Unicorns and the ToE

[Zadok001]

Well dung beetles make wheels out of shit. Perhaps the nano-machines are made by nano-beetles.

Are you implying that beetles are of sufficient intelligence to build machines? :-) Marvelous, you've set the low bar for the intelligence of God - He has to be at least as smart as a beetle.

I think I like the idea of a God with a .01 ounce brain.

[Faid]

On the subject of machines, and since Dave assumes we all know what that means, I surmise that he must mean the basic definition--"a device that transmits or modifies energy."

A waterfall is a machine, a dead log leaning on a rock is a machine, a comet is a machine.

Dave, what makes you think that all machines require consciousness or purpose? What makes you think we think so? What makes you think anyone with a brain thinks so?

Machines happen. Some are purposefully built, some are not.

Precisely. And that is why dave will never answer the question about the sun being a "real factory" or not.

[ericmurphy]

Pappy Jack, my friend, not only do they recognize that these are real machines, they want to implement these machines in artificial situations! Please wake up, take off your Darwin glasses, and start paying attention to what's really going on in science. It's exciting stuff.

Look out, Dave, you're heading right for it! For god's sake, turn the wheel, dammit! Hit the breaks or something! Holy SHIT! You just

Crash!!!


—ran right into it.

Infinite regress.

You say complexity requires greater complexity, and intelligence requires greater intelligence. Oops.

Who designed and built God, Dave? What makes God unique? How come God doesn't require a designer?

Lovely post, eric, but I think you are on to a loser here. Infinite regress isn't necessarily a problem, I don't think. A lot of perfectly rational people posit that the world (by which I include all possible universes) has neither a beginning nor an end, or that our own universe will approach infinite size and zero density.

I don't think infinite regress is a problem in general. I do, however, think it's a problem for Dave's particular arguments with respect to the necessity for God. If Dave thinks that since any intelligence requires a greater intelligence to create it, then infinite regress is a problem.

To posit that the world was designed by an infinite series of ever more intelligent beings seems not inherently irrational to me.

If you posit an infinite series of ever more intelligent beings, there is no ultimately most-intelligent being, and therefore where does God place in that infinite regress?

[Dave Hawkins]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

But Darwinists have NOT discovered the snake analogue here, that is machines that build themselves without intelligence.

I see CK1 is trying. Many before her have tried and failed. This should be entertaining.

[ericmurphy]

Let me head this one off at the pass:

As a rule, I don't cite authorities, I don't quote either creationist or evolutionist "authorities" to make my point. (I cited John von Neumann earlier as illustrative, not to make an argument). You'll notice that nobody else here does. It's not a valid form of argument.

Before Dave accuses me, or others, of citing Douglas Theobald (or others) as "authorities," let me point out that I have never done any such thing. You'll note, Dave, that I have never breathed a word about Theobald's credentials. I know he's a Ph.D., but I don't even know, nor do I care, what his Ph.D. is even in.

I cite Theobald because he makes a tight argument, and rather than simply paraphrase what he says, I quote him. Plus, he's already written a hundred-thousand-word article on the evidence for macroevolution, and it makes absolutely no sense for me to laboriously paraphrase the whole thing, and then include the hundred or so references Theobald includes.

It's not an argument from authority, Dave. I'm not asking you to accept Theobald's argument because I say he knows what he's talking about. I'm asking you to, well, first, read the damned thing, and then try to find holes in his argument.

This, so far, after going on two years, you have declined to do.

[Febble]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

Um... that was my point.

But Darwinists have NOT discovered the snake analogue here, that is machines that build themselves without intelligence.

Do you ever read more than the first paragraph of a post, Dave? Did you read the rest of my last (I know you missed most of the one you responded to, because you said you couldn't find something that was actually written in the same post)?

Oh, well, I'll say it again. Yes, we have discovered how machines are built using no more than the algorithm (I've added one more parameter):

• if it works repeat (with modification) else discard.

And if you don't believe me (and even if you do):

WATCH THIS VIDEO.

[ck1]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

But Darwinists have NOT discovered the snake analogue here, that is machines that build themselves without intelligence.

I see CK1 is trying. Many before her have tried and failed. This should be entertaining.

But I see you have not made an appearance on that thread to show why the model fails. And yes, it is entertaining.

[ericmurphy]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

No, Dave, you have been caught in her net. Why do you think she chose the example she did? We have found machines that do not require intelligence to be built. They're called "living organisms."

[jerr]

No they cannot. I would love to see you try to demonstrate this. Also, there is no definition of "machines" needed. Everyone knows what we are talking about here. Just as no definition of intelligence was needed.

So, Dave, not only are you not required to provide evidence for your claims, you don't even have to define your terms now? That's a creationist's dream!

:thumb:

[Febble]

Look out, Dave, you're heading right for it! For god's sake, turn the wheel, dammit! Hit the breaks or something! Holy SHIT! You just

Crash!!!


—ran right into it.

Infinite regress.

You say complexity requires greater complexity, and intelligence requires greater intelligence. Oops.

Who designed and built God, Dave? What makes God unique? How come God doesn't require a designer?

Lovely post, eric, but I think you are on to a loser here. Infinite regress isn't necessarily a problem, I don't think. A lot of perfectly rational people posit that the world (by which I include all possible universes) has neither a beginning nor an end, or that our own universe will approach infinite size and zero density.

I don't think infinite regress is a problem in general. I do, however, think it's a problem for Dave's particular arguments with respect to the necessity for God. If Dave thinks that since any intelligence requires a greater intelligence to create it, then infinite regress is a problem.

To posit that the world was designed by an infinite series of ever more intelligent beings seems not inherently irrational to me.

If you posit an infinite series of ever more intelligent beings, there is no ultimately most-intelligent being, and therefore where does God place in that infinite regress?

Well, most theologians will rise happily to that one, although you may not like the answers. They will include "everywhere; God is alpha and omega; God is the ground of our being; God is infinite" and the more canny theologians (e.g. Aquinas) will insist that it is of the nature of God that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not.

But at the very least I'd say, if God had a "place" then God is not a god, but merely an extraterrestrial alien.

</derail>

[Pappy Jack]

Dave, what makes you think that all machines require consciousness or purpose? What makes you think we think so? What makes you think anyone with a brain thinks so?

Because it supports his argument and allows him to use any reference (by analogy or otherwise) to a 'machine' in a scientific (or any other) paper or article to be used as evidence of his faith-driven belief in intelligent design and an intelligent designer - and thereby demonstrating once again that he has no idea what constitutes an evidence-based logical argument.

[jerr]

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

[VoxRat]

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

I love it when Dave does his Johnny English / Maxwell Smart hilariously incompetent strategist.

[ericmurphy]

Well, most theologians will rise happily to that one, although you may not like the answers. They will include "everywhere; God is alpha and omega; God is the ground of our being; God is infinite" and the more canny theologians (e.g. Aquinas) will insist that it is of the nature of God that we cannot know what God is, only what God is not.

But at the very least I'd say, if God had a "place" then God is not a god, but merely an extraterrestrial alien.

</derail>

But I'm talking about Dave's conception of God, which is different from most theologians' conception of God. Dave appears to conceive of God as not very different from a highly-advanced alien. In fact, he seems to use the two more or less interchangeably.

Okay, now back to phylogenies. How are you doing with them, Dave? Have you come up with an alternative one for living organisms? Oh, and don't forget to list the homologies this time.

[Febble]

Also, there is no definition of "machines" needed. Everyone knows what we are talking about here. Just as no definition of intelligence was needed.

Dave, of course a definition is needed. If you can't, or won't define something, we can't hope to agree whether or not it is present/necessary, or whatever.

As you seem so reluctant to click on my wiki link to operational definition, let me quote it (again) here:

An operational definition is a showing of something — such as a variable, term, or object — in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. Properties described in this manner must be publicly accessible so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test for them at will. An operational definition is generally designed to model a conceptual definition.

If you DON'T give such a definition, we cannot "determine its presence and quantity".

Now, I'm perfectly happy to use a definition of "machine" that would include the mechanisms that go on in a cell - pumps, rotors, jigs, etc. It would probably be something like: a structure that takes in raw material and energy, and converts it into something useful. We'd then have to define "useful" of course - useful to what? A people-made machine is useful to people. A cellular machine is of use to the machine. So you might like to reflect on that difference.

But when it comes to "intelligence", an operational definition is crucial. And it's a major problem for you. If we use a definition of intelligence that excludes consciousness, or awareness, or self-awareness, or intention, then I would agree, intellligence, by that definition, is necessary to build a machine. The problem is that by that definition, replication with modification plus natural selection is intelligent - and we know it can create machines (seen that video yet?). Which is what trips Dembski.

On the other hand, if we use a definition of intelligence that includes consciousness, or awareness, or self-awareness, or intention, we exclude replication with modification plus natural selection from the definition - but then we find that intelligence is NOT necessary to create machines.

So you lose again, I'm afraid. The truth being, of course, that you are simply wrong: machines CAN be created by replication with modification plus random selection, whether you call that process intelligent or not. Which makes your dynamation wrong.

Please watch that video.

[Dave Hawkins]

So Febble ... Do you now agree that my logic wasn't bad after all? I think we both agree on the logic part now that you understand me ... We just disagree that the analog to "legless reptiles that can move" has been discovered.

[Zadok001]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

Ladies and gentlemen, the wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead. Dave, did you really think the fact that snakes exist had somehow escaped Febble? That Febble's feeble mind could not grasp that legless reptiles exist?

Think about it, Dave. What Febble is TRYING to say is that the conclusion "They must require legs to move" is ERRONEOUS, that it is INCORRECT. Devoid of truth, counterfactual, false, specious, truthless, untrue, mistaken, fallacious, AND JUST PLAIN WRONG.

Your argument about intelligence and her argument about reptile legs are THE SAME. They are structured identically, from a logical point of view. The specifics have been replaced, but the arguments are identical:

1. All known Xs require Y.
2. Here is a new X.
3. It requires Y.

The last part DOES NOT FOLLOW. Snakes exist, likewise, non-intelligently designed machines may exist.

But Darwinists have NOT discovered the snake analogue here, that is machines that build themselves without intelligence.

Yes, we have, we call it "Life".

I see CK1 is trying. Many before her have tried and failed. This should be entertaining.

Oh, it's entertaining as all fuck, Dave. I rarely LOL at posts, but this one was special, in the short bus sense of the word.

[Zadok001]

So Febble ... Do you now agree that my logic wasn't bad after all? I think we both agree on the logic part now that you understand me ... We just disagree that the analog to "legless reptiles that can move" has been discovered.

NO, GODDAMN IT, NO. YOUR LOGIC WAS *NOT* OK. That's what Febble fucking DEMONSTRATED, and you FUCKING MISSED. *IF* your logic was ok, then FEBBLE'S LOGIC WAS ALSO OK. FEBBLE'S LOGIC WAS DEMONSTRABLY *NOT* OK, therefore...

NEITHER WAS YOURS.

WTF?!?

[ericmurphy]

So Febble ... Do you now agree that my logic wasn't bad after all? I think we both agree on the logic part now that you understand me ... We just disagree that the analog to "legless reptiles that can move" has been discovered.

Well, Febble might agree with you, but I don't. Just because every human-designed machine was designed by humans doesn't mean everything that resembles a human-designed machine was designed by humans, or by anything else.

Since you won't define machines, I don't think you can get any agreement. You can only get disagreement.

And as Febble's example shows, your "logic" depends on never discovering a machine that wasn't designed (and, since we don't know your definition of "machine," we don't know whether such an example has, or has not, already been discovered). Hence, it's not logic at all. It's merely luck, at best.

[Faid]

Febble ...

It doesn't make any difference to the problem with your logic, Dave. It still doesn't work. Let me try a third time:

* All the machines we knew about required intelligence to build
* We now know about some more machines
* Therefore they required intelligence to build.


OK?

Now compare:

* All the reptiles we know about require legs to move
* We discover some new reptiles
* They must require legs to move.

Febble ... you have been caught in my net! Think about your reptile thing ... we HAVE discovered snakes which DO NOT require legs to move!

But Darwinists have NOT discovered the snake analogue here, that is machines that build themselves without intelligence.

I see CK1 is trying. Many before her have tried and failed. This should be entertaining.

Febble has been caught in YOUR net?

Dave, you sure do have a weird perspective of things. Let's make the analogy more applicable: Say we did NOT know of snakes. Then, all reptiles we knew would be 4-legged ones. It would make sense to think of reptiles as such. It would be wrond, of course, but not logically absurd.

But wait a minute- We KNOW snakes exist. We KNOW that there are MORE reptiles, that show no indication of having legs.

What must we infer from that?

Well, the logical conclusion is this: That having four legs is not a necessary part of being a reptile.

Now, imagine someone saying: "Nononononono... We know of these and these reptiles, and they have legs! That means you HAVE to have legs to be a reptile! I BET snakes have legs too- tiny little legs perhaps, that move so fast, we can't see them! Yes, that"s it! The legs are there, they're just so advanced, our poor minds can't perceive them"!






Starting to get it now, dave?
I hope so. Maybe next year (when I post again- I live in the FUTURE) you wil have made some progress. Although I doubt it. Have a Happy New Year!

And a Happy New Year to all posters and lurkers! Keep up the good work!

[Dave Hawkins]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

[ericmurphy]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

How about doing science by studying cellular automata (which is what the clocks are a species of) and seeing what they have to say about evolvability, Dave?

You're more than happy to do science by appeals to authority. What's the difference, in your view?

[Serafina Pekkala]

David, your logic is still wrong. We have the "exception case". Living things are machines that were not designed.

[Coleslaw]

Also Febble ... I don't really want to do science by Youtube video.

Demonstrations being so antithetical to science and all.

[Febble]

So Febble ... Do you now agree that my logic wasn't bad after all? I think we both agree on the logic part now that you understand me ... We just disagree that the analog to "legless reptiles that can move" has been discovered.

No, I'm afraid I don't agree, Dave. My point was that your logic leads to a fallacious inference.

The point hadn't, as it happens, escaped me that snakes are reptiles, move, but have no legs, and I chose it precisely because snakes exist, are reptiles, move, and have no legs.

So your syllogism doesn't work. The conclusion is not necessarily true, given the premises. It didn't work for mine, and mine is structured identically to yours. We know the conclusion from mine is false (evidence: snakes), so we know that it is perfectly possible that the conclusion from yours is also false.

A conclusion can still of course be true even if it procees from invalid logic. It is perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion via fallacious logic. But the fact that a conclusion is true does not make invalid logic valid. Here's a real example. When Beauvais cathedral was being built, one mason said that it would fall down because its proportions were not true to the Golden Mean, and it should be built higher. It did indeed start to fall down. The mason's conclusion was correct. But his logic was faulty. If it had been built taller it would have fallen down even sooner.

So even if your position that the analogue to legless snakes has NOT been discovered were to be correct, it still wouldn't make your syllogism valid. You can be right for the right reasons, and you can be right for the wrong reasons. Even if you are right, you are right for the wrong reason. And in fact, you are wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with your faulty logic.

So how about we put that behind us (and a concession from you that your syllogism is invalid would be nice, but not essential), and focus on what you are now saying: that a designer can be inferred because the analogue of legless snakes has not been found, i.e. we do not have an example of a machine built by Darwinian processes (replication with modification plus natural selection) only.

But before we do so, please watch that video, as it is a beautiful illustration of how a machine can be built using only Darwinian processes (replication with modification plus natural selection).

Cheers

Lizzie