Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 04:17 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See what you did there jackass? You made me go all Taq on your retarded self... Dodgy

You would be one of my favorite posters if you didn't go all Taq. A lot of time I feel I can have a genuine discussion with you. Taq and Bucky, they have to hurl the insults. You don't....you choose to do it.

One can only yell at a wall for so long shithead...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-12-2013, 04:19 AM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 01:21 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(08-12-2013 10:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Nope.

Burden of proof, champ (and I know this has been explained to you many times before - several times by me, no less).

You assert the existence of some phenomenon, you must demonstrate its existence.

Sorry bro, you can't take a statistical concept like the null hypothesis and just say it applies to philosophical discussion. Until you can justify your misuse of the statistical tool I'm going to stick with the tried and true, "You make a claim, its your responsibility to substantiate it".

Chas made a claim that irreducible complexity does not exist in the system but is unwilling or unable to justify it. So why should I believe him? At best all Chas can do is say he see no reasons to believe irreducible complexity exists. It is one thing to say something doesn't exist and quite another to say there is no reason to think it exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 07:53 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Re-read the thread. I started out by saying "If irreducibly complexity is true....." which is certainly not a claim. I gave an example of possible irreducible complexity in a non-biological system.....again not a claim. Until Chas challenged me to prove his claim that irreducible complexity does not exist wrong, I never ever put in this thread a claim of my own that irreducible complexity exists in biological systems....until then I only said that it could exist and if it does exist where I thought it would be found....again not a claim.

I really believe that Chas thinks only theists need to support their claims.....which is silly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: george-takei.gif]

See what you did there jackass? You made me go all Taq on your retarded self... Dodgy

Well, it's rather a crude imitation, lacking the requisite wit, flair and charm, but an excellent first effort.

Cool

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
09-12-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 01:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I started out by saying "If irreducibly complexity is true....." which is certainly not a claim.

Oh, look -- he comes from the WLC School of Dodging the Burden of Proof.

Quote:Until Chas challenged me to prove his claim that irreducible complexity does not exist wrong, I never ever put in this thread a claim of my own that irreducible complexity exists in biological systems....until then I only said that it could exist and if it does exist where I thought it would be found....again not a claim.

Double-talking, Burden-of-Proof-dodging Bullshit.

Quote:I really believe that Chas thinks only theists need to support their claims.....which is silly.

CHALLENGING a claim is NOT "making a claim".

[Image: 80686348.jpg]

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
09-12-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:00 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Why wouldn't we just become extinct? Isn't that what happens to most life forms on Earth? The failure rate for life is tremendously high, making 'intelligent creator' an oxymoron at best.

I'd be interested in a biologist's take on this. PJ assumes that it was a complex species that moved from sea to land, or visa-versa. Is that the assumed theory, or just an easy example for him to debunk?

I have no issue imagining small, simplistic life forms making the transition. Also, I thought that it was environment that determined the value of partial adaptations. If EVERY life form found suddenly found itself in water (global flood part two, maybe), from the smallest cellular life form to the largest, would some already have the necessary traits to survive the initial transition while many others died off, traits that may have been meaningless while on land? I say yes. Would some continue to change, through favorable mutations, into species better suited for aquatic life? I say yes. Over millions of years, would we see new species almost unrecognizable from their ancestors? Yes, again.

I don't see where mental gymnastics are required here.

There was plant life for 1 Billion years without animal life. Later did pollinating insects co-evolve with plants needing pollination? There are so many holes in macro-evolutionary theory.

And your camp is the one saying complex animals move from sea to land, not mine! Defend it and stop trying to duck, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:25 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 01:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Re-read the thread. I started out by saying "If irreducibly complexity is true....." which is certainly not a claim. I gave an example of possible irreducible complexity in a non-biological system.....again not a claim. Until Chas challenged me to prove his claim that irreducible complexity does not exist wrong, I never ever put in this thread a claim of my own that irreducible complexity exists in biological systems....until then I only said that it could exist and if it does exist where I thought it would be found....again not a claim.

I really believe that Chas thinks only theists need to support their claims.....which is silly.

No, you did not show an example of IR that was not man-made. You moved the goalposts yet again.

Try being honest and show an example of IR that is not man-made.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-12-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 02:00 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Why wouldn't we just become extinct? Isn't that what happens to most life forms on Earth? The failure rate for life is tremendously high, making 'intelligent creator' an oxymoron at best.

I'd be interested in a biologist's take on this. PJ assumes that it was a complex species that moved from sea to land, or visa-versa. Is that the assumed theory, or just an easy example for him to debunk?

I have no issue imagining small, simplistic life forms making the transition. Also, I thought that it was environment that determined the value of partial adaptations. If EVERY life form found suddenly found itself in water (global flood part two, maybe), from the smallest cellular life form to the largest, would some already have the necessary traits to survive the initial transition while many others died off, traits that may have been meaningless while on land? I say yes. Would some continue to change, through favorable mutations, into species better suited for aquatic life? I say yes. Over millions of years, would we see new species almost unrecognizable from their ancestors? Yes, again.

I don't see where mental gymnastics are required here.

There was plant life for 1 Billion years without animal life. Later did pollinating insects co-evolve with plants needing pollination? There are so many holes in macro-evolutionary theory.

And your camp is the one saying complex animals move from sea to land, not mine! Defend it and stop trying to duck, please.

Yes, pollinating insects (and birds) co-evolved, and continue to co-evolve, with plants.

And no, complex animals did not 'move from sea to land'. They evolved over many generations of tiny changes to adapt to the environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There was plant life for 1 Billion years without animal life.

Three words for you: WIND. Blow Me.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: