The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

Under your definition, any collection of matter is complex.  The only thing that is simple, then, is empty space.  Fail. (*)

Let's hear my what?


(*) That's not even strictly true, as the only thing differentiating sparsely populated universes and solid rocks is the space between.  It's all relative and therefore everything is an aggregate and therefore complex.

I specifically said : complex=agreggation of elementary particles. Read again: elementary particles. They are simple.

More about elementary particles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

All things exist as both separate particles while simultaneously being a part of an aggregate (see my note (*)). Thus, according to you, two particles of hydrogen in an otherwise empty universe is complex. Which, if we plug back into your argument, that complexity indicates design, results in your argument being that if more than one particle exists, then it must be design. That's dumb. Anyway, you also said that an aggregate is a particle. I missed your subtext amidst your fucked up language. Still, I was asked to define simple, and if you've given me complex, then I've given you simple in, "not aggregate," as previously stated which you disagreed with. You've just contradicted yourself. QED.

Also, from your link, "In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no substructure, i.e. it is not composed of other particles." Can you demonstrate that such a thing exists scientifically? If not, your definition isn't scientific.

---

For what it's worth, medical problems may illustrate that things cannot be reduced in certain ways.  But irreducibility means cannot be reduced in any way.

Notice you are repeating what I said: "Any medical example you choose is a demonstration of a function that is irreducible via a given method (genetic disorders, infection, trauma)." My initial contribution to this thread also stated this: "The medical literature is full of examples (genetic or otherwise) of failed reductions in complexity." Meaning I'm open to the possibility of successes in reduction.

No, I'm not. That's not what irreducible means. It's all or nothing. There's no a little bit pregnant. So what you initially said was nonsense. Something can be reduced by certain methods or in certain ways but not be "irreducible via a given method." You do indeed appear not to understand what irreducible means.

Regardless, what you may have said originally isn't relevant to my disputation, so you're either engaged in more ignoratio elenchi, or you are conceding the point. Which is it?