HOLY SHIT! He came back!
Yeah, but he ignored everything that was said.
How ANTI-CREATIONISTS MISREPRESENT the Argument from Complex Design
by hooberus 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
drwtsn32
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Hooberus,
The definition games that IDers play are occasionally, mildly amusing. Unfortunately like drwtsn32 already wrote, there's no way to verify or falsify your idea.
By your reasoning, could you deny this scenario: We were created by an intelligent race of aliens who pop in and out of new universes across the multiverse, so they aren't tied to starting points in time like the Big Bang. As far as they tell us, they have always been like the quantum foam. They are the Greys. Stay Awake.
There's no point in contriving all these kinds of scenarios. Valid induction still needs to be based on fact.
-
hooberus
By your reasoning, could you deny this scenario: We were created by an intelligent race of aliens who pop in and out of new universes across the multiverse, so they aren't tied to starting points in time like the Big Bang. As far as they tell us, they have always been like the quantum foam. They are the Greys. Stay Awake.
Midget, Do you accept the following brief reasoning: "the origin of the complexity from non-complexity of the computer that midget-sasquatch is typing on is best explained as the result of intelligent design, rather than as the result non-intelligently guided natural processes".? Does it initself specifically deny your above strange scenario?
-
hooberus
Yeah, but he ignored everything that was said.
I showed that even if the designer themself must be included under the the ID definition of "complexity" [which I disagree], that the fact remains that the design statement in the O.P. still does not require an infinite regression of designers.
Furthermore, I demonstrated that even anti-creationists already accept intelligent design as logicallly valid science in other instances. As I pointed out in the first post: "To use an analogy the origin of the multiple componet complexity of a sophisticated "watch like device" if found on Mars would be taken as strong evidence of being the result of an intelligent designer, rather than as the result of natural processes. (In this case no one-not even anti-creationists would object to complexity as evidence for design)." So then how can they turn around and then claim that the argument for a designer from complex design is somehow necessarily illogical?
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Hooberus,
I'm sorta hurt you find aliens as our possible creators a strange idea.
Not really ...but honestly you have as much evidence for us being made by the OT God, as us being test-tube babies of ET mad scientists.
Sure I accept the fact that my computer needed intelligent design from design to manufacturing. Computers can't replicate on their own nor do their invidual parts have the needed information to bring about copies of themselves.
But life is different though and you know that the computer is not a fully comparable analog. Living organisms replicate, and have the genetic material and machinery for that purpose. From all the sequencing data collected on numerous species, one can also reasonably infer that the code can change and become more complex over time by chance processes.
Back to the point you want to make about having a designer that is not so complex (so it doesn't needs its own designer). I can also accept a variant of that: its called evolution by natural selection. A non complex process that by its selectiveness mimics intelligence.