Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,150 Year: 5,407/9,624 Month: 432/323 Week: 72/204 Day: 14/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do we tell the difference, Ahmad?
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 63 (27780)
12-24-2002 11:51 AM


If i were a creationist, i would say, quite reasonably,
God created the universe 6000 years ago exactly as the bible/koran/etc suggests it was 6000 years ago and covered his tracks using his powers to stop meddling scientists delving into things that are beyond them.
and who could dispute that?
absolutely no one! it's completely irrefutable. So why doesn't anyone say it?

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 63 (27782)
12-24-2002 12:19 PM


A few people have done just that right here on EvC (Zimzam was one I think Cobrasnake did as well)...
[infomercial]
Which is why I always carry my handy dandy "that makes God a deciever and hence not omnibenevolent" argument with me wherever I go....
Just one application of the patent pending formula and the discussion gets shunted into a lovely little "God can decieve us and not be a liar" contradiction....
You to can be the proud owner of the "that makes God a deciever and hence not omnibenevolent" argument just send $19.99 (5 installments thereof) + $5.99 P+P and we will rush you a special signed copy through the mail within 2 months....
1-800-JOZ-ARG6
Call now to order
[/infomercial]
Seriously the whole God is a deciever and not omnibenevolent argument is pretty good, as most creationists would rather look for evidence that ain`t there till the cows come home than knock benevolence off of the om' list.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 12-24-2002]

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 63 (27783)
12-24-2002 12:28 PM


Here it is BTW....
Dug up from way back....
Theo I posted this for Zimzam a while ago....
The point under debate was that if God made a universe with apparent age he was a deciever (in the sense used by Descartes in his mediations) and therefore not the perfectly good God of christian theology...
Ok in summary:
Assuming God exists....
1)Either the biblical account of creation ex nihilo X,000 (where X is of the close order of 10) years ago is a)correct or b)it isn`t....
2)Either the biblical God is a) infinitely (or perfectly) good or b) isn`t...
2)a)Precludes 1)a) in that an infinitely (or perfectly) good God would be morally prohibited from an act that would lead to a deception....
2)a)Can be taken to not prohibit 1)b) in that a God that created a universe a time of the close order of 10,000,000,000 years ago which contains evidence of that age has not commited an act of deception....(i)
However it could also be argued that such an infinitely good God would remove from circulation any accounts of creation that were false thus prohibiting 1)b)....(ii)
2)b)Prohibits no courses of action but relies on God not being of perfect moral character which itself contradicts popular christian belief....(iii)
Thus either (i) or (ii) is right:
If (i) God is the perfectly good creator of a 10,000,000,000 year old universe.
Or (ii) is right In which case as the biblical account is still around means God must be as described in 2)b) which gives case (iii)
(iii) God is described by 2)b) a less than perfect (morally) deity who can willfully of by lack of forethought decieve contrary to popular christian belief.....

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 63 (27786)
12-24-2002 1:17 PM


but then the creationist might say,
but the deception is the devil's fault, fall of man, etc.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by joz, posted 12-24-2002 1:19 PM Gzus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 63 (27787)
12-24-2002 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Gzus
12-24-2002 1:17 PM


But then God is not omnipotent....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Gzus, posted 12-24-2002 1:17 PM Gzus has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 63 (27788)
12-24-2002 1:20 PM


But you do have a point, the counter argument to that would be,
but how was it moral for God (knowing that the fall would happen) to create humans & the devil. in a sense, God is the creator of sin.

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 63 (27789)
12-24-2002 1:22 PM


yes, I agree with you joz, God cannot decieve meaning that belief in him must be ontainable through reason, it must be possible to derive it from our surroundings otherwise he is misleading us.
but then of course, 'you cannot prove the existence of god'

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 63 (27976)
12-27-2002 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John
12-18-2002 1:18 PM


John,
quote:
But all of the components are not required for it to perform A function. This is a critical consideration and you seem to be missing it. Think about a car. Remove the wheels and you have destroyed its ability to function as a car, but it still functions as a shelter complete with heating and AC. Remove the AC; it still functions as a shelter against wind and rain. Remove the body, you still have a power station-- the engine-- that can be used to generate electricity by turning the alternator, and which could also turn any number of machines via the drive shaft. Remove the gasoline engine and you still have countless components that STILL FUNCTION as something, even though the whole is far from functioning as a car.
Right, so a car is not irreducible, now is it? The phenomenon you are point out is "Adoption from a different function". Now let me see if I get this right. A car is designed for its set purpose by an engineer. He consciously places the different components in their proper place to make a car. There is a teleological intervention.. and not a naturalistic phenomenon as naturalistic evolution. I am discussing IC in terms of non-teleological perspective aka naturalistic evolution... how it could account for the different components and piece them out together, increasing specified complexity and making the resulting structure, irreducible in function.
Ofcourse, unless you can show me a fully functional car made by nature herself, my claim STANDS!
Regards,
Ahmad
[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John, posted 12-18-2002 1:18 PM John has not replied

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 63 (27977)
12-27-2002 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
12-11-2002 7:34 AM


quote:
If anyone can come up with a feasible route for the development
of any IC then it fails as an argument ... and arguments from
incredulity are impossibly weak to begin with.
Thats a pretty big IF. Tell you what.. give me a valid proven demonstrable evolutionary pathway for, say, bacterial flagella and you might have some credit for your argument. All I have been given are imaginary pathways either based on homology or just sheer possibility. Imagination is good, but only on the boundaries of fantasy. In science, we deal with reality.
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 12-11-2002 7:34 AM Peter has not replied

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 63 (27978)
12-27-2002 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
12-18-2002 7:06 PM


Mark,
quote:
You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve.
My bad! I should have said: Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
Regards,
Ahmad
[This message has been edited by Ahmad, 12-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 12-18-2002 7:06 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by mark24, posted 12-27-2002 1:36 PM Ahmad has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 42 of 63 (27980)
12-27-2002 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Ahmad
12-27-2002 1:12 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
Mark: You have asked what positive evidence was, as well as an example. You know what it is, since you have correctly used the concept. Now, please provide positive evidence that IC systems cannot evolve.
quote:
Ahamad: My bad! I should have said: Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
This still isn't positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC systems. Nothing is firmly established by your statement, other than the system fails if one part is removed. In short, you are still describing an IC system. That this is un-evolvable remains an argument from incredulity on your part.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 1:12 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 2:35 PM mark24 has replied

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 63 (27984)
12-27-2002 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Peter
12-19-2002 6:19 AM


Peter,
quote:
'Purpose' and 'function' are not the same thing.
To an extent, it is. Anything that functions... functions for a certain purpose.
quote:
I have suggested in the 'Irreducible Complexity' thread
that this reasoning is an argument from incredulity and
nothing more.
It is not a new suggestion. Many critics have already made similar suggestions and accusations. However, I disagree. "Incredulity" primarily indicates "disbelief". The "faith" element is not in question here. What is in question is the "evidence" to show that irreducibly complex molecular machines was or could have been made by naturalistic processes. Imaginary pathways are no good.
quote:
Just because you break something by removing a component
doesn't mean it was designed with a purpose, and it certainly
doesn't follow that it couldn't have developed unaided.
That is a connection yet to be made.
The connection is evident. If a system is IC, then it must have had all its parts from the very moment of its existence, i.e, it was specially created. That means all the components were functionally designed to coordinate and perform the function of the system.
quote:
You still have to show that there was an 'intent' behind
anything (i.e. that is WAS designed). Effectively you have
said that in order for something to be designed it must
be designed by someone ... which is the only real design
criterion I can think of at present ... and that means we
have to seek evidence of a designer.
"Intent" is "Purpose". If something is "irreducible", it must have been "designed" for a purpose. And what else criterions of "design" do you postulate?
quote:
Life developed by adapting to where it had to live.
Thats how life developed. How did it originate?
quote:
The universe isn't finely tuned to support life on Earth,
life on Earth has adapted to exploit the universe.
So now the Anthropic Principle gets wrong? Whats next? The second Law of thermodynamics?
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Peter, posted 12-19-2002 6:19 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 3:12 AM Ahmad has not replied

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 63 (27985)
12-27-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by mark24
12-27-2002 1:36 PM


Mark,
quote:
Ahmad: My bad! I should have said: Positive evidence for the non-evolvability of IC is seen in the bacterial flagella, where all the components of the flagella are needed to make it perform its function, i.e, locomotion of the bacteria and it appears at the exact place where it is needed by the bacteria.
quote:
This still isn't positive evidence of non-evolvability of IC systems. Nothing is firmly established by your statement, other than the system fails if one part is removed. In short, you are still describing an IC system. That this is un-evolvable remains an argument from incredulity on your part.
Right.. lets get back to your original example of "positive evidence" and do some comparing. You gave an example of birds evolving from dinosaurs and its fossil record as "positive evidence" for evolution. I gave you an example of the flagella present in bacteria as Irreducible and hence.. un-evolvable. If this is an argument from incredulity, then so is your "positive evidence".
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by mark24, posted 12-27-2002 1:36 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 12-27-2002 5:27 PM Ahmad has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5305 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 45 of 63 (27993)
12-27-2002 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Ahmad
12-27-2002 2:35 PM


Ahmad,
quote:
Right.. lets get back to your original example of "positive evidence" and do some comparing. You gave an example of birds evolving from dinosaurs and its fossil record as "positive evidence" for evolution. I gave you an example of the flagella present in bacteria as Irreducible and hence.. un-evolvable. If this is an argument from incredulity, then so is your "positive evidence".
A fossil form that has traits found ONLY in extant reptiles & birds is positive evidence of common descent from reptiles to birds BECAUSE, the evidence can be touched, tested, & measured, & is a prediction-come-true for the reptile bird hypothesis.
The flagella MIGHT have evolved, or it MIGHT have been designed, there is nothing to indicate which just by looking at the flagella. You are begging the question (a logical fallacy Page not found - Intrepid Software ) by making an argument that evidence for non-evolvable IC is an example of IC that couldn’t evolve (you have not shown the latter). As has been pointed out to you I-don’t-know-how-many-times, IC is not by definition un-evolvable. That is the contention. You appear to be claiming that because someone defined IC as being un-evolvable, it must be true, & we don't actually need to show it. WRONG! This is precisely what you NEED TO SHOW. Hence, showing me an IC system isn’t evidence of it’s non-evolvability. That will take more. I don’t have to tell you how an IC system evolves, it’s not my claim, it’s yours.
So tell me how an IC flagella presents positive evidence of its own un-evolvability? I know its IC, I don’t know it can’t evolve. Without making me go over the same stuff for a fourth time, please!
I’ll say it again. IC is NOT un-evolvable by definition. It is NOT good enough just to show me an IC system, because all you’ve shown me is an IC system, & not that it can’t evolve.
Therefore an IC system is not positive evidence that said IC system cannot evolve. Any claim that it is is an argument from incredulity, & an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Ahmad, posted 12-27-2002 2:35 PM Ahmad has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Ahmad, posted 12-28-2002 6:48 AM mark24 has replied

  
Ahmad
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 63 (28014)
12-28-2002 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by mark24
12-27-2002 5:27 PM


Mark,
quote:
A fossil form that has traits found ONLY in extant reptiles & birds is positive evidence of common descent from reptiles to birds BECAUSE, the evidence can be touched, tested, & measured, & is a prediction-come-true for the reptile bird hypothesis.
A bacterial flagella has traits classifiable to an Irreducibly complex system and is positive evidence for it's non-evolvability by darwinian mechanisms. The evidence is testable and falsifiable.
quote:
The flagella MIGHT have evolved, or it MIGHT have been designed, there is nothing to indicate which just by looking at the flagella. You are begging the question (a logical fallacy Page not found - Intrepid Software ) by making an argument that evidence for non-evolvable IC is an example of IC that couldn’t evolve (you have not shown the latter). As has been pointed out to you I-don’t-know-how-many-times, IC is not by definition un-evolvable. That is the contention. You appear to be claiming that because someone defined IC as being un-evolvable, it must be true, & we don't actually need to show it. WRONG! This is precisely what you NEED TO SHOW. Hence, showing me an IC system isn’t evidence of it’s non-evolvability. That will take more. I don’t have to tell you how an IC system evolves, it’s not my claim, it’s yours.
I call that "tossing". You were always on the contention that IC systems exist and they have evolved by darwinian mechanisms, and you have also cited some papers backing up your initial claim (to which you now seem to deny). I did make claims to which I have several times verified. Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for the origin of IC systems. Consider A -->B -->C...
where, there is a trend of increasing complexity (alleged evolutionary preduction). 'A' evolves into 'B' much more complex compared to 'A'. The 'B' evolved into 'C', the latter once again being more complex than former. So there was a gradual increase in the complexity of ABC system. C must have more number of parts than A or B.
Now lets get to my point. In IC, we are dealing with a system in which ALL the parts are required for it to function such that if one part is taken away, the entire system ceases to function. Hence we make a prediction (quite common for evolutionists) based on facts, that the system must have had existed with ALL its parts from the very moment of its existence. The gradual increase in complexity is out of the question as the system is irreducible complex. It has no predecessors. It is common sense. Darwinian mechanism cannot account for such a system since it predicts "evolution" from simple to complex for everything. Darwin himself was scared of it.
As for petitio principii, I am not begging the question but the answer. Explain to me HOW IC systems could evolve?? Hitherto, you been consistently reiterating about "positive evidence for its non-evolvability" and I have. You just don't accept it. Now I ask: Provide "positive, testable, valid" evidence for the evolvability of IC, not just some drawn out of imagination. After all, something must at least have some chances of possibility before we can rule it out as "impossible".
Regards,
Ahmad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mark24, posted 12-27-2002 5:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mark24, posted 12-28-2002 7:31 AM Ahmad has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024