RE: Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.
May 7, 2014 at 9:22 pm
(May 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Chas Wrote:(May 6, 2014 at 5:08 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Chas,
Irreducible complexity isn't an idea about how something is made. It is an idea about how something isn't made. This is an important distinction. I believe the eye evolved but I will use it as an example.
The claim the eye is irreducibly complex doesn't say that God made the eye. To say the eye is irreducibly complex is to say the eye didn't evolve. It could have been designed by aliens.
Rampant AI made a claim that theoretical physics invalidates irreducible complexity arguments. His claim is false because it is trivially easy to show that irreducible complexity exists. If his claim was true then our scientific achievements with Mycoplasma_Laboratorium violated the laws of physics.......which is silly.
You are dishonestly trying to recast the IC debate. Stop that.
There has been found no naturally occurring irreducible complexity, and I don't think Rampant said that there is no created IC.
This isn't an IC debate. We are not discussing if IC occurs "naturally". We are discussing if theoretical physics invalidates IC arguments. It does not.
You and Rampant are the ones being dishonest. After I easily demolished the original claim, you now want to change the discussion into one about whether or not IC occurs "naturally". You're calling me dishonest from the pile of rubble that is the original claim.
