Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Dizredux]

Yes, this has been discussed before. The same things are discussed over and over and over and over, that's the nature of a forum, in my experience.

The dancing around the issue by the demand to define complexity is nothing more than a tactic to evade the issue.

Gee asking you to define your terms is being evasive? You have got to be kidding!

I believe I've asked you this the last time the issue was being discussed, but if not maybe you'll actually determine the complexity of an object/system. Which of the following is more complex and why?

The task of establishing complexity is on your shoulders since you want to use to establish design.

As a number have noted, you are real good at demanding answers but very bad at supplying them. Who is being evasive here?

Again how do you define complexity and how do you measure it? Lets see how you try to evade answering the question this time.



BTW "I don't know" is an acceptable answer and the one that I would give.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, but those trained in the formation of rocks could tell by testing the rock whether it was designed or not...correct?

No, not correct.

A rock that falls down a cliff can have edges being smashed off as well. There wouldn't be anything on my "art rock" that couldn't be accomplished by natural means.

Seriously, it's not hard to imagine shaping a rock in a seemingly random way making it look just like any other random rock.

And the opposite is also true...

A rock on mars, not the ruins of a traffic light:

And just for giggles, a naturally shaped rock on earth:

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, not correct.

A rock that falls down a cliff can have edges being smashed off as well. There wouldn't be anything on my "art rock" that couldn't be accomplished by natural means.

Seriously, it's not hard to imagine shaping a rock in a seemingly random way making it look just like any other random rock.

And the opposite is also true...

A rock on mars, not the ruins of a traffic light:

And just for giggles, a naturally shaped rock on earth:

Oh, it looks like a lighthouse

 

[DogmaHunter]

Such as?

Such as? You want examples of phenomena that were claimed to have supernatural explanations which turned out utterly wrong?

Seriously?

Ok then...

Diversity of life, the sun, the moon, the stars, the tides, storms, lightning, thunder, procreation, wind, sunrise, sunset, volcano's, mountain formation, floods, earthquakes, comets, meteorites, super novae, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, fire, snow, rain, ................................................................

 

[DogmaHunter]

Saying you don't know in order to cease discussing an issue is an evasion tactic.

And pretending to know something when you really don't for the sake of continuing a discussion is ... what? Besides an exercise in futility...

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

Sure.

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

The Belgian government


Here's a question for you: at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural? Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not? What unit of measurement do you use? And how is the measurement done?

 

[justlookinla]

Gee asking you to define your terms is being evasive? You have got to be kidding!


The task of establishing complexity is on your shoulders since you want to use to establish design.

As a number have noted, you are real good at demanding answers but very bad at supplying them. Who is being evasive here?

Again how do you define complexity and how do you measure it? Lets see how you try to evade answering the question this time.



BTW "I don't know" is an acceptable answer and the one that I would give.

Dizredux

LOL. You don't know which is more complex......

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

How is it an evasion tactic to ask you to define what you mean exactly by complexity?

I could, for example, easily argue that your example is far less complex then you make it out to be. You cite enormous numbers to make it sound more complex then it really is.

A multi-cellular life form isn't that much more complex then a single cell life form. The same processes are at work - just at larger scale.

Is an oak tree "more complex" then a bonzai tree? If you would cite the same type of numbers for these two trees, you'ld come up with far larger numbers for the oak tree then the bonzai tree. But it consists of the same processes.

Let's take another example... Is a data center housing millions of times the CPU power and storage of a smarphone also millions of times more complex then a smartphone?

Is a 5 inch TV more complex then an 80 inch TV?

If you can't even define what complexity is, if you can't even measure the complexity of a system in an objective way... how can you draw the line of at which point "complexity" can no longer be accounted for as being "natural"?

Also, as a small sidenote: the argument for complexity is at bottom simply an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Evolution.


EDIT: scrolling through this thread, I re-read this post and saw you asked for non-naturalistic processes. Sorry bout that.

 

[Dizredux]

LOL. You don't know which is more complex......

Not really. Again how do you decide which is more complex and how to you measure it to determine that?

Lets see what else you can come up to avoid addressing this. Always interesting to see you at work.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

Does complexity EVER imply design?

No.

I can design very simple things.
And nature can produce very complex things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's hard to understand how one can observe the complexity of a 777 and not have thoughts concerning the sources of the complexity.

I smell an argument from ignorance coming up next.

 

[justlookinla]

Sure.

Why?

Here's a question for you: at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural? Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not? What unit of measurement do you use? And how is the measurement done?

Simply observe naturalistic processes creating life forms of incomprehensible complexity and determine if only naturalistic processes were sufficient for creating those incomprehensible complex life forms.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Wasn't it you that said that it could not be shown that the brick wall was designed, yet we know it was. So inability to find evidence the designer is not always the signpost of design. The brick wall has no evidence of who created it but it shows design in the intent by the designer for a purpose.

We don't need to be able to identify the specific human that build it.
We have evidence that humans build brick walls. That is enough to infer that finding a brick wall in the middle of the Sahara was build by some human.

Just like when we find a bird nest without birds in it. We can infer it was build by a bird without knowing which specific bird.

Now, if we would send a probe to a moon of Jupiter and find a brick wall there... that would be problematic.

 

[justlookinla]

I smell an argument from ignorance coming up next.

I smell evasion coming down the road very soon.

 

[justlookinla]

No.

I can design very simple things.
And nature can produce very complex things.

A Boeing 777 doesn't imply design?

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution.

What kind of evolution?

 

[justlookinla]

Not really. Again how do you decide which is more complex and how to you measure it to determine that?

Lets see what else you can come up to avoid addressing this. Always interesting to see you at work.

Dizredux

If you can't determine which of the following is more complex, you're unable to produce simple thought. Sad really.

 

[Smidlee]

No. Airplanes are surprisingly simple actually.

Really? If they are simple then why did it take man so long to learn how to build them?

Actually, bipedal walking is far more inefficient than quadrupedal walking. The benefits of walking on two legs is that it frees up the hands. Why do you think our species has such bad back and joint problems?

.

Because of our modern life style. Examples: Some recliners are very bad for your back and jogging on pavement is very bad on our joints.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not claiming I can. I am claiming that if there is an appearance of design it denotes the possibility of design.

Just as rainbows denote the possibility of magical Leprechauns, and lightning denotes the possibility of Thor.