intelligent design vid

[Necrosis]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v235658gPxtyREn


any comments?

[Necrosis]

since i figure most wont sit through the whole thing.

it poses a couple arguments

irreducible complexity, which for some reason people think they answer with a mouse trap analogy. i tend not to think god helped out with the more i study. but the argument is a good one.


the the second argument is about

information theory

basically were did the information come from. this to me is the best argument.

i think NEO was critical of the irreducibly complex idea. post your arguments again would ya.

[Necrosis]

i should clarify what i said above. god started things and is not apart of this universe, the universe may be percipatory, but gods not intervening.

[NeoSeminole]

Usmokepole, you should send me a PM next time you want me to address a post in the religious section. That way I can respond quicker. I browse this sub-forum once in a while and just happened to stumble upon this thread today. Here is a brief run down of my argument against irreducible complexity.

1.) Irreducible complexity is basically a rehash of the watchmaker argument. A familiar paradox arises - "if God created IC organisms, then who created God?"

2.) How do we decide when to apply irreducible complexity? Organisms don't come with parts, functions, or systems labeled. These are terms we use for convenience. For example, a leg can be considered both IC and non-IC depending on how you define its parts.

3.) Irreducible complexity states that IC systems are too intricate to be produced by evolution. However, there are four possible ways for "irreducible complexity" to evolve.

- previously using more parts than necessary for the function
- the parts themselves evolve
- deployment of parts evolves
- new parts are created and may then evolve

4) Irreducible complexity uses 'gap theology' to support intelligent design. It essentially claims that if science cannot explain how IC evolved, then God must be responsible. This is a logical fallacy - you cannot justify a particular view by discrediting another while offering no support for your own.

[Necrosis]

no problem


1) hmmm. the watchmaker argument is wrong. there are alot of things that show design which are not, i agree. the argument does not hold up to scrutiny. the who created god argument is also not a good argument, philosophically and scientifically. science shows that time had a beginning. the bible says god is outside time, before time. so do other books to the best of my knowledge. you didnt agree with me on the something insted of nothing argument. however, time creates cause and effect, anything outside of time is not bound by cause. hence something is eternal or uncaused.  something has to be uncaused or nothing would exist. and nothing cannot create something. this argument isnt really  about irreducibly complexity, so i wont continue it. but i dont think the what created argument holds any weight, in either realm anymore. theologians and atheists have almost agreed on this in philosophical debates. but the atheists hold that the universe is all there is, and is eternal. some have different opinions.

2)yes i also agree. doesnt take away from the fact that the sum, whatever you want to call it is IC. a flagellum is IC but the parts are not, the sum is greater then the parts. i think im missing your point on this one though. i mean couldnt the argument swing the other way?

4) i also agree. and i also disagree with this theory to some extent. i dont think god helped out, that implies error in the design. it is bongwater science to use this arguement. i think however that john a wheelers parcipatory universe is a good argument for this. the universe seemed to know we were coming, that it was set up or facillitated our evolution. however, evolution has no goal, but some have suggested otherwise.

number 3 is what i was looking for i will think about the arguments and post something either for or agianst, i havent read about the flagellum in a while but ill look it over agian and post the arguments.

thanks