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