Re: To sum up

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:03:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

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 you 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.

No doubt you saw PZ's video many times and long ago, as I had posted
it many times.  Apparently, you ignored his and my point each time
much as you do now. 

In fact, you illustrate PZ's point by not taking complexity anywhere
except to repeat it ad nauseam. I know you know of lots of examples of
natural complexity; weather, shorelines, mountain horizons, clouds.  I
know you know that none of these examples require guided intelligence
to explain their existence. That's one reason why Dembski et al speak
of Specified Complexity aka Complex Specified Information, where the
complexity is a necessary part of a specified function, ex. DNA.

My understanding is you and these speakers *assume* their specified
functions could not have been created by unguided natural processes,
and so base their arguments on "God of the Gaps" ignorance.
Unfortunately for them, that science doesn't know how life originated
is non sequitur to whether life was intelligently designed with a
purpose, nevermind what is that purpose. 

So once again, I ask you to spare yourself and Harran from posting the
Same Old Stuff between yourselves, and by so doing illustrate nothing
more than your mindlessness and his hypocrisy.








--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge