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

[shinbits]

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...

you are oversimplifying. so your point is false.

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.

1) I'm not a creationist
2) This is the fifth time you're oversimplifying my position. There's much more to it then that, but you ignore it to make erroneous points.

btw, I thought you "done" with me?

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

that's NOT oversimplifying: those are the only two possible options, if you believe a Designer was in no way involved in creating the universe. All of the universe's laws and forces could ONLY be pure luck, in that case.

It can't be made any more plain for you. you say that "no, it's laws and forces responsible for the universe", which still makes your point moot, since it would be pure luck that those laws and forces even exist, if there's no ID.

 

[shinbits]

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

ID is the third most discussed topic on this forum, after evolution and creation. Everyone else would have to stop discussing ID as well.

And I'm not the only on this forum who's believed in theistic evolution. there've been many respected TE's on this forum in the past.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So, according to your beliefs, you believe you are ultimately part of a software program?

 

[Nathan45]

Shinbits, if you are a TE (which i did not realize before now) you shouldn't be arguing with any of us as irreducible complexity is something used to disprove evolution.

You can't believe in both Irreducible complexity and evolution, or you're using a different definition of irreducible complexity than everyone else is using.

and when I'm referencing the anthropic principle i'm using the principle to prove abiogenesis and not using it to strawman creationism.

 

[Nathan45]

anyways, irreducible complexity is the idea that there exist organs with multiple parts, where each part independently has no previous independent function, and the that these irreducibly complex organs could not have evolved in stages through natural selection, the idea that they must have been directly designed.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Shinbits, if you are a TE (which i did not realize before now) you shouldn't be arguing with any of us as irreducible complexity is something used to disprove evolution.

You can't believe in both Irreducible complexity and evolution, or you're using a different definition of irreducible complexity than everyone else is using.

and when I'm referencing the anthropic principle i'm using the principle to prove abiogenesis and not using it to strawman creationism.

You are right. Shinbits definition of ID(1.0) is by his own admission nonscientific, and is referring rather to abiogenesis.

 

[Chalnoth]

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?

Well, they are more complex than the structures they make, and while emergent behavior is interesting, it is something rather different in character than making something.

Besides that, I said intentionally. I sincerely doubt that you could demonstrate that ants do anything intentionally.

because questioning how such a massively complex universe can be created by pure chance is a logical and valid question.

Well, I don't think anybody believes that it happened by pure chance. Rather it happened as a result of physical laws, physical laws which can eventually be reduced to a single fundamental statement, something akin to, "all mathematical structures have real existence."

with a link showing purely speculative material? um, no.

Yes! Exactly! This is how obscenely weak your position is: even purely speculative material shows how false your claims are. Look, all you have going for you is this completely unevidenced gut feeling that randomness cannot produce order. Well, I showed you a mathematical system whereby randomness does produce order. And your response is, "Well, that might not apply to the real world." So what? It doesn't matter! It still demonstrates that your gut feeling that randomness cannot creator order is wrong.

You were wrong. This speculative paper proved it. Now it's time for you to admit it.

at least with my argument, we can observe similarities with things we know living beings have designed, to nature. OBSERVATIONS are made. A CONCLUSION is then drawn from those observation.

And how can we possibly know that that conclusion is correct? The appearance of having been designed, after all, does not necessarily imply actual design. So what would we expect to see or not see if design were the cause? That is, what sort of observation could I possibly perform to show that this design inference is false?

 

[Ectezus]

btw, I thought you "done" with me?

I think you're referring to when you wrongly called me a liar and later admitted you made a mistake.
I already accepted your apology, don't worry.

But that doesn't exclude my judgment on all the other things you claim to be true while it has no evidence whatsoever.

that's NOT oversimplifying: those are the only two possible options

Oh the irony... Haha that statement is golden.
You make it sound like a dichotomy that it's either a god or PURE LUCK.

What is it with you people and your luck/chance-fetish?
The way the solar systems and galaxies form has nothing to do with luck or chance. There a little thing that we call gravity, it was discovered in 1687 so I'm afraid you're a little behind.

If you're arguing about the origin of gravity then the consensus is "we don't know" but even IF a god created only gravity it would still explain the natural order in the universe once that law exist and thus nullifying all your luck and chance arguments.

Also the belief that a god created the laws is called a DEIST and is far from being a THEIST. There are thousand of gods made up by man kind and all of them could have made the universe.
Now you can throw all those gods under one nominator but that's not addressing reality at all and totally ignores the fact you might be arguing in favor of Allah anyway.
The way your formulated your whole question is full if ignorance.

- Ectezus

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

a straw man is setting up a false argument that does not honestly represent the other side, and then knocking it down and declaring victory. here is what you did wrong. I don't speak for everyone but i am willing to guess that most of us don't hold this view, which you claim we do.

