Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 21848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #841 on: October 27, 2013, 08:12:57 PM »

If an organism is able to survive without lungs or a heart then doesn't make much sense [incredulity]a  heart or lungs are going to evolve in it.  So you believe a random mutation is going to lead to a heart or set of lungs?  What good would a partial heart or partial lung do.  How would a series of random mutations be able to result in a heart or lungs given random mutation have no goal? [incredulity coming]  Random mutations just aren't working such a way to do that. and I think we are challenging the laws of probablity [incredulity coming] once again.

Neutral mutations will tend to be about the same from generation to generation, given they aren't selected for or against.  Seems like [incredulity coming]you need postive mutations because lifeforms with that positive mutation will increase in the population and then there is a greater change of another random positive mutation acting on the previous random positive mutation,  although a random mutation acting on a previous one does't seem very probable [incredulity], if they are random.    Who knows, I'm starting o confuse myself if you can believe it.  lol

Starting to confuse yourself? You've been confused (and ignorant of the science) the whole time, and everyone has been attempting to point it out to you (yet still you ignore your limited high-school knowledge of the subject and continue to rant on about what doesn't seem to you. You should be admitting your own ignorance instead of positing "designer". Just be honest, look yourself in the mirror and say it to yourself, "I don't know how life got here."
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 08:16:56 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #842 on: October 27, 2013, 08:23:33 PM »

P.s. i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.


And there lies the crux of the fallacy right there, with everything you've attempted to state thus far. "I don't see how...Therefore, design"

no i said it is irrelevant because IC systems = design. 

you are flogging strawmen, a common debate trick.  Misrepresent my argument and then tear that one down.   I will now smite you.  lol


Double talk. Earlier you said IC and ID are not the same thing. Now you're claiming they are? Make up your mind dude. And if, for you, IC=ID then all you've made is an ad hoc assertion (which you haven't demonstrated). Sorry, you're quite wrong. I haven't misrepresented your argument at all. I've watched it develop (and evolve) this whole time (and I've restate on many occasions - to which you responded in acknowledgment). So contrary to your claims, it is NOT straw-man sorry.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12217
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #843 on: October 27, 2013, 08:25:58 PM »
I always thought an "intelligent designer"  may have used viruses to do it, as viruses take over host's cells and maybe they end up incorporating some of the host's DNA into their own and then transfer it to another host's DNA, so new genetic info gets added to a lifeform.    The odd thing about viruses are they are not really life, just DNA with in a membrane.  They can't replicate except inside of a host cells and they take over the host cells molecular machinery.   

SO maybe God released life form v.1.0  and then as he mastered his craft he used these non-life DNA tranducter devices (viruses) to manipulate the DNA to lead to greater complexity.   Who knows.  lol

I took a microbiology class a few years ago and the virus stuff is so cool.   

This is testable.  Are your fellow creationists interested in actually testing this hypothesis?

I don't see why you or they would be, given your preference to jump to the supernatural.  Because it has a great track record...
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6354
  • Darwins +813/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #844 on: October 27, 2013, 09:13:32 PM »
Dr. T, if you want to see how people figured out the age of the earth, some of it is basic geology. The age of the earth matters, not just because of evolution. It matters because of the long time it takes to form uranium, petroleum, diamonds and other resources that we use. You could look it up. You have access to the internet. But I found it for you.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth

It is like a really cool detective story, with folks looking at the ancient Roman construction in England and Scotland. We know when the Romans built walls, how big they were, and what kind of rock they used. So you can estimate how long it took for that kind of rock to erode.

In the 19th century, people then looked at mountains with the same kind of rock that had eroded. The mountains have to build up out of rock that was already eroded before, and then the mountain has to erode down again. And the researchers realized to their surprise that the earth had to be over 4 billion years old way older than the 5-10,000 years they had always thought. They had always used a bible dating system from the middle ages, but based on the hard evidence (heh) found it was way off.

Now, since then we have checked their work with lots of different dating methods to come up with a more accurate figure: 4.6 billion years old.
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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #845 on: October 27, 2013, 09:28:12 PM »
If it doesn't say it from a Creationist/ID website, he won't believe it.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1300
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #846 on: October 27, 2013, 10:12:37 PM »

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



My understanding is that DNA does not follow evolution paths but I am also not an expert on DNA so I will have to research this further.  I have looked at some of the arguments surrounding DNA but it is hard to follow if you have no base knowledge in DNA to begin with.


Tesla,

The quotes above are from your earliest posts.

The one below is from today after I said you were damaging your cause through ignorance. There has been an interesting change in your posting style and educational background today.


I always thought an "intelligent designer"  may have used viruses to do it, as viruses take over host's cells and maybe they end up incorporating some of the host's DNA into their own and then transfer it to another host's DNA, so new genetic info gets added to a lifeform.    The odd thing about viruses are they are not really life, just DNA with in a membrane. They can't replicate except inside of a host cells and they take over the host cells molecular machinery.   

SO maybe God released life form v.1.0  and then as he mastered his craft he used these non-life DNA tranducter devices (viruses) to manipulate the DNA to lead to greater complexity.   Who knows.  lol

I took a microbiology class a few years ago and the virus stuff is so cool.   

Really, a microbiology class today but no knowledge of DNA previously.
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 nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6354
  • Darwins +813/-5
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #847 on: October 27, 2013, 10:20:26 PM »
If it doesn't say it from a Creationist/ID website, he won't believe it.

-Nam

That's the problem with some of these people. They think that science is based on whether or not something is believed based on what feels right, when it is really about examining the evidence. Or do they really think that the tv has tiny people inside the screen? That feels right-- and makes more sense than electrons beaming through space. If you are 4 years old..... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

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

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6560
  • Darwins +506/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #848 on: October 27, 2013, 10:29:32 PM »
Dr. Behe and others clearly are experts in biochemistry and DNA.   
I have published somewhere on WWGHA an exchange of emails I had with a creationist, Dr J Wiles, who has a genuine, good-quality, PhD in nuclear chemistry. His claim boiled down to the earth was 6000 years old because a sample of Zircon had been found with a Helium isotope decay reading that was consistent with that time span. Dr J Wiles likes to tell people that he gets $200,000 from creationist interests. (But he won't say the last bit, and gives the impression he is a genuine scientist.)

I pointed out that it was more than likely the zircon was an anomaly: If other radioactive elements had decayed at the same rate, Noah and all the animals would have been fried. He agreed that this would have been the case but said he was "looking into it." I don't know what that means; he isn't going to change decay rates. There was absolutely no other evidence than one particular piece of zircon, so I pressed him again with "It's an anomaly, isn't it? You should be investigating the anomaly, not claiming that from millions of other samples, it is the only correct one."

His reply? "I like to believe it is the correct one."

What can you say to a man like that?

And that is why Behe may know a lot about DNA and the like, but it is also why he ignores the evidence around him and chooses examples that are hard to explain and impress his followers. But each time he has chosen one, an explanation has been forthcoming. So he "likes to believe" there is a "designer[1]"

I can say 2+2=5, and I can show you a math paper where a child has written down that exact thing. You can spend a lot of time proving that 2+2=4, and when you have me trapped in a corner, I will say, "I prefer to believe that 2+2=5."

I wonder what Behe says?
 1. Who, for the sake of argument, we will call Yahweh, the Israelite god of the sky, mountains, and war.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 10:31:51 PM by Graybeard »
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6274
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #849 on: October 27, 2013, 11:11:06 PM »
If an organism is able to survive without lungs or a heart then doesn't make much sense a  heart or lungs are going to evolve in it.  So you believe a random mutation is going to lead to a heart or set of lungs?  What good would a partial heart or partial lung do.  How would a series of random mutations be able to result in a heart or lungs given random mutation have no goal?   Random mutations just aren't working such a way to do that. and I think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.

You know what. I was about to answer your question as to where the heart came from, but then it occurred to me that you don't give a shit. Information contrary to those things that  don't "seem" right for you get dismissed handily with a wave of your wrist. You have demonstrated no understanding (whether you rejected it or not) of anything you have been told by others in this thread. There are four year olds who understand why IC is a ludicrous concept, but you seem to want to live or die by it. Your case would be much stronger if you showed at least a minimal understanding of the science you are rejecting, by as with your "plants don't have sex because they can't move" observation, you are just plain wrong about everything. For me to bring up things like the coelom and cardiac myocytes and perastaltic tubular hearts would be futile. The most I could hope for in a response from you would be a fart in my general direction. I don't need that.

It might actually be possible for someone to come here and have an intelligent conversation about IC, but first they would have to know enough about real science to describe why they were rejecting the accepted norm. They would have to demonstrate basic knowledge in the field of biology and word their protests in such a way that it didn't sound like a frickin' opinion. But that's all you have. An opinion. Based on feelings. Which stem from your ignorance.

The only thing you've accomplished here is to show us yet another way to be a blooming idiot. It is not worth anyones time to converse with a brick wall. You've made me wiser, if only because I now know one more way for people to be useless members of our society. That isn't information I actually needed. The number of republicans in this country was already more than I could stomach. But there you are, another version of foolish, standing on your soapbox and pretending to have an intellect. So for your sake, I hope you're a poe, because if you are a real, actual human being, our chances of survival into the future have been halved by your existence alone.

Tesla was never Dr. Tesla. He never had a university degree. He came close, but he had a gambling problem.

Except for the part where you can spell and stuff, I would otherwise assume you never finished grade school. But if I were you, I would take up gambling. That would make it easier, and more socially acceptable, for you to explain your sad condition.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #850 on: October 27, 2013, 11:20:55 PM »
Hey, hey, hey, PP don't go and say 4 year olds are smarter than this guy then say he probably never graduated "grade school". There are many people who think, act, and are rational, logical, and intelligent people who never finished school.

Past that, insult him for what he says and does not his education level because then I have a problem because I never graduated High School, and then you're either likening my intelligence (in such matters) to him, or less.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6274
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #851 on: October 27, 2013, 11:31:31 PM »
Hey, hey, hey, PP don't go and say 4 year olds are smarter than this guy then say he probably never graduated "grade school". There are many people who think, act, and are rational, logical, and intelligent people who never finished school.

Past that, insult him for what he says and does not his education level because then I have a problem because I never graduated High School, and then you're either likening my intelligence (in such matters) to him, or less.

-Nam

Sorry Nam  I probably went a little to far as I dismissed Dr.T completely. I recognize that education level is not a reliable marker for anything, especially among those who remain curious about life and voluntarily continue to learn after ending their formal education. (On the other hand, I know a 50 year old guy who boasts that he has never read a book since graduating from high school.)

Ignorance such as that displayed by the good DrT comes from within. And is completely voluntary. He chose to know nothing and is on a mission to keep himself education-free. And I have to say, he's doing a damn good job for being such an incompetent bag of plasma.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #852 on: October 27, 2013, 11:57:13 PM »
I have no problem with people (including myself) putting down people for their intelligence based on their inability to want to learn but I draw the line at people insulting others based on their schooling. Some schools vary in what they teach; some are lucky enough to go through an Educational system that actually cares about their students where as those of my accord go through Educational systems that don't. There are people in both Educational systems who decide that "school is not for them" based on their own high/low self-esteem or because of other reasons.

Responsibility does lie, in the end, on the individual, and in this case I might be biased but apparently me with "no education" (in the sense I never graduated from HS or went to college) seems to be more open-minded than DT who states he has.

Again, I may be biased.

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 11:58:48 PM by Nam »
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2676
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #853 on: October 28, 2013, 01:54:03 AM »
Either the information is correct or is incorrect.  I am not trying to decieve but I doubt you know one way or another if it is corrrect or incorrect.    Plants are a lot different from animals given reproduction is asexual so there is some weird stuff that goes on with them that might seem like evolution into a new species.  But if it the same DNA , it isn't a new species.

It's incorrect. Once you get a diploid, you have another bank of information that you can change or subtract information from, which leads to more information. I'm not sure what creationist buzzword you will be using from post-to-post, but I'm using "information", because that's the chief way of sounding correct, whilst presenting total crap.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2676
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #854 on: October 28, 2013, 02:11:18 AM »
According to Wikipedia, which you guys cite often from,  plants have both sexual and asexual reproduction.   But the sexual reproduction is not like sexual reproduction in animals because they don't have male-female sex partners.   To me, that isn't sexual but I guess it is based on what the DNA does. 

I am focused on science here, while you guys use rhetoric about creationist that and creationist this.  You basically want to discredit me by associating me with creationists rather than battle me in the arena of ideas re: irreducible complexity and other critiicsms of Darwin. 

I don't know if that survivalist website is a creationist website.   that might actually be stormfront type of people who believe in sotcking weapons for a future race war.   LOL   but their info on the plants seems legit.   I'm open to it being wrong though.   Another reason that plant example is wrong in Darwin's theory a species is supposed to evolve into two species and then those two species combine into one and they split into two and so on.  This duplicate chromosome plants are just direct descents of the same plant, there isn't two species splitting from the original species.

I can't see plants and animals evolving from the same common ancestor though, just way too differnent.

I'm fairly certain that all creationist-like material that mocks Darwin has one agenda, and was created by a lying Christian/Muslim etc. You've complained about conflation in this respect, but it's more like felatio, if you never quote from someone who is non-creationst.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 02:21:47 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #855 on: October 28, 2013, 04:00:04 AM »
Dr T,

Please make sure you know about the subject. I take you have read the judgement in the Dover case? If no, take some time to read it now.

Broadly, Creationism was re-branded as Intelligent Design and the IR stuff was invented to make it sound like science but it is still what it originally was, Creationism. If you want to know id=f ID and IR are science, have a look through the peer-reviewed journals and see how many papers have been published in ID. Despite complaints from ID people that the journals as biased against them, it is certainly the case that papers have reach a certain standard from publication and ID ones seem not to. It could be because they are not research but just someone writing about an organelle and making claims.

You are going to get no where with these claims unless you have some good science to back things up. 
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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1300
  • Darwins +91/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #856 on: October 28, 2013, 09:10:32 AM »
I can't see plants and animals evolving from the same common ancestor though, just way too differnent.

That is a strange statement for someone who said a few posts later that they had studied microbiology.

I took a microbiology class a few years ago and the virus stuff is so cool.   

Are you collaborating with someone to write these posts? Is that why your posts so often contradict each other? See also my reply 846 where I quoted you saying you knew nothing about this.

You are basically saying that do you expect anyone to believe an argument that an eye, etc are IC when all these things evolved by Darwin natural selection.  You are asserting that Darwin evolution explains it but we are saying it does not , because the intermediate precursors are non-functional given that the final system fails if 1 part is removed.

Who is this WE?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

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

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #857 on: October 28, 2013, 09:41:21 AM »
Dr T,

Please make sure you know about the subject. I take you have read the judgement in the Dover case? If no, take some time to read it now.

Broadly, Creationism was re-branded as Intelligent Design and the IR stuff was invented to make it sound like science but it is still what it originally was, Creationism. If you want to know id=f ID and IR are science, have a look through the peer-reviewed journals and see how many papers have been published in ID. Despite complaints from ID people that the journals as biased against them, it is certainly the case that papers have reach a certain standard from publication and ID ones seem not to. It could be because they are not research but just someone writing about an organelle and making claims.

You are going to get no where with these claims unless you have some good science to back things up.

Judges don't decide science.   Also, the Supreme Court ruled in a case that it isn't a necessity for something to be peer reviewed for it to be legit. 
If most scientists think Darwin explains origin of species then most scientists are going to prevent an alternative theory from being peer reviewed.  But as I pointed out earlier, Darwin's theory wasn't peer reviewed.

Also,  Discovery Institute asserts that 50 research papers about ID have been peer reviewed at this time and they have a list of them at their website, if you are interested.   They are probably lying about that though b/c that is what these "creationists"  do.   LOL
"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 #858 on: October 28, 2013, 09:57:36 AM »
It's incorrect. Once you get a diploid, you have another bank of information that you can change or subtract information from, which leads to more information. I'm not sure what creationist buzzword you will be using from post-to-post, but I'm using "information", because that's the chief way of sounding correct, whilst presenting total crap.

Nah, it is just a copy of the previous DNA.   It isn't new information.   Evolution should lead to new DNA.
"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 #859 on: October 28, 2013, 10:02:21 AM »

P.s. i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.


And there lies the crux of the fallacy right there, with everything you've attempted to state thus far. "I don't see how...Therefore, design"

no i said it is irrelevant because IC systems = design. 

you are flogging strawmen, a common debate trick.  Misrepresent my argument and then tear that one down.   I will now smite you.  lol


Double talk. Earlier you said IC and ID are not the same thing. Now you're claiming they are? Make up your mind dude. And if, for you, IC=ID then all you've made is an ad hoc assertion (which you haven't demonstrated). Sorry, you're quite wrong. I haven't misrepresented your argument at all. I've watched it develop (and evolve) this whole time (and I've restate on many occasions - to which you responded in acknowledgment). So contrary to your claims, it is NOT straw-man sorry.

Nah, this is a falsity.  I said IC sytems = design.   You rewrote that as IC= ID.    My point is IC systems indicates they were designed, not evolved over time thru gradual change.   I've said numerous times that maybe it was just freaks of nature that lead to IC systems.  Or maybe their is a natural mechanism that has some kind of intelligence to it.   It doesn't necessarily have to mean there is an intelligent designer or "God", although that seems the most likely.  LOL

IC is just an observation of nature that we can use to rule out Darwin evolution.  It can't equal ID because ID is a theory, IC is an observation.
"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 wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #860 on: October 28, 2013, 10:07:24 AM »
So, Dr T, you haven't read the Dover case. The important thing about the case is the the science but the deception involved. A Creationist textbook which was banned (as it was religious) was modified replacing 'god' with 'designer'. ID was a front for trying to get creationism into the classroom.

So far as ID is science, have they come up with anything, yet, that can be tested? In other words can ID be falsified?  The thing is that the Theory of Evolution could easily be falsified by simply coming up with a fossil in the wrong place in the strata but no one has managed it. So far, the theory matches the facts we have pretty well whereas ID leaves us wondering. After all, if an organ in a human had to be designed and put there by a designer how come the human species DNA looks so like that our our cousins the apes and monkeys? Oh and while you are at it, why is the human body so badly designed - just look at the impossibly small birth canal,  not to mention the over 50% of zygotes that washed out before implanting. It's bad design so what does that say about the designer?
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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6274
  • Darwins +722/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #861 on: October 28, 2013, 10:11:33 AM »
It's incorrect. Once you get a diploid, you have another bank of information that you can change or subtract information from, which leads to more information. I'm not sure what creationist buzzword you will be using from post-to-post, but I'm using "information", because that's the chief way of sounding correct, whilst presenting total crap.

Nah, it is just a copy of the previous DNA.   It isn't new information.   Evolution should lead to new DNA.

I want to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the fact that life hasn't operated the way you want it to. We're working on it. Soon we will be able to meet your every demand and all of creation will meet your exacting standards. In return, we expect you to stop posting your drivel.

Deal?

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #862 on: October 28, 2013, 10:12:52 AM »
Judges don't decide science.   Also, the Supreme Court ruled in a case that it isn't a necessity for something to be peer reviewed for it to be legit.
So, judges don't decide science, but the Supreme Court can decide science (since the requirements for peer review are a necessary part of science)?  You really need to think about these things before you say them.

Quote from: DrTesla
If most scientists think Darwin explains origin of species then most scientists are going to prevent an alternative theory from being peer reviewed.
This is false.  They wouldn't prevent the idea from being peer reviewed.  What they would do is take the "alternative theory" apart and look for any flaws in it, and then pounce on them.

Quote from: DrTesla
But as I pointed out earlier, Darwin's theory wasn't peer reviewed.
Actually, it was.  While it's true that none of the modern scientific journals which serve as means of peer review existed back then, all that's required for peer review is that you transmit an idea to other scientists so they can check your work.  And Darwin did indeed do that.

Quote from: DrTesla
Also,  Discovery Institute asserts that 50 research papers about ID have been peer reviewed at this time and they have a list of them at their website, if you are interested.   They are probably lying about that though b/c that is what these "creationists" do.
If they have been peer reviewed, it's only been by other creationists.  For something to be adequately peer reviewed, it needs to be investigated by people who disagree with it, because people who agree with something have less of an incentive to thoroughly look it over.

Now, it's true that creationists do indeed have that incentive to check evolution out.  The problem is that they don't actually check all that carefully.  Take Behe, for example.  His objections to evolutionary theory are based on logic, not on actual evidence (which is both careless and sloppy - unless all you care about is trying to convince people, rather than finding the truth).  Most of the creationist objectors are worse even than him.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #863 on: October 28, 2013, 10:34:11 AM »
Nah, this is a falsity.  I said IC sytems = design.   You rewrote that as IC= ID.
Same difference.  Indeed, it doesn't matter what irreducibly complex thing you're talking about.  Irreducible complexity leads straight to intelligent design, per your own words.

Quote from: DrTesla
My point is IC systems indicates they were designed, not evolved over time thru gradual change.
No, your point is that you think that various biological systems are irreducibly complex, and it is this supposed irreducible complexity which then leads you to conclude that they must have been designed rather than evolved.  The first flaw in your thinking is your implicit assumption that something that looks irreducibly complex is, in fact, irreducibly complex.

Quote from: DrTesla
I've said numerous times that maybe it was just freaks of nature that lead to IC systems.  Or maybe their is a natural mechanism that has some kind of intelligence to it.   It doesn't necessarily have to mean there is an intelligent designer or "God", although that seems the most likely.
Of course, all this relies on the presumption that irreducible complexity is an accurate observation.  In science, you can't assume that just because someone observes something, that it's accurate.

Quote from: DrTesla
IC is just an observation of nature that we can use to rule out Darwin evolution.
First off, it is an unsubstantiated observation - one that has not been shown to be accurate with regards to biological organisms.  The assertion of intelligent design advocates - and note that every single person who argues for irreducible complexity, without exception, also argues for intelligent design of some kind - is not enough to substantiate the concept.  Second, even if it were substantiated and shown to be accurate, it would not actually rule out evolutionary theory, anymore than Einsteinian relativity ruled out Newtonian physics.

This is the second flaw in your thinking, that an observation can summarily rule out an entire theory, especially one that has been well-supported and substantiated by countless numbers of scientists.

Quote from: DrTesla
It can't equal ID because ID is a theory, IC is an observation.
But intelligent design is a theory which rests solely on irreducible complexity.  That means that the two are functionally equivalent.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #864 on: October 28, 2013, 10:39:57 AM »
So, Dr T, you haven't read the Dover case. The important thing about the case is the the science but the deception involved. A Creationist textbook which was banned (as it was religious) was modified replacing 'god' with 'designer'. ID was a front for trying to get creationism into the classroom.

So far as ID is science, have they come up with anything, yet, that can be tested? In other words can ID be falsified?  The thing is that the Theory of Evolution could easily be falsified by simply coming up with a fossil in the wrong place in the strata but no one has managed it. So far, the theory matches the facts we have pretty well whereas ID leaves us wondering. After all, if an organ in a human had to be designed and put there by a designer how come the human species DNA looks so like that our our cousins the apes and monkeys? Oh and while you are at it, why is the human body so badly designed - just look at the impossibly small birth canal,  not to mention the over 50% of zygotes that washed out before implanting. It's bad design so what does that say about the designer?

Judges have their own bias.  There is no doubt the judge was an atheist or believer in evolution.  So her or she wasn't open minded.

Yes, ID is falsifiable in that if scientists can demonstrate that A.) there is no such thing as IC systems meaning no system stops functioning if one of the parts isn't there  or B)  an IC system can evolve via natural selection and random mutations.

Many of the Darwins including Ken MIller have been saying they have falsified Behe's arguments.  It can't be one or the other, either it is falsifiable or it isn't, so Darwins need to huddle and make up their minds.  lol

They have found DNA doesn't follow the asserted evolutionary pathways,  one trait might lead to one species, another trait to another species.

How can we falsify the claim that random mutation and natural selection lead to IC systems?  I don't think evolution is falsifiable at all because it has always been based on conjecture as nobody has ever observed one species evolve into others.

It is funny how you, who have never designed anything,  want to criticize the human body as not intelligent design, when the human body is factors more complex than anything intelligent engineers can design.
Also, intelligent design means that somebody with a brain aka intelligence had to design it, it is not about how good the design is in itself although of course the human body is a complex system. 
"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 jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1912
  • Darwins +339/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #865 on: October 28, 2013, 11:02:55 AM »
Yes, ID is falsifiable in that if scientists can demonstrate that A.) there is no such thing as IC systems meaning no system stops functioning if one of the parts isn't there  or B)  an IC system can evolve via natural selection and random mutations.
In regards to B:
IC = a system that stops functioning if one part is not there.

A system that stops functioning if one part is not there can evolve via natural selection and random mutations.

And THAT has been shown to you...80 bajillion times in this thread.  Again and again.  Over and over again.  Repeatedly.  In all sorts of different permutations.  It is getting difficult to perceive of any more clear way to present that to you.

Where exactly did you get this mechanical engineering degree from - hotmail.com?

Are you some kind of objective hipster or something?  That Behe must be correct because he goes against the establishment?  Because logic and evidence don't seem to make a f**king dent with you.
"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

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12217
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #866 on: October 28, 2013, 11:04:16 AM »
We're dealing with a guy who thinks that something not having a mind means that it's not alive.  Dumb down your posts accordingly.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #867 on: October 28, 2013, 11:23:37 AM »
Just to add to what Jdawg said. The problem with the way IC is determined is that it looks at a structure and says that without this or that part the structure cannot work. This is true but it is not the right way round. A structure in a plant or animal that was an ancestor the owner of the structure may have had the structure minus the part and it could well have served an entirely different purpose. Evolution allows parts to be added or removed as it goes along.

For example, take the human eye - very complex in itself but also requiring the brain processing for 3D colour images as well. Take away part of the eye, you may say, and it fails to work - as a human eye. Yet if you look here you can see that at each stage of the development of the eye, the structure served the needs of its owner - firstly telling light and dark but gradually with more function. The link shows you animals with the various stages of the structure. What's wrong with this? Is it that you are so keen to include god/ designer that you are prepared to ignore logic and common sense?
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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11824
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #868 on: October 28, 2013, 11:55:49 AM »
It's incorrect. Once you get a diploid, you have another bank of information that you can change or subtract information from, which leads to more information. I'm not sure what creationist buzzword you will be using from post-to-post, but I'm using "information", because that's the chief way of sounding correct, whilst presenting total crap.

Nah, it is just a copy of the previous DNA.   It isn't new information.   Evolution should lead to new DNA.

I want to take this opportunity to personally apologize for the fact that life hasn't operated the way you want it to. We're working on it. Soon we will be able to meet your every demand and all of creation will meet your exacting standards. In return, we expect you to stop posting your drivel.

