Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-12-2013, 02:20 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 01:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 01:14 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Indeed. If a human kills another human, that act was done within the confines of nature. He is equivocating and being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous. Who'da thunkit? Tongue

If we are going to go that route then the Irreducible Complex system of watermarks contained in synthetic bacteria is natural irreducible complexity because it came into existence within the confines of nature.

Its not me being obtuse or disingenuous, it is you guys shifting the goal post.

Are you guys now okay with saying natural irreducible complexity exists?

You're an adorable little troll. I take back my "legitimately confused", you're just trolling. Pretending not to understand basic definitions and how in one context it might mean one thing and a different thing in another.

Here's some help:

nat·u·ral
ˈnaCHərəl
adjective
1.
existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

In the case of human-engineered organisms, the latter phrase is what is intended ("not made or caused by humankind"). In the case of human deaths the former phrase is intended ("existing in nature").

This is something that is generally understood by honest people interested in an honest discussion, but trolls like you like to play semantics games since you think that's the only way you can "win" the argument, given you've got no evidence or sound logic to back your opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Azaraith's post
17-12-2013, 07:07 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Just remember trolls work best when there are many people who share their alter egos view.
Ergo, Trolls perform a public service.

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
18-12-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 01:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If we are going to go that route then the Irreducible Complex system of watermarks contained in synthetic bacteria is natural irreducible complexity because it came into existence within the confines of nature.

Its not me being obtuse or disingenuous, it is you guys shifting the goal post.

Are you guys now okay with saying natural irreducible complexity exists?

No, it's not natural, it's man-made. You don't get to re-define natural.

Chas, you pick the definition of natural to be used in this discussion please....and that is the one I will use. As it stands you people keep using different definitions which makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 01:56 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(17-12-2013 02:20 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  This is something that is generally understood by honest people interested in an honest discussion, but trolls like you like to play semantics games since you think that's the only way you can "win" the argument, given you've got no evidence or sound logic to back your opinions.


My opinion is that irreducible complexity is a real quality...as evidenced by the system of watermarks contained in the synthetic bacteria. That if it can exist in synthetic bacteria it can in principle exist in non synthetic organisms. That if one wishes to find irreducible complexity in non synthetic organisms the best place to look it at organisms(or their precursors) which begin a chain of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 01:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As it stands you people keep using different definitions which makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation.

OH, look -- more bullshit from the bullshit artist. Rolleyes

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
18-12-2013, 02:06 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  My opinion.....

....is a load of trollshit.

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
18-12-2013, 02:10 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 01:56 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(17-12-2013 02:20 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  This is something that is generally understood by honest people interested in an honest discussion, but trolls like you like to play semantics games since you think that's the only way you can "win" the argument, given you've got no evidence or sound logic to back your opinions.


My opinion is that irreducible complexity is a real quality...as evidenced by the system of watermarks contained in the synthetic bacteria. That if it can exist in synthetic bacteria it can in principle exist in non synthetic organisms. That if one wishes to find irreducible complexity in non synthetic organisms the best place to look it at organisms(or their precursors) which begin a chain of evolution.

So some researchers manipulated the DNA of a man-made bacterium and in effect created a 'watermark' of sorts.
And because man has been able to do this, it can happen in nature, correct?

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
18-12-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 02:10 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  So some researchers manipulated the DNA of a man-made bacterium and in effect created a 'watermark' of sorts.
And because man has been able to do this, it can happen in nature, correct?

Lets just leave out the "in nature" part until you guys settle upon a meaning for that phrase. If I get it wrong...apparently I am trolling.

Anyways lets just say it can happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2013, 03:01 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 02:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 02:10 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  So some researchers manipulated the DNA of a man-made bacterium and in effect created a 'watermark' of sorts.
And because man has been able to do this, it can happen in nature, correct?

Lets just leave out the "in nature" part until you guys settle upon a meaning for that phrase. If I get it wrong...apparently I am trolling.

Anyways lets just say it can happen.

Pretty sure everybody will agree with this:
Quote:adjective
1existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
*Note: this definition is ripped right from the Oxford dictionary, not merely from ones own rectum.

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
18-12-2013, 03:23 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(18-12-2013 03:01 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(18-12-2013 02:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lets just leave out the "in nature" part until you guys settle upon a meaning for that phrase. If I get it wrong...apparently I am trolling.

Anyways lets just say it can happen.

Pretty sure everybody will agree with this:
Quote:adjective
1existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind:
carrots contain a natural antiseptic
*Note: this definition is ripped right from the Oxford dictionary, not merely from ones own rectum.

No....not everyone agrees with the definitions you provided. Human deaths caused by humankind are considered natural because they exist in nature(according to some in this thread)....and are considered unnatural because they are caused by human kind. Are we going to use the "exist in nature" or "not caused by humankind" as our definition? I will accept what ever definition Chas chooses and use that on going. I think the qualifier "natural" is extraneous so I don't care what definition we use.....but lets settle on something because apparently it is important to you guys.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: