Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,251 Year: 5,508/9,624 Month: 533/323 Week: 30/143 Day: 3/17 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 304 (243512)
09-14-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:26 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Hello, Herepton.
Your subtitle says, "How to Measure Complexity", but I don't see any methods for this measurement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:41 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 304 (243806)
09-15-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object
09-14-2005 8:41 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Hello, Herepton.
Your deprecation of my post is curious. As others have pointed out, you did not at all explain any methods of measuring complexity. You mentioned two items: a computer chip and a human cell. But you did not explain how one measures the complexity of either.
Measurement implies that there is a number associated with these items, called its "complexity". What is the complexity of the computer chip? This should be a number. What is the complexity of a human cell? This, too, should be a number. You are claiming that the first number is less than the second, but unless you actually supply these numbers I'm not sure why I should believe you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-14-2005 8:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 7:29 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 304 (244696)
09-18-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
09-18-2005 7:29 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
quote:
Obviously I did not postulate a mathematical measurement and/or equation.
That is, indeed, obvious. Unfortunately, without calculating or measuring the numbers, phrases like "more complex than" or "less complex than" are scientifically meaningless.
-
quote:
The person who designed the cell is infinetly more brighter based on the known disparity between the two objects.
This can be true only if a person designed the cell. Unfortunately for your position, there is no evidence that the cell was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 09-18-2005 7:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 2:26 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 36 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 3:23 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 304 (244995)
09-19-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Warren
09-19-2005 3:23 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
quote:
Where is the test for non-design?
Why is there a need for a test for non-design? You still don't seem to understand how science works. It has pretty much been demonstrated that natural selection of random variations can account for very complex structures; if, as you claim, you accept common descent, then you probably accept this. Therefore there is no need for an unparsimonius addition like an "intelligent designer" unless and until there is good evidence that there was such a designer. Evolution by entirely naturalistic means is the default position; it is up to the IDists to provide grounds for accepting their new theory.
-
Warren also askes:
quote:
Care to tell us what evidence would cause you to merely suspect the cell was designed?
Well, if some structure can be shown impossible (or at least very, very unlikely) to have arisen through entirely naturalistic means. Of course, that is begging the question; I don't know what would be evidence that some structure could not have arisen through entirely naturalistic means. Behe and Dembski have claimed to have provided such evidence, but their reasoning hasn't held up.
I suppose that clear evidence that there was an intelligent presence in the solar system around the time of the beginning of life, or at least early enough time in the history of life that it would be plausible that the cell as we currently know it might have begun to exist at this time. Perhaps some sort of structure on the moon dated to about the right time. Then it would at least be plausible that life on earth is the result of some sort of experiment. The existence of readable records indicating that this actually did take place would be even better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 3:23 PM Warren has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by mick, posted 09-19-2005 9:30 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 304 (245548)
09-21-2005 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by 1.61803
09-21-2005 5:07 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
First, there may not have been a singularity at all.
Second, "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer to a question where the answer is unknown. I don't see the sense of equating "I don't know" = "It was intelligently designed."
Edited to add:
P.S. I wouldn't call a person who accepts the possibility of an intelligent designer an idiot. The idiots are those who believe in an intelligent designer and expect the rest of us to be impressed with their arguments.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 21-Sep-2005 09:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by 1.61803, posted 09-21-2005 5:07 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 09-21-2005 10:35 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 304 (245705)
09-22-2005 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by 1.61803
09-21-2005 10:35 PM


Re: How to Measure Complexity
Hello, 1.
quote:
But from my understanding of the subject a gravitational singularity occured at plankes time and is theoretically responsible for the event we call "The Big Bang" which is currently a accepted theory.
I don't think the singularity is "responsible" for the event -- the singularity is the event. It is, and may forever be, unknown what is responsible for the "appearance" of the singularity.
If there was a singularity, that is. The singularity appears when we extrapolate the current expansion of the universe backwards in time. Eventually, we reach a time when the universe was infinitely dense and infinitely hot. If our current understanding of the laws of physics are correct, that is; as a matter of fact, we already know that our current understanding of the laws of physics are not complete, and, in particular, are not appropriate for the universe very, very shortly after the singularity. People are currently working on extending our understand of the laws of physics -- so-called "quantum gravity", a theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics. Many people, including Stephen Hawking, believe that under the correct theory there is no singularity.
-
quote:
Awaiting further data/evidence before a conclusion is drawn is usually the prudent thing to do.
As is avoiding adding unnecessary details, like intelligent designers and magical skymen.
-
quote:
I sounded like an asshole in the post you responded to, but thats because I was in a asshole-ish mood.
Me too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 09-21-2005 10:35 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by 1.61803, posted 09-22-2005 3:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 304 (285529)
02-10-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:42 PM


My apologies to Voltaire.
quote:
If Irreducible complexity does not exist, then it should be easy for you and me to invent them.
Just like God!

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:42 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 304 (293946)
03-10-2006 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Wounded King
03-10-2006 10:45 AM


Re: If not what?
quote:
Come to that I'm shocked by the woeful lack of reading comprehension....
Especially from someone who claims to be an expert in biochemistry. (Come to think of it, he hasn't shown much knowledge of biochemistry, either.)

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 03-10-2006 10:45 AM Wounded King has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 304 (295155)
03-14-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Wounded King
03-14-2006 5:10 AM


Re: Maybe a test?
quote:
William Dembski then redefined IC in terms of his own concept of Specified Complexity and redefines it in such a way as to rule out plausible evolutionary pathways.
Isn't Dembski's SC just warmed over incredultiy? I haven't actually read his stuff, but I got the impression that his schtick was to rule out possibilities that we were already aware of and knew were inadequate, then calculate the probability of it all coming together by pure chance.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 03-14-2006 5:10 AM Wounded King has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 304 (302166)
04-07-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Indiana Jones
04-07-2006 5:00 PM


reply to off-topic post
Jar has already ruled this off-topic, but I will add something:
quote:
Now if you want to believe animals can make animals outside their kind you can....
Actually, the Theory of Evolution agrees that animals do not make animals outside their kind. In fact, it is based on this observation. Do you find this interesting? If so, I invite you to bring this question to the appropriate thread. You might be surprised at what the Theory of Evolution really is.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Indiana Jones, posted 04-07-2006 5:00 PM Indiana Jones has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 304 (309635)
05-06-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by jaywill
05-06-2006 11:11 AM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
quote:
I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.
Well, I haven't read it. But I figure that if Behe had a point that hasn't been refuted, then someone who has read the book could supply it. So far, every ID argument that I have seen can be easily refuted within minutes using Google.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 11:11 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 304 (309675)
05-06-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jaywill
05-06-2006 12:49 PM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
quote:
Well, I haven't read it. But I figure that if Behe had a point that hasn't been refuted, then someone who has read the book could supply it. So far, every ID argument that I have seen can be easily refuted within minutes using Google.
I'm a little skeptical of this claim.
Which claim are you skeptical of? Do you believe that I might have read Behe's book? Or do you believe that I may have seen an ID argument for which I have not found a refutation?
Edited to add:
Or perhaps you believe that there could be an unrefuted point in Behe's book, but no one is capable of bringing it up?
There, those are the only three claims in the quote you provided.
Edited again:
Oops. My claim is actually I figure that if Behe had a point.... Perhaps you think that I don't really believe that a person could bring up an unrefuted point if Behe has one?
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 06-May-2006 05:21 PM

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:49 PM jaywill has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 304 (317218)
06-03-2006 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by inkorrekt
06-02-2006 7:00 PM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
quote:
I have already written that the classical experiment only yielded equal parts of the D and L forms of glycine and alanine.
Actually, you have already written that the classical experiment only yielded glycine.
At any rate, you were then informed that the classical experiment produced much, much more than this, and furthermore, you have been informed that glycine is not chiral and so does not have D and L forms.
As crashfrog points out, these are odd errors for a person knowledgeable in biochemistry to make, and it is particularly surprising to see them repeated after they were pointed out. Are you ready to admit that you actually don't know much about biochemistry?

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by inkorrekt, posted 06-02-2006 7:00 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by inkorrekt, posted 06-18-2006 7:58 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024