DLL Hell, Software Interdependencies, and Darwinian Evolution

_{GilDodgen
June 6, 2009

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In our home we have six computers (distributed among me, my wife, and two daughters): two Macs, two Windows machines, and two Linux (Unix) machines. I’m the IT (Information Technology) or IS (Information Systems) guy in the household — whatever is is.

A chronic problem rears its ugly head on a regular basis when I attempt to update any of our computer systems: Software programs are often interdependent. DLLs are dynamic link libraries of executable code which are accessed by multiple programs, in order to save memory and disk space. But this interdependence can cause big problems. If the DLL is updated but the accessing program is not, all hell will break loose and the program will either severely malfunction or suffer an ignominious, catastrophic, instantaneous death. On the other hand, if the program is updated and the DLL is not, the same thing can happen.

I’m still trying to figure out how the circulatory avian lung evolved in a step-by-tiny-step fashion from the reptilian bellows lung, without encountering DLL hell, and how the hypothesized intermediates did not die of asphyxia at the moment of birth (or hatching), without the chance to reproduce.

Of course, we all know that this kind of challenge — no matter how obvious or compelling — presents no problem for the D-Fundies (Darwinian Fundamentalists), who are true believers in the clearly impossible, based on materialistic assumptions in which design could not possibly have played a role.

Comments

pubdef–“ID seems to require the existence of something for which we really have no evidence.” As opposed to pinning it’s hopes on the expectation of the spontaneous generation of life? What evidence do we have for that?
I think you're not comparing apples to apples. I'm raising a basic concept of ID, the bedrock principle that "intelligence" can provide an explanation that is superior to material-based explanations. You're rebutting with a specific question that you apparently think materialistic science has a problem answering. In this light, I think it's inapposite to talk about "pinning its hopes," for two reasons. First, a materialistic theory of evolution does not have to answer every question, especially in an area (abiogenesis) which is not, strictly speak, in its purview. Second, even if we're looking at materialistic science as a whole, the question of abiogenesis is the subject of exploration; there are scientists who are trying to learn about it. Are there ID-oriented scientists who are trying to understand the nature of an intelligence that would be capable of creating life? So, which paradigm (ID or materialism) requires the bigger step outside of the empirical data?pubdef_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

By the way Legend, Genetic information is not like something with meaning - it is something with meaning. Codons are not like symbols in a symbol system - they are symbols in a symbol system. Nucleic sequencing is not like prescriptive digital information - it is prescriptive digital information. Genetic transcription and translation is not like a physically-inert language - it is a physically-inert language. There is nothing in the laws that govern this universe that says genetic information has to exist the way it does. In fact, as far as the physical laws of the universe are concerned, it doesn't even have to exist at all. Yet it exists, without physical laws to explain it. So...when you are tracing those physical causes of observable phenomena inside this universe, you won't run out of road at the Big Bang, you'll run out of road at the point that information organizes inanimate matter into living tissue.Upright BiPed_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

--Legend: "No, that isn’t my argument at all, although I know it’s easier to knock down a scarecrow than a real life man who can resist and knock you down instead. Go back and read what I wrote, and try to follow along. We posit the necessity of causes based on our observations of things in this universe and the laws of nature of this universe." Sorry there Legend, but when you posit there are traceable causes back to a point where there are no more causes, then I have accurately described your position. Sorry if you don't like the implications of your position, but you can amend it any time. Secondly, no one is trying to look beyond or outside this Universe. It is the very observations within this universe that cannot be explained by material causes. I see you understand this point, or you would'nt be trying so hard to rid yourself of the facts.Upright BiPed_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Sometimes upon re-reading, I see that the direction of my posts can easy to miss. Something to work on. But I'm not in the hyperskeptical camp. My point was that to refer to DNA and its reproduction as "order" is a gross oversimplification. And that it is a union of information and physical mechanisms which cannot be reduced to "computer jargon."ScottAndrews_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Legend--What was the state of things before this universe? We don’t know. Well, we do know some things. We know our laws of physics couldn't have applied else the universe would not have come into existence. If time did not exist, what can it mean to say that something needed a cause. Well, time does exist now so that means something had to have occurred to have caused our particular set of circumstances to come about. And can you see the irony in what you are espousing? :-)tribune7_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfocus, It is remarkable that so much quotation worthy research was done without involving a design hypothesis!Nakashima_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

PPPPS: Legend (and SA): I see selective hyperskepticism is alive and wellt his morning at UD, on the DNA- RNA- Ribosome- Enzyme algorithmic, 4-state digital code controlled protein manufacturing system. (Don't get me started on routing to destinations in the cell using headers and transport networks . . . ) Let me just draw on materialism-leaning Wiki, in its article on the genetic code, citing the lead to the article:
The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or RNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids. A triplet codon in a nucleic acid sequence usually specifies a single amino acid (though in some cases the same codon triplet in different locations can code unambiguously for two different amino acids, the correct choice at each location being determined by context)[1]. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code, though in fact there are many variant codes. Thus the canonical genetic code is not universal. For example, in humans, protein synthesis in mitochondria relies on a genetic code that varies from the canonical code. It is important to know that not all genetic information is stored using the genetic code. All organisms' DNA contain regulatory sequences, intergenic segments, and chromosomal structural areas that can contribute greatly to phenotype but operate using distinct sets of rules that may or may not be as straightforward as the codon-to-amino acid paradigm that usually underlies the genetic code (see epigenetics).
In the article on epigenetics, we may read:
In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.[2] The best example of epigenetic changes in eukaryotic biology is the process of cellular differentiation. During morphogenesis, totipotent stem cells become the various pluripotent cell lines of the embryo which in turn become fully differentiated cells. In other words, a single fertilized egg cell - the zygote - changes into the many cell types including neurons, muscle cells, epithelium, blood vessels et cetera as it continues to divide. It does so by activating some genes while inhibiting others.[3] . . . . The molecular basis of epigenetics is complex. It involves modifications of the activation of certain genes, but not the basic structure of DNA. Additionally, the chromatin proteins associated with DNA may be activated or silenced. This accounts for why the differentiated cells in a multi-cellular organism express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity. Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism's lifetime, but some epigenetic changes are inherited from one generation to the next.[9] Specific epigenetic processes include paramutation, bookmarking, imprinting, gene silencing, X chromosome inactivation, position effect, reprogramming, transvection, maternal effects, the progress of carcinogenesis, many effects of teratogens, regulation of histone modifications and heterochromatin, and technical limitations affecting parthenogenesis and cloning.
This is food for thought for one snack for us members of the Clapham Bus Stop society.kairosfocus_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

PPS: Legend. Sorry to have to say this, but I see no signs -- despite your self-reported longterm lurker status -- of a serious engagement on the merits on your part. Please, do not fall into the trap of being wise in your own eyes, unconscious of being a prisoner in a manipulative, modern-day Plato's cave world of manipulative shadow-shows. (To show that you have not fallen into that trap, the best answer would be to engage at least a good cross section of issues on the merits, and soundly show why the design alternative is an inferior explanation to your preferred evolutionary materialist one. Just as, I have taken the time to put my more complete thoughts down as a briefing note, and link them through every post I make. You may disagree with the conclusions I have drawn, but I would think that the always linked will show that I have reasons and evidence for my conclusions, not just empty-headed repetitions of someone else's ideas. For instance you will see why I think there is a link from thermodynamics to information [including the fact of controversy on it, and why I think Brillouin and Jaynes et al have a valid point], and why I think that FSCI is a good and reliable sign of intelligence; including a rule of thumb metric for the threshold where this comes into play. Thence, you will see how this relates to OOL, OO body plan diversity, and extending to the issue of finetuning, to cosmology. You will also see why I consider that something is rotten in the state of early C21 science and science education on origins, something that -- with the help of colleagues and partners -- I intend to do something about; on an INDEPENDENT basis. History and economics both tell us that there is nothing like a little free competition to fix the problems of hubris-laced monopoly.)kairosfocus_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Legendary1:
You can couch it in computer engineering jargon all you want, but the fact remains that DNA and the other structures of life are not computerized. They just show order.
They "just" show order. It sounds so simple. How does one arrange such things in order? If using technical terms to describe them is just a smokescreen to make them seem more complex than they are, then try accurately describing them without technical terms. BTW, "protein manufacturing," "three dimensional," "precisely folded," and "transport systems" are not computer jargon.ScottAndrews_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

I should have clarified my previous statement and said the DNA, transcription, translation process. DNA can and does exist in certain instances and is quite unremarkable just as are crystals and snow flakes.jerry_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

