gray wolf Posted August 13, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted August 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted August 13, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted August 13, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 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 ). 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted August 13, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted August 13, 2014 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted August 13, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Author Share Posted August 13, 2014 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: 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted August 14, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted August 14, 2014 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? 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.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted August 14, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted August 14, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted August 14, 2014 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"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted August 14, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Author Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm still laughing. You write with such flourish that I must Kratzen nach den Ohren (scratch my head) now and then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts