Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 30069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11130
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #174 on: October 20, 2013, 04:25:27 PM »
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 do not assume that I am the superior debater; just that my position is the correct one. If you're sure of your position, debating it with me will prove which one of us is correct.

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.

A one-on-one debate would keep you from being overwhelmed with replies. This has already been stated. See? We all have to repeat ourselves from time to time.

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

I just said not to reproduce. You'd be doing the world a favor if you followed my advice.

EDIT: You know, I (and others) would stop bringing up this debate if you just said "Yes, One Above All, I wish to debate you", or "No, One Above All, I do not wish to debate you".
EDIT #2: A little ass-kissing wouldn't hurt either, seeing as how I am the supreme ruler of the multiverse and such. ;)
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 05:42:44 PM by One Above All »
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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #175 on: October 20, 2013, 04:32:24 PM »

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:


Why would it be in court?  lol that is absurd.  They are supposed to resolve legal matters not science.  The justice system is more about the biases of the judges than law these days it seems.   

Doesn't a genetic change have to be a random mutation?  How else could a genetic change occur?  This seems like semantics trickery.  :)  The arms race thing doesn't sound all that believable but interesting. 

You are basically saying it is bunk because these other scientists say it is and a judge decided it is in a court case.   I wouldn't expect most of the Darwin evolution scientists to concede IC is legit so I will have to examine their arguments.   Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.    So in the end it comes down to who your average non-biochemist  trusts more.    I think in a general sense the IC observation  is a blow to evolution theory and I've seen Darwin people  acknowledging it is an obstacle in both direct and indirect ways.   

I have not seen you address the bacteria flaggelum example or the eye example of IC as they propose it. 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 04:34:35 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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #176 on: October 20, 2013, 04:39:06 PM »
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. 

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that the existence of  "a higher lifeform" is evidence of creation?  Surely it's just an illustration of evolution of traits. There are life forms we can classify as "higher" on many chosen criteria e.g. worms are higher life forms than amoebas because they have more cells, sharks are higher life forms than sponges because they can move.
Why is the ability to "ponder", using the known physiology of a voluminous brain, suddenly something somehow more special?  Why is it more special than comparing a compound eye of a fly to an eagle's eye? 

but if you want to believe you are no different from a cockroach then don't let me stop you.  lol 
I didn't say that - you know I didn't say that - but your laughter at your own shallow joke reveals something about you.

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.
The problem is clear. We are most evolved in one aspect alone - cranial capacity. You as an individual are not so special - you are relying on the collective recorded knowledge of millions of people who went before you to appear as smart as you are. Thousands of species have amazing specialisations we humans do not have.  In fact we've gone backwards in many respects since we inherited bigger brains.

Your problem has a specific technical name ... anthropomorphic arrogance!


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 #177 on: October 20, 2013, 04:44:40 PM »

Your problem has a specific technical name ... anthropomorphic arrogance!

That is a fair point....I do discriminate against other animals. 

When I see a dog do something like design a nuclear power plant  or a fish design an internal combustion engine, then I will concede we aren't a higher lifeform.    I don't think asserting that because they have specific traits that we don't have that might be complex and advantageous in themselves  refutes my assertion that we are a higher lifeform because we have self awareness, the ability to design things, the abilituy to talk, the ability to learn things outside of the positive / negative reinforcement type of learning that you can do with dogs and other animals using food and other means. 
"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 Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #178 on: October 20, 2013, 04:58:36 PM »
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.
Clearly you did not read my message: I am not asking you to ask members to search the webs. I am not asking you to say what you think of others. I am asking you to respond to questions and particularly those of jaimehlers.

If there is something you do not understand about this request, you should PM me.

GB Mod
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #179 on: October 20, 2013, 05:00:45 PM »
I don't think asserting that because they have specific traits that we don't have that might be complex and advantageous in themselves  refutes my assertion that we are a higher lifeform because we have self awareness, the ability to design things, the abilituy to talk, the ability to learn things outside of the positive / negative reinforcement type of learning that you can do with dogs and other animals using food and other means.

It's not really about refutation.  It's about perspective.  When/if we obliterate human life in a nuclear war, cockroaches will be the higher life form because some of them tucked away in narrow places will survive the storm of radiation.

Meanwhile the human "higher lifeform" fucks the planet's environment apace, causing the extinction of many other species of yet unqualified value to the human, invents competing religions of hatred, stockpiles weapons of mass destruction, defends artificial borders, legislates policies of discrimination, and finds an unending procession of ways to screw each other in business and life..
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 #180 on: October 20, 2013, 05:01:55 PM »
Clearly you did not read my message: I am not asking you to ask members to search the webs. I am not asking you to say what you think of others. I am asking you to respond to questions and particularly those of jaimehlers.

If there is something you do not understand about this request, you should PM me.

