Conclusive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

I would like to listen to a catholic on here argue with Cardinal George Pell in regards to evolution -30 minutes in, the old Cardinal claims we came from Neanderthals!!! Awesome!!! Love this guy!
40 minutes in he will not succumb to intelligent design quackery, and a few minutes after that he states that an atheist can go to heaven…

youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA&feature=related

1. Belief in evolution is consistent with Design.
2. Cardinals are not infallible.
3. There is no reason why sincere atheists cannot go to heaven - provided they lead a good life…

 

[Trurl]

Is your claim here that bees created their own language? or they have no minds?

Obvious. That language simply developed without anyone or anything “designing” it. Bees do not have a brain which would support a “mind”. All their “knowledge” is pre-wired, they are born with it.

You are trying to communicate to me with a language or cipher of your own creation? If so, give me the key.

You fail the test. You were supposed to point your CSI-meter and tell me if it is a cipher, or just a random hodgpodge of characters. That shows the precise value of your CSI meter. No, I am not going to tell you the solution. Bring your CSI meter to the “store” and demand your money back, because you have been fooled…

As a matter of fact, it is all bogus, concocted by that stup-ID Dembsky. He bamboozled some people into believeing that he came came up with this magical contraption, which he can point at something and tell if it came from a natural, undesigned source, or if there is a conscious, thinking mind behind it. Of course his “instrument” is just an empty matchbox, he points it at something, and exclaims: “Wow, that sure looks complicated to me, so it must have been designed”… and some poor suckers swallow that ID-iotic claim.

Of course, with any instrument, which is supposed to separate the goats from the sheep, the first thing would be to calibrate it, to see if it gives either false positives and/or false negatives. Since according to the “users” of this gadget everything was designed by God, there is nothing to point at, and see if it was not designed.

And when I give them a genuine puzzle of those strange characters, the CSI-meter is baffled. Tough luck, buddy. You bought a piece of junk… just like those other poor suckers who bought the merchandise of a snake-oil peddler.

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to be implying that it makes no difference whether the universe was designed or not.

It seems to me that question makes all the difference in the world. If the universe does have a purpose, i.e., it is here because a supernatural Cause with intent put it here, then trying to understand the purpose for the universe would be paramount because it affords the possibility of working in harmony rather than at cross purposes with the ends intended by this causal Agent.

Furthermore, even if you believe that faith founded on revelation provides an understanding and motive for belief in God, then the secondary “data” of intended design that can be reasonably derived from nature would provide a kind of corroborating support for the interpretation of revelation.

I believe the traditional Catholic view is that God has written two “books:” Scripture and Nature. The two books augment and support each other in aiding natural reason to understand the revealed Word. In the Catholic view God has also worked in history to write his intentions into the experience (inspired tradition) of humankind. This is where the magisterium of the Church comes in. It is the amalgamation of inspired human wisdom guiding humanity.

Thirdly, Christ is the Logos or “Word” of God, “through whom all things were made.” He is the “Intelligence” (Logos means the principle of order and knowledge) that designed all that has been made. So understanding the design gives us clues into the mind of the Logos, the Christ, who designed it. In a real sense, denying the design is denying the Designer, Christ.

This is kind of a Sherlock Holmesian view of creation. By analyzing the “crime” scene, we can deduce certain things about the agent(s) who left it behind. Doing so, however, presupposes that you allow for the possibility of an agent (or agents) who “did it.”

Intelligent Design proponents are deliberately being careful about what conclusions can be drawn from the actual design evidence, which is why most of them will hesitate and conclude that the evidence, to date, does not adequately demonstrate a theistic conception of God, but only an undetermined intelligent agent.

Naysayers, obviously, deny intelligence by presumption rather than preponderance of evidence.

Dismissing the possibility of intelligent cause in the natural order outright is like a forensic pathologist who a priori refuses to entertain the possibility of someone having committing the crime to begin with, claiming that only natural causes brought it about, even though vast evidence exists to show the probative likelihood of design.

This kind of skeptic insists on defending their position by assuming (without warrant) that design is merely a subset of human activity and cannot be extrapolated to nature, missing the point that human design exists only as a subset of the larger design found in nature (Buffalo and others’ position).

To regard human design as an inexplicable freak of nature is to undermine the validity of reasoning because it implies we are incapable of planning anything!

 

[Trurl]

Complexity is the measure of the design.

Nonsense. There is the Mandelbrot set. Was it “designed”? Nope, it is the result of a simple iteration. The most complicated structure we know of, is not the biological life, it is not even the human brain and mind. It is the human society, with billions of people, who form trillions of connections, interactions every second. We have a few tools (statistics, economics, social sciences) to have a glimpse into that incredible “mess”, we call human society - which most certainly was NOT designed at all. It keeps on changing and evolving without an outside overseer, a manipulator. On the other hand a child can take three pencils, put them on the table, and form a triangle. That is extremely simple, and yet “designed” by that kid.

Forget about that ID-iot Dembsky. He peddles snake-oil.

Recognizing complexity is a function of the abilities of the one trying to ascertain it. The CSI content is designed in. One can recognize design because it was cognized to begin with.

Your CSI meter failed so far, many times. As a matter of fact it ONLY failed.

you - You cannot start with the end result, and ascertain its origin. me - So there is no sense in studying the origins of life?

It depends. But studying is not the same as empty speculation. To try to set up experiments and see if abiogenesis occurs, is an interesting project. So far the results are not fully conclusive yet, but they do not point to some “God”.

The universe is designed and therefore so is everything in it. We do not totally understand the purpose of a rock. The designer does, since it occurs within the frame he designed/created.

Haha! So why bother with your ID-iotic CSI meter? It will give you a false positive every time… except when you try to point it to something like those funny symbols I gave you.

Since according to you everything was designed (obviously by God), there is no point is continuing. I will leave you with the puzzle of those symbols. Keep on pointing that empty matchbox at them, and see if the “dial” (which was simply painted on it) will “move” and magically give you the solution. Or better yet… wake up.

 

[tonyrey]

Firstly I would say tonrey thank you for responding to the questions I posed - the only person to do it.

I have often said I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Thank you. My mother was Irish; God bless her.

However, I have to disagree with you. I will explain why.

Intelligent design - is it not all about a God? The reason I say this relates to the questions I posed. You talk about a philosophical interpretation, metaphysical etc. etc.
I pose the questions I did because God calls us to develop and nurture the faith of others. What you have said are not answers to the questions I posed. If we can prove beyond any doubt there is an intelligent designer - OK, there is an intelligent designer, and the point is? Why do we need to believe in an intelligent designer? This is a question an atheist may pose to you. Why do they need to believe there is an intelligent designer? Can we believe whatever we choose in relation to the intelligent designer? If we do not know who the intelligent designer is, why not and does it matter? I have no objection to using scientific evidence in relation to support belief. I have a vested interest in the relationship between science and religion. But if we are to use science to develop and nurture faith in others, there has to be a reason.
I pose the question again. If there is an intelligent designer, who is the intelligent designer? What benefit lies in believing in the intelligent designer? I pose these questions because I would argue it is not enough to establish an intelligent designer. If we are to draw people to God, which I believe we are charged to do, it is not enough to assert there is an intelligent designer. There needs to be a reason for belief in an intelligent designer, and a reason to enter into a relationship with the intelligent designer.

1. Your aim is evangelism which is out of place on a philosophy forum.
2. Atheistic evangelism is equally out of place on a philosophy forum.
3. Philosophy is the quest for truth regardless of its implications.
4. The topic is Design and not the existence of God.
5. Design provides **a rational basis **for belief in the existence of God but the existence of God is not the topic.
6. There are other threads on which the existence of God is discussed.
7. No one is obliged to participate in this discussion if it does not fulfil their aims!

 

[tonyrey]

Buffalo,

You must realize by now the futility of arguing with someone (who shall go unnamed) who thinks he enjoys the personal privilege of setting the ground rules of a game and the authority to change them when he feels it to his advantage to do so.

He is convinced that he is being completely consistent when he can claim in one instance (post #110):
*You cannot even find out if a “rock” is inanimate or not. I will assert that the rock is alive, it walks, it talks, it eats, it procreates, but the timescale is so different, that we cannot detect any of these activities. The lifespan of the rock is 100 million years. One second in the life of that rock equals our whole lifetime. There is no way to detect what that rock does at this moment. (I am sorry to say but this example was not my concoction. Michael Crichton used it in the “Andromeda Strain”.)*Then follow up with:
*"There is no such thing as “inherent” complexity.*He sees no inconsistency by posturing the impossibility of even minimal knowledge in the first instance, but absolute certainty of knowledge in the second.

Obviously, it is impossible to score points on someone who can move the goalposts on a whim or choose which socks to put in the drawer.

That sums it up perfectly! From the sublime…

 

[minkymurph]

You seem to be implying that it makes no difference whether the universe was designed or not.

It was certainly not my intention to imply that, and it is certainly not what I think.

What I was attempting to state (not imply) was the purpose of intelligent design is not scientific inquiry, but rather proof for the existence of God. Fine with me, I have no problem with that. But in my view it is somewhat dishonest to infer or state the purpose of intelligent design is purely scientific inquiry when it is not. If it can be established there is an intelligent designer, then surely the next natural step is who is the intelligent designer? As such, the purpose of intelligent design is the direct others to God. I personally don’t understand why some who support intelligent design would argue it is not.

a priori

refuses to entertain the possibility of someone having committing the crime to begin with, claiming that only natural causes brought it about, even though vast evidence exists to show the probative likelihood of design.

This kind of skeptic insists on defending their position by assuming (without warrant) that design is merely a subset of human activity and cannot be extrapolated to nature, missing the point that human design exists only as a subset of the larger design found in nature (Buffalo and others’ position).

I think the rest of this is answered above.

 

[minkymurph]

Thank you. My mother was Irish; God bless her.

1. Your aim is evangelism which is out of place on a philosophy forum.
2. Atheistic evangelism is equally out of place on a philosophy forum.
3. Philosophy is the quest for truth regardless of its implications.
4. The topic is Design and not the existence of God.
5. Design provides **a rational basis **for belief in the existence of God but the existence of God is not the topic.
6. There are other threads on which the existence of God is discussed.
7. No one is obliged to participate in this discussion if it does not fulfil their aims!

That’s one thing I love about being Irish - so many people have an Irish connection.:irish2:

My aim is not evangelism. It was not my intention to evangelize when I posted. Intelligent design neither fulfills my aim, nor does not fulfill my aim. In fact, I do not have an aim in regard to posting on this thread - merely an opinion.

My point, not my aim, was that in my view the existence of God and evangelizing is exactly what intelligent design is all about.

To illustrate -

If one were to acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer, would that acknowledgment alone suffice for those who endorse and promote intelligent design?

As I wrote to another poster, would the next natural step following acknowledgment of an intelligent designer not be - who or what is the intelligent designer?

If one were to state, ‘Yes, there is an intelligent designer, but among other things I do not believe the intelligent designer is God, the intelligent designer is interested in individuals and desires a personal relationship with them, or gave us a code of morality to live by.’ Would those who endorse and promote intelligent design be content with that?

My answer to the above questions would be ‘no,’ and that is the basis on which I state the existence of God and evangelizing is exactly what intelligent design is about. On that basis it could further be argued threads on intelligent design are out of place in philosophy forum as the theory has a religious agenda. Personally speaking, I’m not concerned about it being in a philosophy forum at all. I’m merely stating it could be argued it should not be.

 

[buffalo]

Obvious. That language simply developed without anyone or anything “designing” it. Bees do not have a brain which would support a “mind”. All their “knowledge” is pre-wired, they are born with it.

You fail the test. You were supposed to point your CSI-meter and tell me if it is a cipher, or just a random hodgpodge of characters. That shows the precise value of your CSI meter. No, I am not going to tell you the solution. Bring your CSI meter to the “store” and demand your money back, because you have been fooled…

As a matter of fact, it is all bogus, concocted by that stup-ID Dembsky. He bamboozled some people into believeing that he came came up with this magical contraption, which he can point at something and tell if it came from a natural, undesigned source, or if there is a conscious, thinking mind behind it. Of course his “instrument” is just an empty matchbox, he points it at something, and exclaims: “Wow, that sure looks complicated to me, so it must have been designed”… and some poor suckers swallow that ID-iotic claim.

Of course, with any instrument, which is supposed to separate the goats from the sheep, the first thing would be to calibrate it, to see if it gives either false positives and/or false negatives. Since according to the “users” of this gadget everything was designed by God, there is nothing to point at, and see if it was not designed.

And when I give them a genuine puzzle of those strange characters, the CSI-meter is baffled. Tough luck, buddy. You bought a piece of junk… just like those other poor suckers who bought the merchandise of a snake-oil peddler.

Pre-wired - where did the information come from?

The CSI meter has a range. Some designs barely register on the meter. The more complex the design the higher it reads. Whatever the baseline, the change is what is really important. Much like two speedometers that both read 100MPH higher. One car shows 110 the other 160. The difference is 50. Which one is going faster?

I am not interested in trying to figure out if your silly characters mean anything. I will leave that to a professional cryptographer who has the tools.

 

[buffalo]

Nonsense. There is the Mandelbrot set. Was it “designed”? Nope, it is the result of a simple iteration. The most complicated structure we know of, is not the biological life, it is not even the human brain and mind. It is the human society, with billions of people, who form trillions of connections, interactions every second. We have a few tools (statistics, economics, social sciences) to have a glimpse into that incredible “mess”, we call human society - which most certainly was NOT designed at all. It keeps on changing and evolving without an outside overseer, a manipulator. On the other hand a child can take three pencils, put them on the table, and form a triangle. That is extremely simple, and yet “designed” by that kid.

Forget about that ID-iot Dembsky. He peddles snake-oil.

Your CSI meter failed so far, many times. As a matter of fact it ONLY failed.

It depends. But studying is not the same as empty speculation. To try to set up experiments and see if abiogenesis occurs, is an interesting project. So far the results are not fully conclusive yet, but they do not point to some “God”.

Haha! So why bother with your ID-iotic CSI meter? It will give you a false positive every time… except when you try to point it to something like those funny symbols I gave you.

Since according to you everything was designed (obviously by God), there is no point is continuing. I will leave you with the puzzle of those symbols. Keep on pointing that empty matchbox at them, and see if the “dial” (which was simply painted on it) will “move” and magically give you the solution. Or better yet… wake up.

Do you deny design exists?

You discount the complexity of the DNA language whose sequences have a front and back reading message. You discount the sheer amount of information packed in each and every living cell.

Offer me your best source that human society was not designed.

So says you - Demski and the CSI meter.

Abiogenesis - not conclusive? They have not offered anything.

Set up your own experiment. Look outside first and tell me if you see anything CREATED by man.

Look at your computer and compare it to your chair? Which is more complex? Willing to answer this simple question?

 

[buffalo]

That sums it up perfectly! From the sublime…

The reason to argue science is that is their only playground. I meet them on their own turf and then we can all watch the fireworks.

Philosophy - I find very few who non believers who even have a clue. We cannot get them to philosophy until they understand where science leaves off and philosophy begins.

 

[tonyrey]

My aim is not evangelism. It was not my intention to evangelize when I posted. Intelligent design neither fulfills my aim, nor does not fulfill my aim. In fact, I do not have an aim in regard to posting on this thread - merely an opinion.

My point, not my aim, was that in my view the existence of God and evangelizing is exactly what intelligent design is all about.

To illustrate -

If one were to acknowledge the existence of an intelligent designer, would that acknowledgment alone suffice for those who endorse and promote intelligent design?

Thomas Nagel, the professor of philosophy at New York University, is an atheist and doesn’t even want to believe God exists but admits there is a case for Design because he is sceptical about scientific explanations of reasoning. That is as far as he goes!

As I wrote to another poster, would the next natural step following acknowledgment of an intelligent designer not be - who or what is the intelligent designer?

If one were to state, ‘Yes, there is an intelligent designer, but among other things I do not believe the intelligent designer is God, the intelligent designer is interested in individuals and desires a personal relationship with them, or gave us a code of morality to live by.’ Would those who endorse and promote intelligent design be content with that?

My answer to the above questions would be ‘no,’ and that is the basis on which I state the existence of God and evangelizing is exactly what intelligent design is about. On that basis it could further be argued threads on intelligent design are out of place in philosophy forum as the theory has a religious agenda. Personally speaking, I’m not concerned about it being in a philosophy forum at all. I’m merely stating it could be argued it should not be.

