How much do we know. Part 2

[leov]

What about it?

View attachment 31651

What about it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did not see any meaningful refutation of Behe.

Pointing out how an argument is based on a logical fallacy, is a refuation of said argument.

IC is an argument from ignorance. It literally concludes something based on what isn't known.

ie: "i don't know how this structure can come about, therefor it was designed".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about it?

Why are you repeating my request for clarification?

You said that we should look at the mechanics of an arm.
I asked what your point was. What is it about the mechanics of an arm that you want us to look at?

I just posted a pic of the forelimbs of various creatures, as an illustration. Perhaps that makes it easier for you to point out what we are talking about.

So... what is it about the mechanics of such a limb that you wish to point out? What's special about it?
What do you hope we'll see, when gazing upon it?

 

[leov]

Pointing out how Behe's arguments fail and how IC isn't valid as a science objection or argument against or for anything, is not an ad hominim.

There is 'valid science' in evolution, as I noticed. Imo, any complexity is pre-programed. Like a 'lego' kit in genes, right condition facilitate change,

 

[leov]

Pointing out how an argument is based on a logical fallacy, is a refuation of said argument.

IC is an argument from ignorance. It literally concludes something based on what isn't known.

ie: "i don't know how this structure can come about, therefor it was designed".

Stop throwing meaningless phrases about fallacy. Theory that hangs in the air without base does not explain anything.

 

[leov]

Why are you repeating my request for clarification?

You said that we should look at the mechanics of an arm.
I asked what your point was. What is it about the mechanics of an arm that you want us to look at?

I just posted a pic of the forelimbs of various creatures, as an illustration. Perhaps that makes it easier for you to point out what we are talking about.

So... what is it about the mechanics of such a limb that you wish to point out? What's special about it?
What do you hope we'll see, when gazing upon it?

On you pictures I see pre-programed meaningful design , did it happened by evolution? Why not?

 

[leov]

Why are you repeating my request for clarification?

You said that we should look at the mechanics of an arm.
I asked what your point was. What is it about the mechanics of an arm that you want us to look at?

I just posted a pic of the forelimbs of various creatures, as an illustration. Perhaps that makes it easier for you to point out what we are talking about.

So... what is it about the mechanics of such a limb that you wish to point out? What's special about it?
What do you hope we'll see, when gazing upon it?

Sarcasm. Evolution is a another miracle

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is 'valid science' in evolution, as I noticed. Imo, any complexity is pre-programed. Like a 'lego' kit in genes, right condition facilitate change,

And that is just your opinion (or blind belief).

Your opinions (or anyone else's, for that matter) aren't relevant to the science.

 

[leov]

And that is just your opinion (or blind belief).

Your opinions (or anyone else's, for that matter) aren't relevant to the science.

You have much smaller base under miracle of evolution, creator gives it solid base, imo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stop throwing meaningless phrases about fallacy.

I'm sorry if you consider it meaningless.

But over here in rational land, it really isn't meaningless if your idea is completely centered around a logical fallacy at its very core. It makes the conclusion invalid. It means the logic used is faulty.

Theory that hangs in the air without base does not explain anything.

Indeed it doesn't. Hence why IC is meaningless. Pointing out how it is meaningless, is not meaningless. ;-)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On you pictures I see pre-programed meaningful design

How so?
What specifically fits it?
By what objective criteria?

Or don't you have such criteria and are you just expressing your mere opinions again?

did it happened by evolution?

The homology in those structures accross species, is a result of evolutionary history, yes.
And contrary to your opinions, that's a testable conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sarcasm. Evolution is a another miracle

What's miraculous about it, specifically?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have much smaller base under miracle of evolution,

What "miracle"?
Biological evolution isn't a miracle. It's an inevitable result of the condition of living.
Evolution occurs inevitably when you have self-replicating systems that reproduce with variation and which are in competition for limited resources.

Nothing miraculous about that...

creator gives it solid base, imo.

How?

 

[leov]

What's miraculous about it, specifically?

Randomness of very complex structures of organic and not organic matter.

 

[shmogie]

Perhaps you should review Professor Dawkins' scientific carreer.
It consists of a *tiny bit* more then a mere 7 peer reviewed papers that barely got cited.

I don´t even know who this guy is, nor do I care who he is. Dawkins has a big, mouth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Randomness of very complex structures of organic and not organic matter.

You're going to have to be more specific.
What do you mean by "randomness" and in what way? Where does the "randomness" come into it, in your understanding / opinion?
And "complex" according to what standard? Yours? How do you measure "complexity" and why is this level of "complexity" supposedly problematic as opposed to other, lesser, levels of "complexity"? Don't forget to mention how you measure it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don´t even know who this guy is, nor do I care who he is.

Curious how, while you don't know anything about the guy, you feel like you can compare him to someone else.
I can't help but wonder on what you base the comparision then, considering you don't know the first thing about the dude....

Dawkins has a big, mouth.

And a very succesfull scientific career.

 

[leov]

You're going to have to be more specific.
What do you mean by "randomness" and in what way? Where does the "randomness" come into it, in your understanding / opinion?
And "complex" according to what standard? Yours? How do you measure "complexity" and why is this level of "complexity" supposedly problematic as opposed to other, lesser, levels of "complexity"? Don't forget to mention how you measure it.

Evolution takes, for example, crystal structures for granted. Life us not the only issue...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution takes, for example, crystal structures for granted. Life us not the only issue...

You didn't answer a single question I asked.

I asked you about 2 specific words in your post: "randomness" and "complexity".
All my questions centered around that.

You haven't addressed a single one. Try again.

 

[leov]

You didn't answer a single question I asked.

I asked you about 2 specific words in your post: "randomness" and "complexity".
All my questions centered around that.

You haven't addressed a single one. Try again.

Definition of randomness | Dictionary.com

Definition of complexity | Dictionary.com