Is this valid?

[Hieronymus]

Even better...stop watching youtube altogether. Youtube is bad for you, it causes cancer. I know this because I saw it. On youtube.



Because your kids are not replacements for you.

They are when i die. (if i had any, that is).
Eco system needs organisms, they die, they're replaced by offspring.
How can you argue against that?

There's quite a few things I'd call them. Replacements is not in the list.

Yet they replace their parents...
Even though their lives overlap, procreation is necessary for the Big System we call "Living Nature", because of the limited lifespan of the parts.
What word would you use?

It's an incredibly poor argument given that I've never seen a single proponent who can tell me which parts of a car are irreducibly complex.

The car itself, as a whole, is irreducibly complex.
When you start removing parts it will at some point no longer be a car or function as a car.
Same with the obvious example of a mouse trap.
How about a tooth pick?

So vague as to be worthless.

Well, it seems you only quote half of the posts, but the explanation is definitely there.
Nothing vague about it.
In fact, i just explained it again..

 

[Tanj]

The car itself, as a whole, is irreducibly complex.

So if I take the hood ornament off, it no longer works? Doesn't sound like any car I have seen.

And in case that's not clear, a car is quite reducible, down to teeny tiny nuts and bolts, all of which, ironically enough, have utility in other things....so the opposite of irreducibly complex.

 

[Hieronymus]

So if I take the hood ornament off, it no longer works? Doesn't sound like any car I have seen.

When you start removing parts it will at some point no longer be a car or function as a car.
Same with the obvious example of a mouse trap.
How about a tooth pick?

If you take the hood off it will no longer be resistant to repetitive rain, while it was designed to be resistant to repetitive rain... etcetera...

 

[Tanj]

If you take the hood off it will no longer be resistant to repetitive rain, while it was designed to be resistant to repetitive rain... etcetera...

I didn't say "hood". I said "hood ornament".

Regardless, is the argument then that a hood is both irreducible and complex, and that it (basically a large sheet of metal) would have no function outside of being a hood (the IC arguments you guys make about retinas and corneas).

Because I can think of several uses for a sheet of metal.

 

[Hieronymus]

I didn't say "hood". I said "hood ornament".

You're right. My bad.

Regardless, is the argument then that a hood is both irreducible and complex, and that it (basically a large sheet of metal) would have no function outside of being a hood (the IC arguments you guys make about retinas and corneas).

An eye without a retina is blind.
By the way, the cornea cells are highly specialized. You can see right through them.
This is an essential property of the cornea cells

Because I can think of several uses for a sheet of metal.

My point is that if you design and build a rain proof car, you also need that hood.
Yes, the ornament is less important, unless you desire the car to be identifiable by it.
Then it becomes essential.
But indeed, for it to be a car you can remove many parts of an average production car.
But at some point you can not remove parts anymore for it to be a functioning car.

 

[Tanj]

But indeed, for it to be a car you can remove many parts of an average production car.
But at some point you can not remove parts anymore for it to be a functioning car.

OK..but I'm still not getting the argument. If I remove the brain from a human it's no longer a functioning human. Why not just refer to people as irreducibly complex, instead of eyes?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But apply it then and think about it
Why is not valid?

For the simple reason that evolutionary processes do exactly that: provide pathways towards higher complexity and "irreducibly complex" systems.

It's literally what it does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its easy the core parts are those that are essential to the function of the object

Tires seem pretty essential for a car to a me.
A build-in GPS isn't.

So, to repeat @Tanj 's question: who decides what is core and what not? And by which method is it decided/concluded?

, all machines have a functionality, the purpose of the thing etc.

So?

If you remove some skin from your eye you may still see, but remove the optic nerve you can't. etc.

So?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheists believe in creation without a creator.
It doesn't matter how complex and genius it is, it's all just a marvellous accident.

Ever met Francis Collins?
He's a devout christian and evo biologist. You can read in my signature what he thinks about evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

nobody is going to buy a car without engine to use it

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can make a simple car though, which is still complex and needs to be designed and built

Because it isn't a natural object that is subject to processes like evolution.
Because it is a mechanical device that's even build from non-naturally occuring components.

I've been in plenty of car factories, but I've never seen a "biological organism factory".

 

[DogmaHunter]

More credit to the design of the human body when it passes the rule even with higher number of parts required better than the best of human inventions that required intelligence and great effort and thousands of years to make.

The human body took 3.8 billion years to develop.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, I get your definition. I'm pointing out it's vague and non useful and replacing it with my definition. Your definition came from some rando on youtube. My definition came from me, an evolutionary biologist with 30 years experience. Who ya gonna believe?

Obviously, the one who agrees with his a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs.

Derp.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You use the i have credentials thing? not for this thread but: i know God because he has done things to me, so design makes more sense even. I like scientists but in this topic, knowing God, and they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful and complex etc. no, thank you.

Would you prefer a christian with credentials?

Meet Francis Collins. You can read what he thinks about evolution in my signatrue.

But I'm guessing that it's not about credentials, nore is it even about beliefs.
It's really just about only accepting those things that agree with your a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs - and nothing else.

Because I'm sure you'll happily dissmiss people like Francis Collins as well... People WITH credentials, WITH experience and WITH christian beliefs.

Instead, you prefer a random youtube clip. Because it agrees with your personal religious beliefs.

This is how we can know that you people aren't very sincere or intellectually honest.

 

[com7fy8]

did your omniscient deity require scaffolding?

Possibly, DNA is His from the inside out scaffolding. God does in us work from the heart out, from the character out, not only trying to change us in our outward acting and talk-showing and telling.

 

[Halbhh]

You use the i have credentials thing? not for this thread but: i know God because he has done things to me, so design makes more sense even. I like scientists but in this topic, knowing God, and they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful and complex etc. no, thank you.

Consider: if God is the Creator of everything (John chapter 1), then He created not only listed things, but really everything, all of nature, and that can only mean, cannot even mean anything else, but can only mean He must have also created the very laws of Nature by which nature functions.

Right?

If He created everything, then He created physics and chemistry.

His design, then. His.

Do you agree?

So, the logical implication of God creating physics is that all that unfolded from physics over time is His design, His...machine if you like, operating.

Do you see that?

So, it could be metaphorically explained in ancient times to people that knew little or nothing of what we know of physics as God creating all on Earth, but in a vision, that would look like a time-lapse video, or instead a stylized representation.

Right?

A series of scenes, spaced apart in time.

With the key message, given in words: I have made all that is, and it is "very good" for you, for humankind, to live in.

 

[Speedwell]

Consider: if God is the Creator of everything (John chapter 1), then He created not only listed things, but really everything, all of nature, and that can only mean, cannot even mean anything else, but can only mean He must have also created the very laws of Nature by which nature functions.

Right?

If He created everything, then He created physics and chemistry.

His design, then. His.

Do you agree?

So, the logical implication of God creating physics is that all that unfolded from physics over time is His design, His...machine if you like, operating.

Do you see that?

Yes, I see it. Indeed, I believe it. But it is not ID. ID proposes and requires that in addition to unfolding according to the laws of nature, various aspects of God's creation need specific periodic divine tinkering to in order function. For example, the natural action of evolution--variation and natural selection--produces the bacterium without a "designer", but the bacterial flagellum requires "designer" intervention.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, I see it. Indeed, I believe it. But it is not ID. ID proposes and requires that in addition to unfolding according to the laws of nature, various aspects of God's creation need specific periodic divine tinkering to in order function. For example, the natural action of evolution--variation and natural selection--produces the bacterium without a "designer", but the bacterial flagellum requires "designer" intervention.

My own guess is that God intervened more than just once or twice along the way during the natural (His natural design of nature) operation of nature on Earth. I'd guess He intervened at least many times, though it's a guess.

For instance I'd guess He carefully choose the asteriod/comet or (the same eqivalent action really) screened out all the asteriods coming towards the Earth to have just the right sized one or several hit about 66 millions years ago (and others futher back in time and since, of course).

So that the asteriod or comet we estimate was around 6 to 9 miles wide (or larger if a less dense comet) that hit Earth was the right size to accomplish His intended outcome -- to make most dinosaur species into compost (in time), and clear the way for the mammals to become ascendant, dominate.

Much larger and it wipes out too much useful fauna.

Much smaller and it doesn't get the job done to clear the way and goose evolution into high gear by opening niches.

It was just right for us.

(one insteresting aspect about nature-physics-life, etc., is it cannot ever be used to prove God exists easily nor to disprove He exists easily (though of course some hypotheses can get ruled out fortunately instead of none ever), in keeping with the key goal we learn in scripture that He wants us to develop the trust and love called "faith". Faith instead of just mere easy observation and mere proof without faith. Easy proof, or proof before faith, would prevent/preclude faith. Preempt it.)

 

[Speedwell]

My own guess is that God intervened more than just once or twice along the way during the natural (His natural design of nature) operation of nature on Earth. I'd guess He intervened at least many times, though it's a guess.

For instance I'd guess He carefully choose the asteriod/comet or (the same eqivalent action really) screened out all the asteriods coming towards the Earth to have just the right sized one or several hit about 66 millions years ago (and others futher back in time and since, of course).

So that the asteriod or comet we estimate was around 6 to 9 miles wide (or larger if a less dense comet) that hit Earth was the right size to accomplish His intended outcome -- to make most dinosaur species into compost (in time), and clear the way for the mammals to become ascendant, dominate.

Much larger and it wipes out too much useful fauna.

Much smaller and it doesn't get the job done to clear the way and goose evolution into high gear by opening niches.

Why would God require mammals to become dominant?

 

[Halbhh]

Why would God require mammals to become dominant?

You are asking for my guess? They are more domesticable it seems, and more fit for use, in that sheep have wool, goats can be milked, deer hunted easily. The mammals make for a more enjoyable and comfortable ecosphere for us especially back in time when we only had spears and slings. They are part of our "very good" home here.