Regulation - Complexity sidebar
Pages
| Author | Topic: Regulation - Complexity sidebar |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:36
Profile
Show me the logic behind common descent. Then we can discuss the two side-by-side. Otherwise I will ignore your claims as you all have been falsely alleging i do. The real truth is that I have answered your questions. What do you feel my initial argument was and how does it differ from my current argument? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:59
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote:Until you do this, there's no point in presenting an argument for common descent, because you haven't presented an argument for creationism. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 09:11
Profile
I've at least presented a modus ponens argument. But very well, we'll just agree to disagree and that suits me fine. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 09:35
Profile
Homepage
Now you're going back to your second 1-3 argument, which is (yet again) not identical, logically, to the 1-10 argument that you just presented. You're flip-flopping incessantly! Is your 1-3 argument supposed to be your definitive, logically valid argument or not? If so, you've been called on point 1. Defend it! Show that it has some basis in reality! -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 10:18
Profile
Kel you should really think and read carefully before you make accusations. The 1-3 argument was meant to show why I think irreducibly cmplex structures are design markers. The 1-10 reasons I gave were in response to your convenient memory lapse. They are broader and include most of the stuff we've discussed up until now. I actually said that before and after I listed them. I've also listed logical reasons based on real patterns we see in life to show why I think all of these support creation. I'm not simply saying "It's possible!" and claiming that amounts to scientific fact. "Flipflopping" implies an actual change in argument. I've been saying the same things all along. The real problem is that you lack evidence for your beliefs and are frustrated with that. You keep making these claims with nothing to back them up. You are really the one avoiding issues and dodging questions. How many times have I asked you for a naturally occuring object with specified complexity like you claimed you could? You even quoted one of these requests and then completely ignored it, so I know it's not just an innocent mistake. You won't present a logical argument or evidence that my use of irreducible complexity is wrong probably for the same reasons. Baseless claims. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 11:02
Profile
I'm still waiting to hear why seeing design produce Stillness's kind of irreducible complexity today implies that it can only ever have occurred through design. Otherwise he has an argument that cats must be black because he has seen some black cats. My problem with ten points is that they distract us from this one point. And if we never get the chance to get any one point really clear, then it's all too easy for ten bad arguments to pass for ten solid reasons, for another twenty pages of pointless wrangling. So let's stick with this one. If Stillness has a good answer, then let him out with it, and we can move on to something else. If he doesn't, then there's at least one point that needs to be crossed off the list. And begging the question, or proposing that bad logic is okay, don't count as good answers. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 13:18
Profile
As I said, I've listed the ten points as a recap because some of us had amnesia and seemed to think I've just been saying "God did it" over the past 20 pages or that I just had a "feeling" that something was wrong without being able to articulate it. I didn't list them to wrangle or distract. I'm willing to stick to discussion on complexity and the reasons I gave as to why I think it speaks to purpose and presents a problem for you. The point that's making your position look lame right now is that your avoiding responding to a simple request (actually your side has a few requests that remain unresponded to). To an objective observer I'd reckon you look like you have something to hide. It certainly appears that way to me. 1) If Kelandon doesn't have examples of specified complexity appearing in nature he should say so. 2) If you don't have a reference that shows my definition of irreducible complexity is off stop claiming that it is. 3) If you can't present a simple logical argument for why you believe that mutations and natural selection have made all the complexity we see in the biosphere as I did for you when you requested it, then admit that you can't. But don't simply avoid the issue and then claim that I'm the one ducking. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 19:33
Profile
Homepage
1) Let's say that I don't and see where that gets us. I claim that I can concede that point and your argument still doesn't work. (At this point, I've forgotten whatever I was thinking of, anyway.) 2) Who really gives a damn at this point whether your definition matches anyone else's? That's the point of you stating clearly what you're trying to say, with terms defined and premises explained fully: you don't have to match anyone else's definition, as long as you give one yourself and your definition works within your argument. 3) The reason that no one has is that it's irrelevant to whether your argument makes any sense or not. Right now, the only claim that I'm making (and I think the only claim that anyone else here other than you is making) is that what you're saying doesn't make any sense. In other words, I'll concede 1) and 2) for the purposes of continuing this discussion, and I claim that 3) is irrelevant, and I still want you to do what I asked in my last post (which is the same thing as what SoT is asking, so answer either one of us should probably be sufficient). -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 20:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:Even Behe has admitted that his mousetrap was a terrible example of irreducible complexity; if you were really a believer in ID, you'd know that. It's statements like this that make me think you're a troll. [ Wednesday, May 23, 2007 20:33: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 20:53
Profile
I don't think he's a troll, though his arguments do seem to regenerate. Stillness is at any rate also not Behe, and I don't think there is any further need to define his concept of irreducible complexity. It isn't Behe's; it's this much simpler property of not working when any major component is abruptly removed. He observes that some irreducible complexity is produced by design. How any conclusion follows from this has still not been explained. If a guy's $100 bill has suspiciously smudgy printing, it is not reassuring that he can wave nine other bills around. Bad arguments are as cheap and easy as fake banknotes, and just as worthless, however many there are. And believing something for ten reasons that under close scrutiny all turn out to be incoherent or circular does amount to believing something because it just feels right. So let's stick to the complexity thing, at least in this thread. No dinosaur collagen, no other issues, fascinating though they are. It is fair enough to talk about specified as well as irreducible complexity here. But this isn't like Quake, where fragging one guy offsets the fact that you got killed by someone else. Maybe Kelandon can't actually find an example of natural specified complexity, or maybe he can: I don't care. My current position on specified complexity, which I think is also Khoth's, is not that it is naturally occurring, but that it is meaningless, in such a way that arguments from specified complexity boil down merely to 'designed things are designed'. My interest right now, though, is in the irreducibility argument, and I won't accept any amount of success on specificied complexity as an excuse for not dealing with irreducibility. [ Thursday, May 24, 2007 00:02: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 23:11
Profile
Homepage
I think all of this emphasis on logical argument is a mistake, if the aim is to actually convince anyone, especially since Stillness has made it clear he isn't sincerely interested in any of it. Good argument isn't anywhere near as important as good rhetoric. A fake banknote may be worth less than a real one to a person, but either is equally good as food for a hog, and for that purpose a bucket of slops is a fair sight better than either of them. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 04:55
Profile
quote:I'm flattered that you wish to continue discussing because I honestly was thinking we were done. I need your answer on 3 though. If my belief that complexity shows purpose is relevant then yours that it can come about naturalistically is as well. I found your excercise of presenting my case logically to be edifying. You think it has holes then let's talk about it. But, at this point I'll insist that you and SoT do the same as I did before I engage you anymore. I think it will be very revealing. I don't see that as an unreasonable request or out of harmony with our current place in this discussion. quote:'Life is a designed thing' is the argument. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 07:57
Profile
Homepage
quote:The problem is that if someone presents an argument for evolution, you'll get distracted attacking it, and you'll conveniently forget to address the fact that your argument doesn't make any sense. This has been happening for twenty-five pages. Whenever you come across something you find difficult to answer, you change the subject. I'm not going to let the subject change here. quote:Yes, let's! Let me remind you what you have to answer. quote:In other words, I claim that the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency," has not been adequately shown to be true. I'll assume as true the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems that have been created within the past few decades under our verified observation have all been the result of purposeful agency," for the sake of discussion, but you have to get from the latter statement to the former somehow. How do you propose to do it? [ Thursday, May 24, 2007 08:17: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 10:04
Profile
:cool: Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 10:20
Profile
quote:FYT. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 11:19
Profile
Huh? I am not 100% sure what that means, but I think I know. That is not my sentiment towards you. I don't know what it is about my style that makes you all misunderstand me, but I do the best I can. It's probably wise if we end it here. I'm satisfied with my presentation of my argument up until this point. It seems that you all are satified with yours as well. Let's just end it with some class before it degrades. It's been mostly fun and entirely educational for me. Thank you. Good show. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 12:29
Profile
Homepage
Originally by Stillness: quote:FYT = Fixed Your Typo Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 5360
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 12:47
Profile
Or, **** You Too. You pick the meaning. :) -------------------- May the fires of Undeath burn in your soul, and consume it. Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 13:34
Profile
Ah, thanks Dikiyoba. I thought that was a bit out of character. I googled it, but didn't think "Flint Youth Theater" fit. I assumed Necro's suggestion. Sorry SoT. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 19:41
Profile
Homepage
quote:You are only proving SoT's point more. You've gone at least twenty pages avoiding SoT's fairly simple question, which was posed within the first few pages of the original thread. You're okay with that? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 20:58
Profile
*sigh* Irreducible complexity didnt come up until the end of the last thread after I brought it up and began to explain why it's a marker to intelligent action. So what you said is not true. I didn't duck then nor am I now. In actuality you're the one ducking right now. Everytime you and SoT post you're waving you're arms making claims that I'm not forthcoming. But, the simple truth is there for anyone with eyes. I say let's compare side by side. One side is there (mine) but the other side (yours) is missing. You say my logic is weak. But yours is nonexistent. I've shown how what I say fits reality. So yes, I am satisfied with my presentation. Are you satisfied with yours? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Thursday, May 24 2007 22:37
Profile
Homepage
Stillness, speaking as a fellow ID proponent, you're in the wrong on this one. You haven't actually presented a properly structured argument. And there's no point in asking for the same from common descent when your opponents are saying it doesn't even matter whether or not common descent is logical or defensible. Common descent could be completely discredited hogwash, but it wouldn't make any difference to whether or not ID is valid. This is something along the lines of what they're looking for: NOTE: THIS IS FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE DON'T BOTHER DEBATING THESE POINTS. Premise: All irreducibly complex systems that we have observed the creation of, such as cars*, airplanes*, and computers*, are the result of deliberate intelligent design. Premise: There have been no irreducibly complex systems observed to have been made by any other means. Assumption: The amount of time that we've been able to observe and record the emergence of new irreducibly complex systems (since the beginning of human civilization, let's say) is a sufficient sample to expect to be able to see all the ways irreducible complexity can arise. Assumption: Where there is only one observed mechanism for the creation of a type of thing, it is reasonable to assume that things of that type whose origins are not directly known were created by the same mechanism. Conclusion: Old irreducibly complex systems of whose origins we have no direct record (such as those found in nature) must have come about in the same way as more recent ones (such as cars*). That is, they are the result of deliberate intelligent design. * - Yes, I know these aren't technically irreducibly complex. But still. ---------------------- A logical argument, you see, is itself an irreducibly complex thing (and most definitely a product of intelligent design :) ). You've presented arguments, but they've been missing parts, and thus haven't been able to perform their function. Describe all the parts, rather than simply assuming them, and then the discussion can progress. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 05:44
Profile
Ash, good to see you’re out there. I appreciate the input. But I’m disappointed because I know it means I’m communicating poorly if you don’t get me. I didn’t say my modus ponens argument was the best. (I actually don’t think that form is ideal for this discussion and something more like what you presented – inference to the best explanation – is. I shot it back out hastily when I saw it was what they were requesting as I was pressed for time atm and knew I wouldn’t be responding for a while). I said let’s talk about it and didn’t disagree when they said it had problems. I wasn’t saying that my point was valid because they didn’t have one. I was saying let’s compare side by side. The reason being that it’s not enough for me to show them the basis for a different idea. I’ve been doing that and getting nowhere. I figure at the same time I need to show them the flimsy nature of the structure that supports their belief. So if they had given their argument or admitted that common descent is illogical or indefensible as an explanation of all complexity I would have proceeded to present something in a concise form as you have, but they did not. The interesting thing is that I have presented the points in your argument in one form or another multiple times throughout this discussion and my concise argument for irreducible complexity being a marker for intelligence would be something along those lines. Your last point that the present is a key to the past was actually discussed at some length early on in the last thread, if you remember. We talked about uniformitarianism and Ockham’s razor. So when I’m saying I’m satisfied with my presentation I mean it as a whole, not some 3 line argument that I rushed out that I admit calls for explanation. But, for me to spend anymore time on it I have to know it’s reasonable people I’m talking to at this point. *Cars, planes, and computers are not irreducible, but they certainly have irreducible systems without which they wouldn’t function. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 05:56
Profile
On a side note, I'm not an IDer in the strict sense. I never quite understood why someone would believe that guided evolution is a good explanation. Only the fossil record could show such a thing, but it doesn't. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 07:44
Profile
Homepage
Stillness, it took us at least ten or so pages to realize that you believed that evolution occurs and were arguing for some variety of special creation. Your posts on this thread have not been marked by the greatest clarity, and when I try to string them together to make them stick together logically, you tell me that I'm wrong. That's why people have been trying for a while now to get you to articulate, from start to finish, whatever the hell you're trying to say. The only answer you've really given to claims that your argument uses poor logic is to assert that science typically uses worse logic than you're using. That's not a very good defense, because if you're wrong, you're wrong, and if you're right, your model is a scientific model, but all of science is unsound. Either way, you're on shaky ground. Real scientific models don't require being laid side-by-side with something else in order to be verified. One doesn't have to know about Ptolemy's model of the universe in order to know that Kepler's works, and one doesn't have to know about Kepler's to know that Ptolemy's doesn't (at least with modern experimental accuracy). Creationism always tries to defend itself on the basis of perceived problems with evolution, which makes sense but is not strictly necessary. Therefore, for the purposes of making this discussion work, I'll grant — and presume that we'll revisit this later, because this isn't really true — that I don't actually have any argument for evolution and common descent. Let's say that your creationism is the only idea in existence. You still have to articulate it clearly, from start to finish, and make sense. You've articulated most of it, and I've conceded just about every point imagineable in order to focus, for the moment, on this one. You just have to answer the question that SoT and I have been posing for a while. I'll repeat it. Why does the statement, "Irreducibly complex systems that have been created within the past few decades under our verified observation have all been the result of purposeful agency," imply the truth of the statement, "All irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency"? -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |