Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
So you admit there are very complex things in nature, but that you can't make a determination on what is complex and what is not?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No.
I can design very simple things.
And nature can produce very complex things.
Just as rainbows denote the possibility of magical Leprechauns, and lightning denotes the possibility of Thor.
That would require following that thought forward to a conclusion they don't wish to have.If you can't determine which of the following is more complex, you're unable to produce simple thought. Sad really.
Again, how do you know?
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
Of course they did. The preexistence of genetic material has been looked many times. Sometimes it is found but mostly, if it is, it does not go back very far and usually there is little evidence for this. If someone wishes to propose existence of those genes in the history of the species, then they have to show evidence of that and as far as I know, mostly it is not found.Did they ever stop to think that those genes or information for the
bioluminesence in those squids was programmed in there from the start?
I don't really understand this. I have seen this proposed many times over the years so if it was found, I seriously doubt that there would be a problem with it. Again, evidence is the key.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.
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
Dizredux responding to Just.
Once 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
I am very serious. While a huge difference is fairly easy to see, what about the smaller and more subtle issues such as a rock and a hand ax. What about a snow flake and a golf ball?Are you serious? You don't think there is a way to determine that the 777 is more complex than the first airplane? Do you expect us to believe that you have to have a way to measure that specifically?
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.
That would require following that thought forward to a conclusion they don't wish to have.
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.
It's rather revealing that you can't determine which is more complex, the Wright Biplane or a Boeing 777.
Now, evade awayyyyyyy.
So let us put the question to you. How do you decide which is more complex? ED brought up the number of parts which, although it has problems, is a reasonable starting place. Using that metric the 777 is more complex as it has more parts.
But lets take the example of a hand ax and Rodin's The Thinker. Both have only one part. How would you deal with this?
Dizredux
I am very serious. While a huge difference is fairly easy to see, what about the smaller and more subtle issues such as a rock and a hand ax. What about a snow flake and a golf ball?
Whatever system you have is going to have to have a metric to measure complexity before you can make very many statements about it.
Which is more complex; a star, a hurricane or a hermit crab? If you are going to assert that complexity is an indication of design, you have to tell what you mean by complexity. If you are going to look at it scientifically, you need a metric so two individuals can have a way to agree on the amount of complexity involved.
That one "looks" more complex than another is not very satisfactory and really pretty useless in this context.
So as to the issue of the 777 and the original airplane. How do you determine which is more complex?
Dizredux
Good honest response-thanks. But doesn't it go against your idea that complexity indicates design?Snowstorm. It has more systems to perform and more functions than the Boeing 777.
The 777 but I can show metrics that support this. We can see and measure multiple signs of manufacture on the 777. That would allow us to infer design. We cannot find any signs that a snow storm was manufactured so we cannot infer the snowstorm was designed at least by that metric.Which is the product of design? The snowstorm or the Boeing 777?
Good honest response-thanks. But doesn't it go against your idea that complexity indicates design?
The 777 but I can show metrics that support this. We can see and measure multiple signs of manufacture on the 777. That would allow us to infer design. We cannot find any signs that a snow storm was manufactured so we cannot infer the snowstorm was designed at least by that metric.
This is one set of metrics to look at design. What might you use to infer design?
Dizredux
Lets look at this. Referring to the single cell organism and the chimp, I suspect you are using the metric of the number of cells to determine which is more complex. This is not a bad starting place although you can run into problems fairly quickly using it.Now how do I determine the original plane is less complex than the 777, Just as we can see how a single cell organism is considered less complex than a chimpanzee.
Again I suspect, but don't know, that you are doing something similar to counting the number of parts involved as your metric.It is less obvious in the life forms than it is in an airplane to me. It is completely obvious how much more complex requirements there are in a 777 than was necessary for the first flight and the plane that successfully provided it.
A bit snarky and I could say that this response is a sign that you have not thought through the issue of complexity very well.To claim otherwise seems dismissive and unreasonable.
And you will continue to wait. I feel no need to respond to your goofiness.And I'ma waiting of for an answer.....and waiting.....and waiting......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?