Winston

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-01-Data_Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-11-25-Data_Summary.pdf According to the data there has been a 13.2% increase in cases, 10.6 % increase in hospitalizations, 13.3% increase in deaths for vaccinated individuals- more vaccinated people die than unvaccinated in the past 2 weeks. For unvaccinated individuals there has been a 10.9 decrease in cases, 9.7 decrease in hospitalizations and a 13.2% decrease in deaths. This is not proportional to the 6% increase in vaccine population as one would expect. Is this not concerning? Why are vaccines failing at an increasing rate?

Secondly, how or why God created everything is God's business. Who are you to question God's choosing to give a free will to his creation? - Well this this god figure wants anyone to believe in him, he better exhibit leadership traits and answer to the people. I can most certainly question gods actions, how else would I systematically know if god is good or evil? God is the ultimate judge of what is good and evil. So by definition God is not evil and cannot do any evil. - Actually god is evil, in order for there to be evil in the world, god must have put it there. Thus by definition god is part evil and part good. Satan and his host chose to rebel against God. Man (Adam and Eve) chose to rebel against God's command. That was entirely their choice. You misunderstood that somehow.- Well if god setup the system and created Adam and Eve, knowing how the future was going to play out, god knew their choices, thus god created Adam and Eve with an internal intention to rebel against God. God is the one who created Adam and Eve with an internal drive to seek further knowledge, thus god already planned for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, no choice there. Why is god against the seeking of knowledge? Nobody judges God and tells him what is good and what is evil.- Well there is the problem, if you start judging God maybe you will find his killing and harming of people evil. I question maybe God is afraid of those that judge him. Man cannot judge God. - Why not? Man, if not anything, is the ultimate judge of god. This sounds like god is covering up his evil behavior. Man is as a speck of dust in the universe and depends on God for his existence. - No, I do not believe in a god, no dependence required. You make the mistake of thinking you can sit in judgment of God. - I can and just did, god is evil by the very rules he sets upon others. No one should follow a leader that does not follow his own rules. Don't forget God created life and because he is God, he has the right to take it away at any time. He owes nobody anything. He is God. - I fundamentally disagree, just because I create a living thing, does not mean I have the “right” to hurt or kill that thing, that would be evil, sadistic psychopathic behavior. God exhibits this behavior. Should we really follow gods psychopathic sadistic ways? If is above man and god can kill, anyone can kill. No, I don't think God created evil or caused it. God had foreknowledge of everything. - If god truly has foreknowledge of everything that absolutely makes god evil, it means he knows and does nothing about the innocent rapes, murders, disease or sadistic behavior of others. God also created Satan knowing Satan would be “evil” thus god created an evil being with intent. (4) that this does not make God the author of sin,- How was this concluded? God made the system in which sin exists, thus god created sin. (5) that God does not force men to do what they do not want to do (in the way of sin),- Yes god does, god created man, created the knowledge of sin, thus god created sin and god created man so that he would sin. (6) that this does not destroy "freedom" or cause-and-effect relationships (rather, it is the very basis upon which these exist),- “predetermination “ is by definition fixed, meaning all choices made by man have already been determined by god, including eating of the fruit, otherwise God could not have seen the future in that event or predetermined that event. Regarding Adam and Eve, God told them they could eat any fruit of the garden, except one fruit in the middle of the garden. That was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This was a test of obedience to God. - Again why is god testing Adam and Eve knowing what will happen? Sadistic behavior. They ate of the fruit and failed the test of obedience to God. So God never forced them to eat it. That was entirely their own choice. - God created them, thus god forced them. Humans do not have a choice if god created them with predetermined actions, knowledge of the future. God overreacted, and sadistically cast them into a horrible world. This was gods doing, not Adam and Eve. As for your comment "God could just forgive man". In God's economy, that is not how it works. - God does not follow his own forgiveness recommendations? Why would anyone follow someone that does not follow their own recommendations? There must be a sacrifice acceptable to God. - Sacrifice, so god is sadistic. Man does not decide what that is. God does not hand out forgiveness for offences arbitrarily.- Instead brutally murders and hurts people by casting them into a world of sin, sadistic psychopathic behavior again. Imagine telling a child not to eat a fruit on the kitchen table, when the child takes a bite you overreact and sadistically harm them, telling them they should make sacrifice for your forgiveness. The more I understand God from this perspective the more god is an evil sadistic individual. God is a just God. The Bible teaches any sin against God must be atoned for but only by God's pre-determined way. Atonement is a central teaching through the Bible. Only God's Son was an acceptable atonement for man's sin in God's economy.- God was please with the crucifixion and torture of his son. Gods pleasure is pain, suffering and death. That sounds like a sadistic psychopath who craves pain, suffering and death. Does any parent require the death or shedding of blood in order to forgive a random person? I think not, that would be sadistic psychopathy behavior. The only sacrifice acceptable to God was the death and shed blood of his Son. That is the only basis on which forgiveness of sin God recognizes or offers to man.- . Again how do you not see this as sadistic psychopathic desires/behavior?