Deal?



You could always ban him for incompetence.

;)

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4736
  • Darwins +538/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #869 on: October 28, 2013, 12:47:34 PM »
Judges have their own bias.  There is no doubt the judge was an atheist or believer in evolution.  So her or she wasn't open minded.
Considering this judge is a conservative Republican appointed by George W. Bush in 2002, you have no grounds whatsoever for this assertion.  A judge should rule on the facts of the matter, and to the best of my knowledge he did - because intelligent design as presented in the Dover case was merely religious creationism dressed up in a bit of scientific terminology, and thus had no place whatsoever having been mandated to be taught in a school.

Quote from: DrTesla
Yes, ID is falsifiable in that if scientists can demonstrate that A.) there is no such thing as IC systems meaning no system stops functioning if one of the parts isn't there  or B)  an IC system can evolve via natural selection and random mutations.
This definition of falsifiability is, frankly, worthless.  It's so vague that it cannot realistically be falsified by anything that any person could possibly do.  In other words, it is an argument of the gaps.  If someone shows that a particular "irreducibly complex" system is not actually irreducibly complex, or that it could have evolved, just shift to the next "irreducibly complex" system and take it from there.

That is why it is not science.  It is simply an effort to reserve a space for God in the middle of science.

Quote from: DrTesla
Many of the Darwins including Ken MIller have been saying they have falsified Behe's arguments.  It can't be one or the other, either it is falsifiable or it isn't, so Darwins need to huddle and make up their minds.
Referring to people as Darwins makes them sound like they're related to Darwin.  That's why most people of your ilk refer to them as Darwinists.

In any case, this illustrates the problem with the so-called "falsifiability" of irreducible complexity.  It is so vague that it cannot be falsified.  No matter how many examples of "irreducibly complex" systems are shown not to be, the hypothesis itself is not affected.  That means that it is not falsifiable.

Quote from: DrTesla
They have found DNA doesn't follow the asserted evolutionary pathways,  one trait might lead to one species, another trait to another species.
So?  Nobody said evolutionary biologists were perfect.  Indeed, that's why they investigate this stuff, so they can improve our understanding of how evolutionary theory works.  An attitude not shared by advocates of intelligent design, I might add, who's actual agenda is to attempt to overturn evolutionary theory.

Quote from: DrTesla
How can we falsify the claim that random mutation and natural selection lead to IC systems?  I don't think evolution is falsifiable at all because it has always been based on conjecture as nobody has ever observed one species evolve into others.
Instead of making assertions of what you think, since you do not really understand biology, let alone evolution, why not take the time to educate yourself?  Then you might be able to make statements that other people could take seriously.  As it stands, your opinion is neither knowledgeable nor informed (never mind expert) and thus has no bearing on anything.

Quote from: DrTesla
It is funny how you, who have never designed anything,  want to criticize the human body as not intelligent design, when the human body is factors more complex than anything intelligent engineers can design.
The relative complexity of the human body has no bearing on whether it was designed.  That is why your argument is so utterly flawed - because you are equating complexity to design.  Forget this "irreducibility" nonsense.  Your whole argument boils down to that you don't understand how something complex and ordered could have come about naturally, so it must have been designed.  But that argument doesn't work, because it makes no effort to find out how something actually came about.  It is merely an attempt to rule out the explanation you don't like by fiat.

Quote from: DrTesla
Also, intelligent design means that somebody with a brain aka intelligence had to design it, it is not about how good the design is in itself although of course the human body is a complex system.
Agreed, this doesn't matter.  What does matter is showing evidence that the human body, or any other organic system, was actually designed, and showing how the process of that design worked.  That's what you should be focusing on, finding the pathway that shows how organic systems were designed, rather than nonsensical and illogical arguments like "irreducible complexity".

And if you can't do it, you meaning everyone who advocates the intelligent design hypothesis, then you have no business arguing in favor of it in the first place.