(March 20, 2021 at 4:41 pm)polymath257 Wrote: OK, propose an observation. I'm certainly willing to listen.

What sort of observation would lead to the conclusion of design?

That is the basic question that has to be answered. Without that, no design claim can even get off the ground.

Firstly, if your inability to propose an observation isn't valid, why would my inability make a difference? Some propositions in science have taken years, if not decades, to observe. According to Wikipedia, gravitational waves were first proposed in 1893, more formally in 1905, and yet weren't possible to observe until 2016―that's a hundred year difference.

Secondly: Science is not a Courtroom. Your question places you squarely into the problem of induction and underdetermination. That is why I keep emphasizing falsification as the only logical approach. And I have already given the forum one approach to falsification using the following argument: A universe in which everything is designed, implies a universe in which everything can be designed; therefore, if anything in this universe cannot be designed, the universe is not designed. (I gave some descriptions of design here.)

Theories don't have to get off the ground, as you say, they have to be shot down. That is what is meant by conjecture and refutation.

(March 20, 2021 at 2:28 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 2:11 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Please don't waste our time.  Dembski's argument explicitly appealed to design in its grounding premises.

It doesn't matter what anyone appeals to (including your appeal to Dembski); you are still responsible for the validity of your own arguments. The premise that the universe was designed could be true, and the conclusion that life is irreducibly complex still be false. Obviously—many Christians believe God used evolution in his design. Irreducible complexity is specifically an argument against evolution. There's no debate here, so please don't waste my time.

Fine. You want to waste time. Let's do it. Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept. Irreducible complexity can be used to support many things but commonly it assumes a dichotomy exists in which life as we know it is either the result of natural forces or design. Dembski is the most prominent, cited, and well known utilizer of the concept so it is legitimate to posit his example as the defining one. But no matter, all you have to do is cite someone in the literature who explicitly argues that both design and natural processes are not the cause of life as we know it. You cannot reference articles that do not mention design as that is an invalid argument from silence.

ps. Stop blowing smoke up my ass. Claiming that there is no debate while debating the matter is so transparently untrue that I don't think I could construct a more obvious lie with a bag of pretzels, a case of beer, and all night to do it. You feigned umbrage at my calling you dishonest before, and said that reasonable dialogue was impossible after such an accusation. You neglected an important point which is that if you are dishonest and telling falsehoods, you've already made reasonable dialogue impossible and calling it out has no effect. So in the interest of reasonable dialogue, I want you to acknowledge that your claim that there is no debate is false.

pps. Your counterargument is a non sequitur. People could believe that God used evolution in design and it could also be true that irreducible complexity is false and your claim that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis or argument against evolution still be false.

(March 20, 2021 at 5:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept.

And what do we make of this Wikipedia entry:

”Irreducible complexity is the argument [emphasis added] that certain biological systems cannot have evolved [emphasis added] by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function."

(March 20, 2021 at 6:12 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 5:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept.

And what do we make of this Wikipedia entry:

”Irreducible complexity is the argument [emphasis added] that certain biological systems cannot have evolved [emphasis added] by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function."

A poorly worded article. Apparently they are as inept as you are. Got that cite for me yet?

(March 20, 2021 at 6:12 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 5:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept.

And what do we make of this Wikipedia entry:

”Irreducible complexity is the argument [emphasis added] that certain biological systems cannot have evolved [emphasis added] by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function."

This is something biologists wonder about when tracing evolution back sometimes. But instead of just throwing their hands up and saying "Evolution is false. Grab a Bible," they do some further analysis. 

Sometimes they solve the mystery. With other things they say, "We don't know how x might have evolved. More study and observation are needed."

Look at it this way: Newtonian physics could not explain peculiarities in the orbit of Mercury. But the theory was too damn good to be thrown away because of that. It took Einstein to come along and solve the mystery. But, in the end, Newton was mostly right about physics. His theory needed to be improved upon. Not scrapped.

Same goes for evolution and mysteries of biology we have yet to solve.

(March 20, 2021 at 1:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 1:04 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Already been done.

You're on record claiming that irreducible complexity is a hypothesis of design rather than an argument against evolution lol.

And? Do you honestly think that your bullshit is getting you anywhere?

Irreducible complexity had always been an assertion of design and openly so. It's originator and proponents are happy to confirm it.

For somebody who claims to be studying science you do love going out of your way to show you know fuck all about it.

(March 20, 2021 at 6:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: A poorly worded article.  Apparently they are as inept as you are.  Got that cite for me yet?

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol. 

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design. The former is an invalid argument made by Nudger; the latter is presumably a weak/strong argument made by Dembski.

(March 20, 2021 at 6:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 6:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: A poorly worded article.  Apparently they are as inept as you are.  Got that cite for me yet?

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol. 

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design. The former is an invalid argument made by Nudger; the latter is presumably a weak/strong argument made by Dembski.

Specifics please. As you've pointed out, design doesn't necessarily imply irreducible complexity, so I'll need to see this deductive argument which predicts irreducible complexity before I pass judgement. I suspect that much like your claim about irreducible complexity it is you that are confused. The words "irreducible complexity" can be used as a metonym referring to an argument. However, irreducible complexity used as a metonym can refer to either an argument for design from irreducible complexity or an argument against evolution from irreducible complexity. Your claim that it is an argument against evolution rather than an argument for design is false because it metonymously refers to both.

But I confess that I am intrigued. Please present this deductive argument for irreducible complexity. Perhaps I missed it. I haven't been paying close attention.

(March 20, 2021 at 8:49 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Your claim that it is an argument against evolution rather than an argument for design is false because it metonymously refers to both.

I agree, as you point out, that it can refer to both of these arguments; I have not made a claim to the contrary. What I am against, however, is the deductive argument that intelligent design predicts irreducible complexity. Keep in mind that you are responding to my response to Nudger, who forwarded such an argument: "It [intelligent design] posited an irreducible complexity which does not exist." He therefore concludes that intelligent design has "been falsified."

That is an invalid argument.

(March 20, 2021 at 6:58 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(March 20, 2021 at 6:27 pm)Angrboda Wrote: A poorly worded article.  Apparently they are as inept as you are.  Got that cite for me yet?

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason lol. 

Respectfully, you seem to be confusing a deductive argument in which irreducible complexity is predicted by intelligent design, with an inductive argument in which irreducible complexity is used to support intelligent design.

So...

Just to bring me up to date, please list the biological systems, that have been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex?

Because as far as I can tell, whenever a biological system, that was claimed to be irreducibly complex, is actually been explained, there has not been the need to stick a deity in the process. Nature always seems to explain it the best.

Those biological systems, with as yet explained origins... seems to me, the best option is to say, "that hasn't been explained yet". Instead of relying on a god of the gaps argument, which is all that irreducible complexity is.

Creationist's track record is not very good on this.