Design and the intelligence hypothesis

The carbon atom is synthesized out of simpler components in the nuclear reactions in stars. This is well known physics. The carbon atom is not irreducibly complex. Your argument is based on a false premise.

Some points of critique:A proposition followed by three corrollaries - one of which is actually a definition - then followed by a conclusion constitutes bad reasoning.The proposition needs proof. You haven't been to other parts of the universe where life might exist based on other chemistry than life as we know it. First, the fact that no naturalistic explanation has been found for something does not mean that one does not exist. Second, what is the meaning of "scientific complexity of the carbon atom"? Are you saying that if the complexity of the carbon atom were not scientific, it would not, logically speaking, be an ID system? Or are you just putting some polysyllabic words in a sequence in the hope of impressing the more gullible among us? Maybe you've missed the following when you did your research before writing your post: More information can be found here. [qs][...] by removing all carbon from the subsystem, by extension component or organ of which it is a part;that enstity [sic] will in every case cea[s]e to function, cannot function with any other type of atom other than carbon and cannot be arrived at from a previous state where carbon would not have been necessary for its function.[/qs]So, in effect you are saying that prostheses cannot function if they contain no carbon?Your post may seem reasoned and logical to you and perhaps other ID-ists, but putting it in a legalistic form and giving it an aura of deductive reasoning is not in the least convincing. Not to me, anyway.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10-Aug-2005 12:29 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I really wonder about this. Do the various ID proponents and creationists keep tabs on the activities of others of their number on these boards? Does Randman, for example, read Evopeach's posts? If so the does the fact that none of them have commented on the total mischaracterisation of the argument for intelligent design based on irreducible complexity which Evopeach puts forward mean that they agree with his representation of it?I know that almost every one of Evopeach's totally ludicrous pretend science statements got half a dozen rebuttals from the pr-evolution camp so perhaps criticism from their own camp would be considered unneccessary, but it is surely in the interests of all the anti-evolutionists to try and maintain a reasonable level of scientific credibility as a body if they ever wish to be taken seriously.Despite occasional claims to the contrary those on the evolutionary side are never slow to pick each other up on flaws in either their science or reasoning.Is it simply that each anti-evolutionist has so many pro interlocutors that they must spend all of their time replying to them and have none to spare for casting an eye over the work of their fellows?I would really be interested to know if the other anti-evolutionist on this site consider Evopeach to be doing a good job with his debating so far.TTFN,WK

Where was the censorship? After 300 or so posts threads have been known to become unstable, therefore the admins have a policy of shutting threads down around that point. There is nothing preventing you from starting your own new thread through the 'Proposed new topics' process.So where does this claim of censorship come from, can you show us where you have been censored?TTFN,WK

One argument anti-evolutionists often parade is the fact that evolutionists don't always agree among each other. To evolutionists themselves, this is not a problem, but rather a boon, because it stimulates further research and in the end results in a better understanding of the matter at hand.But anti-evolutionists see it as a weakness of science; one that proves evolution wrong. I think that's the reason why we see so little open disagreement among anti-evolutionists: they think that to disagree among themselves, is to lose credibility.Also, I think that creationists in general lack sufficient understanding of scientific concepts to put forward a well reasoned, scientifically sound argument, let alone pick one apart. If they read the words "irreducible complexity" in some pro-ID prose, they need not read further, because what follows cannot but promote their cause, they think. Let's not forget that doing science isn't the first priority of ID-ists. In fact, they don't do science at all. ID is just rhetoric with the express intent of driving down their "wedge". Their priority is to promote unadulterated Christian creationism, nothing else, despite what they say.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Again, we're back to your, 'The system must work with n-1 components, or the ToE is falsified.' Again, I fail to see why you don't just take this all the way, and go to 0 components. The extremes usually make things quite obvious, and that holds true here. If you have 0 components, you quite obviously don't have a working system.The only reason I can see why you wouldn't go to this extreme is to hide the fact that since n-1 leads to zero, it's guaranteed that you'll find some point where the system breaks down. By looking for a breakdown at a point greater than zero, you can pretend that you really weren't using n-1, pretend that your method didn't guarantee 'falsification'; and in pretending that these things are true, allow for a belief to be maintained that the method is valid, and finding such 'falsification' using said method actually says something about the ToE.(If "n-1" isn't the right way to say that, a correction would be appreciated. The stratospheric IQ makes up for a lot, but I still haven't had any formal education past the 10th grade. [and I slept through most of 8th, 9th, and 10th])This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-10-2005 07:35 AM

Only if you believe that the caustic remarks by a grown man whose self confidence and sense of accomplishment are dependnet on portraying themselves as Cat Bird the Evil HR Director from Dilbert occurring at precisely some arbitrary thread length ( those parameters can be changed in about 1 nano-second) and it falling on my precise post among some one hundred that day are UNCORRELATED with the obvious evo bias in this so called open discussion group.

Actually to clarify - it USED to be the case that the threads would fall over at 300 posts or so - that is no longer the case (or so I believe).However for historical reasons, we as a COMMUNITY have decided that we like the 300 post limit as it concentrates the mind and have kept it.(That's about it isn't it).

