Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DogmaHunter]

Why?

Lot's of parts and it requires quite an effort to give a detailed description of it all.

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.

My questions were the following:

1. at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural?
2. Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not?
3. What unit of measurement do you use?
4. And how is the measurement done?

You didn't answer any of those questions.

And, to top it off, this: "...of incomprehensible complexity ..." exposed the blatant argument of incredulity that sits at the foundation of your "complexity" argument.

It's just fallacious nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A Boeing 777 doesn't imply design?

It's demonstrably designed. And not because it's complex.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What kind of evolution?

I posted to fast and mis-read your question. I edited it to make it clear as well.
Sorry, just ignore it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I smell evasion coming down the road very soon.

You mean like when you answered this:

"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"

While I asked you these questions:

1. at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural?
2. Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not?
3. What unit of measurement do you use?
4. And how is the measurement done?

??

 

[justlookinla]

Lot's of parts and it requires quite an effort to give a detailed description of it all.

Not just lots of parts, but infinitely more parts than anything created by designer to produce a non-naturalistic creation. And infinitely more complex also. But, this incomprehensible complex 'machine' was created by only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and directionless mechanism...according to some.

My questions were the following:

1. at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural?
2. Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not?
3. What unit of measurement do you use?
4. And how is the measurement done?

You didn't answer any of those questions.

And, to top it off, this: "...of incomprehensible complexity ..." exposed the blatant argument of incredulity that sits at the foundation of your "complexity" argument.

It's just fallacious nonsense.

It's nonsense to offer the faith based guess that the life form briefly described is the product of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and directionless process.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean like when you answered this:

"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"

While I asked you these questions:

1. at which point is a thing "too complex" to be natural?
2. Where do you draw the line and how do you determine wheter something crosses that line or not?
3. What unit of measurement do you use?
4. And how is the measurement done?

??

The life form described earlier would be an example of a 'thing' to be too complex to be created by only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and directionless process. As I pointed out in my answer, simply observe the process to determine if such an incomprehensible complex creation could be created by the alleged creative mechanism.

You'll not find such a naturalistic mechanism.

 

[justlookinla]

I posted to fast and mis-read your question. I edited it to make it clear as well.
Sorry, just ignore it.

Ok...would you like to answer the question? Or not?

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

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.

Just

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

And again you won't answer the question. Well at least you didn't disappoint.

How do you decide which is more complex and how do you measure it to determine that? Lets see how long you can go not answering.

And you talk about others be evasive just because they say that don't know something.

Dizredux

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not just lots of parts, but infinitely more parts than anything created by designer to produce a non-naturalistic creation. And infinitely more complex also.

Wait, I thought you asked me for my opinion... Are you know telling me what my opinion should be?

Having said that..."infinitly"? Really?

But, this incomprehensible complex 'machine'

Argument from incredulity.

was created by only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and directionless mechanism...according to some.

Strawman.

It's nonsense to offer the faith based guess that the life form briefly described is the product of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and directionless process.

Strawman.

 

[HitchSlap]

A brick wall shows intent for a purpose.

Again, how do you know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok...would you like to answer the question? Or not?

I would. But I can't.

Because you haven't explained to me how we can quantify "complexity".

Once I know how to quantify "complexity", I can then look at systems designed by humans, quantify their complexity and compare the number to the complexity value of a living creature.

But without a well define metric to do so, I don't know where to start.

Please explain so I can try and meet the challenge.

Use an example if that makes it easier for you...
Let's take for example a laptop and a tornado. Can you please explain how to quantify the "complexity" of both and then explain how we can compare those two values to determine which of both is "more complex"?

Because, again, I don't know how to do it. You clearly seem to imply that you can. So please do.

 

[justlookinla]

Dizredux

Just And again you won't answer the question. Well at least you didn't disappoint.

How do you decide which is more complex and how do you measure it to determine that? Lets see how long you can go not answering.

And you talk about others be evasive just because they say that don't know something.

Dizredux

Wright Brothers biplane. Boeing 777. Want to actually give a simple answer to which is more complex...and why?

 

[justlookinla]

Wait, I thought you asked me for my opinion... Are you know telling me what my opinion should be?

Having said that..."infinitly"? Really?

Your opinion is what you wish your opinion to be. And yes...infinitely'....really.

Argument from incredulity.

Evasion.

Strawman.

Evasion.

Strawman.

Evasion.

 

[justlookinla]

I would. But I can't.

Because you haven't explained to me how we can quantify "complexity".

Once I know how to quantify "complexity", I can then look at systems designed by humans, quantify their complexity and compare the number to the complexity value of a living creature.

But without a well define metric to do so, I don't know where to start.

Please explain so I can try and meet the challenge.

Use an example if that makes it easier for you...
Let's take for example a laptop and a tornado. Can you please explain how to quantify the "complexity" of both and then explain how we can compare those two values to determine which of both is "more complex"?

Because, again, I don't know how to do it. You clearly seem to imply that you can. So please do.

Of course you can't determine which is more complex, a bicycle or a human. You have no way of knowing.

Maybe someone else can make a guess?

 

[Dizredux]

Wright Brothers biplane. Boeing 777. Want to actually give a simple answer to which is more complex...and why?

And again you evade answering. It is you that brings in the concept of complexity into the discussion as a way to determine the presence of design, it is your job to define it.

Again the question is "How do you decide which is more complex and how do you measure it to determine that?"

And you have the nerve to accuse others of evading, rather hypocritical don't you think not to mention a tad dishonest.

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

Wright Brothers biplane. Boeing 777. Want to actually give a simple answer to which is more complex...and why?

Easy.
Boeing 777 because it has more systems to perform more functions than the biplane.

No evasion on my part.

How about you?

Boeing 777. Snowstorm. Want to actually give a simple answer to which is more complex...and why?

I smell evasion coming down the pike real soon.

 

[Smidlee]

Use an example if that makes it easier for you...
Let's take for example a laptop and a tornado. Can you please explain how to quantify the "complexity" of both and then explain how we can compare those two values to determine which of both is "more complex"?

It's kind of like a FM signal. You have a wave riding on top of an wave. Both laptop and tornado has complexity which is govern by natural laws but the laptop has complexity riding on top of complexity govern by natural laws. Thus it has purpose. This is how a spy can find a hidden signal riding on static. It's the same principle SETI scientist can use to determine if it's a signal is coming from an intelligent source. A computer is more complex than a circuit board since it requires more purposeful order (information) and a circuit board it more complex than chip since it requires more organization. A chip is more complex than the atoms which makes up the chip.
Now life is even more complex than any thing ever created by man or nature. It has the ability to become more complex than when it started. From a single cell come the most complex thing known to man , the human brain. For me this shows life is supernatural (as well as man.) , life is greater than the universe. Thus I believe Life created the universe and not the universe created life.
Evolution can't even beginning to touch this as life refuses to fit into little man's theory.

Here is an example of just how life got evolutionist so confused they stop making any sense. Evolution may be predictable because the results were not what they would have predicted if evolution was true? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141021135020.htm
The reason they are surprised by the results is because deep down they know co-evolution doesn't exist. Co-evolution is just a cop out for life not fitting into their little theory.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux responding to Just.

You have been over this before. To determine complexity, a metric of some sort is required. How do we measure complexity to decide if one object is more or less complex than another?

Last time you avoided this question by showing pictures of two planes and saying that one is more complex than the other but carefully avoided the question of measurement.

So back to the question, how do measure complexity in such a way that different objective individuals can determine if one object is more complex than another? Be specific.

If you wish to tackle it, a good exercise might be to take a golf ball, a snowflake and a hurricane. Which is more complex? How do you know? Which is designed and how do your know?

Again be specific. This is science and personal opinions do not count.

Once

I would like you to answer those questions please.

I can't, which is the point. Unless someone such as Just or yourself can come up with a definition of complexity involving a way of measuring it so others can determine what has more or less complexity, I really can't say much about the relationship between complexity and design.

It is not my job to do your work for you.


Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

It's kind of like a FM signal. You have a wave riding on top of an wave. Both laptop and tornado has complexity which is govern by natural laws but the laptop has complexity riding on top of complexity govern by natural laws. Thus it has purpose. This is how a spy can find a hidden signal riding on static. It's the same principle SETI scientist can use to determine if it's a signal is coming from an intelligent source. A computer is more complex than a circuit board since it requires more purposeful order (information) and a circuit board it more complex than chip since it requires more organization. A chip is more complex than the atoms which makes up the chip.
Now life is even more complex than any thing ever created by man or nature. It has the ability to become more complex than when it started. From a single cell come the most complex thing known to man , the human brain. For me this shows life is supernatural (as well as man.) , life is greater than the universe. Thus I believe Life created the universe and not the universe created life.
Evolution can't even beginning to touch this as life refuses to fit into little man's theory.

Here is an example of just how life got evolutionist so confused they stop making any sense. Evolution may be predictable because the results were not what they would have predicted if evolution was true? Let there be light: Evolution of complex bioluminescent traits may be predictable -- ScienceDaily
The reason they are surprised by the results is because deep down they know co-evolution doesn't exist. Co-evolution is just a cop out for life not fitting into their little theory.

I would just like to add:

Did they ever stop to think that those genes or information for the
bioluminesence in those squids was programmed in there from the start?
And if they even suggested that I bet that article would never see the light of day and no one would ever listen to anything those scientists said again.

"This finding is unexpected and could indicate unusually strong constraints: The probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small, noted Oakley."

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

The point is that we know that there are certain activities or results that are earmarked as being designed with intent for a purpose. If we had never seen a brick wall and found one in the desert the possibility of design would be present due to the unlikelihood of it occurring by chance. The fact that we can't identify the designer is not necessary to understand that it is more likely to be designed than to have been created by chance alone.

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.

Great we agree. We do not have to know the specific "designer" to recognize design. We know by seeing a birds nest that it was not created by the wind for instance but was designed by a designer (the bird).

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

It might be problematic, but we would recognize design and that design of this brick wall on Jupiter's moon is recognizable by the unlikelihood of it being there by chance.