Is God omnipotent? Can god see the past, future and present? If yes let's explore the problems. “The following may not be 100% but is from memory...Google origin of Lucifer. “- Just to clarify, God made Lucifer, knowing that Lucifer would rebel and start his own clan causing more evil in the world. God makes the choice not to destroy Lucifer either, thus making the choice to encourage more evil. “Secondly, after God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of Eden, there was no evil in the world and no sin. God commanded them they could eat of any fruit in the garden of Eden except one particular fruit they were forbidden to eat, the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.” - Wait, didn't you just say there was no evil? If god made a forbidden fruit, the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, evil already existed as a knowledge set, thus god made evil. Second, why is god testing Adem and Eve by placing a fruit that will destroy them? Sadistic behavior. “However, the serpent Satan, came along and tempted Eve to eat the fruit and she fell for the temptation and gave some to Adam and he ate it too. “- Why is Satan even allowed in the garden? If gods knows the future, he could have prevented this event from occurring. Seems like it was gods plan to have satan in the garden. “ This is called the Fall of Man. That is the point where man rebelled against God. God kicked them out of the garden of Eden and it meant that evil had now entered the world as well as death and suffering.” - Why would god kick Adam and Eve out, he literally put a dangerous fruit there for them to intentionally eat. Imagine a parent placing a package beside the child, telling them not to open it. The moment the child opens the package, they are banished to pain and suffering, again sadistic psychopathic behavior. “This fallen nature was then passed on to all mankind in subsequent generations because Adam and Eve were the representative head of the human race. This was not God's will.” - But God did that to them, of course it was gods will, he could have forgave them, instead he hurts them, sadistic behavior. Parents behave better towards their kids than god does apparently. “Thirdly, God promised to send a Savior further into the future to redeem mankind.” - Redeem them from what? Gods systematic abuse of them? Again god makes the decision to place them in such a system. “ But in the meantime as a result of the fallen nature of Adam and Eve, all of their descendants inherit a fallen corrupt nature.” - Again who is at fault, Adam or Eve who have limited knowledge or God who knows everything, yet dangles something dangerous for Eve to pick. Keep in mind Adam and Eve do not make a choice to open this sadistic system, instead they make a choice to gain the knowledge of good and evil, something god could have taught them or at the very lead not put such knowledge accessible to them. “ That includes us and all of mankind.” - Wait why are the sins of the fathers handed down to the sons? Does god not understand the choice of one is not the choice of many? “The earth became a corrupt place with evil.” - Why did god do nothing to stop this? Being all powerful and having all knowledge yet not acting on such evil seems to be immoral. “Also it brought death.” - God put this in the system, again god is at fault for having a system that causes death. “ The earth was changed from a paradise to a place of sin and evil, where man would have to struggle for survival by the sweat of his brow.” - God made it so this would occur in his system, sadistic behavior. “God did not force his Son, Jesus Christ to come to earth. Jesus is God. He is part of a triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). So his decision was God's decision. The only atonement for sin that God accepts as atonement is and always has been the blood of his Son.” - I may be less moral than this god figure, but I would never require the blood of my son to be shed so I could forgive random people, seems like an abusive relationship. Again why is god so interested in pain and blood, seems quite evil and sadistic, are we sure we are not confusing god for Satan here? “That is why Jesus came to earth, died on a cross and shed his blood. That atones for the sins of all those who believe in him as Savior. “- Seems unnecessary since god could just forgive mankind without any blood shed. Again god made a system with sin, why? Seems unnecessary and sadistic. “So God does not create evil or cause evil. That was and is done entirely by mankind and with the temptation of Satan and his host.” - God literally put a fruit that contained the knowledge of good and evil, thus god created knowledge of evil. Not only that God made a system in which once the fruit is eaten evil enters the world. Seems like god is the creator of evil, man just found the knowledge. “ God loves mankind and wills that all would come to him through his Son. Those who come to him that way have their sins washed away by the blood of Jesus and are completely forgiven. “- Sins that god created with his sadistic system. Again seems immoral. God loves mankind enough to allow them to suffer and banish them to hell, seems more like gods love is conditional. “God does not tempt man with evil. Satan does.” - Well god does, after all god put a fruit right in front of Adam and Eve. Also god created Satan with full knowledge of Satans abilities, thus god made satan knowing evil would flow through satan, that makes god pretty evil. If you create a person knowing full well they will destroy thousands of peoples lives, you are still responsible for creating that person, and thus destroying thousands of peoples lives. Again immoral. “Jesus will then be returning to earth to destroy all his enemies and establish his rule on earth for a thousand years. After that he will create a new earth and new heaven where believers will be with him forever.” - Are you sure about this? God/Jesus will destroy ie kill people? That seems like god is a serial murderer and a psychopath. What gives god the right to kill people, after all killing is evil. As you can see, this view of a god is problematic. God is quite evil or at least sadistic in his behavior towards humans.

We have reached the premise of any religious proof, you must believe in the supernatural or spiritual mind in order to gain evidence of a god. In order to believe in god one must believe in a spiritual mind. This is not measurable evidence, and is not useful in convincing non believers. "The Bible clearly teaches that the wisdom of this world is foolishness. If you reject the supernatural, then you are limiting yourself to the things of this world, which God says are foolishness. True wisdom must include the supernatural. The Bible makes it clear. One cannot have faith and wisdom without acceptance of the supernatural because God is a supernatural being above and separate from the created universe."- Actually God creating everything in the universe is problematic in relation to God’s psychology. God created evil, God created pain, suffering, temptation and sadistic tests. God either allows evil events to occur or creates evil events. God also created arbitrary rules to follow, with any rules broken resulting in eternal suffering. God also created a son, who God required to be murdered and tortured for his pleasure in order to forgive humans. God tempts people with evil as a test, if they fail God sends them to eternal suffering. God requires worship, obedience and belief, otherwise God pushes them by eternal suffering. By this basis, imagine a general human person acting in this way, God would be considered a narcissistic, sadistic, psychopath.

You are mistaken, I do not have an argument against belief in god. My argument is against the “evidence” to support the conclusion there is a god. You are welcome to believe in a god. “The principle is well known in the world. An effect must have a cause. Everything exists because it was put there or created. It is the universal principle of cause and effect.” - Please understand how to establish a Cause and effect system. You must have measurable evidence to prove a cause. "First that God is a supernatural being, that is, he is transcendent or outside of the created material universe. He is not part of what we think of as matter or the material universe. How could he be if he created the universe out of nothing by supernatural power. " - Please explain how something not made of matter or material universe interacts with the universal matter? Again does god not understand physics or thermodynamics? "If we think of space before creation, then we would think there is nothing, no material or matter. So there would be no cause to create an effect. "- I agree we do not know the “cause” or by which system the universe began, we have models that suggest certain causes. This has no bearing on the argument for a god. "But God who is a Spirit is not a part of the material universe and is of infinite power and therefore able to be that cause that created. "- Please look up cause and effect, You must have measurable evidence to prove a cause, do you have measurable evidence? How did you determine god is the cause? https://conjointly.com/kb/establishing-cause-and-effect/ Keep in mind you are changing the discussion from evidence there is a creator, to prove how universal systems came to be scientifically. "If you remove God from the picture and say there is no God, then you are left with no explanation of where or how the universe came to be. Therefore it is incumbent on you to explain how something could appear out of nothing. Secondly the complexity of the universe and how it all functions together would require a designer Creator. So the ball is back in your court to explain how a highly sophisticated, complex universe, including an earth that has all the structure, climate, atmosphere, water, etc. that make life possible came to be. "- This is a different discussion entirely. I am not a professional in quantum physics, biochemistry, complex mathematics or universal modeling, I would reference those that hold such titles. There are vast amounts of scientific studies, articles and experiments that demonstrate how most of these complex systems evolved or follow a universal set of rules. Again a different discussion, to which I would encourage you to spend time understanding scientific studies in the fields mentioned above. "Unless you can come up with a better explanation than God, you have nothing to stand on." - This is where you are mistaken, god is not an explanation, instead it is a filler. God needs to be studied, measurable and quantifiable in order for God to be an explanation. There must be measurable evidence that god is the cause, otherwise I could just announce that I created everything, no evidence required.

Then how do we know god did it? “There are some things we have to assume by reason or logic.” - but that logic means that I can claim I am god as I stated above. “That is, that God created everything by an act of divine (supernatural) power.” - You can not start logic with the conclusion, saying god exists therefore there is a god is circular argument. “It is a serious mistake to think God needs to give us an explanation of how he created everything.” - Why? Then I am God, since it would be “ a serious mistake to think” I need to give an explanation. “After all God is God and we are mere mortal creatures created by God.”- Circular argument, no validity. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/circular-reasoning-fallacy-examples.html “ He doesn't owe us anything. It is us who depend on him.” - Not at all, for myself god does not exist, no dependence required. But if god does want recognition for “his” creation, then “he” would have to provide evidence. “ Evolutionists and Creationists hold to two contrary world views and both start with their own assumptions.” - I do not care about evolutionists, the burden of proof of god is on creationists. If you want to start with there is a god first without evidence, your argument is already circular and wrong. "So if you start with the assumption that there is no God, and demand that God's existence be proven by some kind of outward sign or miracle, you are creating an impossible barrier to cross. "- Not at all, I ask for simple evidence of a god. For example, if we came across a building and I stated it was built by a company of humans, you could ask for proof, I could provide the proof i.e. blueprints, pictures documentation of progress, material, procedures, methods ect. All I am asking for is proof of procedure or methods. “That is the evolutionist's or atheist's world view. The evidence for God is widespread in his creation's beauty and complexity. “ - Again another circular argument, you can not say god exists thus god is the creator without proving god exists. Please look up circular arguments. " 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:24, 25 KJV "- Would you like to explain “and God said” how sound waves create any living matter? Why does God not understand how physics works? "Origin of life: the polymerization problem - creation.com" “Conclusion Despite over-optimistic science reports and very biased and hyped-up media reports, scientists have not even come close to ‘creating life in the test-tube’. Even if they do manage this feat, it will be the result of intelligent design. Ordinary undirected chemistry moves in the wrong direction—for example, as shown in this article, biological polymers tend to break apart, not form.” - No scientific conclusion would ever make an additional conclusion without evidence, “ Even if they do manage this feat, it will be the result of intelligent design.” How did they suddenly know it would be the result of intelligent design when nothing in the article or study indicated intelligent design? It seems like they already had a conclusion without evidence. " the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.” Again the article jumps to the creation conclusion without supporting evidence. Again, even if all science is 100% wrong, it does not mean God exists, only that the science is wrong.

Creation.com assume that because complexity exists there must be a creator, at that creator is biblical, thus god. By that logic, complexity exists, there must have been a creator, I am that creator, thus I am god. Again I ask, tell me exactly how God changes or places the genetic code in detail? Or at least how God works with micro or nanostructures/molecules/atoms/electrons.

This conclusion is based on what comparison country or control group? I can follow the logic, but data would be nice.

I do not think you can say that with certainty. Since there was breakthrough cases, mutation could have and may have occurred irrelevant of maximum vaccination percentage. In order to state that no mutation would have occurred one would need to prove no mutation would ever occur in a vaccinated individual, I do not think this is the case. Correct me if I am wrong, but if an infection occurs in any vaccinated/unvaccinated person, mutation of the virus can occur. "all scientists" is grossly misrepresenting science as a whole. Science is not about scientists or a "consensus", instead it is about quantitative evidence. Instead cite or state quantitative results that would lead to the conclusion that the current vaccine is still effective on the new strain. The vaccines still being effective is good news, I am curious how effective is the vaccine against the new strain?

This topic is to explore different methods in dealing with Covid, prevent transmission or assist in treatment. Methods may be used in conjunction with one another to estimate a favorable result. Current methods deployed with pandemic results: Mandatory masking for most social environments, transmission of infections still occurs. Mandatory vaccinations and selected double dose entrance requirements to select public environments, transmission of infections still occurs. Social distancing of at least 6 ft from person to person, transmission of infections still occurs. Examples of other methods: Mandatory self isolation during infection. Currently only "recommended self isolating" Mandatory infection testing. Occurs at certain facilities based on vaccine status. Infection control. General questions proposed: What other methods can be deployed to prevent transmission of COVID? How much time is allotted to test the method before the method is considered a failure? Definition of success to a method? Endemic result?

What sacrifice(s) is society making for the the specific benefit of future generations?

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-01-Data_Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-11-11-Data_Summary.pdf http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data Under data summary. Keep in mind this is not raw data, this is based on the BCcdc summary.

I thought so too, until I realized the the rates are not proportional. There is a 5% increase in vaccinated population, thus a 5% decrease in unvaccinated population. But there is a 8% increase in cases, a 9% increase in hospitalizations and a 14% increase in deaths for the vaccinated group. Hence why I am concerned about the increasing rates.

I cited my sources right from the "BC Centre for disease control", are they altering, falsifying or lying about there data sets? The data does appear to show a decreasing trend in vaccine effectiveness over time. We should be concerned about this and investigate way infection rates are increasing for vaccinated groups.

With a 8% increase in cases over the past few months in the vaccinated group, I would say walking among any infected group could be quite contagious.

There is a concerning trend of increased vaccinated individual hospitalizations and number of cases. http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-01-Data_Summary.pdf October 2021 25 % of cases 14 % hospitalizations Deaths 33% http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-11-11-Data_Summary.pdf November 2021 35 % of cases 23 % hospitalizations Deaths 47% Even accounting for increased vaccinated population (5%) over the time period, there was a 8% increase in cases and a 9% increase in hospitalizations. Even deaths have increased by 14%. Even taking into account increased group size, why are all of these rates increasing at a disproportional rate? With respect to the unvaccinated, there is a decrease in individual hospitalization and number of cases. http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-10-01-Data_Summary.pdf October 2021 68 % of cases 79 % hospitalizations Deaths 62% http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Info-Site/Documents/COVID_sitrep/2021-11-11-Data_Summary.pdf November 2021 59 % of cases 71 % hospitalizations Deaths 50% Resulting in a 9% decrease in cases, 8% decrease in hospitalizations and a 12% decrease in deaths with respect to the unvaccinated group. Even taking into account decreased group size, why are all of these rates decreasing at a disproportional rate?

No and that is unfortunate as it could save a lot of time and effort. I am not sure why vaccination is still a topic or strictly enforced, vaccination does not equate to zero transmission. If you want to stop a virus from spreading, stop infected individuals from interacting with others. If an individual feels unwell, vaccinated or unvaccinated, they should get tested, simple process.

Just curious how much of the population is specifically "refusing to be vaccinated" vs how much of the population is " undecided, but willing to eventually" ?

I do read what is posted, I have read these articles before. My judgment is based on the sudden jump to a unfounded conclusion. The articles are refuting some scientific claim. This is great, we should always question scientific claims using other quantitative measures. Some of the scientific discoveries could be wrong, but if the science is wrong the only conclusion that can be made is "the scientific conclusion is wrong" nothing more nothing less. My issue with the articles and your claim is that science being wrong does not equate to "there must be a god". If you want to present an argument that there is a god, you would require proof of a god, specifically how designs are created. " First, nothing comes into being without a cause, a basic principle of science and rationality. Everything we see that started to be has some sort of cause." - I am not sure how you define a cause? "That cause must have freely chosen to create, so it must be a personal cause."- Personal, ie a person? How did you discover or conclude with evidence that it is a "personal cause"? What indications did you observe that the universe is some personal cause? So the simplest cause for the universe is a single, powerful, personal, eternal, immaterial, uncaused cause—it sounds a lot like God!" -You define this as god, I would define this as a a binary option, either there is matter or there is not matter, in the physics sense. If there is not matter, nothing exists, if there is matter something exists, obviously we have something over nothing. Why? I have no clue, maybe there is zero meaning behind it, it could just be binary. You are most welcome to believe there is a god, but for the scientific community, evidence must be provided to make such a claim. Hence why I ask for quantitative evidence. I can go through the article examples, but they are not quantitative evidence. They do not explain how the universe was created. The arguments are based on the assumption there must be a god in order for something (morality) to exist. They would have to provide evidence on the process god used to instill morality, observing the result is not a premise for an argument. For every example, the how has to be answered by evidence, not by assumption. The premise of these arguments hinge on the idea of proving A idea wrong means B idea is correct. However, proving idea A wrong does not mean idea B is more correct or absolutely correct, it just means A idea is wrong. Even if one could prove all science to be wrong, this would have zero value to proving there is a god, only that the science is wrong. Does god have to provide quantitative evidence in order for existence to be concluded? If not, then I can claim I am god. I responded to your first post. I was pointing out how the "evidence" the world is complex therefore there must be a god, which is absolutely not evidence of a god. I am stating that your first post has an incorrect conclusion, hence we are still stuck on the first post premise. If you would rather, provide the best evidence for a god. "You are trying to boil it down to a simple phrase which is not how a complex universe or God works." - Apparently you know how "god" works, give me an example of something simple god has completed and provide detailed evidence of how this completion took place.

Complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion. You have yet to provide evidence to support your claim, keep in mind Blackbird you are the one making an incredible claim that a designer exists, please provide proof of design, detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design.

The quote often cites "random process" as a process for biological development, this indicates a lack of understanding of the biochemical development process. Understanding of interatomic and intermolecular behavior is required in order to simplify biological systems. A lack of understanding and knowledge of biochemical mechanisms is by no means a reason to present an unfounded conclusion.

It gives no evidence. It suggests that the world is complex, thus creation must be the answer. Which is a conclusion without basis. The article would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design. Complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.

If you can not quantitatively show or demonstrate the creation "how" of the "finished product" you can not state the finished product is a result of that creation. Quantitative analysis or methodology of design is required to prove design. By your understanding, such an event cannot be shown or demonstrated, thus it is not provable and has no reliable evidence. "Strong evidence that everything was created by an intelligent designer: God." - this was your title, no evidence is provided. Complexity does not equate to design. Design is not automatically assumed as the answer.

"logical deduction of the fact that something meaningful like the basic building blocks of the universe don't just appear out of nothing without an intelligent designer" - Again you would need proof of the designer and how the designer created these basic building blocks, in order to make a solid argument. "The fatal flaw in that statement is the fact that we are mere mortals, who were created by an omnipotent Creator or God and God has not chosen to provide a kind of scientific "proof" other than the evidence that exists in the creation before our eyes already" - For the third time you need to provide evidence of creation, specifically the "how".

On the atomic or quantum scale most natural systems are behaviorally simplistic. Atomically the universe operates in a narrow band of stability. "This had to be designed by a super-intelligence." - One would require fundamental proof in order to support such an immediate conclusion. If design is the intended proof, one would have to supply detailed evidence of specifically how the designer created the design. As a result, complexity does not equate or automatically fall to a designer conclusion.