Bible-Creation-Evolution (3)

[Greg1234]

What is the threshold of purely naturalistic processes? How was it determined and what quanta are used to measure it? What is the formula for testing something to determine if it was intelligently designed or not?

If there was a universal standard then it would have preceded the realization that the Great Pyramid is intelligently designed. Today, we are not here trying to determine how the Great Pyramid can arise through chance but that's not because of some standard or quanta. It is simply through assessing the level of complexity found in said structure and the capabilities of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes acting in relation to it, then taking a position in accord with the data. Though anybody through their own volition is free to take a side in opposition of that position, the first is still in line with the evidence.

 

[rjc34]

If there was a universal standard then it would have preceded the realization that the Great Pyramid is intelligently designed. Today, we are not here trying to determine how the Great Pyramid can arise through chance but that's not because of some standard or quanta. It is simply through assessing the level of complexity found in said structure and the capabilities of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes acting in relation to it, then taking a position in accord with the data. Though anybody through their own volition is free to take a side in opposition of that position, the first is still in line with the evidence.

Actually the pyramids are very simple and orderly. That is what can help us determine whether something is 'designed' or not. There are no superfluous or redundant parts to a pyramid. It is simple and orderly, not complex. Same thing with a car. There is nothing redundant or complex about it. Sure, we have added extra features and things to engines and vehicles over the years to increase efficiency and power, but the way they are designed is simple and non-redundant, rather than complex and inefficient.

 

[Greg1234]

I am not questioning man's intelligence but this so called intelligent designer. Whichever way you look at it, man is a sorry bit of engineering. For an intelligent being capable of designing the whole universe; He sure did a lousy job with man. And to add insult to injury he even claimed us to be his perfect creation

Perfection is not a measure of intelligent design, but the integrated complexity found in said structures. See more in last.

I am in the engineering field and if you ask me I could have done a better job at designing man!

I have seen the human androids coming out of the engineering dept. I see them, and I will nitpick.

I mean no insult to the religious and I mean no insult to their God, but since Greg you never mention a God but an intelligent designer then I question this intelligent designer's ability to design anything intelligently.

It isn't an insult. Organisms at the level of perfection preceded this stage. You're insulting matter, deterioration, and materialistic desire, if anything.

 

[Greg1234]

Actually the pyramids are very simple and orderly. That is what can help us determine whether something is 'designed' or not. There are no superfluous or redundant parts to a pyramid. It is simple and orderly, not complex. Same thing with a car. There is nothing redundant or complex about it. Sure, we have added extra features and things to engines and vehicles over the years to increase efficiency and power, but the way they are designed is simple and non-redundant, rather than complex and inefficient.

Its the level of complexity in the Great Pyramid which enables it to escape the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. The same for the car and man. No matter how inefficient you classify a hummer, or a worn out engine, it is still designed.

 

[Tiberius]

Perfection is not a measure of intelligent design, but the integrated complexity found in said structures. See more in last.

So a perfect thing is neccessarily complex?

I have seen the human androids coming out of the engineering dept. I see them, and I will nitpick.

I think the point is that there are flaws in the "design" of the Human body that would be easily fixable.

 

[rjc34]

Its the level of complexity in the Great Pyramid which enables it to escape the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. The same for the car and man. No matter how inefficient you classify a hummer, or a worn out engine, it is still designed.

Yes, but it's not the complexity that shows us it's designed, it's the simplicity and organization that shows us it is designed.

 

[Greg1234]

So a perfect thing is neccessarily complex?

Design is not determined by perfection. A car, though I may think it is inefficient, still cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

I think the point is that there are flaws in the "design" of the Human body that would be easily fixable.

The body has it's "fixer" and state of perfection. Anyways, though I may be able to "fix" the gas pedal's proximity to the brake pedal (which may only spawn a new "flaw"), it doesn't mean that the level of complexity of the car can be attained through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, but it's not the complexity that shows us it's designed, it's the simplicity and organization that shows us it is designed.

It's the level of complexity which endows it with the ability to escape the grasp of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. The lack of redundancy in the Great pyramid, though it makes it simpler than a car, is not what enables it to breach undirected naturalistic forces but its complexity. Here complexity shows us that it was designed. The presence of redundant components adds to the complexity of a system but this does not determine that it can be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes. An aircraft with redundant components is determined to be designed from its level of complexity.

Palm Beach Avionics - Aspen, Service, Installation

The EFD1000 MFD uses the exact same hardware and software as the PFD, so these units give you two of everything, not just two displays: dual independent AHRS, Air Data Computers, compass systems, HSIs, and more. With DuoSafe PFD redundancy, if your PFD fails, you simply press the REV button on your MFD and your PFD display is right back in your primary instrument scan. There’s less stress and potential confusion in a pressure situation. No other GA glass cockpit system can give you this level of redundancy and confidence at any price!

​

 

[Belk]

If there was a universal standard then it would have preceded the realization that the Great Pyramid is intelligently designed. Today, we are not here trying to determine how the Great Pyramid can arise through chance but that's not because of some standard or quanta. It is simply through assessing the level of complexity found in said structure and the capabilities of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes acting in relation to it, then taking a position in accord with the data. Though anybody through their own volition is free to take a side in opposition of that position, the first is still in line with the evidence.

That's nice.

Now, are you able to provide answers to my questions or not?

 

[Tiberius]

Design is not determined by perfection. A car, though I may think it is inefficient, still cannot be assembled through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

Go back and read what I asked again. I was asking about complexity.

I will ask it again. If something is perfect, does that mean it must also be complex?

The body has it's "fixer" and state of perfection. Anyways, though I may be able to "fix" the gas pedal's proximity to the brake pedal (which may only spawn a new "flaw"), it doesn't mean that the level of complexity of the car can be attained through purely naturalistic unintelligent processes.

But the body's "fixer" doesn't seem to have fixed the flaws present in the body, does he?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, but it's not the complexity that shows us it's designed, it's the simplicity and organization that shows us it is designed.

"It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." --Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Faith Guardian, you might want to take a look around you -- at some of the other posters here like Split Rock, Thaumaturgy, Nathan Poe, and California [something].

These guys, at one time, were where you are now -- i.e. Church-going believers who read their Bibles.

But at some point in their life, their allegiance to science led them to having questions that their undershepherds couldn't answer, and the cognitive dissonance was so great, they are now no longer believers -- (guys, please correct me, if I'm wrong).

You're wrong -- I'm not even that much of a science geek.

Literature, AV -- It doesn't take an expert to recognize it -- but it does help

It was my alliegance to truth, and a determination to pursue truth, wherever it may lead (as opposed to sitting smugly in my chair and assume the truth had already been spoonfed to me) that caused me to recognize Biblical mythology as just that -- mythology.

It doesn't take much -- just objectivity -- to realize that the Bible was nothing more or less than one culture's attempt to impose order and purpose on the universe in front of them, as so many others, before and since, have done.

Nor does it take much to realize that once you realize this, you no longer have to worship the Bible, or demand that the world conform to it (or more accurately, to any one person's reading of it) in order to glean meaning from it. In fact, I'd dare say that a far deeper and more important meaning becomes clear once a person strips away their own arrogant presumptions about the book and its history.

Read enough "Holy" books and you will discover that they all have two things in common: They are all chronicles of humanity's relationship with its gods, and that they reveal a lot more about the humans than they do about the gods.

And in the end, you realize: Being that we ourselves are human and not gods, it is the human condition that is the more worthwhile study.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

The facts are there to draw a conclusion. That's how the great pyramid was determined to be intelligently designed. It wasn't based on a time machine showing design, the predictions of intelligent design ruling out every naturalistic unintelligent process which has not been presented by apyramidbuildersists ,how to conclusively calculate design, or any of the time buying tactics employed here. The integrated complexity found in the Great Pyramid is too high and specified to have emerged by chance. Then we have texts. That's basically it. If there is a case against that then present it.

Then present the objective threshold demonstrating that it isn't merely your opinion.

Good luck.

If there was a universal standard then it would have preceded the realization that the Great Pyramid is intelligently designed. Today, we are not here trying to determine how the Great Pyramid can arise through chance but that's not because of some standard or quanta. It is simply through assessing the level of complexity found in said structure and the capabilities of purely naturalistic unintelligent processes acting in relation to it, then taking a position in accord with the data. Though anybody through their own volition is free to take a side in opposition of that position, the first is still in line with the evidence.

LOL too late you failed already.

 

[Greg1234]

That's nice.

Now, are you able to provide answers to my questions or not?

Already have. It is beyond the grasp of undirected naturalistic forces through observation and experimentation, and fits intelligent design through same. As with the Great Pyramid, it is established to be designed through taking a position based on data, not a universal standard. It's up to you to provide data that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can form the level of complexity found in man.

 

[Greg1234]

Then present the objective threshold demonstrating that it isn't merely your opinion.

Good luck.

See any undirected process in relation to the Great Pyramid. An objective threshold was not needed for the Great Pyramid, and it isn't required now. How design of the Great Pyramid was established was just given and the same is done for man.

LOL too late you failed already.

You have failed to present any data showing that purely naturalistic unintelligent processes are capable of building the level of complexity found in man.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

See any undirected process in relation to the Great Pyramid. An objective threshold was not needed for the Great Pyramid, and it isn't required now. How design of the Great Pyramid was established was just given and the same is done for man.

Actually an objective threshold is required when you claim that there is a theshold for mankind and that it ISN'T just your opinion.

I have no problem with you claiming that there is a threshold. However if you can't demonstrate that threshold in an objective manner then don't tell me it isn't merely your opinion.

 

[Greg1234]

Actually an objective threshold is required

Just the threshold of undirected processes in relation to the Great Pyramid's level of complexity was required to establish design, not an objective one. Same for man.

when you claim that there is a theshold for mankind and that it ISN'T just your opinion.

The same is done for man.

I have no problem with you claiming that there is a threshold. However if you can't demonstrate that threshold in an objective manner then don't tell me it isn't merely your opinion.

The established fact that the Great Pyramid is designed isn't based on an objective motion or opinion, but on the data which can be made available. Though it is understandable why you removed data from the equation.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

The established fact that the Great Pyramid is designed isn't based on an objective motion or opinion, but on the data which can be made available. Though it is understandable why you removed data from the equation.

It is based on data... which is objective. The reasoning behind the conclusion is logical. All I'm asking is that you provide the same for man to demonstrate that your conclusion is not merely your opinion. Why is this such a problem for you?

Seriously just provide the objective threshold so that I can see that it isn't your opinion. Until then it is indeed just your opinion. Congratulations you have taken your first step in learning the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. Hopefully someday we can get you to understand what a strawman is and you can stop comparing the pyramids to biological entities.

 

[Greg1234]

It is based on data... which is objective.

The data is objective, the threshold is not. A man, through his own volition, can still hypothesize that the Great Pyramid was not intelligently designed. The established fact today that the Great Pyramid is designed is based solely on a position held based on the data. You have the property of intelligence which can be made available, purely naturalistic unintelligent processes and the level of complexity found in the structure. Through that, a position was And is being taken on the Great Pyramid.

In short, the evidence for the intelligent design of the Great Pyramid is its integrated complexity and the property of intelligence. Through that, archeologists have faith that the Great Pyramid was intelligently designed.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

The data is objective, the threshold is not.

Thank you.

So it is opinion then. Thanks for that I'm glad we got there eventually.

Now about this pyramid strawman...