How does Complexity demonstrate Design

NosyNed make me

---

See.

You have a formal warning.Continued nonsense posts will result in a restriction of your posting priviledges. I suggest you read over the guidelines and decide if you want to stick you your agreement at registration here.

Right ON!Many rocks are complex, without being orderly. Crystals are orderly, but not so complex.Nevertheless, even in a lack of obvious complexity or order, even the atoms and molecules are extremely orderly in their "building-block" unity, and also meet the "complexity" issue, to a moderate degree.When we start looking at the simplest living cell, and the necessity of the astounding complexity and orderly information in the DNA, which is absolutely necessary for the replication of said cell, the thing goes beyond ridiculous, to think that this all "just came about" on its own.The bit about a television or radio pointing to a God, is not quite on track -- rather, these things could never come to be without "A Designer". That designer, obviously, was human.But, how did LIFE come about, with all its awesome complexities (far more than an appliance, yet also with the ability to repair itself AND reproduce, which no appliance can ever do)?If it were at all likely that life could come about without a Creator, why do we not see continuous examples of "spontaneous generation" all about us?If this were true, why was it such a great discovery when Pasteur proved that maggots do not grow directly from rotting meat? Why was this a "discovery" at all, if "spontaneous generation" can, indeed, occur?If we are going to call this "science", then we need to remain by the Rules of Science: it must be observable, it must be repeatable, it must be predictable.To date, we have NO scientific data to support:
(1) order growing out of disorder (Second Law of Thermodynamics);
(2) matter coming from nothing (the First Law);
(3) LIFE springing from NON-Life (the Second Law);
(4) LIFE changing into more complex forms (genetics).However, there is no evidence to support that there is NO Creator.If one option requires breaking every scientific rule there is to accept it, and another option has no rules against it, which is preferable?So, how did a Creator come to be? If He was also Created, then He is not the true Creator, but a first Creature.So, going to the First and Original Creator of all things, He could only be Eternal. If He is Eternal, then He must be spiritual, and not subject to the laws of matter. This makes perfect sense to me, as it complies totally with the observable Laws of Nature.

This is indeed encouraging, to see that someone actually remembers the importance of scientific laws, as they have been established, put to endless tests, and confirmed.Without using what has already been done to define our material universe and its laws, we can all go around in circles forever, deciding and re-deciding what our favorite position is ...regardless of whether the laws are violated or not, by said position.I do wonder why people never go into Math with this same "relativistic" approach, but lots of people like to take this "your truth MAY not be MY truth" attitude towards science.Anyway, good going on your clear reasoning !!

Did someone request a session with Mr. Spanktacular's ass-tanning machine? Brrrrr.... rumble rumble... slappity slappity slap... In order to make this statement you must first define complexity and information in an objective and measurable way, and then present criteria on which to judge whether something could not have generated despite the odds for it to have been generated in an abiological environment. The "spontaneous generation" discredited by Pasteur was not the same thing as "abiogenesis". If you do not understand this, you need to read more about both.Abiogenesis, the generation of life by nonlife, as theorized occured in an environment which was nothing like we have on earth today. Thus if it is still going on, which is not guaranteed, it would have to be in environments humans may not even have access to, much less be able to monitor readily.Indeed, even if life was continually being generated it is unlikely we could notice as it would be totally microscopic. We have a hard enough time finding giant squid in their environment, good luck to a prion or bacteria at some isolated vent. 1) The 2nd law allows for increases in order. This is especially true for a planet filled with energy trapping environments, and energy sources.2) I assume you are referring to the Big Bang. That is a cosmological theory and is totally separate from the issue of abiogenesis and evolution. There could be no way of discounting that Gods created the universe and life fell out by accident. Anyhow, cosmological theory does not detail, and I'm uncertain what we could use to test, what occured before the Big Bang. It certainly does not require a sudden creation of matter and energy from nowhere. It could be from a point source (from a previous collapse?) or from contact with another dimension.3) The 2nd law does not prevent life coming from nonlife. I'm interested in how this is different from point #1? After that you can address how the second law applies to chemical groups becoming self-replicating.4) This is untrue, unless you have a definition of complexity which you'd like to share. In addition to bacterial life which has been shown to generate new ways of eating and surviving, I have two threads within the ID area which involve observed changes in a plant and humans which can only be described as an increase in complexity. I might add that genetic mutation is not the only theorized source of biological change in evolution. Stick to your guns chum. Remember observable, repeatable, and predictable.What the hell is a Creator? Never seen one, never had any tests beyond singular nonrepeatable anecdotes, and allows no predictions (beyond someone mentioning a creator when they run out of answers and/or a willingness to admit they just do not know).You have used bad references to actual scientific laws and observations to supposedly undercut broad scientific theories, then immediately cut to irrational assertions of purely theoretical entities. This does not follow logically at all. We are talking about a specific Creator, no? That creator may very well have needed a Creator, depending on the laws pertaining to the supernatural...Wait a minute. What is spiritual? Again, you have introduced a purely theoretical entity (this time an underlying force or plane of existence) with no testable qualities.But back to assuming a spiritual realm... There may be laws which say all sorts of things about the Creator of life in this Universe... or rather this planet because that is all we can really talk about.First of course we need to find a Creator and something in this "spiritual plane" and see how they interact with each other and this "material/energy plane". Perhaps you can point out the research I've overlooked on the existence of a Creator, which exists in a "spiritual plane", and interacted with our Universe (indeed creating it, yet being separate from it).Slappity slappity slap... you about done? Those cheeks look pretty red from here.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

My bad; I used a figure of speech to someone of limited fluency in English. I apologize.What I should have said was, evolution is the more accurate theory, because it explains more evidence and is disconfirmed by none. Creationism is the less accurate theory because it explains little and is disconfirmed by much evidence. Hopefully that's a little clearer for you. I wasn't able to locate that post; if it's from a different thread it's usually polite to link to it if you're going to reference it.But more importantly, if your conclusion is anything but "evolution is an accurate description of the history of life on Earth", then your conclusion is not supported by the evidence. You refuse to reject that which has been shown to be in error; you accept all conclusions - even mutually exclusive ones - so you accept nothing. You're unable to come to conlusions about the natural world. I'd say that's the height of paralysis.Your mind is so open your brains have fallen out, to paraphrase Russel. Because you refuse to reject that which is in error, you know nothing about the world. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean accepting every single propostion as true. It means looking at the evidence objectively and then coming to a conclusion - but re-examining your conclusions in the light of new information.You've presented no new information; you've merely called us "close-minded" because we're a little father along than you - we've looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion. We're not going to revisit that conclusion, do all that work again, just on your say-so. Show us new information and we'll consider it, but until then, why bother? You've simply confused shorthand with an underlying reality. Of course we hold to tentativity - the evolutionists, anyway - but it's just much simpler to refer to evolution as "right" or "correct" or "true", instead of typing "tentativly true" or "provisionally accepted" or "most accurate" each time. And yet, were you cognizant of the context of the board, and not simply a johnny-come-lately who obviously has developed a viewpoint from far too small a sample of posts, you would be aware that this has never really occured. So open your mind, and allow us to provide observational evidence that evolution is an accurate model for the history of life on Earth. You haven't yet.

I rather suspect you've equivocated on the word "orderly". If the "information" (whatever that is) in DNA is "orderly", it certainly isn't orderly like crystals are orderly. Why would it have to have been "likely" to have happened once? People win the lottery, you know, and that's not likely.The conditions that lead to life may very well be unlikely. That's hardly an argument that they didn't occur. It does, after all, only have to happen once. That's not the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Moreover your own crystal example is an observation of orderly arrangement precipitating from disorder. (Oh, wait, are you equivocating on the word "order" again? You don't seem to sure what that word means, honestly.) We have observed this. It occurs constantly at every point in space. It's responsible for a measurable, repeatable influence called the "Casimir Effect." At the turn of the century, a chemist synthesized a compound (urea) found only in living things out of non-organic, mineral reactants. Moreover every atom in your body was once a part of something non-living, so in fact, we observe "life from non-life" every time someone is born. I'm not sure how you would quantify complexity of living things, but we've observed a number of genetic changes that have resulted in greater complexity, new abilities, and superior offspring.So, basically, you're wrong about all four of those things. For each thing you claimed we had no observations of, I know of observations that can be made. So, you're either very poorly informed or a rather bad liar. How could there be? He would have to exist for there to be any evidence about him. But you didn't address the flip side - there is no evidence to support that there is a Creator, and certainly none to support the idea that the Creator is the Christian God. The one that explains the most evidence, makes the best testable predicitions, and is most supported by observation.Evolution, in other words. Yes, you've hit it on the head exactly. You only need God if you assume that all things must have a creator. But if you do, that necessitates a creator for God. Ergo, the whole thing is probably bogus, because it's illogical. That was an interesting way for you to end a post, with a potential disproof of God. I had figured you were going somewhere else with this post, like Creationism. Glad to see I was mistaken.

Forum: Is It Science?
Topic: Investigation of Biblical science errors
Message #105

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

you mean http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Investigation of Biblical science errors -->http://EvC Forum: Investigation of Biblical science errorsor Message 105enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Oh, ok.Why would the origin of life be a subject where religion was relevant? As you say, science serves a specific purpose. Part of that purpose is supplying answers to questions like "why are there so many different species?"Since that's soley a question of science, why would you consider the theory of evolution flawed simply because it doesn't take a religious position? That's like saying that Einstein's theory of gravity is flawed because it doesn't explain yesterday's stock prices. Why on Earth would you consider it a flaw for a theory to fail to address something it never claimed it would?Basically your position is the sort of thing philosophy freshmen flirt with for a year and then come to their senses. I guess we're all waiting for that to happen with you.

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Thanks, I wasn't quite sure how to do that. I appreciate the help.

​

Cheers

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

DarkStar opines:

quote:

---

Through speculation, assumption, and conjecture, science can offer possible explanations as to why there are so many different species, but religion is also able to offer explanation, using the exact same criteria, speculation, assumption, and conjecture. Once again, neither science nor religion are (sic) able to answer in the definitive.

---

But at least science's explanations are possible. We have ample information concerning the track record of religious explanations for natural phenomena such as rainbows, heredity, disease, the weather, seashells in the mountains, etc. I hope it's obvious that religious explanations are lacking in empirical significance what they make up for in imagination.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-28-2004 02:46 PM

you can look at the coding with the raw text button - the easy way is to copy the url from the web address window and just paste it into the reply window (the link is made automatically on this site). The only problem is to make sure you have the link to the correct message -- I usually use the {"This message is a reply to:"} link and then pick the correct {"Replies to this message:"} link to set it up to copy. glad to help.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}