Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,510 Year: 6,767/9,624 Month: 107/238 Week: 24/83 Day: 3/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 120 of 1273 (539561)
12-17-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 4:26 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
If you were walking down the street one day, and you came across a piece of paper that had written on it "Mark wrote this". Tell me, how would you know htat the person who wrote that was not named John? How would you know, that it wasn't actually a woman? How would you know, that it was not a trained monkey that wrote that? Or when, why and how it was written?
I wouldn't know, nor would I claim to know any of that, nor would any scinetist, if all he had as information was the writing on the paper.
The same goes for the Rosetta Stone. For all we know aliens could have designed it.
It could have been pooped out by a hippo with three horns on his butt as well....
How would you know the difference? You wouldn't obviously. We only assume that people did it. And it's a good assumption that is probably about 99.9% correct.
Yes, that's how science works. We work with the data we have. Since there is no evidence of any aliens ever having visitred this planet, we assume it was created by the only intelligence we know capable of producing it: man.
ut it's still an assumption. And we DO NOT, and I repeat, we DO NOT, know who, when, why and how designed that stone.
Yes, this is true for all science.
Yet we still infer design, without knowing the identity of the designer.
We infer that because it has written language on it, we know people used in the past. And we know people wrote on stones.
If you disagree, please tell me, how would you tell apart this Rosetta stone, and an identical one that was made by aliens.
No, nor does anyone claim they would. That's science for ya, tentative. We go with the best assumption we have untill more evidence is available that shows otherwise.
So, if you have evidence for this intelligent designer, show it, and we can then discuss whether or not he designed life on this planet. Untill then we go with the explanation that is simplest: Life arose by natural means and evolved by natural means.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 4:26 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 11:45 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 133 of 1273 (539653)
12-18-2009 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Smooth Operator
12-17-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
Than you do see how the same applies for the Rosetta Stone?
Yes. However, no one is claiming that it is absolutely certain it was made by humans. It is however the most likely scenario, there is no evidence that it's origin is anything else but human.
Very unlikely, but yes, it could have. Not only that but it could have just happened by chance. Like you belive that self replicating machinery does.
I don't believe self replicating machinery happens by chance alone.
Exactly. And that's called the inference to the best explanation. The best explanation is that a human intelligence did it. But if we are going to go into more general terms, an intelligence did it.
No, my hippo isn;t intelligent.
Since we do not know which. That humans did it, is after all an assumption.
An assumption based on all the available evidence. And untill evidence shows up that points to something else, that is what we'll go with.
But nevertheless, even thoug we do not actually know who designed the Rosetta Stone, a design inference was made. That is the main point to remember.
Because we know things like this are designed by humans.
Yes, but let's be more general.
Why?
What we see on the Rosetta stone is information. And we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information.
We know human intelligence creates information. We also know a whole bunch of other unintelligent things create information.
Therefore, we infer design from the Rosetta stone.
We infer human design, becuase we know humans create things like that.
And we do the same for DNA because it's information as well.
No. We know of no intelligence that would create DNA as information. Therefore we do not infer intelligence.
And as I said before, since we DO KNOW that intelligence creates information, we infer the Rosetta Stone, and DNA is designed.
No, since again, we don't know of any intelligence that would create DNA. Your analogy is false.
So you agree with me that we do not need to know who the designer was to infer design?
Not personally. But we must have evidence of the designer existing. Like we do with the rossetta stone. We know jumans exist, we know they use language and we know they write it in stone. We know nothing of your DNA making designer, if there even is such a thing.
You infered the Rosetta stone was designed because people write letters. To put it into more general terms, people use intelligence when they write and that's how they create information.
Yes. Now, what do we know of the DNA designer?
So here is my reasoning. Since we know that when intelligence acts, information is created, I infer that whan we find information we found design.
Wrong. First we need to know what this intelligence is that creates such information. Without that we have no way of knowing if it is indeed a product of intelligence.
So, when we find something like the Rosetta stone, we found something that was designed. The same goes for any information including DNA. The best explanation is that it was designed.
No it isn't. The best explanation is that untill we have an intelligence capable of designing DNA, we infer it doesn't need an intelligence.
I just explained it above. Life is based on DNA. DNA is information. Intelligence creates information. Therefore, we infer life was designed.
Wrong. Untill we have the designer, we infer nothing of the sort.
Where is the evidnece life can come about naturally?
We're working on it. Think again of my first sentence, it is the most likely scenario that it arose naturally, since we have absolutely no evidence of a DNA desigenr. So, where is your evidence for this DNA designer? Untill you provide that, we can ignore that as a possibility, because it needlessly complicates things.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-17-2009 11:45 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:39 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 135 of 1273 (539658)
12-18-2009 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 6:39 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
Exactly. Design inference was made without knowing the identity of the designer. The best possible explanation is that it was humans. But still, it's an assumption.
It's an inference made on the available evidence. We know humans use writing, we know they write in stones. We don' know of anything else that uses writing or writes in stones, ergo, we conclude it was made by humnas. And until other evidence is presented, that will be the explanation.
What else was there?
Chemistry and physics. Boh are not based on chance.
What does that have to do with the statement that generalization of human designing action is intelligent action?
You didn't say that, you said the stone was made by an intelligence. My hippo isn't intelligent.
That's true. The point remains that we inferred design without teh identity of the designer.
Because we have evidence pointing to a likely cause of that intelligence. We have no such vidence for DNA.
Exactly! And again, to say it in more general ways, we know information is created by intelligence.
We know information is created by unintelligent things as well. A bird building a nest is creating onformation.
So we can infer design without knowing the identity of the designer.
the exact identity perhaps, but not the general characteristics of the designer. We can't do any such things for your designer. We know absolutely nothing about him, let alone if he exists at all.
That is an assumption.
Based upon all the available evidence.
We do not need to make that assumption if we are more general and we just say that an intellignece made that stone.
But why ignore evidence to do that?
We don't kave to know an intelligence that would create DNA.
Yes we do, actually. Why else bring it up?
In general DNA is information.
So is a bird's nest.
Intelligence creates information, therefore the best explanation is that DNA was created by an intelligence.
There is plenty information created without intelligence. You even admitted it when you said that the stone could be pooped out by a hippo with three horns on its butt. That's not an intelligent cause for the stone.
We do not need to know that!
Yes we do.
We don't know any intelligence that made the Rosetta Stone either.
Of course we do, mankind. At least, all evidence points to that.
You say people write on stone slabs. That is true, but do you know any intelligence that actually made the Rosetta stone? No you don't.
know it? No. Infer it from all the available evidence? Yes.
Therefore, you can't say Rosetta stone is designed.
Then by extension, you can't say DNA is either. Thank you for disproving your own point.
We do not need to know that. Because design is evidence for a desginer in the first place.
If we know it is designed, yes. Do we know this? No.
Nothing except that it was intelligent.
We don't even know that. For by your own admission, information (the rosetta stone) can be created by unintelligent things (my hippo).
We don't know any intelligence that made the Rosetta Stone either.
No, but we infer it from the evidence.
You simply assume it was human.
I infer it was human, untill more evidence contradicting that is presented. Just like I infer DNA is natural until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Let's grant the idea that it was. So what? That's not an identity. Saying a human did it is not an identity. The identity would be to know the individual, or individuals that did it. But you do not know that.
But you know the characteristics of the individual. You know absolutely nothing about your desigenr, if he even exists at all.
In other words you are generalizing, adn saying it was designed by humans. I am doing the same thing, only I'm generalizing even more.
Ignoring evidence, and adding unnecesary things in the process.
No we don't. You don't know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone.
I infer from the evidence the characteristics he would have had.
Saying it was a human is not an identiy.
It is a set of chracteristics.
The name of the person is the identity. You generalize and say it was a human. I do the SAME THING and generalize even more and say it was an intelligence.
That's not the same thing. You ignore evidence.
Imagine a murder case. If you want to find out if a person died by a natural cause or it was murdered, and you want to accuse someone, you can't just say that the person was killed by a human. You need to identify the person who killed the dead person. You need the identiy, not just say it was a human.
Not all mureder cases are solved, you know. It all depends on the available evidence. Same with the stone. All evidence points to a human origin. Now wth DNA absolutely nothing points to an unnatural cause.
The point still remains that you can infer that a person was killed without knowing teh identiy.
Yes. Because of the evidence, and because we know humans kill other humans.
But it has marks of design.
No it doesn't.
And since design has for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
Circular reasoning. You want it to be designed, therfore say it is, and then say it requires a designer.
Therefore you can't infer design of the Rosetta stone becasue you do not know teh identity of the designer. Human did it is not an answer.
And again you disprove yourself. If this is true for me, then the same is true for you.
So you have no evidence?
We have clues pointing us in the direction of natural causes. While we have no evidence pointing in any other direction.
Non sequitur. Absence of evidence for one hypothesis is not evidence for another.
Exactly... This is true for you as well... Again, thank you.
But in this case we have evidence for one hypothesis.
We do indeed. Everything points to a natural cause.
The marks of design in DNA have for a logical necessity a designer, that means that such an intelligence exists.
There are no marks of design in DNA.
Design implies a designer.
Then you have to know it is designed, something you already admitted you do not. And in fact, you admitted things that appear designed (the rosetta stone) can be created wothout any design in mind (my hippo).
No, you can't ignore it because I said already that you do not need to know the identity of the designer to infer design.
You need to know characteristics of the designer though. Which you admittedly don't know anything about.
{ABE}: Anyway. We can fill entire books about this subject. That has however become completely unnecessary because you admitted that things that you think look designed (the roseta stone) can be created by a completely designless and unintelligent process (the pooping of my hippo), or indeed, even by chance alone. In short, we're done here, you admitted that DNA can arise by pure chance, or by an unintelligent, designless process. In other words, that there is absolutely no ground for claiming it must have been designed. Thank you, I couldn't have done it better myself.
Edited by Huntard, : Added last bit

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:39 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 1:34 PM Huntard has replied
 Message 140 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:58 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 137 of 1273 (539686)
12-18-2009 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 1:34 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
traderdrew writes:
I really think this is an interesting place to mine. So what is it about either chemistry or physics that enables the first self-replicating cell to form? