Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 59 (494)
11-29-2001 8:47 AM


So your entire argument for creationism is:
-If something has a beginning it must have a creator...
you dont see evolution as being a valid mechanism as:
-You dont want to think that you are related to other forms of life...
-you cannot see people sprouting wings, extra limbs or prehensile tails...
Well excuse me for pointing this out but all of this is quite shaky a priori reasoning with no evidence to back it up.
You say that nothing as complicated as the human body could have suddenly formed by chance, last time I checked evolution claimed no such thing (the key word here is suddenly)....
You claim that "if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, that's wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms.". Hmm, still trying to see the connection there between lack of observed planets capable of sustaining life and the "it had to click eventually" thing as you put it. On another note how do you know that there are no planets out there capable of sustaining life? As memory serves the current method of detecting planets is to observe a star to see if it "wobbles" due to a gravitational field, I may be wrong but so far this method can only locate gas giants (like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune none of which are suitable for life (as we know it at any rate)). However the lack of a proper detection mechanism for earth like planets does not preclude their existence.
As to your not observing evolution around you there are two reasons for this:
Firstly evolution is a mechanism that requires Thousands of years (I may err on the short side) to produce a major difference so not observing its effects in living creatures are hardly surprising...
Secondly why should man evolve? Evolution is IMHO a mechanism for adapting organisms to better suit their environment, man has evolved the most powerful brain and opposable thumbs (for tool making and use) that allow us to change our environment to suit our needs rather than be forced to adapt to better suit it. Why should we evolve to run faster, fly or better defend ourselves when we can produce machines to perform these functions (cars, planes and weapons).
And your objection to the big bang, tell me what, apart from everyday experience, tells you that everything that begins must have a creator? A beginning without a creator may never have been observed this doesnt mean it cannot happen (an absence of proof is not a disproof - there wasnt enough evidence to convict O J Simpson of murder but we all pretty much know he did it).
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-29-2001]
[This message has been edited by joz, 11-30-2001]

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 17 of 59 (498)
12-01-2001 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by God is Love
11-28-2001 11:05 PM


"God created the Earth...reason? simply that if the big bang really happened, somebody/thing had to create the atoms in the first place...i mean, the atoms the created the whole big bang thing didn't just appear by nothing."
Really? Actually matter & energy are interchangeable, this HAS been observed in the form of a particle & its anti-particle transforming from energy & back again. The problem remains, who created all that energy? This is a circular argument. I could just as easily ask what created God, he didn't just "appear from nothing". Can't have it both ways!
"The whole evolving thing is crud. If we did evolve, why aren't we evolving now? we've been on this earth for millions, billions of years, yet we really haven't change. "
Firstly, all the evidence is that Homo sapien sapiens has been around for about 100,000 years. NOT millions & billions. Fossil evidence puts the first single celled life forms at about 3.5 billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion years old. Just to throw a rather obvious point at you. Where did the races come from? Given there were only a handful of middle eastern bods in the Ark? Lastly, how do you KNOW we aren't evolving now?
"the point here is that the earth and universe was CREATED. nothing as complex as the human body could have been suddenly formed merely by chance."
What evolutionist said it did? You agree with them, then?
"and if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, thats wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms."
LOL, I suppose science has a "Theory Of It Had To Click Eventually" ? Also, EXACTLY how many planets out there CAN sustain life, since you seem to know?
"THERES NO WAY THAT THE BIG BANG/EVOLUTION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T FIT."
The observable evidence does fit, & an overwhelming amount of it too.
"WE DID NOT EVOLVE. I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO THINK THAT I WAS FORMED BY FIRST EVOLVING FROM AN AMEOBA (pardon my spelling) I AM MUCH MORE PLEASED THE THINK THAT I WAS CREATED BY A LOVING, CARING, MERCIFULL GOD. THERE IS PROOF AS WELL THAT THE SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE ARE TRUE."
A triumph of hope over expectation. you don't want evolution to be true, therefore it isn't!? You will have to be more specific which sayings in the Bible have proof.
Theres a hell of a lot of assumption here. just because you make statements of personal incredulity doesn't mean a coherent argument has been given. You need REASONS, not ASSUMPTIONS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by God is Love, posted 11-28-2001 11:05 PM God is Love has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 2:26 PM mark24 has not replied

Nefernefruaten
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 59 (510)
12-03-2001 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ShannonMay
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


But to argue that complexity requires a creator implies that the creator himself must have a creator in turn,for if he is the foremost of complexity and can exist without creation or design,less complexity(the universe)would require less this argument...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:28 PM ShannonMay has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 59 (961)
12-19-2001 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Redwing
11-25-2001 5:02 PM


This is a very good, very short explanation of the philosophy of science. There is also an internal link to an essay on "scientific Creationism" and why it isn't scientific.
http://skepdic.com/science.html
There is also a very good book called "The Game of Science" by Mcain and Segal which covers the "nuts and bolts" of the methodology of science as well as the philosophy. It is, sadly, out of print, but was one of my textbooks in a college course I took called "The Nature of Scientific Inquiry".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Redwing, posted 11-25-2001 5:02 PM Redwing has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 59 (964)
12-19-2001 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by God is Love
11-28-2001 11:05 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by God is Love:
[B]Here's my whole view on this:
God created the Earth...reason? simply that if the big bang really happened, somebody/thing had to create the atoms in the first place...i mean, the atoms the created the whole big bang thing didn't just appear by nothing.[/QUOTE]
So, what created the creator?
quote:
The whole evolving thing is crud. If we did evolve, why aren't we evolving now?
We are evolving, although the selection pressures on us are not very great because our environment is relatively stable, and we do things like cure disease.
We observe evolution all the time. Ever hear of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and pesticide-resistant insects? We observe the emregence of new species also, particularly in plants and insects and other organisms with rapid rates of reproduction.
quote:
we've been on this earth for millions, billions of years, yet we really haven't change. we haven't grown tails, we havn't grown wings or anything like that.
Um, some people ARE born with tails, actually. Why would that ever happen if the genetic coding for having a tail wasn't there in the first place? When you add to that the extremely similar DNA coding that we share with other primates, it shows close relation.
quote:
sure, some people are born deformed but that means nothing. it just means that the mom used drugs, smoked or something happened between the becoming pregnant to concieving, but thats beyond the point.
So, are you saying that there is no such thing as genetic disease?? Is hemophelia, which has for centuries been traced through Russian Czarist family lineages, due to the mothers smoking crack? LOL!
What about cystic fibrosis? They have found the gene responsible for the condition.
quote:
the point here is that the earth and universe was CREATED. nothing as complex as the human body could have been suddenly formed merely by chance.
Science doesn't claim that the human body was "suddenly formed by chance". Perhaps, before arguing against what you think science claims, you should find out what science actually DOES claim.
quote:
and if you go by the whole "it had to click eventually" thing, thats wrong. if that was true, there'd be a lot more planets out there that can sustain life: even the most simple forms.
I really don't have any idea what you mean by this.
quote:
THERES NO WAY THAT THE BIG BANG/EVOLUTION COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE THE FACTS DON'T FIT.
The use of all-caps does not make your argument any more credible.
You have not discussed any specific facts, and you have already misrepresented what the big Bang and the ToE claims. Your position is bombastic, but contentless, and therefore weak.
quote:
WE DID NOT EVOLVE.
Shouting it does not make it so. There is a great deal of evidence that we did evolve.
quote:
I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO THINK THAT I WAS FORMED BY FIRST EVOLVING FROM AN AMEOBA (pardon my spelling) I AM MUCH MORE PLEASED THE THINK THAT I WAS CREATED BY A LOVING, CARING, MERCIFULL GOD.
Now, here we have come to the real crux of the matter. Because you are uncomfortable with the idea of evolution, you declare that it couldn't have happened. You do not care a whit for the evidence, only your feelings.
It is fine for you to believe what you want to, of course. Just don't think that you are in any way being the least bit scientific.
quote:
THERE IS PROOF AS WELL THAT THE SAYINGS IN THE BIBLE ARE TRUE.
Please provide this proof, please.
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-20-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by God is Love, posted 11-28-2001 11:05 PM God is Love has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 2:30 PM nator has replied

chewrock
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 59 (27224)
12-18-2002 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ShannonMay
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


I've never posted here before. A friend recommended that I search for the phrase "irreducable complexity", because I was talking about the NSA's involvement in the investigations into the genetic code. As you probably know, the NSA is the USA national government agency that controls the use of codes and ciphers. I worked for an SCA under the NSA for about 10 years. During that time, several things were discussed. The genetic code is a true code. It consists of a "plain", which is the living organism, an "encrypted", which is the DNA, and a "key", which are the cellular mechanisms necessary to convert the "encrypted" message into the "plain". It is a matter of policy within the NSA to consider the creation and sending of an encrypted message to be a deliberate act. Plaintext messages can be benign, random, or accidental. The sending of an encrypted message is NEVER an accident, because it presupposes that the receiver on the other end possesses the "key" and can decrypt the message on the other end and recover the Plaintext. The people who are discussing irreducable complexity have made a mistake in focusing on whole organs. The problem of evolution is much more fundamental. DNA is an encipherment. Worse, it's a COMPRESSED encipherment. That means that the "plain" has been enciphered and the encipherment has been compressed. So the decipherment on the other end must not only account for the encryption algorithim, but also for the compression algorithim! Nobody would ever create a cipher without giving the receiver the key. Such a message would never convey anything. It would appear as meaningless, random garbage to the recipient. Plain, the cipher, and the key must all come into existence at the same time. Otherwise, there is no message. It's just a bunch of junk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:28 PM ShannonMay has not replied

chewrock
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 59 (27225)
12-18-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ShannonMay
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


The NSA has some other complaints about evolution as an explanation for the existence of the genetic code. Not only is the genetic code a true compressed encipherment, but it is also an unnatural one in some regards. This message is being sent electronically, using a binary methodology. Binary means "two states" and conveys that digital stuff uses On/Off or One/Zero as the only two indicator states. Binary is also considered by most computer scientists to be the "natural" base, which is to say, Base 2. Unfortunately for the evolutionists, the genetic code isn't binary. It's quaternary. Yep, there are four different bases that are exposed when the DNA separates. Base 4 is NOT the "natural" base. It implies that somebody went beyond the naturally occuring Yes/No, On/Off, One/Zero of the minimal and natural Base 2 system when creating the genetic code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:28 PM ShannonMay has not replied

chewrock
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 59 (27227)
12-18-2002 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ShannonMay
10-12-2001 8:28 PM


Alright, one final thing about the NSA and the genetic code. The NSA analyzes codes for their origin and design. One of the most powerful methods for doing that is to look at the "message externals". Message externals are things that are NOT part of the message. For example, the address, return address, and postmark on a letter are message externals. They are not part of what the person wanted to say, they are just the routing information and some stuff about how it was transferred to its destination. Email messages have "headers" that do the same thing electronically. The evolutionists are trying to keep a tight lid on something that they have discovered. There are sections of the genetic code that do NOT appear to do anything or convey any message. In fact, there's plenty of that stuff embedded in the genetic code for the more complex organisms. If it turns out that these areas of the genetic code are serialized "version" numbers, addresses, patent marking, designer names, or other information about the entity that created that particular organism, then the evolutionists are really up a creek without a paddle. It will mean that natural variation and polymorphism were design requirements that were deliberately embedded into the genetic code of the life created on this earth. It will mean that evolutionists have been chasing variations that were intended to occur when the design was originally conceived.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ShannonMay, posted 10-12-2001 8:28 PM ShannonMay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-18-2002 2:39 PM chewrock has not replied
 Message 28 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 3:39 AM chewrock has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 59 (27232)
12-18-2002 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
12-01-2001 10:19 AM


"Really? Actually matter & energy are interchangeable, this HAS been observed in the form of a particle & its anti-particle transforming from energy & back again. The problem remains, who created all that energy? This is a circular argument. I could just as easily ask what created God, he didn't just "appear from nothing". Can't have it both ways!"
--While I don't share reasoning of God_Is_love, the reason you can't just 'as easily ask' this is because for the origin of matter, you must rely on scientifically natural methods. For the 'origin of God' you could say it isn't or isn't applicable, depending on how you think this supernatural(by definition not possible to be subject to experimentation) realm. Though I think that if your God is infinite, the question doesn't apply all together.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 12-18-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 12-01-2001 10:19 AM mark24 has not replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 59 (27234)
12-18-2002 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
12-19-2001 2:05 PM


"Um, some people ARE born with tails, actually. Why would that ever happen if the genetic coding for having a tail wasn't there in the first place? "
--I would hardly call it a tail.. Humans born with 'tails' are no more an anomaly as someone born with a longer than usual big toe.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 12-19-2001 2:05 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 01-06-2003 12:37 PM TrueCreation has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 59 (27238)
12-18-2002 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by chewrock
12-18-2002 2:07 PM


quote:
If it turns out that these areas of the genetic code are serialized "version" numbers, addresses, patent marking, designer names, or other information about the entity that created that particular organism, then the evolutionists are really up a creek without a paddle. It will mean that natural variation and polymorphism were design requirements that were deliberately embedded into the genetic code of the life created on this earth. It will mean that evolutionists have been chasing variations that were intended to occur when the design was originally conceived.
I do think that this might be the "fingerprints of God". But it is not just the documentation of the original design, but also the documentation of the design modifications down through time.
I could be the record of how God guided, and also perhaps sometimes didn't guide, biological evolution.
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83; Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U; Old Earth evolution - Yes; Godly creation - Maybe
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by chewrock, posted 12-18-2002 2:07 PM chewrock has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 59 (27353)
12-19-2002 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Faith
11-01-2001 2:12 PM


quote:
If no evolutionary pathway can be envisioned this should be a point for creationism. Sure, evolutionists may come up with a plausible scenario -- they're good at that -- but as it stands this is a decent argument against and should be tallied for the creationists.
No, it shouldn't.
You are making the common mistake of thinking that a deficiency, perceived or real, in a scientific theory is the same thing as support for a different theory.
This is incorrect. All of modern Biology, Geology, Paleontology, Physics, Genetics, etc. could collapse tomorrow, but this wouldn't make Creationism correct.
Creationism has to stand on it's own evidence. Unfortunately, there isn't any.
quote:
That was not the point. The point was that irreducible complexity argues against evolution. Nobody said there's an inability to formulate a scientific explanation here, but only that you do not have a case. You beg the question by assuming you will someday have one. Meanwhile give that point to the creationists.
No, you have apparently missed the point.
quote:
Also, just because "the divine" has been used to explain the unexplained doesn't mean that once you have a scientific explanation for how something works that God is expendable. In fact the more lawful the universe turns out to be, the more God can be seen behind it.
This, however, is not what Behe, and the ID camp says.
Behe says that God is evident in the things we dont' understand.
quote:
There is no necessary either/or here, nor is it implied by Shannon's statement. All she said was that irredicible complexity argues against evolution, and that is a fact.
It is also a fact that the ID/IC argument is a philosophical one and has no positive evidence.
An argument based on a lack of evidence is not an argument at all.
{Note: Moved topic from "Great Debate" forum to "Intelligent Design" forum, 12/19/02 - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Faith, posted 11-01-2001 2:12 PM Faith has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 28 of 59 (28476)
01-06-2003 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by chewrock
12-18-2002 2:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by chewrock:
Alright, one final thing about the NSA and the genetic code. The NSA analyzes codes for their origin and design. One of the most powerful methods for doing that is to look at the "message externals". Message externals are things that are NOT part of the message. For example, the address, return address, and postmark on a letter are message externals. They are not part of what the person wanted to say, they are just the routing information and some stuff about how it was transferred to its destination. Email messages have "headers" that do the same thing electronically. The evolutionists are trying to keep a tight lid on something that they have discovered. There are sections of the genetic code that do NOT appear to do anything or convey any message. In fact, there's plenty of that stuff embedded in the genetic code for the more complex organisms. If it turns out that these areas of the genetic code are serialized "version" numbers, addresses, patent marking, designer names, or other information about the entity that created that particular organism, then the evolutionists are really up a creek without a paddle. It will mean that natural variation and polymorphism were design requirements that were deliberately embedded into the genetic code of the life created on this earth. It will mean that evolutionists have been chasing variations that were intended to occur when the design was originally conceived.
I read a new scientist article lately that said that researchers
had found that some supposed Junk DNA was used as a kind
of place-holder mechanism during protein manufacture ... the
suggestion being that there is no 'non-functional' DNA, just
'non-protein coding' DNA.
That said, even under the standard evo view areas of 'unused' DNA
are expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by chewrock, posted 12-18-2002 2:07 PM chewrock has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 59 (28504)
01-06-2003 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
12-18-2002 2:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Um, some people ARE born with tails, actually. Why would that ever happen if the genetic coding for having a tail wasn't there in the first place? "
--I would hardly call it a tail.. Humans born with 'tails' are no more an anomaly as someone born with a longer than usual big toe.

Except that it is normal for people to have big toes on the ends of their feet in the first place.
It is not normal for people to have several inches of tissue and bone extending from the end of their spine at the top of their backsides.
Didn't somebody post pictures here of human infants with tails once?
AHA! Found one!
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020111/ct3.jpg
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 12-18-2002 2:30 PM TrueCreation has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6082 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 30 of 59 (291614)
03-02-2006 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Lew Alton
11-25-2001 8:34 PM


Irreducible complexity
If you are a biologist,you will certainly understand how complex even the single celled organism is. For you to state that irreducible complexity does not exist implies that all our studies on the structure and function of the cell for more than 500 years are wrong. It only shows that you are neither a biologist nor anyone who understands what is being discussed. There are many more mysteries inside the tiny cell we are trying to understand. Can I ask you this? How do you qualify yourself as a critique of Dr. Behe? Are you a member of the National Academy of Sciences? Are you a student? Are you a faculty? What are you? Finally, prove to us that irreducible complexity does not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Lew Alton, posted 11-25-2001 8:34 PM Lew Alton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-02-2006 8:52 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 32 by jar, posted 03-02-2006 9:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 33 by ReverendDG, posted 03-03-2006 3:09 AM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 34 by sidelined, posted 03-03-2006 12:29 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 03-03-2006 1:57 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2006 6:25 PM inkorrekt 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