| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andres64" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2007 10:01:01 PM |
| Object: |
Irreducible Complexity... |
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
14 Jan 2007 10:12:35 PM |
|
|
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 12:40:46 AM |
|
|
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 06:52:25 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5AFF4C.22404614012007@news.giganews.com...
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
So would I. But I don't think a single theist who frequents this NG is even
going to *try* and attempt to. *That's* how devoid of 'answers', how barren,
their position is. But hey! The lack of any undeniable proof for their
position isn't going to prevent them *claiming* otherwise, is it? Closing
their eyes, covering their ears, and shouting LA LA, LAH, LAH, LA LA at the
top of their voice incessantly is a sufficient substitute for the truth,
isn't it?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
16 Jan 2007 12:28:54 AM |
|
|
In article <12qmu8hg84oi581@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5AFF4C.22404614012007@news.giganews.com...
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit
atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
So would I. But I don't think a single theist who frequents this NG is even
going to *try* and attempt to. *That's* how devoid of 'answers', how barren,
their position is. But hey! The lack of any undeniable proof for their
position isn't going to prevent them *claiming* otherwise, is it? Closing
their eyes, covering their ears, and shouting LA LA, LAH, LAH, LA LA at the
top of their voice incessantly is a sufficient substitute for the truth,
isn't it?
No, but that won't stop them from not letting facts get in the way of
their 'truth'.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 06:37:04 AM |
|
|
In article <jhachmann-5AFF4C.22404614012007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
Do the words "special pleading" ring a bell?
Creationists have no real answers. For the most part, they don't even
understand the questions.
--
George Ricker
"Godless in America" by George Ricker is now available at
online book sellers, like amazon.com, and most book retailers.
Go to http://www.godlessinamerica.com for more information.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
16 Jan 2007 12:31:14 AM |
|
|
In article
<gSPAMFREEricker-F15FD9.07370415012007@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-5AFF4C.22404614012007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
Do the words "special pleading" ring a bell?
Creationists have no real answers. For the most part, they don't even
understand the questions.
True. And they are blind to real answers.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
20 Jan 2007 08:56:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:31:14 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
In article
<gSPAMFREEricker-F15FD9.07370415012007@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-5AFF4C.22404614012007@news.giganews.com>,
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
Greywolf
Do the words "special pleading" ring a bell?
Creationists have no real answers. For the most part, they don't even
understand the questions.
True. And they are blind to real answers.
They're blind. Period.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 03:16:52 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
We aren't their audience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
16 Jan 2007 12:32:20 AM |
|
|
In article <1168852611.972497.179470@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
"Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk>
wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <12qlvpuak5kg847@corp.supernews.com>,
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
Absolutely 'delicious', isn't it?
I'd like to see how the creationists handle that one.
We aren't their audience.
Although they make a big show of coming over here and huffing and
puffing.l
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bramble" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 03:24:36 PM |
|
|
Andres64 ha escrito:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
if the irreductible complexity of a being is a suficient reason to
postulate a designer, then the putative designer, we can call A, has
to be infinitily complex than any of the being we do know. The
logical sequitur to that is that we need a designer, called B, of a
much higher degree to explain the existence of the putative designer
called A. And so on ad libitum
Blambler
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 07:11:34 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2007 20:01:01 -0800, in alt.atheism , "Andres64"
<andresc64@excite.com> in
<1168833661.160092.234060@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> wrote:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
If he did that then he misread Behe as badly as the creationists do.
God does not fit Behe's definition of an IC system. The Dawkins
argument you reference is a much older, and already well known,
argument.
(I assume that IR is a typo for IC. If IR is not the IC of the title I
have no idea what you mean.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 10:15:42 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:01:01 -0800, Andres64 wrote:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example of
IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
The other problem with IC is that it often turns out that the components
of an IC system can be useful, in isolation, for other purposes. During
the Dover trial, the plaintiff's attorneys reamed Behe a few new assholes.
After Behe testified that he was not aware of any scientific research that
showed how evolution could explain the origin of the immune system,
bacterial flagellum, etc, the plaintiff's attorneys produced a stack of
books and journal articles devoted to the evolution of such systems.
Another golden moment was when he invoked science fiction movies to
support his claim that you can infer design in systems that can't be
designed by humans.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 11:26:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:15:42 -0500, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:01:01 -0800, Andres64 wrote:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example of
IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
The other problem with IC is that it often turns out that the components
of an IC system can be useful, in isolation, for other purposes. During
the Dover trial, the plaintiff's attorneys reamed Behe a few new assholes.
After Behe testified that he was not aware of any scientific research that
showed how evolution could explain the origin of the immune system,
bacterial flagellum, etc, the plaintiff's attorneys produced a stack of
Even if the stuff Behe was ignorant of, was unknown, it's just an
example of the argument from ignorance. Nobody knows therefore we'll
pluck a supreme being out of thin air as "the only possible
explanation"
books and journal articles devoted to the evolution of such systems.
Another golden moment was when he invoked science fiction movies to
support his claim that you can infer design in systems that can't be
designed by humans.
When he defined science, he also had to admit that by his definitions
astrology was science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 02:23:29 PM |
|
|
The foundation of all religious belief is quick sand!
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4banq25ukl8rr17lqsa6fka3k49v9m7sp9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:15:42 -0500, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net>
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:01:01 -0800, Andres64 wrote:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example of
IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
The other problem with IC is that it often turns out that the components
of an IC system can be useful, in isolation, for other purposes. During
the Dover trial, the plaintiff's attorneys reamed Behe a few new assholes.
After Behe testified that he was not aware of any scientific research that
showed how evolution could explain the origin of the immune system,
bacterial flagellum, etc, the plaintiff's attorneys produced a stack of
Even if the stuff Behe was ignorant of, was unknown, it's just an
example of the argument from ignorance. Nobody knows therefore we'll
pluck a supreme being out of thin air as "the only possible
explanation"
books and journal articles devoted to the evolution of such systems.
Another golden moment was when he invoked science fiction movies to
support his claim that you can infer design in systems that can't be
designed by humans.
When he defined science, he also had to admit that by his definitions
astrology was science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
14 Jan 2007 10:31:27 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> bloodied us
up with this:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
It's turtles all the way down.
I'm in chapter 4 now.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page.
Don’t be afraid. The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos. It is a
call for responsibility. -Lauren Becker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
14 Jan 2007 10:36:18 PM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> bloodied us
up with this:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion". He
notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate example
of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
It's turtles all the way down.
I'm in chapter 4 now.
I just finished chapter 4.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Irreducible Complexity... |
15 Jan 2007 01:51:05 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com> bloodied
us up with this:
Uncle Vic wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Andres64" <andresc64@excite.com>
bloodied us up with this:
I like the way Dawkins handles IR in his book "The God Delusion".
He notes that if IR implies a designer, then God is the ultimate
example of IR, and therefore also requires a designer.
It's turtles all the way down.
I'm in chapter 4 now.
I just finished chapter 4.
Oh, dammit!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page.
Don’t be afraid. The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos. It is a
call for responsibility. -Lauren Becker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
