Posts by hooberus

I showed that even if the designer themself must be included under the the ID definition of "complexity" [which I disagree], that the fact remains that the design statement in the O.P. still does not require an infinite regression of designers.

Furthermore, I demonstrated that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the argument for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?

24

How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus in

formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.

) complexity defined specifically and 2.

hooberus

By your reasoning, could you deny this scenario: We were created by an intelligent race of aliens who pop in and out of new universes across the multiverse, so they aren't tied to starting points in time like the Big Bang. As far as they tell us, they have always been like the quantum foam. They are the Greys. Stay Awake.

Midget, Do you accept the following brief reasoning: "the origin of the complexity from non-complexity of the computer that midget-sasquatch is typing on is best explained as the result of intelligent design, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".? Does it initself specifically deny your above strange scenario?

24

How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus in

formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.

) complexity defined specifically and 2.

hooberus

The main purpose of this thread is to show that the argument (from observed complexity) for the necessity of an intelligent designer if properly stated need not also necessarily require any logical problem- such as an inifinite regression. Before digressing more into the issue of what is meant specifically by "complexity", it needs to be pointed out that even if an intelligent desginer itself had to also be complex [which I don't nesessarily accept], the fact remains that the initial ID statement given in the OP here would still not necessarilry also require the designer to themself have a designer. This is due to the fact that the statement in the OP is referring only to complexity that has an origin being best explained as the result of a designer rather that as the result of natural processes. "The origin of complexity from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes". Given that there is nothing in the above statement that also requires the desginer to themself have an origin, there is no requirement in the above for them to also have a designer themself. This is true even if the designer were also defined as being complex.

It also needs to be remembered that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the arguemt for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?

24

How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design

by hooberus in

formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:.

) complexity defined specifically and 2.

hooberus

Formally and explicitly stated the argument from design is written such as:

"The origin of complexity* [see below for definition] from non-complexity is best explained as the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".

*complexity defined for example as complex systems composed of multiple componet parts or complexity defined as organized specified complexity.

Note that the above argument is dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin from non-complexity. To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design).

However, when it comes to complex biological systems anti-creationists protest and claim that the argument from design is somehow illogical, requiring an infinite regression of designers, or other logical fallacies. Their argument for example is that: "If complexity requires and intelligent designer then the intelligent designer must himself have required a designer, and his intelligent designer a designer, etc, etc, !!"

In order to do this though they do they omit the fact that the design argument is explicitly or implicitly dealing with 1.) complexity defined specifically and 2.) with complexity that has an origin. Their method is to automatically define all types of intelligent designers as "complexity"; and then to also ignore the fact that the design argument is dealing specifically with complexity that has an origin, and not any other.

By doing these things they twist a logically valid argument from design into a strawman requiring an illogical conclusion.

8

Evolution explained

by rebel8 in

difference between scientific laws, hypotheses, and theories: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm.

hypothesis: this is an educated guess based upon observation.

it is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.

hooberus

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

Myth: "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."

Response: "Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes." From another page of the same site:

From another page on the same site:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01

"Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

This illustrates well the tactics evolutionists use on this particular issue. In response to creationist arguments on the particular issue of the origin of life (such ashttp://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html ) evolutionists frequently resond with statements similar the first above [though normally more dogmatic]. However, to the public (and especially students) they continue promote alleged "positive" evidence for the origin of life as part of the evolutionary version of history, that they desire other to believe.

129

Why I am an atheist

by Awakened at Gilead in

someone (a born-again exjw) on youtube asked me why i was an atheist... i crafted a brief response... it follows:.

1. religious reason: there is no proof for god outside of the bible.

once i dropped my belief in the bible, the judeo-christian concept of god fell apart like a house of cards.

hooberus

2. Scientific reason: I went to a natural history musem and learned about the earth's history. This confirmed my lack of belief in a god. Think about how long the earth has existed (4.5 billion years). Life's emergence (3 billion years ago), the pattern of life developing matches evolutionary theory; 5 mass destructions have caused the death and extinction of most of the species that have ever existed (i.e. ice ages; asteroids; massive volcanic activity, etc); so...

Logic like the stuff in Hooberus link is what helped me see the error of my former thinking. Scientists will look at something and study it to find out it's origins and history whether or not it conflicts with their belief system or anyone elses. Creationists start with a belief system and try to mold data to fit their particular persuasion. Just like JW's translating the bible. The translate around their beliefs in order to make it appear the scriptures support their doctrines.

"Secular" Natural History museums also start with their own philosophical presuppositions and then interpret the data accordingly. Using these anti-biblical presuppositions (e.g. naturalism, etc.), they then generate a "secular" version of history, in opposition to recorded history in the Bible.

"If you are concerned about the propaganda presented in natural history museums, this beautifully illustrated and full color book is for you. The book provides the true history behind more than 100 common museum exhibits. Excellent for school field trips to your favorite museum."

129

Why I am an atheist

by Awakened at Gilead in

someone (a born-again exjw) on youtube asked me why i was an atheist... i crafted a brief response... it follows:.

1. religious reason: there is no proof for god outside of the bible.

once i dropped my belief in the bible, the judeo-christian concept of god fell apart like a house of cards.

hooberus

2. Scientific reason: I went to a natural history musem and learned about the earth's history. This confirmed my lack of belief in a god. Think about how long the earth has existed (4.5 billion years). Life's emergence (3 billion years ago), the pattern of life developing matches evolutionary theory; 5 mass destructions have caused the death and extinction of most of the species that have ever existed (i.e. ice ages; asteroids; massive volcanic activity, etc); so...

"If you are concerned about the propaganda presented in natural history museums, this beautifully illustrated and full color book is for you. The book provides the true history behind more than 100 common museum exhibits. Excellent for school field trips to your favorite museum."

available from

http://www.creationresearch.org

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

"I just found this great video about Ben Stein's "Expelled""

Maybe you can post it here Dave:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/158917/1/ABIOGENESIS-and-the-EVOLUTION-DEBATE

87

How many ATHEISTS don't believe that they came from FISH?

by hooberus in

how many atheists are there who don't believe that they came from fish ?.

the outspoken ones that i have come into contact with always seem to (when pressed anyway) advocate such a thing.

many of them surely even put something like it on their car, such as:.

hooberus

H. Sapiens came from "early fish" the same way that modern "fish" came from "early humans." How's that to confuse the issue? The phrase "came from" is not a sufficient point to get hung up on. Popular science articles will usually contain such simplifications. So do you or do you not understand what "came from" means in this context?

This is what I meant when I said "came from fish". Its a sketch of a "simplified family tree" from the 1968 Smithsonian book "The Evidence of Evolution". (I was unable to transfer a scan from the actual better imaged page to here from microsoft "word" - perhaps someone knows how.). Anyway the book is essentailly the same as below:

Compare this with the recent:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/04/fossils.uknews

"Humans are vertebrates, as are rabbits, eagles and frogs, and as such we are all evolved from fish,"

(The above pictures depicted ancient fish would of course also be the ancestor to the modern fish as well).