Originally posted by KellyJaySure. That's why it took three and a half billion years to happen.
The amount of time and effort applied to
creating a CPU compared to life is nothing because the complex nature
of life is so huge,[/b]
Are you saying that, you don't believe in the rise of complexity from simplicity because things are just too complex? And you're seriously saying that the answer is that what is clearly a more complex being is the only thing that makes sense for how that complexity came to be? Do you understand how this seems ridiculous to us?
Originally posted by convectPerhaps an illustration will do better.
No...if God is necessary for explaining complex biological forms, then you're going with a model that is not evolution as understood by biologists. You're saying that evolutionary theory is wrong, because God is necessary for it.
I have no conflict with interventionism. But interventionism is not biology.
There is a group of people who know nothing of our society. These people happen upon a car. They have no idea how it go there. They have no idea how it works. For the sake of this example, nothing they do ever damages the vehicle and the vehicle will always work.
Through playing around with the car, they find out that if you turn the key, it will start up. If you move the lever, then it will roll forward or backwards depening on where you move the lever. If you push certain pedals, then the car will either go faster or stop.
As far as they are concerned, the car has always been there, but the car was designed and created by people who they have never met nor do they know anything about.
In this story, the car is evolution. The gears and pedals are the mechanisms by which evolution works. The people who are studying the car are of course us and the people who created the car itself represent God.
Just because evolution works a certain way, this does not mean that the design itself did not originate with God. As I've tried to say with the specialized parts of the eye, natural selection in itself does not explain why all the specialized parts would come together to form the mechanisms that allow for sight. Sure the different evolutions could have happened and just sat there doing nothing until the other parts evolved, but they would not have been an improvement without the other parts. Natural Selection says that things that improve the species will have a better chance at survival and over a period of time will become the dominant trait.
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladarhttp://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker
Perhaps an illustration will do better.
There is a group of people who know nothing of our society. These people happen upon a car. They have no idea how it go there. They have no idea how it works. For the sake of this example, nothing they do ever damages the vehicle and the vehicle will always work.
Through playing around with the car, they find will have a better chance at survival and over a period of time will become the dominant trait.
is the best response I have to the fanciest attempt at The Blind Watchmaker that I've heard in awhile.
Nice effort, though. I hadn't heard it with a car before.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarJust because evolution works a certain way, does not mean that design exists. In fact, current theory says that evolution works in a way that makes it looked designed!
Just because evolution works a certain way, this does not mean that the design itself did not originate with God.
Originally posted by convectI was not trying to convince you that ID is correct. I was merely pointing out that just because the car runs, that does not mean it wasn't created. In other words, studying how evolution works, does not mean it wasn't designed.
Just because evolution works a certain way, does not mean that design exists. In fact, current theory says that evolution works in a way that makes it looked designed!
Of course it does not mean it was designed. It just means that the study of evolution itself says absolutely nothing either way.
Originally posted by EladarI quite agree. The theory of evolution by natural selection is utterly agnostic with regards to the origin of the process of evolution, and has nothing to say about how life began. Why the two sides can't seem to agree on this and then move on I just don't understand...
I was not trying to convince you that ID is correct. I was merely pointing out that just because the car runs, that does not mean it wasn't created. In other words, studying how evolution works, does not mean it wasn't designed.
Of course it does not mean it was designed. It just means that the study of evolution itself says absolutely nothing either way.
Originally posted by KellyJayMy italics...
I dislike the idea of life being an accident due to the high level of
functionally complex sub-systems working together with other systems
and forming a fully developed living system like a bird, rabbit, whale,
ant, elm tree, and so on. The amount of time and effort applied to
creating a CPU compared to life is nothing because the complex natur ...[text shortened]... rted and got
more complex over time, not in a billion years and I mean that
literally.
Kelly
This is the crux of the problem that everyone here is having with you. "Dislike" of an idea does not, cannot and will not make that idea incorrect. There is no room for "dislike" when trying to come to terms with our reality and describe its truth. I dislike the idea that everything that is ever alive will die, but that does not change the reality of it. I dislike the idea that nuclear weapons have the capacity to destroy entire cities, but the physical reality is that they do.
Your arguments are based on the fact that you don't want evolution to be true, and as such are paper thin. The fact that you cling to them in the face of such overwhelming evidence - that you are clearly too frightened to read or even acknowledge - suggests a distinct lack of curiosity and intellectual rigour for one who pretends to have both.
Several of your opponents have shown the patience of your angels in demonstrating time and again the fundamental incorrectness of your assumptions and unsupported claims and still you continue to make them. Why?
Originally posted by EladarPerhaps an illustration will do better:
Perhaps an illustration will do better.
There is a group of people who know nothing of our society. These people happen upon a car. They have no idea how it go there. They have no idea how it works. For the sake of this example, nothing they do ever damages the vehicle and the vehicle will always work.
Through playing around with the car, they find ...[text shortened]... will have a better chance at survival and over a period of time will become the dominant trait.
Let's imagine a nest of Pogonomyrmex ants. Their nests are very distinctive: they clear out all of the vegetation around their hole, leaving barren ground with a diameter of about a meter. Now some tragedy befalls the colony, and it dies, but a new one springs up nearby. And the new one clears out the grass, and the configuration happens to look like a footprint.
Now you and I come across it. And you say, "Oh wow! A giant footprint!" And I'm going to crouch down and say, "No, look, there's all these ants. I know these ants: they're Pogonomyrmex!" And then maybe you'll say, "Sure, I see, those ants, but your random theory of ant selection doesn't explain why it's shaped like a footprint!" and then you can tell me a nice story about cars and watchmakers.
Originally posted by EladarThe point you say you are trying to make is that although evolution explains the appearence of design without having a Designer, that says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the Designer. Fine--this is a completely uncontroversial and fairly obvious point. Choosing to believe in the Designer, or choosing to withhold belief, is taking a step beyond science. You choose to believe, I see no reason to believe in something that is simultaneously unnecessary and unlikely, and quite frankly when I really think about it is pretty odious in many ways.
Either you have missed my point completely or you are intentionally trying to change the subject.
Your way of making this point was to use a story in which you were right because the car obviously was made in a factory, and I'm narrow-minded or limited for not seeing that. So I responded with a story where I'm figuring out what actually happened, and you are possibly delusional for insisting a pattern where none exists. (I'm a little proud of the footprint metaphor, in fact--I think it illustrates the conflict quite nicely!)
The point you say you are trying to make is that although evolution explains the appearence of design without having a Designer, that says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the Designer.
Yes, that's my point of view. Sure, you can come up with ways of trying to explain how things could have happened, but from my point of view, those explanations are contrived.
I'd say the reason why people like myself use machines for examples is because things like the human body and even flowers can be seen as machines. They are biological machines, but machines none the less.
The specialized parts of the machine do not serve a purpose without the supporting parts. I do not believe that natural selection explains how such machines can come into existance.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI’m not sure that they can be properly viewed as machines. Is the fact that a human being is “biological” no more than incidental to the machine-like nature of human beings generally?
I'd say the reason why people like myself use machines for examples is because things like the human body and even flowers can be seen as machines. They are biological machines, but machines none the less.
The specialized parts of the machine do not serve a purpose without the supporting parts. I do not believe that natural selection explains how such machines can come into existance.
I am not a scientist, so I have to look at these questions philosophically.
Of course, if you view biological beings a being just “living artifacts” (whether that is correct or not), then the charge of question-begging still stands. By designating biological beings as such, you have implicitly assumed an artificer. The conclusion is assumed in the premise.
Any reaonable argument for ID has to overcome such a logical fallacy.