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.
Haha, the fact that your reluctant to answer even such a simple question tells me all I wanted to know.
I could rephrase the question to "do you honestly think that the unknown is good evidence for anything" but you'll probably just dodge the question again because you know it will contradict with your belief.
Thank you for playing Juvenissun.
- Ectezus
Which is precisely why it's basically impossible to demonstrate irreducible complexity: to demonstrate irreducible complexity, you not only have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people have come up with as likely, but you also have to eliminate all plausible explanations that people haven't come up with. There always remains the possibility, after all, that we simply weren't creative enough.
This is why negative arguments are such a bad thing. The ID crowd, if they were actually interested in doing something useful, would be pursuing positive arguments, arguments that wouldn't simply be, "Well, evolution can't explain this!"
Huh? This kinda made my brain hurt a little. Care to explain?Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough. It is not about to disprove, but is to prove. We know no way to prove something, then that thing is irreducibly complex. So, if you show me a proof, I can show you that it is not good enough. I don't have to seek out all foul proofs. Like you said, it is an unnecessary and an impossible work.
In fact, anything we know is irreducibly complex. That means: we do not know anything.
Silly talk.Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough. It is not about to disprove, but is to prove. We know no way to prove something, then that thing is irreducibly complex. So, if you show me a proof, I can show you that it is not good enough. I don't have to seek out all foul proofs. Like you said, it is an unnecessary and an impossible work.
That has never happened, though. Not once. I challenge you to find one case where it was demonstrated that there is no viable explanation for the evolution of a given structure.Just the opposite. To say something is irreducibly complex does not have to eliminate any explanation, but to include all explanations. It turned out that none of them, or all of them together, is not good enough.
What the!? The ridiculousness of this statement is beyond words.In fact, anything we know is irreducibly complex. That means: we do not know anything.
Except for leptons, quarks, and bosons.
Exactly how all the plant and animal came to be from random acts is beyond me. I dont have enough faith to be an atheist!
Silly talk.
Irreducible complexity: For any structure S, it is the case that S did not arise by N, where N is the set of all evolutionary explanations for S.
That is a textbook negative claim. You cannot word-salad your way out of it.
That has never happened, though. Not once. I challenge you to find one case where it was demonstrated that there is no viable explanation for the evolution of a given structure.
What the!? The ridiculousness of this statement is beyond words.
But my point is that it does not matter. If there exists a viable explanation that has not yet been disproven, then you cannot say that there is no explanation. And since we can't actually know all potential explanations for a given phenomenon, we can never say that there is no explanation.You repeated the same argument. A "viable" explanation is the same as a "plausible" explanation. Any argument can be presented in a viable format. But it may not explain the question.
But my point is that it does not matter. If there exists a viable explanation that has not yet been disproven, then you cannot say that there is no explanation. And since we can't actually know all potential explanations for a given phenomenon, we can never say that there is no explanation.
Unknown is not an evidence. But unknown is a valid argument.
Of course it doesn't. But this isn't the claim of irreducible complexity. The claim of irreducible complexity is not that we don't yet know the answer (which for many claimed irreducibly complex systems we actually do), but rather that there is no answer. And the claim that there is no answer can be trivially disproved by merely finding a plausible answer that fits with all current evidence. It is not necessary that the answer be correct. Merely that it be consistent with all current evidence.What I said is that an undisproved explanation does not necessary give answerto the question.
Ah, but that's never going to have been possible because there is no way for that much water to be locked away and released in such a short time.Example: there is not enough water to flood the land today (can not be disproved) does not prove there was not enough water to flood the land before (the argument does not address the question).
As Einstein said (paraphrasing here) "god does not play dice with the universe." Not that Einstein was a theist by any means, what he meant was the randomness did not lie at the heart of natural causes.
Well, quantum mechanics certainly gives the appearance of pure randomness, but the wave function dynamics are purely deterministic.and it's generally agreed now that Einstein was wrong about that, as quantum physics is probabilistic.. But it still works out, as if you perform the same microscopic action with a random result 1,000,000,000 times it's all going to average out to something that is for all practical purposes deterministic.
ants create complex nests, and incredibly complex methods of communication, so they can hunt as one, and able to organize hundreds of thousands of themselves to do specific tasks. are ants "massively" complex?Infinite knowledge is not necessary, however. Knowledge enough to intentionally create is enough to make a creator massively complex.
because questioning how such a massively complex universe can be created by pure chance is a logical and valid question.Then why do you think it holds any merit whatsoever as a means to determine the nature of reality?
with a link showing purely speculative material? um, no.Chalnoth said:And I've shown why your logic is faulty.
The Big Bang is pure speculation as well. Does that mean we should disregard it?Ah finally, now we're getting somewhere!
1) So you think that the unknown can be a valid argument to support certain idea's.
2) You also say the unknown is not an evidence.
So you admit your argument is not based on evidence. Great! You know we have a name for these type of arguments in the english language, it's called: Speculation.
Speculate whatever you want Juvenissun, as long as you realize the speculation itself has no foundation of proof or evidence.
With your two sentences specifically made to dodge my question you've just answered it anyway, even better than I hoped.
- Ectezus
No, because it's not. As Ectezus said, arguments not based on evidence are pure speculation. Since the Big Bang is based on evidence, it isn't speculation: it's a theory.The Big Bang is pure speculation as well. Does that mean we should disregard it?
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?