If that were the case atheism should also be struck off the Philosophy forum - which is absurd! The beauty of philosophy is that it is based on freedom of thought and discussion. To impose limits on what can be discussed in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and the philosophy of religion is contrary to the spirit of independent investigation of all subjects related to reality.

Design is not about evangelisation but about seeking the truth about whether or not existence has a rational, purposeful foundation. No one is compelled to discuss the question but no one should be prohibited from discussing it on the ground that they have an ulterior motive! If individuals have a religious agenda their statements will not stand up to logical analysis because they will invoke Revelation or other non-philosophical sources.

Jesus obviously had a theological mission but He confronted non-believers on their own terms by pointing to the beauty of the lilies as evidence that they are designed. Both theists and atheists have presented philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God throughout history because it is one of the most important subjects in the intellectual development of mankind. To impose censorship on it is totally unjustified from every point of view.

 

[tonyrey]

The reason to argue science is that is their only playground. I meet them on their own turf and then we can all watch the fireworks.

Philosophy - I find very few who non believers who even have a clue. We cannot get them to philosophy until they understand where science leaves off and philosophy begins.

Indeed! Many of them equate non-scientific explanations with religious explanations - which is obviously false. They need to understand the limitations of science and its philosophical implications. To attempt to base science on itself is a futile enterprise. It is an implicit form of materialism because it excludes all other types of knowledge…

 

[mattdantuono]

Hi all,

I recommend Etienne Gilson’s book “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.” He explores the nature of finality (design in a loose sense) in the philosophy and science of Aristotle, Darwin, and others. It is a quick read and worth the effort. He brings up some good criteria for judging matters like this.

 

[tonyrey]

Hi all,

I recommend Etienne Gilson’s book “From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again.” He explores the nature of finality (design in a loose sense) in the philosophy and science of Aristotle, Darwin, and others. It is a quick read and worth the effort. He brings up some good criteria for judging matters like this.

Thanks, Matt. Welcome to the forum.

I read Gilson many years ago and found him a source of inspiration! French logic at its best…

 

[minkymurph]

Thomas Nagel, the professor of philosophy at New York University, is an atheist and doesn’t even want to believe God exists but admits there is a case for Design because he is sceptical about scientific explanations of reasoning. That is as far as he goes!

As a atheist that would be as far as he would go, wouldn’t it? I know many people who would say, ‘OK, so there may be an intelligent designer. So what?’ I stress that is not my personal opinion. In my view, who or what the intelligent designer is only significant to those with a religious belief. It’s not particularly significant to those who do not have a religious belief, or certainly not as significant.

If Thomas Nagel, an atheist, admits (interesting choice of phrase) there is a case for intelligent design, would you say that is sufficient and the theory has achieved it’s purpose? Thomas Nagel admits there is a case? Or is it fair to say the purpose of promoting intelligent design and have it recognized by the scientific world goes beyond that?

If that were the case atheism should also be struck off the Philosophy forum - which is absurd! The beauty of philosophy is that it is based on freedom of thought and discussion. To impose limits on what can be discussed in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and the philosophy of religion is contrary to the spirit of independent investigation of all subjects related to reality.

Then can it be said it is equally absurd to propose an opinion stated to the effect that intelligent design has a religious agenda is ‘out of place’ on a thread in a philosophy forum, suggest such an opinion be referred to a thread concerning the existence of God, and suggest the person who posted the opinion has a desire for a particular thread to fulfill their individual aim and evangelize?

Design is not about evangelisation but about seeking the truth about whether or not existence has a rational, purposeful foundation. No one is compelled to discuss the question but no one should be prohibited from discussing it on the ground that they have an ulterior motive! If individuals have a religious agenda their statements will not stand up to logical analysis because they will invoke Revelation or other non-philosophical sources.

Your statement causes me to wonder how a ‘non-philosophical’ source may be defined and if it possible and beneficial to consider whether or not there is an intelligent designer in the absence of anything other than a philosophical source?

This is my difficulty with intelligent design. It is presumed in the first instance an intelligent designer exists, as opposed to we don’t know whether there is an intelligent designer or not and we will look at the evidence and then determine whether or not and intelligent designer exists. Not that it is necessarily wrong to presume what is true in the first instance and then look for evidence to support it. We all have a predisposition in terms of what we believe is true and we are entitled to that.

However, is it not fair to say that in the first instance not only is it presumed the intelligent designer exists, but the intelligent designer is God? I know that has not been stated, but I would be of the opinion that is what is thought. That is the basis for my conclusion it has a religious agenda. I may be wrong and feel free to correct me, but is it not fair to say that generally speaking, atheists have not and do not put the same same degree of time and effort into developing the theory of intelligent design?

As contemporary thinking appears to place greater credence on science than any other academic discipline, and as you quite rightly say Jesus confronted non-believers on their own terms, I take your point concerning seeking to establish a rational, purposeful foundation for what one believes to be truth. Therefore, using scientific evidence to establish the existence of an intelligent designer has a rational, purposeful foundation has it’s merits. However, is it not fair to say the reason Jesus confronted non-believers on their own terms was not solely for the purpose of giving what he taught a rational, purposeful foundation, but ultimately for the purpose of instilling belief? If that is the purpose of intelligent design, fair enough. If it is not the purpose, I personally don’t see what purpose it serves.

In my view, a logical, purposeful foundation for any opinion, belief or theory is significant for three reasons -

1. One desires to convince others it true.
2. Self-satisfaction. (What I think has a logical, purposeful foundation and I’m happy with that)
3. It makes for a good topic of debate for one’s own enjoyment, and it doesn’t really matter whether it’s true or not.

Both theists and atheists have presented philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God throughout history because it is one of the most important subjects in the intellectual development of mankind. To impose censorship on it is totally unjustified from every point of view.

Think I covered this.

 

[Trurl]

The CSI meter has a range. Some designs barely register on the meter. The more complex the design the higher it reads. Whatever the baseline, the change is what is really important. Much like two speedometers that both read 100MPH higher. One car shows 110 the other 160. The difference is 50. Which one is going faster?

Oh, please. Enough of the BS-ing. Show me your CSI meter. It failed so far on every test I gave you.

I am not interested in trying to figure out if your silly characters mean anything. I will leave that to a professional cryptographer who has the tools.

Haha! That is NOT the question. You are supposed to point your CSI-meter at them, and see if they are a cryptographic text, or some random characters. Do you say that your precious CSI-meter cannot work without a professional cryptographer? You are hilarous! By the way. if you happen to find a professional cryptographer, and pass the buck… don’t forget to mention him that the author of that little riddle has a Mother tongue different from English. That should come handy. You see, I am even willing to give you a hint!

Offer me your best source that human society was not designed.

Will the catholic church do? It “teaches” that humans have free will - in other words our actions are not “dictated” by an exteranl agency. The point is that human society is much more “complicated” than anything else of Earth. And it was NOT designed.

Of course all this is futile. You already showed your true colors, when you said that “everything” is designed. As such your CSI-meter - concocted by Dumbski (the pun is inteded) is completely useless.

 

[buffalo]

Oh, please. Enough of the BS-ing. Show me your CSI meter. It failed so far on every test I gave you.

Haha! That is NOT the question. You are supposed to point your CSI-meter at them, and see if they are a cryptographic text, or some random characters. Do you say that your precious CSI-meter cannot work without a professional cryptographer? You are hilarous! By the way. if you happen to find a professional cryptographer, and pass the buck… don’t forget to mention him that the author of that little riddle has a Mother tongue different from English. That should come handy. You see, I am even willing to give you a hint!

Will the catholic church do? It “teaches” that humans have free will - in other words our actions are not “dictated” by an exteranl agency. The point is that human society is much more “complicated” than anything else of Earth. And it was NOT designed.

Of course all this is futile. You already showed your true colors, when you said that “everything” is designed. As such your CSI-meter - concocted by Dumbski (the pun is inteded) is completely useless.

You believe there exists an actual CSI meter you can by at Radio Shack? Wow…

As I said before I do not really care to work on the characters you gave me.

Free will is understood by the Catholic Church and is not dictated. However, one could argue that the boundaries of the frame limit free will to some extent. In other words we cannot make a free will choice in say the 10th dimension if it exists, because we cannot go there.

