I have now met a real life creationist.

[wilson]

Not exclusively:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/complexity

It means that there are feedback loops in the equation where the values of the input variables change depending on the result. So the result keeps changing each time you calculate it.
A good example is the weather. The physical processes involved area very simple and straightforward. But it is complex which means that it's almost impossible to calculate.
Something being complex is not hard to design.

That design would have to come from an intelligent mind.

Especially not if you're using an evolutionary approach. The fact that the universe is complex is a clue that it came about by natural forces using an evolutionary mechanic. That's as true for orbits of planets as it is for life on Earth.

But this is very basic science. If you paid attention in school you should already know this?

This response is also diversionary. I will have to repeat my objection:
"Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place."

Why?

Why what? Why object? The sun is an arrangement that works in harmony with other factors, the result of which is benefit to earth and its inhabitants. You are not in a position to say if the sun benefits any other planet.
Earth does not benefit the sun. It is the other way 'round, and you cannot debunk that fact.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. I'm pretty sure you can explain it.

Again?

And to quote Einstein, if you can't explain something simply then you don't know it well enough.

Irrelevant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Earth does not benefit the sun. It is the other way 'round, and you cannot debunk that fact.

Exactly how does the sun benefit The Earth?
I'll agree that some life on Earth evolved to take advantage of the energy afforded by sunlight. But that's not 'The Earth.'
How does the rock orbiting the sun get a 'benefit?'

I think you'll be unable to explain this in any rational sense.

 

[Ford]

You are not in a position to say if the sun benefits any other planet.

This is officially the dumbest thing I've read all day.

 

[wilson]

This one doesn't even understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

As has already been pointed out, wilson's argument is classic special pleading.

"Special pleading!" That's nonsense because it is philosophy and philosophy is foolishness.

That's really anyone's magic spaceman really is, special pleading, maybe even special pleading from the comfort of a mental wheelchair. The real issue is that the wilson doesn't know the mental wheelchair isn't needed anymore, hasn't a clue, doesn't know what walking is let alone how to do it.

That could be easily turned around to explain the hold that philosophy has on you. You are unable to think without it, and you use it to try to belittle others who do not subscribe to it.

Very tough position to hold in a scientific world. Classic example of what Sagan called 'clinging to cherished illusions.'

Irrelevant!
I say philosophy is foolishness and I am prepared to respond to any challenge of that statement.

 

[blastula]

You need philosophy to refute philosophy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You are not in a position to say if the sun benefits any other planet.

This is officially the dumbest thing I've read all day.

Wait.
He'll say that you can't think without philosophy, but he'll mean it as an insult.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I say philosophy is foolishness and I am prepared to respond to any challenge of that statement.

philosophy is the intellectual part of any human discipline.
If you have an opinion about philosophy, that IS a philosophy.

 

[wilson]

Define "design" in a testable way.

Look at the list.

Evolution is natural unguided design.

Evolution is not fact. It is an unproved and unprovable idea.

The solar system is unguided design.

Then it shouldn't make sense and it could not be relied upon. The opposite is true in both cases.

Your definition is useless because you are calling everything designed.

You have given no reason why you think it is useless.

What would be an example of an undesigned universe or feature? And explain why.

Can't think of one. Design permeates the whole shebang.

Answer that if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't have to because I don't believe any of it is undesigned.

You want to prove there was design by your god person designer.

I have not tried to prove it and I don't need to. The excellence of the design speaks for itself.

This is circular.

Nope! You can detect a good writer or artist by the quality of his work.

You need to show what about the universe requires a god person to design any part of it.

Complexity. For it to be necessary, planned, useful, modeled, functional, economical, intentional, practical, superior, arranged, draftable, orderly, having a designated objective, having a designated purpose, having functions capable of imitation, and worthy of imitation, it must be highly complex.

These are all vague, meaningless and subjective factors. They need to be more specific and testable.

Then let's go over them, one by one and see if the are vague or meaningless. They are all specific and testable.

Since you are claiming forces are designed, you need to show how there could not be physical forces if there were no god.

If I said that, I would prove it; but I didn't, so I don't.

Yes, you did by implication.

You misunderstand. I did not say there could not be physical forces if there were no god, so I don't need to show that.
But, along those lines, life itself is not a physical force. You have no idea of the origin of life even though you have been told.

You keep bringing up the sun and how its evidence of design.

Because it is a fact.

But we know the forces involved in producing the sun's "arrangement" as you like to call it.

You do not!

The sun wasn't poofed into existence, it's a result of unguided physical laws.

Laws cannot make themselves and laws cannot make anything else. If you think they can, show me.

If you are saying the sun is designed, then you are saying the designer is the physical forces.

That is your thought, not mine. The designer is the maker of those laws that cannot make themselves.

Or is it that you don't know there are physical forces involved?

What good are physical forces if there is no purpose to them? The physical forces you talk about have achieved something - a goal. That mean there is mind behind them.

Do you think the sun does what it does mysteriously and by magic?

Nope!

