|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
What makes your evidence IC ?
Why don't you explain how exactly IC systems evolve ? Why don't you also include an explanation of how a system continues to function while evolving step by step. (like an eye or blood clotting systems) Why do evolutionists arbitrarily deem IC with randomness ? I read the book "Uninteligent Design" and all the author could do was redifine IC and then subjectively say it is a quality of randomness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
LOUDMOUTH :
Concerning the book "Unintelligent Design" you can go here : http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution and see the origin of how I used this source. I do want to clarify that even though the post was a response to a reply of yours, I did not direct the "frickin liar" accusation against you. It is directed against a small battery of debaters who refused to acknowledge the obvious even when cornered. Mark Perakh, a staunch evolutionist, he even acknowledges that IF someone were to say that random mutation is the deliberate design of a Designer, then the entire debate is meaningless. Perakh equates RM to be evidence against ID. Maybe I should allow you ample time to acquaint yourself with this material/book before I unsheath my ax into this topic of yours. Pertaining to your evidence : Remove one of the parts/ceases to function, then it is not IC. Are you saying IC, is in fact, non-existent the way Behe describes it ? You remain humble concerning blood clotting systems, yet the title of this topic declares Behe refuted - what gives ? You claim the evolution of an IC system is not random, that selection is responsible. What drives selection ? [This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-19-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Correction :
remove a part and still able to function THEN it is not IC ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Type the link into a separate address bar - it should work.
Or go to the topic that has my name in the title - #276
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I am not a christian fundementalist. I realize those morons have worn you down with their incessant rigid dogma. They also are successful in stigmatizing the rest of christianity. For what it is worth - fundies are the only persons not allowed to attend the church that I belong to.
Believe it or not, the only thing I have argued to the death is that God is the Creator - period. A deistic belief is the only requirement that disqualifies a person from the wrath of God declared in Romans 1. To exclude God as a possibility qualifies the violator to have their God sense removed. Persons suffering this penalty will conclude anything and everything but God. This means non-belief/dis-belief is a penalty from God for denying /excluding Him. This was my one and only crusade - to inform this board that anyone who may interpret scientific evidence to also mean God is not the Creator - is doing so contrary to the evidence which is collected under the claim of Divine neutrality. Scientific evidence cannot prove or disprove God UNLESS your worldview is intruding. I agree with Perakh, that randomness carries the dual message that a Creator is not involved. However, I believe that atheists who observe the animal kingdom to evolve via a mindless and random and purposeless process are observing and reporting what they see accurately, where we depart is the ultimate origin of this process. I credit God to have created and programmed the process to operate exactly the way "the atheists" say, on the other hand, the atheists are defective in the dual meanings of the words they use to describe the process due to the wrath of God/sense/insight removal. Like Perakh has said, anyone who does what I just did renders the entire debate meaningless. This is why worldview/philosophy is king and not science. The entire EvC debate boils down to worldview which cleary supercedes the scientific. You can claim evolution is the correct theory as long as whatever interpretation of the scientific does not explicitly or implicitly exclude the God of the Bible. If you say evolution challenges Genesis then I agree. How does the actual scientific evidence disprove the God of Genesis ? There are eons and eons of time between 1:1 and 1:2. If you say evolution is a fact, are you also saying the God of the Bible is not the Creator ? Yes you are. Once again how does the evidence disprove God ? I realize I am going round and round. I personally do not give the other theories a free ride. God only wants a seat at the possibility table, if they deny Him, then He will remove their capacity to see Him also. I can prove in the Bible that God's m.o. is fluke randomness, that this is the way He operates while driving home the message that He is in control. Loudmouth, you are a quality debater, and even though we disagree you have my utmost respect, unlike the dishonest small core who infected the other topic with their intelligence insulting denials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Thank You.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Loudmouth quote from another topic:
______________________________________________________________________ All they seem to do is point a finger and arbitrarily call things designed. A testable theory/hypothesis would rid ID theory of its subjective nature by using objective evidence/models. ______________________________________________________________________ But the Bible only claims that the alleged Creator can be DEDUCED.Science deduces the unseen all the time but fails to do so in the most important of all deductions. Behe identifies and explains IC systems, then points out that the claims of gradual slow improvement cannot account for the IC systems that he evidences. No amount of sidesteppping and contortions can elude this point: Longstanding evolutionary processes of gradual/slow improvement is proven false by Behe's IC systems because every component must be present or the system fails. How did these IC systems evolve into their present state ? This is spectacular evidence in favor of ID because the complexity is so ridiculous and overdone that it can be equated to be a sloppy fingerprint that was left behind by the Designer. This is a reasonable deduction, especially if you have some God sense. I guess in this context the ToE is reduced to being a theory once again in spite of its reputation as proven fact. Loudmouth: This is your area of expertise - science. My presence here is as a learner and not an opponent. I like to play devils advocate but all in good nature. I meant what I said in my topic about being against the nonsense of YEC. If you ever want my support via Biblical knowledge in a debate with a YEC then I will surely give it. I can thrash them to shreds Biblically but in science you are the man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
NOT ACCORDING TO PHYSICIST MARK PERAKH :
Michael Behe's IC systems, IF they are in fact IC, then his simple claim that these IC systems cannot be attributed to the slow step by tiny step evolutionary mutative process ? IDists have interpreted this evidence to clearly say, by deduction, that the alleged Creator was involved. Physicist Mark Perakh, in his 2004 book "Unintelligent Design" wants to refute Behe by redefining IC systems to already belong to Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) which of course is a product of randomness/chance. This refutation (providing that I have accurately represented his position) is in fact not a refutation, but an admission that the systems are IC (which Perakh assumes as he is not a micro biologist) and that the IC systems are to be arbitrarily assigned to randomness.This "refutation" completely ignores and fails to address Behe's claim against the long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow step by tiny step improvement. I was extremely disappointed to see Behe's claims sidestepped. Perakh is interpreting claims of Divine involvement, which are based upon evidence, that an IDer was not involved based solely on his worldview - fine. IC systems exist. Cause: IDer or chance/randomness*. Pick according to your worldview. Philosophy is King**. * Perakh admits in his book that if proponents of ID want to claim that the alleged Designer creates/designs under the appearance of chance/randomness THEN this renders the entire debate meaningless. ** And the philosophy of the N.T. declares and explains why certains cannot deduce ID. (opening text) And post 36 strongly evidences that the God of Genesis operates/controls under the appearance of chance, fluke, accident. [edited to add that this excerpt was cut and pasted from my topic "Philosophy is King"/Free for All Forum] [This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 04-24-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________ Behe admitted that indirect routes were possible. All he offered against that possibility was his unsupported personal opinion that such routes were so unlikely that they should be dismissed. ______________________________________________________________________ I'm not exactly sure what indirect routes means in relation to the precise issue at issue here. Would you mind evidencing this assertion ? Are you essentially saying that Behe has admitted to being refuted ? What about my evidence pertaining to physicist Mark Perakh ? Why would this physicist and his admission that IC systems exist be incorrect ? Must every scientist be a micro-biologist to contribute accurately in this issue ? (post 187 this topic)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________ I beleive that you have misunderstood Perakh's comments, and that he is referring to "Irreducible Complexity" as the term is used in Algorithmic Theory of Probability ______________________________________________________________________ Negative, I do understand and this was my complaint. Perakh arbitrarily assigns these IC systems to belong to ATP. Note that this position does not deny that IC systems exist. Perakh is saying that IC systems were the product of random/chance. Behe says IC systems defy the step by tiny step evolutionary process of improvement. He also claims that IC systems evidence ID. My point is that worldview settles the issue, which makes philosophy king.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Brad, unless you condescend down and stop logidemicizing, I haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
sincerely, Willowtree
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Paulk quote:
______________________________________________________________________ It is quite obvious that you are making the error that I suggested. Perakh and Behe are using different definitions of irreducible complexity. ______________________________________________________________________ Nope. Behe and Perakh agree that IC systems exist. Perakh responds to Behe's claims by arguing that these IC systems have already been accounted for in ATP. I say that this explanation/claim by Perakh to be sidestepping/evading the initial claim by Behe that IC systems defy long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow improvement. Perakh completely ignores this claim (Behe's central claim). Perakh just declares IC systems the product of ATP. All I am saying is that I was disappointed NOT to read in Perakh's book anything about the central claim of Behe. But, I guess, there is nowhere to go in that issue since IC systems could not of slowly evolved. Do you understand the descrepancy I am attempting to address ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Loudmouth, I am preparing a response, forthcoming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
"Mathematics in its widest signification is the development of all types of formal, necessary, deductive reasoning. The reasoning is formal in the sense that the meaning of propositions forms no part of the investigation. The sole concern of mathematics is the inference of proposition from proposition. ... The ideal of mathematics should be to erect a calculus to facilitate reasoning in connection with every providence of thought, or external experience, in which the succession of thoughts, or of events can be definitely ascertained and precisely stated. So that all serious thought which is not philosophy, or inductive reasoning, or imaginative literature, shall be mathematics developed by means of a calculus."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________ Cellular systems that should be simple are in fact extremely complex ______________________________________________________________________ What is the source for this belief that cellular systems SHOULD be simple ? If complexity evidences randomness, how so ? Loudmouth quote:______________________________________________________________________ This is what I see when looking at the internal workings of the cell, an overly designed structure that would have been done completely different if under the command of a sane intelligence capable of common sense. ______________________________________________________________________ You are assuming much of how an alleged IDesigner should design. What is the source of this belief that overly designed structures indicates the lack of intelligence ? You are judging design by a rigged litmus test - rigged to fail, which means no IDer involved. To me it is evident that "overly designed structures" / IC systems evidence "How great thou art !" No matter how you slice it you are requiring a Designer to be evidenced exactly opposite of how things are. Loudmouth writes:______________________________________________________________________ However, the devil's advocate should also offer conditions under which he/she would withdraw their criticism. IDists have never offered such conditions, as their pseudotheory stands unfalsifiable. Something is designed because . . . they think it's designed ______________________________________________________________________ The devil's advocate should - I agree. I believe IDists discover evidence contrary to the way the ToE has things. They assume ToE evidences against a Creator, then, to find/evidence otherwise is fair to deduce for a Creator. Romans says He can be deduced, it also says why some cannot. Anyway, Loudmouth, I am done.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024