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:   Creationism/ID as Science
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 151 of 249 (344632)
08-29-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Hughes
08-28-2006 3:40 AM


Re: It is rhetoric not science
Hughes writes:
Saying that something isn't designed well, in no way supports your point that it wasn't designed at all. I live in the NW USA and we've had two bridges SINK, in just my lifetime. This doesn't indicate that they weren't designed, does it?
it seems that you have just launched a new theory for the origin of life. shall we call it DD? (it stands for Dumb Design)
Edited by fallacycop, : Typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Hughes, posted 08-28-2006 3:40 AM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 08-29-2006 9:15 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 161 of 249 (344807)
08-29-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:30 PM


Re: Design does not imply a designer
Hughes writes:
Because I disagree. I see no evidence indicating that evolution has the power to create even the most powerful super-computer.
That's because you have not been looking at the right places.
have you ever heard of genetic algorithms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:30 PM Hughes has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 162 of 249 (344810)
08-29-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Hughes
08-29-2006 2:18 PM


how does a manufacturing plant relate to biological structures? they are nothing alike
According to Michael Denton they are similar.
I don't even know who the heck is Michael Denton. Why should I care what he thinks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Hughes, posted 08-29-2006 2:18 PM Hughes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Quetzal, posted 08-30-2006 11:05 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 186 of 249 (345328)
08-31-2006 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2006 7:37 AM


Well, of course the weasel words here are "too complex to have evolved". How do you determinte that something is "too complex to have evolved"?
The whole argument about complexity is screwy anyways. What we should be asking is "Isn't life to complex to have been designed?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2006 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 187 of 249 (345329)
08-31-2006 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hughes
08-30-2006 9:58 PM


First, and remember this through-out this argument, ID doesn't care, you can have billions of years, evolution will never be able to create anything close to the complexity we observe happening today.
Your whole post is just a load of unsupported asertions. I will just address this one. What you should be asking yourself is (That's if you are really serious about turnig ID in a real science theory) Can ID explain the complexity we observe today? this is potentially a serious problem for ID because all known itelligent designers (Human beings, that is) have time and skill limitations.
The theory of evolution doesn't face simmilar problem because the process can keep working over extremely long periods of time and lead to apparently arbitrarily complex extructures. I would argue that the more complex something is, the harder it becomes to believe that it may have been designed and the bigger gets the likelyhood that it is a result of some natural process like evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hughes, posted 08-30-2006 9:58 PM Hughes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM fallacycop has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 194 of 249 (345507)
08-31-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by mjfloresta
08-31-2006 1:56 AM


Re: ROFL!!
That's got to be one of the strangest things I've ever heard!! The more complex something is the more likely that it was NOT designed? I'm thinking Golden Gate Bridge, The Empire State Building, The Great Pyramids, The Great Wall of China, Computers, Politics...
Bridges and buildings are not very complex things. they have some complex aspects that's true. For instance, questions like what are the more efficient shapes for a bridge, or what is the most aerodynamical shape for the wing of an airplane are not easy to answer. That's why engeneers build wind tunels to test their ideas. They build wings, test them, drop the ones that don't work well, keep the ones that do, add new features to the latter, test again...
hum... They use a process that is basically equivalent to evolution in order to be able to design the more complex features of their projects. Often times a combination of random changes (mutation) plus some selection rule is the most efficient way to design a complex structure. look up evolutionary algorithms.
Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
Politics is not designed. it is an emergent behaviour. It is the sum of the individual actions taken by people. Just as weather is an emergent phenomenon. It is the sum of the behaviour of every single molecule in the atmosphere.
I grant you that many complex things have been designed by human beings, but nothing that comes even close to the complexity of life. There is a huge gap here that must be bridged by ID before we can start to consider whether ID is a scientific theory or not. As I see it, lifes complexity is a clean score for evolution in the evolution vs ID debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by mjfloresta, posted 08-31-2006 1:56 AM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:56 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:24 AM fallacycop has replied
 Message 228 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:25 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 224 of 249 (346165)
09-03-2006 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hughes
09-02-2006 9:12 PM


Hughes writes:
Too bad computers don't just write themselves their own programs from the silicone itself, else you might have something there.
Meaning Please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hughes, posted 09-02-2006 9:12 PM Hughes has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 225 of 249 (346168)
09-03-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Hughes
09-03-2006 1:56 AM


Hughes writes:
Life's complexity would be a clean score if evolution worked as you described.
What makes you say it doesn't?
Unfortunately you are using intelligence to further "evolution" in each of your analogies. Bridges that work or don't, wings, and computers all incorporate intelligence to make and select those changes, that will effect a positive direction in movement in the design.
The selection of a better building or bridge or airplane is made by the human beings that build them. That is why nobody argues that these things are not the result of intelligent design. Life forms, on the other hand, are not built (They reproduce themselves) and they are sellected by the natural processes that will determine how successfull they eventually become in reproducing themselves (known as natural selection for short).
In other words, If the selection is known to be performed by intelligent beings, You have intelligent design, but if the selection is performed by natural processes, You have natural selection, and the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Hughes, posted 09-03-2006 1:56 AM Hughes has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 231 of 249 (346289)
09-03-2006 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Percy
09-03-2006 9:24 AM


Re: ROFL!!
fallacycop writes:
Computers are largely desined by other computers. The principles behind the design are quite simple.
Logician, heal thyself.
I'm sure there was apoint I wanted to make, when I wrote that, but it was late and I was tired, and I don't think the point came across as intended. Mental note: If to tired to write, don't write at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 09-03-2006 9:24 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Percy, posted 09-04-2006 9:35 AM fallacycop 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