GB Mod

Ok sounds like you want to ban me if I don't dance for you.   Am I wrong?  [Irrelevant chat deleted GB Mod]
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 06:42:39 PM by Graybeard »
"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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5060
  • Darwins +579/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #181 on: October 20, 2013, 05:07:20 PM »
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.
Graybeard instructed you to respond to people's questions, not to complain about how people are treating you or that they aren't accepting your arguments.

As I have brought up five times by now - which is five times more than I should have had to - you need to answer my argument that your "irreducible complexity" doesn't actually apply to things that humans make.  I will restate it here so you don't have an excuse to ignore it.

----

Things that humans design and make, whether cars, or tools, or computer programs, or whatever, are not irreducibly complex.  They are designed to be taken apart and put back together, so you can maintain them or replace broken components.  Indeed, they're designed to be taken apart and put back together, at least by people who know what they're doing, and often it is possible to remove parts from something and still have it perform its designed function.

Yet, you and other people who think irreducible complexity has actual standing as an observation and a basis for the intelligent design argument claim that certain organs are so "irreducibly complex" that they can't be taken apart and still fulfill their designed function.  Indeed, if you attempt to treat something like an eye or a bacterial flagellum as if it were a machine, you'll just end up with a mess that can never be put back together.  That means that despite the fact that our experience in designing things does not give any credence to irreducible complexity, people like you try to insist that it must have significance when it comes to biological organisms - that some Great Designer in the Sky put those organs together (even though we actually can't take them apart) and then try to use the fact that you can't take them apart as if they were a machine as 'proof' that they were designed, even though this would be an insanely stupid way to actually design things.

So, do you have an answer for this?

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #182 on: October 20, 2013, 05:11:00 PM »
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.
Graybeard instructed you to respond to people's questions, not to complain about how people are treating you or that they aren't accepting your arguments.

As I have brought up five times by now - which is five times more than I should have had to - you need to answer my argument that your "irreducible complexity" doesn't actually apply to things that humans make.  I will restate it here so you don't have an excuse to ignore it.

----

Things that humans design and make, whether cars, or tools, or computer programs, or whatever, are not irreducibly complex.  They are designed to be taken apart and put back together, so you can maintain them or replace broken components.  Indeed, they're designed to be taken apart and put back together, at least by people who know what they're doing, and often it is possible to remove parts from something and still have it perform its designed function.

Yet, you and other people who think irreducible complexity has actual standing as an observation and a basis for the intelligent design argument claim that certain organs are so "irreducibly complex" that they can't be taken apart and still fulfill their designed function.  Indeed, if you attempt to treat something like an eye or a bacterial flagellum as if it were a machine, you'll just end up with a mess that can never be put back together.  That means that despite the fact that our experience in designing things does not give any credence to irreducible complexity, people like you try to insist that it must have significance when it comes to biological organisms - that some Great Designer in the Sky put those organs together (even though we actually can't take them apart) and then try to use the fact that you can't take them apart as if they were a machine as 'proof' that they were designed, even though this would be an insanely stupid way to actually design things.

So, do you have an answer for this?

Sounds to me like you expect the moderator to kind of coddle you and force people to respond to you.  I am not puppet on a string. 

I think that I have answered you numerous times and you don't accept it.   Now, I will try to review your post, if that guy does't ban me which seems somewhat unlikely unless I misperceived the tone of his post,  but I am probably going to take a break for a bit because I need to eat and do some things and I have been posting on here for a bit.    I don't think you are more important than anybody else on here so it isn't legit to single out one person that I must respond to.  Sounds like you are the moderator's pet on here or something.   

To be honest I don't want to respond to you now because I've been goaded by people on here to do so which seems to be elevating you to a postion that you don't have over me or any person.   You are not source authority on this issue and I don't think this issue is going to be resolved one way or another on the internet forums.     I will try to set aside my ego but I almost feel like I will be banned if the moderator decides the answer is not good enough in some way.  Sometimes internet forums aren't free speech forums, depending on the approach of the website.   I thought there would be more people skeptical of evolution on here because they refer to it as an addictive discussion but if you don't have people who disagree it isn't much of a discussion but rather a validation exercise.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 05:17:01 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 shnozzola

Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #183 on: October 20, 2013, 05:16:03 PM »
Hang in there Dr. Tesla, you have very intelligent debaters ( and the truth, if I may ;))  against you that will eventually have you contemplating so many sources you will begin to learn a new way of looking at things.

Deux ex Machina, jaimehlers, and a host of others surely have you thinking things over.  Here is one of our best evolution debaters, Kcrady.  Read his thoughts if you have time.  If you search his posts, his ideas of oily lipid and fatty acid pools with enough heat and electric charges, being repeated over and over for eons, make for some thoughtful consideration of one possible theory of abiogenesis.
 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19952.msg440086.html#msg440086
“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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #184 on: October 20, 2013, 05:22:30 PM »
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.

Agreed, and thank you for adding that. Some of my frustration is stemming from this insistence that complexity is somehow a requirement of evolution and the complete glossing over of any part of the theory other than natural selection. Add in an insistence on (as near as I can tell) calling natural selection "Darwinian evolution" and the headbanging was nearly getting bloody.
"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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #185 on: October 20, 2013, 05:40:02 PM »
Sounds to me <snip>

To be honest I don't want to respond to you now because I've been goaded by people on here to do so which seems to be elevating you to a postion that you don't have over me or any person.   
Dodge
Quote
You are not source authority on this issue and I don't think this issue is going to be resolved one way or another on the internet forums.
No one held a gun to your head forcing you to participate, right?
Quote
     I will try to set aside my ego but I almost feel like I will be banned if the moderator decides the answer is not good enough in some way. 
No, you just need to stop avoiding questions that you find difficult to answer.
Quote
Sometimes internet forums aren't free speech forums, depending on the approach of the website.   
Did you read the rules when you signed up? If not, you ought.
Quote
I thought there would be more people skeptical of evolution on here because they refer to it as an addictive discussion
Huh? What on earth would have given you THAT idea? How are those things related in any sense at all?
Quote
but if you don't have people who disagree
There's YOU, right here and now.
Quote
it isn't much of a discussion but rather a validation exercise.
Battle cry of the loser? You can find all the validation you seek in any number of website populated with people who agree with you. You're just whining because we don't and you don't understand why not. You're making excuses for your own failure to support your position.
"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 Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #186 on: October 20, 2013, 05:44:27 PM »
Okay, it's late and my patience is wearing thin.

Why would it be in court?  lol that is absurd.  They are supposed to resolve legal matters not science.  The justice system is more about the biases of the judges than law these days it seems.   

You are basically saying it is bunk because these other scientists say it is and a judge decided it is in a court case.

No, I am encouraging you to read the material and discover for yourself why the scientists say it's bunk - and how, precisely, Dr. Behe - the poster-boy for the ID movement in respect of Irreducible Complexity - condemned himself through his own words on the fact that he had not bothered to do any research into any of the literature that demolished his own claims.

Quote
Doesn't a genetic change have to be a random mutation?  How else could a genetic change occur?  This seems like semantics trickery.  :)

I'm merely trying to be thorough. Though I appreciate it may be a bit much to take in all at once, there are other mechanisms that can alter genes (endogenous retroviruses, for instance).

Quote
The arms race thing doesn't sound all that believable but interesting.

The arms race thing is happening right now. Haven't you heard of "superbugs" in hospitals?

Quote
I wouldn't expect most of the Darwin evolution scientists to concede IC is legit so I will have to examine their arguments.

Despite what you may think, scientists generally do not summarily disregard claims out of hand if there's good reason to take them seriously. If IC were legit, then there'd be good evidence for it, people like Ken Miller wouldn't be stomping on the bits.

Quote
Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.

The thing about peer-reviewed scientific research is that if people start making stuff up that isn't backed by the available data, they're likely to get caught, because you are going to have a lot of people poring over that data who know their stuff.

Conversely, the thing about sites that claim to "critique" evolutionary Theory, which have declarations of faith on their Websites that amount to "if anything in the scientific body of knowledge conflicts with Scripture, toss out the science", is that they don't do peer-review of their claims, they stand by claims even after they have been mercilessly and repeatedly debunked, they don't publish refutations or retractions, and they don't care that their claims are false because their target audience is generally not that scientifically literate, and not even in a position to fact-check such claims, even if they were likely to do so.

Such sites serve one purpose and one purpose alone: to keep the sheep in line. To say they are incredible to anyone outside the bubble of their worldview would be a vast understatement.

Quote
So in the end it comes down to who your average non-biochemist  trusts more.

Science is not a cult. You have the choice to educate yourself, and not accept things on authority. Exercise that vaunted free will and stop looking to us to hand you answers on a plate. It really is your call.

Quote
I think in a general sense the IC observation  is a blow to evolution theory

Look, DrTesla, let's get one thing clear so that hopefully you'll stop repeating this phrase "I think... I think...." as if it means anything or anyone here should give a damn.

Science is not a democracy. Your opinion, shorn as it is of any scientific literacy whatsoever, is worth precisely jack.

You have it in your power to educate yourself, if you really care about this stuff. You can equip yourself with the tools to sort out what's true from what's false. You can learn biology.

If you don't care about this stuff enough to learn about it, then you risk continuing to be deceived by charlatans who do not have your best interests at heart and want you to remain a sheep forever, and no amount of us talking to you is going to do you the slightest bit of good. You'll just be a pawn in a game over which you have no control.

If that's how you want to live your life, fine. Farewell, peace be with you, may whatever spirits you perceive as guides gude you, have a nice life, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It is, entirely, your choice. You can choose to educate yourself, which actually requires some work on your part, or you can sit here and whine that it's all too hard to understand and you don't trust those pesky evolutionists to tell you the truth. In doing so, you're actually being exceptionally rude to everyone here, because what you're actually saying, between the lines, is that you don't trust anything we say, which essentially means that we're all wasting our time bothering to try to explain anything to you at all and there's no point in continuing this discussion further.

Quote
and I've seen Darwin people  acknowledging it is an obstacle in both direct and indirect ways.

And I've seen a lot of claims such as this one that, when subjected to inquisition, disappear in a puff of smoke. So needless to say, I don't believe you either.

Quote
I have not seen you address the bacteria flaggelum example

Oh for crying out loud. Now I am inclined to wonder if you're just lying or being a jerk for shits and giggles. I gave you a YouTube video in which Ken Miller debunked it. There is no way you could possibly have missed the presence of that embedded video.

Quote
or the eye example of IC as they propose it.

Do us all a favour and type these two words into Google: "eye evolution".
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 05:47:22 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #187 on: October 20, 2013, 05:46:48 PM »

Things that humans design and make, whether cars, or tools, or computer programs, or whatever, are not irreducibly complex.  They are designed to be taken apart and put back together, so you can maintain them or replace broken components.  Indeed, they're designed to be taken apart and put back together, at least by people who know what they're doing, and often it is possible to remove parts from something and still have it perform its designed function.

Yet, you and other people who think irreducible complexity has actual standing as an observation and a basis for the intelligent design argument claim that certain organs are so "irreducibly complex" that they can't be taken apart and still fulfill their designed function.  Indeed, if you attempt to treat something like an eye or a bacterial flagellum as if it were a machine, you'll just end up with a mess that can never be put back together.  That means that despite the fact that our experience in designing things does not give any credence to irreducible complexity, people like you try to insist that it must have significance when it comes to biological organisms - that some Great Designer in the Sky put those organs together (even though we actually can't take them apart) and then try to use the fact that you can't take them apart as if they were a machine as 'proof' that they were designed, even though this would be an insanely stupid way to actually design things.

So, do you have an answer for this?

My thoughts:

Humans design things with the capacity for repair because we know we aren't perfect and they'll actually need repair. Which is certainly an intelligent way to do things.

An intelligent designer of everything, on the other hand, has a much greater capacity to design things that do not require repair.

Go on up you baldhead.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #188 on: October 20, 2013, 05:57:04 PM »

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.

But this does nothing to explain why it would create the resulting confusion that multiple organisms with similar traits has created. That's the hiding I was referring to - it looks like contradictory evidence. God created everything (I grant that you, thankfully, are not trying to insist that change has not occurred), made little tweaks, improvements and upgrades periodically, then left humans to draw erroneous conclusions that would lead us to decide that God did not exist at all.


I don't accept that God created the confusion. Multiple organisms with similar traits suggests commonality of origin and the bible explains that commonality. Dissatisfaction with that explanation (at risk of over-simplifying mans thirst for knowledge) has led to alternate explanations. The alternateb explanation is now in conflict with the first, but only because we went looking for an alternate. So who created the confusion?
Go on up you baldhead.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5060
  • Darwins +579/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #189 on: October 20, 2013, 06:18:41 PM »
Sounds to me like you expect the moderator to kind of coddle you and force people to respond to you.  I am not puppet on a string.
I expect you to be a decent human being and not blow off question after question after question that I keep drawing your attention to.  It isn't even that you didn't answer some of the time - I know there's lots of people talking to you - it's that I kept bringing it to your attention, and you kept ignoring it.

Quote from: DrTesla
I think that I have answered you numerous times and you don't accept it.
I gave you a smite because this is pretty much a lie.  You never did answer the question I wanted you to answer, and trying to claim you did is very offensive.

Quote from: DrTesla
Now, I will try to review your post, if that guy does't ban me which seems somewhat unlikely unless I misperceived the tone of his post,  but I am probably going to take a break for a bit because I need to eat and do some things and I have been posting on here for a bit.
You won't get banned, most likely.  What's more likely if you keep blowing stuff off is that your forum access will be restricted to the "Emergency Room", where you will be required by moderators to fulfill certain requirements if you want full access to the forum restored to you.  I don't know what they are because they differ depending on the person, and I'm not on the admin team anyway.  And it takes a while before they take that step anyway.

Quote from: DrTesla
I don't think you are more important than anybody else on here so it isn't legit to single out one person that I must respond to.  Sounds like you are the moderator's pet on here or something.
Statements like this are insulting as well as offensive.  I have a strong argument against irreducible complexity, which you were basically ignoring, while at the same time you kept claiming that irreducible complexity was the Achilles heel of evolutionary theory and you were claiming that other people had to answer you regarding irreducible complexity.  Do you see the problem now?