Human life was designed to propagate. The social network you call complicated is a result of a design coming to fruition.

Your refusal to answer the question on what is more complex tells me much.

Now you have to deny design.

 

[Trurl]

The reason to argue science is that is their only playground. I meet them on their own turf and then we can all watch the fireworks.

What science? You have no clue what science is. You claim that Mr. Dumbski developed a device which can tell if something is “designed” or not. We accept your claim as legitimate. We can accept this claim as a working hypothesis - because that is how real science works. It does not matter how outlandish a claim sounds (within reason of course) it can be investigated and see if the claim delivers what it claims. And then we start to look into the details… and your “device” is going up in smoke… not fireworks!

First problem: where is this device? Is there a working prototype? Nope, there is none.

Then we demand - according to real science - to see the calibration of this “hypothetical” device, to see if it can tell a designed object apart from a random, haphazard arrangement of objects. So I presented a collection of symbols, and asked you to point your “device” at them, and figure out if there is a “design” behind them, or are they just a random collection of symbols. You are unable to do it. (By the way, I still chuckle when I see your futile efforts to figure it out). One of these days, if you grovel and ask nicely, I might tell you the solution.

Then you presented this ID-iotic principle that “complexity equals design”. No argument for it, just presented as a basic principle. As if: “simple thing = no design” and “complex thing = design”. So I show you a simple triangle designed by a child, and your “CSI meter” cannot see the design. Then I show you an extremely complex arrangement: “the Mandelbrot set” or the “human society” and your “CSI meter” is dumbfounded… it cannot see that these configuration are all “undesigned”. Of course you fail to define the “level of complexity” which will separate the “designed” from the “undesigned” -which makes your whole approach a matter of laugh.

So… you have been “had” by this snake-oil peddler of “Dumbski”. There is no CSI, no meter, only a futile desire to find a design, where there is none.

An then you deliver your final irrationality and say that the “whole universe was designed”! How pathetic. First you try to “prove” God existence through “design”, and when it fails, then you reverse the idea, and say that everything was designed - thus making your “CSI-meter” irrelevant.

As for the idea of “complexity” which some other “ID-iots” cannot comprehend. A “thing” seems to be complex, if you are not familiar with its details, and the rules that govern it. If you look at the instument panel of an airplane, it is mind-bogglingly “complicated” - BECAUSE you are not familiar with it. If you hear a conversation conducted in a foreign language it sounds like gibberish, because your ears and your mind are not familiar with the pattern. For the pilots and for those who already speak the language there is no “complexity”, only a familiar, simple playground. Complexity is not an inherent attribute, rather it is the result of the patterns of the object AND the knowledge of the observer. For someone who knows the details, everything is simple. For someone who is not familiar with the system, everything is complicated. And your “precious” and stupID Dumbski cannot understand it.

Summary: you are as far from science as you can be. Your “guru”, Mr. Dumbski is an IDiot. There is no CSI meter, there is no way to detect “design”. You may believe that the universe was “designed”, but there is no supporting argument for it. It is all blind faith. And there is NO need for such a support, since you already believe that everything was designed.

 

[Trurl]

You believe there exists an actual CSI meter you can by at Radio Shack? Wow…

So it is all smoke and mirrors. There is no CSI meter anywhere… of course… it only exists in your mind… but it STILL does not work!

As I said before I do not really care to work on the characters you gave me.

Of course not… since you are already dumbfounded by the puzzle… and God forbid you would have the honesty to admit it. But, if you would ask me… nicely…

Free will is understood by the Catholic Church and is not dictated. However, one could argue that the boundaries of the frame limit free will to some extent. In other words we cannot make a free will choice in say the 10th dimension if it exists, because we cannot go there.

Haha! So the human society is NOT designed. But again it would take intellectual honesty to admit it.

Human life was designed to propagate. The social network you call complicated is a result of a design coming to fruition.

Nonsense. Any life propagates itself.

Your refusal to answer the question on what is more complex tells me much.

Comparing two designed objects (chair and computer) is futile. Of course the computer is more complicated. So what?

Now you have to deny design.

Why should I? There are lots of designed objects… but we are ONLY able to say that they are designed, because we ALREADY know that they are designed - not because they are “complicated”.