Argument From Incredulity

[sandwiches]

The components of design are not confined to a 747 or a car or a naval warship, or an android robot, or a human system. You don't have to see a 747 first and the first 747 would require a designer. As in all the cases, you are the one who needs to bring forward evidence that chance can build either one. No matter what level of denial your materialism drives you to. Like I said from the beginning, one only has to take a step back from the situation and just witness the proposal of Darwinism and the chance assembly of a human. Just step back and look at it. And a denial of scientific knowledge to boot. When you have trouble, think of the chance proposal for a 747, and you will begin to relate. This isnt even an argument.

Lots of words and you didn't answer the question:
If you've never seen a 747 in your life, how would you know that it's designed?

Your alien argument has its time and place. You work on that chance argument. Don't be surprised though. I would have told you the same thing for a 747.

I figured you wouldn't refute it but you didn't even try.

Like I told you, what you do beyond that point is governed by you line of thinking and your persuasion. What you are aware and are not aware of is not a shared trait. Chance vs Design is where we will meet. And this is as much of a contest that needs to be waged with a materialist. That lifeforms need a designer.

Interesting assumption. Maybe when you bring forth evidence of the designer, we'll be able to go a bit further.

 

[ug333]

The components of design are not confined to a 747 or a car or a naval warship, or an android robot, or a human system. You don't have to see a 747 first and the first 747 would require a designer. As in all the cases, you are the one who needs to bring forward evidence that chance can build either one. No matter what level of denial your materialism drives you to. Like I said from the beginning, one only has to take a step back from the situation and just witness the proposal of Darwinism and the chance assembly of a human. Just step back and look at it. And a denial of scientific knowledge to boot. When you have trouble, think of the chance proposal for a 747, and you will begin to relate. This isnt even an argument.

First off, evolution isn't random chance. Its not even close. Second of all, I agree that the claim that life evolved on earth requires evidence, as it is indeed a claim. What specific parts do you want evidence for? How about man's evolution.

I can't post a link because I am too new, but please, feel free to google "human evolution wikipedia". Now, I will admit I am being lazy here and using wikipedia. But please, feel free to start picking apart the data driven and scientific argument for evolution of humans.

Now, claiming creation requires evidence as well, as that is a claim. Please provide evidence.

 

[Greg1234]

Lots of words and you didn't answer the question:
If you've never seen a 747 in your life, how would you know that it's designed?

You have this thing about hearing people repeat themselves ive noticed. Buying time? Miscomprehension? Preset rebuttals to specific responses? Whatever it is, good luck. But this was just given.

I figured you wouldn't refute it but you didn't even try.

Thats to bad.

. But this was already given (something about another time).

Interesting assumption. Maybe when you bring forth evidence of the designer, we'll be able to go a bit further.

Aaaand we're back to square one. Round two (we're not going to skip over it, but you can keep trying). The human system cannot be assembled via chance. Yes a 747 on a desolate planet is evidence for a designer. This is as far as we get. Your level of understanding will precede advancement beyond that point. Whether or not a materialist gets beyond it, is completely irrelevant to me.

 

[sandwiches]

You have this thing about hearing people repeat themselves ive noticed. Buying time? Miscomprehension? Preset rebuttals to specific responses? Whatever it is, good luck. But this was just given.

I keep repeating the same question because you have never answered it. The only sad attempt you have made was about 'integrated complexity.' When i asked you what that is you referred me to a dictionary, which didn't explain what integrated complexity was.

So, I guess you'll answer when you're ready to man up and stop avoiding the question.

 

[Greg1234]

I keep repeating the same question because you have never answered it. The only sad attempt you have made was about 'integrated complexity.'

Ah so thats what you were waiting for. So it was (c) preset rebuttals for specific responses. Your question was answered.

 

[ug333]

Ah so thats what you were waiting for. So it was (c) preset rebuttals for specific responses. Your question was answered.

Are you intentionally trying to be vague? Are you suggesting that the phrase "integrated complexity" is a sufficient explanation for a designer? I may be stupid, but I don't see that.

I usually hear the phrase "irreducible complexity", is that the same thing?

Can you please point to one or two examples of integrated complexity? How about the eye and blood clotting?

 

[sandwiches]

Ah so thats what you were waiting for. So it was (c) preset rebuttals for specific responses. Your question was answered.

It's not that I dislike or disagree with the answer of 'integrated complexity.' I can't disagree or dislike what is meaningless. I asked you for an explanation or a link that explains what it is and you haven't provided either.

Are you intentionally trying to be vague? Are you suggesting that the phrase "integrated complexity" is a sufficient explanation for a designer? I may be stupid, but I don't see that.

I usually hear the phrase "irreducible complexity", is that the same thing?

Can you please point to one or two examples of integrated complexity? How about the eye and blood clotting?

I'm wondering the same thing, too. It amazes me that he'll spend so much time writing long, wordy responses just to avoid answering the question.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

If somebody, some daring creationist/IDer wishes to explain how the human body (et al) have come to be, that would be a start.

Attempts at shooting down the only kind of explanation that there is, will just leave you with no explanation at all.

So, Greg1234, you go, you get off your lazy butt, you explain stuff. How about it? As if ...

*unsubscribes from thread*

 

[Greg1234]

It's not that I dislike or disagree with the answer of 'integrated complexity.' I can't disagree or dislike what is meaningless. I asked you for an explanation or a link that explains what it is and you haven't provided either.

Note your question:

"On what basis would assume that a 747 is designed if you've never seen one?"

The determinants of design are not confined to a 747. Without even seeing a 747 one can formulate the basis of design from an automobile, an android robot, and analyze the 747 on these components of design. Without seeing a 747 you cannot determine anything about the 747 because you have never seen it (which was the premise of your question). We see the human body btw. Again without seeing a 747 what we do have is the determinants of design. Your question was answered.

Lastly, you were given the link to find the meaning of integrated complexity. It was also even broken down for you. But again, you want it repeated to you for some reason.

 

[ug333]

From your link

Lol. It is not just the integrated complexity but the level. Oh and it is impractical to look at the complexity of the heart separately from the blood vessels, separately from the brain, separately from the nervous system separately from DNA, separately from the digestive system. Each complex in its own right. Each contributing to the whole. Each integrated. Like a 747.

............
I'm telling you that chance cannot build a human. Looking at bacteria and looking at a man and saying that bacteria can turn into men is against everything we are gathering about adaptation. "Co-evolved" is just the same chance argument. A fancier yet less exposing route of the atheist notion and doctrine that stochastic events can build a man or a 747.

Is this supposed to be breaking it down? Yes, the body is complex. What part of that complexity requires a designer? Much of the complexity you are talking about in the above post can be seen in various degrees of complexity alive today! It should be relatively easy to imagine evolution from the simplest organism into the most complex with modern species as a rough guide. Of course, we did not evolved from modern species and we do not need to imagine what that process would have looked like, but you get the idea.

I know this has been said a lot, but you keep coming back to it so it I will repeat it again: evolution is not chance or random. Perhaps this is your issue. If someone told me that the human body occurred via a series of completely random events I would seriously doubt them. But, evolution does NOT make that claim. Natural selection/survival of the fittest is far from random.

 

[sandwiches]

Note your question:

"On what basis would assume that a 747 is designed if you've never seen one?"

The determinants of design are not confined to a 747. Without even seeing a 747 one can formulate the basis of design from an automobile, an android robot, and analyze the 747 on these components of design. Without seeing a 747 you cannot determine anything about the 747 because you have never seen it (which was the premise of your question). We see the human body btw. Again without seeing a 747 what we do have is the determinants of design. Your question was answered.

I think you misunderstand me. Let me rephrase:
Having never seen a 747 BEFORE, once you saw one, how would you be able to be certain it was designed by an intelligent being?

Lastly, you were given the link to find the meaning of integrated complexity. It was also even broken down for you. But again, you want it repeated to you for some reason.

Here's your answer:

Lol. It is not just the integrated complexity but the level.

So, when I ask you what 'integrated complexity' is, you think a valid response is saying "It's not just that, it's also the level!" It's not just what and the level of what?
What is it? And in case you failed to notice, 'integrated complexity' is NOT in the dictionary, but I told you that already.

Don't tell me what it isn't or that it's not just the level of it. Just explain what 'integrated complexity' is. So, can you or can you not explain what it is?

 

[Greg1234]

I think you misunderstand me. Let me rephrase:
Having never seen a 747 BEFORE, once you saw one, how would you be able to be certain it was designed by an intelligent being?

There was no misunderstanding. Your question was answered. Now youve added words. In addition, there is no difference between seeing a 747 for the first time and seeing it for the millionth time. The determinants of design remain consistent throughout. Seeing a 747 for the first time does not negate the properties seen throughout other designed structures nor are these properties confined to a single system.

But to reiterate on the last post, it is the integrated complexity of said system, the testing of chance(its actually needed, believe it or not). A 747, a car, a human, a lion, an android robot, all fall in the same category. In fact, they act as aids. When you think of presenting an argument, think of a 747, on a beach, nobody around. This isn't even an argument.

Here's your answer:

How nice. We have a snipper here. Strange how it works.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If I were to go to a desolate planet and find a 747, I would assume that some other intelligent being had put it there.

If I were to go to a desolate planet and find an alien lifeform with some sort of genetic code, I would assume that it had evolved, because its complexity would have an alternative explanation.

This is why the 747 example fails.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ug333]

I think I understand Greg1234 now. You don't seem to be here to have a dialog, as you are already 100% certain of everything you are saying. You are so certain that pesky things like evidence do not even make you flinch. Your response "This is not even an argument" is very telling.

We have already said multiple times why a 747 (or any non-replicating device) is a terrible analogy for evolution, but you haven't responded to those arguments and just continue to restate the same things.

I would love to have a conversation, but I am not interested in talking at each other.

Good day

 

[sandwiches]

There was no misunderstanding. Your question was answered. Now youve added words. In addition, there is no difference between seeing a 747 for the first time and seeing it for the millionth time. The determinants of design remain consistent throughout. Seeing a 747 for the first time does not negate the properties seen throughout other designed structures nor are these properties confined to a single system.

But to reiterate on the last post, it is the integrated complexity of said system, the testing of chance(its actually needed, believe it or not). A 747, a car, a human, a lion, an android robot, all fall in the same category. In fact, they act as aids. When you think of presenting an argument, think of a 747, on a beach, nobody around. This isn't even an argument.

The only thing I'm asking is what 'integrated complexity' means. The two posts you linked didn't explain what it is. So, could you please explain to me what it means so that I can know where you're coming from?