Confusing mice with mousetraps

You could ague that, but you'd be wrong.What face did you have before you were born.

So does this mean that Behe, or other ID advocates, won't need mandatory labeling on food products to indicate the presence of genetically modified ingredients?Seriously, how would Behe, or anyone else, given two tomatoes be able to determine which one was engineered in a lab by man, and which was engineered by God?This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 16:38 AM

Behle obviously knows god's mind since he alone can detect the operation of god in the world.Poor god, once had the universe and now reduced to hiding in the bacflag.

But again, going with the precept, how could you show that?We can show the rushmore evidence because it is contemporary, but we have no evidence of the original face on the sphynx because it is lost in time.How can you tell that the face was not so weathered that it looked like a natural that looked like a face? the weathering would be expected to be asymetrical and random in effect so you would end up with a highly degraded image.What would be the evidence to show the lack of design?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

ahahahahaasend him some and see?

not uderstood?

that was in response to your "You could ague that, but you'd be wrong." comment.the question was that if the Old Man in NH had originally been a sculpture several thousand years old and now badly weathered, would you be able to discern that it was designed or not?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes,we could it would be obvious.

not to be too blunt, but how?by the absence of the same information around rushmore? not good enough, it needs evidence that it couldn't have been altered by design.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You've just used the ID argument that fails every time...My guess is that the Old Man in the Mountain was indeed a sculpture, it was simply not done in the same refined style as Rushmore or the Sphinx. Instead, the artist decided on a more abstract, rough-hewn, natural design that would not totally disrupt the existing landscape (as Rushmore does).It's sooooo obvious, isn't it?

Loudmouth:
______________________________________________________________________The problem that Behe faces is that he extrapolates IC systems created through manufacture to biological IC systems that are created through biological reproduction. The two are not comparable.
______________________________________________________________________Say a person builds a robot that can build other robots. The parts to the robot did not come together on their own, they needed a designer, yet the robots can "reproduce". The two ARE comparable.______________________________________________________________________
Why do we infer intelligent design when we find pottery shards? Because we have independent/separate evidence for an intelligence and a mechanism used by that intelligence that could have resulted in that pottery shard.
______________________________________________________________________If you're going to use that reasoning, then show me an example in nature of one species evolving into a new one. You don't have an example. Just theories. It's the same with Intellegent design. We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.
______________________________________________________________________
Behe tries to argue that we can detect design without both an evidenced intelligence and an evidenced mechanism, yet he has failed to do so with one present day example.
______________________________________________________________________Read "The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities", by William Dembski, mathematician of Baylor University. In it he identifies that the two key components of design are a Recognizable Pattern and an Improbable Object.
Example, any randomn mountain side is an improbable object since that particular mountain side is unique. However, a randomn mountian side does not usually follow a recognizable pattern. Mt. Rushmore is an inprobable object because rocks don't usually form like that, but it also bears a recognizable Pattern, and thus, the characteristics of design.

quote:

---

Say a person builds a robot that can build other robots. The parts to the robot did not come together on their own, they needed a designer, yet the robots can "reproduce". The two ARE comparable.

---

But that isn't the comparison that Behe draws. Behe compares mousetraps that do not arise through reproduction with biological systems that do arise through reproduction. Therefore he draws a false analogy. If you were to build robots that imperfectly replicate, then we might very well see IC systems arise through evolution.

quote:

---

If you're going to use that reasoning, then show me an example in nature of one species evolving into a new one. You don't have an example.

---

Yes I do. There are several examples of speciation. Do a search at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

quote:

---

It's the same with Intellegent design. We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.

---

It is not the same. Evolution uses OBSERVED MECHANISMS, the observed mechanisms of mutation and selection. ID does not use any observed mechanism. No one has observed God reaching down and designing life. Scientists have observed new traits arising through mutation and they have observed the frequency of that trait chaning through subsequent generations. You can infer design, but that inference must include observed natural processes. Since no one has observed any other mechanism besides natural ones, you are only able to infer evolution.

quote:

---

Read "The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities", by William Dembski, mathematician of Baylor University. In it he identifies that the two key components of design are a Recognizable Pattern and an Improbable Object.

---

The only problem is that humans naturally find patterns. The observance of a pattern does not rule out natural mechanisms. Without absolute full knowledge of the causal history of an organism or a biological feature, one can not even assign a probability to that feature, hence the impossibility of assigning "Improbable".

quote:

---

Example, any randomn mountain side is an improbable object since that particular mountain side is unique. However, a randomn mountian side does not usually follow a recognizable pattern. Mt. Rushmore is an inprobable object because rocks don't usually form like that, but it also bears a recognizable Pattern, and thus, the characteristics of design.

---

Mountains and Mt Rushmore are not created through biological reproduction. Try again.

Well, there should be some tool marks. So you want positive evidence that something never happened?

Once again we see the same fallacy. Robots are not people. Unless the robots can produce their own parts they are not biological units. What is the difference between living and non-living you fail to see?

Where's the culture that produced the Old Man?Any evidence that American Indians were into sculpture on a grand scale?Why did all the lines on th face follow natural fault lines with no sign of working?