Re: To sum up

On 12/02/2025 9:06 pm, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 12/02/2025 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
>

On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>

On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:

On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
>
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real.

>
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
>
[...]

>
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.
>

>
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
>
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
>

Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.

>

3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

>

>
Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.

  Before you repeat your standard lines of reasoning, please give a
listen to PZ Myer's criticism of them way back in 2009:
 <https://youtu.be/ba2h9tqNYAo>
**********************************
@1:10
What I thought I would do since you probably haven't heard them all is
I would give you their lecture first so I'm going to give you a
condensed version of an intelligent design creationist lecture. It'll
be very entertaining:
 Complexity complexity complexity complexity. Oh look there's a
pathway. It's very complicated.
 Complexity complexity complexity complexity complexity.  And did you
know that cells are really really complicated. But we're not done:
 Complexity complexity complexity complexity. And you're going to be
blown away by the bacterial flagellum. It's like a little machine and
it's really really complicated:
 Complexity complexity complexity complexity. We need more cells
they're really complicated. You just get blown away by these things
they are so amazingly complicated:
 Complexity therefore design you've heard it all now.
************************************
 As far as your arguments about the "Origins debate", my impression is
they are also based on complexity.  So if you can't do better than
repeat the same old arguments, I would ask that spare yourself and
Harran from posting the Same Old Stuff between yourselves.  Please and
thank you.
 

I came across this video some time ago, and thought, as much I disagree with PZ in many ways, he has a point. However, complexity is necessarily a key factor--it's where you take it.