Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

Hello, Herepton.Your subtitle says, "How to Measure Complexity", but I don't see any methods for this measurement.

Hello, Herepton.Your deprecation of my post is curious. As others have pointed out, you did not at all explain any methods of measuring complexity. You mentioned two items: a computer chip and a human cell. But you did not explain how one measures the complexity of either.Measurement implies that there is a number associated with these items, called its "complexity". What is the complexity of the computer chip? This should be a number. What is the complexity of a human cell? This, too, should be a number. You are claiming that the first number is less than the second, but unless you actually supply these numbers I'm not sure why I should believe you.

quote:

---

Obviously I did not postulate a mathematical measurement and/or equation.

---

That is, indeed, obvious. Unfortunately, without calculating or measuring the numbers, phrases like "more complex than" or "less complex than" are scientifically meaningless.-

quote:

---

The person who designed the cell is infinetly more brighter based on the known disparity between the two objects.

---

This can be true only if a person designed the cell. Unfortunately for your position, there is no evidence that the cell was designed.

quote:

---

Where is the test for non-design?

---

Why is there a need for a test for non-design? You still don't seem to understand how science works. It has pretty much been demonstrated that natural selection of random variations can account for very complex structures; if, as you claim, you accept common descent, then you probably accept this. Therefore there is no need for an unparsimonius addition like an "intelligent designer" unless and until there is good evidence that there was such a designer. Evolution by entirely naturalistic means is the default position; it is up to the IDists to provide grounds for accepting their new theory.-Warren also askes:

quote:

---

Care to tell us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect the cell was designed?

---

Well, if some structure can be shown impossible (or at least very, very unlikely) to have arisen through entirely naturalistic means. Of course, that is begging the question; I don't know what would be evidence that some structure could not have arisen through entirely naturalistic means. Behe and Dembski have claimed to have provided such evidence, but their reasoning hasn't held up.I suppose that clear evidence that there was an intelligent presence in the solar system around the time of the beginning of life, or at least early enough time in the history of life that it would be plausible that the cell as we currently know it might have begun to exist at this time. Perhaps some sort of structure on the moon dated to about the right time. Then it would at least be plausible that life on earth is the result of some sort of experiment. The existence of readable records indicating that this actually did take place would be even better.

First, there may not have been a singularity at all.Second, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to a question where the answer is unknown. I don't see the sense of equating "I don't know" = "It was intelligently designed."Edited to add:
P.S. I wouldn't call a person who accepts the possibility of an intelligent designer an idiot. The idiots are those who believe in an intelligent designer and expect the rest of us to be impressed with their arguments.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Sep-2005 09:16 PM

Hello, 1.

quote:

---

But from my understanding of the subject a gravitational singularity occured at plankes time and is theoretically responsible for the event we call "The Big Bang" which is currently a accepted theory.

---

I don't think the singularity is "responsible" for the event -- the singularity is the event. It is, and may forever be, unknown what is responsible for the "appearance" of the singularity.If there was a singularity, that is. The singularity appears when we extrapolate the current expansion of the universe backwards in time. Eventually, we reach a time when the universe was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. If our current understanding of the laws of physics are correct, that is; as a matter of fact, we already know that our current understanding of the laws of physics are not complete, and, in particular, are not appropriate for the universe very, very shortly after the singularity. People are currently working on extending our understand of the laws of physics -- so-called "quantum gravity", a theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics. Many people, including Stephen Hawking, believe that under the correct theory there is no singularity.-

quote:

---

Awaiting further data/evidence before a conclusion is drawn is usually the prudent thing to do.

---

As is avoiding adding unnecessary details, like intelligent designers and magical skymen.-

quote:

---

I sounded like an asshole in the post you responded to, but thats because I was in a asshole-ish mood.

---

Me too.

quote:

---

If Irreducible complexity does not exist, then it should be easy for you and me to invent them.

---

Just like God!

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Come to that I'm shocked by the woeful lack of reading comprehension....

---

Especially from someone who claims to be an expert in biochemistry. (Come to think of it, he hasn't shown much knowledge of biochemistry, either.)

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

William Dembski then redefined IC in terms of his own concept of Specified Complexity and redefines it in such a way as to rule out plausible evolutionary pathways.

---

Isn't Dembski's SC just warmed over incredultiy? I haven't actually read his stuff, but I got the impression that his schtick was to rule out possibilities that we were already aware of and knew were inadequate, then calculate the probability of it all coming together by pure chance.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Jar has already ruled this off-topic, but I will add something:

quote:

---

Now if you want to believe animals can make animals outside their kind you can....

---

Actually, the Theory of Evolution agrees that animals do not make animals outside their kind. In fact, it is based on this observation. Do you find this interesting? If so, I invite you to bring this question to the appropriate thread. You might be surprised at what the Theory of Evolution really is.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.

---

Well, I haven't read it. But I figure that if Behe had a point that hasn't been refuted, then someone who has read the book could supply it. So far, every ID argument that I have seen can be easily refuted within minutes using Google.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

Well, I haven't read it. But I figure that if Behe had a point that hasn't been refuted, then someone who has read the book could supply it. So far, every ID argument that I have seen can be easily refuted within minutes using Google.

​

I'm a little skeptical of this claim.

---

Which claim are you skeptical of? Do you believe that I might have read Behe's book? Or do you believe that I may have seen an ID argument for which I have not found a refutation?Edited to add:Or perhaps you believe that there could be an unrefuted point in Behe's book, but no one is capable of bringing it up?There, those are the only three claims in the quote you provided.Edited again:Oops. My claim is actually I figure that if Behe had a point.... Perhaps you think that I don't really believe that a person could bring up an unrefuted point if Behe has one?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-May-2006 05:21 PM

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

quote:

---

I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine.

---

Actually, you have already written that the classical experiment only yielded glycine.At any rate, you were then informed that the classical experiment produced much, much more than this, and furthermore, you have been informed that glycine is not chiral and so does not have D and L forms.As crashfrog points out, these are odd errors for a person knowledgeable in biochemistry to make, and it is particularly surprising to see them repeated after they were pointed out. Are you ready to admit that you actually don't know much about biochemistry?

---

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)