"You can couch it in computer engineering jargon all you want, but the fact remains that DNA and the other structures of life are not computerized. They just show order. You can’t beg the question and simply say, “well, I used a lot of technological terms to describe them, so isn’t it obvious that they are designed?” No, it isn’t, especially when a proven non-design related mechanism has been shown to exist, your denial notwithstanding." Well, quite a stupid statement. DNA, computer programming and language are similar phenomena, though not exactly identical. There is nothing else like them except intelligently designed.jerry_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Clive:
No one doubts that there must be a cause, in general. What is in question is whether the cause was personal or not. And I don’t hang my Christian hat on this peg, so you can stop with the silly motive mongering game of why folks adhere to a personal first cause. Could it be that a personal first cause just makes good sense? But, I suppose that you reckon no personal first cause, and that the Big Bang occurred on its own after the singularity created itself, and over time here you are, a non-personal thing yourself, just a cloud of atoms, a box of fireworks no different in content or personality than that singularity. As if a thing exploding will one day come to know itself. Makes perfect sense.
Good argument, Clive! I hadn't considered that things always do have the properties and intentionalities of the mechanisms that created them. That's why swords made in forges by blacksmiths remain burning hot like the fires they were forged in, and they are as intelligent as the smith, while crystals formed from chaotic magma show no structure whatsoever. Good show.
That was a fantastic point Gil. I’ll tuck that one away for future reference. Very well put.
You should tuck that away and quote it as much as possible. It will gain you great respect. And remember, if you ever want to simulate anything to do with airspeed or something like that, you should throw your computer out the window. Gil:
Okay, let me get this straight: A base-four, digitally encoded protein-manufacturing system that folds the manufactured proteins into precise three-dimensional shapes that are required for interactive function with a multitude of other manufactured and precisely folded proteins, and a transport system with lock-and-key verification systems, not to mention error detection and repair algorithms, give no indication whatsoever of engineered technology.
You can couch it in computer engineering jargon all you want, but the fact remains that DNA and the other structures of life are not computerized. They just show order. You can't beg the question and simply say, "well, I used a lot of technological terms to describe them, so isn't it obvious that they are designed?" No, it isn't, especially when a proven non-design related mechanism has been shown to exist, your denial notwithstanding. Upright biped:
By your reasoning, we think for some unknown reason, that there must be one final cause right before there are no more causes to look for…and since we can’t assume there are any more causes after the last one we found - it must mean there isn’t any. Therefore believing there isn’t is more correct than believing there is?
No, that isn't my argument at all, although I know it's easier to knock down a scarecrow than a real life man who can resist and knock you down instead. Go back and read what I wrote, and try to follow along. We posit the necessity of causes based on our observations of things in this universe and the laws of nature of this universe. This universe, strangely enough, did not exist before it existed. What was the state of things before this universe? We don't know. Put another way, causation (which involved priority-- one thing coming before another) is dependent on time. Time and space came to be at the start of this universe. If time did not exist, what can it mean to say that something needed a cause. Before had no meaning, thus cause had no meaning, thus there is no way one can hold onto the necessity of causation when causation has no meaning whatsoever in a pre-universe state. Now bring on the strawmen arguments!Legendary1_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Gil, 68:
when evolutionary biologists make claims about the creative power of their proposed mechanism of random variation and natural selection to produce systems that give every indication of being highly engineered technology, they should be required to produce at least some empirical evidence — not declarations of consensus within their incestuous group — that the proposed mechanism is actually capable of producing the technology we observe.
Spot on -- just one reason why I am glad to see you back. GEM of TKI PS: The allusions to ethos, pathos and logos are to the three classes of persuasion in rhetoric, e.g. in Aristotle's the Rhetoric, Bk 1 Ch 2:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos, more or less to [perceived credibility or authority]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos -- emotions]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos - fact and logic, real or perceived]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .
kairosfocus_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Nakshima-San: I am well aware that GA's are alleged to mimic evolution. New World Enc makes a very relevant distinction, in its discussion of algorithms:
Genetic algorithms attempt to find solutions to problems by mimicking the theory of biological evolution, in which cycles of "random mutations" are thought to yield successive generations of "solutions." This process is likened to the concept of "survival of the fittest." In genetic programming, the algorithm is regarded as a "solution" to a problem.
In short, we must make a distinction between the actual state of the world and the models propounded by evolutionary biologists etc. Similarly, in Wiki's intro to its GA article, that materialism-leaning site makes a very telling acknowledgment:
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search technique used in computing to find exact or approximate solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms are categorized as global search heuristics. Genetic algorithms are a particular class of evolutionary algorithms that use techniques inspired by evolutionary biology such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover (also called recombination).
Evo bio is of course a field of study with a particular dominant theoretical paradigm, not a state of the world. (Science is inherently provisional and all that.) But more directly, observe that we are dealing with a search technique, one that is intelligently directed and set up. The crucial first challenge remains that in the prebiotic world as imagined under evolutionary materialist scenarios, there were no intelligences to direct whatever chemical formations may have occurred, so the search space challenge to get to shores of function thence enabling differential success of competing functions, and optimising by hill climbing. Also, observed independently living unicellular life is subject to autodisintegration of functionality below DNA complexity of a bit over 300,000 base pairs; which specifies a configuration space that is vastly beyond the search resources of the observed cosmos. (NB: RDK's "must have" is a matter of deduction within a circle of Lewontinian materialistic assumptions as addressed in my always linked note, Section E. Nor, are all alternatives to evo mat scenarios equivalent to Young Earth Creationism. Nor, is YEC properly to be brushed aside with a dismissive sneer, without cogently answering not just the perceived weaker issues they raise but the central and far more difficult to address ones too -- the ones that just happen to overlap with the very different -- and far older [it goes back to being immemorial in the days of Plato . . . ] -- movement of thought, Intelligent Design. Strawmen and ad hominems leading to sneering prejudices and dismissals will not do; at least, not here at UD.) Similarly, on macroevolution, the need of body plan origination and transmission from generation to generation poses the challenge that, credibly, 10's - 100's of mega bits of bioinformation has to be embryologically feasible before a novel body plan can come into existence to find and compete in an ecological niche. Worse, in the case of earth, on the usual timelines, the Cambrian is a window of 5 - 10 MY or so. In that window, on the fossil evidence -- and this has been in material part known since Darwin's day -- there is a "sudden" wide bursting out of dozens of phylum and subphylum level branches on the body plans of animals. So, on evo mat premises, 100's - 1,000's or mega bits of bio-information have to originate in this one small planet in a very tight time window, by chance + necessity. Simply the scope of the information explosion is beyond the probabilistically credible reach of the observed cosmos, much less 5 - 10 MY or even 4 - 5 BY on this one small planet. By contrast, we have the observation hat intelligent designers routinely create FSCI-rich systems, with this or larger scopes of functional algorithmic, coded digital information. And, in every case of such information, where we independently directly know the origin, it is produced by intelligence. So, intelligent design is a very reasonable explanation for the origin and body plan level diversity of life. One that -- Lewontinian a priori marterialist impositins notwithstanding -- is supported by the exact same type of induction that underlies ever so much of our scientific reasoning. So, it has every reason to be treated as a scientifically based inference, noises by today's evolutionary materialist de facto magisteria notwithstanding. GEM of TKI PS: RDK: First, a note: kindly, note that that every post I make here is linked to an extensive discussion of the issues you have made. Consult these before making further ad hominem laced assertions.kairosfocus_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 72: "Gil, Legendary3, ——”As a side note, Gil, I remember when you wrote an article here claiming that for a computer simulation to properly model random selection, errors would have to be instituted in the “underlying machinery.” You said “both the hardware and the software must be subject to random errors,” i.e the hardware as in the computer itself.” That was a fantastic point Gil. I’ll tuck that one away for future reference. Very well put." Changing the hardware in a computer that's running a computer simulation would be like changing the laws of physics in the universe that's running the phenomena being simulated.djmullen_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Upright: "Makes perfect sense if you say it fast enough" Legend AKA Alice: "If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?" Vividvividbleau_{June 9, 2009
June
06
Jun
9
09
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

--Legendary (ha!) “Your side is the one positing the necessity of a first cause for the universe (to make your faith in the Christian god seem more rational). I have shown that one has no reason whatsoever to feel that a first cause for the universe is a necessity. Thus your side’s argument falls apart.” Are you actually staring into space when you write this stuff? (alright, whatever…) Anyway, let me understand this; (Our) side, is positing the necessity for a first cause for the universe, and (We) are doing it to make a case for, presumably, (O)ur beliefs. Please enlighten me; what are the names of these Christians who dragged science into believing that everything has a material cause leading back to the beginning of space and time? What an evil plot, these Christians. They’ve fooled the scientists into believing that the Big Bang was the start of things. Then, those crazy scientists started mapping everything backwards – insisting cause upon cause – into the very core of the shockwave that started it all. It’s almost like causes came to be expected, even necessary. No one even suggested they stop looking. --Legendary (ha!) Nowhere did I say we must be agnostic. Implicit in my refutation is also the idea that we have no reason to think there wasn’t a first cause, whatever that might be. We just have no reason to think there was; we can’t decide between the two options. And if we can’t decide between them, clearly we can’t make the first cause argument that Bornagain thinks he can make. Somebody help me out here; what is the opposite of a fish out of water? By your reasoning, we think for some unknown reason, that there must be one final cause right before there are no more causes to look for…and since we can’t assume there are any more causes after the last one we found - it must mean there isn’t any. Therefore believing there isn’t is more correct than believing there is? Makes perfect sense if you say it fast enough.Upright BiPed_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

pubdef--“ID seems to require the existence of something for which we really have no evidence.” As opposed to pinning it's hopes on the expectation of the spontaneous generation of life? What evidence do we have for that? Anyway, it's not so much "no evidence" it's that there is no certainty -- at least no measurable certainty -- which is true of anything involving the unknown. With regard to evidence, in which direction do the scales tip? The expectation that highly complex things can form at random or via unknown necessities that would violate a fundamental biological axiom, or the understanding that there must be an uncaused cause not affected by the laws of physics and the observation that life is highly analogous to things of known design?tribune7_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT}

Gil, the systems do not “give every indication of being highly engineered technology.” Okay, let me get this straight: A base-four, digitally encoded protein-manufacturing system that folds the manufactured proteins into precise three-dimensional shapes that are required for interactive function with a multitude of other manufactured and precisely folded proteins, and a transport system with lock-and-key verification systems, not to mention error detection and repair algorithms, give no indication whatsoever of engineered technology. It is at this point that one must throw up his hands in horror at the capacity of some intellectuals for self-inflicted blindness, and the denial of evidence and logic.GilDodgen_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

Gil, Legendary3, ------"As a side note, Gil, I remember when you wrote an article here claiming that for a computer simulation to properly model random selection, errors would have to be instituted in the “underlying machinery.” You said “both the hardware and the software must be subject to random errors,” i.e the hardware as in the computer itself. I’ve had a great deal of difficulty taking seriously anything you say about computer simulations since I read that." That was a fantastic point Gil. I'll tuck that one away for future reference. Very well put.Clive Hayden_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Legendary2, ------"Your side is the one positing the necessity of a first cause for the universe (to make your faith in the Christian god seem more rational)." No one doubts that there must be a cause, in general. What is in question is whether the cause was personal or not. And I don't hang my Christian hat on this peg, so you can stop with the silly motive mongering game of why folks adhere to a personal first cause. Could it be that a personal first cause just makes good sense? But, I suppose that you reckon no personal first cause, and that the Big Bang occurred on its own after the singularity created itself, and over time here you are, a non-personal thing yourself, just a cloud of atoms, a box of fireworks no different in content or personality than that singularity. As if a thing exploding will one day come to know itself. Makes perfect sense.Clive Hayden_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Gil, the systems do not "give every indication of being highly engineered technology." By smuggling in this assumption you beg the question-- you assume what you are trying to prove. Whether or not life looks like engineered technology is the issue under question here. Nice try though. Also, there is plenty of empirical evidence, both experimental and otherwise, for evolution. You just choose to ignore it. Unfortunately, there won't be anything I could say or any evidence I could point out to you that would be able to break through your shell of rationalizations and denial. As a side note, Gil, I remember when you wrote an article here claiming that for a computer simulation to properly model random selection, errors would have to be instituted in the "underlying machinery." You said "both the hardware and the software must be subject to random errors," i.e the hardware as in the computer itself. I've had a great deal of difficulty taking seriously anything you say about computer simulations since I read that.Legendary1_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

I don't, and you aren't grasping what I am saying. Your side is the one positing the necessity of a first cause for the universe (to make your faith in the Christian god seem more rational). I have shown that one has no reason whatsoever to feel that a first cause for the universe is a necessity. Thus your side's argument falls apart. Nowhere did I say we must be agnostic. Implicit in my refutation is also the idea that we have no reason to think there wasn't a first cause, whatever that might be. We just have no reason to think there was; we can't decide between the two options. And if we can't decide between them, clearly we can't make the first cause argument that Bornagain thinks he can make.Legendary1_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Legend: ...Gil’s criticism that computer simulations can’t possibly be right and his claims that engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists... Dear Mr. Legend, You are not only a legend in your own time, but a legend in your own mind. The quote above betrays a hideous misrepresentation of everything I've posted at UD. I never said that "computer simulations can’t possibly be right." I write computer simulations that are demonstrably right. What I've said is that computer simulations that make extravagant simplifying assumptions can't be trusted unless they are empirically tested against the reality they attempt to simulate. Even in my areas of expertise -- AI, guidance, navigation and control, and transient, nonlinear, dynamic finite element analysis -- my sims are never trusted until they are compared with reality. I never said that "engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists." I've claimed that when evolutionary biologists make claims about the creative power of their proposed mechanism of random variation and natural selection to produce systems that give every indication of being highly engineered technology, they should be required to produce at least some empirical evidence -- not declarations of consensus within their incestuous group -- that the proposed mechanism is actually capable of producing the technology we observe. In no other area of real, hard science would the extravagant, untested, and unverified claims of Darwinists be accepted without challenge.GilDodgen_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

Legendary1, You do kid yourself, for your negation of any positive explanation can only be a negation if you at least know enough to know that the positive explanation is wrong. It's fine to be agnostic, but let's not say that we know that we must be agnostic, for we do not know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable, to quote a phrase.Clive Hayden_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

No, sorry. We aren't stuck in an infinite regress, because there only need be an initial cause in OUR universe. We have no idea what the state of things were like before our universe. Something like causation may not have applied. We don't know. But in any case, it defeats the necessity of a prime mover. How did the universe get here? I don't know. You don't either. I, however, don't kid myself that I do.Legendary1_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Legendary2, ------"No, logos is important too, hence my reference to the reams of evidence on the one side (which of course the other side is lacking)." The other side is lacking logos. I like arguments by assertion too :D. ------"or those who have claimed that I am new hear and thus don’t know what I’m talking about, let me just say..." I do claim that you don't know what you're talking about, regardless of your time as a lurker. And yes, the logos is entirely on the side of the ID folks. ------"Bornagain77, you said: “Everything That begins to exist has a cause” Legendary2 responds: ------"That’s a clever attempt to get around the objection that your argument also applies to god." No it doesn't. There has to be a prime reality, an initial first mover, otherwise you're in an infinite regress of causes. Maybe you're comfortable with an infinite regress of causes as an explanation, I'm not. Besides, it is a non sequitur to attribute the same necessary conditions and causes to something supernatural, as we can legitimately attribute the necessary causes to the natural. Never the twain shall meet as far as needing causes; it only applies to natural stuff. Your argument is bad :)Clive Hayden_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Legendary "That’s a clever attempt to get around the objection that your argument also applies to god" Wrong. Legendary "So we really cannot say if the universe needed a cause to come into existence." No of course we cant say that beCAUSE the universe was caused by nothing!! Or the universe "poofed" into existence. Or the universe "existed before it existed". Or "nothing did it". Or "do you believe in magic?" All these are live possibilites. Like the Queen told Alice in so many words when Alice asked about believing impossible things. The Queen:"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Bourne and Upright you just need to practice more. Vividvividbleau_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Does God Exist? Argument From The Origin Of Nature - Kirk Durston http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ncttu3p0RlYbornagain77_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Clive: No, logos is important too, hence my reference to the reams of evidence on the one side (which of course the other side is lacking). For those who have claimed that I am new hear and thus don't know what I'm talking about, let me just say that I have been reading this site since before the Dover trial. I have read it faithfully, slogging through Davescott's marine posts, attempts by O'Leary to equate evolution to Nazism, Gil's criticism that computer simulations can't possibly be right and his claims that engineers are in a better position to judge biology than biologists, and Mr. Dembski's street theater. I have also read Behe's "Edge of Evolution" and Dembski's "No Free Lunch." And yes, the logos (both in terms of evidence and logic) as well as the ethos are on the side of evolution. Bornagain77, you said: "Everything That begins to exist has a cause" That's a clever attempt to get around the objection that your argument also applies to god. But your argument still fails. How do you know that everything that begins to exist has a cause? By observing things in this universe. So, if you want to be proper, you should say, "Everything that we know of in this universe that begins to exist has a cause." This is true because of the laws of this universe (we'll leave aside quantum physics, which has actually called this into question). Well, the universe is not inside this universe, now is it? Plus, the laws of this universe break down at the moment of the big bang. So we really cannot say if the universe needed a cause to come into existence. Your argument is bad.Legendary1_{June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply