RE: IC does not support ID (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/13/2008 11:14:02 PM)

Umm, none of those were part of BVZ'z question, were they.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/14/2008 1:02:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

I gave you an example in post #11. Your (lame) excuse was to redefine the word "scientific" to suit your naturalistic religion.


You are using scripture in a scientific discussion.

quote:


Now, on a cheerier note, I find your conclusion - IC systems do not support ID - does not follow logically from your premise - because IC systems are evolvable. Here's a simple example: my retirement plan is evolvable; in fact, it changes daily with the stock market. However, I spent much time, effort, and money to intelligently design and create it many years ago. Thus, this is one evolvable IC system that supports ID.


Your argument is broken in so many ways.

You start out by saying that my conclusion is not reachable from my premise. I have shown very clearly how I reached my conclusion, I am not sure how you managed to miss it. But here it is again, for the sake of the lurkers.

ID makes the following argument:
1) IC systems exist.
2) IC systems cannot evolve.
Conclusion: IC systems must have been designed.

If we can show 2) to be false, the argument collapses. There is no way around this. The premise, that IC systems CAN evolve, CLEARLY disables 2), which in turn disables the argument.

You THEN continue to give us an analogy, a very very bad one.

Your basic argument goes something like this:

1) Your retirement plan exists.
2) Your retirement plan is evolvable.
3) Your retirement plan was intelligently designed.
4) (from 1,2 and 3) There exists one example of something that is evolvable, as well as being designed.
5) (from 4) Your retirement plan is support for ID.

I have no proof of 1), but I see no problem with assuming the proof of it as a premise.

2) is nonsense. Your retirement plan is not an imperfect replicator, which kind of destroys 2) as a premise.

3) seems reasonable.

4) Cannot function without 2).

5) cannot function without 4).

You will have to do better than THAT.

Also, do you actually have an example of something that could not have evolved?



Veritas -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/14/2008 1:34:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
2) Your retirement plan is evolvable.

...

2) is nonsense. Your retirement plan is not an imperfect replicator, which kind of destroys 2) as a premise.

On the other hand, if you were to grant this premise, silly as it is, drmark's argument shows that an IC system IS evolvable.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/19/2008 7:06:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: BVZ
2) Your retirement plan is evolvable.

...

2) is nonsense. Your retirement plan is not an imperfect replicator, which kind of destroys 2) as a premise.

On the other hand, if you were to grant this premise, silly as it is, drmark's argument shows that an IC system IS evolvable.


True. I didn't even spot that.

So drmark... do you agree that IC systems are evolvable?



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (2/19/2008 8:44:10 AM)

Yes, IC systems may change over time.



BVZ -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/24/2008 10:02:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Yes, IC systems may change over time.


So you agree that IC does not support ID? (Since you agree that IC systems are evolvable?)



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/24/2008 4:54:36 PM)

C'mon, BVZ, do we have to play childish semantic games? Show us any complex informational system that has been caused by random, unguided processes to support your over-generalized definition of "evolvable"!



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:00:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

C'mon, BVZ, do we have to play childish semantic games? Show us any complex informational system that has been caused by random, unguided processes to support your over-generalized definition of "evolvable"!


Life. That is, if you want to call life a complex informational system.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 8:34:19 AM)

quote:

Life. That is, if you want to call life a complex informational system.
Oh, most certainly life is! But I was under the impression that spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed. If you have data to the contrary, please share it so I can nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Biology!



unclemonkey -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 9:03:08 AM)

ORIGINAL:drmark
quote:

quote:

Life. That is, if you want to call life a complex informational system.

Oh, most certainly life is! But I was under the impression that spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed.

Get up to date dr. No one believes in “spontaneous generation” any more. Spontaneous generation, the belief that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise, is no longer accepted. It has been replaced with abiogenesis, the scientific theory that given the right conditions life will spontaneously arise.

I have never heard of abiogenesis being observed either, but should that miniscule detail stop it from being accepted as a cold hard fact?



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:25:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Life. That is, if you want to call life a complex informational system.
Oh, most certainly life is! But I was under the impression that spontaneous generation has NEVER been observed. If you have data to the contrary, please share it so I can nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Biology!


Hardly could one be more intellectually dishonest... doesnt your Bible say something about lying?



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:29:11 PM)

quote:

Hardly could one be more intellectually dishonest... doesnt your Bible say something about lying?


What are you talking about? You are the one who claimed that life is a demonstration of a " complex informational system"; well, demonstrate this, and stop calling people liars if you want to keep posting here.



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:35:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Hardly could one be more intellectually dishonest... doesnt your Bible say something about lying?


What are you talking about? You are the one who claimed that life is a demonstration of a " complex informational system"; well, demonstrate this, and stop calling people liars if you want to keep posting here.


So do you support his claim that the theory of spontaneous generation is exactly the same as abiogenesis? Its a straw-man of epic proportions



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:37:38 PM)

quote:

So do you support his claim that the theory of spontaneous generation is exactly the same as abiogenesis?


Even if one didn't consider them to be the same case, neither has been demonstrated or observed to occur under any circumstance; so your statement is simply wrong.



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 3:43:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So do you support his claim that the theory of spontaneous generation is exactly the same as abiogenesis?


Even if one didn't consider them to be the same case, neither has been demonstrated or observed to occur under any circumstance; so your statement is simply wrong.



Not really.. he was being dishonest by trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation... all of us would agree of course, that spontaneous generation is quite absurd and has no scientific merit. It's either willful ignorance or intentional dishonesty. Whether you agree with the terms of either theory, lets be honest here and not pretend they are the same, or even remotely similar.. no matter what universe you live in.

While abiogenesis is far from being complete or the law of the land... and has many unanswered questions, its quite a far cry from the claims of the long dead theory of spontaneous regeneration.



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 4:08:32 PM)

quote:

Not really.. he was being dishonest by trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation... all of us would agree of course, that spontaneous generation is quite absurd and has no scientific merit. It's either willful ignorance or intentional dishonesty. Whether you agree with the terms of either theory, lets be honest here and not pretend they are the same, or even remotely similar.. no matter what universe you live in.

While abiogenesis is far from being complete or the law of the land... and has many unanswered questions, its quite a far cry from the claims of the long dead theory of spontaneous regeneration.


If both propose that life arose from non-living matter, and both propose that they did so through the ordinary course of nature, and neither has been under any circumstance observed to do so, then why would one be "quite absurd", and the other not so?

You are the one who has failed to make a distinction here.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 4:15:11 PM)

quote:

quote:

Even if one didn't consider them to be the same case, neither has been demonstrated or observed to occur under any circumstance; so your statement is simply wrong.
Not really.. he was being dishonest by trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation... all of us would agree of course, that spontaneous generation is quite absurd and has no scientific merit.
Are you going to give us, drj11, a documented example of life caused by random, unguided processes from non-life or do you plan to maintain this charade of semantic gamesmanship in a futile attempt to save face.



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 4:39:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

quote:

Even if one didn't consider them to be the same case, neither has been demonstrated or observed to occur under any circumstance; so your statement is simply wrong.
Not really.. he was being dishonest by trying to conflate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation... all of us would agree of course, that spontaneous generation is quite absurd and has no scientific merit.
Are you going to give us, drj11, a documented example of life caused by random, unguided processes from non-life or do you plan to maintain this charade of semantic gamesmanship in a futile attempt to save face.


As far as explanations go... life arising from natural causes is the one that is incontestably the most plausible, given the other proposed ideas.



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 4:41:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
If both propose that life arose from non-living matter, and both propose that they did so through the ordinary course of nature, and neither has been under any circumstance observed to do so, then why would one be "quite absurd", and the other not so?

You are the one who has failed to make a distinction here.


If you want to paint it with that broad of a brush, sure you can find one similarity.. just as we can say both the big bang theory and creationism are the same simply because they deal with the origin of the universe. But we know they are in no way alike, nor should anyone claim they are.



drmark -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 4:49:42 PM)

quote:

quote:

Are you going to give us, drj11, a documented example of life caused by random, unguided processes from non-life or do you plan to maintain this charade of semantic gamesmanship in a futile attempt to save face.
As far as explanations go... life arising from natural causes is the one that is incontestably the most plausible, given the other proposed ideas.
As I expected (actually, as I knew fully well), you have no documented example of life from non-life. Thus your faith in naturalism is nothing more than a religious belief system, elevated to "incontestably the most plausible" by your preconceived worldview. Thanks for the admission, drj - it almost saves you face, but it won't save your soul. Let me know when you're ready to consider the Real Cause of life. Most of us posting here know Him personally.



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 5:07:41 PM)

quote:

If you want to paint it with that broad of a brush, sure you can find one similarity.. just as we can say both the big bang theory and creationism are the same simply because they deal with the origin of the universe. But we know they are in no way alike, nor should anyone claim they are.


You aren't answering the question; I didn't ask how they are similar, I already told you how they are similar; how are they different in terms of being demonstrated theories?



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 5:56:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If you want to paint it with that broad of a brush, sure you can find one similarity.. just as we can say both the big bang theory and creationism are the same simply because they deal with the origin of the universe. But we know they are in no way alike, nor should anyone claim they are.


You aren't answering the question; I didn't ask how they are similar, I already told you how they are similar; how are they different in terms of being demonstrated theories?


You don't really need me to answer this for you...

The claims of spontaneous generation have been totally falsified.



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 5:59:06 PM)

quote:

You don't really need me to answer this for you...

The claims of spontaneous generation have been totally falsified.


As you are unable to articulate any differences, I will accept this as tacit agreement that abiogenesis is no more demonstrated than spontaneous generation.



drj11 -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 6:11:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You don't really need me to answer this for you...

The claims of spontaneous generation have been totally falsified.


As you are unable to articulate any differences, I will accept this as tacit agreement that abiogenesis is no more demonstrated than spontaneous generation.


Again... Its been falsified. Falsified. That directly answers your question about one theory being more demonstrated than the other, because one has been proven to be outright false.

There are several different models for the formation of life under abiogenesis, each with differing amounts of supporting evidence.



Jhud -> RE: IC does not support ID (4/27/2008 6:38:39 PM)

quote:

Again... Its been falsified. Falsified. That directly answers your question about one theory being more demonstrated than the other, because one has been proven to be outright false.


Okay, as you are avoiding actually answering the question, I will see if you can provide any specifics at all.

In what way has spontaneous generation been falsified that abiogenesis has not?

In what way has abiogenesis been demonstrated that spont. gen. has not?

quote:

There are several different models for the formation of life under abiogenesis, each with differing amounts of supporting evidence.


Which model has been demonstrated? That is shown through experimentation or observation to produce life from non-life?

How would a model for spontaneous generation not also provide evidence for the case of spont. gen.?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI