On 4/19/2010 12:54 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of
>> course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems,
>> without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing.
>
> Certainly. And even if you found an irreducible system that you could
> *prove* could *not* have evolved on its own, that still doesn't point to
> the necessity of a God.
>
> After all, we already have systems like that. Indeed, the whole
> "watchmaker's" argument is predicated on the fact that the watch is
> indeed irreducible enough to need to be designed. It doesn't follow from
> that that God created watches.
>
Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that 
torpedoed that too. What is necessary is that change between versions be 
*possible*, and that the thing in question produce such *copy versions*. 
Watches need watchmakers, not because they are irreducibly complex, but 
because watches do not copy themselves, with or without modifications. 
If they did, they wouldn't need watchmakers either.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message