Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 76 of 109 (231901)
08-10-2005 1:34 PM


My view is that the carbon atom as evidence of irreducible complexity is sillyness. I closed the other thread because it was only 8 shy of 300 with only this nonsense idea being discussed.
If EvoPeach would like to discuss his carbon atom idea further he must do so in it's own thread by a proposal to [forum=-25] that includes supporting citations from within the ID community to indicate that it's an idea they seriously entertain and not just EvoPeach's way of displaying his pique. Raising the idea again in any other venue will bring 24-hour suspensions for each incident.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 77 of 109 (232078)
08-10-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 10:08 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
There are several problems with your carbon argument:
It is accepted science that carbon, and all of the heavier elements, are created in nuclear fusion reactions in stars, and ejected from those stars in supernovae. This might be mistaken, but since it is accepted science it would be up to you to make the case that this is mistaken.
The origin of carbon is not any part of the theory of evolution. It belongs to nuclear physics and astronomy. So even if you can find a problem in this accepted science, it would not be a problem for the theory of evolution.
In arguments and discussions related to ID, the term "irreducible complexity" has been used with respect to biological organisms, or features of those organisms, or the biochemical structure behind those features. Your use of IC for the carbon atom is, shall we say, somewhat exotic. Now perhaps it is okay to stretch the usage of a term in an exotic manner, but you ought to at least clearly state that you are doing this. Otherwise you will appear to be grossly misusing a term, and that is likely to be seen as a sign of either ignorance or deceit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 10:08 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 11:41 PM nwr has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 78 of 109 (232125)
08-10-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
08-10-2005 8:30 PM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
It is probably a valid theory about carbon now being produced in star formation and other fusion activity. However as I read and recall the current carbon cycle is a conservation and balancing scheme in the totality of the earths ecosystem etc. It is true that in the theory of evolution concerning origins that about every thing came from ... out there. Fine but now the carbon cycle does not even mention carbon produced in stars as having any current import in the cycle... its not even mentioned as a source. So its irrelevent to the discussion as to the production of carbon from a simpler form through evolutioary stages a term that is routinely applied to chemicals of life science ,in theories of chemical predestination... nothing really new, its an evolutionary theorist concept.
So my entire line of reasoning is in the context of darwinian and earth biosphere contained operations. Thus carbon cannot be produced from simpler elemental forms in evolutionary terms consistent with the popular definitions and current carbon cycle conditions.
Now it surprises me to learn that the extension of thought or concepts though opposed to one debater or the other is a crime worthy of ridicule and intimidation efforts. I do not even know the mind of Behe or others but I do know that in Wilder-Smiths writings ( and he greatly influenced the current generation of ICS and ID types)he looked at consciousness theories and their relationship to the debate, information theory et al and gladly suffered the opponents ridicule for years.
Now as to the IC of life based on carbon and perhaps N,H,phosphorus as well the systems simply are so absolutely dependent on their presence throughout the living cell that they cannot be removed without death end of the road for life... uncontested I believe. So since there is no precursor or set of evolving stages leading up to a carbonless cell or life form and no ready atomistic substitue that maintains life again without debate I think life is irreducibly complex and cannot be accounted for naturalistically since the reasoning applies to the first form and to one mutation or change removed. It has to be designed because there can be no simple to complex scheme and no viable theory of abiogenesis is extant and is declared not a part of evolutionary theory.
There should be room for novel thought even if its also original.
But enough its hardly worth the firestorm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 08-10-2005 8:30 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 12:23 AM Evopeach has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 79 of 109 (232132)
08-11-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Evopeach
08-10-2005 11:41 PM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Nuclear physicists and astronomers have worked out how much of the various heavy elements should be present in space, as a result of synthesis is stars and ejection in supernovae. There calculation shows that it pretty much accounts for all of the carbon that we find.
The idea is that the carbon was drifting around in space, and is part of the mass that accumulated to form the earth and other bodies.
You are right, that what happens in the stars is not important as part of the carbon cycle, except as it affects carbon 14. The carbon cycle itself does depend on living organisms. But the carbon was mostly on earth before the first life form, so where the carbon comes from is not important when investigating the carbon cycle.
It is correct that the nuclear production of carbon in stars is not of current importance in the carbon cycle. But then the source of carbon is not important either. We can just take the carbon for granted as always present on earth. That's why your IC argument over carbon seemed so out of place.
You can, if you wish, marvel at carbon and its properties. You can marvel at water, and its peculiar behavior when freezing. These, and other facts, are important to life as we know it. But, in so marvelling, you would be approaching something more like the fine tuning argument than the ID argument. The fine tuning argument is not opposed to evolution, but it is opposed to atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Evopeach, posted 08-10-2005 11:41 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 12:40 AM nwr has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 80 of 109 (232135)
08-11-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by nwr
08-11-2005 12:23 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Well at least I have communicated the context of the carbon ID argument as rightfully being independent of prelife fusion generated carbon. So when I say carbon cannot be made of evolutionary steps from simpler systems is is correct as to the evolutionary post life theory maintained by the commuity currently... as in abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Now that being true, life is absolutely irreducibly complex because it never, no never exists, no matter how simple the form of live may be, without carbon atoms in every divisible aspect of the form. And carbon is not beng made nor can it in this context from a simpler set of components state by stage, carbon is irreducibly complex itself. It cannot arise abiogenetically because it cannot be in any way supported in that capacity.. period, never can happen if fifty failed years of experiment and study comport with utter failure. So much so that after fifty years of effort , the evolutionary community declares abiogenesis as having no important role in evolution as evolution begins after life firat appears.
I say again that life is irreducibly comlex, designed and ID at that.
Evolution is indeed falsified in darwinian terms , though admittedly novel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 12:23 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 1:07 AM Evopeach has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 81 of 109 (232147)
08-11-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 12:40 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Now that being true, life is absolutely irreducibly complex because it never, no never exists, no matter how simple the form of live may be, without carbon atoms in every divisible aspect of the form. And carbon is not beng made nor can it in this context from a simpler set of components state by stage, carbon is irreducibly complex itself.
This is still wrong. The correct response to "carbon is irreducibly complex" is still that carbon is synthesized in the stars.
I say again that life is irreducibly comlex, designed and ID at that.
You are entitled to say that, as an expressed opinion. The question of the origin of life is unsettled. All we have are speculative hypotheses. ID is one of those hypotheses, but there are others as I am sure you know. Most scientists will not adopt ID as a working hypothesis. For once you adopt ID, that shuts off any possibility of progress. It is better to adopt a different working hypothesis, where progress might be possible, even if the result of that progress is to prove the working hypothesis wrong.
Evolution is indeed falsified in darwinian terms , though admittedly novel.
No, sir, you have not shown that evolution is falsified. You have not even come close. You have not laid a finger on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 12:40 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:17 AM nwr has replied
 Message 86 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:49 AM nwr has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 82 of 109 (232208)
08-11-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
08-11-2005 1:07 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
So it is not scientific to postulate that no human can demonstrate a standing unaided vertical jump that exceeds 64 inches?
According to your line of reasoning it would be unscientific because we can predict that they could if only were consider the everyday occurrence of jumping on the moon.
Now since carbon creation only takes place spontaneously at fusion temperatures in stars some million of light years away and is currently not even a consideration in earthbound, post first life evolutionary.. the only kind that matters to this forum by their definition it is perfectly scientific to state that for the science and hypothesis at hand the creation of carbon step by step from simpler entities. There is no chance by anyones theory that evolution as defined by this forum post first life and by darwinian mechanisims includes fusion temperature phenomenon.
Thus your reiteration of a true but totally inappropriate and illogical out of context assertion is rather fallacious reasoning.
Now once one thinks properly about those phenomena that are appropriate to this forums dicsussion on evolution here on earth after the appearance of first life accoring to darwins definitions and those herein it is elementary that the absolute necessity for a particular subsystem of life (itself IC in context)in every form, at every stage at all times that life is then irreducibly complex because it cannot exist absent the subsysyem and is the product of ID since no natural process can be defined which gives rise to it through darwinian staged processes in any respect.
And given the absolute necessity for carbon, its elemental nature in context and no alternative substitution for it in life nor any way for simple life forms to evolve per darwinianism the theory is falsified by darwins own fefinition.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 1:07 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 08-11-2005 9:34 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 9:46 AM Evopeach has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 83 of 109 (232212)
08-11-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 9:17 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Perhaps you could take this discussion to a new thread specifically on the topic of Carbon as an example of Irreducible Complexity, as Admin asked you to do.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:17 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:39 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 84 of 109 (232217)
08-11-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
08-11-2005 9:34 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Perhaps you could let them do their job and you do yours whatever that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 08-11-2005 9:34 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 85 of 109 (232222)
08-11-2005 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 9:17 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
So it is not scientific to postulate that no human can demonstrate a standing unaided vertical jump that exceeds 64 inches?
According to your line of reasoning it would be unscientific because we can predict that they could if only were consider the everyday occurrence of jumping on the moon.
I don't know where you are getting that. It seems to me that you are ascribing views to me that I have never expressed and do not hold.
Now since carbon creation only takes place spontaneously at fusion temperatures in stars some million of light years away and is currently not even a consideration in earthbound, post first life evolutionary.. the only kind that matters to this forum by their definition it is perfectly scientific to state that for the science and hypothesis at hand the creation of carbon step by step from simpler entities. There is no chance by anyones theory that evolution as defined by this forum post first life and by darwinian mechanisims includes fusion temperature phenomenon.
This is seriously mistaken. Evolution does not, in any way, require that there be newly created carbon. Biological organisms get their carbon from the existing supplies. In most cases, they either get it from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or they get it from the other organisms they eat in their food chain.
Incidently, carbon 14 is created in the atmosphere (from nitrogen and cosmic rays).
QED
Sorry. The only thing you have demonstrated, is that you do not understand the science that you attempt to criticize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:17 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:51 AM nwr has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 86 of 109 (232225)
08-11-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
08-11-2005 1:07 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is not scientific to postulate that no human can demonstrate a standing unaided vertical jump that exceeds 64 inches?
According to your line of reasoning it would be unscientific because we can predict that they could if only were consider the everyday occurrence of jumping on the moon.
Now since carbon creation only takes place spontaneously at fusion temperatures in stars some million of light years away and is currently not even a consideration in earthbound, post first life evolutionary.. the only kind that matters to this forum by their definition it is perfectly scientific to state that for the science and hypothesis at hand the creation of carbon step by step from simpler entities. There is no chance by anyones theory that evolution as defined by this forum post first life and by darwinian mechanisims includes fusion temperature phenomenon.
Thus your reiteration of a true but totally inappropriate and illogical out of context assertion is rather fallacious reasoning.
Now once one thinks properly about those phenomena that are appropriate to this forums dicsussion on evolution here on earth after the appearance of first life accoring to darwins definitions and those herein it is elementary that the absolute necessity for a particular subsystem of life (itself IC in context)in every form, at every stage at all times that life is then irreducibly complex because it cannot exist absent the subsysyem and is the product of ID since no natural process can be defined which gives rise to it through darwinian staged processes in any respect.
And given the absolute necessity for carbon, its elemental nature in context and no alternative substitution for it in life nor any way for simple life forms to evolve per darwinianism the theory is falsified by darwins own fefinition.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 1:07 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 9:55 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 91 by Admin, posted 08-11-2005 10:31 AM Evopeach has replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 87 of 109 (232227)
08-11-2005 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by nwr
08-11-2005 9:46 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
I sort of try to keep up with the entire thread and not just the ones that I write since that would leave me uninformed and render my posts useless and vapid.. void of content. May you could try that approach to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 9:46 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by nwr, posted 08-11-2005 10:17 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 88 of 109 (232230)
08-11-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 9:49 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
You appear to have reposted your earlier message 82 verbatim.
Perhaps that was an accidental mistake. If so, then please edit it, so that you at least say something new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:49 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 109 (232234)
08-11-2005 9:59 AM


Warning
Don't feed the troll.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 11:08 AM wj has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 90 of 109 (232245)
08-11-2005 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Evopeach
08-11-2005 9:51 AM


Re: Followup despite Cnesorship
I sort of try to keep up with the entire thread and not just the ones that I write since that would leave me uninformed and render my posts useless and vapid.. void of content. May you could try that approach to.
I do keep up with the entire thread. You have taken it way off-topic, and have been making very dubious claims.
Your posts in this topic are useless and vapid.. void of content. I shall not further respond, unless you come up with a better argument than you have already provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Evopeach, posted 08-11-2005 9:51 AM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Admin, posted 08-11-2005 10:33 AM nwr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024