How does Complexity demonstrate Design

It has to work. The game is rigged, you see.It's unlimited bingo with all the cards.The balls come up in random sequence. Each ball helps some card. There is going to be a winner. Given lots of time, and all the cards, you win every single time.That's Evolution.It simply cannot fail.No design. No creation.No Faith needed. No designer needed.Just the surety that simple random chance is the only absolutely positively guaranteed way for it to happen.No faith, just the numbers.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

And we all understand that complex things may always leave some room for doubt.However, we will make no progress and will waste a lot of time if we don't allocate somethings as having so little doubt that it has become foolish to continue to spend a lot of effort continuing to operate as if they are not "abosolute".In the case of evolution happening (not how it happened but that it did, indeed, happen) we have reached that point. It happened. Life on Earth has undergone large changes over long periods of time.As I understand it, most of the proponents of ID agree that it did. What they are talking about is how it happened.Which are you?When new discoveries are made things will change. Don't worry about that. In the meantime, we operate with the best explanation of the already made discoveries. To remain perpetually confused waiting for some final answer is to make no progressThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 09:06 PM

Just for reference, (and maybe you are already aware of this), you'll be hard pressed to find a true scientist claim to have absolute proof of anything. Generally a scientific "Law" is considered proven, but even then new info can add caveats.And a note on some earlier posts you made regarding dismissing another scientist's conclusions without repeating their experiments: Scientific experiments are commonly carried out incorrectly - either in the technical details or in the entire plan of the experiment (like forgetting to do proper control studies). In those cases it is completely logical to dismiss the conclusions, since the experiments they rest on are necessarily inconclusive.(I think that was the nature of the criticism MrHambre was laying on your references, but I don't want to speak for him.)Thanks.

DarkStar asserts:

quote:

---

We are not talking about obvious conclusions here, such as 1+1=2. We are talking about conclusions reached which are based upon one's personal opinion, assumption, and interpretation of the available data.

---

I assume you understand that the aim of the scientific method is to limit this subjectivity. Empirical evidential inquiry is conducted to arrive at a consensus about causes and effects, and what factors are relevant in any given physical setting. Perhaps you feel that scientific methodology is just another set of opinions, but its success in expanding our understanding of natural phenomena leads us to believe that it constitutes a useful set of tools for the job.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

but for me, no matter how convinced I may become of evolution actually happening, there would always remain a percentage of doubt, even if it was only a minute percentage, because nothing has been proven to the point of becoming an absolute.

---

Bingo!!! Your first steps in becoming a true scientist. Nothing is ever truly accepted as an absolute within science. The question is in how you try to disprove the current paradigm. Do you use miracles to prove physical realities wrong? Or do you let reality prove your point for you by using objective, empirical evidence? I would shoot for the latter.

---

BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM

Hypothetical creationist argument irrelevant to ID.creationism has a basic conflict with ID that prevents one from being legitimately used for the other.ID does not necessarily have a problem with "macro"evolution -- the reasons are many, but can also be found on:"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?at the genetic level (DNA) there is nothing to distinguish "micro" from "macro" nor is there any mechanism available that says one is okay and the other is not.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

When you say "different form of life", what do you (or the hypothetical creationist) mean, exactly? All individuals are concievably "different forms of life", for I'm different than either of my parents, in fairly substantial ways.So, from that perspective, it's already debunked - we observe individuals give rise to forms different from themselves trivially, every time they reproduce sexually.If you meant something else, you need to tell me what kind of "form" you're talking about, that makes me fundamentally the same "form" as my parents and not as, say, a chimpanzee.

And what people are telling you is that that principle is "built into" science as the principle of tentativity.When people tell you here that evolution is true, and that creationism is false, they're doing so in an understood context of scientific tentativity - that evolution is currently the most likely explanation, and that the odds of creationism, or even ID, being at all accurate are so astronomically low that for all practical purposes they are dismissed.But if you can't handle coming to a conclusion - even a tentative one- on less than perfect data and absolute proof, there's only one field for you - mathematics. As do we all. But the rest of us, who choose not to be paralyzed by imperfect knowledge, are willing to come to tentative conclusions - such as "evolution is an accurate description of life on Earth" - that we hold provisionally until disconfirming evidence is presented. After all, that's the only way to get any work done. If we did it your way, where we were never willing to accept a conclusion, even provisionally, in the face of significant (but not absolute) proof, there'd be no progress whatsoever.

No. It's not a statement of faith, it's a statement of mathematics.Evolution is like a random walk. (In the random walk, a drunk on a sidewalk flips a coin to determine his next step. Heads, he takes a step forward towards home. Tails, he takes a step back towards the bar for another round, after which he'll try to get home again.) Like the random walk, it's not possible for evolution not to succeed. The drunk makes it home to bed, no matter what.It's not faith, it's mathematics.

"Life -- you too have forgotten the fundamental difference between pens, F16's and living things. Pens don't fu*k"-The paper my firend, is the child.The fundamentals? Materials forming complex understanding?
Form from form-less. The difference is none. You are made of the same lego bricks! Just highly involved with interalated colors and sizes, creating a house for you to live in. Does anyone share your house with you. The house that is your body?

It's not faith, it's mathematics.Evolution a drunk mans walk, more like fall.
The triping stone being mathematics.Give a number to every component of your body.
The number you find at the end?- Is a word, LIFE.
Take away just one number F, and LIE is written.

Evilution is evils solution.
To hide the problem of a heart open.
To say the door is untrue, he never came to say you.Evilution is evils heart open, its solution is death.