|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreduceable Complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: TB, Please, "How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design!" Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: That's a lot of certainty for someone with no evidence. Mark is right, TB. If you cannot distinguish designed from naturally occurring, IC is sunk. So far, you haven't even attempted such a thing. Then we'll move right along to the other tenants you cannot defend....
quote: Behe, mighty slayer of straw men, so very desperately needs a clue. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: What if you reduce the mass of the hammer, and a compensatoryelastic material to pull the reduced weight down so that we have similar momentum. Then increase the 'pull' further by coiling the elastic materialand reduce the hammer weight further. Is that an incremental change ... if it is does that make amousetrap not irreducibly complex ? Or do we just then say that a hammer on a stick is irreducibly complex ? It seems that what IC is basically saying is:: 'I cannot imagine an incremental process that can lead tothis result.' That's an argument from incredulity, surley ? To validate it we would have to imagine every possible way thatsomething could hace come into being, and if we were certain that we had expended ALL possibilities then perhaps we are left with design. So we come down to 'have we expended all possible incrementaldevelopment scenarios or not ?'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Mark et al
IC suggests non-natural, hence design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ummmm..... this is not an answer. This is not evidence. It isn't even an argument, just a definition. I don't think anyone will argue about the definition, but is it an accurate description of the universe? Where is the IC? And how would we know it if we found it? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
When we see systems which require a minimum number of components that is IC and that is evidence of design.
It's not proof, there is a miniscule possibility a future explanation ala Kaufmann or bird wings from prey catching will explain it but in the balance IC suggests design. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Ok. Then tell us who the designer is and after that, tell us who designed the designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^
I'm quite happy to say that the data doens't take us much further unless my arguemtns of the trinity in light (red/green/blue), life (DNA/RNA/proteins), the solar system (sun,moon,stars) and high energy physics (three generations of leptons/quarks) appeals to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm quite happy to say that the data doens't take us much further unless my arguemtns of the trinity in light (red/green/blue), life (DNA/RNA/proteins), the solar system (sun,moon,stars) and high energy physics (three generations of leptons/quarks) appeals to you.[/B][/QUOTE] Mmm, yes, that clarifies things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: How do we know that a system requires a minimum number of components? And then, how do we know that the existing system isn't a modification of another system which performed a different task? Creationists seem to ignore that systems can change function-- that lungs can serve as air bladders, that feet can serve as flippers..... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Molecules cannot have alternative uses? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Of course they can but the stories sound so ridiculous that the've hardly been recorded yet. You show me the paper that tells us step by step how anyparticular biochemical system could have evolved. These papers do not exist. No-one is even trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So that means that they cannot exist if someone investigated
it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think the trinity in the solar system is pushing it a little,
since there are planets with more than one moon, and there are loads of stars ... and they aren't the ONLY bodies in the solar system (comets pass through and there's this big asteroid belt thingy). The DNA/RNA/Proteins is a little oversimplified too isn't it? I guess we could see three's in pretty much anything, after allisn't 3 (along 7 and I think 11) common 'mystic' numbers across most mythological writings ... maybe something to do with them being prime numbers ... or craps in dice
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024