Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[Ectezus]

you look at a monstrously complex universe, and think "pure luck"? lolz back at ya.

"Pure luck" only demonstrates how little knowledge you have of the regular and natural occurances in the universe.

besides, you've oversimplified ID to the point of being flat out wrong.

Oh really? Lets find out shall we?

My statement was:
"So you're comparing something from nature with something we humans created with IMMATERIAL objects and come up with the same conclusion?
THIS is your logical reasoning?.... lol"

Then you give your example for nature:

it's not that alone. it would be first identifying things in nature that can be defined as systems, such as the water cycle. then noting how these systems are intricate, and interlocking. we can note the roll and purpose of the individual parts of a system.

Ok, we can all appreciate you're trying really hard to make it look like a very complex system in nature. But it's still nature nonetheless.

And then you prove my point by saying you compare the two in the exact same manner I described!

By comparing something organic with something non-living...

A comparison between said natural system can be made to something we know for sure has been designed, like by humans, for example.

"This human created a toilet seat, it's clear it has a design"
"This piece of poo in nature is amazing, it must have had a supernatural designer aswell!"

it's far more than "it's complex, so mydietydidit".

Yes let me correct that for you:

"It's too complex for me to understand, so the god I happen to have been brought up with did it."

- Ectezus

 

[MoonLancer]

you look at a monstrously complex universe, and think "pure luck"?

that's a straw man, so some of your arguments are indeed fallacious.

 

[shinbits]

"Pure luck" only demonstrates how little knowledge you have of the regular and natural occurances in the universe.

if you believe that ID had nothing to do with the universe, pure luck is the only option left, buddy.

Oh really? Lets find out shall we?

My statement was:
"So you're comparing something from nature with something we humans created with IMMATERIAL objects and come up with the same conclusion?
THIS is your logical reasoning?.... lol"

which is oversimplifying to the point of being flat wrong.

Then you give your example for nature:


Ok, we can all appreciate you're trying really hard to make it look like a very complex system in nature. But it's still nature nonetheless.

And then you prove my point by saying you compare the two in the exact same manner I described!

in the "Exact" manner? now you're being dense.

you made it seem as if all I was doing was going "Hey, this plant looks complex. It's designed!!!!"

which of course, is just you being flat wrong, since comparing wasn't ALL I was doing.

Look at yourself: you're the one who's just proved my point about you oversimplifying to the point of being dead wrong---by doing the EXACT same thing I that I pointed out.

give yourself a hand.

By comparing something organic with something non-living...

"This human created a toilet seat, it's clear it has a design"
"This piece of poo in nature is amazing, it must have had a supernatural designer aswell!"

and you prove my point yet again. keep it up.

Yes let me correct that for you:

"It's too complex for me to understand, so the god I happen to have been brought up with did it."

- Ectezus

thank you for proving my point about you no less than four times.

 

[shinbits]

that's a straw man, so some of your arguments are indeed fallacious.

not at all. if no ID was involved in the creation of the universe and its laws, pure left is the only posssible option left.

all you've done is show you don't understand what a straw man argument means.

 

[shinbits]

I'm sorry my mistake. I didn't realize your definition of ID is different from the current popular ID definition ("creationism in a cheap tuxedo"). Becuase, as I understand it, ID is most definitely incompatable and anathema to evolution.

Heretofore I shall refer to your version of ID as ID(1.0), and respectfully ask that you do as well so as not to confuse the issue.

agreed.

 

[shinbits]

Philosophically, this runs into problems with what's called the anthropic principle, which essentially states "Anything necessary for the existence of intelligent life must exist, or else we wouldn't be here to talk about it"

the anthropic priciple is much more of a creationists standpoint, one that I don't agree with (at least not how they put it).

There's no reason the Designer would make the whole universe with life in mind. It's enough to say that at least Earth is geared toward life.

So I'm not going to respond any further to this post, since this idea (which I disagree with) is the premise of your post.

 

[Nathan45]

Shinbits, sorry but your post makes no sense to me at all.

the anthropic priciple is much more of a creationists standpoint, one that I don't agree with (at least not how they put it).

who are "they"? i'm the one making the argument, not creationists. and i don't know what the anthropic principle has to do with creationism.

There's no reason the Designer would make the whole universe with life in mind.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

It's enough to say that at least Earth is geared toward life.

Which is guaranteed by the anthropic principle so it shouldn't be surprising at all, designer or not.

So I'm not going to respond any further to this post, since this idea (which I disagree with) is the premise of your post.

What is your disagreement with the anthropic principle?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I wouldn't exactly say "pure luck." It has been postulated that there are 100 billion, billion other planets in the universe. If these planets have been around for 4.5 billion years as ours has, it's not too far fetched to speculate that conditions for life to have arisen just one time, on just one of these planets, over the course of 4.5 billion years, is at least possible. In my opinion, this moves it from the "pure luck" scenario into the realm of mathematical probability. (I'll let mathematicians work this one out )

 

[Ectezus]

Shinbits, could you stop dodging my questions. I made a point, you only respond with "you're oversimplifying!!" and then you just ignore the point...

Accusing others of oversimplifying is hilarious when it's creationists like you who use intellectually dead-end terms like "Too complex". As if 'complex' alone isn't hard enough to describe, 'too complex' is by definition impossible yet it's your main argument.

if you believe that ID had nothing to do with the universe, pure luck is the only option left, buddy.

Oh yeah, it's either goddidit or pure luck. And you accuse others of oversimplifying...

 

[Nathan45]

I wouldn't exactly say "pure luck." It has been postulated that there are 100 billion, billion other planets in the universe. If these planets have been around for 4.5 billion years as ours has, it's not too far fetched to speculate that conditions for life to have arisen just one time, one just one of these planets, over the course of 4.5 billion years. In my opinion, this moves it from the "pure luck" scenario into the realm of mathematical probability. (I'll let mathematicians work this one out )

the probability is really irrelevant, either it's possible or it isn't. If it didn't happen we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We know life got here somehow, The probability of abiogenesis is only relevant if you could compare it to the probability of intelligent design.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

the probability is really irrelevant, either it's possible or it isn't. If it didn't happen we wouldn't be here to talk about it. We know life got here somehow, The probability of abiogenesis is only relevant if you could compare it to the probability of intelligent design.

Point taken.

I was simply taking the "pure luck" argument and fleshing it out a little.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Well, I guess we said the same thing. Of course there is a true explanation, but we do not know it. So the feature is irreducible complex to us for NOW.

 

[juvenissun]

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

Could you remind me what was my argument? I forgot it.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Well, I guess we said the same thing. Of course there is a true explanation, but we do not know it. So the feature is irreducible complex to us for NOW.

Is it ID's goal to then throw god in for anything we don't fully understand yet?

 

[Nathan45]

Well, I guess we said the same thing. Of course there is a true explanation, but we do not know it. So the feature is irreducible complex to us for NOW.

"irreducibly complex" does not mean "too complicated to understand (at present) whether it could have evolved", it means roughly:

1) "too complicated to have evolved" and
2) "has multiple parts which would not function apart from the whole and the parts cannot be reduced to have any other function."

( behe of course assumes that the later implies the former which isn't really true)

 

[shinbits]

What is your disagreement with the anthropic principle?

that it's not necessary for ID.

I wouldn't exactly say "pure luck." It has been postulated that there are 100 billion, billion other planets in the universe. If these planets have been around for 4.5 billion years as ours has, it's not too far fetched to speculate that conditions for life to have arisen just one time, on just one of these planets, over the course of 4.5 billion years, is at least possible. In my opinion, this moves it from the "pure luck" scenario into the realm of mathematical probability. (I'll let mathematicians work this one out )

I see what you're saying. But there's much more to the universe than existence of life on one planet. There's laws, there's the galaxy which moves as one through the universe, the solar system, atoms and thier system of sharing electrons...ect, ect.

All these things together would be pure luck if there's no designer.

 

[Nathan45]

that it's not necessary for ID.

You might as well just say "Evolution is not necessary for ID" and you'd make about as much sense.

The argument i was making was based on the anthropic principle, and if you think the anthropic principle is bunk you ought to try to refute it. If you can't refute my argument, why are you even debating this?

As it stands i don't think you read any of my post.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

that it's not necessary for ID.


I see what you're saying. But there's much more to the universe than existence of life on one planet. There's laws, there's the galaxy which moves as one through the universe, the solar system, atoms and thier system of sharing electrons...ect, ect.

All these things together would be pure luck if there's no designer.

You may want to make these arguments in the philosophy forum, as you seem to be drifting away from things crevo.

 

[Ectezus]

Of course there is a true explanation, but we do not know it. So the feature is irreducible complex to us for NOW.

Why do you take the theory that has never been proven and consider it to be true untill proven wrong?

All our KNOWN data shows there is no such thing as irreducible complexity. While irreducible complexity is theoretically possible, just like finding pink unicorns on Mars, there is no reason to assume it will be found since the idea can not be extrapolated from anything.

Irreducible complexity tries to sound scientificy and non-religious but without a religious belief there is no sane reason to accept an idea that has ZERO proof and goes against ALL known evidence that everything IS in fact reducible.

A complete contradiction! Yet you seem to swallow the concept with great pride.

- Ectezus

 

[shinbits]

You might as well just say "Evolution is not necessary for ID" and you'd make about as much sense.

that's different. see, many creationists who push ID, also push the anthropic principle as a "must". there's no reason why ID cannot exist without it. evolution on the other hand, is a must, because of the overwhelming amount of evidence behind it. it would be like saying gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics is "not necessary."

Understand?


I read you whole post, and it was based on the false notion that the anthropic principle is vital to idea, which is wrong, and which is why I didn't respond to the rest of it.