Beleiving in God is the Norm

[bowmore]

You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results

(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times   )

Isn't that opening a can of wurms? I can now just argue that bone of the examples you've given are complex, since none of them perform a function.
What is the function of the human body?

It is not the whole function, it is something like:
Sperm and Egg are crated to fit each other with a lot of details

Are you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

In your weird definition of complexity it is indeed not complex. In the traditional sense of complex it is.

Maybe I'm missing the word, but I mean usefulness or sophistication not just complex

usefulness is (tied to function) subjective.

Even a puddle of mud can be useful. (e.g. as feeding ground for certain plants)

[Messenger]

You need to bring example(s) of non intelligent behavior leading to complex/useful results
(for example a random generator program that can win the lottery most of the times   )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

Are you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

I don't know what is the meaning of "here" here
Their function is production "creation of human fetus"

[bowmore]

You mean something like neural networks. (although predicting the future is not within their power   )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

Like neural networks.

Are you claiming sperm and egg are created here?
The question remains : what is their function? The answer to that is subjective.

I don't know what is the meaning of "here" here

In the quoted post.

Their function is production "creation of human fetus"

How is that useful? (see, I can just keep questioning the use of every function you provide, which is why I say you just make things more difficult, by ultimately reducing this to a debate on morality)

[Messenger]

You mean something like neural networks. (although predicting the future is not within their power   )

I mean something we both know that it is not intelligent yet produce something useful and sophisticated

Like neural networks.

Whatever

How is that useful? (see, I can just keep questioning the use of every function you provide, which is why I say you just make things more difficult, by ultimately reducing this to a debate on morality)

I don't care if it is useful for us or not, I mean useful as it has a defined end result
Sperm and eggs are created with sophistication (many details) to produce a result that can be repeated with almost the same details and processes

Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

[bowmore]

Like neural networks.

Whatever

So you accept neural networks as an example? Or does "whatever" mean you'll ignore it?

I don't care if it is useful for us or not, I mean useful as it has a defined end result

Then you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

You mean like water and a river bed?

[Messenger]

Like neural networks.

Whatever

So you accept neural networks as an example? Or does "whatever" mean you'll ignore it?[/quote]Yes, I'll accept it, explain?

Then you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Fractals are not complex it is repeated very simple operations
Sperm has many parts each one match another part/function in the womb, egg, etc.

Another example will be nut and bullets, intelligence creation lead to match details in both of them to perform the same function over and over

Can you bring just one example to violate this rule? (I'm here very easy on you as I don't ask for a proof, just one single example)

You mean like water and a river bed?

Explain?

[bowmore]

Yes, I'll accept it, explain?

Simple nodes (neurons) works together and can be 'trained' to give a desired result.
It has many composing parts (a network of neurons)
Which by themselves are not intelligent (they have a simple function that tells them to fire or not)

Then you have no basis for rejecting fractals as an example.

Fractals are not complex it is repeated very simple operations
Sperm has many parts each one match another part/function in the womb, egg, etc.

The basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

You mean like water and a river bed?

Explain?

Water shapes the river bed, which in turn transports the water to sea.
Water is a complex body of H2O molecules and a host of polluents.
A river bed is a complex structure of soil, rocks and plants.
Both work together to transport excess water from the land to the sea.

[Messenger]

Simple nodes (neurons) works together and can be 'trained' to give a desired result.
It has many composing parts (a network of neurons)
Which by themselves are not intelligent (they have a simple function that tells them to fire or not)

What do you mean by not intelligent
Neural networks need a lot of intelligence to be designed and implemented properly

The basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

There is no complication in the process as fertilization

Water shapes the river bed, which in turn transports the water to sea.
Water is a complex body of H2O molecules and a host of polluents.
A river bed is a complex structure of soil, rocks and plants.
Both work together to transport excess water from the land to the sea.

Complexity of water is out of discussion (as it is a point of the debate itself)
If you mean the river bed shape, it is random and has no pattern

[bowmore]

What do you mean by not intelligent
Neural networks need a lot of intelligence to be designed and implemented properly

I mean that the way to solve to problem or to deliver the result, is not designed by the designer of the network, and it also doesn't reside in the neurons themselves.
It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program. If you are now going to complain that programs are themselves designed you are being unreasonable. Apparently, I must give an example that is not natural, and not man made. You've then created a construction which is unfalsifiable, and therefore useless, as there is no way of telling if it is true or not.

The basic mechanism of a fractal may not be complex, the result is.

There is no complication in the process as fertilization

It is ample example that complexity can derive from simple principles. This may not be impressive to you, so be it.

Complexity of water is out of discussion (as it is a point of the debate itself)
If you mean the river bed shape, it is random and has no pattern

It has a pattern on the macro level.

But let's take a look at your OP again :

1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

1 - 4 are examples from nature. I should reject those as they are the point of debate.

The relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

[Messenger]

It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program.

I said random program
It is like throwing 1,0s and trying to compile and run the sequence

It has a pattern on the macro level.

Creation

But let's take a look at your OP again :

1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

1 - 4 are examples from nature. I should reject those as they are the point of debate.

1 agree with your claims (nature is not intelligent)
4 also agree with your beliefs as birds has some intelligence

The relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

You are making no sense here!

[bowmore]

It is after all you that proposed to give an example of a program.

I said random program
It is like throwing 1,0s and trying to compile and run the sequence

Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

1 agree with your claims (nature is not intelligent)
4 also agree with your beliefs as birds has some intelligence

The relation between complexity and design you establish is based on unacceptable examples. So based on your criticism of my examples, you must reject your own as well, destroying your initial statement.

You are making no sense here!

Simple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

[Messenger]

Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

Simple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

[bowmore]

Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

That's what I did. neurons are not intelligent.

Simple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

Great, then I'll disagree with the cause for all 5.

:p

[oldschooldoc]

This is my point, if Evolution is excluded believing in God is very straight forward from our universal observations
Intelligence creation is related to complexity
So it can not blind, ridiculous or without evidence

Maybe some/many religion details are but not the concept of God!

Eh? It is not straight forward or logical. Like I said in my earlier post:

Even if evolution were debunked, belief in god would not be logical until evidence supported his/her existence (just like evidence supports evolution today).

Or did you just not want to address that?

Yes, intelligent design (by intelligence I am talking about human) is related to complexity, in inanimate objects.
There is no convincing evidence in support of ID, if you have some you want to share you are welcome to. I can't wait for that...

[Messenger]

Random is not the opposite of intelligent.

call it unintelligent

That's what I did. neurons are not intelligent.

Of course they are intelligent (system)
It is like saying as 0 and 1 are not intelligent then any computer software isn't

Simple examples 1,2,3 and 4 in your OP are examples from nature (rock, tree, clay, nest) apparently examples from nature are unacceptable. Which leaves us with your example 5. That's not much to base the proposed relation between Complexity and design on.

I don't understand this, it does not matter if it is from nature or not, as long that we agree on the cause they are valid
Or do you meant that birds don't do their nests!

Great, then I'll disagree with the cause for all 5.

What?
I brought examples you and me (and all rational people) know its cause
Then we try to approximate things we don't know to what we know, this is very scientific!