Posts by hooberus

24

How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus in

formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.

) complexity defined specifically and 2.

hooberus

The main purpose of this thread is to show that the argument (from observed complexity) for the necessity of an intelligent designer if properly stated need not also necessarily require any logical problem- such as an inifinite regression. Before digressing more into the issue of what is meant specifically by "complexity", it needs to be pointed out that even if an intelligent desginer itself had to also be complex [which I don't nesessarily accept], the fact remains that the initial ID statement given in the OP here would still not necessarilry also require the designer to themself have a designer. This is due to the fact that the statement in the OP is referring only to complexity that has an origin being best explained as the result of a designer rather that as the result of natural processes. "The origin of complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes". Given that there is nothing in the above statement that also requires the desginer to themself have an origin, there is no requirement in the above for them to also have a designer themself. This is true even if the designer were also defined as being complex.

It also needs to be remembered that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the arguemt for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?

24

How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus in

formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.

) complexity defined specifically and 2.

hooberus

Formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:

"The origin of complexity* [see below for definition] from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".

*complexity defined for example as complex systems composed of multiple componet parts or complexity defined as organized specified complexity.

Note that the above argument is dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin from non-complexity. To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design).

However, when it comes to complex biological systems anti-creationists protest and claim that the argument from design is somehow illogical, requiring an infinite regression of designers, or other logical fallacies. Their argument for example is that: "If complexity requires and intelligent designer then the intelligent designer must himself have required a designer, and his intelligent designer a designer, etc, etc, !!"

In order to do this though they do they omit the fact that the design argument is explicitly or implicitly dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin. Their method is to automatically define all types of intelligent designers as "complexity"; and then to also ignore the fact that the design argument is dealing specifically with complexity that has an origin, and not any other.

By doing these things they twist a logically valid argument from design into a strawman requiring an illogical conclusion.

8

Evolution explained

by rebel8 in

difference between scientific laws, hypotheses, and theories: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm.

hypothesis: this is an educated guess based upon observation.

it is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.

hooberus

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Myth: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."

Response: "Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes." From another page of the same site:

From another page on the same site:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

"Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

This illustrates well the tactics evolutionists use on this particular issue. In response to creationist arguments on the particular issue of the origin of life (such ashttp://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html ) evolutionists frequently resond with statements similar the first above [though normally more dogmatic]. However, to the public (and especially students) they continue promote alleged "positive" evidence for the origin of life as part of the evolutionary version of history, that they desire other to believe.

129

Why I am an atheist

by Awakened at Gilead in

someone (a born-again exjw) on youtube asked me why i was an atheist... i crafted a brief response... it follows:.

1. religious reason: there is no proof for god outside of the bible.

once i dropped my belief in the bible, the judeo-christian concept of god fell apart like a house of cards.

hooberus

2. Scientific reason: I went to a natural history musem and learned about the earth's history. This confirmed my lack of belief in a god. Think about how long the earth has existed (4.5 billion years). Life's emergence (3 billion years ago), the pattern of life developing matches evolutionary theory; 5 mass destructions have caused the death and extinction of most of the species that have ever existed (i.e. ice ages; asteroids; massive volcanic activity, etc); so...

Logic like the stuff in Hooberus link is what helped me see the error of my former thinking. Scientists will look at something and study it to find out it's origins and history whether or not it conflicts with their belief system or anyone elses. Creationists start with a belief system and try to mold data to fit their particular persuasion. Just like JW's translating the bible. The translate around their beliefs in order to make it appear the scriptures support their doctrines.

"Secular" Natural History museums also start with their own philosophical presuppositions and then interpret the data accordingly. Using these anti-biblical presuppositions (e.g. naturalism, etc.), they then generate a "secular" version of history, in opposition to recorded history in the Bible.

"If you are concerned about the propaganda presented in natural history museums, this beautifully illustrated and full color book is for you. The book provides the true history behind more than 100 common museum exhibits. Excellent for school field trips to your favorite museum."

129

Why I am an atheist

by Awakened at Gilead in

someone (a born-again exjw) on youtube asked me why i was an atheist... i crafted a brief response... it follows:.

1. religious reason: there is no proof for god outside of the bible.

once i dropped my belief in the bible, the judeo-christian concept of god fell apart like a house of cards.

hooberus

2. Scientific reason: I went to a natural history musem and learned about the earth's history. This confirmed my lack of belief in a god. Think about how long the earth has existed (4.5 billion years). Life's emergence (3 billion years ago), the pattern of life developing matches evolutionary theory; 5 mass destructions have caused the death and extinction of most of the species that have ever existed (i.e. ice ages; asteroids; massive volcanic activity, etc); so...

"If you are concerned about the propaganda presented in natural history museums, this beautifully illustrated and full color book is for you. The book provides the true history behind more than 100 common museum exhibits. Excellent for school field trips to your favorite museum."

available from

http://www.creationresearch.org

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"I just found this great video about Ben Stein's "Expelled""

Maybe you can post it here Dave:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/158917/1/ABIOGENESIS-and-the-EVOLUTION-DEBATE

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

H. Sapiens came from "early fish" the same way that modern "fish" came from "early humans." How's that to confuse the issue? The phrase "came from" is not a sufficient point to get hung up on. Popular science articles will usually contain such simplifications. So do you or do you not understand what "came from" means in this context?

This is what I meant when I said "came from fish". Its a sketch of a "simplified family tree" from the 1968 Smithsonian book "The Evidence of Evolution". (I was unable to transfer a scan from the actual better imaged page to here from microsoft "word" - perhaps someone knows how.). Anyway the book is essentailly the same as below:

Compare this with the recent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews

"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"

(The above pictures depicted ancient fish would of course also be the ancestor to the modern fish as well).

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"My appologies for referencing Origin. You referenced Descent Of Man, and I was thrown by the way you cited it, given the following quote was attributed in the same manner to (prominent evolutionist) which I take it is not the title of a book.

Anyway, Hooberus, open your copy of Descent to chapter six and read the portion preceding and subsequent to your quote where Darwin describes his thoughts on the lineage issue, noting particularly the multifaceted nature of such a lineage. It is clear as day to any reader that Darwin was not implying any kind of straight line succession, and it's not accurate to portray it that way. I would state to readers of this book that he did have many erroneous notions about the differences of human races, so don't even bother with the subtle racism of 1871. Darwin was wrong about several things...so were most people in 1871."

I simply quoted from Descent in order to show that Darwin taught that ancient monkeys were in fact in mans actual ancestral lineage. Any one can see my quote on page one and then compare it with the following:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dom09.htm

"In the class of mammals the steps are not difficult to conceive which led from the ancient Monotremata to the ancient Marsupials; and from these to the early progenitors of the placental mammals. We may thus ascend to the Lemuridae; and the interval is not very wide from these to the Simiadae. The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded. Thus we have given to man a pedigree of prodigious length, but not, it may be said, of noble quality."

As for myself, I will spend no more time on your assertions against me on the issue of this quote.

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

Hooberus, Please provide the page reference and bibiliography for your Origin quote, along with the preceding and subsequent line. You don't have the book, do you?

Given that I never quoted from "Origin" [of species?] I see no need to provide any documentation from it.

Note also that a news blurb from 1999 is not an illuminating source if you are looking for technical information.

I wasn't quoting it for "technical information" but rather to document a basic point. Anyway, are you claiming that they were wrong when they said: "Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish," ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews ) ? If so, then is the Florida Museum of Natural History also wrong when they said: "Humans and other land animals ultimately descend from bony fish." ( http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/InNews/fingers2007.html ) ?

If you don't have or have not read Origin, you are engaging in quote mining.

Interesting, since I never quoted from Origin at all.

In other words, were this an essay, and were I your teacher, I would give you an F because your point is based on no research or understanding of the material quoted.

And what would your grade be, given that you (without any documentation to support your assertions) accused me of "dishonest" misrepresentation of quoted sources, and demanded that also I provide references from a book that I never quoted from, to begin with?

Other main points will be responded to shortly.

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

Atheism is not the same as evolutionary theory. Your OP is flawed.

You can be an atheist w/o subscribing to evolution.

You can believe in evolution and still be a theist.

False dichotomy. No need to dignify the OP with an answer

.

Where does the OP (original post) claim these things?