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

straw man. fallacious. BAD LOGIC.

 

[TeddyKGB]

the nature of philosophy is such, that the questions it answers are not questions of nature. otherwise it wouldn't be philosophy, it would be science.

Nonsense. The type of question is not a determinant. If the matter can be described syllogistically, it can be evaluated logically. Science is in fact a type of logical system by which hypotheses can be rejected deductively or supported inductively.

the philosophical arguments for the existence of God by Descartes, for example, are not things for which empirical evidence can be provided, save for "I think therefore I am". But his meditions on an "evil" or "good" God, cannot use empirical evidence.

The mere existence of God is a separate topic from God's alleged tinkering with organisms.

ID uses the same teleological arguments, which are by nature, not scientific. so there would, for the most part, not be any reason for ID to answer empirical questions.

This is just bizarre. It's like you've been on the Moon for the last 5 years. What in the world pervades Behe's books and Dembski's inscrutable ramblings if not claims that ID can be empirically detected?

 

[LightHorseman]

If evolution is true, how do you explain this?

 

[Ectezus]

If evolution is true, how do you explain this?

Obviously satan made him do it.
Either that or the bird is tamed and trained to catch stuffed animals as the bells on his feet would indicate.

 

[Naraoia]

ID uses the same teleological arguments, which are by nature, not scientific. so there would, for the most part, not be any reason for ID to answer empirical questions.

But is "where do the laws of nature come from" really not empirical? It's about observable phenomena, after all

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

False dichotomy. "Pure luck" implies that the laws of nature are decided on a random basis. Is there any good reason why that must be the case if they weren't designed? (See the last part of this post for why I think there isn't)

Also, "pure luck" is not necessarily as bad as you make it sound. Even if the laws of the universe result from a random decision there may be

(1) a limited set of possible outcomes, as in a die throw - so not all combinations of constants and laws would be possible

(2) a bias towards a certain kind of outcome, as in loaded dice.

Bottom line: pure chance =/= anything is possible and equally likely.

that it's not necessary for ID.

Whether necessary or not, the anthropic principle is kind of tautological...

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

And all these things are, as far as I know, based on a relatively simple set of laws. Everything at the higher levels is a consequence of those laws, therefore not independent from them. The only thing you need your "pure luck" to explain is the bottom level - when that's in place, the rest isn't a matter of luck any more.

It can't be made any more plain for you. you say that "no, it's laws and forces responsible for the universe", which still makes your point moot, since it would be pure luck that those laws and forces even exist, if there's no ID.

Well, no, or not entirely.

I'm no big philosopher, but the way I see it, there are a number of options:

(1) an infinite chain of (deterministic) causation, in which case nothing is the result of pure luck

(2) an infinite chain of events with random processes stuck in here and there, in which case everything downstream of a random process is the result of pure luck

(3) a finite chain of causation, in which case the first cause is a result of "pure luck" no matter what it is, since a first cause, by definition, can't be caused by anything.

[(4ish) Variations on (1) and (2) where chains of events loop back onto themselves]

(3) is problematic (it's also a good reason why I'm majorly annoyed by philosophy ). I'm not sure "pure luck" is even meaningful there. But if we decide it is, then the question becomes whether a purely physical universe or a designer is more likely to come about by pure luck. I vote for a universe.

 

[Chalnoth]

Also, "pure luck" is not necessarily as bad as you make it sound. Even if the laws of the universe result from a random decision there may be

(1) a limited set of possible outcomes, as in a die throw - so not all combinations of constants and laws would be possible

(2) a bias towards a certain kind of outcome, as in loaded dice.

Oh, and don't forget:

(3) an obscenely large number of trials, perhaps even infinite, making even small per-trial probabilities likely in the end.

 

[juvenissun]

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

I like what you said. That is how I operate now. I was taught to run it the opposite way.
In fact, that is how do you get the grant money.

 

[Naraoia]

Oh, and don't forget:

(3) an obscenely large number of trials, perhaps even infinite, making even small probabilities likely.

Apparently I did forget. Thanks

 

[Chalnoth]

I like what you said. That is how I operate now. I was taught to run it the opposite way.
In fact, that is how do you get the grant money.

In what way do you operate in that way now? And how, do you claim, does this apply to grant money?

 

[pgp_protector]

If evolution is true, how do you explain this?

The same way I explain a dog playing dead.
Training.

Or did you think that the straps on that Eagle's feet were natural ?

 

[MoonLancer]

The same way I explain a dog playing dead.
Training.

Or did you think that the straps on that Eagle's feet were natural ?

LOL!!!!

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

If evolution is true, how do you explain this?

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/1219/0/Bunny_with_a_Pancake_on_Its_Head.ashx