Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 19080 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #319 on: October 22, 2013, 03:35:22 AM »
*to the thread name*

I never got how this argument began, i mean, X (evolution, other shit) is apparently impossible, but an omnimax being is not?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2136
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #320 on: October 22, 2013, 06:52:34 AM »
The fact the one doesn't have anything to do with the other doesn't mean I describe the one inaccurately.  It just means I packaged the two ideas together because they are related in that if there isn't a first lifeform then there is no starting point for evolution.

So if we were talking about the degree of banking at the Indianapolis racetrack, you'd keep conflating that with the Brick Yard? They have zero to do with each other.

Quote
It also seems if you are going to say there is no such thing as creation / intelligent design, the you might want to account for how the first lifeform originated spontenously from non-life.   If not,  you cant blame some people for assuming that the first lifeform was created by some kind of supernatural god and if he created one,  he could have created other lifeforms.

Bzzzzt. Fail. The ToE stands on it's own. And, it stands quite tall, especially compared to any so-called "intelligent" design.

Unfortunately for you, you'll never get it, because evolution contradicts your preconceptions indoctrinated into you. All the evidence in the world won't change your mind. Sad, really.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1185
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #321 on: October 22, 2013, 07:53:16 AM »
I clearly have described evolution correctly and even corrected some on here conflating variation within a species due to natural selection with evolution theory.  Yet you focused on me not them.


Variation and natural selection are the same thing. This just shows your ignorance. You cannot argue against something if you do not understand it. Why don't you read the book - why evolution is true by J Coney? Then you might begin to discuss the subject.

Why did you ignore my post about lizards showing this, why did you ignore my post about the eye disproving irreducible complexity?

Your thinking process is the real problem. That is why I asked you if you have any compulsive habits such as locking the door ten times. It is not just a rude question, it relates to your thinking process and your answer to the question would tell me if you are acting honestly on this thread. If you don't answer whether you have any compulsive habits, I will assume that you know that you are being dishonest in this discussion. Have you got any compulsive habits? Just yes or no. Roughly how many?
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 wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #322 on: October 22, 2013, 08:37:44 AM »
Maybe Jesus had it right - 'There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.'
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #323 on: October 22, 2013, 08:53:55 AM »
Except he never said astrology is science.  He clearly states that astrology is incorrect in his testimony and gives other examples of things we know are incorrect but were once part of scientific explanations.   He's trying to define scientific explanation, not science.   The definition of science explanation is obviously something people can quibble over but they are basically trying to hang him with some semantics stuff but any logical person understands he has not said astrology = science here.
But he did say that it could be a scientific theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Quote
Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.
He might have been thinking of "astrology when it was first proposed", yet he did not say that until the prosecuting attorney pressed him on his evasiveness and attempts to move the goalposts.  So I think we can give that one to Rothschild.

The attorney also made a good point about 'theories' that were originally based on appearances that have been discarded, such as geocentrism.  You know, the theory that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth?  That's the way it looked to people in the past - but they didn't know about the Earth's rotation.  And then he made the comparison that intelligent design (and irreducible complexity by extension) look accurate (EDIT--if you just look at them, and don't spend a lot of time examining them).  That's why we need to critically examine the evidence and keep examining it in order to tell whether a proposed explanation is accurate or not.  But advocates of intelligent design wouldn't have us do that.  You'd have us discard evolutionary theory - except the parts that don't contradict the idea of supernatural interventions - based on things like, "well, this sure does look like it was purposefully designed" and "well, this sure does look irreducible".  Which is all that intelligent design and irreducible complexity boil down to.

Quote from: DrTesla
GIve the scientific consensus argument use ed by Darwin people, they would have to agree that astrology was scientific explanation back in the day when there was a "scientific" consensus in favor of that.    Behe's point is that historically scientists of their day have been proven wrong over time.
Incorrect.  The definition used by scientists for a scientific theory (less those like Behe, who have redefined the term for their convenience) is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses".  It has nothing to do about whether it happens to be a consensus or not.  It's whether the explanation is well-substantiated.  And evolutionary theory is and has been well-substantiated, whereas intelligent design and irreducible complexity have not.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 09:25:12 AM by jaimehlers »

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2556
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #324 on: October 22, 2013, 09:53:50 AM »
I clearly have described evolution correctly and even corrected some on here conflating variation within a species due to natural selection with evolution theory.

How did you correct them, when variation within a "species" can be caused by mutation? By mutation, I mean a gene gets hit by radiation, mutagen (etc) and is now a new variant, that never existed within the species before. Creationists like to bang on about how breeding can never cause significant change, and that variation within a species is not evidence of progressive evolution, but it is simply adapting within God's parameters.

Basically, you conflated "variation within a species" to mean what you wanted it to mean.

An important part of science, which is never included in the school boy definition, is peer review. This is a process by which your peers attack you viciously, and criticize your work. In the case of Michael Behe, I don't believe he has had his work peer reviewed, because creation science is not a competitive subject. By this, I mean, nothing is ever developed from one researcher to the next. It's all fresh bullshit with each enthusiast. At worst, Behe has been dressed down with some severe praise from sycophants.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2556
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #325 on: October 22, 2013, 10:32:16 AM »
I believe the judge just agreed with science experts presenting the Darwin side of the case rather than with Behe and other scientists on his side.

I went back a few pages, and found that IndoctrinatedTesla just thinks that science is a matter of getting people on your side, like it's a school yard fight.

Yes, in science, you do get the shit kicked out of you, if you attempt to go against the dominant paradigm, but it doesn't mean that anyone who goes against the DP will be vindicated. It's up to the creationists to have a valid theory, which is robustly criticized within their own ranks. But "irreducible complexity" is just another criticism of Darwinism, rather than a theory of how things really work, so you can't criticize it and remain in the club. You just say something is irreducibly complex, and your sycophantic peers say, "Oh, really. If you say so." If any of your sycophantic peers then dare to demonstrate how something wasn't irreducibly complex, they get accused of heresy, and are expelled from the club. "We're here to show how things are irreducibly complex. If you don't agree with us, the you are OUT".
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #326 on: October 22, 2013, 10:39:17 AM »
Indeed!

The whole way modern science works is that for each idea someone publishes, everyone else in the field tries to destroy. Think of it like a hypothesis that all swans are white. If I published that, many, many people would be out looking for that one black swan that sinks the argument. Or, maybe think of the Higgs Bosun.It was proposed in the 1960s and survived as a hypothesis right up to the building of CERN - a lab built to find the Higgs. It survive attacks on the hypothesis so well, that scientists were prepared to spend real money looking - and, of course it was found.

Now, take Behe and the Discovery Institute. Tell me, Dr Tesla, of any original research completed by the Institute? Then tell me of any which they published in peer-reviewed Journals. The Institute and their supporters say that the peer-review system means that as people don't like their ideas, they are kept out of journals yet that is not the case. The reviewers are looking to see if the paper has good arguments and isn't just assertions without evidence - the real problem here - either that or the papers have already had their ideas shown to be untrue, like the flagellum idea.

So Dr Tesla, come up with the goods - show us some of the Institutes's original research and the publication data. If it is not in a peer reviewed journal it doesn't really count as science.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1613
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #327 on: October 22, 2013, 11:28:25 AM »
I was on campus this morning and was given an invitation to a speaking event this evening. The invite (I wish I had the option of just uploading a copy) Starts with "Who's Your Daddy?" with a picture of a monkey sticking it's tongue out. Directly below it has: Evolution: a Theory in Crisis! Come & see what's being left out in your science class! Free admission.

And at the bottom: *Guaranteed to not make a monkey out of you!

So I asked the guy who was handing out the invites "Wait a second. are you saying that this is going to demonstrate the science behind an alternative to evolution?" His response? Well yes, but you have to be willing to, you know, put on the right kind of glasses to see it that way. Can we count on seeing you there tonight?"

I grinned at him and said that yes, Ill actually change my plans a bit to make sure I can attend.

This should be fun. First hand experience of the argument from the other side, about the science of creationism or ID. I can hardly wait to hear it. Dude said they plan to record the session and upload it, so I might even be able to share it with you guys.  8)
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #328 on: October 22, 2013, 11:34:20 AM »
The "right kind of glasses". Yeah, the ones that blind you to reality.

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1613
  • Darwins +174/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #329 on: October 22, 2013, 11:38:59 AM »
If the guy had ever dealt with me before in any meaningful manner, he would have recognized the grin on my face and rescinded his invitation immediately. I had no interest whatsoever until he made that stupid right kind of glasses remark - now I feel obligated to attend and see if he can show me where to find the right kind of glasses. Mine seem to show reality a little better than the ones he's talking about.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6131
  • Darwins +690/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #330 on: October 22, 2013, 11:52:08 AM »
If you don't come back after tonight, Jag, we'll know they had really really good glasses.

Dr.T, quick question. If you were wrong about something and didn't know it, what would be the best way for others to correct your error? Our methods aren't working. So I thought i would ask.

And by the way, if you loose this argument, you win. Because you'll have better information and less detritus in your head. That's a good thing.
Not everyone is entitled to their opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1734
  • Darwins +72/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #331 on: October 22, 2013, 12:37:12 PM »
If the guy had ever dealt with me before in any meaningful manner, he would have recognized the grin on my face and rescinded his invitation immediately. I had no interest whatsoever until he made that stupid right kind of glasses remark - now I feel obligated to attend and see if he can show me where to find the right kind of glasses. Mine seem to show reality a little better than the ones he's talking about.

Please report your experience in a new thread here. It'd be great hearing the same old (as I doubt these people will have anything new) creationist nonsense filtered by someone taking contemporary bio classes.

Any chance you could write up your attending that lecture and get some credit from any of your classes? As in a first-hand account of common fallacies used attacking the ToE and how they're still being used? It'd be a way of getting something more from it.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1851
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #332 on: October 22, 2013, 12:40:11 PM »
I was on campus this morning and was given an invitation to a speaking event this evening. The invite (I wish I had the option of just uploading a copy) Starts with "Who's Your Daddy?" with a picture of a monkey sticking it's tongue out. Directly below it has: Evolution: a Theory in Crisis! Come & see what's being left out in your science class! Free admission.

And at the bottom: *Guaranteed to not make a monkey out of you!

So I asked the guy who was handing out the invites "Wait a second. are you saying that this is going to demonstrate the science behind an alternative to evolution?" His response? Well yes, but you have to be willing to, you know, put on the right kind of glasses to see it that way. Can we count on seeing you there tonight?"

I grinned at him and said that yes, Ill actually change my plans a bit to make sure I can attend.

This should be fun. First hand experience of the argument from the other side, about the science of creationism or ID. I can hardly wait to hear it. Dude said they plan to record the session and upload it, so I might even be able to share it with you guys.  8)
The use of the phrase "Who's your Daddy?" makes this feel very Jack Chick-esque.  See if any of the Chick bulls**t makes its way into this event.

If unfamiliar with "Big Daddy", here's a fun dissection of it:
http://enterthejabberwock.com/2002/04/chick-dissection-big-daddy/
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #333 on: October 22, 2013, 01:19:56 PM »
If you don't come back after tonight, Jag, we'll know they had really really good glasses.

Dr.T, quick question. If you were wrong about something and didn't know it, what would be the best way for others to correct your error? Our methods aren't working. So I thought i would ask.

And by the way, if you loose this argument, you win. Because you'll have better information and less detritus in your head. That's a good thing.

Dude, could you please learn that "lose" only has one "o". You make this mistake a lot, and it's starting to irritate me.

;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12031
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #334 on: October 22, 2013, 01:41:10 PM »
You are tying beliefs together because that is your belief in what God should be able to do.

That was poorly communicated.  I do not know what you are trying to say.

  What is your proof that God controls what happens to people in their lives, liking being in a car accident or getting cancer?

Why should I have proof of that?  I am an atheist.  I do not believe in any gods, let alone one who controls our slightest actions.

   You don't believe in God but you have a clear idea on what the scope of God's power is if he does exist.  That is a bit of compartmentalization and a disconnect in your thinking.   

Eh, no.  That would be you missing the point.  Let me try to get you back on track. 

There are people who believe in God (capital G). They claim this god is immaterial, invisible, undetectable, existing outside time and space (whatever that means) and, most importantly, omnimax - omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.  Being omnipotent, omniscience and existing outside time (whatever that means) means this being understands how all actions and variables are interrelated.  It understands every output of the system given the inputs.  He knows how to produce any deisred outcome.  And, this is key, he can make it happen.  He can adjust the inputs or the system to get the desired outcomes.

And let me just reiterate, this is how theists define god.  I am simply using their definition.

So, given this god, we have to assume that it knows everything that will happen.  Not only that, but since it created the starting conditions, it made them happen.  It could have done things differently, but did not.  So car crashes, school shootings and ebola are all deliberately caused by God (capital G).  The universe is its Rube Goldberg machineWiki.   

Why doesn't God just design us not to die at all if he is omnipotent and he can do anything.

Fantastic question.  You should ask that of religious people.  You might also aske why we were designed to eat other living things - thus causing them harm and suffering.

I think it makes more sense that if there is a God, he is more like an engineer who designs a car.

Well, you thought wrong.  You undershot. If God (capital G) is an engineer who designs cars, then he is also one who creates the roads, planets, molecules, and laws of physics.

  Some of the cars are going to have problems, some of them will fail earlier than others, and they will all fail at some point.

Yeah, you don't get it.  God is not a fallible human engineer constrained by physics and a tiny primate brain.




If he demonstrates that a system is irreducibly complex

How do you do that?  I think at best, you can only say you don't know how a system evolved.  That would then be an argument from ignorance.  You would be saying "I cannot imagine how this would have evolved, thus ID."  Which would be fallacious logic and a generally stiupid argument.

Behe used the flagellum as an example of IC.  But the flagellum had prior been used as a hypodermic or served other functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
 
Behe established nothing other than he is a religious horse's ass.
 
not answering the "data" that Behe and others have put forth.

It is good you have put "data" in quotes, since Neither Behe, nor anyone else, have put forth any data for IC.  They have made arguments, but not put forth any data.  I've looked.  There is none.


All they have to do is demonstrate that a system or organ is irreducibly complex,

How is that done?  How does someone show that there is no way that a system was of any use?  It could be that it was perfectly useful, but you just didn't figure it out.  Nope.  This is not how science works.

and it really isn't logical to think that there aren't many IC systems throughout the body.

Oh really?  Do tell.

Or do you deny that if they are IC, evolution can't account for them?

First of all, you offer a false choice.  Secondly, it is not a matter of evolution accounting for them. It is a matter of people figuring stuff out.  Just because we have a theory of evolution does not mean it lays open the answers for every question in minute detail.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1185
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #335 on: October 22, 2013, 02:41:20 PM »
it really isn't logical to think that there aren't many IC systems throughout the body. 

Let's take your insides and put them into a snail. Would they fit? Would the snail need them? Do you even know how many structures are in your body which are not in a snail?

Imagine an amoeba like animal evolving into a larger animal say a "red herring". As the amoeba evolves larger and larger could it even immediately evolve complex organs which would fit inside it? or would they develop slowly as the animal needed the structures and the structures could fit inside the animal?

An elementary knowledge of biology should tell you the answer.
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

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6246
  • Darwins +785/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #336 on: October 22, 2013, 04:11:46 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Very clear, lots of examples and pictures. Simple way to deal with the "what good is part of an eye" question. Part of an eye, depending on what you need that part to do, is much better than no part of an eye. And the human eye is far from the best possible eye design among animals with eyes. We have blind spots, upside-down design problems, limited distance and night vision, etc. that other animals don't have.