It wasn't an intentional policy of the admins to limit thread length. Threads over 300 kept getting screwed up with large numbers of posts simply disappearing, I'm sure if you can provide them with the simple parameter change that will fix this they would be most obliged to you. Ooops, my bad, I obviously haven't kept current.As to it coinciding with your post, it was actually some 6 posts subsequent to your latest post in that thread. It was not of course coincidence that they closed down a thread which had completely derailed from its original topic and whih was getting through posts at quite a rate, none of which were productive or valuable, in large part due to your disinclination to address the many deficiencies in your grasp of both fundamental molecular biology, nuclear physics and indeed the concepts put forward by the proponents of Intelligent Design.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-10-2005 09:20 AM

quote:

---

That's not the argument. Things that appear designed most likely are. There are cases of things appearing designed but were not apparently, but forensic science is the study of design.

​

The universe does exhibit design. That's a fact. The question is where does the design come from, and to what degree or in what way are things "designed."

---

We have shown mechaisms where non-purposeful execution of rules can give forth complexity. This is a repeatable process. It can be demonstrated.You make the assertion that the universe exihibits design. THat is an assertion. Show me a method to test this. If you can't, then you are just blowing smoke out your ear. SHow me a way this can be falsified.
Until you can, you are just making faith statements.

I will be pleased to let you argue from the perspective of star trek based science and all the scientific integrity that brings to the table. I also haven't tunneled underground to the lost world imagined by Jules Verne, but I feel ever so confident in not making those major considerations in my analyses.As to the appeal of fusion based arguments for carbon formation I admit not considering triple neutron collision reactions in the core of stars a billion light years away or in a nuclear reactor as being appropriate to the presumed processes of evolution, namely biosphere based mutation and natural selection ( and yes those terms are used both in abiogenesis and so called chemical predestination literature).I am unaware of Darwins work in nuclear physics as it might relate to fusion temperature speciation ... whatever.Carbon does have isotopes, it does appear in several forms, it does have complex forms. One of the rather popular forms is diamond which is most often discussed in its applications amour, its esthetic, mineral or gemstone complexity, facets and such. Since there is very little amour on this post by design I wanted to clearly concern myself with the complexity of the carbon atom scientifically as in things like say its atomic structure and properties and behaviors scientifically not esthetically although those are certainly important but not in the context of this forum, this "scientific" forum as I am constantly reminded.As to your favorite or most convincing form of debate or argument I am not interested in playing twenty questions, so perhaps you could just state whether you prefer true rhetoric or some form of sophistry.The conclusion by the way is that life is irreducibly complex at the atomic level in that in particular carbon atoms are essential to all life forms we are aware of and that are part of evolutionary theory per Darwin. In fact if carbon atoms are removed from ay life form at any proposed stage in its so called evolution that would be the end of its functionality as life. Neither is their any atomistic substitute for carbon which might have preceeded the instant stage, nor is there any hope for a mutation of the carbon atom into another type of atom (isotopes excluded because carbon 14 plays an insignificant trace element role in life) which could perform equally well.I suspect few will be impressed by the logic that if a phenomenon has not yet been observed that is no reason to suggest it is not right around the corner. That borders on the stuff of fairy tales, the occult, black magic and says essentially no imaginable phenomenon should be excluded from possibility in scientific investigation no matter how preposterously improbable or undemonstrable it may be, because it just might occur. I gave up looking for magic mirrors as a young child.Evopeach

You have simply returned to saying the same thing all over again. Claiming there have been no 'cogent' replies when in fact there have been quite a few is a violation of the guidelines.Your posting privilages are being suspended.

---

Try considering the reaction happening in stars a little closer, those stars going supernova, which ejects the heavier elements, which then form the Earth.

I have no clue as to where you work now, but you have presented your qualifications and some of the areas in which you have worked. My challenge is for you to present (unadulterated) both this thread and the previous thread to your current boss (ceo, president, chairman, whatever) to read through. That is all. If you think you have made logical, coherent arguments then there should be no problem with this, no concern.If you can provide proof that this has been done, I will happily stump up $500 to the charity of your choice (of an aid nature such as Christian Aid, Oxfam, etc).

You really don't have a clue, do you? Where do you suppose the carbon atoms in your own body come from? You said: The illustrations I gave you describe just that step-by-step process. It happens inside stars and is the source of practically all the carbon in the biosphere - in the entire universe for that matter. I just thought I should tell you this, so that when you return from your suspension, you are just a tad less misinformed than you were before, perhaps enabling you to avoid another suspension. Glad to be of help. I prefer neither. What I like is sound reasoning based on evidence, something I haven't seen from you yet. You're wrong. About 95 percent of the world's population are very impressed by such 'logic'. The phenomenon in question is "God". Anyway, that's not what I meant. I don't think I'll bother explaining it to you, though.Another thing: just as I don't think that irreducible complexity in nature necessarily points to an intelligent designer, do I also not think that the contrived complexity of your sentences necessarily points to an intelligent writer. In other words: I think you're intelligent, but not because of your style of writing, so you can drop the pretense.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins