Stonehenge and ID

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Life is only 'natural' if it originated via purely naturalistic processes. So saying life is considered 'natural' is an unsubstantiated claim.
Anytime you want to show us that DNA can arise via purely natural processes, please proceed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Yeah bud but what is your reason for claiming that DNA cant arise from natural processes?John Paul:
There is no evidence that it can or it did.joz:
Anytime you feel like showing us how you differentiate between a created system and a natural system, please proceed.....John Paul:
So far the only 'natural' systems that exhibit CSI are the systems that allegedly originated nturally. However with no evidence to substantiate that claim it is no more than a baseless assertion.I asked for an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI and you gave me DNA (see the last sentence in my above statement). Do you have any examples of a natural system that exhibits CSI?------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
There is no evidence that it can or it did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
So you attribute a supernatural explanation in the absence of any evidence alarm bells are ringing JP..John Paul:
Hey bud, what's your problem? It doesn't have to be supernatural, as has been pointed out too many times now.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Anytime you feel like showing us how you differentiate between a created system and a natural system, please proceed.....
John Paul:
So far the only 'natural' systems that exhibit CSI are the systems that allegedly originated naturally. However with no evidence to substantiate that claim it is no more than a baseless assertion.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Hardly an answer JP. In case you missed it first time round I asked how you differentiate naturally occurring systems from created ones.... So how do you?John Paul:
Natural systems to not exhibit CSI. We went over this already. Do you have an example or not? That way we could discuss something.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I asked for an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI and you gave me DNA (see the last sentence in my above statement). Do you have any examples of a natural system that exhibits CSI?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Actually I gave the example of DNA with the qualifier that you would not accept it and asked how you tell if a system is natural or designed...John Paul:
And I showed you why that example is invalid. Now do you have a valid example or not?------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Hey bud, what's your problem? It doesn't have to be supernatural, as has been pointed out too many times now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
And as we have pointed out ID does logicaly demand a supernatural ID`er...John Paul:
Logically, the IDer for life on Earth does NOT have to be supernatural.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural systems to not exhibit CSI. We went over this already. Do you have an example or not? That way we could discuss something.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
Um bud it sounds like you are starting with a presupposition that CSI can`t arise from natural systems which leads to your automatic gainsaying of any system that I mention...John Paul:
Actually it was a challenge.joz:
Thus according to you I will never have a valid example so we must investigate the founding of this idea...John Paul:
Your refusal to give an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI is very telling.joz:
So what is this presupposition based on?John Paul:
Observation.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I showed you why that example is invalid. Now do you have a valid example or not?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
joz:
You haven`t actually you just flat denied it and refused to describe why, this is not showing anything (apart from a lack of willingness to discuss your decision making process)....John Paul:
I explained it. There is no evidence that DNA originated or could originate via purely natural processes. None, nada, zilch, zero.joz:
As I said above for you to accept any example I give as valid you must accept that CSI can arise from a natural system then we can discuss it and see if it is a natural system or not.....John Paul:
Why can't you just give us an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI? Just one undisputable natural system would do fine.joz:
I am not interested in suggesting a chain of possible systems for you to flatly reject each one.....John Paul:
I haven't flat out rejected anything yet.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Ok JP you just posted something so i know your there...

​

The question is how do you differentiate between natural and designed systems?

​

I`ve been waiting for a while and you seem to know how, so how do you tell the difference JP?

---

John Paul:
Do you know how many articles, that explain exactly that- better than I could, you could have read by now? It's called inferring design and is done today in different fields- such as archaeology, anthropology, arson investigations and forensics.I can't put in one post what these experts took books to convey.Sometimes detecting design is mind correlative- for example you are walking in a forest, you come to and cross a meadow. At the other side of the meadow is a square field of pine trees. 100 rows by 100 rows, with each row 10 feet apart. Ok quickly- Chance or design?Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring? if yes it is attributed to regularity. If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring? if Yes we can attribute it to chance. If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.Let me quote from Behe's Darwin's Black Box:
"Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant."*He goes on to say, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same priciples as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components." (emph. added)*Same elephant------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:
start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring? if yes it is attributed to regularity. If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring? if Yes we can attribute it to chance. If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.

