Re: 3 Notorious Evo Strawmen


"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133312846.580475.155280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>
>> Interesting thing Ray, humans cannot design and manufacture as complex
>> creations as can nature.
>
> Do you realize that you just assigned nature sentience ?

No, Ray he didn't.
>
> You have replaced God with Nature; this is a recognition that
> intelligence is responsible for the complexity of nature. We know
> complexity is the m.o. of bright persons/God.

Actually, simplicity is considered more a sign of intelligence than
complexity.

>
>
>> The IDists are basing their concept of
>> intelligent design on known human design methods that result in much
>> simpler creations than that of nature.
>
> Yes, it becomes a contrast to appreciate the brilliance of the IDer - a
> gauge.

Yet you claimed that "complextity" was the result of the "brilliance" of
God.

>
>> They make the assumption that an
>> intelligent designer would design as we do, except of course to a
>> greater, and in their mind, more complex degree; yet the design they see
>> in nature only superficially resembles human design. From that
>> superficial similarity they jump to the conlusion that nature is the
>> result of human-like intelligence.
>>
>
> Perfectly logical.

Consider that in Ray's logic, evidence of something being wrong is evidence
that it's correct.

>
>
>> There is another possibility that IDists refuse to entertain because it
>> does not mesh with their desire to see God in places where science tends
>> to show otherwise. That other possiblity is that human design takes much
>> of its inspiration from nature. Couple that with the trial and error
>> methods that *both* nature and human designers use and you'll see that
>> IDists have it essentially backwards.
>>
>
> Your judgements do not make sense. How is it that we have it backwards
> ? Because you are a Darwinist, I would say the backwards claim is a
> very good indication we have it right.

And, on cue, Ray gives a demonstration of his circular logic....

>
>
>> What is born out in computer simulations of this trial and error method
>> is that the mechanisms utilized by a fully natural evolution results in
>> designs that increase in complexity, retain non-functional features,
>> even contain nonsensical (to our mind) features that function in
>> mysterious ways.
>
> Utter nonsense. These CS are programmed by Darwinists.

It doesn't matter who programs the computer simulations, they model the
action of random mutation and natural selection.

>
> You are asserting a blind directionless process is responsible for the
> precision and complexity of nature.

Which is what the evidence shows.

> This is a recognition of products
> produced by design capriciously assigned to your idiotic theory =
> plagiarism.

Ray, do you have any idea what plagiarism is? You are assuming that the
"products" were the result of deliberate design, and then claiming that
acribing them to a scientific theory that the theory that explains much
better how those products came to be, is "plagiarism". Obviously you have
no idea of what the term "plagiarism" means.
>
> All you guys do is assert evolution-did-it.

No, we show the evidence that evolution did it. Evolution is a scientific
theory that explains how it was done. Creationism explains nothing, but
simply inserts a miracle as a placeholder for ignorance.

> The definition of evolution
> precludes it from having anything to do with what we see in nature.

The definition of evolution is genetic change in a population of living
organisms over generations. How could this "preclude" it from having
anything to do with nature? Evolution DESCRIBES nature.

> This is why Dawkins wrote a book (Blind Watchmaker) which recognizes
> the obviousness of design arbitrarily assigned to chance/evolution.

Now you are simply being ridiculous. The "design" we see in nature is
ascribed to evolution because it's the only scientific theory that explains
the appearance of design. Evolution is not 'chance', as has been explained
to you countless times.

> Senselessness hoping educational credentials prevent anyone from
> pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes or logic.

Ray, everyone else sees the "Emperor" as clothed. Perhaps it's your
perception that's in error.

> Watchmakers
> cannot be blind no matter how much you assert contrary to logic.

How can your position be "logical" if it's contrary to observed evidence?
Non directed processes can and do produce orderly results. Many examples
from nature can be given, including weather systems, ocean currents, and
living things.

> This
> is called removing your brain before one enters the First Church of
> Crackpot Scientist, Rev. Richard Dawkins, senior Pastor.

Dawkins is not considered a holy man, and he's not seen as presenting
religious beliefs.

>
>
>> When these designs are compared with human design and
>> then with nature's design, the similarities to nature is much much
>> closer than any similarities to human design.
>>
>> Many IDists draw parallels between the cumultive improvement in design
>> we see humans produce over time with the apparent design improvements in
>> nature. What they don't either consider, or admit - take your choice - ,
>> is that human designers strive for simplicity and modularization in
>> their designs, generally attempting to eliminate waste in material and
>> interactions.
>
> Yes, of course, whats the point ?

That we don't see that kind of thing in nature. We see overly complex
systems, with plenty of waste and unecessary interactions.

snipping

>> Nature can and does produce designs every bit as complex as an
>> intelligent designer.
>
> You have to admit that. The only issue is the source. Chance and NS
> (euphemism) cannot produce what we have.

Natural selection is not a euphenism, it's a well established priniciple of
nature.

>
> The brighter the P/person = the increased capacity to comprehend and
> produce intricate functional complexity.

Evidence for this assertion, please.

> The level of complexity seen
> in nature self-evidently gives visibility to an invisible Designer.

As has been pointed out before, intelligent designers strive for simplicity,
not complexity. Complex systems are the sign of a imperfect design.

> It
> takes intelligence to figure nature out; the same to report the
> findings, yet it took none to produce it = senseless predictable
> atheistic philosophical conclusion.

Ray you are assuming that only an intelligent being can produce something
that an intelligent being can figure out. That's obvious nonsense.
Haven't you ever seen a fishing line get tangled so badly that it takes
hours to untangle it? What "intelligent being" tangled that fishing line?

>The inability to figure out nature
> and/or its ability to keep our bests minds in pursuit of its secrets =
> the work of an IDer.

Then how about providing some evidence of that "IDer"? Saying "Goddidit"
does not give a satisfactory answer to anyone who wants to understand how
the world works.

>
> We know the size and capacity of a computer chip.

Which chip?
>
> We know the size and capacity of a human cell.

Which cell? Cells come in different sizes and "capacities".

>
> The differential of information stored, in comparison to its size, is
> in direct ratio to the brilliance of its D/designer = how complexity is
> measured.

That "measure" of complexity has been shot down the first time you tried to
float it. 100 years ago, there was no such thing as a computer chip. 20
years ago, computer chips didn't hold much information. Today they are
much better, but in another 100 years, who knows how more capacity a
computer chip will hold? Humans today are not appreciably more intelligent
than humans 100, or 20 years ago. In another 100 years, humans will not be
appreciably more intelligent than today.

>
>> The ID contention of the unlikelyhood of nature
>> producing complexity to the same degree as an intelligent designer may
>> be correct, but it is correct in the wong direction. An intelligent
>> designer is *less* likely to produce highly complex structures than
>> natural processes unless that designer is God (which removes
>> testability), and we both know that ID is not about religion don't we.
>>
>
> Atheist conclusion spoils the preceding logic. I don't know any person
> who thinks God is not testable.

Then how do you test God? What experiment do you propose to test God's
powers?

>
>> --
>> Gary Bohn
>>
>> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
>> emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
>> bible.
>
>
> Could one expect an atheist to have any other opinion ?

Yes, one could.
>
> Nonetheless, I enjoyed your message.

Nonetheless, you spout the same nonsense.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages