Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 27498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #986 on: October 29, 2013, 12:58:01 AM »


I have epilepsy

No wonder you can't be shaken off.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #987 on: October 29, 2013, 01:05:00 AM »

I have epilepsy so I def. have some issues.  lol  really messes up my brain even though I don't have many seizures.   Ironically,  I was not intelligenty designed but I think we were intelligent designed.   lol

I thought atheists were supposed to be non-judgmental though,  you guys are tough as nails.

ok, good night.   I might take a week off to let everybody cool down because this is obviously an issue you guys are passionate about and I'm no trying to be all up in your face on it.

Do you have certain "thoughts" and beliefs about non-astrologers, a-unicornists (those who don't believe in unicorns), or non-Scientologists?? B/c being an atheist is just like those (lacking belief in a God just like lacking belief in astrology). I think this may be too much for you to grasp. You are just not intelligent enough b/c you weren't intelligently designed and evolution didn't do you any favors in the critical thinking department.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2727
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #988 on: October 29, 2013, 01:27:30 AM »
@ Add

Most glaciers are not melting which was a central tenet of global warming for a long time.


Wrong. Glaciers can increase with CLIMATE CHANGE. They can get increased rainfall, which can make them bigger and more slushy. What you don't like to look at is the northern ice, because it is running away.

The glaciers are melting, due to soot. When Saddam let all the wells rip, it left black sludge all over the place. The black sludge sits on the top of the snow and melts it. The sludge is not evenly distributed.

Once more, you ignore ocean acidification, woody thickening, etc.

Quote
One of the biggest impacts on ttemperature is the urban island effect,  the concrete jungles of large cities  absorbe more heat and the tempature increases.

One of your biggest problems is that you think you can discredit something by throwing a few anti-factoids around, and not even pricking up your ears when you hear about ocean acidification. You don't take a balanced view. You are like someone I know. Here's a quote from someone I know: "Why should I look for things that go against my beliefs"

Here's woody thickening, off a climate denier's website.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/evil-co2-causing-woody-invasion.html

Notice how he even laughs at the fact that weeds are filling up semi-arid areas. He thinks the facts are on his side, because climate deniers think that extra plant growth is good. The weed problem in arid areas is turning out to be horrendous. (Most of the escaped plants come from Australia, BTW)(cheers)

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #989 on: October 29, 2013, 02:00:38 AM »
@ Add

Most glaciers are not melting which was a central tenet of global warming for a long time.

One of the biggest impacts on ttemperature is the urban island effect,  the concrete jungles of large cities  absorbe more heat and the tempature increases.

You must be fucking with me...

One of the biggest impact of temperature is the billions upon billions of tons of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane that we have inevitably sent into the atmosphere.
Greenhouse gasses anyone?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6469
  • Darwins +770/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #990 on: October 29, 2013, 02:08:53 AM »
@ Add

Most glaciers are not melting which was a central tenet of global warming for a long time.

One of the biggest impacts on ttemperature is the urban island effect,  the concrete jungles of large cities  absorbe more heat and the tempature increases.

The reason most glaciers aren't melting is because they are already frickin' gone. Oregon mountains were full of glaciers in the 70's. Virtually the only ones left are on the highest mountain. The rest are just plain missing. I used to climb on 200 foot thick glaciers on the Three Sisters mountains in that state. All that is there now is rock. Sure looks like they are gone to me.

People who worry about such things are very concerned about the melting glaciers in the Himalayas. It is bad enough that they are disappearing, but when they are gone the water supply for both India and China will literally dry up. That won't go well.

There used to be more glaciers here in Montana, but most of them are gone. As are most of the glaciers in Colorado. But we have a replacement. Bigs. Buttterflies and beetles that kill our trees. It used to get so cold in this part of the country that neither the Pine Butterfly or the Pine Bark Beetle could survive the winters. But now it seldom gets below zero around here and the eggs of those two species thrive. The forests around where I live are loosing over 25% of their trees. A friend just had ever single frickin' tree cut off of his property because they were all dying (over 150 trees).

There is so much evidence for global warming that only evolution has more. But DrT, you hate anything that doesn't match with what you hope makes sense. So I have written the above to no avail. As has everyone else who has contributed to this thread in an effort to enlighten you. But closed minds are hard to reach.

In your case, impossible.

P.S. I'd tell you why Climategate has been shown to be a none-issue, but thinking otherwise is so important to you that i wouldn't want to unmake your day 

But ypu don't actually have to worry about the global warming thing.  We humans are destroying the plane with pollutiont and ruining our various cultures with hate so fast that we wont live long enough to cook to death.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline junebug72

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
  • Darwins +72/-83
  • Gender: Female
  • "Question Everything"
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #991 on: October 29, 2013, 07:36:20 AM »
inflamatory post removed
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 10:26:58 AM by screwtape »
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #992 on: October 29, 2013, 09:42:12 AM »
I think that I have respected all of you by not insulting you and calling you names and stupid, etc.  I just say what I think and I ignore the insults because I know you guys don't mean it.
That's certainly appreciated, but it takes more than avoiding blatant disrespect actions to be respectful.  Your conduct has not been respectful; you have repeatedly (though not always, I will give you that much) ignored good arguments that have refuted your own, and then repeated your own arguments as if mere repetition will somehow get people to believe you.  That says nothing about your own personal incredulity towards evolution - your attitude that since you don't understand how it could have produced complex organic systems, it cannot have.  That is no way to approach anything, let alone a well-substantiated theory like evolution.

Imagine someone who had a college class in engineering a while back coming to tell you that because he can't understand some concept of engineering, that concept of engineering clearly cannot work.  And no matter what you say to try to show him otherwise, he just blows off your own knowledge on the subject and repeats the same arguments, over and over again.  That's how you're acting towards us.  It's really not a respectful attitude, because what it tells us is that you really don't give a crap about arguments in favor of evolution.

Quote from: DrTesla
You are obsessed with Christians,  like Bill Maher.   I don't know if you had some bad experiences with Christians when you were young but vast majority of them are nice, good people who would give you their shirt off their back if you needed it.
They're not really the problem, and they don't usually come to this website anyway.  The problem is the ones who hold the attitude that they're right and everyone else is wrong, and who insist on telling everyone that.  Really, that's not far off from your own attitude towards evolution - we're wrong and you're right no matter what we say, and you just keep on and keep on saying that.  That gets exasperating very quickly, and it goes back to my earlier point on respectfulness.  When you treat other people like they're wrong on a subject which you are personally not knowledgeable about, but a number of them are, acting as if you know better than them is extremely disrespectful.

Quote from: DrTesla
I always thought it was weird how atheists tend to congregate on the internet and elsewhere, almost like there is a Church of Atheism.  It is not like you are called to spread the Good News of Disbelief in God but yet some of you are more committed to that end than most Christians are ot their cause.
You know the reason that atheists tend to link up on the Internet?  It's because there are places, even here in this country, where it's actually dangerous to out yourself as an atheist.  And besides, the internet is a means of communication.  Why shouldn't atheists have the right and the ability to speak their minds on it?

And, for that matter, how is that different from what you were trying to do by coming here?  You came here thinking you'd find like-minded people who you could share your opinion on how wrong you think evolutionary theory is, rather than looking for a real debate.  I think that's a large part of the reason you're being so rigid here.

Quote from: DrTesla
Sometimes it seems like Darwin serves as the biblebook of atheists sometimes.
No.  Seriously, no.  Darwin was not an atheist and you shouldn't make assumptions about things that you don't know about.  Not only that, but a lot of people who are religious respect Darwin and the theory of evolution, for the simple fact that they are informed about it and understand how well it describes the way life works.  They also understand that the theory of evolution describes how organisms evolve in response to their environments - which includes humans and the way we artificially select for traits in animals (and even in ourselves) that we find desirable.  We act as a selection pressure, but unlike evolution, we actually have goals we push for.  That's why artificial selection produces results so much more quickly than natural selection.

When you get right down to it, "intelligent design" is nothing more than a particular kind of artificial selection - the 'design' of organisms that fit certain criteria.  The problem is that you're trying to use an argument from incredulity - disbelief that the complexity in organisms could have come about naturally, and thus saying it could not have happened - called "irreducible complexity" to support your argument.  And compounding that error, you're also apparently not at all interested in looking for evidence that supports your argument.  All you're interested in is trying to logically prove that evolutionary theory is wrong, but that isn't how science works.  Logic is nothing more than a step - and an early step, at that - in the process of scientific methodology.

Quote from: DrTesla
I think Darwin's theory is total crap, it has nothing to do with atheists.  This isn't a Christian vs atheist issue, unfortunately most of you present it that way.
We - the ones who have opposed you in this thread - have shown just how relevant and informed your opinion on the theory of evolution is.  Can't stop you from thinking it's total crap, but at least we've established that you're holding that as an uninformed opinion on the subject.

Quote from: DrTesla
You guys have called me a creationists a million times on here yet you guys are the ones quoting tons of Scripture on here and I have not done that once and I don't think I could outside of maybe John 3:16.
Many of the atheists here learned a lot about the Bible when they were younger.  So, quoting it comes easily to them.

Also, it isn't necessary to be religious to be a creationist.  That's why the religious creationists coined intelligent design and tried to strip theistic references from it - to draw people into becoming creationists without realizing it.  Their natural assumption is that once people have bought into intelligent design, they'll be primed to accept the religious belief.

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2210
  • Darwins +73/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #993 on: October 29, 2013, 09:46:58 AM »
You are full of shit, piss, hogwash, hot air and vomit to say the least.

Where's the love?

Quote
My gosh all he wants to know is how the eye and reproduction,complex systems, could have slowly arrived instead of being composed all together at the same time.  Can any body here answer that?

It's been answered multiple times over 35 pages. Have you read any of it?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #994 on: October 29, 2013, 09:59:09 AM »
This is such a good read!

A Refutation of Deism
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1814)


http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/shelleydeism.htm

"Design must be proved before a designer can be inferred..."[1]


So, referring back to the OP, these arguments about, "It's impossible without a designer" precisely demonstrate my original point - that such arguments are logically fallacious because they commit The Argument from Incredulity Fallacy. And therefore, they should be refused. Instead, when one doesn't know something they ought to be honest enough to admit it, go do some homework, wait for new data to come in, withhold from practicing confirmation bias, and generally stop practicing gullibility based in illogical arguments.
 1. Quote from the paper "A Refutation of Deism" - Click the link to read!
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 10:23:08 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #995 on: October 29, 2013, 10:20:15 AM »
Y'all are the ones that don't show respect.  You called a cancer patient a liar.

That was Nam, not "Y'all".  And he got widely denounced for it.  But go ahead and pretend that everyone was saying your cancer was a lie, sure.

Nobody here has proven the DR to be a liar.

So he has daughters, but also has no kids.  Mmhmm.

He has a valid argument that y'all keep tip toeing around and covering it up with character assassination.  Same old ad hominem type debate style.

This ^^ is a lie.  His argument's been refuted already.  He didn't address the refutation, just repeated his argument.  Commenting on that kind of behaviour is not an ad hominem.

You are full of shit, piss, hogwash, hot air and vomit to say the least.

Did you mean to say "Y'all" at the start?  Because you did indeed say "Y'all" at the start.  Which means that you're saying this, and everything else in your post, to everyone here.

My gosh all he wants to know is how the eye and reproduction,complex systems, could have slowly arrived instead of being composed all together at the same time.  Can any body here answer that?

