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.

-- 
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

Darren New escreveu:
> 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.

you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> you guys would enjoy God of War. :)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1595-God-of-War-III

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause, 
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
> 
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
> 
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
> 
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And 
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the 
> God didn't create those systems.

Unless making man in God's image means that man was gifted with free 
will, a very common interpretation.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> In fact, I don't think any major sects believe that God is
>> physical in the sense we come to understand it, 
> 
> Maybe not any more. Certainly when he was walking around the Garden 
> looking for Adam and Eve he was.

Unless that is an analogy using the words that come closest to what God 
was doing.

> And he wasn't omniscient or he wouldn't have been calling out trying
 > to find them. :-)

By that reasoning, math teachers don't know what two plus two is.

>> so the whole "in his image" business needs a deeper understanding 
> 
> Certainly. But then, if we aren't like him physically, and we weren't 
> created in his moral image, and we are still incapable of understanding 
> how he thinks, in what sense are we his image?

We *were* created in His moral image, that of sinless perfection.  But 
all of us have blown it through sin.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

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

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> We *were* created in His moral image, that of sinless perfection.

Obviously not.

Clearly it was sinful to disobey God, to realize that God was lying, and to 
do both of these things without knowing they were sinful. If we were morally 
sinlessly perfect, we wouldn't have original sin, now would we?

If we were created morally, sinlessly perfect, why would ever single human 
being to ever live be sinful?  That's like saying "every single human being 
stands over three meters tall, except those who are shorter, which is all of 
them."

> all of us have blown it through sin.

Also, obviously not. Having eaten from the tree of knowledge, it is clear 
that sins are not heritable. Punishments from God, perhaps, but not sins.

 > Unless making man in God's image means that man was gifted with free
 > will, a very common interpretation.

That's clearly a bad interpretation as well, unless you are saying that the 
serpent was also gifted with free will and hence created in God's image, and 
hence also sinlessly morally perfect, which seems to be pushing the analogy.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> 
> So doesn't [that]
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't 
> need to be designed?
> 

Even if it did, I thought the problem was with irreducibly complex 
systems coming into existence without being designed?  I don't think 
many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a problem with 
irreducibly complex eternal things.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> So doesn't [that]
>> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't 
>> need to be designed?
>>
> 
> Even if it did, I thought the problem was with irreducibly complex 
> systems coming into existence without being designed? 

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.

> I don't think 
> many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a problem with 
> irreducibly complex eternal things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "external" there, especially w.r.t. God. Plus, 
"we know it was designed" doesn't imply "it must have been God" either.

-- 
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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > you guys would enjoy God of War. :)
>
> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1595-God-of-War-III

haha, very fun.  Even though I couldn't manage to get more than 50% of it.  man,
that dude should be rapping...

Yes, it's pretty much like that, except the parody review doesn't account for
the mindblowing audio-visual artwork backing up the frantic pure arcade action
with puzzles in between.  It's impact is huge in setting the mood and I'd say
this is the best take on greek mythology in mainstream entertainment in ages.
Hollywood's recent Clash of the Titans pales by comparison, not just to the
artistry, but even the lame-o script.

The theme of revenge may be quite tiresome, but they've put quite an imaginative
spin to dozens of elements of the myths, binding them together in rather amusing
ways.  I've replayed the first 2 games just now, eager to get my hands on a
PS3...

I've seen people saying they play the game in very easy mode just to
effortlessly enjoy the ride. :)

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

except to PS3... :))

Post a reply to this message