Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[DerelictJunction]

And this folks is a perfect example of evasion.

How is it evasion? Was the question too hard?

I told you which one I thought was more complex and even told you why I thought so.
Are you unable to determine if a Boeing 777 is more complex than a snowstorm?

If you cannot tell which is more complex then how can you use complexity as an indicator of design?

 

[DerelictJunction]

That goes both ways. What solid boundaries do you base non-design on?

Inability to find evidence of a designer.

 

[justlookinla]

Is a human complex? Is a Boeing 777 complex?

Folks love to evade the complexity issue.

How am I evading it?
You're the one who claims that complexity implies design.

Which is more complex, a Boeing 777 or a snowstorm? Please state your reasons for the choice you make.

I am going with the snowstorm as more complex because it requires more information than the Boeing 777 to describe everything that is going on in detail.

Which one is designed and which one came about by naturalistic processes?

How is it evasion? Was the question too hard?

I told you which one I thought was more complex and even told you why I thought so.
Are you unable to determine if a Boeing 777 is more complex than a snowstorm?

If you cannot tell which is more complex then how can you use complexity as an indicator of design?

Now, again, instead of evading the questions.

Is a human complex?

Is a 777 complex?

 

[justlookinla]

Does complexity EVER imply design?

Depends on the circumstances surrounding "EVER". However, complexity itself does not guarantee design. What I type below is not complex yet it is surely designed, but a snowstorm, which is very complex, is not designed.

2

You're into full evasion mode.

Once again, does complexity EVER imply design?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're into full evasion mode.

Once again, does complexity EVER imply design?

Not by itself, however, if combined with other information, it can contribute to that conclusion.

 

[justlookinla]

Not by itself, however, if combined with other information, it can contribute to that conclusion.

If you were to examine a Boeing 777 you wouldn't conclude a designer?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you were to examine a Boeing 777 you wouldn't conclude a designer?

I would, but not based on complexity at all.

 

[justlookinla]

I would, but not based on complexity at all.

When you observed the complexity that wouldn't mean anything to you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

When you observed the complexity that wouldn't mean anything to you?

Nope. Not in and of itself. Complexity + object of metal

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Are naturalistic processes not designed? If no, how do you know?

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

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

Is the number 2 not a symbol that represent a number that corresponds to objects? Is 2 more likely to be naturally occurring than this: “if A then B”, A -> B, and p(B|A) = 1

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

So it is fair to say that we can recognize design without being able to show that something is designed? Even those things that we can most certainly believe to be so?

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

I would say that is probably true. Yet, there are things that the regularity is part of the hallmark of design...such as a watch.

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

My point was that there was an appearance of design or there would be no reason to go to the lengths they did to determine it. They were searching and investigating if that appearance of design was actual or not. It seems clear that an appearance of design can be clearly interpreted by scientists. It was then investigated "quite extensively" before determining if it was designed or not. It could have just as likely been a designed element as well with scientists finding that it was a ancient path or wall now under water. Before investigating it the possibility of design was present due to the appearance of design. Thus, the appearance of design supports the notion of design and brings us to a reasonable conclusion that the appearance could possibly be actual design.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope. Not in and of itself. Complexity + object of metal

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

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

That is just what I was saying, the professionals regardless of their own religious views claim the universe does indeed appear designed. I never once have claimed that there is a consensus of actual design.

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.

I am not talking about life. I never mentioned design of life. We are discussing the fine tuning of the universe. 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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

What?????

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

So by what do you measure the physical? Can cheetahs walk on two legs? IF they did would they be able to run as fast? How can you determine their speed is more complex than our walking on two legs?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

Would like an answer to this Sarah.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is the arbitrary comparison between ancient cell fossils and modern ones that defines it that way. Personally, I view complexity always to be a matter of comparison, with nothing really just being inherently complex or simple without having it compared to something else.

We don't have a fossilized ancient cell that can be compared. We have a possible cell structure that give away no details about how simple or complex it is.

By the way, I hadn't seen this before asking you again to answer it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So by what do you measure the physical? Can cheetahs walk on two legs? IF they did would they be able to run as fast? How can you determine their speed is more complex than our walking on two legs?

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?

Cheetahs have a far more efficient muscle and lung system than humans do.

Bipedal movement isn't more complex than quadrupedal movement, it is just different.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Would like an answer to this Sarah.

I did answer it already, maybe you missed the post?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Complex on a whole, or just various parts? Because I can name creatures that exceed our complexity overall as well as in individual aspects, so long as it isn't our brains.

How do you do that when you can't determine complexity in a measurable way?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I did answer it already, maybe you missed the post?

I did miss it and then later found it and responded to it. Sorry.