Irreducible Complexity

[Saviourmachine]

organ system

So do viruses have an organ system? And computer viruses? Wow!

[crazy-tiger]

Accept by faith, life does not come from nonlife.  Accept by faith, this "life" cannot procreate.  Understanding how a micro organism reproduces, does not give proof that this is where it all starts... small steps of life, until we eventually get bigger, stronger...  Without the original having the ability to recreate, it will not be able to recreate.  Who put the "mind" into this "life" that it would recreate anyways, or even know what recreating is?  We don't even have to argue other levels of evolution, because we will never get past the very beginning, when life came into existance.

Abiogenesis, not Evolution. You're continual insistance that they are the same is proof that you are ignorant about both of them.

I have never been given a good explaination for how life "knew" to create itself... or even where the nonlife, that life came from... came from what?  Where did this nonlife material come from?  We witness in all forms of both life and nonlife, material deteriorates (this is a law of thermodynamics).  How long did this material (if it always existed and didn't just come from nothing) exist, deteriorating over time... it must have had a beginning.  If it didn't, then why is everything working towards chaos?  If it has always existed, then I don't see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics could be true, as everything is effected by entropy.

We can add an ignorance of the Laws of Thermodynamics to the ignorance of Abiogenesis and Evolution that you are demonstrating.

If it came into existance at some point... where did it come from?  The way I see it, all of these things and countless many other things point to a creator.  Who is that creator?  That's another story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who created the Creator? Or are you going to claim that it popped into existence from nothing?

 

 

Should we add Special Pleading to the list of mistakes you're making?

[Mr. Neil]

If it came into existance at some point... where did it come from?  The way I see it, all of these things and countless many other things point to a creator.  Who is that creator?  That's another story.

(Neil rolls up a newspaper and smacks the amateur apologist repeatedly)

 

You have committed the all-time most common fallacy of argumentation, that of argumentum ad ignorantum; the classic appeal to ignorance.

 

Let's observe this nonsense. First, you ask the presumptuous question. "Where did it all come from?" Then you point to your startling conclusion, the all-powerful intelligent creator. Shock! Amazement! A Chistian arrives at the conclusion that the universe was designed. How totally unexpected.

 

But I must point out that you display absolutely no methodology for this conclusion. You just kind of sloppily throw it out there. Don't just assert. Explain to us how you acheive this conclusion. Give us some ways that you tested this theory of yours. Explain to us how it might be hypothetically falsifiable.

 

Of course, if you can't do any of this (as I expect that you can't), then it just confirms that you really had no method of achieving your conclusion. In which case, your logic is more likely to fall along the lines of this outline...

 

 

"Where did life/the universe come from?" --> "I don't know." --> "God did it."

 

 

You see, I don't know how you're getting from step 2 to step 3. Furthermore, a supernatural entity is negatively defined. It's a non-copereal, non-tangible, and immaterial entity. In other words, there isn't a single positive characteristic with which to identify a supernatural entity. How then could you possibly infer that a supernatural being has done anything?

 

Even if I could grant that there is some other form of reality under which "supernatural" falls, I can't help but notice the astonishing duality of theistic thinking, in which the orderly characteristics of the natural world must imply a designer, and yet the supernatural world is exempt from this same line of inference. To avoid this double standard, you'd have to consider that the creator must also have a creator. However, that become paradoxial, and thus it reveals the illogical nature of theism.

 

The following diagram is my logic. Notice that it's missing the gigantic leap of your logic.

 

 

"How did life/the universe come to be?" --> "I don't know."

 

 

Now, I've debated a lot of Christians, and the recurring theme I see again and again is that the Christian is absolutely mortified to stop at "I don't know". They think they can infer things from ignorance, but they have yet to explain how.

[Ouroboros]

Accept by faith, life does not come from nonlife.  Accept by faith, this "life" cannot procreate.

"Accept by faith" is radically contradictory to "Find out by science". This is a extremely poor argument for Irreducible Complexity.

 

To accept something by faith is completely your own choice, by that is not an argument against what science can find, test and prove.

 

For instance I don't just accept by faith that Allah created the world, or Zeus or any other god-system.

 

Basically you want ID to be brought into schools to be taught parallel with evolution, not because of evidence, logic or reason but solely on faith. You're proposing the government to force teachers to preach the faith in biology class! Fascinating! I hope you will accept that Wicca, Hinduism and Islam and other religions get a fair share of preaching too then?

 

I have never been given a good explaination for how life "knew" to create itself...

It didn't know. Like MrSpooky said, crystals reproduce. How? How do they know that they reproduce? What is their intention and purpose when they're reproducing? Do they think "Hey, I'm going to make some more crystals"?

 

or even where the nonlife, that life came from... came from what?  Where did this nonlife material come from?  We witness in all forms of both life and nonlife, material deteriorates (this is a law of thermodynamics).  How long did this material (if it always existed and didn't just come from nothing) exist, deteriorating over time... it must have had a beginning.  If it didn't, then why is everything working towards chaos?  If it has always existed, then I don't see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics could be true, as everything is effected by entropy.  If it came into existance at some point... where did it come from?  The way I see it, all of these things and countless many other things point to a creator.  Who is that creator?  That's another story.

OOoooohh! The pain!!! Not another person argumenting the 2nd LoTD!!!

 

Daniel, look for the "Knowledge" topic on this site, and read all the thousands of posts about this issue.

It's a waste of time to argue this in this thread.

[daniel_1012]

Abiogenesis, not Evolution. You're continual insistance that they are the same is proof that you are ignorant about both of them.

 

No, really, I was talking about Evolution. Since the daddy of the of Evolution is inevitably the Big Bang, knocking that one out will inevitably domino down evolution.

 

We can add an ignorance of the Laws of Thermodynamics to the ignorance of Abiogenesis and Evolution that you are demonstrating.

 

So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that everything is moving towards chaos? http://www.secondlaw.com/

 

Who created the Creator? Or are you going to claim that it popped into existence from nothing?

Should we add Special Pleading to the list of mistakes you're making?

 

Yes, it's quite simple really. *being God* He is not effected by His creation. God doesn't have to have an existence in this dimension, because the confinements of this dimension were created *for us* -- we are *His Creation.* Like I built the computer I'm using to type this up right now. I can manipulate programs, words, pictures, colors, and a countless number of other things. Just because the computer might get it in its silicon self to start thinking, "dang, there is nothing beyond us! Look how great I am! I must have come from nothing!" Just because a computer makes ignorant claims, doesn't mean I disappear. Furthermore, I am evermore, still in control.

 

The only bad thing about this analogy (and consequently all analogies) is that whenever we try to give face to the person of God, we must explain it in terms *we can understand*. Of course, we can't explain them in terms we don't understand! :-) That is to say, God created us within three dimensions of height, width, depth... I can't perceive in some other dimension because those are the ones in which I am confined... nor can I truly comprehend to explain another dimension, accept in vain comparisons and explanations of the dimensions I know.

 

What's all this hogwash about? Well, simply God is in no way effected, nor *from* our universe... He is outside, and He is inside... but He is not FROM the laws which govern this universe... the laws of this universe are FROM Him. God created time, space, and matter. All of these things have no effect on God's ability, or His existence over "time." He always has been.

[daniel_1012]

So do viruses have an organ system? And computer viruses? Wow!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, actually they do. Interesting you would mention computer viruses. An interesting characteristing about them, is that we know they were created. Without the knowledge to input whatever it is that is in that virus by the person that made it... it would not be a virus. Even that virus has programming and code that must be right in order for it to function, and it had to come from somewhere.

[Ouroboros]

No, really, I was talking about Evolution.  Since the daddy of the of Evolution is inevitably the Big Bang, knocking that one out will inevitably domino down evolution.

No, it won't. Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution before the Big Bang theory. So...no, the theories won't fall.

 

So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that everything is moving towards chaos?  http://www.secondlaw.com/

The 2LoTD doesn't counter the effects of gravity. Gravity is an additional force that the law doesn't account for. The problem is solved with something called Gravity Contrasts, at least according to Martin Rees, prof of astrophysics and cosmology at the University of Cambridge.

 

Yes, it's quite simple really.  *being God* He is not effected by His creation.  God doesn't have to have an existence in this dimension, because the confinements of this dimension were created *for us* -- we are *His Creation.*  Like I built the computer I'm using to type this up right now.  I can manipulate programs, words, pictures, colors, and a countless number of other things.  Just because the computer might get it in its silicon self to start thinking, "dang, there is nothing beyond us!  Look how great I am!  I must have come from nothing!"  Just because a computer makes ignorant claims, doesn't mean I disappear.  Furthermore, I am evermore, still in control.

And computers are not built by one human, but by many, and with the help of many machines, so you analogy leaves open for a higher level of interpretation: there is many gods, and the universe was created by a machine in the hands of these Gods. Big Bang and Evolution could just be parts of the program in this machine. So why even bother to try to deny its existence and the proofs?

