Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 32247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #696 on: October 25, 2013, 01:39:53 PM »

It isn't scientific to use a possible implication of a observation that you don't like (like there is a "God") as evidence that the observation is not correct and must be explained by something (like Darwin evolution)  even if that something does not explain it.

No, what isn't scientific is your continual attempt to use the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy (over and over and over and over again) as a justification for your assumptions regarding a "God" and the supernatural. You continually refuse see this. It's not surprising. You're a credulous idiot who thinks he knows what is 'impossible' and what is not. And instead of admitting you simply don't know what took place (and actually going and researching the science) you resort to unscientific, superstitious, presumptions while quote mining. Ignorance and credulity are no excuse, sorry.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #697 on: October 25, 2013, 02:08:16 PM »
Some wonder if darwins do not purposely conflate intelligent design with creationism because that is the only way they can discredit it.
You need to read about the history and origin of ID. ID is without a doubt Creationism.
lol, nope, creationism is focused on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis.   it is a reference to religion and the bible,  ID is not.

The Discovery Institutes 1998 "The Wedge Strategy" (link here) clearly states the religious intentions of the Intelligent Design movement. The following excepts are from the Discovery document itself:

  • Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. (pg. 2)
  • The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. (pg. 6)
-----------------------

Walter Bradley, a founding member of the ID movement that worked on the Wedge document wrote a sort of testimony in a book titled Why I Am a Christian. The chapter is titled Why I Believe the Bible is Scientifically Reliable by Walter Bradley. It's chock full of "progressive creationism" and appeals to the Christian god. In it he says: "Amazingly enough, this picture from Genesis is extremely consistent with what we know from science."

Phillip E. Johnson, a born again Christian, founding member of the ID movement and creator of the wedge metaphor for the Discovery Institute, said "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism' -- or sometimes, 'mere creation' --as the defining concept of our movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology.

Dean H. Kenyon, a Discovery Institute fellow and author of Of Pandas and People was a creationist in 1976 and defended creation science and creationism in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education and Edwards v. Aguillard cases. Straight from the horses mouth: “Scientific creationism [...] is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement."

Hell, DrTesla, even the guy you love referencing, Dr. Behe, said “Christians live in the world with non-Christians. We want to share the Good News with those who have not yet grasped it, and to defend the faith against attacks."

Tell me again how ID isn't creationism and how the men that back ID don't reference the Bible or God. You're going to need more than a "lol, nope" to counter the evidence I've presented.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #698 on: October 25, 2013, 02:10:44 PM »
Don't mind Me, but it was always My understanding that the amounts of each depend on how simple its atoms are. For example, hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe because it's so simple (1x proton + 1x electron). Helium is the second most common for the same reason.
EDIT: This is a rough approximation, of course. Stability of the atom also plays a part in how common it will be.

That makes sense.  Hydrogen would have been the first to form as well, with fusion into heavier elements occurring in the nuclei of hydrogen-based stars.

Why do we hear so little about lithium, boron and beryllium, which would have been produced before carbon, nitrogen and oxygen?  Were most of those atoms used as fuel by early giant stars, perhaps?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #699 on: October 25, 2013, 02:14:58 PM »

Tell me again how ID isn't creationism and how the men that back ID don't reference the Bible or God. You're going to need more than a "lol, nope" to counter the evidence I've presented.

You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature, and IC cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution give there are no functional precursors.  That is what is on trial here,  not their personal beliefs about God.   It doesn't matter if they are motivated to prove God  if the science backs up their belief in God.    Richard Dawkins said  Darwin evolution made it possible for atheists to be intellectualy fullfilled,  so you could argue he only believes in Darwin evolution regardless of facts because it is he wants to be intellectually fulfilled as an atheist.   But again, the motivation of a scientist doesn't matter if their observation is legit.
"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 One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11200
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #700 on: October 25, 2013, 02:18:24 PM »
Why do we hear so little about lithium, boron and beryllium, which would have been produced before carbon, nitrogen and oxygen?  Were most of those atoms used as fuel by early giant stars, perhaps?

I don't think so, but it's possible. Here's another idea:
Stars don't fuse nuclei indiscriminately. Note that they fuse four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom. It's possible they fused a combination of other atoms that didn't allow for the formation of some elements, but did allow for the formation of even heavier ones. In other words, they "skipped ahead" on the periodic table.
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 #701 on: October 25, 2013, 02:21:29 PM »
No, what isn't scientific is your continual attempt to use the argument from ignorance/incredulity fallacy (over and over and over and over again) as a justification for your assumptions regarding a "God" and the supernatural. You continually refuse see this. It's not surprising. You're a credulous idiot who thinks he knows what is 'impossible' and what is not. And instead of admitting you simply don't know what took place (and actually going and researching the science) you resort to unscientific, superstitious, presumptions while quote mining. Ignorance and credulity are no excuse, sorry.

I have not assumed anyting about God.   My only argument has been that Darwin evolution does not explain irreducible complexity.   Your premise is I must prove God's existence or therefore Darwin evolution does explain irreducible complexity.   This is based on something that you have not proved, that there is no God.  So it isn't logical that you make it a constraint.    It something was designed somehow,  it was designed somehow.   We work from there to resolve any implications from that.   It is odd that you want to get into the God question if you are still denying IC even occurs because the God question is only relevant once you agree IC does occure and Darwin can't account for it.
"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 Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #702 on: October 25, 2013, 02:23:57 PM »
  But again, the motivation of a scientist doesn't matter if their observation is legit.

Their observations are not legit. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #703 on: October 25, 2013, 02:27:59 PM »
Dr Tesla,

You need to read the following:

Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) was one of the early Church's greatest thinkers. Yet he too suffered from the Iron Age version of forum posters who knew nothing about the things they said. The essence of his message is that Christians who say things that, even to the moderately educated, are obviously untrue destroy the basis of Christianity by making it appear foolish.

In his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) Augustine provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.


This quote sums up the sheer folly of the Discovery Institute, their disingenuous attempt to mask creationism as ID, and their credulous followers.

And St. Augustine wrote this barely a century after the Council of Nicaea decided that Genesis would be part of canon. It utterly baffles me that some Christians still make these kinds of mistakes, nearly sixteen centuries after his death.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #704 on: October 25, 2013, 02:28:48 PM »
Richard Dawkins said  Darwin evolution made it possible for atheists to be intellectualy fullfilled,
Yay, good on him! But he didn't use exactly those words - did he?  The full quote is:
"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

See what a distorting little grub has infected your mind?  You don't need evolution to be an atheist - understanding it just adds a cherry on top.

so you could argue he only believes in Darwin evolution regardless of facts because it is he wants to be intellectually fulfilled as an atheist. 
Or, if you read a few of Dawkins many books, you'd find he has HUNDREDS of reasons not to believe in God, and evolution is just one more reason :)

Once again you have it assbackwards.
Git mit uns

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #705 on: October 25, 2013, 02:38:53 PM »
I have not assumed anyting about God.   My only argument has been that Darwin evolution does not explain irreducible complexity.   Your premise is I must prove God's existence or therefore Darwin evolution does explain irreducible complexity.   This is based on something that you have not proved, that there is no God.  So it isn't logical that you make it a constraint.    It something was designed somehow,  it was designed somehow.   We work from there to resolve any implications from that.   It is odd that you want to get into the God question if you are still denying IC even occurs because the God question is only relevant once you agree IC does occure and Darwin can't account for it.

Actually, you said: "...some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin.     It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin."

That statement contains an implicit assumption about God. A wrong one, as it happens.

That you don't declare anything regarding your personal views about the nature of the divine is perhaps another example of your unwillingness to be open and honest.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 02:41:04 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +818/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #706 on: October 25, 2013, 02:51:08 PM »
You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature, and IC cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution give there are no functional precursors. 

It can't be explained to you. That doesn't mean it can't be explained.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #707 on: October 25, 2013, 03:02:05 PM »
I think some people believe in a "God"  out of fear but the opposite is also true, some people are scared of the idea of God and thus they will oppose any observation of nature that cannot be explained by Darwin.     It is basically God-phobia that prejudices against the obvious conclusion that that IC cannot be explained by Darwin.    We know there must be thousands of IC systems in a body if a simple mechanism like a mouse trap is IC.    That is why you see Miller and others try to argue the mousetrap isn't IC.   LOL

Arguing against the specific reasons why someone is positing a rebuttal, instead of addressing the rebuttal itself, is irrational (which seems to be your MO). I believed in "God" (whatever that means) for nearly 20 years, until I realized that the reasons for belief in a God are irrational, and you haven't presented one rational case here yet (just ignorance and repetition of fallacies which you refuse to acknowledge). Your own credulity is not a sound justification for assuming your theology or your assertions regarding IC/ID.

We do not "know" what you are attempting to say. You are, again, ASSUMING and that is the problem.

-Assuming you understand evolutionary theory
-Assuming you know biochemistry well enough to make an informed decision
-Assuming your own definition of IC (but then moving the goal post to avoid refutation)
-Assuming you don't need to research the professional responses to Behe and ID proponents
-Assuming your theology/God
-Assuming the origin of life is "impossible" without that God

Behold the foundation of your credulity.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 03:06:17 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #708 on: October 25, 2013, 03:19:50 PM »

I have not assumed anyting about God.   My only argument has been that Darwin evolution does not explain irreducible complexity.   Your premise is I must prove God's existence or therefore Darwin evolution does explain irreducible complexity.  This is based on something that you have not proved, that there is no God.  So it isn't logical that you make it a constraint.    It something was designed somehow,  it was designed somehow.   We work from there to resolve any implications from that.   It is odd that you want to get into the God question if you are still denying IC even occurs because the God question is only relevant once you agree IC does occure and Darwin can't account for it.

The above is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are making the positive assertions. Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon you to demonstrate them. Furthermore, you have misrepresented my position (another logical fallacy called the Strawman). I have said no such thing of which you accuse me. I have previously stated that IF we granted your assertion that some systems are IC your conclusion would still not follow. Both Jaime and I have attempted to point this out to you on numerous occasions, to which you have ignored them and simply repeated yourself (ad nauseum). Chemistry, genetics, and biochemistry are not analogous to human design (and thus cannot rightly be compared to them). You are putting the cart before the horse. 
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 #709 on: October 25, 2013, 03:33:01 PM »
Your premise is that we must prove God exists to prove design exists.

Here is your logic:
There is no God.
Therefore nothing could be designed.
If nothing is designed, it must be explained by natural processes.
Darwin evolution theory explains  how everything in nature got to that point.
Therefore, Darwin evolution theory explains irreducible complexity even if we are not quite sure how and if we stipulate IC even occurs in lifeforms.

So your entire logical flow is based on the premise that there is no God even though nobody can prove or disprove a God exists. 

Here is Beheian logic:
There is apparent design in nature. 
If something looks like it was designed,  it might have been designed.
Irreducible complex systems  are found in lifeforms
IC systems  fail if one part stops working or is removed.
Therefore, there is no functional precursor to an IC system.
Therefore,  no function has been selected by nature.
Therefore no gradual change via natural selection could have occured.
Therefore  Darwinian theory is wrong.
Thereforce the IC system either arose through chance ie unselected mutations OR it was designed.
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.
Therefore IC systems were designed.
At this point, we can ask who designed them. 

But the conclusion follows scientific observation and logical inferences.  It does not start with God exists.
"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 Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #710 on: October 25, 2013, 03:49:26 PM »
You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature, and IC cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution give there are no functional precursors.  That is what is on trial here,  not their personal beliefs about God.

You said that ID had nothing to do with religion or God. I showed you that the ID movement was in fact religious in nature. Did you even bother reading Discovery Institute's wedge document or Kenyon's quote? Here it is again incase you didn't read it: “Scientific creationism [...] is actually one of the intellectual antecedents of the Intelligent Design movement."

It doesn't matter if they are motivated to prove God  if the science backs up their belief in God.

The science doesn't back him up. He's not doing any fucking science. "This is super complicated and I don't know how it works" isn't scientific. He's shrugging his shoulders and calling supposed gaps in our knowledge theory. That's dishonest. And you better believe he's motivated by his religion.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #711 on: October 25, 2013, 03:53:19 PM »
Your premise is that we must prove God exists to prove design exists.

Another falsehood. The evidence is the history of Intelligent Design itself. It is creationism dressed up as pretend-theory that is a, quite deliberate, epistemological dead-end.

Quote
Here is your logic: <snip>

Yet another string of falsehoods. And a hypocritical one at that, as below:

Quote
Here is Beheian logic:
There is apparent design in nature.

So what? There are "apparent" faces in tree-trunks. Doesn't mean there are or ever were any real faces in them.

Quote
If something looks like it was designed,  it might have been designed.
Irreducible complex systems  are found in lifeforms

Not established. However...

Quote
IC systems  fail if one part stops working or is removed.
Therefore, there is no functional precursor to an IC system.

Except that - as I illustrated in my simulation earlier, which you apparently refuse to even acknowledge - it is possible to conceive of a scenario where a system looks IC, but had previous "versions" that, according to a set of rules, could result in the system in question. As such, this logic fails at this point.

But ignoring that for a moment...

Quote
Therefore,  no function has been selected by nature.
Therefore no gradual change via natural selection could have occured.
Therefore  Darwinian theory is wrong.
Thereforce the IC system either arose through chance ie unselected mutations OR it was designed.
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.
Therefore IC systems were designed.
At this point, we can ask who designed them.

But the conclusion follows scientific observation and logical inferences.  It does not start with God exists.

Oh, come now; you don't expect anyone to fall for that. We don't need to wait until Behe and his disciples find an "IC" system to form a hypothesis about "who designed them". We could start that now with a thought-experiment: if we discovered evidence of design in nature, how would we ascertain the identity of the designer?

I put this to you: the proponents of ID will never ask who the designer is. They're convinced that they already know.

Ask Harun Yahya, and he'll tell you - if he's honest enough to come out and say it - it's Allah. Ask Duane Gish - who is captured on camera as admitting (perhaps inadvertently) that it is about inserting theistic notions into the science class - and his fellows at the Discovery Institute; if they're honest, they'll tell you it's the Lord God Almighty.

Don't try to claim that it doesn't start with "God exists". That's simply dishonest. "God exists" is the entire motivation for this dishonest, mendacious, biased, blinkered, distorted, twisted attempt to subvert scientific inquiry and lead Western civilisation down into an intellectual cul-de-sac.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 03:59:01 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #712 on: October 25, 2013, 03:55:13 PM »
Your premise is that we must prove God exists to prove design exists.
No, it isn't.  The question of whether God exists is irrelevant to the hypothesis of intelligent design.

Quote from: DrTesla
Here is your logic:
There is no God.
Therefore nothing could be designed.
If nothing is designed, it must be explained by natural processes.
Darwin evolution theory explains  how everything in nature got to that point.
Therefore, Darwin evolution theory explains irreducible complexity even if we are not quite sure how and if we stipulate IC even occurs in lifeforms.

So your entire logical flow is based on the premise that there is no God even though nobody can prove or disprove a God exists. 
To use your own response, "lol, no".  This is a straw man, and you should know better.

The actual argument is that the complexity of living organisms can be explained by the process of evolution.

Quote from: DrTesla
Here is Beheian logic:
There is apparent design in nature. 
If something looks like it was designed,  it might have been designed.
Irreducible complex systems  are found in lifeforms
IC systems  fail if one part stops working or is removed.
Therefore, there is no functional precursor to an IC system.
Therefore,  no function has been selected by nature.
Therefore no gradual change via natural selection could have occured.
Therefore  Darwinian theory is wrong.
Thereforce the IC system either arose through chance ie unselected mutations OR it was designed.
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.
Therefore IC systems were designed.
At this point, we can ask who designed them.
However, this logic contains a grevious flaw.  It assumes the consequent.  It starts with the observation of "apparent" design (your words) and concludes that it is actual design by arbitrarily stating that evolution cannot explain it.  In other words, it is circular logic and thus holds no water.

Quote from: DrTesla
But the conclusion follows scientific observation and logical inferences.  It does not start with God exists.
The conclusion is based off of a fatal logical flow and thus is not valid.

Also, I posed you a simple yes/no question earlier.  Do you acknowledge that an observation can be mistaken or wrong?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 03:58:35 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #713 on: October 25, 2013, 04:02:00 PM »
Your premise is that we must prove God exists to prove design exists.

Here is your logic:
There is no God.
Therefore nothing could be designed.
If nothing is designed, it must be explained by natural processes.
Darwin evolution theory explains  how everything in nature got to that point.
Therefore, Darwin evolution theory explains irreducible complexity even if we are not quite sure how and if we stipulate IC even occurs in lifeforms.

So your entire logical flow is based on the premise that there is no God even though nobody can prove or disprove a God exists. 

There it is, another one of your irrational arguments (Strawman fallacy). You are deliberately misrepresenting my position and are thus attacking an argument I did not make! I never said "there is no God". Those are YOUR words, not mine. You need to DEMONSTRATE your claims - since you are asserting them and the burden of proof is on you. Your position is also irrational because you are assuming that atheism is a positive claim. IT IS NOT! It is simply the lack of belief in a God (just like those who do not have a belief in astrology can be called "a-astrologyists").

Again, the burden of proof is on you.

Here is Beheian logic:
There is apparent design in nature. 
If something looks like it was designed,  it might have been designed.
Irreducible complex systems  are found in lifeforms
IC systems  fail if one part stops working or is removed.
Therefore, there is no functional precursor to an IC system.
Therefore,  no function has been selected by nature.
Therefore no gradual change via natural selection could have occured.
Therefore  Darwinian theory is wrong.
Thereforce the IC system either arose through chance ie unselected mutations OR it was designed.
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.
Therefore IC systems were designed.
At this point, we can ask who designed them. 

But the conclusion follows scientific observation and logical inferences.  It does not start with God exists.

First, your third premise is one you have not demonstrated (as Jaime noted), and again, even if we granted it for the sake of discussion it is irrelevant to the subject of biochemical systems (for reasons Jaime already mentioned). Also, your first conclusion ("Therefore") also fails for a similar reason as Jaime has already mentioned. Do you just love ignoring the responses to your arguments?

Rationality doesn't seem to be a strength for you. You should take a basic course in logic.

CLEAR CUT EXAMPLE:

Quote
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.


This is the Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. Plain and simple. You don't know what is impossible and should stop pretending to (just like Behe and the others) and you cannot infer design in nature by such an "it's impossible" assertion.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 04:06:44 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6822
  • Darwins +551/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #714 on: October 25, 2013, 04:07:29 PM »
Because we know systems of well matched interacting parts becoming non-functional if one part is not there.  All the parts in the system are needed for it to function.    Thusly,  any precursor would have been non-functional which is at odds with Darwin in that nature needs a function to select.  Therefore,  gradual change cannot explain a IC system. 

That is simply not how molecules work. You can have a piece of zinc and a 100cc of Sulfuric acid. neither know the other is there, but when they come together they react to make other molecules.

Why are you arguing like this? All your points seem to be "Here is the finished object, let's take bits from it until it stops." When the actual method is, "Here are the earliest signs of it, let's see what it grew into: can we trace a line of development?"
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #715 on: October 25, 2013, 04:44:36 PM »
Because we know systems of well matched interacting parts becoming non-functional if one part is not there.  All the parts in the system are needed for it to function.    Thusly,  any precursor would have been non-functional which is at odds with Darwin in that nature needs a function to select.  Therefore,  gradual change cannot explain a IC system. 

That is simply not how molecules work. You can have a piece of zinc and a 100cc of Sulfuric acid. neither know the other is there, but when they come together they react to make other molecules.

Why are you arguing like this? All your points seem to be "Here is the finished object, let's take bits from it until it stops." When the actual method is, "Here are the earliest signs of it, let's see what it grew into: can we trace a line of development?"

A chemical reaction is not a system that has a consistent function over time.  A chemical reaction happens and then it is over.   So that isn't a good analogy. 

I have not argued we take bits from it until it stops.  I have observed it stops working if you remove just one bit from it. 

I am trying to trace the line of the development.  There needs to be a function for nature to select throughout the evolution process as Darwin proposed it.   If the system minus one part has no function, then it follows there was no function for nature to select thus there was no gradual evolution.   Thus the system "popped"  up out of the blue intact with all the well matched parts interacting with each other to provide the function it provides.
"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 junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2281
  • Darwins +76/-90
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #716 on: October 25, 2013, 05:00:08 PM »
Humans seem to be the limits on what he could design in terms of complexity, and an intelligent lifeform with self awareness.     

Humans are certainly NOT the limit of complexity.  We don't have echo location like bats, the electrosensory apparatus of sharks, the power of smell of a bloodhound, the vision of an eagle, the magnetic navigation of a pigeon, the hearing of a moth that can sense bats coming (150 times more sensitive than a human's hearing)  :o .... just to name a few things in nature that leave humans looking pretty ordinary ;)

Why didn't humans evolve these traits? 

I would think evolution more compelling if it wasn't for the claim that we evolved from one single celled organism.  Why not just evolve into one mega organism.  I know we wouldn't have anything to eat.  Why not evolve into beings that do not require food or water?  There are wholes in the theory that's why it's still a theory.   I buy into evolution as far as a species adapting to a different environment but to explain the origins of life I think it's lacking some backbone.

DrTesla, Hi there.  I like your way of thinking.   
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
Thomas Paine

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_paine.html#XXwlhVIMq06zWg2d.99

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #717 on: October 25, 2013, 05:07:58 PM »
Humans are certainly NOT the limit of complexity.  We don't have echo location like bats, the electrosensory apparatus of sharks, the power of smell of a bloodhound, the vision of an eagle, the magnetic navigation of a pigeon, the hearing of a moth that can sense bats coming (150 times more sensitive than a human's hearing)  :o .... just to name a few things in nature that leave humans looking pretty ordinary ;)

Why didn't humans evolve these traits?

A better question would be why, and how, other species did. In nature as in much else, "necessity is the mother of invention."

Quote
I would think evolution more compelling if it wasn't for the claim that we evolved from one single celled organism.  Why not just evolve into one mega organism.  I know we wouldn't have anything to eat.  Why not evolve into beings that do not require food or water?

What natural processes do you envisage that would make that a possibility?

Quote
There are wholes in the theory that's why it's still a theory.



http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

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

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force."

Gravity, cell theory, atomic theory and the theory of electromagnetism are also still theories. Do tell me more about this.

Quote
I buy into evolution as far as a species adapting to a different environment

Well, that's a start.

Quote
but to explain the origins of life I think it's lacking some backbone.

The theory of Evolution does not purport to "explain the origins of life". It purports to explain the how populations change over time through natural selection.

Quote
DrTesla, Hi there.  I like your way of thinking.

It is unfortunate that he is hopelessly wrong, then, isn't it?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 05:35:43 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6951
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #718 on: October 25, 2013, 05:18:58 PM »
You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature, and IC cannot be explained by Darwinian evolution give there are no functional precursors. 

It can't be explained to you. That doesn't mean it can't be explained.

I am afraid this is true.

I am a college professor, so I resist that idea that "some people just can't learn". Everyone with a functioning brain can learn. But there are people who, for their own reasons, refuse to learn. Dr Tesla is too invested in his beliefs to engage with other ideas.

