Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Davian]

I answered.

Originally Posted by Davian

Would a universe that wasn't designed, but also had the values conducive to life as we know it, look designed to you? Yes or no?
​

A yes or no answer is impossible.

1. The universe can't be observed without the aid of scientific methods. I do not "see" or can the universe "look" any way to me personally. I understand and comprehend what those who have observed the universe using scientific methods claim. The universe has values that are measured and tested and peer reviewed which finding show that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of life. Based on these findings these scientists claim these settings appear as if they were "fixed" that the appearance of design is overwhelming. I am convinced by their expertise that they are providing accurate information and have a reasoned and logical reason to claim this.

2. Having the appearance of design must have a cause. It either is caused by design as it appears or it must have another cause. The appearance of design is due to the values conducive to life as we know it and how they appear to have been set there for the purpose of life to exist.

Post 717

And I responded in 719. You have backed yourself into an unfalsifiable corner. There is not much to discuss if you are not going to venture out of it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

While a random assortment or pile of bricks could in a sense be designed a brick wall would be recognized as designed is that not true?

First of all, my example was in reply to justlookinla's contention that complexity implies design. Clearly, that is not true.

Secondly, a brick wall is only recognized as designed because we know of the designer and have seen brick walls being put together. However, recognition of regularity can lead to incorrect identification of something as designed. The Bimini Road in the Caribbean is an underwater formation once thought to be designed. Exhaustive investigation later revealed it to be a natural formation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First of all, my example was in reply to justlookinla's contention that complexity implies design. Clearly, that is not true.

What do you base your assessment that complexity exists without design?

Secondly, a brick wall is only recognized as designed because we know of the designer and have seen brick walls being put together.

Are you trying to convince me that if we had never seen a brick wall or know the designer we would be unable to recognize it as designed?

However, recognition of regularity can lead to incorrect identification of something as designed.

regularity is one aspect of design but not a necessary one.

The Bimini Road in the Caribbean is an underwater formation once thought to be designed. Exhaustive investigation later revealed it to be a natural formation.

So scientific methodology was used to determine that the natural formation was not due to actual design. How? What did they base their conclusions on?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What do you base your assessment that complexity exists without design?


Are you trying to convince me that if we had never seen a brick wall or know the designer we would be unable to recognize it as designed?


regularity is one aspect of design but not a necessary one.



So scientific methodology was used to determine that the natural formation was not due to actual design. How? What did they base their conclusions on?

Crystals, for one, can form quite complex matrices, given enough time, without any apparent intervention from an intelligent force.

Walls of various rocks and materials can form in nature. It is hard to say though if you would recognize it as designed or not; brick isn't exactly naturally occurring.

You have to make solid boundaries on what does and does not count as design if we are to debate properly. It is near impossible to debate ambiguous positions.

 

[justlookinla]

No, not at all.

First, because complexity is rather subjective. What is complex to you might not be complex to me.

Secondly, complexity can be natural. 2 H atoms and an O atom by themselves are relatively simple. After a natural reaction, they form the more complex H2O molecule.

One single life form on earth consists of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 octillion) atoms which yield about 22 Trillion H2O molecules which in turn, according to programming, combine with 15 Trillion other molecules, 100 Billion neurons, 60,000 miles of blood vessels,90,000 miles of information rich circuitry (which communicates at 250 MPH), and includes a 'computer' which could perform 38 thousand-trillion operations per second. This single life form produces 25 million new cells each second. Every 13 seconds, it will produce more cells than there are people in the United States.

1) Would you consider that complex?

2) If not, why not?

3) Also, can you give an example of something more complex than the above life form?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Crystals, for one, can form quite complex matrices, given enough time, without any apparent intervention from an intelligent force.

Walls of various rocks and materials can form in nature. It is hard to say though if you would recognize it as designed or not; brick isn't exactly naturally occurring.

You have to make solid boundaries on what does and does not count as design if we are to debate properly. It is near impossible to debate ambiguous positions.

So we know that brick is not naturally occurring so we know that the materials have been manipulated by an agent for a specific purpose. Correct?

We have a history of designed materials to recognize them from things that are not. That is the basis for the agreement between the scientists in this field when they agree that the universe appears designed. They base design on something that appears to have an intent by an agent for a purpose.

 

[justlookinla]

First of all, my example was in reply to justlookinla's contention that complexity implies design. Clearly, that is not true.

Of course it's true. You seem to be suggesting that complexity NEVER implies design?

 

[PsychoSarah]

One single life form on earth consists of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (7 octillion) atoms which yield about 22 Trillion H2O molecules which in turn, according to programming, combine with 15 Trillion other molecules, 100 Billion neurons, 60,000 miles of blood vessels,90,000 miles of information rich circuitry (which communicates at 250 MPH), and includes a 'computer' which could perform 38 thousand-trillion operations per second. This single life form produces 25 million new cells each second. Every 13 seconds, it will produce more cells than there are people in the United States.

1) Would you consider that complex?

2) If not, why not?

3) Also, can you give an example of something more complex than the above life form?

If you are describing a human, there are "more complex" life forms than us on earth by far. The only thing exceptional about our species is our brains/intelligence, and our hold on the #1 spot for that is hardly by such a wide margin as to say we are beyond all other life. We don't have the most complex senses, we don't have the most complex cells, our athletic abilities are laughable, our social interactions pathetically antagonistic for a group species, our genomes aren't much bigger than that of a mouse and is exceeded by many species... And yet, so many would claim we are the center of the universe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course it's true. You seem to be suggesting that complexity NEVER implies design?

By itself? Nope.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And I responded in 719. You have backed yourself into an unfalsifiable corner. There is not much to discuss if you are not going to venture out of it.

And I responded to that on so on, yet you have not answered my questions and I have yours. You accused me of not answering yours so you didn't need to answer mine. That is false. I did, you responded and even put the number of the post in which you responded. Now please answer my questions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So we know that brick is not naturally occurring so we know that the materials have been manipulated by an agent for a specific purpose. Correct?

We have a history of designed materials to recognize them from things that are not. That is the basis for the agreement between the scientists in this field when they agree that the universe appears designed. They base design on something that appears to have an intent by an agent for a purpose.

Some might base design on that, but given how few professionals in that field are religious and how many are strait up atheist, I doubt you can claim there is any consensus for design in physics. And stating that the universe looks designed once again is meaningless.

We can't unfortunately compare ourselves with life we know not to be designed, given I suppose the possibility we ourselves are designed so we can't base it on any life we observe on our planet, but we can compare ourselves to life we know is designed. And that sort of life and us don't match up.

 

[justlookinla]

If you are describing a human, there are "more complex" life forms than us on earth by far. The only thing exceptional about our species is our brains/intelligence, and our hold on the #1 spot for that is hardly by such a wide margin as to say we are beyond all other life. We don't have the most complex senses, we don't have the most complex cells, our athletic abilities are laughable, our social interactions pathetically antagonistic for a group species, our genomes aren't much bigger than that of a mouse and is exceeded by many species... And yet, so many would claim we are the center of the universe.

Because a life form is faster doesn't make it more complex. Why not give an example of a life form more complex than the life form I described and explain why it's more complex?

While you're at it, compare the life form which I described to something you consider designed and tell us which is more complex.

 

[justlookinla]

By itself? Nope.

Why not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because a life form is faster doesn't make it more complex. Why not give an example of a life form more complex than the life form I described and explain why it's more complex?

While you're at it, compare the life form which I described to something you consider designed and tell us which is more complex.

Maybe if you defined what you meant by complex, I could.

 

[justlookinla]

Maybe if you defined what you meant by complex, I could.

Nope, that's just an evasion tactic. Do you consider the life form I described to be complex? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why not?

If for nothing else, because there is no logical reason natural processes couldn't produce something I would perceive as complex.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope, that's just an evasion tactic. Do you consider the life form I described to be complex? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't really consider humans complex, in a macro view of the universe. Just because things at times are difficult for us to understand, or seem to have many parts doesn't really make it all that complex to me. Not in a particularly significant way, that is.

 

[justlookinla]

If for nothing else, because there is no logical reason natural processes couldn't produce something I would perceive as complex.

Do you have an example of non-naturalistic processes designing and building something more complex than the life form I described?

 

[justlookinla]

I don't really consider humans complex, in a macro view of the universe. Just because things at times are difficult for us to understand, or seem to have many parts doesn't really make it all that complex to me. Not in a particularly significant way, that is.

To you, is a Boeing 777 complex?

 

[Davian]

And I responded to that on so on, yet you have not answered my questions and I have yours. You accused me of not answering yours so you didn't need to answer mine. That is false.

Indeed. What I said was that if you didn't answer mine, I couldn't answer yours.

I did, you responded and even put the number of the post in which you responded. Now please answer my questions.

I will summarize my answers by saying that you have backed yourself into an unfalsifiable corner. There is not much to discuss if you are not going to venture out of it. Unfalsifiable is not irrefutable - in some ways, it is the opposite.