Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 06:48 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 06:53 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is not a label for ignorance. It is a label used describe a particular attribute of a thing. That attribute being complexity which could not arise via evolution. Something is either irreducibly complex or it isn't. The eyeball or a bacterial flagellum is either irreducibly complex or it isn't. Now you may be ignorant of whether or not those things are irreducibly complex or not but that doesn't change the fact that the attribute exists in those things or it doesn't. Your ignorance is irrelevant to whether or not something has the attribute of irreducible complexity.

IC is an idiot label used by those who are ignorant of a process. Theere is no inherent attribute of ANYTHING that it is "irreducibly complex". All it means is the LABELER is IGNORANT of the process.

(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  ID'st are looking for the hand of God, and I am saying they should be looking for it at the inception of the process and not in the products. ID'st should be claiming that evolutionary systems themselves are irreducibly complex....not eyeballs or locomotive tails.

Hmm, so locomotives have tails ? Do cabooses and refrigeration cars, and flatbed cars have tails ? What a fucking moron.
I see Blowjob is STILL asserting his deism, while claiming to be a theist. What an idiot. There is no living biological system today that can be pointed to which is "irreducibly complex". The multi-step process which eyes and everything else could have evolved, or is known to have evolved, has at least one proposed explanation. The default position is NEVER "Oh it's irreducibly complex''. It's "they need to figure that out". It's a false "god of the gaps, crap argument" by theists (and apparently deists) to point to their idiot conclusion which is prematurely JUMPED to, out of ignorance. The MOST they can say is "I don't know how that happened". IC is not a valid position. It's complete and utter bullshit. An argument from ignorance.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-12-2013, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 08:25 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:55 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  You can't seperate the two things. Irreducible complexity in it's most simple expression is that an organism/part of is too complex to have evolved therefore it must've been designed by gawd.

Why does it have to be "gawd"? Why couldn't it be just an intelligent being? By claiming is must've been designed by "gawd" you're shifting the goal post.

By PRETENDING that IC isn't referring specifically to the fairy tale deity in the holey Bile, disingenuous IDiots like YOU are shifting the goalposts.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 08:18 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 08:24 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 04:15 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 04:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  By responding to my use of gawd, instead of God (there I fixed it mate) Smile you sir have deftly and gracefully ducked my point.

God does not have to exist for irreducible complexity to exist. What was your point anyways? That irreducible complexity isn't a valid concept because God fearing people utilized it?

It isn't valid because it's regurgitated creationism and because just like creationism and "intelligent design, it starts from the conclusion and works its way back (see: pathological lying). Oh, and because it's utter bullshit.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-12-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:47 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  The whole argument of irreducible complexity is completely nul and void in my view, I've seen it debunked with ease repeatedly.

Yeah, I'll debunk it right now. Something is irreducibly complex until our methods of analysis (knowledge) improve. Therefore irreducible complexity is an illusion. It is a premature conclusion.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:10 PM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 01:28 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:55 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  You can't seperate the two things. Irreducible complexity in it's most simple expression is that an organism/part of is too complex to have evolved therefore it must've been designed by gawd.

Why does it have to be "gawd"? Why couldn't it be just an intelligent being? By claiming is must've been designed by "gawd" you're shifting the goal post.
Does IC have to be about "intelligence"?

Replacing gods with human intelligence still devolves into an infinite regress problem. But it also confuses the process of evolution with that of abiogenesis.
Clearly there haven't been natural intelligent beings creating new species (in labs) during the course of the last 500 million years and yet new species have been appearing according to the fossil record.

If IC were real. If it were to prove that Evolution in its current form is false, then maybe there is another natural process in play? Or maybe evolution is even more sophisticated or nuanced than is currently known? However, it seems that much of the complexity pointed out by the IC proponents have been proven to have been reducible.

The problem with the IC proponents argument is that they can only point to things that appear to be Irreducibly Complex. They have no way of proving that something actually is IC.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 06:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Hmm, so locomotives have tails ? Do cabooses and refrigeration cars, and flatbed cars have tails ? What a fucking moron.

Bucky, locomotive can be used as an adjective or a noun. I clearly used it as an adjective. Do you know what an adjective is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Did I mention, I don't like PJ?

And Heywood, you watch that vid I did recommend? Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
06-12-2013, 01:41 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 02:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My point was that the original thread post and others were talking about the IC of the beginnings of life. There are countless stages of evolution where there are IC issues.

No, there aren't. Your lack of knowledge and insight is not evidence of IC.

You can't imagine the steps or the gradual changes over a vast time because you are simply not smart enough.

No, imagining the gradual changes over time is simple. The mental gymnastics required to have, however, an animal move from land to sea or sea to land for one of thousands of examples of evolutionary IC is staggering--can you do it? How do humans, say, return to the sea--indulge me--some stimulus is designing evolution to do it--what do we eat? how do we swim? avoid predators? birth? respirate? THERE IS NOTHING THAT ENHANCES SURVIVABILITY FROM PARTIAL ADAPTATIONS WHILE I'M REMAINING (AS A SPECIES) ON LAND.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 03:53 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  In other words, you seem fairly bright Sheldon-Leonard-BB, but some of the smartest-by-gum brilliant people in this and any other era have been devout believers including that most worthy of Mensa Mentat members of Dune, the Poobah of Cratheism, PleaseJesus.e theists, including mainline scholars. Antony Flew ring a bell for you? Smile

A.k.a when all else fails, stroke my own dick. I mean, I can stroke my dick; I got awards and shit, but when some fool calls me on my bullshit, I answer them. I don't go back to stroking my own dick. Dodgy

I AM answering him. BB consideres himself superior to anyone beneath his towering intellect. It's a leaning tower of Pisa, of course, his intellect--since he lacks those lovely Christian moral values to enhance his learning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 09:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1) PhD program of what? What field of study?

2) You've said "tell my students what you wrote" and etc. more than once.

3) No original thoughts, then?

4) I understand evolutionary biology from a lay perspective but with the added value of many hours in study beyond to deal with it as an apologetic--and I've found that rather it's the students who claim they are passionate about evolution who know very few of its mechanisms.

5) I've preached at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. The students there weren't any brighter or dumber than anywhere else concerning the gospel, morality, evolution, etc.

6) Your story sounds impressive. I went to a high school you may have heard of called (Peter) Stuyvesant in New York. Ring any bells? You're a northeasterner also, yes? No? We had no honors or AP courses because 100% of our workload was college level. No one there was off to college at 16--we were taking a college courseload at 13 or 14. We had kids in 9th grade taking Calc II. 99% graduated even there in NYC and one-third of my senior class went on to Harvard, Yale or Princeton back in the dark ages before they began limiting the number that any one school could send to an Ivy. And no, most of the kids there were between upper and lower middle class, and our grandparents didn't pay for us to attend an Ivy without a scholarship. In other words, you seem fairly bright Sheldon-Leonard-BB, but some of the smartest-by-gum brilliant people in this and any other era have been devout believers including that most worthy of Mensa Mentat members of Dune, the Poobah of Cratheism, PleaseJesus. Smile Of course, countless other geniuses were and are theists, including mainline scholars. Antony Flew ring a bell for you? Smile

You exaggerate the curriculum at Stuyvesant. Vastly.

Why do you feel a need to do shit like this? You are such a sad, deluded man.

Finding an entry with some facts on Wikipedia about Stuy today doesn't alter the class composition or its successes of decades before when I attended. Did you see this post also?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stu...ool_people
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: