Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2013, 02:58 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 03:18 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Science is the pursuit of natural explanations for observable events.

Science is often used to provide non natural explanations for observable events. Forensic science is often used by police departments to develop explanations for non natural deaths of human beings.

There is no reason the scientific method can't be used to find non-natural explanations for observable events. Suppose simulation hypothesis is true and our world is actually a computer simulation. Can science ask and answer the question, "Is our world a computer simulation?".....sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:59 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  What do you mean by co-exist? Sure, if we engineer an organism that could not have occurred naturally and it then undergoes mutation and selection - is that your point?

Intelligently created things exist in nature....that is a fact and it not in dispute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 05:48 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  What do you mean by co-exist? Sure, if we engineer an organism that could not have occurred naturally and it then undergoes mutation and selection - is that your point?

Intelligently created things exist in nature....that is a fact and it not in dispute.

Explain ? Huh

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 07:28 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  What do you mean by co-exist? Sure, if we engineer an organism that could not have occurred naturally and it then undergoes mutation and selection - is that your point?

Intelligently created things exist in nature....that is a fact and it not in dispute.

[Image: wikipedian_protester.png]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
17-12-2013, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2013 10:25 AM by Chas.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  I claim that they can't exist in nature. They cannot suddenly come into existence.

There is no natural mechanism that explains them.

First You claimed Irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Then you backpeddled and claimed non man made irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Now you claim non-made irreducible complexity can't exist in nature.....which is nonsense. All that is required is a non human intellect of sufficient caliber.

Fine. I am done trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
I have been trying to keep this in the real world, but that's not your point.

But you're right, my language was imprecise. We know of no other human-like intelligences, so 'man-made' was a reasonable use of language.

And as for IC not existing, my language was imprecise there, as well. No naturally occurring instance of IC is known to exist.

When you find one, let us know.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
17-12-2013, 10:25 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 10:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  First You claimed Irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Then you backpeddled and claimed non man made irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Now you claim non-made irreducible complexity can't exist in nature.....which is nonsense. All that is required is a non human intellect of sufficient caliber.

Fine. I am done trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
I have been trying to keep this in the real world, but that's not your point.
Carry on without me.

Honestly, I'm surprised you put up with his inane bullshit that long. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2013 10:33 AM by Azaraith.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 03:14 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Sorry, no - the idea of IC is that something is complex enough that it can't have come about by chance. The entire point of that ridiculous hypothesis was that it was a means to refute evolution, that's it. It was invented for that purpose by creationists, you're simply trying to shove a human boot onto an elephant's foot - it just doesn't work. If you say that the initial link in the chain (the first living thing) was irreducibly complex and everything evolved from that, then you're not talking about evolution, you're talking about the origin of life. Evolution only applies to the development of life over time, not its origins.

Yes, it's trivial to show that creationists are wrong, that's because their arguments are shit and they have no evidence. I can also beat a 5 year old in one-on-one basketball and outrun a toddler. Your point?

Of course it doesn't, but you're charging full steam ahead at that conclusion even if you're going to pretend that you aren't - you're at least a deist, interested in IC so that you can claim that a deity had to have sparked the initial process. Don't think you're fooling anyone here. In order for IC to suggest anything you'd have to present some evidence that it exists in nature and not just in a test tube created by humans. That's your task to prove and all you've done so far is suggest that it could exist and that Chas can't prove the negative that it doesn't. That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be tasked with proving that elves, Santa, and flying reindeer don't exist.

My belief in God doesn't require biological systems to be irreducibly complex. I am certainly not trying to convince you that non man made irreducible complexity exists in nature. I am saying that it could exist in nature....if it does exist...you will most likely to find it at the starting point of the process we call natural evolution. There is a big difference between saying something can exist and something does exist. Just like there is a big difference between saying something can't exist(Chas's error because he fails to prove or even try to prove it can't exist) or saying we have no reason to believe that something exists.

Showing man made irreducible complexity is pertinent because it demonstrates the principle of irreducible complexity just as lab created abiogenesis would demonstrate the principle of abiogenesis. Irreducible complexity is something real...something we can observe. Abiogenesis...well that's just something we think can happen.

Unicorns could exist in nature, as could Santa and his elves (though not the flying reindeer part). What is feasible to imagine isn't always reasonable to believe. You're asking people to entertain the idea, on no good evidence, that something irreducibly complex exists since you believe that it points to an intelligent entity (*cough* God *cough*).

Showing man-made irreducible complexity isn't relevant any more than a man-made unicorn would be. Sure we could graft a horn onto a horse's head and call it a unicorn, but that doesn't mean that there's a single reason to believe unicorns could exist in nature. You're grasping at straws.

Also, there are no intelligent organisms in nature that were designed - man made organisms aren't remotely intelligent and you've not proven intelligent design.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 10:25 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 10:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  Fine. I am done trying to have a reasonable conversation with you.
I have been trying to keep this in the real world, but that's not your point.
Carry on without me.

Honestly, I'm surprised you put up with his inane bullshit that long. Drinking Beverage

Check back - I modified that post. I'm not going to leave it like that.

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
17-12-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(15-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 07:49 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Or *we* could have. So much for IC "proving" BabbleGawd.

Even if non man made IC were found, or believed to be found, it wouldn't prove God.

Yes, the ONLY thing that would prove the existence of such a thing would be CONVINCING EVIDENCE of the existence of such a thing.

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
17-12-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
The only "intellect" we know of, has operational requirements, and systems. There is no mechanism for, nor are ANY requirements met for the anthropomorphized notion of a "super-natural" intellect.

One can posit/imagine literally anything.
A teapot orbiting the sun has a higher probability than a supernatural intellect.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: