|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2006 : 01:49:21 [Permalink]
|
Doomer, that argument that you can't throw airplane parts in a pile a million times and expect a plane to eventually happen is just a bogus argument. Your computer version is no better. Neither of those analogies is anything close to how biological processes work.
We already know evolution is the correct theory. There aren't any significant gaps, nor are there any significant alternative theories or significant questions about evolution theory. All there is are a bunch of people who learned about evolution 20 years ago and haven't bothered to learn anything new since except bogus arguments that aren't credible analogies or that use cherry picked evidence and leave out the rest. |
 |
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 05:58:27 [Permalink]
|
I found it hard to tell where Doomar was going, but after reading beskeptigal's reply I suspect that she is right. The computer analogy is just another William Paley watch argument for design. These analogies fail for many reasons, but the basic one is that they each rely on a single step selection model. You either get it all right in that single step or you fail to have anything useful. Evolution is cumulative where the end result is unplanned. Building computers, planes, and watches is planned and through a little investigation we can learn a great deal about who the designers were and what methods they used.
Evolution is an accumulation of genetic content expressing themselves in organisms as traits and behaviors filling some niche in the tree of life. The viability of the organism expressing these traits and behaviors depend upon one thing, being successful enough to pass on this genetic content. Replication, survivability, responding to environmental pressure. That's life, ain't it good.
"Me thinks it is like a weasel" Shakespear (Richard Dawkins) |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 07:49:47 [Permalink]
|
Welcome back, Doomar!quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
A single malfunctioning piece will lock up the whole system and either keep it from working at all, or cause it to crash.
My kid spilled a Diet Pepsi on our four-day-old computer's keyboard Sunday morning. My wife didn't even realize anything was wrong until hours later, and the computer functioned fine without a keyboard for the next 24 hours (so long as she didn't need to type anything). In other words, your analogy is simply not true.quote:
But let's not forget about all the folks responsible for making this ingenious system work and all the thousands of experts trained in various fields working millions of hours to perfect each of their systems, from the makers of the boards, the solder, the plastic parts, the metal parts, the electronic chips, diodes, resistors, wires, screws, nuts, plates.... well, it would be hard to even name all those folks involved in your success. The years of labor represented are phenomenal. The intensity of planning and overcoming obstacles and mishaps; the billions of dollars spent to perfect and continue to improve the various systems of each company represented.
But, hey, biological life is so much simpler. The living organisms are like a single part of a big computer right?
Wrong, but I'm surprised to learn that you've gone from being a fundamentalist Christian to some sort of polytheist, since your analogy, to be valid, would require thousands, if not millions of "designers" running around each doing a small part to bring the whole together. What caused your conversion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
sts60
Skeptic Friend
141 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 09:35:43 [Permalink]
|
From the Seattle Weekly article:
For one thing, it bore the rubber-stamped warnings "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION."
Heh, I think that's illegal. "Top secret" is an official classification, and only people trained and authorized by the gov't (known, unsurprisingly, as "classifiers") can classify documents. Technically, at least, they could get in trouble for that.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 10:01:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doomar:
The intensity of planning and overcoming obstacles and mishaps; the billions of dollars spent to perfect and continue to improve the various systems of each company represented.
But, hey, biological life is so much simpler. The living organisms are like a single part of a big computer right?
At best, when talking about humans, the version that was designed and sent to production is obviously a sub beta version. There are so many flaws in the design that I wouldn't be opposed to suing the designer for not addressing such bugs as the many physiological problems associated with making us bipedal, just for starters. A class action suit with God as the defendant seems fair considering the fact that we sue automobile makers and lots of other companies, including computer companies for design flaws that often result in a better design. When was the last time God showed any willingness to take any responsibility for a lousy design problem by calling for a voluntary recall to fix a problem? Never! God has been negligent and I think it's about time we call him on it. Let's drag his incompetent ass into court!!!
Edited to add:
And don't even think of bringing up the flood to me. Not unless you know for sure that Noah didn't suffer from lower back pain. And since we are all decedents of Noah and his family, if we take that story as fact, it is safe to assume that God didn't address any design problems by wiping out most of mankind…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:17:31 [Permalink]
|
For those of you who deny any correlation of my computer example with living organisms in regards to complexity, I suggest you look again at the molecular structure of any living organism. The individual parts within the whole creature are many and varied in their composition and purpose. Without one of these many individual parts, the living organism would be either unable to live or to function in such a way as to prolong its life or reproduce. In this way my example of a computer is very similar to a living being (organism). When a single vital part fails in a computer, the whole thing breaks down. Of course, if the "on" light fails or something that is just periferal, then, the computer still hums on, just like an organism like a toad that loses a single toe. But lose a lung or other organ, then the toad dies, like your computer losing it's ram memory or motherboard.
The more simplistic the organism, the more vital each part is, yet no organism can truly be considered "simple" when hundreds of thousands of molecules must coincide to make a "simple" living bacterium. The greater in number of molecules that must align, the greater the complexity of the organism. When you multiply this by hundreds of different aspects of a more complex organism, such as any animal...well, it is just not easy to explain away with no scientific attempt to understand the probability of such occurances happening.
When attempting to determine how this process could come about without any prior planning the logic breaks down by simple statistically mathematics. Thus, Intelligent Design theory comes into play when determining the statistical probability of such things. It is a scientific attempt to explain what has heretofore been unexplained.
If anyone has a reasonable scientific explanation, it should not be "shot down" simply because it doesn't fit with the status quo.
More to the point of my computer example coinciding with a living organism, the computer is extremely simplistic compared even to a bacterium. If such great intelligence and planning and effort was needed to build such a complex device, how is it that you think no intelligence was needed to cause a far more complex creature to come to life? Herein lies the leap of logic which I am expected to make to believe in evolutionary theory. I do believe in micro evolution of creatures, changes to adapt to different environments, but the macro evolution belief of creatures evolving into other creatures still makes no logical sense. Neither does the theory of origin which proports life coming from primordial goo, which I must differentiate from Evolutionary theory, in that it was not part of Darwin's theory, as far as I am aware.
Even Darwin did not exclude the idea of a Creator, but he disagreed with the Biblical story of Creation. Today, most of you have gone beyond Darwin in that regard by disallowing any possibility of a Creator or higher intelligence and embracing a purely Naturalistic viewpoint (not allowing for spirit or soul or God). |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 02/15/2006 19:36:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:33:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For those of you who deny any correlation of my computer example with living organisms in regards to complexity, I suggest you look again at the molecular structure of any living organism. The individual parts within the whole creature are many and varied in their composition and purpose, without one of these many individual parts, the living organism would be either unable to live or to function in such a way as to prolong its life or reproduce. In this way my example is very similar to a living being (organism).
No, in that way your analogy fails miserably, because nobody builds computers like organisms are built. Computers are highly optimized for the functions they do, whereas organisms are not.quote:
The more simplistic the organism, the more vital each part is, yet no organism can truly be considered "simple" when hundreds of thousands of molecules must coincide to make a "simple" living bacterium.
Nobody is saying that bacteria are simple, nor is anyone saying that bacteria were the first life forms, "poofed" into existence from randomly-shuffled amino acids.quote:
The greater in number of molecules that must align, the greater the complexity of the organism. When you multiply this by hundreds of different aspects of a more complex organism, such as any animal...well, it is just not easy to explain away with no scientific attempt to understand the probability of such occurances happening.
Clearly, to understand the probability of such a thing happening, one must have more than one example. Where is another example of life, Doomar?quote:
When attempting to determine how this process could come about without any prior planning the logic breaks down by simple statistically mathematics.
No, if you use simple statistical mathematics, your logic has broken down.quote:
Thus, Intelligent Design theory comes into play when determining the statistical probability of such things.
Intelligent Design hasn't determined the probability of anything. I challenge you to bring forth the evidence that any probability calculations have been made by any Intelligent Design proponent.quote:
It is a scientific attempt to explain what has heretofore been unexplained.
Then why is there no ID research program? Where is there an ID laboratory?quote:
If anyone has a reasonable scientific explanation, it should not be "shot down" simply because it doesn't fit with the status quo.
ID hasn't been shot down because it doesn't fit with the status quo, ID has been shot down because its claims have been examined in detail for the last 200 years (and especially since 1989), and every last one has been found to be scientifically vacuous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:33:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Thus, Intelligent Design theory comes into play when determining the statistical probability of such things. It is a scientific attempt to explain what has heretofore been unexplained.
If anyone has a reasonable scientific explanation, it should not be "shot down" simply because it doesn't fit with the status quo.
Well, then what is the scientific theory of ID and how can we test it using the scientific method?
(I'll give you a tip: "Evolution cannot suffiently explain X" is not a scientific theory.)
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2006 19:35:27 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:41:55 [Permalink]
|
ID hasn't been shot down because it doesn't fit with the status quo, ID has been shot down because its claims have been examined in detail for the last 200 years (and especially since 1989), and every last one has been found to be scientifically vacuous. said Dave
Are you sure you are aware of what I.D. Theory is? It is a fairly recent thing. It is not "creationism". It is a very complex theory. I've read some of the proponents writings and they are by no means simplistic or unscientific. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:42:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Doomar:
When attempting to determine how this process could come about without any prior planning the logic breaks down by simple statistically mathematics. Thus, Intelligent Design theory comes into play when determining the statistical probability of such things. It is a scientific attempt to explain what has heretofore been unexplained.
If anyone has a reasonable scientific explanation, it should not be "shot down" simply because it doesn't fit with the status quo.
“God did it” is not a scientific explanation for anything. And all of the math in the world will not make ID a scientific theory. It fails on every level to rise to anything more than mere speculation by those who feel the need to throw a creator in to explain the diversity of life on our planet. Why can't it be a theory? Because, it can not be falsified.
I don't really care if you believe God did it or not. But let's not get silly and start calling that belief, science…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:45:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
For those of you who deny any correlation of my computer example with living organisms in regards to complexity, I suggest you look again at the molecular structure of any living organism.
And I suggest that you re-read the three replies that you have already received. Your argument is nothing more than the argument made by William Paley in 1802. Your argument has more to do with macro-mutation or saltation than a legitimate evolutionary method, and biologist do not make those kind of arguments. Only the religious with their limited imaginations, and self satisfied ignorance, make these arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
If anyone has a reasonable scientific explanation, it should not be "shot down" simply because it doesn't fit with the status quo.
Your argument is not a reasonable scientific explanation. It has been brilliantly shot down by well qualified scientist. Your argument is more a statement of personal incredulity. You can't understand how evolution could be possible, and I personally doubt that you have ever tried. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:47:11 [Permalink]
|
If you still think I.D. is just rehashed creationism I would suggest
you do some research of your own on the matter as I have. Google will help you find what you need to know. You will have to go to the actual scientists and their research papers and not to sites that just oversimply it. Good luck and prepare for some heavy duty thinking. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:52:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
ID hasn't been shot down because it doesn't fit with the status quo, ID has been shot down because its claims have been examined in detail for the last 200 years (and especially since 1989), and every last one has been found to be scientifically vacuous. said Dave
Are you sure you are aware of what I.D. Theory is? It is a fairly recent thing. It is not "creationism". It is a very complex theory. I've read some of the proponents writings and they are by no means simplistic or unscientific.
See Kil's reply. The proponent are also doing no science PERIOD.
Try the Wedge Document |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 02/15/2006 19:57:49 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:53:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
If you still think I.D. is just rehashed creationism I would suggest
you do some research of your own on the matter as I have. Google will help you find what you need to know. You will have to go to the actual scientists and their research papers and not to sites that just oversimply it. Good luck and prepare for some heavy duty thinking.
ID was scrutinized in detail in Dover, PA, and the judge found and ruled that it is just creationism repackaged. Most of us are very well versed in ID's "arguments," since they are the same ones creationists offered 30 years ago. You have been duped if you think ID is substantially any different than creationism. Behe and Dembski's arguments are easily deconstructed and aren't fundamentally different than the arguments from ignorance and incredulity offered by Reverend Paley nearly 200 years ago.
We here can try to clear up any further confusion you may have on this particular issue.
P.S. Research papers? Surely you jest. I think you mean commerical books.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/15/2006 20:03:19 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 20:13:26 [Permalink]
|
Doomar said:
quote:
Are you sure you are aware of what I.D. Theory is? It is a fairly recent thing. It is not "creationism". It is a very complex theory. I've read some of the proponents writings and they are by no means simplistic or unscientific.
I can do nothing but laugh at you Doomar.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