 

The only bad thing about this analogy (and consequently all analogies) is that whenever we try to give face to the person of God, we must explain it in terms *we can understand*.  Of course, we can't explain them in terms we don't understand! :-)  That is to say, God created us within three dimensions of height, width, depth... I can't perceive in some other dimension because those are the ones in which I am confined... nor can I truly comprehend to explain another dimension, accept in vain comparisons and explanations of the dimensions I know.

Which immediately leads to the question, if you can't know, how can you claim we must be wrong?

 

What's all this hogwash about?  Well, simply God is in no way effected, nor *from* our universe... He is outside, and He is inside... but He is not FROM the laws which govern this universe... the laws of this universe are FROM Him.  God created time, space, and matter.  All of these things have no effect on God's ability, or His existence over "time."  He always has been.

You're making an assumption that God is a certain way, and that he fits a certain profile, and especially a characterization that was made by other people that you never met or know if you can trust.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, actually they do.  Interesting you would mention computer viruses.  An interesting characteristing about them, is that we know they were created.  Without the knowledge to input whatever it is that is in that virus by the person that made it... it would not be a virus.  Even that virus has programming and code that must be right in order for it to function, and it had to come from somewhere.

Today the most advanced computer viruses mutate and evolve, by the same principles of Evolution. Since you deny evolutionary process to be able to explain development of higher beings and more fit species, than you have to deny that computer viruses have the ability to mutate and conform to resist detection. Which way do you want to go? The principles are wrong, and computer viruses don't evolve? Or the principles actually works, since we have evidence on the mathematical level that they do?

 

And yes, computer viruses are man made. And in some instances made through other software, that someone else made. Can we conclude the humans were created by a software that God#201 made for God#56?

[crazy-tiger]

No, really, I was talking about Evolution.  Since the daddy of the of Evolution is inevitably the Big Bang, knocking that one out will inevitably domino down evolution.

Brother, are you mis-informed or what...

 

Since evolution only requires the existence of life, any argument against it that rests on the improbabilities of anything before life existed is a strawman. Or, in my own terms, a complete load of bollocks that people who don't know what the hell they're talking about come out with.

 

 

Just to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, think about this... BBT explains how the universe began, but makes no claims as to what caused it. Yes, that means it could well have been a creator... BBT doesn't rely on there NOT being one.

Abiogenesis explains how life came about, but not what caused it to come about. Again, Abiogenesis doesn't rely on there NOT being a creator.

Evolution explains why there are so many different species and shows the inter-relatedness of said species, but not about what caused life... Oh yes... evolution works whether there was a creator or not.

 

Any argument based on the "BBT/Abiogenesis/Evolution says there is no creator" argument is a load of crap.

So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that everything is moving towards chaos?  http://www.secondlaw.com/

If you read the site you linked to, you would see that it doesn't.

 

The only place that gets said in on Creationist websites where they are lacking the understanding of the 2nd LoT.

Yes, it's quite simple really.  *being God* He is not effected by His creation.  God doesn't have to have an existence in this dimension, because the confinements of this dimension were created *for us* -- we are *His Creation.*  Like I built the computer I'm using to type this up right now.  I can manipulate programs, words, pictures, colors, and a countless number of other things.  Just because the computer might get it in its silicon self to start thinking, "dang, there is nothing beyond us!  Look how great I am!  I must have come from nothing!"  Just because a computer makes ignorant claims, doesn't mean I disappear.  Furthermore, I am evermore, still in control.

Sorry? You are saying that because you are in this dimension, and the computer is in this dimension, is a good example of God?

 

For God to have an effect on this dimension, he would have to be part of this dimension...

The only bad thing about this analogy (and consequently all analogies) is that whenever we try to give face to the person of God, we must explain it in terms *we can understand*.  Of course, we can't explain them in terms we don't understand! :-)  That is to say, God created us within three dimensions of height, width, depth... I can't perceive in some other dimension because those are the ones in which I am confined... nor can I truly comprehend to explain another dimension, accept in vain comparisons and explanations of the dimensions I know.

You can't perceive in other dimensions, but you are stating what's in them?

 

No lad, the only bad thing about your analogy is it doesn't fit at all...

What's all this hogwash about?  Well, simply God is in no way effected, nor *from* our universe... He is outside, and He is inside... but He is not FROM the laws which govern this universe... the laws of this universe are FROM Him.  God created time, space, and matter.  All of these things have no effect on God's ability, or His existence over "time."  He always has been.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If he's inside, he's affected by the laws of this universe. If he's outside, then hes not inside.

 

God cannot be inside and not affected... it is a contradiction of terms. God also cannot have created time, because he would need time to do anything, including create things.