 

[Ford]

I retract my earlier statement.

 

[wilson]

You need philosophy to refute philosophy.

Only if you're a materialist. I can refute it with religion which has no theoretical basis.

 

[bilby]

You need philosophy to refute philosophy.

Only if you're a materialist. I can refute it with religion which has no theoretical basis.

Or, indeed, any basis at all other than the fevered imaginations of a bunch of bronze age nomads filtered through more than a thousand years of Byzantine power politics.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then I await your explanation of how the sun became complex on its own. You would have to show what went into the complexity, including all the relevant components. Remember - there is no such thing as more complexity from less.
I call it an arrangement because it does not and cannot operate on its own. It cannot keep itself in orbit and it certainly did not create the gravity that holds it in place."

Why?

I've explained how complexity works. You don't need any design to create something complex. Don't you mean "complicated"? Complicated is different. The orbit of the planets and the sun are not complicated. The physics involved are extremely simple. Complex, yes. But not complicated.

An example. When you're trying to cross the road, it's complex. Because if you start cross the road, the cars may or may not slow down. Them slowing down effects whether you continue or stop walking. We see similar things in chemical reactions. That's all complexity is. It can create bizarre and wonderous patterns. But no evidence of intelligence.

I maintain that you just don't understand the words you're using.

Why what? Why object? The sun is an arrangement that works in harmony with other factors, the result of which is benefit to earth and its inhabitants. You are not in a position to say if the sun benefits any other planet.
Earth does not benefit the sun. It is the other way 'round, and you cannot debunk that fact.

But the creation of the solar system was a godawful mess. Our solar system is the equivalent of given enough time a thousand monkeys will write the works of Shakespeare. Sooner or later it would have sorted itself and reached equilibrium. Which is what we always get with everything. It's simply physics. No intelligence required.

You seem pretty sure of yourself. I'm pretty sure you can explain it.

Again?

Try doing it for the first time?

 

[wilson]

Only if you're a materialist. I can refute it with religion which has no theoretical basis.

Or, indeed, any basis at all other than the fevered imaginations of a bunch of bronze age nomads filtered through more than a thousand years of Byzantine power politics.

Have you really tested their points of view? Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?
If your answer is "no," then I have a few really unique puzzles for you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If your answer is "no," then I have a few really unique puzzles for you.

Puzzles? Or just poetic images that can be shoehorned into modern scientific models and claimed as prescient?

These ARE people who thought that rainclouds would break apart from the burden of the water they carried if God didn't hold them together...

 

[funinspace]

I retract my earlier statement.

Is that philosophically or materialistically

 

[funinspace]

Or, indeed, any basis at all other than the fevered imaginations of a bunch of bronze age nomads filtered through more than a thousand years of Byzantine power politics.

Have you really tested their points of view?

Yes, I spent about a dozen adult years as an evangelic type Christian, after growing up in a mainstream Protestant church.

Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?

Tis funny...uhm, an emphatic no.

 

[wilson]

I've explained how complexity works.

You only think you did! There is no way you could "explain how complexity works" because no human fully understands that.

You don't need any design to create something complex.

That's like saying you don't need an engine in a car - IF your intention is to let it sit in one place like an exhibit. Design is inextricably linked to intention. You make these sweeping statements without any way of confirming them. Give me an example of your "creating" something complex without design.

Don't you mean "complicated"?

NO! I said what I meant.

Complicated is different.

Obviously.

The orbit of the planets and the sun are not complicated.

That's your word. I was not talking about "complicated."

The physics involved are extremely simple. Complex, yes. But not complicated.

You are trying to take this discussion in another direction.
In any case, you claim something is simple AFTER it has been explained to you and, in spite of the fact that you cannot duplicate it because of its complexity.

An example. When you're trying to cross the road, it's complex.

That's nonsense! You "simply" go from here to there.

Because if you start cross the road, the cars may or may not slow down.

Complexity is never based on a supposition.

Them slowing down effects whether you continue or stop walking.

The task is still simple. All you have to do is wait.

We see similar things in chemical reactions. That's all complexity is.

You contradict yourself. How on earth can you describe complexity as simple? The two are unalterably opposed to each other.

It can create bizarre and wonderous patterns. But no evidence of intelligence.

Designs and patterns are evidences of intelligence. Those patterns are evidences of physical laws that could not have installed nor enforced themselves.

I maintain that you just don't understand the words you're using.

I maintain the same things about you as evidenced by the contradictory things you just wrote.

Why what? Why object? The sun is an arrangement that works in harmony with other factors, the result of which is benefit to earth and its inhabitants. You are not in a position to say if the sun benefits any other planet.
Earth does not benefit the sun. It is the other way 'round, and you cannot debunk that fact.

But the creation of the solar system was a godawful mess.

You know of a better one? Show me one that's done the "right" way according to your standards.

Our solar system is the equivalent of given enough time a thousand monkeys will write the works of Shakespeare.

Time does not create, improve nor invent anything.

Sooner or later it would have sorted itself and reached equilibrium.

Equilibrium with what? Based on what precedent? Hope?

Which is what we always get with everything.

But that is so false!!! Is there reason to believe that there is some balancing or qualifying agent at work here?

It's simply physics. No intelligence required.

It takes intelligence to make laws - including the laws of physics.

 

[wilson]

Have you really tested their points of view?

Yes, I spent about a dozen adult years as an evangelic type Christian, after growing up in a mainstream Protestant church.

That is precisely why you do not know. You'll never learn it there.

Would you agree that those "bronze -age nomads" were wise beyond your wildest imaginations?

Tis funny...uhm, an emphatic no.

Let's check it out:
How did those "bronze-age nomads" know the shape of the earth:
“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)
and that it is "hanging on nothing?"
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)
WHO provided them with an accurate description of the earth's water cycle?:
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Not very funny - eh?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You only think you did! There is no way you could "explain how complexity works" because no human fully understands that.

Ehe... what? Have you bothered to even look it up? Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity

The definition is simple and straight forward. Anybody can intuitively understand complexity. You don't even need to know any maths. It's really simple.

You don't need any design to create something complex.

That's like saying you don't need an engine in a car - IF your intention is to let it sit in one place like an exhibit. Design is inextricably linked to intention. You make these sweeping statements without any way of confirming them. Give me an example of your "creating" something complex without design.

There's a problem here. Whatever example I give you'll just say "god did it". If you posit a omnipotent agent in a system whatever happens in the system can be attributed to the omnipotent agent. That doesn't prove the omnipotent agent did it or even exists. But it does make this conversation somewhat futile.

But I'll play along. The weather is complex. The physics involved is extremely simple and straight forward. No design. Still the weather is incredibly complex. The orbits of the planets, same deal. No design. Still complex.

Complexity is never based on a supposition.

That makes no sense. Why not?

Them slowing down effects whether you continue or stop walking.

The task is still simple. All you have to do is wait.

That's not the point. The point is that you can't walk while cars are coming.

You contradict yourself. How on earth can you describe complexity as simple? The two are unalterably opposed to each other.

The basic mechanics behind complexity is simple. I still think you're talking about things that are "complicated".

It can create bizarre and wonderous patterns. But no evidence of intelligence.

Designs and patterns are evidences of intelligence. Those patterns are evidences of physical laws that could not have installed nor enforced themselves.

That makes no sense. When it rains all the rain falls downward. That's a pattern. Evidence of intelligence? Or evidence of that when vapour travels far enough away from Earth it will at some point get cold and it'll condense.

But the creation of the solar system was a godawful mess.

You know of a better one? Show me one that's done the "right" way according to your standards.

I could invent one in my head that doesn't involve 13.7 billion years of rocks being mercilessly flung toward each other and make massive explosions. It hasn't stopped yet. Any day now a big fucker will pop out of the sky and ruin the day for everybody. Perhaps wipe out the human race. You know, one of those that killed the dinosaurs.

Sooner or later it would have sorted itself and reached equilibrium.

Equilibrium with what? Based on what precedent? Hope?

Second law of thermodynamics.

Which is what we always get with everything.

But that is so false!!! Is there reason to believe that there is some balancing or qualifying agent at work here?

We've studied this scientifically for quite a while now. I think we can be pretty confident this one works out.

It's simply physics. No intelligence required.

It takes intelligence to make laws - including the laws of physics.

he he... yes. But nature didn't make these laws. The laws of nature are just laws we've created to help us understand it. You are aware that the quantum mechanical laws and the laws of physics don't work out. They work out for a lot of things. But we know they're wrong. They must be wrong in some way. But we just can't figure out how. They're good enough to get us to the Moon. But the picture isn't complete.

There's no intelligence to be found anywhere.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How did those "bronze-age nomads" know the shape of the earth:
“There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth.”(Isaiah 40:22)

Some translations say 'compass' here. That thing you used in 7th grade math to draw flat circles on flat paper?
This is not the shape of the Earth as we understand it.

and that it is "hanging on nothing?"
“He stretches out the northern sky over empty space, suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

Ignoring the verses that say the Earth rests on solid foundations and does not move, I have to wonder who describes a sphere as 'stretched out' on one side?
It makes sense as an inside out snowglobe, though. The Northern Star being the high point of the firmament (that solid dome over the Earth), and floating somewhere between teh Waters Above and the Waters Below.

WHO provided them with an accurate description of the earth's water cycle?:
“All the streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Can't really claim that is a description of the water cycle until it describes HOW the waters return, can you?

Not very funny - eh?

Oh, no, it's fucking hilarious.
You have to pick and choose your verses, and squint, to pretend that any of this is accurate and prescient.

EVERY description of the Earth in The Books fits a Flat Earth cosmology.
The sky is solid, the sun and moon and stars roll around INSIDE the sky, the sun takes the night off, the stars are small enough that when they fall to Earth, they do NOT destroy absolutely everything that exists including the planet...

Hilarity.