I am sitting here wearing trifocals. I have "part of an eye". It is far better than being blind. Like, a hand with five fingers is generally better than a hand with two fingers. But a hand with two or three fingers is way better than no hand at all.

A side note for science nerds like me: evolution even seems to have mechanisms for the "part of an eye" problem. Blind people develop better hearing. One part of a brain will compensate when another part is damaged. People who are right-handed and lose that hand can learn to write with the left hand.

So, if the "goal" of evolution is species survival, there are lots of fail-safes to try to ensure that even when there is damage, the organism might still survive to reproduce. Each stage of the development of the eye-- each "part of an eye" does some part of the job of helping the animal survive better.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

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

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #337 on: October 22, 2013, 05:42:38 PM »
^^^ One wonders why creationists keep bringing up the eye. It's almost as if they've been living under a rock in the 211 years since Paley.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #338 on: October 22, 2013, 08:09:55 PM »

  Abiogenesis has to deal in more speculative ideas and with environmental conditions that are extremely difficult to replicate.  Even if we do manage to produce abiogenesis in the lab it'll be highly unlikely to be a faithful replication of the actual historical processes that gave us the beginnings of life - because there are very many possible pathways. Abiogenesis is also not happening in nature anymore - because any emerging rudimentary biochemical system gets eaten by long established advanced microbes.

lol, this seems like circular logic.  You assert we don't know how the first lifeform originated from non-life  but then you assert that it is not happening in nature anymore as though you have proof it happened in nature even 1 time.   How do we know it isn't happening in nature anymore?   You also just assume that the system that lead to its creation is one that isn't around anymore but again, we don't know what biochemical system allowed it in the first place so we can't assert if it isn't around anymore.   You also assert there are very many possible pathways but how do we know if we don't even know what 1 of the pathways is. 

It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.    Until we demonstrate that it is possible for life to come from non-life then we have to conclude it did not happen.  That does not mean we have to conclude that there is a God.   The only answer is we don't know b/c we have not proved anything.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 08:17:31 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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #339 on: October 22, 2013, 08:28:39 PM »

lol, this seems like circular logic.  You assert we don't know how the first lifeform originated from non-life  but then you assert that it is not happening in nature anymore as though you have proof it happened in nature even 1 time.   


No, he's saying we don't know how the first life began and you shouldn't pretend to by the use of irrational arguments.


It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.    Until we demonstrate that it is possible for life to come from non-life then we have to conclude it did not happen.  That does not mean we have to conclude that there is a God.   The only answer is we don't know b/c we have not proved anything.


You just contradicted yourself. First you say, "we have to conclude it didn't happen". Then you say, "we don't know".

STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #340 on: October 22, 2013, 08:37:56 PM »

lol, this seems like circular logic.  You assert we don't know how the first lifeform originated from non-life  but then you assert that it is not happening in nature anymore as though you have proof it happened in nature even 1 time.   


No, he's saying we don't know how the first life began and you shouldn't pretend to by the use of irrational arguments.


It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.    Until we demonstrate that it is possible for life to come from non-life then we have to conclude it did not happen.  That does not mean we have to conclude that there is a God.   The only answer is we don't know b/c we have not proved anything.


You just contradicted yourself. First you say, "we have to conclude it didn't happen". Then you say, "we don't know".

STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!


You think God is impossible right?   Lol.   So take your own advice.   :)

I did not mean to imply that it might not have happened only that at this point we don't know.  But there seems to be this assertion that it DID happen, not  and we just don't know how at this point.     THat is different from saying it might have happened.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 08:41:39 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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #341 on: October 22, 2013, 08:41:25 PM »
It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.
Isn't that basically what you're doing?  You're saying that because the idea that life evolved complexity naturally doesn't seem possible to you, it therefore must have been designed (which is something that does seem possible to you).

