(January 4, 2019 at 11:42 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:Quote:I know what you want, but the definition doesn't have to be static. In the general sense, we use words like complexity to describe things, not define them.
Evasion and deflection...attempted. No one said anything about "static".
You can't even understand what the question is. No one is asking about describing or defining "things". (Nice try though... fail again). You are being asked to clarify the WORD you are using to describe a system, and WHY (exactly) it's being described as "complex". We all know at this point you're not going to answer. You'll leave some evasive patronizing answer.
ID uses the word "complexity" is a special way, ... claiming that the information in DNA had to be designed, due to it's complexity.
If those who toss the word "complexity" around, cannot say what is the boundary or scale is where the designer is needed, and cannot show something that is simple enough to not require a designer, then it's all just "hand-waving", meaningless nothing.
Quote:"This program is greater in complexity than the last program."
I'm sure that statement is easily understood. To what it is greater in complexity is dependent because it is relational to something else. That's when we stop thinking about complexity, and start dealing with the more intricate details. This is what I believe you're referring to. But one idea is not the other. Even if I can figure the different between program #1 and program #2, the one is still greater in complexity. Same thing if I use a word like "faster." This car is faster than that car. To what extent? It depends on the subjects.
bla bla bla ... no and no and no. In the context of ID, I am asking for what is the boundary, (see above). You have no answer. Complexity in ID is meaningless as it's not defined meaningfully to describe what ID proponents claim it describes.
Quote:Yep, I own about 10 hats and no cattle. Not too many cattle ranches where I live. So now that I shared, how many hats and cattle do you own?
It a figure of speech. You are all hat, no cattle. As anyone can see from this response alone, you are nothing but a windbag with nothing to offer.
I understand your question, but you're throwing something out there that is open to interpretation depending on the situation, so who cares? If you don't want to use the word "complexity" then use a different word. How hard is that? You mentioned chaos theory. Part of it is assuming we can always go at least one step further to explain something, right? But it also incorporates that we don't have to assume "infinity" to define something. We do it systematically so we understand what we need to know, then later we can always delve further into something to gain more knowledge, if it even becomes necessary.
As far as DNA, I dunno. Make a strand of DNA and create a living organism from it. Once you do that then we can say your view is conclusive, but it only answers the overall question in part. If it takes intelligence to form a strand, then there opens up the arena for a whole new question. I mean isn't that the underlying issue anyway? Intelligence vs randomness mixed with time and possibility?
"Nothing to offer" Interesting take. Guess it depends who you ask. That's the problem with absolute claims, and why I am very cautious about making them. If I said you were useless or had nothing to offer, I wouldn't be honest. I'm sure you serve your own special purpose in life. I may not know what it is, but there's something there. What it is, besides being whimsically entertaining with your banter, I can't say I really know for sure, but I'm fine with that if you are. Enjoy your hats and your cattle.
