Summations Only

I knew it! Zeus DOES exist!But seriously, the only thing this post illustrates is that because YOU cannot think of another way, it must be god. Classic god of the gaps after all...Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

So you have absolutely no clue how you can quantify or define complexity, yet you continue to claim that a burned forest is less complex than a non-burned one? And then you go on that you are not even interested? Seriously? How can you even hope to debate complexity if you don't even know what it means?Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

Well, given that earlier you had to guess that a human was more complex than a tree (Message 179), it can't be that easy... You must be joking. The Indian Ocean is 73,556,000 km2 and contains an estimated 292,131,000 km3 of water. On the other hand, the North Sea is 750,000 km2 and contains 94,000 km3 of water (source: Wikipedia) and is therefore smaller. These are quite easy and straightforward ways to quantify vastness. As long as you - and any other creationist out there - are unable to quantify complexity in a similar way, and to find a way to define and quantify the complexity, of say, rock Stumpie (see Message 30), there is no way that you can use it as an argument in any scientific discussion whatsoever. Just saying that something is more complex, like you do, is not enough. You need to prove it by measuring something that is indicative of complexity, just like people measure surface area or volume as an indication of size.But you are right, this discussion is not about complexity. It is about whether the being before the big bang was Zeus or the god of the gaps... Message 150 Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

It was not easy, but at least they got the numbers (they actually did research, instead of just guessing that the Indian Ocean is bigger than the North Sea). You (or more specific, the creationists on whose writings you rely), on the other hand, have still not provided the numbers to show that a human is more complex than a stone or a tree. I hope that you agree with me that just guessing that a human is more complex is not really scientific, don't you think? I might, if you had offered any support at all. But the only thing I could find is Message 139 where you write: This is the only argument so far that you have presented in favour of a "Designer God". But people may have thought it inconceivable that man would walk on the moon, yet they did. So please explain why "inconceivable" is a valid, scientific argument here.As I already mentioned in Message 150 (and to which you have not responded for some reason), the fact that you find everything else but a god inconceivable only demonstrates that YOU cannot think of another way; it says nothing about reality and whether other options are actually possible or not.So to answer your question: no, I don't see it. And neither do you, I think... If it supports any god at all, it is a god of the gaps...

Just out of curiosity; does your designer have a name? Zeus maybe? Vishnu, Marduk or Odin, or the FSM perhaps? Or is the big bang perhaps compatible with multiple gods? If not, how do you know?Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

The problem with this is - obviously - that you have not proven that the universe is designed. As others have pointed out, its creation - if it was created - might have been an accident or by-product.Previously you were only talking about what caused the universe, and now all of a sudden you switched to what designed it. Wouldn't you agree that you are shifting the goalposts quite a bit here?

I have nothing to add to the excellent summaries that have been offered here, except that I hope that Designtheorist will also provide his final thoughts on this discussion, and that he will stay around at EvC for a little bit longer. As discussions with creationists go, this one wasn't that bad and I learned a thing or two about colliding branes at that!