Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does Complexity demonstrate Design
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 31 of 321 (114446)
06-11-2004 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
06-11-2004 11:32 AM


John Paul
The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.
Excuse me for being thick but how exactly do you have intelligent design without the intelligence? Should we not then call it the design theory and remove any misunderstanding that is present?

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:32 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:27 PM sidelined has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 321 (114448)
06-11-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by sidelined
06-11-2004 12:22 PM


The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.
sidelined:
Excuse me for being thick but how exactly do you have intelligent design without the intelligence?
John Paul:
You don't. Again you miss the point. I don't need to know the designer of my car to know it was designed and to be able to figure out how it works.
sidelined:
Should we not then call it the design theory and remove any misunderstanding that is present?
John Paul:
It is called Intelligent Design to differentiate between apparent and optimal design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:22 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:34 PM John Paul has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 33 of 321 (114450)
06-11-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John Paul
06-11-2004 12:27 PM


John Paul
It is called Intelligent Design to differentiate between apparent and optimal design.
Which one is it,apparent design or optimal design?

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:27 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:39 PM sidelined has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 321 (114453)
06-11-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by sidelined
06-11-2004 12:34 PM


It is called Intelligent Design to differentiate between apparent and optimal design.
sidelined:
Which one is it,apparent design or optimal design?
John Paul:
Neither. Intelligent is used to differentiate between optimal and apparent. Apparent being what Dawkins calls the design in living organisms and optimal being something akin to perfect. Itelligent just means an intelligence, even one acting stupidly, is the cause of the design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:34 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:59 PM John Paul has replied

TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 321 (114459)
06-11-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by John Paul
06-11-2004 10:51 AM


Re: It is not just "complex"
Nothing man has ever designed has been irrucedibly complex. And I do think man would qualify as an "intelligent designer".
Take any invention, and look at it. You'll find out that the parts it consists of are either other inventions, or raw material.
Take a Boeing 747 for example. In order to make it you need technologies from a multitude of science fields. Within each field several hundreds of years of slow accumulation of knowledge are needed. Where each part of new knowledge is based on that was known before. And at no stage in this process is it impossible to go the the next stage, since each step is small.
Hmm thats strange... it sounds just like... yeah, thats right evolution.
There is one problem with irreducibly complex systems and that is that the only such system that can exist is the one that can't be put together in the first place. (By anything.)
See if a system has parts, then it must have an order in which it was assembled. Thus you can reverse that order and dismantle it. Both literally and conceptually. Otherwise the system could not have been built. In other words the process of creation would have taken another path.
That is why arguments from design are dumb. Design is not magic. It's a slow process built upon previous accumulation of knowledge and experience. It's a process of selection. Just like any evolutionary process is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 10:51 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:14 PM TechnoCore has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 36 of 321 (114460)
06-11-2004 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by John Paul
06-11-2004 12:39 PM


John Paul
[qs] Itelligent just means an intelligence, even one acting stupidly, is the cause of the design.
Then if the intelligence is not necessary to the understanding of the design then just what do you put forth in this theory that seperates it from evolution?I mean,you must of necessity point to an intelligent design in order to make your case and this is where the house of cards falls down.Intelligent design is obviously needing to show how an intelligence is able to do the design.
Abiogenesis is at least able to make use of chemistry and physics to show a plausible model that is consistent with the evidence.There are enormous amounts of information tying together the various phenomena of life that we observe around into a cohesive whole.

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:39 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:09 PM sidelined has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 37 of 321 (114461)
06-11-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John Paul
06-11-2004 11:32 AM


JP,
The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.
That's not true, you can potentially have a ToE without having abiogenesis, but you most certainly can't have design without a designer.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:32 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:05 PM mark24 has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 321 (114463)
06-11-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mark24
06-11-2004 1:03 PM


The designer is less important to ID than abiogenesis (the logical conclusion to naturalism and the ToE) is to the ToE.
Mark:
That's not true, you can potentially have a ToE without having abiogenesis, but you most certainly can't have design without a designer.
John Paul:
A ToE without a purely natural origins of life would be a ToE that is either theistic or ID. My pint is you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mark24, posted 06-11-2004 1:03 PM mark24 has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 321 (114466)
06-11-2004 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
06-11-2004 12:59 PM


sidelined:
Then if the intelligence is not necessary to the understanding of the design then just what do you put forth in this theory that seperates it from evolution?
John Paul:
Doesn't any evolutionist care to know about what it is they are debating against? The evidence leads to ID that is why ID was put forward.
sidelined:
Abiogenesis is at least able to make use of chemistry and physics to show a plausible model that is consistent with the evidence.
John Paul:
But there isn't any plausible model that shows life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes. However all of our current knowledge shows where there are information rich systems or specified complexity there is always an intelligent agency involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 12:59 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by sidelined, posted 06-11-2004 3:06 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 321 (114469)
06-11-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by TechnoCore
06-11-2004 12:57 PM


