|
|
Posted by Erwin Moller on 12/20/07 10:11
Steve wrote:
> "Erwin Moller"
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in
> message news:4769595c$0$85795$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> ???? ??? ?????? wrote:
>>> Excuse me!!
>>> Would you stop for a moment?!
>>> O...man...Haven't you thought-one day- about yourself ?
>>> Who has made it?
>>> Have you seen a design which hasn't a designer ?!
>> Good question, ???? ??? ??????!
>> Who made your designer?
>> .....
>> Well??
>
> well, obviously since nothing complex that we've every experienced has begun
> as something more simple,
Well, I must disagree here. :-)
I have seen a lot of things that became more complex out of simpler stuff.
Have a look at a drop of water, then freeze it and see icecristals form.
Beautiful and more complex.
(But I think we think the same about this.)
the most reasonable answer would be...something
> more complex than the designer. begging the same question ad-nauseum of each
> increasingly more complex creator.
Yes, that is the problem if you want to defens the statement that
complexity can only be created by something more complex.
It is an endless loop.
>
> lest we forget, gawd is a 'special' case and being omni* does not require
> something more complex to create him/her/it/them.
Yes, the famous lazyman's argument. ;-)
It boils down to "I do not understand how this works, so God did it."
>
> erwin, on the notion of irreducibly complex...has the proponent of that
> argument *ever* been able to show something that was? and that's forgiving
> the man-made, relative notions of complexity, order, randomness, etc..
No never.
The guy that coined the idea of irreducable complexity, Behe, received a
warm welcome from the (USA) religious fanatics that saw in his book a
confirmation of their creationist ideas.
Behe was a biologist after all, and see now: Even a biologist agrees
with creationism!
But Behe didn't stand a chance when the critiques came in.
A famous agrument is the human eye: When you study it, it is indeed very
complex, and it is not easy to see how such a thing could evolve. It
*seems* that it should arise in that form at once, and that no simpler
eyes can exist, because it doesn't work as an eye then.
But that argument was bollocks as was shown by many others.
The religious fanatics tend to ignore that, and keep shouting
'irreducable complexity proves a creator exists'.
Here is a good read if you want more opinions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
And if you are in the mood, go to youtube and find 'the four horsemen'.
It is a discussion between Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.
I didn't see it yet (little time at the moment), but 3 of my heroes are
in it (Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens).
Ah, back to PHP now and finish my project. ;-)
Regards,
Erwin Moller
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|