|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is complexity an argument against design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Almost everything that man does in science, engineering, medicine, etc. is done with man's creativeness and design. Yet the diversity and complexity of life in the world around us is far far more complex than anything man has been able to create and design in his puny little brain and build with his hands, much less understand how it fully works. That could just as easily suggest that creativeness and design are not sufficient to create the diversity and complexity of life in the world around us. It seems, to me, that a natural process is the only thing that is good enough to explain it. That, or an omnipotent god. Diversity and complexity, themselves, don't suggest god. You'd need something else, some other evidence besides the Diversity and complexity, themselves, to suggest that it was a god. Assuming it is natural is the default for science and this has seemed to work wonders, considering that we're commincating over the internet via computers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Diversity and complexity, themselves, don't suggest god. You are absolutely right! Diversity and complexity, themselves, don't suggest god. Diversity and complexity demands that there be an omnipotent Creator, unless you have faith that believes a natural process is the only thing that is good enough to explain it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2719 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, John 10:10.
Joh 10:10 writes: Diversity and complexity demands that there be an omnipotent Creator... I don't really think complexity is necessarily an argument against design. But, diversity and complexity could support either one of at least two different things (design or evolution), and it would take further evidence to rule either one out. And---wouldn't you know it?---the further evidence is strongly leaning towards the evolution side. Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Why can't diversity and complexity be natural processes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You are absolutely right! Diversity and complexity, themselves, don't suggest god. Diversity and complexity demands that there be an omnipotent Creator, God = an omnipotent Creator I meant that Diversity and complexity, themselves, don't suggest an omnipotent Creator.
unless you have faith that believes a natural process is the only thing that is good enough to explain it. False Dilemma. God could have used a natural process, no? Also, the only thing I need faith in, is God. The basis for it being a natural process is evidence. When the evidence is convincing, no faith is necessary. The evidence suggests that a natural process is sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity. Whether or not God was involved is when faith steps in. I happen to believe that he was, but not because of the diversity and complexity, themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2972 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
No matter how much you say it has, evolution has not been "fully tested and proved" as have most other scientific principles that we understand to a great degree of accuracy, and utilize. This statement is contradicting. You say that evolution hasn't been 'fully tested', as have most other other scientific principles... But then you say 'principles that we understand to a great degree of accuracy, and utilize'... So if you understand that scientific theories are understood to a 'great degree of accuracy, and it is utilized', then you should recognize the work done by Evolutionary Scientist and the different fields that support it and show the same respect for it that you show other theories. You simply reject evolution, and ONLY evolution, because of your specific interpretation of scriptures and lack of desire to truly understand the theory.
As such, evolution has become your "religion", no matter how much you declare it is not. This is of course just an opinion but I like the way you add 'no matter how much you declare it is not', that way no ones argument will ever satisfy. Show us proof for the Designer and then you may introduce him as part of the process, because if you don't show proof people will suspect you are just making up the Designer. As for now you have not done this, you just state 'God did it' and expect that to carry weight. It doesn't, 'no matter how much you declare that it does' "All great truths begin as blasphemies" "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
So if you understand that scientific theories are understood to a 'great degree of accuracy, and it is utilized', then you should recognize the work done by Evolutionary Scientist and the different fields that support it and show the same respect for it that you show other theories. I have great respect for the following laws and principles that scientists have discovered, proved to a high degree of accuracy, and then man utilizes to create/engineer all manner of useful endeavors that benefit mankind. Scientific law - WikipediaScientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia Scientific law - Wikipedia But I have no respect for a theory that has not been proven, such as the ToE, that serves no useful purpose and produces no benefit to mankind. There is a big difference between scientists learning how plants, animals, and matter functions, than in studying plants, animals, and matter to somehow theorize how they came to be without a Creator. In fact, the ToE's main purpose is nothing more than to deny our Creator, thereby turning man away from seeking a relationship with his Creator.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4980 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3682 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
So you respect the laws of science but not the theroy that contains the laws? Electromagnetism has contained within it variuos laws but these are only analytical statements. The theroy of electromagnetism is not proven. Yet here we are communicating via the same principles of an unproven theroy.
quote:Mere reactionism, just because we can say that TOE can function without having to jam God into the gears does not mean that it is it's intent. TOE focuses on "how" not "whom". There is nothing that specifically excludes God from TOE. If God has the power to magic all of creation than it certanly has the power to work within and by use of the same physical constraints it created.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2127 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But I have no respect for a theory that has not been proven, such as the ToE, that serves no useful purpose and produces no benefit to mankind. You have been told time and time again that in science no theories are proved, and that all sciences follow the same scientific method. You have refused to learn, and have simply descended to the point of repetitious trolling on this issue. You just make yourself look sad and defeated, without a second argument you can use. And the theory of evolution does serve a huge purpose; if it didn't, creationists wouldn't be frothing at the mouth. It serves the purpose of explaining (that is what theories do--explain) the evolution of species from a common ancestor through mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and other similar forces.
There is a big difference between scientists learning how plants, animals, and matter functions, than in studying plants, animals, and matter to somehow theorize how they came to be without a Creator. There is no scientific evidence for a creator. Why should scientists introduce a creator and a bunch of dubious miracles into the life histories of plants and animals?
In fact, the ToE's main purpose is nothing more than to deny our Creator, thereby turning man away from seeking a relationship with his Creator. Fundamentalist nonsense. When you run out of scientific argument (note: that's argument, not arguments), you resort to preaching. That carries no weight in a scientific discussion. In fact, based on this, we can herewith introduce: Coyote's Law:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But I have no respect for a theory that has not been proven, such as the ToE, that serves no useful purpose and produces no benefit to mankind. You need to see what a Physical Law is (the "Laws"which you post links to)
Physical Law All of the Laws you link too are in reality robust theories. They are given law rank due to the number of scientists who accept them. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Read my lips.
I respect the laws of science where man actually learns how humans, animals, and plants function, and then man uses this knowledge and understanding to help doctors, vets, and agronomists better care for humans, animals, and the plants we grow. I respect the laws of science where man actually learns how matter functions, and then man uses this knowledge and understanding to build electric energy power plants that supply our electric energy needs. I respect the laws of science where man actually learns how to manipulate matter, and then man uses this knowledge and understanding to build transportation systems and vehicles that allow us to go to and fro throughout the earth, and even into outer space. The ToE does focus on a "how theory" of our existance, but its primary focus is on a "how theory" that excludes divine intervention that can never be fully tested by any meaningful scientific measure, no matter how much you say it has been fully tested as are most other scientific laws. The better question you should be asking is not "how" man came to be, but "why" man came to be. Darwin's ToE has no answers for the "why" because he gave up his belief in the "why" when he was 40.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
I have great respect for the following laws and principles that scientists have discovered, proved to a high degree of accuracy, and then man utilizes to create/engineer all manner of useful endeavors that benefit mankind. The following in off-topic, but it seems to be a detail that is usually (never?) brought up in any theory vs. law discussion. The very first paragraph of John 10:10's source:
quote: My "extreme bolding". Essentially, laws are mathematical statements. But all this is very much off-topic. The topic title very well describes the theme of the topic - "Is complexity an argument against design?". Discussion should specifically connect to considerations of complexity and design. If it doesn't then it's off-topic. The is very much an official warning to all participants - Stay on topic or risk a suspension. Replying to this message, directly or indirectly, also will probably get you suspended. So don't do such. Adminnemooseus(Yes, the admin mode)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Coyote's Law:
I like Coyote's Law. It's true, and there is plenty of empirical evidence to prove it. Makes me want to come up with my own law: Hoot's Law:
As for the topical question: Is complexity an argument against design? It's a loaded question. It is loaded with subjectivity. "Complexity" has no common definition within the scientific community. Is a frog more complex than a rock? Is a human more complex than a cuttlefish? Is water more complex than air? Is a prayer more complex than a thought? As such, I think "complexity" is something of a scientific religion”you have to believe it, because the evidence for its existence is not always objective. ”HM If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As such, I think "complexity" is something of a scientific religion”you have to believe it, because the evidence for its existence is not always objective. I'd say that complexity is a non-scientific religion..... Since, as you said:
"Complexity" has no common definition within the scientific community. And then go on to ask:
Is a frog more complex than a rock? Is a human more complex than a cuttlefish? Is water more complex than air? Is a prayer more complex than a thought? Well, the answer is: who knows? "Complexity" is not some thing that science has to worry about. It is the problem of the creationists.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024