Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
How do you tell the difference between a system which has been intelligently designed and a natural one?

​

---

Well, I would say it depends on the number of components needed to function. However, there is no point in which the complexity of something DEMANDS design, theoretically. However, the more specified complexity an object has, the more unlikely it is that the system is not designed intelligently. Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process. And I do believe science's goal is to find the most probable way of something occuring, am I correct?In the end though, I suppose to infer design one must use common sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
Essentially this is an argument by analogy. How about a scientific argument.

---

Huh? Where did I use an analogy in my definition? If you would point it out I'll try to answer your question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lbhandli:
You created an analogy between those objects that are known to be designed and those objects that aren't known to be designed but are complex.

​

Your ideas rely on assumptions that have no real basis besides a statement of faith. It is a logical fallacy to claim that because some things that are complex are designed all complex things are designed. It is an empirical question that you have not provided empirical evidence for.

---

I don't believe my post contained an analogy at all...."It is a logical fallacy to claim that because some things that are complex are designed all complex things are designed."I don't think I claimed this. I think I am being VERY fair in this argument. I said, clearly, "Therefore, once you reach a certain point, it becomes MORE logical to infer design and LESS logical to infer naturalistic process." I never ruled out naturalistic processes as a possibility, I mearly stated that the more complex something is, the more likely it was designed. This does not seem to me to be a fallacious argument by any degree. I believe evolutionary biologists would be much more comfortable if life was not so complex, but unfortunately, life is extremely complex. I never claimed that complexity "requires" a designer, I merely stated that there seems to be a breaking point in which it is more likely that something was designed. Whether or not life is "too" complex (the breaking point) is where are opinions differ. I believe life is too complex, you do not.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]
"Why does complexity imply design ?"Do you have a serious objection to the SETI program? The SETI program is designed to locate signals that have specified complexity. Even if we didn't know the nature of the sender, we could imply that the signal was created."Does simplicity imply that an object was NOT designed ?"Not neccesarily. It merely implies that it is likely that natural processes COULD of created it. Likewize, complexity merely implies that it is likely that natural processes DID NOT create it."Effectively what you are saying is 'I can't beleive that that
wasn't designed!'"So? Effectively, what many evolutionists are saying is, "I can't believe that that was designed." What's the difference? (In fact, many evolutionists don't even consider the ID argument. Instead they make bogus claims about ID being "God of the Gaps" or it being "the end of scientific inquiry.")"I think some more objective design criteria would be useful.
Not sure there are any though."I realize that you may not like ID very much, but I don't see your point. No where in my posts have I claimed something ridiculous like "Life is so complex, it must of been designed! You evolutionists are retards!" I simply claimed that complexity tends to point to a designer (in all known cases that I'm aware of, it has). Maybe life is different, but given our knowledge, I believe the ID argument is worth heavy consideration.

"Oops! The most complex things imaginable are entirely random. A simple example - "d93ncimecofmsj8;" is a more complex phrase than "a simple example" because it cannot even be summarized, at least not to a simpler form than "a simple example."Ok, but does d93ncimecofmsj8; have a meaning?"Interesting belief - supported by evidence?"Nope, which is why I presented my belief as just that- a belief. I think it is important to try to distinguish between beliefs and facts supported by evidence.