hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  
  

  Hooberus, if one states "complex designs require an intelligent designer" and then cannot show how the designer came about, you are making a self-refuting hypothesis.

  I think that a lot of your problem is that you misunderstand the creationist/ID "design argument".
  The design argument is not that any type of complexity or intelligence in existence would also "require" a designer for its existence. Such an argument would even exclude the possibilty of an eternal intelligent being.
  
  Rather instead the design argument is that the design (design as in mechanical complexity) found in certain objects (such as watches, photoreceptors, etc) that have an origin is best explained as being the result of an intelligent designer and/ or is evidence of intelligent design, requires a designer, etc.
  
  There is no requirement that in order to assert that mechanically complex objects that have an origin (e.g. photoreceptor) would have required a designer, that a person must also "show how the designer came about" in order not to be "self-refuting". For example if a complex alien structure (such as a spacecraft, masonry building, etc.) were found, such a complex object would surely by many scientists be said to have required a designer, yet this would not be a "self-refuting hypothesis". This is true even if they were not able to also show "how the designer came about." Furthermore, there is no requirement in arguments for design for the designer to have even "come about" at all - perhaps he has always been.

  If you add "... but the intelligent designer doesn't need a designer" you are, by definiton, using special pleading.

  It would only be "special pleading" if creationists/ ID proponets taught that the designer has 1). a mechanical type of complexity and 2). an origin, and then also taught that he "required no designer".
  
  Since neither creationists nor ID proponets teach this there is no "special pleading". (ID proponets don't usually specify the charcteristics of the designer, and creationists for centuries have generally taught that God has no origin and is not composed of mechanical parts.) see also my previous points on this issue on this thread here:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102388/1768157/post.ashx#1768157
  
  

  If you additonally claim "... because it has always been there", you additonally add a postulation that cannot be proved.

  My "postulation" was simply that it is logically valid to make statements such as: "something without an origin needs no designer" and "something that has always been there doesn't require a designer"
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  My point was that it is not very useful for a person to respond to an argument with "go read Such-and-Such book", etc. Give these people more respect than that at least.

  There was no lack of respect in my book recommendation to Leolaia. Furthermore, I seee no need to discuss this issue further. Perhaps you should consider participating in something such as the recent logic discussion here (see lower posts on previous page).
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Hmm, then I will quote something my mother used to say - "Don't start something you can't finish."

  You have to know this sort of thread will gain a large amount of attention. If you're not up to the challenge, why begin it in the first place?

  So do you expect me to respond directly to every point raised by every poster on threads that I start? Do you hold this same standard for yourself and for others on here?
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  This is the second time so far in this thread that I've seen you tell someone to go read such-and-such book for a response to their questions rather than addressing it yourself.

  You could at least refer to and quote specific items from the books, with commentary, rather than just telling someone to "go read a book". Rather uncompelling of you.

  I simply don't have the time to personally deal with every issue raised on these types of threads by the different posters, therfore I sometimes recommend sources for these points. Furthermore on other threads I have discussed some of the points in the afore mentioned book.
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus
  

  You might THINK you have posted "why intelligent design is not necessarily a "self-refuting" philosophy", but you only do this by ignoring that ID only NOT self-refuting IF you use special pleading ("something that has always been there doesn't require a designer"), in which case it is a hypothesis based on a logical fallacy.

  That must make you so proud; a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious.

  Its not "special pleading" nor a "a logical fallacy" to make a statements to the effect that "something that has always been there doesn't require a designer".

  To try and get out of the corner your beliefs force you into, you say;

  Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite.

  hooberus, you quote that scripture like it PROVED something. That's like saying a quotation from the Qu'ran PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Silver Bough PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Bahghadavita PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence. Hell, a quotation from the Yellow Pages is more likely to have supporting evidence!
  

  ... it just illustrates you probably don't read and consider as closely as you should, as I'd already previously said (you quote it) that there was an "absolute lack of evidence" for that postulation. Of course, this lack of evidence doesn't bother you in the least bit. You have already decided what you want to believe and will not accept any interpretation of the facts that doesn't support your presuppositon, why should ignoring inconvenient facts (like the Flood didn't happen) or accepting things as factual that amply show your poor standards of evidence.

  So, still a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious (or based on a postulation that cannot be proved).

  Your quote of my words above omits the first sentence of my paragraph in which I also used evidence from logic. Here it is again: "Logically speaking something without an origin doesn't need, nor can it have a designer. Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite."
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:
  

  
  Once again, a Creationist ignores his beliefs has no foundation (i.e. to postulate complex object need intelligent design is to postulate the intelligent designer as a complex object ALSO need an intelligent designer ad ludicrousness).

  Why should I play silly games you THINK will somehow make it look like you have a decent argument when you DON'T have a decent argument and can only pretend you have by means of ignoring the self-refuting nature of your philosophy?

  
  

  
  I have already posted reasons why intelligent design is not necessarily a "self-refuting" philosophy. It should also be noted that even non-ID scientists would certainly agree that some complex objects need intelligent design; and/ or are best explained by intelligent design; are evidence of design; etc. without the postulate "the intelligent designer as a complex object ALSO need an intelligent designer ad ludicrousness". For example they certainly would say that computers, radar systems, alien spacecraft, etc. need intelligent design, and / or are best explained by intelligent design; etc.- however they then deny that Intelligent design is necessary for their intelligent designers (despite similarites- see below).
  

  Now if secular scientists can hold such design explanation views without necessarily being "self-refuting" -despite the fact that they believe that the object and its designer both 1). have an origin and 2.) are composed of complex mechanical part systems-, then why can't ID scientists also do the same without necessarily being "self-refuting"-especially since ID theory allows for the possibility of a creator who doesn't even have an origin?

