Nekar Xenos wrote:
> "Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather 
> something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs, and 
> statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes. 

But God *can* see with his eyes. Perfectly, at that. So in what sense did 
God have to design our eyes, if he already has perfect ones to base things on?

> BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye 
> to be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)

It depends how many dimensions he wants to look into. :-)

> Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we 
> cannot know how the universe started because we do not have enough 
> information.

Yet, oddly enough, there are huge numbers of people who will tell you it is 
all carefully documented!  Imagine that!

> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the 
> conclusion that humans don't exist!

Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous. They 
were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions, and it 
eventually deduced that everyone is famous.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 17:21, Darren New wrote:

>> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the 
>> conclusion that humans don't exist!
> 
> Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous. 
> They were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions, 
> and it eventually deduced that everyone is famous.

Didn't know that story. I do remember the one that deduced the existence 
of rice pudding and income tax.

Post a reply to this message

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

On 4/19/2010 3:47 PM, John VanSickle 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.
>> Basically, lets say that:
>>
>> GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can
>> have mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work
>> like their original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What
>> you do is start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a
>> few different ways:
>> GTTsGTGs
>> GTTsGTTGs
>> GGTsGTTs
>>
>> The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a
>> working copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But,
>> the GTGs version would be "irreducible", once other related genes
>> become dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc.
>> versions to "break" the system.
>>
>> The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are
>> inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger
>> number of variations and errors than the final version. At some point
>> though, you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs,
>> or variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the
>> other gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in
>> the process produced new behaviors/functions.
>>
>> Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry,
>> limb formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small*
>> number of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the
>> gene that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and
>> developmental code is different, producing a new pattern of growth.
>> Other cases "both" the transcription/development code *and* the
>> control genes differ, but they are still identifiably variations on
>> existing genes, that do similar things. Any irreducibility seems to
>> come from a duplicate copy changing, and linking up with other
>> changes, to produce a unique result, then undergoing subtractions,
>> which fail to disable the new effect, but which render reversal to an
>> earlier form impossible.
>
> So in essence you are arguing that any irreducible complexity was
> preceded by reducible complexity.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
>
Not my argument, its the argument of biologists, and has been both shown 
to work in simulation *and* within some cases of actual DNA, where 
identification of the genes involved show that they are modified 
versions of existing ones (and, I believe, in a few cases, new changes 
have been identified, in the state of 'reducible complexity', where its 
not to hard to see where minor changes would make it irreducible). But, 
yes. That is how it seems to work, and there is no evidence that it 
did/had to work any other way.

Oh, and, just for an odd bit, I mentioned fingers. Turns out that 
fingers grow from the middle out. There are two control genes in place, 
one determines when the pattern ends, and a second reacts to that 
deactivation by forming a "thumb". If you get an error in the code, you 
end up with more or less fingers, or not having a thumb at all, 
depending on which one changed. This is why the most common result in 
such errors is extra, or less, fingers, but the thumb is almost always 
still there. Now *most* people imagine that they all grow at once, or 
that they grow starting with the thumb, or pinkie, then run across in 
sequence.

Another odd bit is being observed in lizards. Some are in progress of 
becoming snake like. Seems that the gene involved is responsible for 
forming ribs. It doesn't shut off correctly, so just keeps making more 
and more ribs, which elongates the body. This seems to also muck up limb 
formation, reducing the structures from which those form to a point 
where they nearly disappear. But, you will still find snakes with 
vestigial limbs, under the skin.

Its really quite interesting to read about how it all works, and which 
types of genes are involved, as well as, in some cases, how small the 
changes need to be. Though, most of them are not visible stuff. Like 
having two copies of a gene to produce saliva, and having one of them 
mutate to produce venom instead. Or quirks in eyes, like the fact that 
*some* rare humans end up with an extra copy, and an error, which result 
in them seeing 4 colors, not the normal 3, a trait that birds have.

-- 
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

On 4/19/2010 8:50 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> This is what I'm saying:
>>
>> Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a
>> straightforward way. If so, God didn't design the eye. God didn't
>> design himself - he was always here. And he copied his eye for use
>> with humans. Where did the design of the eye come from? It has always
>> been here. No need for a designer at all. :-)
>>
>> Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any
>> irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without
>> being designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.
>>
>> Was just a silly passing thought.
>
> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making. Of course
> even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need
> actual design. Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how
> such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which
> lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question
> as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would
> call "design".
>

Bah. Its all quite pointless. The truth has already been presented at 
http://www.mrdeity.com/ God, you see, is a lazy, vindictive, bastards, 
and decided to go with a self-design genetic algorithm, instead of going 
into all the effort of actually designing anything. He then went on with 
his plan anyway, as though it all had been designed, only didn't bargain 
for the fact that his creations would be smart enough to come up with 
science and discover that it all worked without him having actually done 
anything to rate being worshiped. lol

I just had to by their "E=M^r.d^e'+y/d'd 1t" T-Shirt. ;)

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that 
> torpedoed that too.

Well, yes, but that's using actual science and logic. If you want to accept 
the accuracy of science, you don't need philosophy to shoot down most religions.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 22:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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. 

you mean the one in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0?

> 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.

perhaps also good to mention is that watches, like all technology, did 
actually evolve. If you look at one of the latest mechanical watched 
made, you can not understand how someone could design that from scratch. 
In fact you would need to retrace part of the history to understand that.
Better, if you would try to make that watch or something similar from 
scratch (i.e. while you would also need to build the equipment to make 
the parts) you would probably fail.
Why I find this fascinating? because to build something so refined you 
need to make tools and you need to make the tools to make the tools. 
Etc. And for some of the technology needed, the skills have been lost 
and left no fossils. Which gives an interesting twist to the watchmaker 
argument.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:21:06 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> "Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather  
>> something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs,  
>> and statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes.
>
> But God *can* see with his eyes. Perfectly, at that. So in what sense  
> did God have to design our eyes, if he already has perfect ones to base  
> things on?
>

I am not saying He can't see with His eyes. I am saying He might have n  
dimensional eyes as well that aren't visible in our 3 dimensions.
Hmm. Well if He is omnipotent, He could look anyway he wanted to and maybe  
he just likes that specific form. Also the eyes are the most beautiful  
asexual part of the human body...


>> BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye  
>> to be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)
>
> It depends how many dimensions he wants to look into. :-)
>
>> Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we  
>> cannot know how the universe started because we do not have enough  
>> information.
>
> Yet, oddly enough, there are huge numbers of people who will tell you it  
> is all carefully documented!  Imagine that!
>

I believe that the Bible was meant for everyone. It would have been  
confusing to the people of that time if God had revealed science as well.  
Apparently today only about 10-15% of all people are interested in  
science, so it really doesn't make much sense to go into all that  
scientific stuff. From the view of a normal observer the sun rises in the  
east and sets in the west. We know it's the earth that's actually turning  
on it's own axis, but we still call it sunrise... :-)

>> Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the  
>> conclusion that humans don't exist!
>
> Not yet, but they already made one that concluded everyone is famous.  
> They were programming it with encyclopedias and watching its deductions,  
> and it eventually deduced that everyone is famous.
>

Was that before or after Facebook? :)


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

"The spoon is not real"

Post a reply to this message

On 4/20/2010 1:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Actually, think someone wrote as fairly simple gear program that
>> torpedoed that too.
>
> Well, yes, but that's using actual science and logic. If you want to
> accept the accuracy of science, you don't need philosophy to shoot down
> most religions.
>
Funny. Philosophy was once a branch of science, or the other way around, 
until someone came up with the unfortunate point that, "Science tends to 
reflect what seems to actually happen, while the rest of this stuff, 
well... doesn't." lol

-- 
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

On 4/20/2010 1:49 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 20-4-2010 22:12, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> you mean the one in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0?
>
>> 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.
>
> perhaps also good to mention is that watches, like all technology, did
> actually evolve. If you look at one of the latest mechanical watched
> made, you can not understand how someone could design that from scratch.
> In fact you would need to retrace part of the history to understand that.
> Better, if you would try to make that watch or something similar from
> scratch (i.e. while you would also need to build the equipment to make
> the parts) you would probably fail.
> Why I find this fascinating? because to build something so refined you
> need to make tools and you need to make the tools to make the tools.
> Etc. And for some of the technology needed, the skills have been lost
> and left no fossils. Which gives an interesting twist to the watchmaker
> argument.
>

Well, that is true too. After all, it would be damn hard to find the 
"in-between" forms, i.e., fossil record, for the transition from candle 
clocks to water clocks, or water clocks to hour glasses (though that may 
be a bit easier), and its *very* unclear how you got from either of 
those to spring driven ones, never mind ones with the same gears as the 
spring driven ones, but a little battery and electric motor pushing the 
gears. So, yeah, you get some similar things happening in technology 
too, even *with* design.

-- 
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