 

And don't try the "but God is outside time" argument... that just means that God is inert, unchanging, never doing anything... The use of that argument just refutes your own.

 

 

I was right though... you used Special Pleading.

[Mr. Neil]

Daniel, may I propose an intervention here? Your arguments are really, really bad, and you're just going to get embarrassed here. Take my advice and try to learn something about evolution and physics before you try to engage non-believers.

 

And when I say "learn something about evolution", I don't mean that you should go to a religious creation science website and read their distorted nonsense. If you plan on just engaging us with stuff you read on AiG, ICR, or Dr. Dino, you're going to get beat up very badly. Those websites have extremely bad arguments.

 

What you should do is read some books and articles about evolution written by real evolutionary biologists. At least find out what evolution actually is. It's clear that you don't know.

[daniel_1012]

Neil,

 

No, you may not.

[daniel_1012]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done. Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

[Saviourmachine]

Yes, actually they do.  Interesting you would mention computer viruses.  An interesting characteristing about them, is that we know they were created.  Without the knowledge to input whatever it is that is in that virus by the person that made it... it would not be a virus.  Even that virus has programming and code that must be right in order for it to function, and it had to come from somewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, you doesn't fool me. I'm doing a master in Knowledge Engineering (consider it as a mix of Electrical Engineering and Informatics) and I programmed neural networks etcetera. Do you know of Von Neumann automata? Do you know Eigen's work? Do you know of hypercycles?

 

Do you consider the self-replication process as something that has to be designed? Or do you consider the material/informatical building blocks to have to exist beforehand?

 

If you think that computer viruses do have organs, I think I am allowed to think that they can arise spontaneously. Do you know Avida?

[Ouroboros]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

[Dhampir]

ohhhh.... I was just starting in.... give me some more time...please?

[Kryten]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Come on, don't let them scare you away! Fight back! Use your weapons-- the Holy Spirit, knowledge from God and the sword of truth. Pray for wisdom! Don't run away-- it only makes you look stupid and weak.

[Mr. Neil]

Neil,

 

No, you may not.

Then you're going to get destroyed here. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

 

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

All show and no substance. Your arrogant showboating will get you nowhere here, my poor, misinformed friend.

 

You can laugh all you want, religion boy, but I noticed that you didn't even bother addressing my statements about appealing to ignorance. You've demonstrated absolutely no methodology for your design inference, nor have you justified your double standard in which nature's complexity necessarily requires a designer and yet the designer himself is exempt from the very same principle.

 

Or perhaps I should point no further than to your laughable misunderstanding of evolution, which you've somehow linked to the big bang. I wonder how you even achieved such a notion. I defy you to find one peer-reviewed scientific publication linking evolution to the big bang. Show me one. Just one.

 

Allow me to shed a little light here on evolution. Evolution is basically a description of what is observed in biology. We can talk about changes in biology without knowing the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life. These are simply not necessary when describing the observable commonalities in genetics.

 

However, I'm not saying that they're not worthy subjects. They just happen to fall under different fields of science. The big bang theory is categorically associated with cosmology, and life origins falls under the science of biochemistry. Hopefully I don't have to explain why a principle of biology would not apply to pre-biological replicators. I think it's fairly obvious.

 

Science is not like the Bible. You don't just lump everything together just because the the book of Genesis lumps everything together in the creation. We're talking about various different processes here. The formation of the universe, the formation of life, and change in biology.

 

And none of them are reliant on one another. In principle, you could falsify the Big Bang without affecting evolution. Evolution is perfectly compatible with theism. It's only a matter of a false dichotomy that theists assume that God wouldn't use evolution. An assumption that's rather amusing, considering the admission that you made that no one can truly understand God. And yet, you've made assumptions on what he would and would not do, whereas I'm making no assumptions about a god, if one happens to exist. Instead, I'm just pointing to the genetic and morphological evidence and inferring that there is common descent in biology. I wouldn't have to know why God used evolution; I would just know that he apparently did. ...if he exists.

 

Now, you can adjust your understanding of evolution and science to avoid making further erroneous attacks, or you can continue to humiliate yourself by choosing to ignore our corrections. Please demonstrate some measure of intelligence by selecting the former. I hope you're not so arrogant to assume that atheists aren't capable of catching and correcting your mistakes.

[Dhampir]

and unfortunately, I like to do my new-asshole-tearing in stages. He didn't give me enough time. I only got a layer or two out.

[daniel_1012]

SaviorMachine

 

In the link to Avida, it's opening statement:

 

Avida is an auto-adaptive genetic system designed primarily for use as a platform in Digital or Artificial Life research. In lay terms, Avida is a digital world in which simple computer programs mutate and evolve.

 

Avida allows us to study questions and perform experiments in evolutionalry dynamics and theoretical biology that are intractable in real biological system.

 

What is your point? Just because we understand stuff, doesn't mean the designer goes away. Nor does it mean God goes away.

[Lunar Shadow]

Hey Neil.... How many times have we seen this bullshit double standard trying to be presented as fact??

 

 

I have lost count and I have only been here 4 months

 

 

I mean it is the same damn thing

 

Fallacy after fallacy and when they are called on it they ignore or throw out a red herring.

[Dhampir]

are you still here or are you gone after this? I had a really nice counterpoint ready but I don't want to waste it on empty air.

[Mr. Neil]

Hey Neil.... How many times have we seen this bullshit double standard trying to be presented as fact??

 

I have lost count and I have only been here 4 months

You haven't missed too much, actually, because we've had a rather large influx of bad apologetics this year. It's just been one after another. It's amazing how you can finish destroying one guy's argument, and then another guy shows up with the exact same style of reasoning.

 

I mean it is the same damn thing

 

Fallacy after fallacy and when they are called on it they ignore or throw out a red herring.

As far as fallacies go, I think I'm going to zero in on the appeal to ignorance more than anything. That seems to be the core principle of creationist apologetics.

 

I've become more intregued by the concept of memes. Memes are ideas that are infectious like viruses. If one could create a meme to counteract the appeal to ignorance, then the whole structure of apologetics would implode. If you could make apologists understand why the appeal to ignorance is wrong, then they would become self aware of their errors. They couldn't make new arguments without looking at it on paper and saying "I'm doing it again". Eventually, they would just stop.

 

If I were to ever meet Richard Dawkins, I'd like to run that idea past him to see what he says. I think it's pretty darn good idea.

[crazy-tiger]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would that be the ignorance of equating BBT with Abiogenesis with Evolution?

Would that be the ignorance of insisting that life must have Spontaneously Generated?

Would that be the ignorance of insisting that BBT, Abiogenesis and Evolution all insist that there was no creator?

Would that be the ignorance of using a caracature of Evolution?

Would that be the ignorance of what the 2nd LoT is?

Would that be the ignorance of claiming that something outside of time could actually do anything?

 

Yes, that is ignorance being shown there and, yes, it is appalling...

[Ouroboros]

I've become more intregued by the concept of memes.  Memes are ideas that are infectious like viruses.  If one could create a meme to counteract the appeal to ignorance, then the whole structure of apologetics would implode.  If you could make apologists understand why the appeal to ignorance is wrong, then they would become self aware of their errors.  They couldn't make new arguments without looking at it on paper and saying "I'm doing it again".  Eventually, they would just stop.

 

If I were to ever meet Richard Dawkins, I'd like to run that idea past him to see what he says.  I think it's pretty darn good idea.

Memes is one of my favorite subjects too. It explains so friggin much, why ideas capture such large audience and people get so easily fooled. Amazing subject.

 

I said it before, but say it again that I like the idea of a counter-memeplex too. But have no clue what it would be. Somehow science and rational thought is not enough, and I think it's because a majority of people don't bother to research and study enough to understand the subjects, but they get tired way too early, and then jump to the conclusion "goddidit", instead of getting to the bottom of the issue. I'm almost leaning towards a counter-religion just to flush out peoples ignorance and stupidity... (Watch out Christians, Anti-Christ is here!!! Muahahaha!!!)

 

Neil, did you ever read the book The Meme Machine, by Susan Blackmore? It really gets the noodles going. I truly recommend it, as a complement to Richard Dawkins.

[Ouroboros]

What is your point?  Just because we understand stuff, doesn't mean the designer goes away.  Nor does it mean God goes away.

Who said it would?

 

Maybe someone did, but my understanding of the topic isn't about if God or a designer exists, but if Irreducible Complexity is usable as a scientific approach to prove such a designer.

 

You can use argument for General Complexity issues, but it's only the Irreducible Complex systems that are at question here. They used to have the Eye as an example of I.C., but there has been many finds of lower life forms where partial sight or partial eye functions exists. So the Complexity of the Eye can be Reduced to intermediate steps.

 

And the story will go on that way. For each so called IC, eventually (if scientists still are allowed to research in this area) each IC will be found to be reducible. So IC is not an argument for ID.

 

Correct me MrSpooky and MrNeil if I misunderstood your premise and argument.

 

**edit**