The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[Angrboda]

 Based on your prior knowledge of watches and comparing it to the simplicity of the sand around it, 

Simplicity of the sand... I beg your pardon? What makes you think sand grains are "simple"? And can you define what simple is supposed to mean here in a scientific sense?

Watches are mental operations on matter/materials like ceramic, titanium, steel, etc, which the watchmaker didn't design, he simply solved a puzzle by assembling pieces together. Do you think solving puzzles is more impressive than creating their pieces, maybe ex nihilo?

I can do that. Simple: not complex. You've got a scientific definition of complex, right? Let's hear it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sand is not elaborately structured, it's just junk stuck together.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And that's called ignoratio elenchi.

If I argued that medical problems are issues of reduction, and I illustrated it with a paragraph on vision disorders, do you not think its relevant to cite the paper from which I pulled my descriptions of strabismus, amblyopia, and visual disorders? I consider this a lack of education on how references work.

[R00tKiT]

I can do that.  Simple: not complex.  You've got a scientific definition of complex, right?  Let's hear it.

Clearly, you cannot. Simple can be defined scientifically. Elementary particles like quarks are simple, for example. Even protons and neutrons aren't simple in this sense, let alone molecules, or sand....

---

Sand is not elaborately structured, it's just junk stuck together.

Okay. Can we have a footage of some home made sand grains ?

[Foxaèr]

What amuses me is how easily some of you are diverted by a derailing than an argument geared toward genuine debate.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay. Can we have a footage of some home made sand grains ?

Do you know anybody who makes sand at home? Silly boy.

[Angrboda]

I can do that.  Simple: not complex.  You've got a scientific definition of complex, right?  Let's hear it.

Clearly, you cannot. Simple can be defined scientifically. Elementary particles like quarks are simple, for example. Even protons and neutrons aren't simple in this sense, let alone molecules, or sand....

You asked if I could define simple scientifically. I did. Presuming you have a scientific definition of complex. So show us that. Otherwise, it doesn't matter. You're a bit dim, aren't you?

---

And that's called ignoratio elenchi.

If I argued that medical problems are issues of reduction, and I illustrated it with a paragraph on vision disorders, do you not think its relevant to cite the paper from which I pulled my descriptions of strabismus, amblyopia, and visual disorders? I consider this a lack of education on how references work.

You weren't illustrating anything but responding to a request for an example of irreducibility. This is pure revisionism. The concepts of dysfunctionality and irreducibility are distinct. You appear not to know what irreducibility is.

What was asked by Nudger was whether the paper claimed that the eye is irreducibly complex. Your argument might support the notion, but the paper does not. Quoting the APA doesn't address the question. Earlier you were asked for an example of irreducibility. Nobody disputes that biological systems can fail. What was needed was support for irreducibility, not dysfunction. An example of dysfunction might be a case of irreducibility, but it might not. Either way, it is not itself irreducibility. Your example, and your reply to this being pointed out to you are both beside the point as neither demonstrate what was in dispute. Unless the paper says that this dysfunction illustrates irreducibility, your inference that it does belongs to you, not the paper. And that inference is incorrect. You seem to not understand the concept of context. At all.

I'm going to be charitable and simply invoke Hanlon's Razor here.

(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. The former does not imply the latter, so your argument is a non sequitur.)

[R00tKiT]

You asked if I could define simple scientifically.  I did.  Presuming you have a scientific definition of complex.  So show us that.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter.  You're a bit dim, aren't you?

Your definition is vacuous because you're using a term you're asking me to define. Never mind, I'll do it for you: a complex particle like molecules, sand, etc is a combination or aggregation of [lots and lots of] elementary particles. Now let's hear yours.

---

Okay. Can we have a footage of some home made sand grains ?

Do you know anybody who makes sand at home? Silly boy.

No, nobody makes sand at home, or in a laboratory, because they can't. So, tell me again, should sand grains be considered simple ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[quote='Angrboda' pid='2026870' dateline='1615047381']
No, nobody makes sand at home, because they can't. So, tell me again, why are sand grains considered simple ?

You are so funny. Take a rock. Hit it with Mjolnir. Instant sand. You are so funny.

[R00tKiT]

You are so funny. Take a rock. Hit it with Mjolnir. Instant sand. You are so funny.

No, that's not what making sand means. Sand contains mineral particles; do you have enough knowledge in chemistry, mineralogy, quantum theory, etc. to make mineral particles out of more elementary particles?