I am willing to read most of what folks post and even what they link to, as long as it is relevant, not too long and makes some sense. I will comment politely and respectfully. And in most cases, even when people are not polite and respectful back, it does not phase me much as long as they answer. However, Dr Tesla will not return that basic internet courtesy.

He will not respond reasonably, and will not engage with or address people's arguments. He  only keeps repeating the same refuted and disputed points over and over. He won't address the objections raised here to his general argument that some systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler forms. He has not read (or did not understand) the basic wikipedia article on eye evolution. This article was written in direct response to people like him saying that "the eye is so complex that it could never have evolved".  Well, it is not, and it did.

He keeps saying that you can't remove part of a system and have it still function. But that is not true either. Didn't Dr Tesla take biology lab in high school where they cut up the planaria and each bit grows into a new one?  A tree that sheds its flowers or leaves is still a tree. Hell, you can cut a worm in half and it will still live on and be a whole worm. A human with one eye, or one leg is still a functioning human being-- albeit one that will have a harder time surviving.

Dr Tesla says it is not possible for any organism to function with any parts missing. Yet, here I sit missing several of the organs I was born with in their entirety, happily typing away. Many people manage to survive and reproduce without an appendix, gall bladder, tonsils, eyes, legs, etc.

A part of some organ can still serve a function for the animal or plant and contribute to its survival. An eye-type system that detects light and motion has several components. Remove or damage the motion detector component and it might still be able to detect light.A part of an eye can therefore be better than no eye, depending on the part. 

The obvious fact is that every living thing-- from bacteria and plants to animals and human beings-- starts out life as a few simple cells, and then grows into way more complex forms.  This seems to be fairly clear evidence that simple can become more complex, given the right conditions and enough time. It happens all the time.

Furthermore,  there are parts that don't make sense, because they don't seem to be needed, are really badly "designed" or have no use to the plant or animal. At least unless the thing evolved from something where the part did make sense. Like the vestigial foot bones in whales, or the nerve in a giraffe's neck that is 15 feet long when it only has to go a distance of a few inches.

A huge oak tree complete with bark, leaves, roots and trunk starts out as a tiny little simple acorn, right? Given enough time and the right conditions, of course. You can't just look at a the tree and say, "I can't see how that tree came from a tiny seed unless you can show me it happening in real time, right before my eyes." One tiny sperm cell and one tiny egg cell became a big annoying Dr. Tesla. Who then comes onto an internet forum to argue that his existence was impossible....

Dr Tesla, you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That's okay, most of us are wrong sometimes. But you need to be willing to learn. Unless you can dispute people's points here with your arguments, all you have proven is you don't really have anything more to contribute. Unless you enjoy giving us more examples of anti-science arguments that are not rational..... &)
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 wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #719 on: October 25, 2013, 05:28:46 PM »
Why didn't humans evolve these traits?

Because our environment didn't make those mutations (if they even occurred in our genetic heritage) advantageous. We're diurnal and vision-oriented; no need for specialized hearing. We don't live in a medium that conducts electricity readily; no need for electrosensing. We don't fly at great heights; no need for high-resolution vision. Our senses were / are adequate for the environment and circumstances we evolved in; only in retrospect do the specializations of other animals seem desirable.

Evolution isn't moving towards any kind of "perfection", junebug. It's like water, just following the path of least resistance. A given trait only has to work well enough to not be selected against, not at some arbitrarily defined peak performance.
 
There are wholes in the theory that's why it's still a theory.   I buy into evolution as far as a species adapting to a different environment but to explain the origins of life I think it's lacking some backbone.

DrTesla, Hi there.  I like your way of thinking.   

Oh, junebug. Please don't fall into the same trap DrT has and conflate abiogenesis (how life started from nonlife) with evolution. Evolution does not attempt- nor does it have to- explain how life began. The only thing that evolutionary theory addresses is how living things change over time. It does this so successfully that there is no evidence-based competition. In over 150 years additional discoveries in multiple fields have only confirmed and added detail to the robustness of evolution.

