Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attn IDers, what would it take...?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 86 (243665)
09-15-2005 2:59 AM


On a recent thread I got pretty deep into discussions about Archaeoptrix with an IDer.
The IDer made the statement that "if it could be shown that dinosaurs with downy feathers pre-date archaeoptrix, that would be a large step towards his accepting ToE."
Presenting links to several finds showing just this, I figured the issue was settled.
Instead, the finds were discounted out of hand.
Which leads me to this question: "Exactly what would it take to convince an IDer of ToE?"
edit - condensed, clarified, simplified
This message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-15-2005 03:16 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-15-2005 3:09 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-15-2005 3:38 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 86 (243671)
09-15-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
09-15-2005 3:09 AM


Re: Edit just a wee bit
On it, check back in a sec...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-15-2005 3:09 AM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 13 of 86 (243802)
09-15-2005 10:53 AM


Not a chance to Bash ID
Hey guys, I intended this thread not as a chance to bash ID (we've got lots of those threads and I bash away with the best of them), but as an honest question.
Really, can an IDer please explain to me what sort of evidence would be necessary to invalidate their possition?
Say what you will about Faith, she's answered this question for the YECers. "No amount of evidence will invalidate their possition."
I think that's a wrong possition to take, but it's definitely an answer to the question.
So IDers, please, step up. What would it take to convince you? What bit of evidence would you assume wouldn't exist if your theory was correct?
Heck, this doesn't even have to be your own thoughts on the matter. Give me what the experts believe would invalidate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 4:17 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 23 of 86 (243907)
09-15-2005 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Warren
09-15-2005 4:42 PM


Middle ground
It's there huge middle ground between the two examples of "a factory full of nanomachines" and a "sack of molassis"?
The basic premise of ToE is that organisms (or in this case the pieces driving the organism) which have an advantage continue to reproduce while those that do not tend to die off.
Aren't the "machines" inside the cells simply features selected for or against? Those that make cells work better survive.
Unfortunately, I think we'd be hard pressed to see the protein make up of long extinct single cell organisms for obvious reasons.
But, just because what we have today is successful (as predicted by ToE) that doesn't indicate ID.
Do we have an example that more concrete? Something we can see in the real world?
For example, if Dumbo existed today with no precursor in the fossil record, I think most ToErs would have a lot of trouble reconciling that with the theory.
What sort of an example can IDrs give along the same lines?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 4:42 PM Warren has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 27 of 86 (243948)
09-15-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Warren
09-15-2005 5:15 PM


Machines
Not to stray too far, but it seems like you are using the term machine to mean "something which does something very efficiently".
So a watch would be a machine which tells time very efficiently, and an enzyme would be a machine which combines two proteins very efficiently.
It then seems like you are suggesting that since a watch was obviously created by a creator, it stands to reason that an enzyme would also have been created by a creator.
I think that's a rather large leap.
First of all, the deduction that since and enzyme does something it is therefore a machine is a little by far fetched. Enzymes do what they do, they are used because they do what they do. A banana is not a machine which delivers potassium, but it has potassium and that's one of the reasons we eat it.
Just as enzymes do positive things which cells, an acid would do horrible damage. Sulfuric Acid is not a machine designed to destroy cells, it's simple a chemical compound. A cell which produced sulfuric acid and thus destoyed itself would stand very little chance of reproduction and thus be weeded out by natural selection.
Yes, cells are extraordinarily complex. Yes, watches are extraordinarily complex. However, just because more things are complex doesn't mean they are both the product of design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Warren, posted 09-15-2005 5:15 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 10:38 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 31 of 86 (244142)
09-16-2005 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Warren
09-16-2005 10:38 AM


Re: Machines
In both your quotes people are using the term machines as a means of description. "entire cell can be viewed as" and "flagellum resembles a machine". They are not saying that they ARE machines, they are saying that they are LIKE machines.
This is correct.
A machine is tasked with a purpose. We tend to try variations on it to achieve the best result. We are approaching the problem from the bottom up, saying "Let's make a machine that does X".
Another way to approach the problem would be, "What happens if I add a battery to this transistor?"
One way is clearly better if you are trying to achieve a specific goal, but the other way would lead to discoveries.
If you believe the first way is like ID, effecient selection of parts put together to make the machine the way we want it, then why did it take 450 billion years to get us to where we are today?
Shouldn't man have shown up, say, 350 billion years ago? 200 billion?
Is it that the great designer isn't very intelligent after all, or maybe he's just really really lazy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 10:38 AM Warren has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 37 of 86 (244161)
09-16-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Warren
09-16-2005 12:24 PM


Reason vs Unreason
What would it take for you to recognize that that something in nature is an actual machine?
You're really asking what would it take for me to accept ID, and I have given that answer above.
The whole point of the thread is what it would take to convince IDers that they are incorrect?
I have yet to hear an answer, which leads me to believe that the IDers are nothing more than YECs in sheep's clothing.
There's nothing "unreasonable" about the belief in ID. Just like there's nothing "unreasonable" about a childs belief in Santa Claus. The child doesn't have the facts, they believe what they are told, what they want to be true, what comforts them.
But, an adult who still clings to that fantasy has a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 12:24 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 2:47 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 39 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 3:13 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 43 of 86 (244277)
09-16-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Warren
09-16-2005 2:47 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
here is how you can convince me I'm wrong. Show me why it's unreasonable
So, you can be proved wrong by proving you wrong? Basically you are saying you can't be proven wrong.
If your hypothesis that everything was perfectly designed by some allpowerful being, then what examples would you expect NOT to see.
In the case of ToE, we'd expect not to see the spontaneous appearence of features completely unrelated to anything that came before. (ie Rats with laser eyes)
Show me why it's unreasonable to suspect these things are actual machines.
Because they weren't manufactured, they weren't built at one location and brought to another one. They don't contain components which are interchangable. They aren't made of a material different than the entity itself.
Show me how this is comparable to belief in Santa Claus.
People believe in Santa Claus because it's a comforting thought. They see evidence (presents under a tree) and assume that the complicated solution (a magical man flies around and puts them there) is more reasonable than the simple solution (your mom put them there).
People believe in ID because it's a comforting thought. They see evidence (complicated animals) and assume that the complicated solution (a magical man flies around and designs them that way) is more reasonable than the simple solution (small changes over time, just like we see happening today).
I understand WHY people want to believe ID. It's nice when people tell you that you're special. But that doesn't make it true

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 2:47 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 12:10 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 44 of 86 (244278)
09-16-2005 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Warren
09-16-2005 3:13 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
ID is similarly in the early stages of its development.
I hear this excuse a lot. It's pretty damn lame.
Paradigmatic shift does not work this way. You don't come up with a theory then start looking for data to confirm it.
Anomolies arise from data, raising questions which lead to the new theory and the P Shift.
IDers want more time and more money to try to disprove ToE, but they aren't offering proof or mechanisms for their hypothesis.
Back to the drawing boards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 3:13 PM Warren has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 48 of 86 (244374)
09-17-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Warren
09-17-2005 12:10 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
A machine is a thing consisting of several well-matched interacting parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy in performing a basic function.
By this definition, an elephant is a machine. You're casting your net so wide so that every single thing is a "machine". You might as well substitute "noun" for "machine".
Therefore, to say that my viewing them as machines is comparable to believing in Santa Claus is just plain ridiculous.
Not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that believing in ID / Creationism is tantamount to the belief in Santa Claus.
Maybe you are opposed to ID for metaphysical reasons. Are you really open-minded about ID or are you blinded by your philosophical presuppositions?
I don't believe in magic. I'll admit that openly.
When you're in texas and you hear hooves, think horse, don't think zebra and certainly don't think unicorn.
The creationists start at unicorn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 12:10 PM Warren has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 2:00 PM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 54 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 2:25 PM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 79 of 86 (244689)
09-18-2005 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Warren
09-17-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Reason vs Unreason
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I understand what he means here, but I think perhaps you do not.
We are both using a computer. I type letters on the keyboard and they appear on the screen. I hit submit and they go to the webpage.
Unlike a simple machine (say a pulley), I can not see any of the actions that connect the cause and effect.
In a type writer, I push a key and it moves a hammer. Here I push a key and it moves electrons.
If I knew nothing about how a computer works, I'd have to conclude this was magic.
As it stands, I know quite a bit about computers. Enough that I can basically express what's happening. I also know enough to know that there are people out there (computer engineers) who can, in great detail, explain to me every single step of the process connecting all the links.
To a layman, advananced technology is magic. To the expert, it's no big deal.
I think you are approaching biology as a layman looking for magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 2:25 PM Warren has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024