Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Some thoughts about the Creator


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
18 replies to this topic

#1
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

I'd like to bring up a couple of aspects of nature that I think point to a Designer.  One of these is long term memory as described in the following scenario:  my wife informs me that a classmate I went to university with over 30 years ago has received a scientific prize for her groundbreaking work.  Faster than a super computer,  I comment, yes Mary was her mother.  I'm sure you can think of many similar examples. This characteristic surely has no evolutionary benefit.  Doesn't it surely seem a gift from the Creator?

A second example is in biology/chemistry.  I have for a long time been interested in the citric acid cycle.  It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term.  I have seen some theories of its development posted by evolutionists, but I am not really satisfied. Either it works or it doesn't. Maybe someone here has read in the literature a better theory of its origins.

Of course these examples do not tell us about the nature of the Designer, but we can fill in the blanks.  I am interested if any nonbelievers (and believers) care to shed some light on these instances.

 

Daniel



#2
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

I'd like to bring up a couple of aspects of nature that I think point to a Designer.  One of these is long term memory as described in the following scenario:  my wife informs me that a classmate I went to university with over 30 years ago has received a scientific prize for her groundbreaking work.  Faster than a super computer,  I comment, yes Mary was her mother.  I'm sure you can think of many similar examples. This characteristic surely has no evolutionary benefit.  Doesn't it surely seem a gift from the Creator?

A second example is in biology/chemistry.  I have for a long time been interested in the citric acid cycle.  It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term.  I have seen some theories of its development posted by evolutionists, but I am not really satisfied. Either it works or it doesn't. Maybe someone here has read in the literature a better theory of its origins.

Of course these examples do not tell us about the nature of the Designer, but we can fill in the blanks.  I am interested if any nonbelievers (and believers) care to shed some light on these instances.

 

Daniel

 

 

=============================================================================

 

 

"It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term"

 

Why? Irreducible Complexity is everywhere. 

 

Irreducible Complexity: a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes "THAT" system to effectively cease functioning.

 

Take a bicycle it has many parts: wheels, handle bars, seat, reflectors et al.  Irreducible Complexity says if you remove a wheel.... the bike won't function; it's Irreducibly Complex in that respect.  Now if you take that wheel and make a Unicycle that doesn't Ipso Facto make the One Wheeled Bicycle "not" Irreducibly Complex...it still ain't working.

 

As for the reflectors, seat (Ouch), and other non-essential parts.... it can still work or be a bike but there are certain parts (Chain, Wheels et al) @ the Core that makes it Irreducibly Complex.

 

When you're building a House what is the Rate Limiting Set to finish the House? ......The Roof.  What has to be in place to put the Roof On?....the Walls/Support Decks.  A house is Irreducibly Complex.

 

Or do folks in your neck of the woods, after laying the Foundation; say, "Forget the walls who needs them....lets go ahead and put the Roof on"??

 

Behe was all over this...and let me add, Nobody has refuted Irreducible Complexity.  All they refuted were Strawmen (Fallacies), they conjured.  And I can very well Validate that very fact.

 

 

ps.  Behe wasn't the first, it was Identified Officially just before Woodstock:  Polanyi, M., Life’s irreducible structure, Science 160:1308–1312, 1968.



#3
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.



#4
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

 

 

The analogy is spot on...it makes no difference, those points are irrelevant.

 

@ The Dover Trial,  which was a Kangaroo court, they got bamboozled by a Strawmen (Fallacy).  As I said, I can summarily refute their Strawmen of either the Blood Coagulation Cascade or the Flagellar Motor.

 

Say when?



#5
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

Do you really think the blood coagulation process is irreducible?  A cursory look at the process in another animal will confirm that this is not the case.  Same with the flagellar motor. I'm not saying these systems were not designed, but I think the concept cannot be applied in these  examples.



#6
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects.  We can observe their manufacture and know they are created.  It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins.  The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.  While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does.  Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

 

=================================================================================================

 

I failed to support my claim of "Kangaroo Court".....

 

@ the end of a Trail, a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down:  Both Sides File with the Judge:  "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.

Eric Rothschild (ACLU) The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:

 

ER (ACLU): "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".

 

So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".

 

ER (ACLU): "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."

 

So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence.  It's exactly the same sentence in TOTO.

 

ER (ACLU): "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions.  If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.

 

So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon".  Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".

 

If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is Eric Rothschild's (aka: ACLU) Complete Document cut and pasted for Judge Jones to Render!!

 

Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that:  "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)

 

 

The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed.

 

The whole point, or inference as you stated, from Behe's point of view was that these "Specifically Complex" Machines (Flagellar Motor) in this case couldn't have been built or "evolve" one step @ a Time over millennia or any other time frame.  They had to be Complete and working in TOTO.  Unless, you ascribe Sentience/Intelligence/ Prescience to stupid atoms.

 

The big problem was, Irreducible Complexity Falsified (Again...SEE: Punctuated Equilibrium and Convergent evolution) this little number....

 

Charles Darwin "Origin of Species":  "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."

 

 

The Flagellar Motor/Apparatus is used for swimming.....so, what the opposition was postulating??... that Prokaryotes sat around for fill in the blank______ time frame while Stupid Atoms got together and constructed a Motor...so then it could swim?  Nope that's ludicrous, they went this route....  "Co-Opted" parts of a less "Specifically Complex" apparatus (The Type III Secretory System).....This is a Clumsy Strawman Argument (Fallacy) and Non-Sequitur (If you wish for me to elaborate, just say the word). 

It doesn't Work or is "Not Functional" until the Core Parts of the "Motor" are in Place.  If one piece of the 50 piece motor is missing....you don't get 49/50ths of swimming: you get Bupkis/Nada....a Football Bat.  Tracking?

 

By proxy, they're saying the need for the Bacteria to inject hosts with Toxins "came about" before the need to Swim. :huh:  Preposterous!  And that's not even dealing with their collective Strawman.

 

The Flagellar Motor....

 

Eight million of them would fit in the cross-sectional area of an average human hair.

 

Like an electrical motor, the flagellum contains a rod (drive shaft), a hook (universal joint), L and P rings (bushings/bearings), S and M rings (rotor), and a C ring and stud (stator). The flagellar filament (propeller) is attached to the flagellar motor via the hook. To function completely, the flagellum requires over 40 different proteins. The electrical power for driving the motor is supplied by the voltage difference developed across the cell (plasma) membrane.
A bacterial flagellar motor has the amazing quality of combining speed with efficiency. These extremely efficient motors can quickly stop, start, change speeds, and reach a top speed of about 100,000 rpm (revolutions per minute)! The cell is propelled up to 15 body-lengths per second at top speed. If this could be scaled up, it would be like a person of height 1.8 m (6 ft) swimming at 100 km/h (60 mph).

Also it is very versatile, as it has forward and reverse gears, enabling the germ to reverse
direction within a quarter of a turn. In contrast most man-made electric motors are up to
75–95% efficient at larger sizes, but lose efficiency as they get smaller.The bacterial motor is almost 100% efficient at cruising speed. The bacterium uses only 2% of its total energy for swimming.
Harikrishnan.J:  In-Vivo NanoBot Aided Cancerous Tissue Targeting and Therapy

 

 

Furthermore, What is a Judge with Zero Scientific Background doing adjudicating on "Science"?  Who's next MADD?

 

Also, the decision has "NO" jurisdiction outside Dover.



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Do you really think the blood coagulation process is irreducible? 

 

I don't "think", I know it is.

 

 

A cursory look at the process in another animal will confirm that this is not the case.

 

A cursory look, eh?  Here comes the Strawman...another animal will confirm it's not the case, eh?  Nothing like comparing Apples to Orangutans.

 

Well lets take a "cursory" look....

 

The Clotting Cascade, (most land-dwelling vertebrates) has TWO Pathways (Intrinsic and Extrinsic).  They both arrive @ The Fork in the "Y" with Factor Xa then the (The Final Common Pathway).  Since there are "TWO Pathways" that can reach this point, The "System" before the Fork is not Irreducibly Complex by the simple fact that there are TWO Pathways.  What is Irreducibly Complex is everything after this FORK from Factor Xa which converts Prothrombin to Thrombin!!  aka...The 4 STEPS of Final Pathway: The Actual Blood Clotting!!

 

The Argument that "Purportedly" refuted Behe was that: whales and dolphins lack Factor XII (Intrinsic Pathway), puffer fish lack factors XI, XII, and XIIa (Intrinsic Pathway) and jawed fish lack the Intrinsic Pathway altogether.... and their Blood still Clots.  Well, so what? :24:  Give me utter irrelevancy for $500 Alex.

 

They "ALL" still have the Extrinsic Pathway that leads to Factor Xa.....The Entire Point!!  So the argument in TOTO is a Strawman (Logical Fallacy) and Non-Sequitur (Logical Fallacy).

 

This Argument is Tantamount to saying....that a bike doesn't need both its wheels because unicycles function with one wheel.

 

We can solve this....take all these and Knockout Factor Xa or any single--- (Prothrombin, Thrombin, Fibrinogen, Fibrin, or Factor XIIIa---{which is activated by Thrombin}) and lets see what we get!!

 

Moreover, Lets Knockout Vit K (Co-Enzyme) and see what you get!

 

TIP: Fallacies are Fallacious.

 

 

Same with the flagellar motor.

 

Baloney.

 

A simpler system that has some of the same parts (The Type III Secretory System)  as another system doesn't suggest that the more complex system isn't irreducibly complex. If a system minus one part can perform a similar function, that would be evidence. But if you see another system that looks similar to the more complex but has 10 parts missing and performs a "different function", then AT BEST, it shows that some things are made using a similar pattern and materials. A Cessna has many things in common with a Flying Fortress, but the design differences require an intelligent agent to bring them about.

 

The Type III System is missing the ENTIRE "MOTOR" assembly!  It's another Strawman (Fallacy) in TOTO.

 

So, You're saying that if we took the Battery out of a car...(Ergo, the car doesn't start); but we can use the Car Battery for a Paper Weight, that means, the Football Bat Battery-less Car (That's still not working) is not Irreducibly Complex because we still have the Paper Weight?  :help:

 

The argument against it is Nonsensical (I'm being Kind)

 

The literature on the matter is also in agreement...

 

‘It seems plausible that the original type III secretion system for virulence factors evolved from those for flagellar assembly.’
Mecsas, J., and Strauss, E.J., Molecular Mechanisms of Bacterial Virulence: Type III Secretion and Pathogenicity Islands, Emerging Infectious Diseases 2(4), October–December 1996

 

‘We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.’
Nguyen L. et al., Phylogenetic analyses of the constituents of Type III protein secretion systems, J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2(2):125–44, April 2000.

 

They're saying Flagellar "First"....then Type III, not the other way around.  Of course, they're assuming evolution; Ergo...both are Begging The Question (Fallacy)



#8
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

Your definition of straw man is quite rarified, lol



#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Here's another Irreducibly Complex Process....

 

Transcription (Abbreviated version): To make ONE "Functional Protein": DNA (Blue-Print/Instructions/SOFTWARE) needs to be Unzipped, Read and Copied (Transcription). RNA Polymerase (RNAP- "Functional Proteins" + RNA) A mind boggling Complex Molecular Rotary Motor, Tape Reader, and Copy Machine (not including roughly 70 other Co-Regulators that have to work in Concert with RNAP that if not working properly, gives you BUPKIS!)....that means the process is Irreducibly Complex!

 

If RNAP is missing or 1 of the 70 Co-Regulators ("Functional Proteins").... do you get 70/71st of a "Functional Protein" or No "Functional Protein"? Ya get ZERO!.... The "process" is Irreducibly Complex.

 

 

Translation is another Irreducibly Complex Process (about 30 Steps would qualify with just a cursory review)....I haven't teased the specifics out yet; too many players  :)  If I get about a week of free time, I'll attempt to itemize it.



#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Your definition of straw man is quite rarified, lol

 

 

This is my definition, Straw Man Fallacy:  is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

 

The exact same technique employed (as I illustrated) to "Purportedly" refute Behe. 

 

Anything else?



#11
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

Here's the thing.  If you demonstrate that a process is irreducible, you must make a leap of faith and state, well, that proves design.  That there is no other possible way for that process to come about- -  we understand all of it that is to be understood.  As I noted in my OP, which you seem to be criticizing, I offered some entities which could lead one to infer that design is involved as a consideration.  I see the weakness in watchmaker arguments as comparing complex natural entities to human created entities.  Of course there was a watchmaker, we know it to be so because we can observe it over and over.  But with natural systems or objects, we have no experience in observing their emergence; we weren't there.  It becomes a matter of faith unless we discover a process.  The best thing to be said for teleological arguments is that they are interesting, but the verdict is not proven.   I think they are more for reassurance of believers rather than convincing of outsiders.



#12
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Here's the thing.  If you demonstrate that a process is irreducible, you must make a leap of faith and state, well, that proves design.  That there is no other possible way for that process to come about- -  we understand all of it that is to be understood.  As I noted in my OP, which you seem to be criticizing, I offered some entities which could lead one to infer that design is involved as a consideration.  I see the weakness in watchmaker arguments as comparing complex natural entities to human created entities.  Of course there was a watchmaker, we know it to be so because we can observe it over and over.  But with natural systems or objects, we have no experience in observing their emergence; we weren't there.  It becomes a matter of faith unless we discover a process.  The best thing to be said for teleological arguments is that they are interesting, but the verdict is not proven.   I think they are more for reassurance of believers rather than convincing of outsiders.

 

=================================================================

 

 

If you demonstrate that a process is irreducible, you must make a leap of faith and state, well, that proves design.

 

Yes, it's a leap of Basic Reasoning

 

That there is no other possible way for that process to come about- -  we understand all of it that is to be understood.

 

There's only 2 Possibilities:  Random Chance or Intelligent Design.  In the history of man, only Intelligence constructs "Motors".  Moreover, for a system to be built "One-Step" @ a Time requires Planning/Intelligence. Have you ever seen "Nature" or Random "Chance" Plan something or have Prescience?

 

This is also teetering on an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy)..... infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false.

 

 

As I noted in my OP, which you seem to be criticizing,

 

I took issue with your slight of Irreducible Complexity

 

 

I see the weakness in watchmaker arguments as comparing complex natural entities to human created entities.

 

That's because your Equivocating(Fallacy) between "Complex" vs "Specific Complexity".  Once you stop that, there is no issue.

 

 "order"/"complex" and "Specific Complexity"....

"Order" is or can be:   abcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcdabcd. "Sand Dune" "Snowflake".........   Nature Construct.
"Specific Complexity":  The Declaration of Independence.  "Sand Castle"....... Intelligent Design Construct.

 

Seti: This search would be pointless and quite Nonsensical if they weren't able to tell the difference in random noises "order" from "NATURE" and "Specific Complex" communication "INTELLIGENT DESIGN".

"Living things are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."
L. Orgel PhD Chemistry

 

Examples:

 

Cholecystokinin is a Peptide Hormone produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption...Without it you die.

 

Albumin is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids.  Of it's many functions, it's Main function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis...without it you die.

 

They are Specifically Complex...you cannot interchange them.  They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.

 

 

But with natural systems or objects, we have no experience in observing their emergence; we weren't there.

 

I can assure you "nature" can not build a motor.  We have plenty of Experience with Design and Information.....trace the source, it invariably leads to Intelligence; every single time.

 

This is an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy)
 

 

It becomes a matter of faith unless we discover a process.

 

"Blind" Faith:  Belief without Substance and is admonished against in Scripture, by Proxy: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Biblical Faith: (Hebrews 11:1) "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

Massive Difference!

 

 

The best thing to be said for teleological arguments is that they are interesting, but the verdict is not proven.

 

I don't think so, see above in TOTO.



#13
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

Not random chance or design.  This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate and misleading.  I don't think anyone mentioned random chance as in the case of Hoyle's Ultimate 747.  There is an alternative process (although I think that is also set up by God).  As for an argument from ignorance, it is good that you mentioned it in the first instance.  It was placed to intentionally demonstrate an absurdity.  In the second instance, we passed through a fog.  You are writing off my intent as a fallacy ( and being quite ornery about it, I might add.  I bet they don't invite you to many parties :D).  I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened; we only have ideas to explain it.  I am not seeking to prove something by presenting a lack of evidence one way or the other.



#14
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Not random chance or design.  This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate.  I don't think anyone mentioned random chance like Hoyle's Ultimate 747.  There is an alternative process (although I think that is also set up by God).  As for an argument from ignorance, it is good that you mentioned it in the first instance.  It was placed to intentionally demonstrate an absurdity.  In the second instance, we passed through a fog.  You are writing off my intent as a fallacy.  I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened; we only have ideas to explain it.  I am not seeking to prove something by presenting a lack of evidence one way or the other.

 

============================================================================================
 

Not random chance or design.  This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate.

 

No, it's accurate...unless you'd like to provide the 3rd choice?

 

You only have 2 choices: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

 

Based on the Law of non-contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't exist @ the same time (or do you disagree?).  It's better stated as: either Randomness or Intelligent Design Created us and the Universe. This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened

 

That's an Argument from Ignorance.  And, if nobody was there to "Observe" it..."it" never Existed; Validated by Experiment (SEE: QM--- Double-Slit and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser) from here: http://www.worthychr...-7#entry2137488



#15
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

 

Not random chance or design.  This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate.  I don't think anyone mentioned random chance like Hoyle's Ultimate 747.  There is an alternative process (although I think that is also set up by God).  As for an argument from ignorance, it is good that you mentioned it in the first instance.  It was placed to intentionally demonstrate an absurdity.  In the second instance, we passed through a fog.  You are writing off my intent as a fallacy.  I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened; we only have ideas to explain it.  I am not seeking to prove something by presenting a lack of evidence one way or the other.

 

============================================================================================
 

Not random chance or design.  This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate.

 

No, it's accurate...unless you'd like to provide the 3rd choice?

 

You only have 2 choices: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

 

Based on the Law of non-contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't exist @ the same time (or do you disagree?).  It's better stated as: either Randomness or Intelligent Design Created us and the Universe. This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.

 

I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened

 

That's an Argument from Ignorance.  And, if nobody was there to "Observe" it..."it" never Existed; Validated by Experiment (SEE: QM--- Double-Slit and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser) from here: http://www.worthychr...-7#entry2137488

 

I don't see how the process of natural selection can be misconstrued as blind chance.   Isn't this a false dichotomy?

No it's not an argument from ignorance, my friend.  I am not seeking to prove or disprove.; you are putting words in my mouth.  You use a lot of fancy terminology, but I think it is void of substance. Ah me, was that an Ad Hominem assault? Say goodnight Gracie. .



#16
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

I don't see how the process of natural selection can be misconstrued as blind chance.  I would suggest looking up Dawkin's Mount Improbable (no I don't believe all he says).

No it's not an argument from ignorance, my friend.  I am not seeking to prove or disprove.; you are putting words in my mouth.  You use a lot of fancy terminology, but I think it is void of substance. Ah me, was that an Ad Hominem assault? Cheers.

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

I don't see how the process of natural selection can be misconstrued as blind chance.

 

Natural Selection?  :huh:

 

First of all, Prebiotic Natural Selection is Non-Sequitur...

 

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."

 

aka Begging The Question (FALLACY)

 

"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)

 

2nd of all,

 

Not only is Natural Selection NOT an Inanimate Object.... it's not even an Object.  If you disagree, please post Chemical Structure....?

 

This is Reification (Fallacy).  Natural Selection is a "Concept" (ie... Professionalism in State Government, Freedom, Justice, Time et al) it's neither Sentient or Intelligent.  To propose Natural Selection is responsible is Tantamount to:

 

The "Race for Space" (constructed) the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" (developed) the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" (Wrote) Beethoven's 9th.
 

 

You use a lot of fancy terminology, but I think it is void of substance.

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy), for instance.....?



#17
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts

Ha ha! thank heaven we can laugh at each other.  I was going to post a reference, but you may think I'm an atheist, which I'm not. Take care



#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,728 posts

Ha ha! thank heaven we can laugh at each other.  I was going to post a reference, but you may think I'm an atheist, which I'm not. Take care

 

================================================================================================

 

Were you going to post a reference showing how "concepts" can send messages or create "encrypted code"?



#19
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,421 posts
I'm still laughing. You write with such flourish that I must Kratzen nach den Ohren (scratch my head) now and then.




Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network