---

joz:
That should really be called Dembskis bald assertion filter:John Paul:
joz, have you read The Design Inference or Dembski’s new book, No Free Lunch? If you answer No, then I would have to surmise you don’t know what the heck you are talking about (which is obvious to me regardless of what you say you have read). Believe me when I tell you he gets more in-depth on the concept than I did in my post.What answer did you come up with for the 100 rows x 100 rows of pine trees?"does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design"joz:
In other words CSI is designed coz it is....John Paul:
No joz- It’s called a design inference. Basically like I stated in my opening of my last post. If you want to learn I suggest doing some research. If you want to nit-pick from ignorance, I suggest you follow the path you are on. I asked you to present an example of a system that is naturally occurring that also exhibits CSI and you have refused to do so. Is that because the only example is the one you gave? And that one is far from being shown to have originated via purely natural processes?
So again- give us something that we know originated via purely natural processes that also exhibits CSI and we will have something to discuss. It’s not my fault if you can’t falsify Dembski’s filter.joz:
What did he derive it from an a priori notion that CSI must be designed? How did he know?John Paul:
As Dembski puts it, "Eliminating chance through small probabilities has a long history." He sites Borel, then corrects Borel's Single Law of Chance with the Law of Small Probability.joz:
Another key point is he says chance NOT chance changes selectively passed on to the next generation on the basis of suitibility...
If he is going to ignore the role that NS its hardly likely that his "filter" is going to "explain" anything...John Paul:
NS doesn’t design from scratch. It works on what is already there. What Dembski et al. are basically saying is specified complexity can't arise from a random process culled by NS.When you combine Dembski with Behe's, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same priciples as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" (emph. added), and it should become clearer. Mix in a little mind correlation from Del Ratzsch ("Nature, Design, and Science") and it's close to being a no-brainer.joz:
JP theres a big problem with your arson enquiry, archaeology etc examples in that these are all cases where designed events need to be distinguished from chance ones.John Paul:
You asked how we can differentiate between a natural system and a designed system. I answered that. In each one of the fields I mentioned that is what is being done- differentiating between nature (or chance) & design. If you want a more in-depth answer, do the research. It’s not like ID is someone’s whim. There’s plenty of literature out there on ID.joz:
Evolution is chance mutations AND a filter (natural selection) until you address the issue of the selection for beneficial mutations you (and Dembski) have nothing.John Paul:
What I posted from Behe covers that, thank you. Nice of you to ignore that part of my post. Your mistake seems to be that you think design voids evolution. It doesn’t. Evolution is what happened to the design, once it was left in nature.If you can show that life could arise from non-life via purely natural means, not only would you win $1.35 million, you would also be well on the way to falsifying ID. The same goes for RNA or DNA. If you cannot do that then it is you who has nothing to hold against IDists.------------------
John Paul

mark24:
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God.John Paul:
This is a philosophical issue- one in which we may never get an answer. I don't deny God Created life on Earth, I just say that God isn't necessarily the only intelligent agent that could have done so. ID does not mention God, only ID critics do.Mark24:
What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?John Paul:
Because it does explain the obvious. Also, as I have posted, origins are of little import to understanding form, function and maintenance.Mark24:
So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.John Paul:
It is my understanding that God, by definition, is the un-Created Creator of the Universe. So your statement would be true.Mark24:
Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.John Paul:
I guess that is what happens when I try to answer questions for 5-year olds. All of the things you mentioned were possiblities of an intelligent agent that may have brought life to Earth.Mark24:
In summary:Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers?John Paul:
Good question for philosophy 101.------------------
John Paul

joz, Let me make this clear- again. The reason you can not use DNA as an example of CSI in a natural system is because you, or anyone else, have not shown that DNA originated via purely natural processes. The same can be said for life.Before we can continue- what part of this don't you understand?------------------
John Paul

edge:
So who is the designer?John Paul:
It doesn't matter.edge:
Who designed the designer?John Paul:
Non-sequitor.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
JP you posted this:

​

on the study of ID thread. Please feel free to answer my questions as to your method of differentiating between natural and designed systems.....

