Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is complexity an argument against design?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 91 of 142 (475850)
07-19-2008 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by John 10:10
07-18-2008 9:52 AM


Johnboy writes:
The "so-called" scientific evidence/proof of the ToE is unlike any other scientific evidence/proof that is derived in any other scientific field of study. In any other scientific field of study, results are repeated/verified from start to finish to a high degree of accuracy.
Really? Tectonic plate theory, for example? Cosmology, perhaps?
On another thread, I asked you if we could study the formation of the Hawaiian Islands. We see volcanic action continuing to add territory to one of them, we see the extinct volcanoes on the others, and we can easily figure that the chain was formed by eruptions from the sea floor over millions of years. Observations of the present have told us about the past, and that's how historical science (and history via archaeology) is done.
This is obvious to all intelligent people.
Biological evolution is something we can observe happening in real time, like the continued formation of volcanic islands, and we have our equivalent of the extinct volcanoes in the fossil record. In addition, just as we can study the detailed geography of Hawaii as it is now in order to reveal its past, we can study modern organisms, right down to the molecular level, to reveal their relationships and their history.
It's all very simple to understand, and children can understand what I'm saying above when it's explained in a science class.
But sometimes desires and delusions interfere with human understanding of the obvious, don't they Johnboy?
On the topic, it's true that there is a lot of unnecessary complexity in nature's designs, and this argues against the direct involvement of intelligence.
Edited by bluegenes, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by John 10:10, posted 07-18-2008 9:52 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 92 of 142 (475853)
07-19-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
07-18-2008 9:22 PM


Rocks 'n cubes and the design illusion
Buzsaw writes:
The rock was shaped randomly without intelligent design via natural processes.
Ah, good. So the earth was not created, then.
OTO the cube has all of the complexities that the randomly shaped rocks have plus the shape indicative of intelligent design which obviously formed it's intelligently designated shape.
Obviously?
Below we can obviously distinguish the natural rock cliff above from man's effort to shore it up with a sea wall.
And despite the ravages of time, this ruined cottage chimney was clearly the work of our intelligent forebears
Or is it always so sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2008 9:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 93 of 142 (475897)
07-19-2008 3:52 PM


This forum is established primarily for the purpose of propagating the speculations of the ToE that is then purported to be true verified science, when in fact it is unlike any other scientific endeavor that is studied, verified, repeated, and yes, proven to be true by trial and error to a very high degree of accuracy.
Worship if you will your "ToE religion" - the written body of teachings of a religious group that is anti-Creator that are generally accepted by that group - in the name of true science, but it is pure and simple worship just the same.
Yes, I worship my Creator and Lord, but I do so also by respecting the true scientific understanding of life and His universe as He allows us to understand His creation "and subdue it" (Gen 1:28), not by denying His existence, relying instead on the ToE speculations as the basis of our faith.
Blessings

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 07-19-2008 5:20 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 7:35 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 94 of 142 (475904)
07-19-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by John 10:10
07-19-2008 3:52 PM


Hi, John 10:10.
John 10:10 writes:
This forum is established primarily for the purpose of propagating the speculations of the ToE that is then purported to be true verified science, when in fact it is unlike any other scientific endeavor...
You have already been shown at least twice how evolutionary biology follows the same pattern of learning and progress as any other scientific endeavor, and you were unable or unwilling to respond with anything more than unsupported repetitions of "evolution is speculation" and "evolution from start-to-finish is not verified to the highest degree of accuracy." I don't think it's appropriate for you to start this crap again here.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John 10:10, posted 07-19-2008 3:52 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2008 6:16 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 95 of 142 (475907)
07-19-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Blue Jay
07-19-2008 5:20 PM


You have already been shown at least twice how evolutionary biology follows the same pattern of learning and progress as any other scientific endeavor, and you were unable or unwilling to respond with anything more than unsupported repetitions of "evolution is speculation" and "evolution from start-to-finish is not verified to the highest degree of accuracy." I don't think it's appropriate for you to start this crap again here.
It has passed the point of arguing the merits of science; what we are getting is witnessing.
It has reached the point that we are being told "I don't care what the facts are, I have my belief and nothing can change my mind."
And as Heinlein noted:

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 07-19-2008 5:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 96 of 142 (475919)
07-19-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by John 10:10
07-19-2008 3:52 PM


This forum is established primarily for the purpose of propagating the speculations of the ToE that is then purported to be true verified science, when in fact it is unlike any other scientific endeavor that is studied, verified, repeated, and yes, proven to be true by trial and error to a very high degree of accuracy.
Worship if you will your "ToE religion" - the written body of teachings of a religious group that is anti-Creator that are generally accepted by that group - in the name of true science, but it is pure and simple worship just the same.
Yes, I worship my Creator and Lord, but I do so also by respecting the true scientific understanding of life and His universe as He allows us to understand His creation "and subdue it" (Gen 1:28), not by denying His existence, relying instead on the ToE speculations as the basis of our faith.
How amusing. A religious person, relying on religious arguments, wishes to cuss out a well-established branch of science. And the word with which he chooses to disparage it is ... "religion". As though that was the nastiest name you could call a thing.
If I want to disparage creationism, I lump it in the same class as bullshit, garbage, and slime. When you want to disparage science, you lump it in the same class as ... your own most deeply-held beliefs.
As though there was nothing worse than resembling you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John 10:10, posted 07-19-2008 3:52 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 142 (475923)
07-19-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by John 10:10
07-18-2008 5:35 PM


Re: Where's the science in intelligent design
Maybe you would like to try answering some of the questions the Lord posed to Job in Chapters 38-41?
Nice attempt at changing the subject and ducking the point, but you fail. If you want me to laugh at the primitive ignorance of the Book of Job, I'll do that right after you've stopped running away from your silly boastful claims and answered my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John 10:10, posted 07-18-2008 5:35 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 98 of 142 (476051)
07-20-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2008 7:35 PM


If I want to disparage creationism, I lump it in the same class as bullshit, garbage, and slime. When you want to disparage science, you lump it in the same class as ... your own most deeply-held beliefs.
Whether you recognize it or not, the ToE is your religion.
The science that I respect is the science that is studied, verified, repeated, and yes, proven to be true by trial and error to a very high degree of accuracy. This the ToE can never do because of the billions of years necessary to verify that it can acutally take place the way the theory says.
The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2008 7:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Coyote, posted 07-20-2008 8:44 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 100 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2008 9:05 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 101 by bluescat48, posted 07-20-2008 9:14 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2008 10:24 PM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2008 10:40 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 99 of 142 (476057)
07-20-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John 10:10
07-20-2008 8:28 PM


Theory (again...)
The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.
You are the one who refuses to learn, or to understand, what a theory is.
Science is doing fine with its definition of "theory" but you can't tolerate that definition for religious reasons, so you make up your own definition, one which you can feel comfortable with.
Fine. But don't labor under the misunderstanding that what you are doing is science, or that it has any bearing on what scientists do. You are off in your own little world with your definition.
This reminds me of a line...
(I don't suppose you have read much of Heinlein though.)
Edited by Coyote, : Commas and periods really are different, and should remain so...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 100 of 142 (476058)
07-20-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John 10:10
07-20-2008 8:28 PM


Repetition ≠ Truth
Whether you recognize it or not, the ToE is your religion.
And this piffle is related to complexity and design how exactly? Besides, telling other people what they think, as though you know better than they do, is pretty arrogant don't you think?
The science that I respect is the science that is studied, verified, repeated, blah, blah, blah...
No matter how many times you repeat this wrong-headed nonsense, you will not make it one iota less wrong. You seem to be unwilling or unable (or both) to accept that natural history is a historical science. That doesn't invalidate it any more than it does palaeontology, much of geology, archaeology, forensics, etc. Evolution on the other hand can be observed taking place in the lab, in just the same way that you claim is impossible. This has been explained to you, but you are apparently impervious to learning, which is a genuine shame. The only person who accepts your definition of "true science" is you. Good luck with it. You'll need it if this is the best you can do.
The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.
What, because you came out with the above non-sequitur? The theory of evolution is, believe it or not, a theory, even if you fail to understand what that word is being used to mean.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 101 of 142 (476061)
07-20-2008 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John 10:10
07-20-2008 8:28 PM


The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.
Yes it is a theory while creation/intelligent design doesn't even reach that high. Creation is nothing more than an idea based on mythology, magic & superstition.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 102 of 142 (476067)
07-20-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John 10:10
07-20-2008 8:28 PM


Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.
Why? all you have done is repeat your false assertions. You need to convince us with evidence, not hype, hypothesis and hope.
To make my position clear: the theory of evolution is a theory.
It is a theory that is based on evidence that evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - occurs, and not just occasionally, but continually and in all known life forms. This is massive amounts of evidence that evolution plays a significant role in biological life.
It is also a theory that has been tested, tested by every fossil find, tested by genetics, tested in the lab and tested in the field. The consensus of all this testing is that evolution is still the best explanation for the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from natural history, and from genetics. This is massive amounts of validation that evolution can explain the diversity of biological life in all its wonderful forms.
The fact remains that evolution is just as "studied, verified, repeated, and yes, proven to be true by trial and error to a very high degree of accuracy" as any other science, claims to the contrary by creationists notwithstanding, as no creationist has been able to demonstrate otherwise.
Whether you recognize it or not, the ToE is your religion.
False. Religion is not tested, nor held tentatively, nor is it derived from evidence. Evolution has gone through some changes, evolved, since the formulation by Darwin of descent with modification. Most of these changes have to do with providing a clearer picture of the various processes involved.
Darwin noted that traits had to be hereditary to affect evolution, but he did not know the process: today we know about DNA and mutations.
Darwin noted that animals would be related by common ancestors if descent with modification were true, and he noted the sparsity of fossil evidence at the time. Today we have much more evidence, and each single fossil fits into a tree of common ancestry both in time and space and in transitions from one form to another. Today, for instance we can look at hominid skulls over the last 3 million years and see clear transitions from ape-like to fully human:
quote:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Differences that are smaller than those observed between the various breeds of dogs.
Today we also have genetics that shows common ancestry of organisms the same way DNA testing shows common ancestry in paternity cases and the like.
BUT
That has nothing to do with complexity or the fact that "design" is woefully inept at explaining much of anything of the known diversity of life, in the world around us, in history, in the natural history of life on this planet, or in genetics.
Evolution explains complexity quite well, and it explains the bits and pieces that are problematical for a design hypothesis (unless, perhaps, one wants to consider Silly Design).
The problem you have is to forget everything you know (or think you know) about evolution, and everything you believe based on faith, and then approach "design" from a scientific viewpoint and TEST your hypothesis against the facts. I predict you will end up with evolution as the process.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by John 10:10, posted 07-28-2008 10:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 142 (476071)
07-20-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by John 10:10
07-20-2008 8:28 PM


Whether you recognize it or not, the ToE is your religion.
Again, we see the religious person use "religion" as a disparaging term. Apparently the nastiest thing you can think of to say about the ToE is that it belongs in the same class as Christianity.
You are, of course, wrong, but it's the psychology of the thing that fascinates me. Why do you use "religion" as your word to describe all that you think is bad and false?
I mean, compare me with you. I have a scientific mind, and scientific opinions, and I value scientific knowledge highly. So when I want to attack creationism, do I say it's scientific? No, of course not, that would be stupid. I say it's a load of crap.
You, meanwhile, are religious, spouting a religious viewpoint, using religious arguments from religious texts; and yet you use "religion" as a dirty word.
Do explain.
The science that I respect is the science that is studied, verified, repeated, and yes, proven to be true by trial and error to a very high degree of accuracy. This the ToE can never do because of the billions of years necessary to verify that it can acutally take place the way the theory says.
It can, however, be verified using the scientific method, as used by scientists.
Which branches of science you choose to respect on the basis of your religious views is of no interest to me, to scientists, or, you'll notice, to the courts.
The last time I asked whether or not the ToE was still a theory, most at this forum said it was. I guess some will now retract what they have said.
What a strange thing to say. Why do you say it? I can see no relationship between your delusions that "some will now retract what they have said" and anything in my post --- or anything else in the real world, for that matter.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by John 10:10, posted 07-20-2008 8:28 PM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 104 of 142 (476074)
07-20-2008 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
07-18-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Where's the science in intelligent design
Hey, John 10:10.
Remember this?
John 10:10 writes:
The evidence is there to see for those who KNOW our Creator.
Dr Adequate writes:
Splendid. So if you are one of those who "KNOW our Creator", then doubtless you can see this evidence and describe it to those of us less fortunate than yourself.
I notice that you're still running away from this.
If you know that there is no evidence for your views, why not give them up for the rubbish they are?
If, on the other hand, you still really believe that there is evidence for your views, why don't you post some of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-18-2008 10:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 105 of 142 (476895)
07-28-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
07-20-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
That has nothing to do with complexity or the fact that "design" is woefully inept at explaining much of anything of the known diversity of life, in the world around us, in history, in the natural history of life on this planet, or in genetics.
If you would stop long enough to listen to what you are saying, maybe you would hear the absurdity of what you have just said.
Almost everything that man does in science, engineering, medicine, etc. is done with man's creativeness and design. Yet the diversity and complexity of life in the world around us is far far more complex than anything man has been able to create and design in his puny little brain and build with his hands, much less understand how it fully works.
So evolution without a Creative Intelligent Designer is a better explanation of how things are as they are than in believing that only by a Creative Intelligent Designer could a single life cell come into being, let alone millions and millions of living breathing fully formed diverse creatures?
No matter how much you say it has, evolution has not been "fully tested and proved" as have most other scientific principles that we understand to a great degree of accuracy, and utilize. As such, evolution has become your "religion", no matter how much you declare it is not.
Edited by John 10:10, : added utilize

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2008 10:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-28-2008 11:52 AM John 10:10 has replied
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 07-29-2008 12:11 PM John 10:10 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024