How does Complexity demonstrate Design

Couldn't you just define the specification after you had the complexity?

Then in that case, isn't it a circular argument? Couldn't you argue any complex object, of whatever origin, met some post-hoc specification, and was therefore of intelligent design?

Oh, I get it now. You're one of those guys who can't tell the difference between a circular argument and corraboration from multiple points of evidence.Hell, why didn't you just say so? Then I would have known not to bother.

Wow. That was a spectacular example of talking much and saying little, DS. You could have written as stunning a non-argument if you had just said "me too!"DS, around here we debate. We don't just fling our fecal matter and pretend like we've addressed points. If you have some substantial response to the points raised, this wasn't it. If you're not capable of such a response, why not let the grown-ups talk for a while, ok?

Is there any reason you've decided to abdicate any attempt at actual intelligent participation and instead just spam the forum and jerk my chain? Just curious.

DS, I'm fine with whatever your views are.But if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, how about some evidence? Anything else just lowers the tenor of debate to playground antics. Seriously your last couple of posts are an embarassment. I can't imagine what's going on with you - you were doing so well until you stuck your fingers in your ears and started calling people "asinine."Get with the program, DS. Around here we make arguments and support them with evidence. What's your problem with that, exactly?

Why on Earth would it be? You ID'ists are the only one talking about design and designers. You are, after all, the ones who claim you can infer things about the designer from the design. Is it disingenuous to ask you to do what you claim you can do? I hardly think so. You're the ones who bring the designer into it. When you talk about design, you beg the question "who is the designer?"If you're going to promote a model that necessitates a certain mechanism, it's not unreasonable to be expected to elucidate that mechanism. Except when it's not so intelligent, of course.The presence of pattern and complexity is not an indicator of design, unless you believe that snowflakes are designed. And if you do, then what isn't designed? If everything is designed, how do you propose to detect design when you can never see its absence?Trying to detect design is like trying to detect the smell of water, and ultimately, about as fruitful.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...If you're not an ID'ist then you're a pretty convincing simulacrum. If you're going to uphold their position, don't be surprised when people count you among their number.Now, did you have a substantial rebuttal to my points? Or aren't you doing that, anymore?

Ok, then you should have no trouble with this:Over here I have a pile of pennies scattered across the floor, at random. No design whatsoever.Over there I have a pile of the same number of pennies, painstakingly laid out into the same arrangement as the first pile, through my own intelligent design.Which is which? If you're able to detect design in the universe, surely you can show me which of these piles was designed? Because only one of them was. I presume you meant "the strong Anthropic Principle," right? After all what would the weak anthropic principle have to do with intelligence and design?

Oh? If that's true, what isn't designed? How can you propose to detect design when its absence can't apparently exist? What you propose is like trying to smell water, and it's about as fruitful.A mechanism that is responsible for everything explains nothing. The problem for the Strong AP is that we don't know if the basic physical laws are arbitrary or not; we don't know what circumstances are required for life, only for life as we know it; we literally know nothing about what it takes to form a universe or what "choice" exists in terms of what physical laws are expressed.In short the Strong AP assumes a considerable number of things about the formation of universes that we can't possibly know. For all we know, this is the only way that a universe can form, and life is inevitable. We just don't know. But I can show you random chance. I can show you events where the outcome is non-determined.I can roll dice and flip coins and show you that randomness exists. But where will you show me the mechanism that allows life to be designed?I know I've said this before, but it's still true - if you want to reject the observable mechanisms we can demonstrate are sufficient to give rise to life in favor of ones that can't ever be demonstrated or observed, that's fine. But don't call it science, because it's not. But scientific objectivity is when we restrict our theories to the minimum number of things we can all agree exists. You're free to abandon that as you see fit, but please, don't do thousands of years of human endeavor a disservice by calling what you do "science."

DS, this is just stupid.What a second-year college student - or anyone else with sense, for that matter - would find routine is the realization that the purpose of language is to communicate, not to obfuscate.But between your purple prose and your deep emnity towards readable color schemes, it's obvious to the most casual observer that your interest lies only in self-aggrandizement, not in rational discourse.You can adopt readable prose and start writing clearly - and elucidate when asked, like the rest of us - or you can look forward to being relegated to the sidelines of debate. (Er, no pun intended, Sidelined.) There's considerably more interesting people than you to talk to here. You won't be missed.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-21-2004 12:40 AM

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you mean, exactly. Do you mean, can a blind person make a watch? I imagine so.Did you mean, can random mutation and natural selection give rise to complex, functional systems? Yes, it very much can and does. Genetic algorhythms are at work in a number of different fields, including electronics and aeronautical engineering. Often the eletronic circuits created by these evolutionary processes are so complex that the precise details of their function are beyond our understanding.So, if the "blind watchmaker" is the mechanism of evolution, then I'd say it has a better chance of working than anything humans could make. Why on Earth would we bother, since random mutation and natural selection are more than sufficient explanations for the complexity we observe?

Look, jackass, I can read your posts, ok? I don't have to quote the whole damn missive just to prove to you I read the whole thing, ok? The point of quoting isn't to duplicate your entire post, which is a waste of forum resources (this shit has to get stored on someone's hard drive, get it?) and a waste of time. What "scientific research" do you think there could be that would disprove the fact that evolutionary algorhythms are at work creating complexity beyond that of human design, when that's exactly what's happening? That was, after all, my assertion. Should DarkStar be required to actually address his opponents position instead of posting irrelevancies? Apparently not.AbE: I'm sorry, DS. It was inappropriate of me to call you a jackass. I apologize for being a jackass. But you really need to let go of the quoting thing. How much people quote from your post is not indicative of how much they've read, and it's rarely an attempt to misconstrue or misrepresent your post. It's just an attempt to save space.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-22-2004 10:26 PM

You wouldn't be about to quote mine, would you? Please tell me you aren't. What on Earth would be the relevance of quotes from scientists on this issue?If you have evidence, lets see it. If you want to see ours, ask. But you can't wave away the evidence we have by virtue of misquoting a scientist so that it sounds like we don't have any.For a guy who's always whining about his posts being chopped up and misconstrued, one would think you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to do the same to scientists. Then again there's no evidence you're interested in honest debate, now is there? (You can quote me on that if you like.)

You know, I'd like to see your little quotes. I'd like nothing better than to go over each one and show how you've taken them all out of the appropriate context in a cynical attempt to style evolution as a "theory in crisis" or some such.Go on. Do it. I dare you.