Just to put the last nail in the 'argument from complexity' coffin...

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by spy66

 

You are saying that the infinite doesn't exist in nature?

That is correct.

Interesting. I guess that argument is not made up by a human?

It is not an argument; it is an observation. It was not made up, therefore; it was simply made.

Nature exists within the infinite. Nature is expanding the infinite is not.

If ‘the infinite’ existed, it would be part of nature – obviously. Space and time do not exist outside the universe.

Nature exists "within" the infinite and is a part of nature.

I don't expect you to understand, but i know you will reply with a argument.

Nature exists "within" the infinite and is a part of nature.

Eh?

I don't expect you to understand.

Damn right I don’t.

Want to try it again, in English this time?

I’ll wait in real time for your reply.

reply to post by spy66


Shifting of the burden of proof much? You made the claim that the infinite doesn't exist. I rejected your claim on the basis of you not providing evidence. You need to prove your claim, I don't need to provide anything beyond this one statement: You have no evidence to support your claim.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


can you post similar examples representing the function of DNA/resulting life? I don't mean a picture of a double helix and people in a clean room working on robots...you know what I mean.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
can you post similar examples representing the function of DNA/resulting life? I don't mean a picture of a double helix and people in a clean room working on robots...you know what I mean.

Well, I sure as hell don’t know what you mean.

Do you mean ’show how DNA results in life’? Well it doesn’t really, does it? It’s an assumption, but a bit of a no-brainer, that life emerged before DNA in its current form evolved.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
can you post similar examples representing the function of DNA/resulting life? I don't mean a picture of a double helix and people in a clean room working on robots...you know what I mean.

Well, I sure as hell don’t know what you mean.

Do you mean ’show how DNA results in life’? Well it doesn’t really, does it? It’s an assumption, but a bit of a no-brainer, that life emerged before DNA in its current form evolved.

I mean, he shows a rock and what people do with rocks, but he can't exactly show a DNA sequence that describes a person and a computer programs source code without things getting sticky. I think the picture examples are elementary and disingenuous. His argument against complexity suck basically. In fact, it could be said that complexity encompasses refinement. What I mean by that is, if you look at DNA code, it is very refined, using four chemical letters. Much like a programmer optimizes code to run more efficiently...well, you know where I am going with it.

Heck, how about posting a list of mathematical limits and equations that are built into the universe and the current known laws and then post a human contrast? You could say thats fallacious because humans created math, but the values still exist do they not? We are merely quantifying what is already here.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow

Sorry, can't make head or tail of that either.

Maybe someone else would care to interpret?

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


...you're asking me to compare two natural things. I'm not comparing natural things, I'm comparing a natural thing to something which has had artificial influence. You're missing the whole point of my argument that things which are 'designed' aren't necessarily more complex than things which are natural.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SmokeandShadow

 

...you're asking me to compare two natural things. I'm not comparing natural things, I'm comparing a natural thing to something which has had artificial influence. You're missing the whole point of my argument that things which are 'designed' aren't necessarily more complex than things which are natural.

Sorry, I may need to clarify. To put it bluntly, I don't believe the picture examples would make much of a point when comparing DNA to our source code...in fact, as I said in a previous post, DNA seems quite refined (though not perfect, as we can see in birth defects e.c.t). Also, I didn't see that point, of man made things not necessarily being more complex, anywhere in the OP.

edit: Yeah, I got it now. Thats what I get for skimming, my bad. But I think my points still stand in regard to DNA and elegant mathematical functions.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

Shifting of the burden of proof much? [b]You made the claim that the infinite doesn't exist. I rejected your claim on the basis of you not providing evidence. You need to prove your claim, I don't need to provide anything beyond this one statement: You have no evidence to support your claim.

Interesting: You say that i made the claim that the infinite doesn't exist?

I have never made that claim.

If you reject my claim you should do so with proof. To reject is not proof. That is just a difference of opinion.

I was hoping you would educate me on my claim, that is why i made it.

reply to post by spy66


I'm sorry, I mistyped. Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain. I meant to type that you made the assertion that the infinite exists, I simply rejected it based on a lack of evidence. This is how logical discourse works. I don't have to refute claims which lack evidence with anything more than a citation of their lack of evidence.

Please, prove that the infinite exists, as you have the burden of proof.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

I'm sorry, I mistyped. Sometimes my fingers get ahead of my brain. I meant to type that you made the assertion that the infinite exists, I simply rejected it based on a lack of evidence. This is how logical discourse works. I don't have to refute claims which lack evidence with anything more than a citation of their lack of evidence.

Please, prove that the infinite exists, as you have the burden of proof.

Since i lacked the evidence in my claim that the infinite must exist, you don't have to show proof for your rejection?

That would only mean that you can't show evidence on your rejection. Because if you could you would.

Why don't you put the last nail in the argument with some proof of your own.

As i said: i want you to educate me.

reply to post by spy66


...so you're just going to toss it out the window? I'm sorry, but I'm not obliged to provide any evidence for unsupported claims. Just like I would reject the claim that faeries are practicing an aerial rendition of Swan Lake in the clouds of Venus if I was not provided evidence for it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by spy66

 

...so you're just going to toss it out the window? I'm sorry, but I'm not obliged to provide any evidence for unsupported claims. Just like I would reject the claim that faeries are practicing an aerial rendition of Swan Lake in the clouds of Venus if I was not provided evidence for it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I knew you would chicken out.

I stand by my claim despite your rejection. Because, you can't argue against it with proof of your own.

I don't need your approval on my claim.

Since you cant argue against it with proof. I guess my claim still stands.

So much for the last nail in the coffin.

reply to post by spy66

That’s pretty childish. I have already shown you that there are no infinite quantities in nature. Do you have to have the same thing shown to you by one particular person before you accept the truth of it?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by spy66

 

That’s pretty childish. I have already shown you that there are no infinite quantities in nature. Do you have to have the same thing shown to you by one particular person before you accept the truth of it?

Well, you have no idea of what i am talking about.

So you can't show me anything useful.

Here: what is this?

The total energy contained in an object is identified with its mass, and energy (like mass), cannot be created or destroyed.

reply to post by spy66

What's that got to do with infinity?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by spy66

 

What's that got to do with infinity?

Are you joking me?

Can't you read or don't you understand what you read?

If energy can't be created or destroyed: what does that say about energy? Could it be infinite? Or doesn't it exist at all?

If it can't be created we shouldn't have any energy at all... Right? But we do have energy.

Energy does exist, but can't be destroyed or made non existent. Wouldn't that make energy infinite?


What do you think?

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by spy66

 

What's that got to do with infinity?

Are you joking me?

Can't you read or don't you understand what you read?

If energy can't be created or destroyed: what does that say about energy? Could it be infinite? Or doesn't it exist at all?

If it can't be created we shouldn't have any energy at all... Right? But we do have energy.

Energy does exist, but can't be destroyed or made non existent. Wouldn't that make energy infinite?


What do you think?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

You are absolutely right. Energy has no beginning or end. Therefore it is infinite or eternal.

reply to post by addygrace

You are absolutely right. Energy has no beginning or end. Therefore it is infinite or eternal.

Actually, he is absolutely wrong. Matter and energy had a beginning when the universe did.