Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • zagor
    zagor

    How about I underline this for you again

    My intention was not to argue existence of god of religions in any sense. (If in doubt please reread what I’ve already written on this topic).

    Not sure if it can be any clearer!?!

    really. we are always going on and on about it on this board. check out SNG's continuing articles on evidence for evolution. sorry i missed your question about complexity. let me get to it, okay?

    I've never really seen any, but then again I've been around just a short time as an active member. Used to be more interested in human side of the story,

    so you want us to prove it to you instead of you doing the work yourself? and are you being fair in asking complex questions and then complaining when they are too detailed and don't encompass the big picture? and again, this is about ID vs. evolution. not ID vs. abiogenesis (origins).

    Again we are going in circles around the same issue, all I asked was some clarification of what forces are at play that make evolution possible. Kind of like extreme gravity causes black holes type of an answer. Which is something I can easily relate to same as you can to black holes, knowing the significance of the mass and gravity it doesn't take great leap of imagination to figure out that there might be a place with an infinity gravity where from not even light can escape.

    so it's not easy to understand in a single discovery channel hour. so what? i would say that if god designed it all, it would be easier to explain, wouldn't you? afterall, he'd have given us the blueprints by now. of course, nature is not a blue print system, but rather a genetic program that simply executes it's algorithms. hence the stunning diversity.

    Again not an issue see my first response above. I'm not discussing god in religious sense, so it is pointless to continue in this direction. As far as I am concerned might have been aliens that planted life here, NOT AN ISSUE.

    If you want to make “converts”

    - that really is a silly thing to say. i want to do nothing of the sort. i debate these threads because i don't want lurkers from the WTS thinking that creationism goes unchallenged around here. they make up their own minds.

    Did you notice that word converst was written as "converts". I could easily have expanded in this form - If you want to convince people to accept your point of view on subject you are deliberating.

    p.s. I could have equally well told you, "please study physics", couldn’t I?

    again, the discussion was not about origins. so i don't see why you keep bring up physics. but even so, i do study physics. and i don't go around asking physicists to cite examples of complex equations that explain super string 11 dimension hyperspace in a "big picture" sort of way. i read their books. and i don't get upset if they tell me to go read some more books, because that is some of the best advice i could possibly hope for from a string theorist. incidentally, the co founder of string theory, Machio Kaku, has come under some flak for kind of trying to dumb the theory down so that the general public can understand it. i have nothing against that. but what i do, is when people who have heard the dumbed down version want to be held by the hand through the complex version, maths and all. i don't see why people get mad at him for not being as accesible for the complex stuff, as he is for the simple, PR, stuff. but the fact of the matter is that it's ALL complex. equations on paper are neat and tidy. nature, and the explanation of it, are no where close to being neat and tidy for marketing purposes.

    Reason I pointed that out was to make you see it how I feel when you say in a sense "go and study biology" when I asked a simple question, it didn't have anything to do with origin of life anymore at this point. I mean the whole context of my last post is so obvious. Here is again danger when you dissect my post and in process loose the track of the essence of what I write was all about.
    I mean why even start this sort of a discussion if you guys are not ready to answer questions, what's the point? Is it only to pat each other on the back? I mean really, here we are having discussion about an important issue and as soon as more challanging post comes along we get into rethoric mode that is intended to make feel a person asking a question like an (biology-wise) uneducated idiot. I mean come one if you think you are right and make me run for cover give your best shot.
    I'll tell you something about me personally, sometimes I get pi*** off and basically bored when I see only one sided argument (regardless of what the topic is) and simply want to through something in to make discussion more lively to get people really come out of their shells and show what they are made of. Sometimes I do it even if I agree with certain point of view, but it is alway good to ask challanging question in order to show the strenght of something not its weakness.

    I’ve asked you to give me examples where complexity of design didn’t require a designer, simple.

    why don't you try foccusing in on something that you want to know about? i will do my best to answer it. until then, i am at a loss as to what to choose for you out of billions of complex biological systems. why?

    frankly, your question doesn't really make sense. you want examples? like just a list? i could list every living thing, and then just say that it does not require a designer because it is shown to work via evolution very well without one. but that is precisely why i say that you should read a book, like The Blind Watchmaker, or The Panda's Thumb, or The Origin of Species.

    I think this has been amply explained above, and for the record I did read Origin of Species (see my second post on this topic) as well as a number of other works. By the way, did you have a chance to read Forbidden Archeology by M.A. Cremo and R.L. Thompson?

    alt

    Great book!

    And since we are talking about the Physics so much, let just say that there is quite a big place for physics because of one simple reason - Nature does not make difference between biology and physics, it is all a part of the integral whole. It is only us humans that like to make differentiation to make things easier for ourselves. So when we discuss origin of life we should not shy away from other disciplines.
    But I will take your advice on the board and now more than ever investigate as much about evolution as possible so as to ensure it really explains everything it claims it does, and also so that I don't have to ask question about it from people who are not ready to discuss about it when asked questions.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    By the way, did you have a chance to read Forbidden Archeology by M.A. Cremo and R.L. Thompson?

    no. cremo's papers did not really survive peer review, therefore it's pseudo-science until he can gather better evidence and data and overthrow the existing anthropological theories with his own. edit: i can't really respect scientists who do not respect peer review, and go out an publish misinformation anyways.

    Not sure if it can be any clearer!?!

    nor was it my intention. however, ID cannot be dissected without bringing brief attention to the fact that there is no evidence for a creator. end of story.

    all I asked was some clarification of what forces are at play that make evolution possible.

    okay, why do you keep changing your questions? in the post before this one of yours, you asked for examples. now you are asking for clarification of what forces are at play that make evolution possible. and this, is a much better question. it's a positive, and not a negative. i would be happy to provide you with detailed clarification on the forces, but first please let me know if this is your final question, and you are not going to change it again.

    Did you notice that word converst was written as "converts".

    i have no idea what you are talking about.

    I mean why even start this sort of a discussion if you guys are not ready to answer questions, what's the point? Is it only to pat each other on the back?

    actually, hooberus started it, and we joined in. hooberus' initial question has been covered in excellent detail by funkyderek already.

    i really don't see the point in your rhetoric. pat ourselves on the back? give us a collective break for god's sake.

    uneducated idiot

    you obviously have a penchant for taking things unnecessarily personal. no one, but yourself, has called you an uneducated idiot. i have actually always enjoyed your posts on this board until you compared theology to biology. and telling you to read some books on the subject, is simply the most efficient way to help you get at what you are asking for. as i have explained in detail in my previous post, explaining evolution is quite lengthy once you get by what i have already written for you regarding natural selection. which, if you had been watching, is a clarification of the forces of evolution. cumulative selection over long periods of gradual change via mutation through multi dimensional genetic space. this is an abstraction to help you understand how evolution works.

    you have to remember, zagor, that this is not a board for scientists to peer review their hypothesis'. the people here who understand evolution, have studied it, and are prepared to discuss things in an easy to understand manner. when someone wants more detail, they should go find the material themselves and learn about it. i for one, read peer reviewed material. do i want to spend the time posting reams of data? sometimes, when i have the time or energy, but not always. that's why in debates, people have to take some statements at face value, and a grain of salt, AND go and find out about it for themselves if they are skeptical, which they should be.

    sorry if i made you feel stupid. but it was, and is, good advice. i gave it to you only because i think you are perfectly capable of handling the nitty-gritty details, just as i have.

    Nature does not make difference between biology and physics, it is all a part of the integral whole.

    no doubt. and nature does not make arbitrary delineations between species either. so speciation should not be hard for you to grasp, as many people have a hard time with this concept you bring up.

    however, ToE takes from many different disciplines. it is not really fair to compare the ease of navigation around physics, to the ease of navigation around ToE.

    anyways, please confirm your question in a concrete manner, and i will do my best.

    Respectfully,

    TS

  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    Oh you all think you are so clever.

    IT IS CHEEKPOUCHES ALL THE WAY DOWN!!!

    hb

  • zagor
    zagor

    Terapod,
    It doesn't really matter. I think I did ask both question over the course of this thread, but whatever, no worries I'll read more peer reviewed material.

    (Though what they wrote in the book was accepted by the fathers of evolutionary theory, perhaps it is good to at least have a look what they said. Book is currently highly controversial for a good reason, it now brings into question some cherished theoretical frameworks. It doesn't mean that discrepancies will not eventually disappear as more knowledge becomes available, in science as anywhere else there is a lot of politicking so not everything is accepted straight away).

    I think part of a problem in our communication is that we are from two different countries (hence, different cultures), as such we tend to use shortcut expressions hoping eveyone understands, but apparently not, so I will not dwell on trivial aspects of our conversation.....
    I will study this thing for myself. Likewise, I'd recommend you also reading more about M-theory.

    When I said that world is more complex than either evolution or theology can express it I didn't have intention to bring them on the same level. Simply put, M-theory has some quite unexpected implications. Which is precisely a point I tired to put across not to say that scientists and theologians are equal or similar bunch. But I will take criticism on board and make sure I take in consideration differences in cultures of people on this board and ensure that I express myself appropriately so as to avoid any confusion. Thanks for that.

    I do have a complaint about how you deal with my posts again though. So hopefully we can sort it as gentlemen. I don't like when you chop out of context what I write and then comment on that small piece. So again in this last post I didn't call myself an idiot, you made it sound like that by dissecting couple of words out of context.(either by accident or deliberately, I'm still not sure).

    So here it is again what I said:

    I mean why even start this sort of a discussion if you guys are not ready to answer questions, what's the point? Is it only to pat each other on the back? I mean really, here we are having discussion about an important issue and as soon as more challenging post comes along we get into rhetoric mode that is intended to make feel a person asking a question like an (biology-wise) uneducated idiot.

    Please don't do that again, I do feel insulted by it as I always try to take the whole context of what other person writes before attempting to answer it. No hard feelings.

    In the final analysis, we are all here because of being hurt by a cult and are searching for the real truth in our own ways. Perhaps we are touching now the same truth from different angles. (Like in the story about the blind men and the elephant)
    Only future will tell.

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    zagor,

    sorry, i didn't mean to take you out of context. still though, what you feel about a aituation, and what has actually transpired are two different things. no one called you an idiot. and if you felt like one did, then you should be offended, because it is obvious that you are far from one.

    you should start a thread about M-Theory. i'll be there.

    TS

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    zagor:

    I’ve asked you to give me examples where complexity of design didn’t require a designer, simple.

    There are no such examples. By definition, design requires a designer. Complexity does not.

    The Giant's Causeway in Co. Antrim, Ireland, a spectacular array of hexagonal basalt columns is a beautiful example of complexity arising entirely from natural forces. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_causeway for details.

    I mean in all honesty if this thing explains the origin of life I’ll accept it with all my being but until this moment I haven’t seen satisfactory explanation only explanations that gets bogged down in details that supposedly prove an aspect of evolution while neglecting the big picture.

    OK, then. We'll ignore the details. In any system where entities can exist that can self-replicate reasonably accurately but with less than 100 percent precision, and where resources are less than infinite, statistical changes in the make-up of the population of those entities will change over time, specifically in that those entities which are best able to survive and copy themselves in the environment in which they exist will be the most likely to survive and copy themselves. That is evolution by means of natural selection.

    Just as something as simple as gravity can explain the existence of stars, galaxies, black holes, comets and tidal forces, the simple idea of natural selection can explain the variety and complexity of all life.

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    The Giant's Causeway in Co. Antrim, Ireland, a spectacular array of hexagonal basalt columns is a beautiful example of complexity arising entirely from natural forces. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_causeway for details.


    I'm skeptical as to whether the formation of basaltic columns (found in several places around the world) is truely an example of real complexity analogous to biological structural type complxity arising entirely from "natural forces." These structures appear to form from properties in lava during cooling.

    This seems similar to the snowflake pattern or salt crystal formation arguments that some evolutionists put forward as an "example" of claimed natural "complexity":

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/snowflakes.asp

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    I'm skeptical as to whether the formation of basaltic columns (found in several places around the world) is truely an example of real complexity analogous to biological structural type complxity arising entirely from "natural forces."

    It is clearly complexity. It may not be wholly analagous to the complexity of living things, but then the complexity of living things is not wholly analogous to the complexity of designed objects.

    These structures appear to form from properties in lava during cooling.

    They do. The complexity arises naturally. Even though it may appear to have been designed (as in the legend that gave the Giant's Causeway its name), it actually formed without any intelligence or direction.

    This seems similar to the snowflake pattern or salt crystal formation arguments that some evolutionists put forward as an "example" of claimed natural "complexity":

    It is effectively the same argument. The "rebuttal" in the "article" you linked to is not worthy of my time. (Notice how I can use "scare quotes" too.)

  • Spook
    Spook

    What really broke this discussion open for me in letting go of my metaphysical superstitions was the factst that:

    1. All the components necessary for evolution to occur can be proven conclusively to exist and occur in nature. (reproduction, mutation, selection etc.). There would be no reason to expect these to exist if creation had occured and evolution were made up.

    2. None of the necessary components for creation to occur can be proved to exist. (No creator, no observable act of creation.). There would be every reason to believe these can not be proved to exist if evolution were true and creation were made up.

    The endless nitpicking and "yeah-but" over the secondary literature confuses many. I recommend reading the primary literature. And if you don't understand it, take some community college courses in evolutionary biology. If you aren't willing to do that, then at least stop thinking there is some conspiracy or sweeping ignorance in the international community of Scientists.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit