kill evolution, rather than to advance science.  They aren't actually contributing anything in terms of scientific understanding - they're trying to disprove things they personally disagree with by using logic.  Except that doesn't work, and never has; reality always trumps logic and it always will.  That's why scientists do experiments and formulate their theories based on what actually is.  They also use logic, but it's logic paired with knowledge.  If they just did the logic, and didn't have the experiments and observations to back it up, they would be wrong more often than they were right.  Far, far more often.

As for you, DrTesla, instead of looking for websites which seem to support what you already think to be true, you should take the time to learn about what evolution actually is and the evidence that supports it.  Then you can judge the subject for yourself rather than relying on other people's arguments.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #81 on: October 20, 2013, 10:30:36 AM »
I think abiogenesis is part of the evolution theory. 
Think what you want, but don't assume that because you think it, it must be true. Abiogenesis is not "part of the evolution theory" as you put it, and your mistake indicates that you are one of the many people who only think you know what you are arguing against.

Ok, well it is related, even if it is not officially part of the evolution theory.  I don't think you are going to let me say that we don't have to explain how God was created if we believe there is a God and everything must have been created.   So I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.    We have to hold ourselves to the same standards placed on us by our critics. 
"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: 1869
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #82 on: October 20, 2013, 10:32:33 AM »
"You can be an atheist and still think evolution is nonsense."

So what?  Not believing in god, and dismissing the ToE only means that this theoretical person doesn't believe in two things. What's your point?

I don't "believe in" evolution because I don't believe in god, I accept what the ToE says because of all the evidence that back it up.

If you still think the theory of evolution is "nonsense" you are not at all up to date on current science. Your not even arguing against the theory, you're trying to argue against what you THINK it says.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #83 on: October 20, 2013, 10:37:47 AM »
I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.

There's no hook to be let off of.  Evolution has to do with how life forms change over time.  It has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  Your use of the phrase "evolved from non-life" is a clear indication that you don't even know what evolution is.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #84 on: October 20, 2013, 10:38:39 AM »
"You can be an atheist and still think evolution is nonsense."

So what?  Not believing in god, and dismissing the ToE only means that this theoretical person doesn't believe in two things. What's your point?

I don't "believe in" evolution because I don't believe in god, I accept what the ToE says because of all the evidence that back it up.

If you still think the theory of evolution is "nonsense" you are not at all up to date on current science. Your not even arguing against the theory, you're trying to argue against what you THINK it says.

I don't think the fossil records supports evolution at all.  All they do is speculate that because something kind of resembles something else it must have evolved from it.   And we know many species just kind of popped up out of the blue at the same time so doesn't seem like they evolved from anything.

I don't see how you prove evolution,  even Darwinists basically say they know it happened but we can't prove it because it happened in the past and it is a very slow process.   That doesn't sound like science to me.   :)
"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: 1869
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #85 on: October 20, 2013, 10:40:40 AM »
Ok, well it is related, even if it is not officially part of the evolution theory. 
What, because you say so? No, it's not. You can say it is all you want to, but that changes nothing. You're supporting my point in previous posts that you don't know what you are arguing against by making statements like this.
Quote
I don't think you are going to let me say that we don't have to explain how God was created if we believe there is a God and everything must have been created.   
I didn't ask you to, not was I intending to do so. I'm quite familiar with that position and would not want to be responsible for dragging it up again.
Quote
So I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.    We have to hold ourselves to the same standards placed on us by our critics.
Wow, you're making this really personal, aren't you? Who is this "we" you are referring to, and why am "I" suddenly on the hook to explain something I haven't even mentioned? I haven't said diddly about what abiogenesis is about, I just pointed out that you are mixing to different things together and not understanding why it doesn't work like you think atheists are claiming it does.
 
Before you go on demanding that I explain things I haven't said, I'd appreciate it if you would address the things I have said that you have ignored.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6620
  • Darwins +791/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #86 on: October 20, 2013, 10:42:12 AM »
Evolutionists have been using frauds for decades, including the famous pepper moth experiment that is probably still in our kiddie's textbooks.   Here is a good summary of some of these fraudulent arguments used and some of the evidence against evolution:   www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf

Wrong. Yes, people writing about peppered moths glued dead ones to trees to show what they were talking about, but that is common in biology, given that it is hard to get living things to hold still. However, science is not done via photos, but via science. And the pictures were an illustration, not evidence. Your guys have made a big deal out of a tiny detail and they refuse to listen to any of the other evidence because, lacking photos to diss, it is too inconvenient.

The peppered moth story remains true, no matter how hard your guys work to make things up that say otherwise.

And the paper you cited is so full of bull that I'm surprised people who read it can still read after going through it. The article is full of misunderstandings, lies, and yes, incredulity. The authors want us to believe that the cambrian explosion was some sort of proof that an intelligent designer suddenly poofed thousands of species into being, because nothing else makes sense, while evolutionary biologists keep reminding folks that the a) evolution moves in spurts, and that the right conditions can cause evolutionary changes to speed up and b) the cambrian period wasn't something that either one of us would consider fast: it took about 30 million years for those otherwise remarkably fast changes to take place. We don't yet know exactly why it happened. We do have a fossil record that shows that it did. If you want to go out and dig up a couple more specimens and prove that a creator did it, be our guest. In the meantime, we'll live with conjecture and keep working on it. Someday we may know much more. In any case, science is finding no evidence of an intelligent designer being involved.

I understand that you have to hang on to these inaccuracies to hold on to your misconceptions and your need to tie evidence in with your beliefs. And until you either give up or come to your senses, you are doomed to repeat the lies of others ad infinitum. Those who study evolution can demonstrate exactly where every theory comes from. Those who dismiss evolution as an uncomfortable derailing of religion can only demonstrate their voluntary ignorance is a limited number of ways. Which is why I can find thousands of discussions on religious sites about the peppered moth, but nothing about the myriad examples of evolution in action, such as schnozzola's horseweed story, because they have yet to find a horse weed glued to a tree, so they got nuttin'.

It would take an incredibly well financed and deliberate conspiracy to produce all the research and scientific papers that support evolution if evolution is a falsehood. Or maybe they are the result of people studying actual evolution.

I'll go with the latter. You do what you want.

Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!