Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dániel Boros

  1. Well if it was from a religion that religion would be deism.
  2. What if God transformed some part of the Universe into something else the same way as someone can transform wood into a wooden table? Making/creating a table doesn't mean you have to create wood from nothing, right?
  3. Does God contradict something else other than the law of identity?
  4. Why? If evolution was proven it would disprove ID, but that can't be the reason why we believe evolution is true. That depends how you define evolution. If the organisms that could start evolving cannot come into being than ID wins or you are left with a contradiction. Abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution. That is the causal process that supposedly made the first living being after all. We have a name for it and that's pretty much all we have. I do not see how ID has anything to do with the law of identity and of non contradiction. If it contradicts anything it would be our naturalistic view of reality, that we can observe everything that exists which is not something we could prove anyway. I somehow get a different feeling when they tell me that "evolution is supported by loads of evidence" or "evolution is a fact" (Dawkins). Unlike ID that cannot be observed directly evolution can be observed. That's the difference between the two. ID cannot be disproved by the evidence but evolution could be. As Dawkins said evolution is happening right now not just in the past so why is it so radical to believe that we should be able to observe it? If we have gaps in the theory why can't we ask why do those gaps exist? Is it because of lack of knowledge or because the theory is simply not true? Is it because we don't know enough or is it because we know too much?
  5. To say that an event is improbable you must have a numerical value based on measurement. How can you claim that something is improbable without giving exact numbers? The number you gave me was not based on evidence. The only reason why that number is smaller than the number of stars in the Universe is because otherwise you wouldn't be able to claim anything. I could claim that the chance of life arising by itself is one in six billion Universes. As long as I don't have to back it up with evidence that is.. The existence of Magic would only mean that the Universe is bigger than what we have originally thought. The same way intelligent beings can exist in the known Universe so can they exist in the unknown. My "faith" in ID is completely based on the invalidity of evolution. If evolution could work in theory or in practice I would have no reason to argue for ID. I am not kidding. If we only look at natural processes as causes for any phenomena than it is methodologically impossible to arrive at design as a cause. That would mean that all our beliefs about design have been wrong because there's absolutely no way to arrive at them. So what if there are factories? Every cell in existence is a factory. Designers of DNA are completely unlike anything that isn't called human. Arbitrary? We look at objects (observation) and categorically divide them into two groups base on specified complexity. And the argument is that no specified complex object found in nature was the product of natural forces therefore a complex object was most likely designed. Far from arbitrary. Do you know any method that can be used to identify designed objects in nature? It is common sense to think that a car or a computer was designed but few people who think so actually work in a factory so they simply take it on faith (or there is a method to identify designed objects without actually observing the production).
  6. And your claims are way off since your way of identifying designers (us) is not rooted in science but in tradition and since any complex entity without exception can be the product of nature (evolution) such claims cannot be justified at all. Just because people tell you that a computer was designed doesn't mean it was yet you accept it like it is the most rational thing to do. Anyway just because we don't know who designed life doesn't mean we will never discover the designer the same way just because we don't know how life began doesn't mean we won't find a natural explanation for it. As far as science goes there is absolutely no known natural process that could have created life. Does that disprove evolution? No. Does that prove evolution? No. (Yes I know it is called abiogenesis)
  7. You did not ask me anything so I'm not sure how not answering what you did not ask constitutes a deflection. I can only repeat what I have already sad: So why must one prove ID to disprove evolution and not the other way around? Because Darwin is mainstream now? Aristotle was mainstream before him and for a lot longer time. Not that I believe it actually matters to reality who is currently considered mainstream. I'm not sure an appeal to probability can be called a "best argument" for evolution. Or begging the question: since life exists the probability of nature creating it must be larger than zero. The same way life can arose by chance alone so could teddy bears and since there would be much more teddy bears that came about via a natural process due to the vastness of space if one would find one a teddy bear on Earth it would be more likely that it was the product of nature and not of design. In statistics we compare numbers, but to do that we need to have numbers first. Every number that has been provided by evolutionary science regrading the probability of life or evolution was not based on evidence (literally) and any number based on evidence has been excluded since they did not converse with the current paradigm. So there are no numbers in this field of silence even though the process is supposedly algorithmic and predictable. It is pointless to argue about statistics under those conditions. The difference between a miracle (magic) and a natural process is that you can realize how improbable a natural process is but not how improbable magic is. Saying that a natural process is the cause of a phenomena regardless how probable it is is equal to saying that evolution is true even if it is not.
  8. I can't argue with something like: "evolution is supported by loads of evidence" or "the resurrection of Jesus Christ is supported by loads of evidence" I disagree with both based on lack of evidence and based on the extraordinary claims they make...
  9. If someone's ideas are his own property than losing that property after a finite time would not be fair. Why can't people inherit them like houses or the right to publish books?
