Is this valid?

[NBB]

A rule to test if something is designed...

How it can describe so well what is human design and fail if evolution is true? or is not true?

 

[Tanj]

A rule to test if something is designed...

No, it isn't valid, there are many reasons, the one I'll go with right bow is scaffolding. As a general rule, anything you find on youtube should be considered entertainment only. If you are looking for information, look somewhere else.

 

[NBB]

No, it isn't valid, there are many reasons, the one I'll go with right bow is scaffolding. As a general rule, anything you find on youtube should be considered entertainment only. If you are looking for information, look somewhere else.

But apply it then and think about it
Why is not valid?

 

[Tanj]

But apply it then and think about it
Why is not valid?

I told you why. Because of scaffolding. Also because it's youtube, and there is no requirement that anything uploaded to youtube contain any facts at all.

 

[NBB]

I told you why. Because of scaffolding. Also because it's youtube, and there is no requirement that anything uploaded to youtube contain any facts at all.

You don't find at least annecdotal that when applied it seems to work fine to separate complex machines with anything else.

 

[Tanj]

You don't find at least annecdotal that when applied it seems to work fine to separate complex machines with anything else.

Would it matter if I did? Anecdotal evidence is useless.

For the record, it doesn't work fine at all in any case. For starters, define "core". Who decides which bit of (say a car) is core? The example itself is saying that tires aren't core, so what are? And how is it decided?

 

[Speedwell]

But apply it then and think about it
Why is not valid?

Because it assumes without justification that an entity of "four or more parts, etc..." cannot be produced by a stochastic process like evolution.

 

[NBB]

Would it matter if I did? Anecdotal evidence is useless.

For the record, it doesn't work fine at all in any case. For starters, define "core". Who decides which bit of (say a car) is core? The example itself is saying that tires aren't core, so what are? And how is it decided?

Its easy the core parts are those that are essential to the function of the object, all machines have a functionality, the purpose of the thing etc.

If you remove some skin from your eye you may still see, but remove the optic nerve you can't. etc.

 

[NBB]

Because it assumes without justification that an entity of "four or more parts, etc..." cannot be produced by a stochastic process like evolution.

If you don't assume anything, it just that happens to describe well what could be designed. The more complex machines etc..

 

[Hieronymus]

Atheists believe in creation without a creator.
It doesn't matter how complex and genius it is, it's all just a marvellous accident.

 

[Speedwell]

If you don't assume anything, it just that happens to describe well what could be designed. The more complex machines etc..

And it will miss a lot of things which are designed. Terrific.

The bottom line is that functional complexity really has nothing much to do with whether an object is designed or not.

 

[Tanj]

If you remove some skin from your eye you may still see, but remove the optic nerve you can't. etc.

1) eyes don't have any skin
2) the optic nerve is not a part of the eye. If you remove it the eye works just fine, it just doesn't send signals to the brain....or are you now going to claim that the brain is a core component of the eye as well?

But let's get back to the car. Which bits are core? You still haven't told me.

 

[Speedwell]

Atheists believe in creation without a creator.
It doesn't matter how complex and genius it is, it's all just a marvellous accident.

That's all very interesting, but off topic.

This discussion is not about atheism versus theism, it's about whether the presence of design in a natural object is falsifiable.

 

[NBB]

1) eyes don't have any skin
2) the optic nerve is not a part of the eye. If you remove it the eye works just fine, it just doesn't send signals to the brain....or are you now going to claim that the brain is a core component of the eye as well?

But let's get back to the car. Which bits are core? You still haven't told me.

I told you the core parts are those that if removed it breaks totally the function of the object, car can't work without engine, nobody is going to buy a car without engine to use it, eyes provide vision any part that if removed removes vision is the core part, and computer can't function without a cpu for example, but maybe without a fan or two can without overheating in a cold enviroment.

 

[Tanj]

I told you the core parts are those that if removed it breaks totally the function of the object

That's circular and vague reasoning.

without engine to use it

But I might buy a car and put a new engine in it. In fact I have friends that do the 1/4 mile drag, they often buy cars without the engine to use it.

Also, is "engine" core? What about parts of the engine? If I take out spark plugs, the head gasket or a cylinder the car will also not run.

In fact, regardless of what bit of a computer or car you consider core, I can rip it out and replace it with something else. That sounds designed to me.

Can't do that with an eye.

Perhaps that's a better definition. Something is designed if you can take out a core bit and replace it with a different core bit.

 

[Hieronymus]

1) eyes don't have any skin
2) the optic nerve is not a part of the eye.

It's called the cornea.

If you remove it the eye works just fine, it just doesn't send signals to the brain....

And then it doesn't work...

or are you now going to claim that the brain is a core component of the eye as well?

The Visual system. only works when complete.

But let's get back to the car. Which bits are core? You still haven't told me.

Depends on what you design it for, what you want it to be able to do.
The designer decides what is essential.
You can make a simple car though, which is still complex and needs to be designed and built.
In fact, every part needs to be designed and built, and then assembled to get a car that works.
When design and manufacturing is poor, you get a bad product.
When the parts factory is not maintained the parts suffer from quality fade and so will the end product.

 

[NBB]

That's circular and vague reasoning.



But I might buy a car and put a new engine in it. In fact I have friends that do the 1/4 mile drag, they often buy cars without the engine to use it.

Also, is "engine" core? What about parts of the engine? If I take out spark plugs, the head gasket or a cylinder the car will also not run.

Functionality of the object dependant. The function of the car is to be driveable. This is about purpose of the design to bring some functionality. Not if it is useful to you to buy it, etc. the car still is a mess without engine, if you fix it, you make it driveable, you can buy a computer without cpu, but its functionality (provide computing power) is not existant unless you add a cpu.

 

[Hieronymus]

That's circular and vague reasoning.

No.
But i think we should explain this with a simpler example.
The mouse trap.
Only a few parts, but all parts are essential or 'core'.
If one part fails or misses, mouse trap no worky...
You even need a piece of bait, although that's not a part of the mouse trap.
...or is it...? Hmmm...

Anyway, this is called irreducible complexity.
Any system has a minimum of parts to make it function.

And then there are systems that are made up of multiple systems, which can also me made up of sub systems, which can be made up of sub sub systems..

 

[Daniel Marsh]

why not just call this irreducible complexity?

 

[SkyWriting]

I told you why. Because of scaffolding. Also because it's youtube, and there is no requirement that anything uploaded to youtube contain any facts at all.

Scaffolding has about three key components.
Pipes, bolts, and joints.
If all the blts were missing, bad news.
Even with the redundancies, If you showed me
three bolts on the ground, I'd wait for a crane.