  You attempt to give yourself the appearance of reason; "ooo, no, that is discussed in THIS thread (self-refuting nature of ID-otism)". Again, this is to GIVE the appearance of reason. Examination of that thread reveals this massive flaw in your arguments is dispensed with IN YOUR MIND by saying something without an origin needs no designer. The convenient nature and absolute lack of evidence for this postulation is something you ignore.

  
  

  Logically speaking something without an origin doesn't need, nor can it have a designer. Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite.
• 
  13

  The baby survives an abortion. Now what?

  by MegaDude in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the article: fifty babies a year are alive after abortion.

  they can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks gestation, he said.

  i am not anti-abortion, but as far as i am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  the people I know who work in clinics who perform abortions are very caring and empathetic. they don't "murder babies with glee", as one pro-life person put it. they try to make a sad reality (unwanted pregnancies are a fact of life that can't be ignored) as humane as possible for everyone involved.

  I'm sure that some of the Nazi concentration camp officers probably felt the same way, however that didn't make what they did right either.
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  
  
  Consider the man-made chemical PCP. There are some soil bacteria that can degrade it and use the resulting products as a carbon source. So what right? Well what would you say to the confirmation of a soil bacterium that uses PCP as its sole source of carbon, and (here's the relevant point) has evolved, a new enyme to degrade said PCPs? But maybe the evolution of new enzymes and their incorporation into the cell's metabolic pathways isn't complex enough for you? Check it out anyway.

  Nature. 1983 Nov 10-16;306(5939):203-6.

  Evolutionary adaptation of plasmid-encoded enzymes for degrading nylon oligomers.

  Flavobacterium sp. KI72 metabolizes 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer, a by-product of nylon manufacture, through two newly evolved enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid cyclic dimer hydrolase (EI) and 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase (EII). These enzymes are active towards man-made compounds, the cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of 6-aminohexanoic acid respectively, but not towards any of the natural amide bonds tested. The structural genes of EI (nylA) and EII (nylB) are encoded on pOAD2, one of three plasmids harboured in Flavobacterium sp. KI72. This plasmid contains two kinds of repeated sequence (RS-I and RS-II); one of the two RS-II sequences, RS-IIA, contains the nylB gene, while the other, RS-IIB, contains a homologous nylB' gene. From comparisons of the nucleotide sequences and gene products of the nylB and nylB' genes, we now conclude that EII enzyme is newly evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitutions on the same plasmid

  There was an arcticle written on this in a recent Technical Journal :

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria.asp
• 
  96

  What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  millions of complex objects (cameras, adjustable wrenches, etc.

  ) have been seen to come into existence under the direction/workmanship of intelligent designers.

  however, despite the often even greater complexity of biologiocal systems* we are often told that only unintelligent processes can be considered as "scientific explanations" for the origin of these structures.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus

  Naturalists have an a priori bias according to you. Its fairly clear that you want to limit the span of time for observations so as to eliminate evidence that counters your own a priori belief in an intelligent designer. Nearly from the beginning of this thread, Leolai essentially made this same point. Do you recall a previous post of hers that used the example of investigating a crime? Just because the detectives weren't there to physically witness the event as it happened, doesn't negate the validity of any connected evidence that they find afterwards. But you've chosen to ignore this point. (As well as her point that an intelligence could have yielded complex systems so much more quickly than what has been deduced.) You've chosen to keep to a timeframe that only shows microevolutionary processes.

  My point regarding observation was not intended primarily to exclude the possibility of complex design coming about by unintelligent means, but rather to emphasize that if a dogmatic claim is made (as often is) that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" that such a dogmatic claim really should be backed up by numerous strong observed examples. As I said before:

  Of course I realize that the claimed extreme "slowness" of the process involved will be the primary response by evolutionists to the lack of observation for "unintelligent" biological system design.

  However, the fact remains that such a dogmatic claim that only unintelligent design be considered as a valid "scientific explanation" should be backed up by numerous observed examples. (Especially given the fact that virtually all (if not all) observed complex systems analogous to life seem to have required an intelligent designer for their origin as well as the chemical and probability difficulties in envisioning the formation of such systems).
• 
  107

  Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  here is an article from the 'stand to reason' ministry.

  this is why i evolution and creation are incompatible.

  designed by chance .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:

  I have posted analysis of AiG and similar websites showing on a point-by-point basis how deceptive they are. No one in the 'Literal Creationist' lobby (such as yourself) has managed to rebutt these posts.

  
  Many of them have been rebutted:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/4.ashx

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/72354/1172867/post.ashx#1172867

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1674443/post.ashx#1674443

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200785/post.ashx#1200785

  Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG. Take for example your accusations regarding radiocarbon dating (on the thread located at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100566/1735328/post.ashx#1735328 ) Your C14 comments beginning with: "Sadly this behaviour continues; . . ." and finishing with: "This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating" regarded the following in the below AiG arcticle:

  ________________________________________________________________________________

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp#f1

  The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon clock would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14 C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12 C, so the 14 C/ 12 C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14 C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see The Answers Book, chapter 4).

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  If a person takes the time to research the above points of Dr. Batten in light of his additionally referenced source: "The Answers Book, chapter 4" [Chapter 4 is online here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp and is also found as the first arcticle in the "Get Answers" arcticle index "Radimetric Dating" on the AiG Site] and then tries to understand them you will find that there is no "dishonesty"; "incompetence" etc. involved. This can also be supported by the following paper from 4 other scientists (read the paragraph sentence under the heading "WHAT WAS THE PRE-FLOOD 14C LEVEL?"): http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

  Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935