Quote from: DrTesla
To be honest I don't want to respond to you now because I've been goaded by people on here to do so which seems to be elevating you to a postion that you don't have over me or any person.   You are not source authority on this issue and I don't think this issue is going to be resolved one way or another on the internet forums.     I will try to set aside my ego but I almost feel like I will be banned if the moderator decides the answer is not good enough in some way.  Sometimes internet forums aren't free speech forums, depending on the approach of the website.   I thought there would be more people skeptical of evolution on here because they refer to it as an addictive discussion but if you don't have people who disagree it isn't much of a discussion but rather a validation exercise.
The problem is, the arguments that you keep presenting against evolution are ones that have already been answered on this forum, and usually repeatedly.  Now, if you were actually listening to people and answering them, instead of just repeating yourself and assuming that their disagreement was due to them somehow not understanding you, that would be a different story.

Also, the reason you've been being 'goaded' to reply to posts is because you keep ignoring them as if the person will go away if you keep ignoring them.  You did it to One Above All, and you did it to me.  All you had to do with OAA was say, "no, I don't want to debate you", and it would have answered him (he might not have liked it, but you would have answered him).  Instead, you basically kept ignoring him to the point where several other people started bringing it up.  And as for me, all you had to do was give me an answer of some kind.  Even something as simple as, "I don't really know for sure" would have been better than what you actually did.  Instead, you kept ignoring me to the point where a moderator stepped in.

You can't just ignore people when they start pressing you for an answer on something.  Oh, I suppose you can, but it's a good way to get them mad at you and to start pushing you to answer them, because it's rude and arrogant.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #190 on: October 20, 2013, 06:30:09 PM »
I don't accept that God created the confusion. Multiple organisms with similar traits suggests commonality of origin and the bible explains that commonality.

First, welcome back and I appreciate your avatar that reminds us all of David HollandWiki.

Next, it is the degree of commonality, isn't it? Dogs weren't always dogs. Horses not always horses Whales were land-dwellers. There is somewhere on the site, that huge picture of the evolutionary tree - Yes, it is stylised but it wasn't plucked from thin air.

I think we have to agree that, when life originated it was pretty basic but it has had a lot of time to adapt by fortunate changes to be able to exploit food sources - and it has done.

Quote
Dissatisfaction with that explanation (at risk of over-simplifying mans thirst for knowledge) has led to alternate explanations. The alternative explanation is now in conflict with the first, but only because we went looking for an alternate. So who created the confusion?

I liked the "So who created the confusion?" I was about to rep you for humour, but I had the horrible thought that you might be serious.

Joke:
A guy goes to the psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist gives him a Rorschach TestWiki The psychiatrist shows him the first and asks him what it reminds him of.

"A huge pair of tits!"
The psychiatrists nods and shows him the second
"A naked woman bending over."
The psychiatrists nods and shows him the third.
"Oral sex".

This carries on for a while and the psychiatrist says, "Well, I think I know the answer, you're obsessed with sex...

The man replies, "That's rich! Who's got all the dirty pictures?

The point is, that Darwin et al made everything easier to understand. Before there was confusion and now we can't deny that the confusion has been lifted and the phrase "evolutionary advantage" is known to us all. You can't say that the evolutionist has all the "dirty pictures."

Anyway, if the Bible is to be believed the earth's flat and a flood covered it, and nobody believes that.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Darwins +542/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #191 on: October 20, 2013, 06:38:50 PM »
Ok sounds like you want to ban me if I don't dance for you.   Am I wrong?
Yes. You are wrong.

For future reference, if a Mod bold+green or
an Admin bold+red makes a request of someone, it is not usual to write a screed about the request. The response is either "OK" or, "You will never see me again." : )

GB Mod
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +789/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #192 on: October 20, 2013, 06:42:40 PM »
On the subject of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Wouldn't an intelligent designer be irreducibly complex? He/she/it couldn't possibly have evolved.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5060
  • Darwins +579/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #193 on: October 20, 2013, 06:44:25 PM »
My thoughts:

Humans design things with the capacity for repair because we know we aren't perfect and they'll actually need repair. Which is certainly an intelligent way to do things.

An intelligent designer of everything, on the other hand, has a much greater capacity to design things that do not require repair.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, magicmiles.  I am still hoping DrTesla will answer the point I raised, but I'm more than happy to engage with you in the meantime.

There are problems with this outlook.  The one I'm going to talk about in this post is that humans are anything but perfect and thus very often have built-in 'defects' as well as a serious need for 'repair'.  There are a huge number of potential problems that we can suffer from, not to mention serious injuries, and there's no easy way to heal those problems.  Someone born with poor eyesight was stuck with it for most of human history, for example, until we figured out that curving glass in certain ways could help correct certain kinds of vision problems.  But even then, other kinds were irreparable for most of human history.  It's only very recently that we've managed to come up with ways to deal with more serious vision problems (such as cataracts, or people who are born without a working cornea).

I speak of this from personal experience.  My eyes started degenerating when I was five or so.  Before I was twenty, my vision without correction in both eyes was worse than 20/1000.  That means that if I was looking at something 20 feet away, it was as if a person with normal eyesight was looking at something a thousand feet away.  Yes, I could see normally with glasses, but I had no peripheral vision whatsoever.  Even as little as 50 years ago, I would have had to wear glasses all my life.  A thousand years ago, I would have been out of luck unless I happened to be born to a rich family which could hire servants to help me deal with my vision problems.  I wouldn't have been able to learn to read or write, either, because those both require working vision.

As it was, I was lucky enough to be born during a time when they actually had figured out how to surgically implant artificial lenses in the eyes.  That gave me near-normal vision.  And even with it, I still have issues relating to the surgery.  If I rub my eyes too much, I can damage the clamps that hold the lens in place which knocks it out of place.  I had that happen once - and it was awful.  Imagine having half of one eye's vision at normal, and the other half at 20/1000.

And I'm just one of millions of people worldwide who have vision problems of some kind or another, which is a very small subset of all the built-in physical problems that are common to humans.  And almost invariably, we have to come up with ways to overcome these problems; not an intelligent designer, us.  My point is, please don't try to tell me that this is the best some "intelligent designer" could do, to leave so many 'bugs' in humans and not making any real effort to do anything about them.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 06:47:03 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline shnozzola

Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #194 on: October 20, 2013, 06:47:05 PM »
Interesting, if scary... (perhaps terrifying?)   gallup poll

Quote
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx

Edit - I apologize, I added the American info - I wanted to make certain folks new it was an American poll - unfortunately, sadly, obvious?
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 07:06:03 PM 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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1547
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #195 on: October 20, 2013, 07:38:49 PM »

Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.    So in the end it comes down to who your average non-biochemist  trusts more.    I think in a general sense the IC observation  is a blow to evolution theory and I've seen Darwin people  acknowledging it is an obstacle in both direct and indirect ways.   

I have not seen you address the bacteria flaggelum example or the eye example of IC as they propose it.

It does not come down to who your average Joe trusts. It comes down to scientific evidence. Ignorance does not win arguments.

Second, you are being dishonest here. I have already told you that every stage in the evolution of the eye still exists in various animals today. The false claim about the bacteria flagellum being irreducibly complex was disproved years ago. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Dishonesty does not win arguments.
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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #196 on: October 20, 2013, 09:09:50 PM »

Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.    So in the end it comes down to who your average non-biochemist  trusts more.    I think in a general sense the IC observation  is a blow to evolution theory and I've seen Darwin people  acknowledging it is an obstacle in both direct and indirect ways.   

I have not seen you address the bacteria flaggelum example or the eye example of IC as they propose it.

It does not come down to who your average Joe trusts. It comes down to scientific evidence. Ignorance does not win arguments.

Second, you are being dishonest here. I have already told you that every stage in the evolution of the eye still exists in various animals today. The false claim about the bacteria flagellum being irreducibly complex was disproved years ago. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Dishonesty does not win arguments.

As far as what theory a non-biochemist believes, it does come down to who they trust from a general premise standpoint because they aren't going to grasp all the fine details.   That was my point.   I doubt most people who agree with evolution know much more about it than they were taught it was Science in high school, therefore it is Science.   They've never questioned it independently. 

You've made two claims that I'm wrong/dishonest and claimed x was proved and y was disproved but obviously many scientists disagree with that or we wouldn't be talking about it now.   They have not proven how the bacteria flagellum and eye  evolved unless speculation counts now. 
"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 #197 on: October 20, 2013, 09:14:29 PM »
Interesting, if scary... (perhaps terrifying?)   gallup poll

Quote
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.


I think this is a pretty good result considering people are only taught the evolution theory in high school science classes.   It shows people are more independent and thinking for themselves rather than accepting some something simply because it is in a science textbook.   If evolution had been proven, nobody would be debating it just as we don't debate Newton's laws of motions and other science. 

I think the result is somewhat misleading though but even many of the evolution supporters go for the idea that God created us through evolution so if you include them it might actually be higher percentrage than those who believe God created us directly. 
"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 #198 on: October 20, 2013, 09:21:17 PM »
My thoughts:

Humans design things with the capacity for repair because we know we aren't perfect and they'll actually need repair. Which is certainly an intelligent way to do things.

An intelligent designer of everything, on the other hand, has a much greater capacity to design things that do not require repair.
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, magicmiles.  I am still hoping DrTesla will answer the point I raised, but I'm more than happy to engage with you in the meantime.

There are problems with this outlook.  The one I'm going to talk about in this post is that humans are anything but perfect and thus very often have built-in 'defects' as well as a serious need for 'repair'.  There are a huge number of potential problems that we can suffer from, not to mention serious injuries, and there's no easy way to heal those problems.  Someone born with poor eyesight was stuck with it for most of human history, for example, until we figured out that curving glass in certain ways could help correct certain kinds of vision problems.  But even then, other kinds were irreparable for most of human history.  It's only very recently that we've managed to come up with ways to deal with more serious vision problems (such as cataracts, or people who are born without a working cornea).

I speak of this from personal experience.  My eyes started degenerating when I was five or so.  Before I was twenty, my vision without correction in both eyes was worse than 20/1000.  That means that if I was looking at something 20 feet away, it was as if a person with normal eyesight was looking at something a thousand feet away.  Yes, I could see normally with glasses, but I had no peripheral vision whatsoever.  Even as little as 50 years ago, I would have had to wear glasses all my life.  A thousand years ago, I would have been out of luck unless I happened to be born to a rich family which could hire servants to help me deal with my vision problems.  I wouldn't have been able to learn to read or write, either, because those both require working vision.

As it was, I was lucky enough to be born during a time when they actually had figured out how to surgically implant artificial lenses in the eyes.  That gave me near-normal vision.  And even with it, I still have issues relating to the surgery.  If I rub my eyes too much, I can damage the clamps that hold the lens in place which knocks it out of place.  I had that happen once - and it was awful.  Imagine having half of one eye's vision at normal, and the other half at 20/1000.

And I'm just one of millions of people worldwide who have vision problems of some kind or another, which is a very small subset of all the built-in physical problems that are common to humans.  And almost invariably, we have to come up with ways to overcome these problems; not an intelligent designer, us.  My point is, please don't try to tell me that this is the best some "intelligent designer" could do, to leave so many 'bugs' in humans and not making any real effort to do anything about them.

Human body actually has a much longer shelf life than most machines that humans create.  It is also a much more complex machine than anything we can build.    You guys keep insisting it is not that "intelligent" of a design simply because it there are errors in the genetic code from time to time  but intelligent design is referring to the fact that is a complex machine consistently of complex structures and systems that appear as though they are designed.   Just because a genetic mutation happen does not mean it is not an amazingly complex machine that requires billions of processes to work together to sustain life. 
"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 #199 on: October 20, 2013, 09:27:44 PM »
On the subject of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Wouldn't an intelligent designer be irreducibly complex? He/she/it couldn't possibly have evolved.

That is a valid observation but you are conflating an implication of the theory, that there is a "intelligent designer" aka God,  with the  IC theory itself.   If irreducible complexity demonstrates that Darwian evolution via random mutations and natural selection is false, as Darwin himself proposed, then if we prove IC occurs,  then the Darwiani evolution theory must be false regardless if we do not know who could have created our creator.    But it also doesn't mean that there couldn't have been some other natural process outside of Darwin's proposed mechanism  to account for irreducible complexity.

I am curious,  do people on here deny that any structure or system can be irreducibly complex,  or do you only deny that Darwinian evolution can't result in in IC systems?
"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 #200 on: October 20, 2013, 09:38:41 PM »
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697

Dr. Behe, who I gather is the Darwin equivalent godfather of Intelligent Design,  responds to the assertions by the judge in the school board trial  at that link.

He seems to make logical arguments and he appears to have the right degrees so I think it is hard to make him out as a quack of some sort.  He doesn't sound like a Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson type.   

Behe makes the point that the Darwinian evolution theory people argue that indirect evolution could have lead to irreducibly complexity but that is a big improbability,  and Behe even made the point that is possible but not probable in his book.     They don't appear to even argue that direct evolution could lead to the development of a complex system.  If they conceded direction evolution does not lead to IC, it appears they have effectively conceded the argument to the intelligent design crowd,  given the improbability of indirection evolution.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 10:10:17 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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5060
  • Darwins +579/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #201 on: October 20, 2013, 09:53:58 PM »
Human body actually has a much longer shelf life than most machines that humans create.
Not relevant.  There is no functional reason that we couldn't make machines which lasted as long as or longer than the human body does.  Indeed, humans have made things that have lasted much longer than the length of a human life.

Quote from: DrTesla
It is also a much more complex machine than anything we can build.
Also not relevant.  Complexity does not mean that something was designed.

Quote from: DrTesla
You guys keep insisting it is not that "intelligent" of a design
No, we're insisting that it isn't a design, period.  You have to show that it was in fact designed by someone before the question of how 'intelligent' a design it is is pertinent.

Quote from: DrTesla
simply because it there are errors in the genetic code from time to time
"From time to time"?  Tell that to all of the human beings who suffer from issues related to the way the human body functions.  I'm willing to bet that there isn't a single human alive who doesn't suffer from something related to human functionality at some point in their lives.  And this is from a creator who is supposedly much better than human craftsmen, given how you keep insisting that the complexity of the human body means something.

Quote from: DrTesla
but intelligent design is referring to the fact that is a complex machine consistently of complex structures and systems that appear as though they are designed.
This is the core problem with the intelligent design argument.  The fact that something appears as though it was designed does not mean it actually was designed.  You have to show actual evidence of design, and saying, "well, it sure looks like it was designed" isn't enough.  I mean, take something that actually is designed.  It's possible to show the places where it was machined (cut, smoothed, etc), the individual parts that were made to fit together, the fastenings that hold it together, and so on.  You can show evidence - real, solid evidence that passes scrutiny -  that it was made, rather than just coming together spontaneously.

Quote from: DrTesla
Just because a genetic mutation happen does not mean it is not an amazingly complex machine that requires billions of processes to work together to sustain life.
It also doesn't mean it's a machine at all.  Which is the point you keep missing.  You have to prove that it actually is a machine, that it actually was designed, etc.  Repeatedly insisting that it is doesn't actually mean anything.

Let me reiterate, when humans design things, we make them so that we can take them apart and put them back together, so that we can make repairs, changes, and upgrades if need be.  Even cheap stuff only made to last a year can still be taken apart, repaired, and maintained, simply because it had to be put together to begin with.  Given that the only experience we have with design is our own, it's not reasonable to talk about intelligent design and then insist that our own experience with design isn't relevant.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #202 on: October 20, 2013, 10:18:58 PM »
Human body actually has a much longer shelf life than most machines that humans create.
Not relevant.  There is no functional reason that we couldn't make machines which lasted as long as or longer than the human body does.  Indeed, humans have made things that have lasted much longer than the length of a human life.

Quote from: DrTesla
It is also a much more complex machine than anything we can build.
Also not relevant.  Complexity does not mean that something was designed.

Quote from: DrTesla
You guys keep insisting it is not that "intelligent" of a design
No, we're insisting that it isn't a design, period.  You have to show that it was in fact designed by someone before the question of how 'intelligent' a design it is is pertinent.

Quote from: DrTesla
simply because it there are errors in the genetic code from time to time
"From time to time"?  Tell that to all of the human beings who suffer from issues related to the way the human body functions.  I'm willing to bet that there isn't a single human alive who doesn't suffer from something related to human functionality at some point in their lives.  And this is from a creator who is supposedly much better than human craftsmen, given how you keep insisting that the complexity of the human body means something.

Quote from: DrTesla
but intelligent design is referring to the fact that is a complex machine consistently of complex structures and systems that appear as though they are designed.
This is the core problem with the intelligent design argument.  The fact that something appears as though it was designed does not mean it actually was designed.  You have to show actual evidence of design, and saying, "well, it sure looks like it was designed" isn't enough.  I mean, take something that actually is designed.  It's possible to show the places where it was machined (cut, smoothed, etc), the individual parts that were made to fit together, the fastenings that hold it together, and so on.  You can show evidence - real, solid evidence that passes scrutiny -  that it was made, rather than just coming together spontaneously.

Quote from: DrTesla
Just because a genetic mutation happen does not mean it is not an amazingly complex machine that requires billions of processes to work together to sustain life.
It also doesn't mean it's a machine at all.  Which is the point you keep missing.  You have to prove that it actually is a machine, that it actually was designed, etc.  Repeatedly insisting that it is doesn't actually mean anything.

Let me reiterate, when humans design things, we make them so that we can take them apart and put them back together, so that we can make repairs, changes, and upgrades if need be.  Even cheap stuff only made to last a year can still be taken apart, repaired, and maintained, simply because it had to be put together to begin with.  Given that the only experience we have with design is our own, it's not reasonable to talk about intelligent design and then insist that our own experience with design isn't relevant.

Didn't you make the point that intelligent design should have been designed to account for the need to repair various things, like human designs?   You are just assuming that the human body has no way of repairing itself but I think things like the immune system kind of dispute that, and I think I read that somehow DNA or the RNA (I know very little about DNA so don't cruxify me on this) can repair genes that are out of sequence,  or something like that.   That sounds like a built in repair process if it is true.  We haven't invented a machine that can repair itself that I know of, at least at a complex level. 

    I didn't make my observations about the complexity of the human body to prove intelligent design in that comment, but only to point out that intelligent design does not mean there are no errors ever, it is speaking to the complexity of the structures/processes and how mulitiple things have to work together to sustain life.  If you think about all the number of processes and systems that must fulfill their function to sustain life, then you begin to be amazed at how there are not more genetic flaws lead to various disorders / diseases.    Look at it this way,  the more moving parts that a machine has,  the greater probability that it will experience defects and failure sooner.   And lifeforms have billions more moving parts, so to speak and most humans have no serious disorder or disease until later in life as wear and tear diminishes functions of various organs and systems.  :)

Isn't the clotting mechanism after you cut yourself  kind of a built in repair process?   Your bones fuse bake together after you break them. 

The fact we have brains is the biggest repair mechanism of them all because that is how we discover cures for disease, etc including brain diseases (hopefully, in the future).   

My point isn't to prove intelligent design here,  it is to  make a logical case  that Darwin's theory of natural selection coupled with random mutations could not lead to irreducible complexity.     YOu keep trying to grade me on the false premise that I am not proving intelligent design but I am not even trying to.   I am trying to disprove Darwinism.     
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 10:35:48 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