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)
™ Version 4.2