---

John Paul:
There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weyland:
Here's a little question. If the EF can distinguish between natural design, could you explain to me how it would distinguish between the following objects:

​

1) Giants Causeway:
http://www.malcomson.com/photos/ireland/images/giants.jpg
http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/steps.jpg

​

2) Honeycomb
http://www.mutrux.com/bk24T.jpg

​

3) Hexagonal Tiles
http://www.annsacks.com/assets/images/ terraCotta_about.jpg

​

For a bonus mark, how would you use the EF to distinguish between stonehenge (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation) from the giants causeway (a group of rough but regularly shaped stones standing in a regular formation)
Please pay particular emphasis to how you would make this distinction if the Victorians had not spent so much time and effort putting the lintel stones back across the uprights - ie the henge consisted of some freestanding pillars and some fallen stones.

​

---

John Paul:
1) Giants Causeway- 1st box of the EF- does this formation have a high probabilty of occurance? We have never observed such a thing but we do have computer simulations that say this is a natural consequence of cooling lava. But the similation is tainted by man's touch. We should not attribute this formation to regularity.Next box- does this formation have an intermediate chance of occurring? Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.Box 3- does this formation have a small probability of occurring? Yes it does. Is it specified? Not as much as Mt. Rushmore is specified to us, but that doesn't mean someone didn't design it.In this case you would need more data. Look for signs of counterflow and any volcanic activity that is or was in the area. Data confirming specificity would mean design.Our mind correlates to the hexagonal shape, but not to the feat it would take to design and build such a thing.2) the honeycomb- well we see insects building those. Case closed.3) terra cotta- again, very similar to #1. More information would be required. Photos are not the best way to conduct an investigation.Extra credit- the stones themselves (at stonehenge) suggest something other than a natural formation. There isn't stone like that for miles (or is it kilometers?). That would be the telling difference. Then you need to do some investigation and put that data with the event.------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I'm glad to see you have also taken to rubbishing the so-called filter. It's good to see you doing so so effectively.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Next box- does this formation have an intermediate chance of occurring? Again it has never been directly observed and for some reason our minds can't fathom it was built by man and we won't accept giants, so on to box 3.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I wish creationists would follow your example. Presumably if we can't fathom it was designed and we won't accept a designer we can just skip the design step?

​

Pretty cool, though. Used this way, the filter works!

---

John Paul:
In reality I was cutting out the chase and getting TO the DESIGN box. Read it again. The "Next box" I am refering to is none other than box #2 (we usually assume 2 would follow 1, especially in this context). Design is saved for box 3, which, in this context, is after 2, which we determined I was referring in the above quote box.Once in box 3 (the design box), we make the determination of design, not by photos, but by actual data gathering using all means possible. I am sure I said it does exhibit some extent of mind correlation, and until shown evidence to the contrary, I could see how the design inference could be made. Honestly, my inability to accept that giants built these structures would lead me to seek the evidence so that I may ascertain the truth. And with the evidence at hand, the design filter would start me on my way.If this formation was found all over the world and observed occurring, the filter may just the inquiry stop at box 1- ruling out design altogether. Truthfully reading his book The Design Inference would do his filter more justice than I am.He (and others) have some pretty interesting articles and posts that may help shed some light on this :International Society of Complexity, Information and Design

​

------------------
John Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Humour me and apply the filter to DNA will you....

​

I know (don`t ask me how I just have this feeling) your going to get to step three and exclaim design, what I`m really intrested in is where you eliminate the possibility of chance changes WITH a selection mechanism.....

​

Because untill the filter acounts for selection it really can`t be applied as a critique of evolution, can it!

---

John Paul:
OK DNA enters box #1. Does DNA have a high probabilty of originating via purely natural processes? We have never observed DNA do this. That doesn't mean it can't happen but it just doesn't happen regularly. On to box #2.Does DNA have an intermediate probability of origination via purely natural processes? Again DNA has never been observed originating via purely natural processes. Even if we put all the amino acids we know are in living organisms into a flask, DNA does not form. On to box # 3Does DNA have a small probability of originating by purely natural processes? For discussion sake we will say Yes. Is DNA specified? Yes, unless it is shown that any DNA sequence would give rise to a living organism.We could then run with that premise or set out to falsify it.CSI (complex specified information) is the hallmark of the design inference and ever since Darwin's black box has been opened it can no longer be ignored.DNA doesn't replicate so well outside of a cell. And even then it is in the protection of a lab environment.As Mr. P pointed out there are more factors that go into determining design, especially when the object of study does not exhibit specified complexity.------------------
John Paul