Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does Complexity demonstrate Design
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 46 of 321 (114495)
06-11-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by John Paul
06-11-2004 3:15 PM


Re: More dishonesty from John Paul
YOur argument rests on confusing the ultimate origins of trees as a class with the origins of individual trees.
Individual trees are formed by growth. Since we are discussing the origins of individual trees this is the process to consider.
The question at hand is do you consider that process to be natural or not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:15 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:35 PM PaulK has replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 321 (114496)
06-11-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by MrHambre
06-11-2004 3:04 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of an evolutionist
MrH:
Nature creates trees and babies and (especially) bacteria all the time, through the impressive but undirected process of DNA copying and cell division.
John Paul:
WRONG! Trees create trees, bacteria create bacteria and babies come from LIVING organisms.
MrH:
I resent being called dishonest because I expect you to offer the same evidence you demand (and then deny) from evolutionists.
John Paul:
Then stop being dishonest and we won't have this problem.
MrH:
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.
John Paul:
That statement is a contradiction. Either something was intelligently designed or it is the product of nature. Nature does not design cars, computers or vending machines. Nature has never been observed to create any information rich systems (ie such as life) or specified complexity.
MrH:
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.
John Paul:
Behe has done just that. But you have not offered anything to support that these structures are natural- as in created by nature.
MrH:
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.
John Paul:
We DO have the knowledge that every time we observe information rich systems, IC and specified complexity it is ALWAYS the result of an intelligent agency. How do you think we are able to differentiate between man-made and natural? How do you think we determined Stonehenge was designed and not natural?
Perhaps if I keep posting this it may sink in:
As Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin’s Black Box: Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.
To falsify the design inference just show us the flagellum can evolve via purely natural processes. Don't blame us because you can't support your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 3:04 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by DC85, posted 06-12-2004 1:59 AM John Paul has not replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 06-12-2004 2:52 AM John Paul has not replied

John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 321 (114498)
06-11-2004 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
06-11-2004 3:26 PM


Re: More dishonesty from PaulK
PK:
YOur argument rests on confusing the ultimate origins of trees as a class with the origins of individual trees.
John Paul:
That is incorrect. MrH posted on the CREATION of trees, not the growth. He later changed. That you don't realize or can't see this is testimony to your dishonesty.
PK:
Individual trees are formed by growth. Since we are discussing the origins of individual trees this is the process to consider.
John Paul:
We were NOT discussing this before. That individual trees grow does not mean anything as to whether or not they were designed to do so or just do so because the evolved that way naturally.
PK:
The question at hand is do you consider that process to be natural or not ?
John Paul:
The question at hand is why do evolutionists have to twist what is said or misrepresent reality in order to claim victory in a debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2004 3:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2004 3:49 PM John Paul has not replied

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


Message 49 of 321 (114502)
06-11-2004 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by John Paul
06-11-2004 3:35 PM


Tje statements under discussion are
From Mr Hambre (post 24)
Intelligent agency has never created a tree, a baby, or a bacterium.
From your reply (post 25)
And neither has nature.
Thus we are dealing with the origins of individual trees since you asserted that none of them were created by nature.
Do you consider the growth of a tree from seed to be a natural process or not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:35 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 06-15-2004 3:16 PM PaulK has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 321 (114549)
06-11-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by John Paul
06-11-2004 10:47 AM


And if that is circular then there are several investigative venues that stake their reputation on circularity.
Oh, I get it now. You're one of those guys who can't tell the difference between a circular argument and corraboration from multiple points of evidence.
Hell, why didn't you just say so? Then I would have known not to bother.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 10:47 AM John Paul has not replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 321 (114606)
06-12-2004 1:27 AM


Some Peoples Kids!
I have been reading through the posts in this thread and have determined that some are worth following and others are not, and a few posts, (their authors shall remain nameless), contain such asinine statements that it boggles the mind.
Let's start at the beginning and take a look at the good, the bad, and the ugly.
DC85 writes:
The main Idea of this logic is that the universe is so complex it must have been designed, but wouldn’t the designer of the universe be inherently more complex than the universe itself? If this is true , who designed the designer, and so on? (Message 1 of 46)
This line of reasoning, (which we have all employeed at one time or another in our lives), is sophomoric at best as it demands infinite progression backwards in time. But to be fair, DC's one-liner in this same post was short, sweet, and to the point, and the answer seems quite obvious to me.
DC85 writes:
why does Complex = Design?
Observation alone is sufficient enough to show us that complex = design, but does not necessarily reveal the designer.
Perdition writes:
If you want to design something, the simpler the better. There are much less things to go wrong or need fixing if the design is simple. (Message 7 of 46)
Probably not the same reasoning used by most design engineers, thankfully, who purposely incorporate complexity into their designs in order to eliminate known problems in simpler designs.
Brad Mcfall writes:
One answer might be that they are able to conclude the sublime in that pattern and then THINK to a beauty that it is not and from there guess it IS THUS designed but I would have thought there is not this much sophistication but rather from a moral position instead ANY practical reason might grant that no matter how nature is traced the invention of it (in any human terms) could apirori have been and if it was then it will at least by will be by design should the thinker have a head on their shoulders. (Message 12 of 46)
What the hell did he just say?
sidelined writes:
In a complex design is the designer not also complex and if we follow the logic of the statement that complexity indicates design to its apparent conclusion how then does the designer escape being designed? (Message 19 of 50)
Dj Vu!
Sorry, I had to skip over the next several posts so as not to pull my hair out while wondering how some of these people developed the thought process that they employ, because logic is most surely absent from their vocabulary, and their method of reasoning.
sidelined writes:
Excuse me for being thick.....(Message 31 of 47)
You're excused!
Sorry sidelined, that one was just to tempting to pass up.
John Paul writes:
.....you don't have to know or have any knowledge of the designer in order to detect and study the design. (Message 38 of 47)
Quite possibly the most logical statement I have read thus far.....damn it!
crashfrog writes:
Oh, I get it now. (Message 50 of 50)
Oh sure, switch sides midstream.....traitor!
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 1:44 AM DarkStar has replied
 Message 55 by DC85, posted 06-12-2004 2:04 AM DarkStar has not replied
 Message 61 by sidelined, posted 06-12-2004 2:53 AM DarkStar has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 52 of 321 (114608)
06-12-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by DarkStar
06-12-2004 1:27 AM


Wow. That was a spectacular example of talking much and saying little, DS. You could have written as stunning a non-argument if you had just said "me too!"
DS, around here we debate. We don't just fling our fecal matter and pretend like we've addressed points. If you have some substantial response to the points raised, this wasn't it. If you're not capable of such a response, why not let the grown-ups talk for a while, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 1:27 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 1:55 AM crashfrog has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 321 (114612)
06-12-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 1:44 AM


Jump Froggy, Jump!
In addition to being prolific at spouting out pedantic statements, you are obviously handicapped with a severely limited sense of humor, hence, your latest post.
Cheers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 1:44 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:09 AM DarkStar has replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 54 of 321 (114615)
06-12-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by John Paul
06-11-2004 3:30 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of an evolutionist
WRONG! Trees create trees, bacteria create bacteria and babies come from LIVING organisms.
WRONG! we can clearly see from the fossil record this is not true.... You really need to do some studying... Evolution has been observed... what you can't seem to get through your thick heads is that there is no difference between Micro and Macro Evolution.
Its very simple really... A lot of Micro = Macro (ummm duh?). We have observed what you call "microevolution" and there is no reason to Believe the Organism cannot keep Evolving into completely different things.... unless of course you can prove there is a magic line that stops them from evolving too much... But this is really of topic.
Nature has never been observed to create any information rich systems (i.e. such as life) or specified complexity.
Read above... we have observed in small amounts things getting more complex. There is no reason to believe this can't continue.
Nature does not design cars, computers or vending machines.
ummmm that’s because these things do not have DNA (which at one point wasn't so complex)

My site The Atheist Bible
My New Debate Fourms!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:30 PM John Paul has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 55 of 321 (114616)
06-12-2004 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by DarkStar
06-12-2004 1:27 AM


Re: Some Peoples Kids!
Observation alone is sufficient enough to show us that complex = design,
What Observation? Man made objects hardly count. We have also Observed Organisms slowly get more complex... what exactly is your Evidence for this?
This message has been edited by DC85, 06-12-2004 01:05 AM

My site The Atheist Bible
My New Debate Fourms!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 1:27 AM DarkStar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 321 (114617)
06-12-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by DarkStar
06-12-2004 1:55 AM


Is there any reason you've decided to abdicate any attempt at actual intelligent participation and instead just spam the forum and jerk my chain? Just curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 1:55 AM DarkStar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 2:34 AM crashfrog has replied

DarkStar
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 321 (114620)
06-12-2004 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
06-12-2004 2:09 AM


Frog legs taste like chicken for a reason!
I have come to the conclusion that it is individuals like yourself who give all the rest of the evolutionists a bad rep. When confronted with a poster whose views, for whatever reason, are contrary to yours in some degree, even if that person is an evolutionist, that you tend to follow those individuals from forum to forum with nothing more in mind than hurling baseless insults at them. Stop kidding yourself, you are no debater.
Rather, you seem to prefer the role as an instigator of contention. I have not seen a single one of your posts, in any forum, which are directed at a number of individuals, that was in line with what you demand from others. You offer up nothing but parrot phrases, end up on the losing end of a discussion and immediately begin with the insults because you have obviously reached the inevitable conclusion that your arguments have no basis in logic, or reason, or fact. Unfortunately for the rest of us, your type comes a dime a dozen.
Jeers

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-12-2004 2:44 AM DarkStar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 321 (114622)
06-12-2004 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by DarkStar
06-12-2004 2:34 AM


When confronted with a poster whose views, for whatever reason, are contrary to yours in some degree
DS, I'm fine with whatever your views are.
But if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, how about some evidence? Anything else just lowers the tenor of debate to playground antics. Seriously your last couple of posts are an embarassment. I can't imagine what's going on with you - you were doing so well until you stuck your fingers in your ears and started calling people "asinine."
Get with the program, DS. Around here we make arguments and support them with evidence. What's your problem with that, exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by DarkStar, posted 06-12-2004 2:34 AM DarkStar has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 321 (114623)
06-12-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John Paul
06-11-2004 10:51 AM


Re: It is not just "complex"
"Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention."
this quote, if anything, shows that behe is full of crap.
think about it for a second, how can something be irreducible if it can be reduced to components? behe argues repeatedly that he's not concerned with major systems, but the minor subsystems it is composed of. have you read darwin's black box? i'm working on it.
can you reduce the bacterial flagellum to a subset of working components? yes? then it's not irreducible.
but a more important question: can parts around the garage randomly make a mousetrap? all it takes is a paint can and an unsteady shelf, and bad luck on the mouse's part.
now, if it my garage were a biological system, and found that it LIKED killing mice, perhaps next step would be evolving that unstead shelf into a trigger. some kind of luring device might be next. maybe a propulsion system for the paint can to improve reaction time.
unfortunately, my garage is not biological. to compare it to a biological system is silly. genetics and generations don't apply to the garage, and neither does variation and natural selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 10:51 AM John Paul has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 321 (114624)
06-12-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by John Paul
06-11-2004 3:30 PM


Re: on the dishonesty of an evolutionist
To falsify the design inference just show us the flagellum can evolve via purely natural processes. Don't blame us because you can't support your position.
do a google search.
there's literally tons of examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 3:30 PM John Paul has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024