 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Why? You seem to be very accepting of the notion that a computer program of this day and age is capable of accurately and unequivocally replicating the complex system of evolution, thus proving it at least in part. |
no.
He appears to be saying that an argument which proceeds thus:
"An irreducably complex system cannot arise as a result of random changes and competitive selection. Any such system must be the result of intelligent design."
Has now been shown to be invalid since these irreducably complex programs arose entirely from random changes and competitive selection.
Ironically, the refuted argument itself may be another strawman in that I can't recall creationists using it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.
So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own. |
Whaleboy already pointed out why this specious logic, but I have to mention that the above is categorically NOT what IDers propose, so this still contradicts the ID hypothesis. ID claims that IC shows that there was active, intentional design in the complex functions of living beings. In other words, flagella are just so specially complex that they couldn't conceive of it being anything but the intentional workings of a designer who decreed, "let there be flagella!" This is categorically opposed to a deist belief.
This program demonstrates why that logic is nonsense, as there needs not be any directed intention to evolutionary change in order to produce "irreducible complexity" in systems--it can and will arise by natural selection. This eliminates any need for ID as an explanation.
What set the "program" in motion isn't relevant. The point is, the "program" proves that there need be no intelligence guiding the changes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The diplomat
Intelligent design was still required at the very begining to create the original program. So, there was still intelligent design involved. The difference is just when in the life of this program did the intelligent design intervene. The intelligent design was not required to create the individual evolutionary steps but it was required to start the process in the beginning.
So, actually the experiment illustrates a deist belief, where a god creates basic life and then let's it evolve completely on its own. |
This experiment doesn't disprove the deist belief, or the belief that some-intelligent-entity-that-is-not-necessarily-God created life, but it doesn't prove it either. By looking at what we know of this experiment, there is no way you can say: "this experiment is conclusive, it proves that life has/has not been created by an intelligent designer". That's not what the experiment adressed.
It adressed the contention that a system, when left to its own devices of random mutations, could not create irreductible complexity. I don't know exactly how this claim is related to the creationist/evolutionist debate, but I would hazard that some creationists claim there's a proof for intelligent design, because irreductible complexity could only be created by an intelligent designer. Such a claim has been disproved.
I personally have nothing against the opinion that God created the universe (I don't believe it, and it's not like we can prove or disprove it any day soon), and I don't consider this idea to be incompatible with evolutionism.
Actually, I consider the crusade against evolutionism to be completely misguided, even from a religious point of view: God might have created the universe and then let it to its own devices. The only religious reason why evolution should be opposed, is because evolutions bears the idea that the humans were bot here at the creation of the universe, and that they weren't directly created by God, unlike what the Bible says. That's nothing that couldn't be shrugged off by saying "it is symbolic talk, just like that passage mentioning the earth as the center of the universe".
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
trev
|
|
Adelaide, Australia
Feb 2003
time: 14:59
|
|
quote:
just like that passage mentioning the earth as the center of the universe |
Although it has been proved that the earth rotates around the sun, it has not been proved that it is not the centre of the universe, in fact as the edge of the universe is not visible, this proof is not possible
|
|
| |
|
|
|
beingofone
|
|
U.S.A.
Apr 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
I have learned a valuable lesson by visiting and debating in this forum.
The lesson is - you cannot disagree with the accepted thought of being a crustacean that emerged out of the primordial swamp. You will be expelled from the good ole boy network instantly if you fail to repent of your ways. In fact, you should only want to talk with true heart felt believers. Anyone who disagrees is just not ready for the truth. They should take time to listen, ask questions and ponder the meaning.
It is perfectly fine to insult, cajol, and denegrate all such lower life forms who disagree. Obviously they have not considered the deep and vast thoughts of the true nature of existence. After all they are doomed to suffer a meaningless existence. Wandering about without the searing fire of powerful intellect that is not open to only your special truth.
Your religion is the most exclusive fundamentalist religion I have ever studied or experienced. You just stop talking to those who are not ready for your gospel.
In fact you are not open to any new ideas except what promotes your already preconceived concept of existence. You have shown me that this is not open debate - it is mere recruiting for your religion.
When a person has a cogent, well thought out line of reasoning that disagrees with yours - only a fool would ignore this person. I can only learn from a discusion that disagrees with my viewpoint.
Unless you have a religious belief system that is being threatened.
The taughtology that only a scientific hypothesis can have any merit or truth is just another religion. Any other suggestion that may be true would be like a cat scratching a scrotum.
Science at its apex is still just a guess - yet with enough faith it can become so real.
YES - I see the light.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Quite true. If only Creationists would listen to the wisdom of Aquinas, who admonished Christians not to challenge science with their religious beliefs, but rather to incorporate science into those beliefs. And just making up a term like ID and claiming it's scientific--which it isn't--doesn't cut it. |
Thatīs it.
The problem isnīt with people believing in god,
but with people believing that everything written within the bible is literally true (and that science must be erroneous if it disagrees with the bible).
Of course that leaves them open for counterquestions.
Last week I asked a member of a german forum (german-american girl who believes in the literal truth of the bible and therefore also in a global flood) some questions about Noahs flood.
Here are some of those she couldnīt answer (or wasnīt able to answer them conclusively):
The hardest seems to be the Question about Fish:
-Marine Species of fish require a certain level of salinity to survive (i.e. they canīt survive in water with low levels of NaCl, which you find for example in rivers).
So, as you should expect that all the water within the oceans gets thinned out by the flood (and the salinity drops by a large amount) you should expect all the marine species of fish to die.
She admitted that she couldnīt answer the question. A suggestion was that Noah took also fish with him, but this would contradict the bible (which doesnīt mention that Noah took with him any marine animals). It would also mean that a large amount of his arc would have been filled with water (as Noah would have also taken all species of whales and octopi with him which could be very large) and it would mean that Noah would have to be able to reproduce a large range of marine environments (as certain species of deep sea fish could only survive with high water pressure and low temperatures).
Some other questions she couldnīt really answer were:
-What happened to the Dinosaurs?
Her answer that many of them were found frozen suggests that she thinks they were killed by the flood, but this would contradict the story of Noah where is written that Noah was ordered to take a pair of all land animals with him.
The answers to the other questions she gave also most of the time contradicted natural sciences (like geology, physics or biology) so that the only conclusions can be, that you can only believe in the literal truth of the bible, if you abandon most of the modern natural sciences.
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 21-01-2005 at 19:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2005 15:07
) tend to just take the form of some pedantic creationists picking up on evolutionists grammatical errors, or at bests limits in the remits of presented evidence as somehow proof that there is a god, while stubbornly refusing to even look at the attacks on Intelligent Design, which seems to be the last vestige of their fallacious argument. "If we won't read you, you can't refute us". 
.
|