Re: It is not just "complex"
TC:
Nothing man has ever designed has been irrucedibly complex. And I do think man would qualify as an "intelligent designer".
John Paul:
My computer is IC. Take away the fuse and it doesn't power up. Take away the hard drive and it doesn't work. I could list many man-made inventions that are IC.
The 747 took intelligence to put all of the parts together in the right sequence and it took intelligence to create the parts in the first place.
TC:
There is one problem with irreducibly complex systems and that is that the only such system that can exist is the one that can't be put together in the first place. (By anything.)
John Paul:
I hope you are joking. Rube Goldberg machines are IC and can be put together. Go figure...
The only thing dumb is TC's argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by TechnoCore, posted 06-11-2004 12:57 PM TechnoCore has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 321 (114476)
06-11-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by John Paul
06-11-2004 11:27 AM


on the dishonesty of an evolutionist
Below is a dialog between MrH and myself. What I would like to know is what is what it that turns a person to use dishonest tactics such as twisting someone else's words or changing what was said to suit their purpose:
MrH:
There has to be some rational basis for how we're trying to establish consensus here, but if you're going to deny that trees grow through natural processes, then I'm done.
John Paul:
You were done well before this. I NEVER said, nor implied, that trees don't grow through natural processes. That isn't even what you asked/ posted. This is what YOU posted "Intelligent agency has never created a tree," , which is very different from trees growing naturally
A reply from MrH would be most appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:27 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2004 2:50 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 43 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 3:04 PM John Paul has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 321 (114485)
06-11-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
06-11-2004 2:04 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of John Paul
You explicitly denied that trees were created by natural processes.
Trees are formed through growth (from seeds)
Ergo your statement denied that trees grow through natural processes.
I suggest that you apologise for falsely accusing Mr H of being dishonest.
For now I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that your failure to refernce the relevant posts by link or number was an unfortunate oversight, as was your failure to quote the relevant part of your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 2:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:15 PM PaulK has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 43 of 321 (114492)
06-11-2004 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by John Paul
06-11-2004 2:04 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of an evolutionist
John Paul,
I have never received a straight answer from you when I've asked what natural phenomena we know to be the product of intelligent agency. Has intelligent agency ever created a tree, or a baby, or a bacterial flagellum? So far you have pointed to things such as your car, your house, and Stonehenge to illustrate the products of intelligent design. The origin of these objects you mention, however, has never been in question. I have still not heard mentioned a single natural phenomenon, not one, that we understand to be the product of intelligent agency.
Your argument seems to be as follows.
Major premise: Everything IC is the product of intelligent design.
Minor premise: Natural phenomenon "A" is irreducibly complex.
Conclusion: Therefore, "A" is the product of intelligent design.
Now, I submit that you're assuming that the major premise has already been accepted as given, which is absolutely not true. You need to offer evidence that we know of any natural structures like the human heart, the eye, the BacFlag, that more or less qualify as irreducibly complex, which we know to have been intelligently designed. So far you have not offered one example. Your car is not the issue, nor any similarities between your car and any natural organs or structures.
An IC structure like the outboard motor we know to have been intelligently designed. With an IC structure like the BacFlag we don't have that knowledge. Without such independent knowledge, you can't assume that IC is the hallmark of intelligent design.
I've also tried in vain to do is establish consensus between us that undirected, natural processes have resulted in anything whatsoever. I still am not sure what phenomena (if any) you feel are attributable to undirected natural processes.
When I asserted that "Intelligent agency has never created a tree, a baby, or a bacterium," you evidently could not offer evidence to refute my claim. Thus, you merely spat back "Neither has nature," and hoped that everyone would accept that assertion the same way you want us to accept the major premise of your intelligent design syllogism: "Everything IC is the product of intelligent design." You have argued subsequently that nature had nothing to do with the conception and/or birth of your own offspring.
Nature creates trees and babies and (especially) bacteria all the time, through the impressive but undirected process of DNA copying and cell division. If you feel there is anything in Nature, anything at all, that requires the intervention of an intelligent agent, the burden is on you to explain what that is and back it up with evidence. I resent being called dishonest because I expect you to offer the same evidence you demand (and then deny) from evolutionists.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 2:04 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:30 PM MrHambre has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 44 of 321 (114493)
06-11-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by John Paul
06-11-2004 1:09 PM


John Paul
But there isn't any plausible model that shows life can arise from non-life via purely natural processes.
All life is composed of atoms of chemical elements whose interaction produces new and novel compounds.These follow laws of physics inherent in the constituent particles.
Now it is not a great stretch of imagination to see the pattern that shows the same progression in interaction as we go through different types of compounds.Take oxygen and hydrogen. Seperate they are gases at room temperatures while in combiation they become liquid at that same temperature.The properties of water are well known as are the physics behind these elements.
I can list many others.Sodium and Potassium, two deadly poisons seperately but together they are salt necessary for life.Carbon and Oxygen.Hydrogen and chlorine.
Now take those combinations and have them interact forming compounds ever more complex and with even greater ranges of characteristics and it has been shown that precusors of life can be formed.That we have not been able to duplicate the very beginning of organic life in no way is a blight on our model but rather is a reckoning of how difficult it is to be sure of what it is we must look for.Perhaps a gamma ray burst from a nearby supernova was the necessary catalyst.
However all of our current knowledge shows where there are information rich systems or specified complexity there is always an intelligent agency involved.
You surely cannot be speaking of biology but,if so, please enlighten us as to how you arrive at that conclusion.

You paddle your kayak up the river from your camp to fetch your camera which you left on a rock upstream a bit. The river flows at a uniform 2 mi/hr. You paddle (on still water) at a uniform 3 mi/hr. It takes 30 minutes to reach your camera. If you paddle all the way back to your camp, how long will the return trip take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:09 PM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 321 (114494)
06-11-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PaulK
06-11-2004 2:50 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of PaulK
PK:
You explicitly denied that trees were created by natural processes.
John Paul:
Yeah, so what? Can you refute that statement?
PK:
Trees are formed through growth (from seeds)
John Paul:
Seeds from trees. where did those original trees come from?
PK:
Ergo your statement denied that trees grow through natural processes.
John Paul:
Only if we follow your faulty logic.
PK:
I suggest that you apologise for falsely accusing Mr H of being dishonest.
John Paul:
There was/ is nothing false about my accusation. A clear reading of the posts shows he twisted what was posted. I can't help it if you can't comprehend that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2004 2:50 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2004 3:26 PM John Paul has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024