Why would you or anyone else think he really wants to know that?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #996 on: October 29, 2013, 10:30:12 AM »
@Azdgari

I kindly ask that you take my "quote"  down because I already said that I should have phrased that better.  I was just trying to spoof the notion that you have, which seems kind of arrogant,  that people care about who you have sex with.    Then you referred to a baby as a punishment. 

I am now prepared to accept your apology for calling me a rapist.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #997 on: October 29, 2013, 10:31:29 AM »
1. No, your quote is staying.

2. I never called you a rapist.  You are lying.  Again.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #998 on: October 29, 2013, 10:36:43 AM »
Y'all are the ones that don't show respect.  You called a cancer patient a liar.  I could go as far to say that you HATE theist which is even worse that not respecting.  You have never admitted you were wrong even when your fellow atheist told you that you were.  So who is being dishonest here.
Kindly keep your personal problems with Nam's attitude from splashing on everyone else, thank you very much.

Quote from: junebug72
Nobody here has proven the DR to be a liar.  He has a valid argument that y'all keep tip toeing around and covering it up with character assassination.  Same old ad hominem type debate style.
I have personally refuted his irreducible complexity argument a dozen times, at least, and he's just come back with the same thing every time.  When he's bothered to actually respond to my comments (which, to be frank, isn't often), they've amounted to little more than, "well, you still haven't explained it, so it's still not true."  And I do not use personal attacks in my posts as a rule.  If you were just talking to Nam, it would be one thing, but when you make a blanket statement like "nobody's proven him to be a liar" - which isn't the point in any case, it's not about him lying, it's about whether what he's saying is correct - without having read more than a fraction of this topic, you draw other people in.

How do I know you haven't read the topic?  Because you haven't posted in it before now. 

Quote from: junebug72
You are full of shit, piss, hogwash, hot air and vomit to say the least.
When you preface a post with "y'all", it implies that you're talking about everyone in the thread.  You might want to watch out for that when you write stuff like this.

Quote from: junebug72
My gosh all he wants to know is how the eye and reproduction,complex systems, could have slowly arrived instead of being composed all together at the same time.  Can any body here answer that?
Not only can, but have.  I realize it's a 35-page topic, but you should take the time to at least skim it before you assert that nobody's answered his objections.

I'll summarize several of my better arguments here.

First off, I've shown that so-called "irreducibly complex" systems, systems which an organism should not be able to put together on its own without outside help, are routinely put together by those very same organisms as part of the process of growing from a single-celled zygote into even an infant organism, never mind an adult one.  This doesn't directly answer how they could have evolved, step by step, but it does refute the argument that they are "irreducibly complex", since something that is irreducibly complex cannot build itself, because it cannot function until it is built.

Second, I (and others) showed that evolution naturally conserves mutations, so long as the organism carrying them survives long enough to reproduce, thus passing them on to its offspring.  It doesn't matter that these mutations by themselves might not have any particular effect; evolution is good at providing the impetus to turn something into an advantage given enough time.  Not only that, but those mutations are then available for other mutations to affect.  Note that I'm not talking about anatomy, but genes.  If enough key genes are changed without setting off something that's lethal to its carrier, then you can have totally new traits develop in an organism.  But even without that, most evolutionary changes act as refinements to things that already exist in an organism.  This demonstrates how small changes can add up to big ones, thus demonstrating how they could have developed gradually.

There's more, but that should be sufficient.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1793
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #999 on: October 29, 2013, 10:38:58 AM »
Whoa, off the forum and out of this conversation for the last several days and it's still going strong. I don't even know where to start with the smites, given how many willfully ignorant posts DrT has put up in my absence - that one per hour limit is making it hard to choose.

Kudos to all who have tolerated such silliness for so many days. Your patience is admirable.  :-\
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1000 on: October 29, 2013, 11:16:58 AM »
Jaime  said  "First off, I've shown that so-called "irreducibly complex" systems, systems which an organism should not be able to put together on its own without outside help, are routinely put together by those very same organisms as part of the process of growing from a single-celled zygote into even an infant organism, never mind an adult one. This doesn't directly answer how they could have evolved, step by step, but it does refute the argument that they are "irreducibly complex", since something that is irreducibly complex cannot build itself, because it cannot function until it is built."

Organisms inherit the DNA that codes for the IC system.  It is built at once in the next generations or it simply does not work until each part is in place.  As you say, that doesn't answer how the IC systems have evolved in the first place.    A zygote is in a primitive state where most of the body's sytems are not developed.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1001 on: October 29, 2013, 11:55:30 AM »
Jaime  said  "First off, I've shown that so-called "irreducibly complex" systems, systems which an organism should not be able to put together on its own without outside help, are routinely put together by those very same organisms as part of the process of growing from a single-celled zygote into even an infant organism, never mind an adult one. This doesn't directly answer how they could have evolved, step by step, but it does refute the argument that they are "irreducibly complex", since something that is irreducibly complex cannot build itself, because it cannot function until it is built."
Love how you quoted the part of my post that wasn't intended to show how those systems could have evolved, but didn't even attempt to address the part that did.  As you say, LOL.  And you wonder why nobody believes you.  Suggestion, stop trying to cherry-pick.  It doesn't work and it makes it very easy for people to show you up.

Quote from: DrTesla
Organisms inherit the DNA that codes for the IC system.  It is built at once in the next generations or it simply does not work until each part is in place.  As you say, that doesn't answer how the IC systems have evolved in the first place.    A zygote is in a primitive state where most of the body's sytems are not developed.
I didn't think I was going to have to actually spell this out for you.  Guess you showed me not to overestimate your ability to understand, huh.

Yes, it's true, the growth of a single organism is not evolution in and of itself.  Indeed, as you pointed out, I said as much just now.  My point was to show that complex multicellular organisms don't start out needing these supposedly "irreducibly complex" organs and systems; it can survive without them.  Which means, by implication, that early lifeforms didn't need them either.  If an organism doesn't need something in order to survive, then there is no reason that it couldn't develop slowly, over hundreds or thousands of generations.  Not only that, but there's also no reason that the individual parts that would eventually make up that system couldn't be put to other uses in the meantime.

The point here, and the reason I keep bringing it up, is that if an organism is capable of surviving without (say) a full-fledged circulatory system, then there is no reason to postulate that the system must have come together, all at once, as if it were designed and built, in organisms that do have one.  Especially if other organisms have what look a lot like partial circulatory systems that work (perhaps not as efficiently, but what matters is that they work), or use structures that operate like circulatory systems for other reasons.

This is why irreducible complexity doesn't work as an explanation.  It is nothing more than an attempt to say that something can't work unless it's in a finished state, and then to apply that by analogy to actual living organisms.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1002 on: October 29, 2013, 12:26:42 PM »
Your point makes no sense.  Lifeforms in their early life are still primitive meaning that they are supported by their mother.  Their systems are not developed and if they are IC,  they do not work until the entire system is formed.  The IC system is encoded in their DNA.    You can not conflate about how lifeforms develop in life with how they evolved.   It is two separate things.     

You are confused by this.  There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system...it would fail without just one part.   This is what you can't explain, by your own admission.
"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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1003 on: October 29, 2013, 12:28:30 PM »
You are confused by this. 

You are the last person in this forum to be suggesting other people are confused.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1004 on: October 29, 2013, 01:02:51 PM »
You are full of shit, piss, hogwash, hot air and vomit to say the least.

Where's the love?

Quote
My gosh all he wants to know is how the eye and reproduction,complex systems, could have slowly arrived instead of being composed all together at the same time.  Can any body here answer that?

It's been answered multiple times over 35 pages. Have you read any of it?

Idiots don't read. Pssha

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1005 on: October 29, 2013, 01:03:36 PM »
Your point makes no sense.  Lifeforms in their early life are still primitive meaning that they are supported by their mother.  Their systems are not developed and if they are IC,  they do not work until the entire system is formed.  The IC system is encoded in their DNA.    You can not conflate about how lifeforms develop in life with how they evolved.   It is two separate things.     

You are confused by this. There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system...it would fail without just one part.   This is what you can't explain, by your own admission.

"There is no way [I can't imagine how], therefore [insert Argument from Incredulity fallacy here] designer of the gaps did it."

It's funny how many times you try to move the goal post (and yet can't see that your'e doing it). You claim, for example, something like the Bacterial Flagellum is IC, but then when someone shows you something which has many parts removed from that system, and has a different function (aka a bacterial syringe which is missing several proteins but still functions), you then shift the argument to talking about that system being IC. LOL. Again, you display your own ignorance of biology. Continually, you seem to have this faulty definition of what science is, and what it requires for the explanation of a given phenomena. You seem to be intending to argue that they could not have evolved b/c we didn't see it happen directly (which is not what science states at all), or something to the effect of "If you can take a part away and it breaks, then it could not have evolved". This argument is 100% false (logically fallacious reasoning - argument from ignorance/incredulity) and you refuse to see that b/c you refuse to see the evidence based upon your presupposition and emotional commitment to your "designer/God" belief.

The basic fallacy you are displaying here is that you have started with your conclusion (that anything that looks designed to you must be designed) and are trying to work backwards from that presupposition (confirmation bias). It fails miserably. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate a "designer", and you simply cannot get there by using logically fallacious reasoning. SORRY!
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 01:19:23 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1304
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1006 on: October 29, 2013, 01:03:55 PM »
There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system

and you have yet to show an IC system.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2104
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1007 on: October 29, 2013, 01:04:32 PM »
You are confused by this.  There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system...it would fail without just one part.   This is what you can't explain, by your own admission.
So let's just say that there is a non-functional precursor to some 'IC' system.  That is, some organisms of a species have a system that has many, but not all, of the requisite parts of this IC system, and this partial system is completely non-functional (totally non-functional, as in it can serve no other purpose for these organisms).

Would you say that those organisms would no longer be able to reproduce?
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1008 on: October 29, 2013, 01:09:32 PM »
Y'all are the ones that don't show respect.  You called a cancer patient a liar.

That was Nam, not "Y'all".  And he got widely denounced for it.  But go ahead and pretend that everyone was saying your cancer was a lie, sure.

Nobody here has proven the DR to be a liar.

So he has daughters, but also has no kids.  Mmhmm.

He has a valid argument that y'all keep tip toeing around and covering it up with character assassination.  Same old ad hominem type debate style.

This ^^ is a lie.  His argument's been refuted already.  He didn't address the refutation, just repeated his argument.  Commenting on that kind of behaviour is not an ad hominem.

You are full of shit, piss, hogwash, hot air and vomit to say the least.

Did you mean to say "Y'all" at the start?  Because you did indeed say "Y'all" at the start.  Which means that you're saying this, and everything else in your post, to everyone here.

My gosh all he wants to know is how the eye and reproduction,complex systems, could have slowly arrived instead of being composed all together at the same time.  Can any body here answer that?

Why would you or anyone else think he really wants to know that?

I researched Junebug72, she's been telling variations of this cancer story as far back as 2008. So, while I am still inclined to believe it's not true (based on the variations) I can now say that there's a very small percentage I could be wrong. ;) but look that, now everyone is saying it but everyone isn't. I guess when one atheist says something all atheists are saying it. The delusional mind of a Christian.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1009 on: October 29, 2013, 01:14:08 PM »
@Azdgari

I kindly ask that you take my "quote"  down because I already said that I should have phrased that better.  I was just trying to spoof the notion that you have, which seems kind of arrogant,  that people care about who you have sex with.    Then you referred to a baby as a punishment. 

I am now prepared to accept your apology for calling me a rapist.

You're a rapist? We had a Klan member here awhile ago, I didn't like him, I might have drove him off. Or been a part of it. But I do believe you're a rapist; not of women, you're too timid for that, no of minds with your bullshit.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1010 on: October 29, 2013, 01:15:36 PM »
@Azdgari

I kindly ask that you take my "quote"  down because I already said that I should have phrased that better.  I was just trying to spoof the notion that you have, which seems kind of arrogant,  that people care about who you have sex with.    Then you referred to a baby as a punishment. 

I am now prepared to accept your apology for calling me a rapist.

You're a rapist? We had a Klan member here awhile ago, I didn't like him, I might have drove him off. Or been a part of it. But I do believe you're a rapist; not of women, you're too timid for that, no of minds with your bullshit.

-Nam

Ok, like Jesus I will turn the other cheek.  I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit I didn't graduate high school though, because high school is cake.  Basically just memorizing stuff.

So by your logic, brave is associated with raping women?  If timid is the opposite.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 01:18:00 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1011 on: October 29, 2013, 01:17:18 PM »
1. No, your quote is staying.

2. I never called you a rapist.  You are lying.  Again.

Don't you love how he includes a minimalist idea as a whole idea? Meaning, I don't know much about Evolution equates to me not knowing science. You, apparently state something about a baby, and that equates to you calling him a rapist.

Crazy.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1012 on: October 29, 2013, 01:20:49 PM »
1. No, your quote is staying.

2. I never called you a rapist.  You are lying.  Again.

Don't you love how he includes a minimalist idea as a whole idea? Meaning, I don't know much about Evolution equates to me not knowing science. You, apparently state something about a baby, and that equates to you calling him a rapist.

Crazy.

-Nam

You've said you don't know much about science in an earlier post, in addition to how you didn't finish high school.  Yet you are calling me stupid.   Maybe you are stupid and too stupid to know it. 

You don't understand where the rapist thing came from.  It was on the abortion thread and they did imply I was a rapist due to a poorly crafted sentence.  One of them even made it their signature so why would they do that if there wasn't an implication there.

You don't ever actually talki about Science in here in specifics.  You just talk about Science in general and how you know Science but it is pretty clear you don't think much about anything.  You just here to insult people.  Every other word is "stupid".   You seem insecure, brother.   You kind of remind of that bimbo Miss South Carolina contestant a few years ago "it's Science, you guys".   lol
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 01:22:57 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12525
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1013 on: October 29, 2013, 01:24:33 PM »
@Azdgari

I kindly ask that you take my "quote"  down because I already said that I should have phrased that better.  I was just trying to spoof the notion that you have, which seems kind of arrogant,  that people care about who you have sex with.    Then you referred to a baby as a punishment. 

I am now prepared to accept your apology for calling me a rapist.

You're a rapist? We had a Klan member here awhile ago, I didn't like him, I might have drove him off. Or been a part of it. But I do believe you're a rapist; not of women, you're too timid for that, no of minds with your bullshit.

-Nam

Ok, like Jesus I will turn the other cheek.  I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit I didn't graduate high school though, because high school is cake.  Basically just memorizing stuff.

So by your logic, brave is associated with raping women?  If timid is the opposite.

Again: I am poor at math. How is this not getting through to you. I know people base intelligence on math but that's idiotic since even with math: you're an idiot.

And I am not embarrassed, why should I be?

Look at that, your last line: twisting things. You do that a lot.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1014 on: October 29, 2013, 01:28:23 PM »
I realize jb's post derailed the conversation.  But let's please get back on topic. 

 
I researched Junebug72, she's been telling variations of this cancer story as far back as 2008.

If you are going to ignore her, ignore her.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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