Junebug, I appreciate that you have some sympathy with DrT's views, but review his posts here. He doesn't give any impression of actually reading and considering responses to his statements. He keeps making the same errors over and over again, ignoring clear refutations. I rarely agree with your theistic posts, but I find you far more responsive and courteous than him.
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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #720 on: October 25, 2013, 05:36:34 PM »
No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system.  If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure. 

I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases,  but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life.  But there are parts that if they were removed,  we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc.   People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.

You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function.  You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining 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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1907
  • Darwins +198/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #721 on: October 25, 2013, 05:37:01 PM »
Your premise is that we must prove God exists to prove design exists.

Here is your logic:
There is no God.
Therefore nothing could be designed.
If nothing is designed, it must be explained by natural processes.
Darwin evolution theory explains  how everything in nature got to that point.
Therefore, Darwin evolution theory explains irreducible complexity even if we are not quite sure how and if we stipulate IC even occurs in lifeforms.

So your entire logical flow is based on the premise that there is no God even though nobody can prove or disprove a God exists. 

Here is Beheian logic:
There is apparent design in nature. 
If something looks like it was designed,  it might have been designed.
Irreducible complex systems  are found in lifeforms
IC systems  fail if one part stops working or is removed.
Therefore, there is no functional precursor to an IC system.
Therefore,  no function has been selected by nature.
Therefore no gradual change via natural selection could have occured.
Therefore  Darwinian theory is wrong.
Thereforce the IC system either arose through chance ie unselected mutations OR it was designed.
An IC system resulting from chance ie a series of unselected mutations is not probable to the point of being impossible.
Therefore IC systems were designed.
At this point, we can ask who designed them. 

But the conclusion follows scientific observation and logical inferences.  It does not start with God exists.

The premise is flawed and and made up by you, therefore nothing that follows is valid in relation to it.
"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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #722 on: October 25, 2013, 05:50:44 PM »
DrTesla, I hope you realise that Behe will at some point read this thread. If he doesn't find it himself while googling "Miller debunks Behe" somebody else who knows Behe will see it, and will draw his attention to it.

When Behe sees your behaviour and bag of ignorant fail in this thread there's real risk he's going to facepalm himself till he looks like a pug.



Surely you don't want that  :-\
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 06:06:53 PM by William »
Git mit uns

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #723 on: October 25, 2013, 06:00:05 PM »
(the same old stuff he's been writing all along)
So, you will not answer whether an observation can be mistaken or wrong.  I suppose you thought that if you just didn't answer, I would keep pestering you for an answer or else get bored and go away.  Instead, I will simply conclude that you know the answer (yes, an observation can be mistaken or wrong), because it is an answer that an engineer cannot escape knowing.

So, next question.  If an observation is mistaken or wrong, should you cling to it even if people show you why it's wrong?

Again, it is a simple yes/no question, and one you cannot get out of answering by being silent.  I will explain why later on.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #724 on: October 25, 2013, 06:11:08 PM »
No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system.  If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure.
You are the one who is trying to insist that biological systems must be irreducibly complex, even though I have shown why this is not the case.  An irreducibly complex system cannot put itself together (because, being irreducibly complex, it cannot function if a part is missing), so that means that if a biological system were irreducibly complex, it would have to be put together by something else, because it could not function until it was put together by something else.  Yet biological organisms put themselves together (more accurately, grow themselves) all the time, using only their genome and what amounts to raw materials.

This is an paradoxical implication of irreducible complexity that you cannot avoid.

Quote from: DrTesla
I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases,  but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life.  But there are parts that if they were removed,  we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc.   People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.
Do you think that a human zygote has a circulatory system, a respiratory system, immune system, etc?  Yet millions of them survive with no problems at all and eventually grow those systems from the ground up.  The point being, they don't start out with any of these "irreducibly complex" systems that you insist couldn't have evolved.

Quote from: DrTesla
You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function.  You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining life.
This is true.  However, you also cannot just define a biological system as irreducibly complex simply because it seems that way to you.  It's too easy to show otherwise, and continuing to insist that it must destroys your credibility.