How does Complexity demonstrate Design

PROOF IT IS A FACTIntroduction:

quote:

---

Louis Pasteur - A proof against spontaneous generation -> Fully aware of the presence of microorganisms in nature, Pasteur undertook several experiments designed to address the question of where these germs came from. Were they spontaneously produced in substances themselves, or were they introduced into substances from the environment? Pasteur concluded that the latter was always the case.

​

Pasteur was the first to say that there are such tiny things, like little worms, too small even to be seen, and that those little worms cause various sores and all kinds of sicknesses. So it is necessary to wash your hands, drink boiled water, open the windows to let in good air so that you may live long and not be sick. The doctors poked fun at him, said he was stuck up, knew nothing himself yet, thought he could teach others. The y nicknamed him The Brewer. Pasteur was not a doctor, only a learned naturalist, and he had noticed these bacteria for the first time when they made wine. So they gave him this nickname out of spite.
Anyone else would have been insulted and said: "You don't want to believe it — too bad." But Pasteur was not insulted. He felt sorry for those who were being killed by bacteria, leaving so many orphans. But what worried him most was that nobody was willing to help him, and he could see that his idea did not explain everything.

​

And now everybody knows that bacteria exist, everybody knows what to do against different infectious diseases. And every doctor and every patient knows the great benefits which the famous scientist Louis Pasteur conferred on mankind.

---

As can be seen Pasteur (I guess you know who is he) made an experiment and found out that if there are no bacteria in a tube, they won't spontaneously appear and generate themselves. So there must be existing bacterias in there in order to generate themselves. Is it right? Is it a proof? Nowadays I would say if a water is boiled it is logical fact you won't get disease... In fact, it is a prooved fact according to Pasteurs experiments. Or you would say it is still just an assertion?Information (DNA code, a cell, etc)There have been done many experiments so far. For example:
Premise: Computer can't do any operation without an existing intelligence (in this case a man).
Experiment: A computer was switched on and let 4 years alone in a room. No intelligence (nobody) hadn't had access to this room. After 4 years it was discovered that nothing happened - computer hadn't done even the smallest operation itself. So another experiment took place. It was created a simple program [which would give a computer a command to random select whatever letters] by researcher (a man) and "inserted" to a computer. A program had been run. The result was astonishing - everybody in the room was amazed -> Computer did exactly the same what the program "told" it to do!
There have been done many similar experiments with other things that prooved the same.
And similar experiments have been done about what will happen if a non-living thing would do something by accident if it can recognize what it is without an existing intelligence. No, it couldn't. Experiments can be shown.
Conclusions:a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).Accident:
1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.Information:
1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. It is prooved the information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).That's all mark....As you can see you were once again completely (but I mean seriously completely) wrong so now no need to talk about logical facts .... we can stick just to a fact really. Because of this now it is prooved that God exists and Evolution is nonsense.... Have a nice day.

Exactly. I know. That's why you have to read all of them. In a message above (msg 226) I just did. You are right, you don't need to know it. But you have to read all replies before replying. Assertion. You have to show evidence for your promise. Invalid.

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration. You are not following this guideline at all well. You should observe that your points are not getting across and try to present a different view.You make assertions without solid backing and believe that you have proven things without understanding what is needed for such "proof".This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-15-2004 09:41 AM

Well, admin, when I say "before reading this post you have to read posts xxx and xxx" then read the Loudmouth answer "I didn't read it" ...so I have to repeat some part, don't you think? I need everybody to read some posts like that before replying... so if I repeat something, it is not without further elaboration... and that means it is not against rules.Another thing...
mark24 was saying that my Information and Accident descriptions were just accertions so I've given him facts. And you must agree an assertion and a fact are not the same repeated things (though they look like) even if there is just one word changed in a sentence.I've completely showed what is proof in Pasteur example. If it is not a proof, then what is a proof?

