Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[PsychoSarah]

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

No. Not yet, anyways. Although, I could argue that the networks of information on the internet might be collectively more complex than a human, I suppose.

 

[Dizredux]

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

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.


Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

To you, is a Boeing 777 complex?

No. Airplanes are surprisingly simple actually.

 

[justlookinla]

No. Not yet, anyways. Although, I could argue that the networks of information on the internet might be collectively more complex than a human, I suppose.

Complexity would then be an indication of design.

 

[EternalDragon]

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.

Stop beating 'round the bush.

Complex: Composed of many interconnected parts.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Complexity would then be an indication of design.

-_- not really. In fact, that would be an example of something simple giving rise to something more complex than itself, which is kinda the opposite of what you want to suggest.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Stop beating 'round the bush.

Complex: Composed of many interconnected parts.

Ok... Then there would be practically nothing in the universe that wasn't complex.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.


Dizredux

How does science determine the "first" cell as simple and cell today as complex?

 

[Dizredux]

Stop beating 'round the bush.

Complex: Composed of many interconnected parts.

At least you made the attempt at defining complex in a way that can be measured. Not all are willing to do this.

What I am understanding is that you are proposing that we can decide on the degree of complexity by counting the number of parts. There are some difficulities with this but I want to make sure I understand what you are saying before I try to get into a discussion.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

How does science determine the "first" cell as simple and cell today as complex?

Relative to each other; the "simple" cells had fewer, less specialized parts than the "more complex" modern ones. However, since it is a direct comparison, that doesn't make either necessarily simple or complex.

 

[justlookinla]

No. Airplanes are surprisingly simple actually.

Well, this is just amazing. Are you aware of the complexity of the fly by wire system in an of itself? And this is just a part of the complexity of the 777.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are describing a human, there are "more complex" life forms than us on earth by far.[/Qoute]

To make this statement you are claiming that you do have some sort of measurement by which you determine complexity. What is that measurement?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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

Is a snowstorm complex?

Is a snowstorm designed or does it happen through naturalistic processes?

Is a snowstorm more complex than the number "2"?

Is the number "2" designed or does it happen through naturalistic processes.

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?

You could recognize that it MAY be designed but you could not SHOW that it is designed.

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

If it is not necessary, then the presence of regularity isn't necessarily a hallmark of design.

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?

Intense study as you can see by reading the article I linked you to and, possibly reading the references provided in that article.

 

[Dizredux]

How does science determine the "first" cell as simple and cell today as complex?

Might I suggest you address the questions I was asking first.

As a major point though, I am not sure science is describing all current cells as more complex that earlier cells. That is something that needs to be determined before this particular discussion can go any further.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

To make this statement you are claiming that you do have some sort of measurement by which you determine complexity. What is that measurement?

I was just going off of any interpretation of complexity I could think of. Our brains really are the only remotely exceptional traits of our species, so by any means you can define complex, I can name forms of life that would exceed humans in that aspect; especially in regards to the directly physical.

 

[justlookinla]

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.


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. 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?

This.....

Or this....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, this is just amazing. Are you aware of the complexity of the fly by wire system in an of itself? And this is just a part of the complexity of the 777.

Meh, I'm not impressed. Look man, I repeat, just because it seems awfully complex with all its parts doesn't mean there aren't things in nature that exceed that complexity, arbitrary even as that term is.

 

[justlookinla]

Is a snowstorm complex?

Is a snowstorm designed or does it happen through naturalistic processes?

Is a snowstorm more complex than the number "2"?

Is the number "2" designed or does it happen through naturalistic processes.
You could recognize that it MAY be designed but you could not SHOW that it is designed.
If it is not necessary, then the presence of regularity isn't necessarily a hallmark of design.

Intense study as you can see by reading the article I linked you to and, possibly reading the references provided in that article.

Is a human complex? Is a Boeing 777 complex?

Folks love to evade the complexity issue.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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

I did not. I said that complexity in and of itself does not imply design. More must be known about the thing in question to even imply much less conclude it was designed.

A thunderstorm is complex, yet most people would not consider a thunderstorm to be designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Relative to each other; the "simple" cells had fewer, less specialized parts than the "more complex" modern ones. However, since it is a direct comparison, that doesn't make either necessarily simple or complex.

We really don't have the first cell so we don't have a direct comparison now do we? So complex to you would mean more specialized parts?