Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is complexity an argument against design?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 142 (476901)
07-28-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by John 10:10
07-28-2008 10:53 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John 10:10, posted 07-28-2008 10:53 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 8:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 107 of 142 (476975)
07-29-2008 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by New Cat's Eye
07-28-2008 11:52 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2008 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2008 8:36 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-29-2008 10:16 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 108 of 142 (476977)
07-29-2008 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by John 10:10
07-29-2008 8:27 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 8:27 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 109 of 142 (476983)
07-29-2008 8:55 AM


Why can't diversity and complexity be natural processes?

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 142 (476990)
07-29-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by John 10:10
07-29-2008 8:27 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 8:27 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 111 of 142 (477011)
07-29-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by John 10:10
07-28-2008 10:53 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by John 10:10, posted 07-28-2008 10:53 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 3:07 PM onifre has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 112 of 142 (477029)
07-29-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by onifre
07-29-2008 12:11 PM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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 - Wikipedia
Scientific 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 07-29-2008 12:11 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by rueh, posted 07-29-2008 3:29 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2008 3:48 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 116 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2008 4:50 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 118 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-29-2008 8:55 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 113 of 142 (477031)
07-29-2008 3:14 PM


You can't still be feeding John!

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 114 of 142 (477033)
07-29-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John 10:10
07-29-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 3:07 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 8:36 PM rueh has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 115 of 142 (477037)
07-29-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by John 10:10
07-29-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 3:07 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 119 by Fosdick, posted 07-31-2008 11:47 AM Coyote has not replied

      
    bluescat48
    Member (Idle past 4189 days)
    Posts: 2347
    From: United States
    Joined: 10-06-2007


    Message 116 of 142 (477040)
    07-29-2008 4:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 112 by John 10:10
    07-29-2008 3:07 PM


    Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 3:07 PM John 10:10 has not replied

      
    John 10:10
    Member (Idle past 2995 days)
    Posts: 766
    From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
    Joined: 02-01-2006


    Message 117 of 142 (477057)
    07-29-2008 8:36 PM
    Reply to: Message 114 by rueh
    07-29-2008 3:29 PM


    Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 114 by rueh, posted 07-29-2008 3:29 PM rueh has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 124 by Mylakovich, posted 09-03-2008 5:05 AM John 10:10 has not replied

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3974
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 118 of 142 (477061)
    07-29-2008 8:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 112 by John 10:10
    07-29-2008 3:07 PM


    OFF-TOPIC SIDE NOTE and topic abandonment warning
    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:
    The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.
    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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 112 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 3:07 PM John 10:10 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 123 by andorg, posted 09-02-2008 11:40 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

      
    Fosdick 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
    Posts: 1793
    From: Upper Slobovia
    Joined: 12-11-2006


    Message 119 of 142 (477240)
    07-31-2008 11:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
    07-29-2008 3:48 PM


    Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
    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.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 115 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2008 3:48 PM Coyote has not replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 120 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-01-2008 1:41 AM Fosdick has replied

          
        New Cat's Eye
        Inactive Member


        Message 120 of 142 (477298)
        08-01-2008 1:41 AM
        Reply to: Message 119 by Fosdick
        07-31-2008 11:47 AM


        Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
        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.

        This message is a reply to:
         Message 119 by Fosdick, posted 07-31-2008 11:47 AM Fosdick has replied

        Replies to this message:
         Message 121 by Fosdick, posted 08-01-2008 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye 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