Good, now you're asking questions.I would like others to now contain their impatience and try to explain more carefully just what is wrong with yxifix's "proof".

yxifix, In short, your argument is still of the form, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, IT IS THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE/FALSE. This is again an argument from ignorance & renders your argument invalid. It is also an insufficient sample. Abiogenesis had millions of years & an ocean to occur in, looking at one flask for a couple of days is meaningless. When you have tested a primeval ocean for a billion years, then you may have a point.It's a bit like looking for mutations in bacteria that allow for the metabolisation of lactose. You can buy lac- E.coli from lab suppliers. This means that the enzyme that cleaves lactose is removed, the bacteria cannot live on lactose. You then prepare 100 petri dishes with a lactose/sucrose 50/50 substrate. The bacteria can only live on the sucrose. Let the bacteria grow for a few days, then with a clean cloth (every time), press it against the bacterial colony & then press it against a newly prepared dish that has lactose & not sucrose. Do this 100 times. The bacteria should all die out, you should see no new colonies growing. In fact, this will be the case on most of the lac only petri dishes. Yet on some of the dishes colonies occur. Therefore the bacteria have gained the ability to metabolise lactose.If you looked at an insufficient sample, you would conclude (according to your logic) that such mutation is impossible. Yet it occurs nevertheless if you look at a larger sample. Quite obviously, it is therefore erronious to conclude "proof" of impossibility just because you didn't observe something when you were looking.Moreover, all Pasteur showed that bacteria can't appear from nothing in the space of a couple of days, not after a billions of years of both chemical & biological evolution across the globe.Well, that was easy.Do you have anything that is logically valid, it would save us all an awful lot of time?I am still awaiting a response to the following...1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.

​

2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.

​

3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition.Also:"I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?All you have done is moved the goalposts & avoided the question.By your "reasoning" you have to accept Eric as being fact, because that's exactly the line of reasoning you have taken with your other "proofs". If you say no, then you are a hypocrite. Most people would be embarrassed to be caught out in this way. You see my bolded text, above? I have made a positive assertion, & unless you "prove" me wrong, you must accept I'm right, right? Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong, right?Say hello to Eric, he's real, yxifix "logic" says so! Has the penny dropped yet? Surely even a creationist must get this!? This is a hypothetical scenario where you are supposed to learn something, as opposed to dig yourself deeper. Does the word "consistency" mean anything to you?"MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-15-2004 10:45 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

HiI'll try and explain what I think is infuriating people about your conclusions. Your argument tends to be quite wide ranging - from big bang to how percieved complexity in animals evolved - so it might be useful to focus on one aspect, and address your reasoning in detail. Let's have a look at the genetic code:Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is this:It is impossible for the information that is in the universal genetic code to arise by random processesI would say that this statement is wrong because there is no satisfactory evidence to back it up. In order for the discussion to continue past the "you prove it" "No, you prove it!'" stage you have to show us the evidence that backs up your position.This is the hard bit: Don't use analogies, use the actual facts about the genetic code. Its' easy to come up with analogies revolving around computers and programmers etc, but they don't actually reflect what we do know about the real world. If you don't know enough about how the universal code works then don't be afraid to ask - I would be happy to give you a crash course in molecular biolgy (and no doubt there are others that would be quite keen as well ).

I am sorry mark. We can see it whenever we like.Argument from ignorancePasteur's example did show and prove exactly what is true and what is false. So there is no way we can talk about argument from ignorance.Unrepresentative SampleThere is no way we can talk about unrepresentative sample, mark. Pasteur did make his experiment on the whole sample (bacteria - each bacteria has the same way of reproduction, noone can just appears). Sorry, you are again wrong."Every human lives because of oxygen which is needed to stay him alive" ... is this a fact?This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-15-2004 10:51 AM

Sorry. We are not talking about mutations or "evolution" of bacteria. But about a proof against spontaneous generation.

Sorry, my example (msg 226) is the same as you are talking about... you have to read all discussion (including Origin-of-Life one).
Atoms and molecules needed before a cell and DNA code was created are also carying a "program". That's why all of them are not the same. Each of them has different one.

yxifix,You have failed to address any of the points with any substance at all.My last post stands.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

That's your assertion... you need to show evidence for your premise. Don't forget.

The posts where you failed to address my points substantively are the evidence. You dodged & evaded. Nothing more. Then you did it again.I'll let the admin deal with you.

I'm sorry, honestly. But I can't see what you are talking about. That's why I need you to show me what exactly is wrong with my posts. Thank you.

In what way? Pasteur's experiment proved that fully-formed bacteria don't arise spontaneously from a specific sterile broth over a geologically short time period.In what way does that specific finding apply to abiogenesis? That's like saying "I can't flap my arms and fly, therefore there's no way to get from New York to London in under 8 hours." In other words you're generalizing too far from one specific experiment. But nobody has claimed that bacteria are the simplest possible form of life, or that they're the first common ancestor. Nobody here claims that bacteria were the first product of abiogenesis.