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #342 on: October 22, 2013, 08:48:02 PM »
It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.
Isn't that basically what you're doing?  You're saying that because the idea that life evolved complexity naturally doesn't seem possible to you, it therefore must have been designed (which is something that does seem possible to you).

no, i'm  just saying Darwin evolution doesn't explain how gradual incremental changes over time lead to complex structures and system in lifeforms because these complex structures/systems cannot function without one of their parts and the parts by themselves have no value, and also the parts had to be organized in a certain way for them to work together  to fulfill the functionality of the complex system/structure.   

It doesn't seem possible to me based on this observation.   All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.   You are conflating an implication of the ruling out of Darwin evolution,  that of intelligent design,  with me just trying to rule out darwin evolution.     Intelligent design seems more possible than darwin evolution in terms of resulting in irreducible complexity,  in a theoritical and logical sense. 
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 08:49:37 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 Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #343 on: October 22, 2013, 08:59:08 PM »
All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.

Indeed.  Truth is a distant second to this goal.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #344 on: October 22, 2013, 09:01:57 PM »
All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.

Indeed.  Truth is a distant second to this goal.

More rhetoric. 
"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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #345 on: October 22, 2013, 09:06:23 PM »

You think God is impossible right?   Lol.   So take your own advice.   :)

I did not mean to imply that it might not have happened only that at this point we don't know.  But there seems to be this assertion that it DID happen, not  and we just don't know how at this point.     THat is different from saying it might have happened.


Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I thought God was impossible. You are the one making the claims to what you think is impossible, and up until just now you haven't been admitting that you don't know. You've been making arguments to the contrary and displaying your ignorance of evolutionary science. "Abiogenesis is impossible, therefore God is a better choice" (but it's not). You can't explain a mystery by an even bigger mystery.


If you are willing to admit that you don't know how life began (or how we got here) are now admitting that you are an Agnostic?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 09:09:49 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #346 on: October 22, 2013, 09:13:21 PM »

Fantastic question.  You should ask that of religious people.  You might also aske why we were designed to eat other living things - thus causing them harm and suffering.

Well it makes sense that we were designed to eat simply because if we were not we would not be able to acquire the energy that our cells need to sustain life.   Designing us without the ability to eat would be like designing a car without a gas tank.   We need fuel.  Unleaded perferably.  LOL



I think it makes more sense that if there is a God, he is more like an engineer who designs a car.


Quote
Yeah, you don't get it.  God is not a fallible human engineer constrained by physics and a tiny primate brain.

lol, there you go again defining the scope of God's power even though you don't even believe God exists.   that would be his power if he did exist.  that cracks me up. 

i don't think you can assert that there is just one interpreation of what God can do because religious people don't all agree with other on that, even with a certain sect like Baptists there are disagreements on the nature of God.     
"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 #347 on: October 22, 2013, 09:17:23 PM »

You think God is impossible right?   Lol.   So take your own advice.   :)

I did not mean to imply that it might not have happened only that at this point we don't know.  But there seems to be this assertion that it DID happen, not  and we just don't know how at this point.     THat is different from saying it might have happened.


Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I thought God was impossible. You are the one making the claims to what you think is impossible, and up until just now you haven't been admitting that you don't know. You've been making arguments to the contrary and displaying your ignorance of evolutionary science. "Abiogenesis is impossible, therefore God is a better choice" (but it's not). You can't explain a mystery by an even bigger mystery.


If you are willing to admit that you don't know how life began (or how we got here) are now admitting that you are an Agnostic?

I never implied a God was a "better choice",  I said they were equal possiblities in terms of both seem supernatural at this point ie not explainable by science as far as we know. 

I thought agnostic means you don't care how we got here.   Clearly I care.    I tend to fancy there is an intelligent designer of some sort but I don't think there is an afterlife or that he has control over what happens to us in our lives.     I guess that makes me half religious idiot , half super cool atheist.   :)
"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