Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design vs. Real Science
Panda
Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 88 of 142 (601311)
01-19-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 5:53 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
Since there's nothing complex about it, being likely naturally caused by things dropping from the sky, it is not designed.
If something is not complex: it is not designed. Yes?
How do you gauge complexity?
What did you measure to ascertain that the object in the image had no complexity?
You mentioned that the object was probably naturally caused.
Is there a link between 'naturally caused' and 'not designed'?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 5:53 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:58 PM Panda has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3742 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 95 of 142 (601377)
01-20-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
01-19-2011 9:58 PM


Re: again I ask......
Buzsaw writes:
I meant to say they were not intelligently designed.
They would have been naturally designed, but not complex.
Just to clarify:
Things can be naturally designed or intelligently designed.
The way you would identify ID is from complexity and not design, yes?
How do you gauge complexity?
What did you measure to ascertain that the object in the image had no complexity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 01-19-2011 9:58 PM Buzsaw 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