Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 128 (440754)
12-14-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Suroof
12-14-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Let's consider this!
Okay, so Mt. Rushmore is designed (we at least agree on that), but you don't really know why we know that it was designed. If we were wandering around lost in South Dakota and came across Mt. Rushmore, we would know that it was designed, but you really haven't thought about it enough to understand how it is that you know that it was designed. Rather than try to figure out why you really do know that it was designed, you bring in irrelevant quotes by Dembski; you probably don't really understand what he's trying to say, but you are hoping that it answers the questions.
What you really need to do is ignore Dembski. I mean, come on, you know Mt. Rushmore was designed. You don't need any gobbledegook like "specified complexity" or any of the other high-falutin' sounding crap that Dembski or Behe spouts. You knew that Mt. Rushmore was designed well before you even heard of Dembski or Behe.
Just think for yourself. How do you know that Mt. Rushmore was designed? How do you know that Mt. Rushmore isn't the resulf of random, chance erosion patterns? How do you know that there isn't something about the mountains in South Dakota, some process that will naturally produce something like Mt. Rushmore?
Don't reply immediately. This isn't a chat room. You can take your time to think the problem through and write a well-thought out response. I do feel that you need to think about this.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Silly typo -- although, given the nature of this board, "wondering" is probably appropriate, too.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Suroof, posted 12-14-2007 12:05 PM Suroof has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 107 of 128 (440772)
12-14-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Suroof
12-14-2007 11:57 AM


Re: What is your argument?
Suroof writes:
a serious model for the evolution of blood clotting would have to include such things as: a quantitative description of the starting state, including tangentially interacting systems; a description of the initial regulatory mechanisms; a quantitatively-justified proposal for a step-by-step route to the new state; a detailed plan for how regulatory mechanisms accommodated the changes; and more
Well I'm no biologist so I won't continue this line of argument. There are others here who will better answer these points.
However, I would ask you, as an ID proponent, to consider what you are arguing for:
i) ID has no model. It has no explanation for the "design" process. It makes no attempt to identify a "designer" (other than poorly veiled references to God).
ii) It makes no positive claims whatsoever. ID "research" is based entriely on nit-picking at controversial areas of evolution, seemingly unaware that problems with evolutionary theory do not automatically validate a non-existent ID model.
In short, before worrying about the "irreducible complexity" of blood clotting you should first be showing us how ID works and who is doing it.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Suroof, posted 12-14-2007 11:57 AM Suroof has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by bluescat48, posted 12-14-2007 1:47 PM RickJB has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 108 of 128 (440774)
12-14-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RickJB
12-14-2007 1:45 PM


Re: What is your argument?
In short, before worrying about the "irreducible complexity" of blood clotting you should first be showing us how IC works and who is doing it.
That is what has been asked ever since ID was first contemplated. Still no model as to how it works or who or what the designer is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RickJB, posted 12-14-2007 1:45 PM RickJB has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 109 of 128 (440778)
12-14-2007 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Suroof
12-14-2007 9:28 AM


Re: The Edge
Suroof writes:
Yes, if you have any idea as to how the irreducible core of the blood clotting system (as described in message 65) evolved in a Darwinian step-by-step model please show us.
I see that RickJB has picked up the blood clotting issue. As the discussion has already made clear, there are a wealth of possible natural pathways.
No scientific unknown has ever resolved to a supernatural origin. The correct answer to something we do not know is, "We do not know," not, "God did it." The entire history of religion is one of deciding God did it, while the whole history of science is, "Gee, how about that, just matter and energy following natural laws once again! Who woulda thought!" Just like everything else in this world, blood clotting has a natural origin.
You simply ignored the more important points in my Message 93, concerning the complete lack of objective methods for measuring SC, and the infinite regression of the designer to a supernatural origin. ID has no scientific facets, only supernatural.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Suroof, posted 12-14-2007 9:28 AM Suroof has not replied

  
reiverix
Member (Idle past 5818 days)
Posts: 80
From: Central Ohio
Joined: 10-18-2007


Message 110 of 128 (440779)
12-14-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Suroof
12-14-2007 12:05 PM


Re: Let's consider this!
I guess I'm just not getting the whole ID thing. What is the criteria for 'looking designed'? It seems to me it's just based on human perception and that's why you keep bringing up Mt Rushmore.
Does this mean the surface of Mars is designed?
Mars Face
Edited by reiverix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Suroof, posted 12-14-2007 12:05 PM Suroof has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2007 7:04 PM reiverix has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 128 (440837)
12-14-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by reiverix
12-14-2007 2:26 PM


Re: Let's consider this!
I guess I'm just not getting the whole ID thing. What is the criteria for 'looking designed'?
It's the argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy):
  • if it looks designed, how can you possibly believe it isn't designed???
    Coupled with the "all {A} is {B} ... {B}!!! ... therefore {A}" logical fallacy:
  • And if it IS designed then there MUST be a designer!!!(wets self)
    IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : i

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 110 by reiverix, posted 12-14-2007 2:26 PM reiverix has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 12-14-2007 9:09 PM RAZD has replied

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 4189 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 112 of 128 (440855)
    12-14-2007 9:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 111 by RAZD
    12-14-2007 7:04 PM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic.
    I think they are grasping at straws.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 111 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2007 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2007 7:45 AM bluescat48 has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 113 of 128 (440909)
    12-15-2007 7:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 112 by bluescat48
    12-14-2007 9:09 PM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    Is that why the straw man argument is so common?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by bluescat48, posted 12-14-2007 9:09 PM bluescat48 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 114 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2007 7:51 AM RAZD has not replied

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 4189 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 114 of 128 (440910)
    12-15-2007 7:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 113 by RAZD
    12-15-2007 7:45 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    Ha! Ha! Ha!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2007 7:45 AM RAZD has not replied

      
    molbiogirl
    Member (Idle past 2641 days)
    Posts: 1909
    From: MO
    Joined: 06-06-2007


    Message 115 of 128 (440944)
    12-15-2007 3:22 PM


    Su,
    Let's get one thing straight.
    "Intelligent designer" means "god".
    4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?
    I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
    OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance
    The various incarnations of Pandas and People:
    Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”
    Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
    Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
    Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”
    Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”
    Page not found · GitHub Pages

      
    wall-on-the-fly
    Junior Member (Idle past 5946 days)
    Posts: 2
    From: VA
    Joined: 12-16-2007


    Message 116 of 128 (441063)
    12-16-2007 9:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 90 by Suroof
    12-14-2007 7:40 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    This whole idea of finding design in Mt Rushmore is a bit silly. I don't see how this boils down to anything other than a poorly constructed argument from analogy. As others have begun to point out, we all recognize design in these giant stone heads because we've all seen human faces, and we've seen the humans who make statues and paintings and models of human faces. The analogy is reasonable here.
    But just as when Hume dismantled this argument more than two centuries ago, this analogy as applied to universes, or worlds, or even organisms has no basis. While perhaps everyone has seen a person construct an artistic representation of a human, NO ONE has ever seen a grand designer constructing a universe, a world, or an organism.
    There is absolutely no basis in our experience to make such an analogy. We have only one experience with one universe, so no analogy is possible. This is called making stuff up.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 90 by Suroof, posted 12-14-2007 7:40 AM Suroof has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 117 by Granny Magda, posted 12-16-2007 9:55 AM wall-on-the-fly has not replied
     Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2007 10:19 AM wall-on-the-fly has replied

      
    Granny Magda
    Member
    Posts: 2462
    From: UK
    Joined: 11-12-2007
    Member Rating: 4.0


    Message 117 of 128 (441068)
    12-16-2007 9:55 AM
    Reply to: Message 116 by wall-on-the-fly
    12-16-2007 9:16 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    Hi wall-on-the-fly, and welcome to EvC!
    I agree with your criticisms, but if you think the Mt. Rushmore example is silly, you've only just begun to scratch the surface of creationist weirdness...

    Mutate and Survive

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by wall-on-the-fly, posted 12-16-2007 9:16 AM wall-on-the-fly has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1404 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 118 of 128 (441072)
    12-16-2007 10:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 116 by wall-on-the-fly
    12-16-2007 9:16 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    and a relativistic welcome for me, wall-on-the-fly,
    This whole idea of finding design in Mt Rushmore is a bit silly.
    Actually we can use this argument as a basis for another: if we can determine design solely from the object with no context, then we should be able to detect design where we don't know whether there was a designer or not.
    Thus we should be able to develop a technique that can distinguish the design of DNA and test it with known modified plants and animals and bacteria.
    Enjoy.
    ps - if you haven't figured it out yet, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
    quotes are easy
    or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
    quote:
    quotes are easy
    also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
    Edited by RAZD, : .

    Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 116 by wall-on-the-fly, posted 12-16-2007 9:16 AM wall-on-the-fly has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 119 by jar, posted 12-16-2007 11:15 AM RAZD has not replied
     Message 121 by wall-on-the-fly, posted 12-16-2007 6:21 PM RAZD has replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 119 of 128 (441076)
    12-16-2007 11:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 118 by RAZD
    12-16-2007 10:19 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    One thing that is interesting about the Mt. Rushmore example is just how much information we can actually gather by looking at it.
    For example:
    • we can find the tools marks left during construction.
    • we can actually find many of the tools at the bottom of the cliffs.
    • we can find the people that actually worked on it.
    • we can see the modified Hall of Records as well as the designs for what was intended.
    • we still use many of the anchor points initially placed to allow the human workers to descend to the faces during construction.
    • we have the original models for the work as well as the funding documents.
    • it requires constant maintenance and repair to maintain it.
    • in case lots of time has passed for the imagined viewers of Mt. Rushmore, much of the records of its construction are duplicated and left in a titanium vault in the Hall of Records.
    The only reason Creationists or IDists even use the Mt. Rushmore example is that they are as ignorant of what data is available there as they are about biology, genetics, geology and all other science.

    Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2007 10:19 AM RAZD has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 12-16-2007 12:06 PM jar has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 120 of 128 (441082)
    12-16-2007 12:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 119 by jar
    12-16-2007 11:15 AM


    Re: Let's consider this!
    And most important of all (in my opinion), we know that humans exist, we know that humans make carvings of other humans, and we even know the reasons that humans make carvings of other humans.
    Meanwhile, we have no real evidence for a candidate for a designer of life, we don't know whether the candidates that have been proposed have a habit of actually designing life, and we don't even know why such a designer would even do so.

    It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by jar, posted 12-16-2007 11:15 AM jar has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024