  10. Why do you need to prove ID to disprove evolution and what would in your opinion prove that ID is real? Not as much evidence as physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology. Evolution is the theory least supported by evidence.
  11. Considering that Darwinism almost died with the advent of genetics I'm not sure how much of that is true. In Darwin's time change was self evident, but genetics proved not just that change was not self evident, but that evolution was not responsible for the changes observed by Darwin. And so the idea that change takes too long to be observable and that genetic mutations are the driving force of evolution were created and became known as Neo-darwinism. The idea of natural selection predates Darwin, so the only thing that was Darwin's idea and later supported by evidence was the tree of life or common descent. Which doesn't really prove evolution since any set of objects can be organized based on similarity.
  12. As mentioned by the OP patents can have a harmful effect on competition. What would have happened if someone used it on a operating system? No more OS-s for twenty years? Or you would have to get permission for money? Why would anyone who produce the OS do that? I guess different things require different patents. Or maybe not...
  13. I do not believe that it is my job to prove that such pathways do not exist. Irreducible complexity was the idea of Michael Behe and it isn't really part of the mainstream of ID. The idea is that if you take the parts of a complex machine sooner or later you will arrive at a point where the machine can't function at all, however it is really unclear what constitutes a irreducible complex machine and whether founding one would prove anything at all. Behe said that the Bacterial flagellum (a sort of microscopic motor) and any mousetrap would be irreducibly complex structure. Darwinists responded to that with the co-option theory asserting that evolution can pick the genetic data from different parts of the genome and put them together in one or in a few steps creating complex structures. Of course as usual there's absolutely no evidence whether such a thing can happen or did happen in the past. They just made it up like everything else. If anything can account as irreducible complex than that would be the self reproducing capability of living organisms. To self reproduce the organism need a ) information b ) a data storage to store the information and c ) machines that can use the information. Without these things replication or at least evolution becomes impossible. Self replicating RNA will never gain molecular machinery that will read out its own content. For one there's no content and two self replicating RNA - assuming such things are possible - have already achieved everything that the RNA reading machines and the genetic code would be required for. So why read out the non existent content of RNA if that is not necessary for the organism to survive? Also at which point will these readers become incorporated into RNA? How will this species survive long enough for that to happen? Also why do scientists believe RNA was the thing that needed to self replicate? RNA for the most is part only good at temporarily storing genetic information? Is it blind luck that the structure that somehow started to self replicate also works perfectly as a storage device? What a coincidence...
  14. I believe my answer was quite clear and simple as well. There are two things that could change my mind: a ) the simplest living being does not fulfill the requirement of specified complexity b ) there is an observable or provable process that can create the complexity at the rate necessary for the living beings to exist. If single celled organisms that reproduce a lot rapidly than animals would evolve (increase complexity) at a rate necessary for evolution to be true than I would be convinced. Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that evolution is not a valid hypothesis?
  15. New Buddha you need to be a little more specific. Denying ID would be denying the possibility that designed objects can be identified in nature through observation. If we are talking about life than proving that evolution works would be sufficient. However as I said before not any kind of proof is acceptable. The problem with evolution is that people simply assume that there are pathways that can be taken step by step without asking how likely the existence of such pathways really are. With the exception of self reproduction there is absolutely no difference between the computer world and the living world, and self reproduction alone proves nothing so why should something impossible in the computer world be possible in the living one? While it would necessarily have the property of specified complexity it would not necessarily be the product of design. ID is not philosophy it is science based on observation and the induction fallacy. Just because all known specified complex objects have been designed doesn't mean all specified complex objects have been designed especially if designed objects require the presence of a specified complex designer. It only means that a specified complex object was most likely designed. The same way not everyone charged with a crime is a criminal not everything that looks designed was designed. Maybe the designer always existed or maybe there is process (like evolution) that can create it. However the same way as not any kind of evidence will convince a judge not any kind of evidence should convince us regarding such a process. In the case of criminals we call it the presumption of innocence in the case of ID we would call it the presumption of design. (There's also a presumption of atheism advocated by the late philosopher Anthony Flew). Yes evolution or a different natural process can defeat the presumption of design the same way evidence can defeat the presumption of innocence, but it must be proven! I know I know it is very radical... scientific theories are needed to be proven... Until evolution has not been properly proven the idea of design should prevail. But those are the rules of the game and I wasn't the one who made them.
  16. To observe that an object has been designed it needs to have two properties. It has to be complex and it has to be specific (specified complexity). We can measure these properties... For example: erdo Teno siGh is complex, but no specified There is no God Is complex and specified Both sentences have equal chance to appear in a computer that randomly generates words, but only one of them has a meaning. An infinite number of 'A'-s would be also complex but not specified the same way as an infinite number of random letters is as well. You may read The Design Inference for a better explanation if you like. All I can say that intelligence is the property of humans but humans aren't necessarily the only beings gifted with this property. Humans also have mass, location, life and other properties that aren't unique to them. Intelligence of other entities other than ourselves can be observed by what they produce. You can't measure Intelligence by measuring someones or somethings height or weight. The only way you could find other intelligent beings is by looking at what they produced. Looking at the results of tests or tools that they produced. What if we found a high tech weapon on Mars and no other evidence that would prove that someone who could have deigned such a thing ever existed? Do we just accept that it was not designed and walk away? How can we suggest that an object's designer is such and such even without realizing that the object was most likely designed?
  17. If it is such a silly question could you explain to me how the mixing of bases that is necessary for sexual reproduction to have any kind of positive effect evolved? It is one thing to take DNA from the environment and integrate into the cells body and it is another to evolve a mechanism that can mix two full sets of DNA. Until the mechanism evolved there could have been little advantage to have sexual reproduction and even once evolved there wouldn't be two different sets of DNA that could have been mixed. To me it seems natural selection only works if it is convenient for someone arguing for Darwinism.
  18. I have read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution about two years ago. If you have something better I am willing to try, but I heard that The God Delusion was not mainly about ID or Evolution. I wonder where you got your info of ID from. Did you read: Darwin's Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Signature in the Cell, The Design Inference or The Evolution Deceit ? I do no troll...well not more than you do. I could just say what you say to me too you know. Say that you haven't read any of the books I mentioned and that you clearly do not understand how things work... It is very easy to claim such things. I do not remember stating such a thing. I did say I have looked "high and low" though. Reading books, listening to lectures, learning genetics... The male reproductive system has achieved its role the last few thousand years I believe. If someone uses a preexisting animal to create a new but different one things like this may happen the same way similar things happen in software engineering all the time. There is no such thing as a template that is one size fits all. That doesn't mean programs evolve from one to another. Maybe making testes heat resistant isn't as simple as making them migrate them outside the body. Maybe if it was even evolution could have done it. By the way how did the two sexes evolved? Which one evolved first or did they evolve at the same time even though the opposite sex for either did not yet exist?
  19. Yes, but how did such a thing become understood and why is that the only way one can identify something to be the product of design. Is that the only way observation can work? If there was not causal process known to man that could have created the Stonehenge than we would have to accept that it was made by nature? Is the only way to identify a casual process is to experience it first hand and have record about it in books? Intelligence is the cause of design and design has observable properties that match all designed objects. Life would be the one and only exception if evolution was true... Isn't it rational to ask why it is irrational to believe that life was designed regardless of evolution being true or not? You seem to claim that evolution was observed... it was not. It is as much in the air as any magic I propose. Mutations have been observed, change was observed (for the most part because of variation and not mutation), increase in complexity was not observed which would be required for evolution to work. And no copying the same letter or a gene a billion times does not increase complexity... Also one would need to observe a very high rate of increase of complexity to prove that evolution works.
  20. Is it not? You can ignore that sentence if you don't think so...
  21. I don't know anyone or anything now or in the past that can produce such things. Well except for humans perhaps but they would qualify as a poor candidate. I could guess, but that would be somewhat pointless. I however believe that it isn't necessary to identify a concrete designer to know that it exists. It is sufficient to identify an object to be most likely the product of design and that would prove that there existed a designer in the past. Even if we don't know who exactly built the Stonehenge and why there had to be someone who built it if we agree that it was built. It works like saying that there had to be a common ancestor of apes and humans if evolution is true even though we can't prove that there was or what it was. If I had to pick a designer I would not be able to pick anything in the known World, however that doesn't mean I have to accept any naturalistic explanation with vague definitions and arguments supported by almost no real evidence since my knowledge of the World may be less than that what can be known. If a person looks at the cell one will find a unbelievable efficient system that is much more advanced than ours. Is it the product of nature or the product of design? I do not know, but I don't think we should decide such questions based on what we think reality ought to be. Reality doesn't care what we want it to be especially if reality hat to be objective.
  22. That is interesting because that is exactly how we humans do it. Every genetically modified product was created that way. It is easy to make predictions after the discovery and label them as if they were things that the scientists expected. Give me the date the prediction was made and when ERV-s were found and I will believe it. It's not a prediction it is just a fact that happens to not contradict evolution. Doesn't matter much if the rest of the facts are ignored. Anyone could make a prediction like that if they looked at Windows 7 and Vista. Since they look similar if they were run by a code the code would be similar as well. Also since Win7 is found later in the Tree of Microsoft it will be more complex and more fit for survival than Vista. And I didn't have to believe in evolution to make that prediction... And the operating systems that are not fit for survival die out.. oh what a great discovery... That's a rather hasty generalization. If preexisting organisms are used to create modified living beings than it would not be surprising to see inactive retro viruses in the the offspring. (You see organisms unlike computers can self reproduce) That would be the product of cost effectiveness rather than deceit. It is not like viruses and antiviruses with virus databases don't exist in the computer world. My computer has more ERV-s than my own genome...probably...
  • Create New...