(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

[pittguy579]

Ignorance all sounds alike

I know and you sound like all of the other ignoramuses on the thread

 

[random_guy]

I have addressed them. The only thing I find laughable is your inability to comprehend them. The systems are not equate. That is obvious.

You keep saying that you've addressed it, but you really haven't. Dembski, one of the leading IDers, says that ID should be able to discern design, animate or inanimate. Dembski uses a mouse trap as an example of ID. If the people that propose the theory use inanimate objects as evidence, why can't inanimate objects also be used as counter evidence? It seems the only thing obvious is that IDers have no coherent scientific theory and their followers seem to taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Also, my ability to comprehend less laughable then making up stuff like Dembski being a biologist in order to shore up a faulty argument.

 

[BVZ]

I dont think anything can be said that has not already been said. If any lurker reaches this point, and still does not understand why the arch example works, they never will.

I'm done with this thread. Quite frankly, I think ID lost this one.

 

[Tomk80]

LOL I am arguing against it. I am not the one who said it. Your statement is in error.

Who said it pittguy579. You're the only one. Who? Provide quotes, please, because I'm not the only one mystified. We all are, except you apparantly.

Nope, don't need to learn anything. I do know what I am talking about.

I think you should read carefully. I was simply responding to the absurd notions of others in the thread

No, you are missing the point of others in this thread. I big difference.

 

[USincognito]

I dont think anything can be said that has not already been said. If any lurker reaches this point, and still does not understand why the arch example works, they never will.

I'm done with this thread. Quite frankly, I think ID lost this one.

I dropped out within 5 pages as an active participant.

I will clarify something for those lurkers not fully invested in the ID/IC debate, but are curious none the less. My "evolving" mousetrap was something I came up with after watching a Creation/Evolution debate on PBS some years ago where Kenneth Miller tried to demonstrate a mousetrap was not Irreducably Complex because you could remove the base and attach the mechanism to the floor. Technically he's right, but I felt it was an inelligent response.

I decided to take a different tack and see if you could evolve a mousetrap since the claim about IC systems is that they couldn't have evolved. My own response to the Mousetrap Gambit is perhaps inelligent as well, but I do think, again technically, I'm right.

 

[JohnR7]

demonstrate a mousetrap was not Irreducably Complex

Watches are not Irreducably complex either.
After all you can use a sun dial so there is only one peice and no moving parts.
If you add a strap it can evolve from a clock to a wrist watch.

 

[Edx]

pittguy579, following another page of your replies you have still failed to address the post below.

(3rd request)

I have addressed them. The only thing I find laughable is your inability to comprehend them. The systems are not equate. That is obvious.

Show us where you have addressed the fact that "Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID"

Since this has been said several times now, and each time you have replied you have ignored this fact, what you are doing now can only be called dodging. Now can you show us where you have addressed this or not?

 

[Edx]

Lets all play a fun detective game.

Compare pittguy and jamesrwrights profile.

Spookily smiliar, dont you think? Almost as if someone had double account. Very sad, but I laugh at it!

 

[pittguy579]

You keep saying that you've addressed it, but you really haven't. Dembski, one of the leading IDers, says that ID should be able to discern design, animate or inanimate. Dembski uses a mouse trap as an example of ID. If the people that propose the theory use inanimate objects as evidence, why can't inanimate objects also be used as counter evidence? It seems the only thing obvious is that IDers have no coherent scientific theory and their followers seem to taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Also, my ability to comprehend less laughable then making up stuff like Dembski being a biologist in order to shore up a faulty argument.

I never said inantimate objects. I said systems. A mouse trap has moving parts and has function. A hunk of rock is a hunk of rock, no more, no less.

 

[pittguy579]

pittguy579, following another page of your replies you have still failed to address the post below.

(3rd request)




Show us where you have addressed the fact that "Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID"

Since this has been said several times now, and each time you have replied you have ignored this fact, what you are doing now can only be called dodging. Now can you show us where you have addressed this or not?

And once again, they were already addressed.
I am not going to repeat myself
It's not my fault you have failed to pay attention

 

[pittguy579]

I dont think anything can be said that has not already been said. If any lurker reaches this point, and still does not understand why the arch example works, they never will.

I never said the arch was not technically irreducibly complex, but such an example proves nothing regarding life and ID theory.

I'm done with this thread. Quite frankly, I think ID lost this one.]

Nope the other side lost this one

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I never said the arch was not technically irreducibly complex, but such an example proves nothing regarding life and ID theory.

When Dembski stops citing mousetraps, we'll stop citing rock arches.

 

[pittguy579]

When Dembski stops citing mouetraps, we'll stop citing rock arches.

And if you don't see the differnce, I feel bad for you.

 

[Goatboy]

Lets all play a fun detective game.

Compare pittguy and jamesrwrites profile.

Spookily smiliar, dont you think? Almost as if someone had double account. Very sad, but I laugh at it!

Nah, they’re like Apples and Oranges.*


Anyway, thanks to all the (very) patient individuals riding this trainwreck thus far.


There have been some nice examples brought up (especially the mammalian ear).

So ta.

GB


*Which, I might add, for the purpose of analogy have numerous useful points of similarity.

 

[Edx]

LOL I am arguing against it. I am not the one who said it. Your statement is in error.

Nice one James, now tell us , if you didnt say it and no one else said it, why are you arguing against it?

 

[Edx]

I never said the arch was not technically irreducibly complex, but such an example proves nothing regarding life and ID theory.

And a mousetrap proves nothing about ID.

You accept the arch is irreducibly complex, but you say it is not comparable to life or IDs position. But Behe and Dembski use their irreducibly complex arguments to apply to more than just biology though, because they are saying irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve incrementally. Thats their very point, its the heart of their argument.

They say the system has to be created, all at once, or the system fails. They use non living examples of this like mousetraps in order to show that clearly life also must follow the same logic.

The point with this rock formation is that just on principle, irreducibly complex systems can develop incrementally step by step. Therefore their logic fails. Since the entire point of the IC argument is that you are able to look at any system and be able to say that this system is irreducibly complex and must have been created all at once by an Intelligent designer.

In other words, if their very principle is wrong, then their assumption that they can look at a system and say "look this is irreducibly complex, therefore this shows hallmarks of design", is wrong.

If they can come up with a real way to test for design then by all means, show us.

And dont say a rock has nothing to do with it, because again, neither is a mousetrap as a mousetrap is not a living organism. We could easily prove people cant be born either by comparing life to a toaster, and because we dont see new toasters being born from old toasters growing from small young toasters into mature toasters they must be created all at once or the toaster doesnt work. Now thats true for toasters, but not for living organisms, so its a improper comparison. It makes the same amount of sence as using a mousetrap to prove a point about ID. Life doesnt work like a mousetrap. You said we were comparing apples and oranges here, and yes, we are. But we are only comparing apples and oranges becuase Behe and Dembski do so as the very premise of their argument. Life does not work like a mousetrap, or a rock.

The reason why this is so very important is that when we look at a system that seems irreducibly complex, we cant just assume it couldnt have developed step by step. Behe and Dembski say you can, becuase of their poor logic.

 

[Psudopod]

*Hands hot chocolate with marshmallows round*

You guys have a lot more patience that I have.

I read the whole thread, and the opening post argument was very clear, and I have not seen it refuted yet.

The idea is that IC systems arise in nature. Nothing else. Nobody said it was a machine or coparable to cells or life or similar. It is an IC system, as it would fall apart if one piece was removed . (There do appear to be several components to the arch)

No its not a machine, or comparable, but it was never claimed that it was.

*drinks chocolate*

 

[pittguy579]

Nice one James, now tell us , if you didnt say it and no one else said it, why are you arguing against it?

I am not James, but that is besides the points

Reread the thread.

I was simply referring to a post someone else had made

 

[pittguy579]

*Hands hot chocolate with marshmallows round*

You guys have a lot more patience that I have.

I read the whole thread, and the opening post argument was very clear, and I have not seen it refuted yet.

The idea is that IC systems arise in nature. Nothing else. Nobody said it was a machine or coparable to cells or life or similar. It is an IC system, as it would fall apart if one piece was removed . (There do appear to be several components to the arch)

No its not a machine, or comparable, but it was never claimed that it was.

*drinks chocolate*

And no one every said the system was not technically IC, but the systems are not equate
So it doesn't prove ID is false when it comes to life systems.

 

[Edx]

And no one every said the system was not technically IC, but the systems are not equate
So it doesn't prove ID is false when it comes to life systems.

And mousetraps do not prove ID is correct when it comes to life systems. The systems are not equate.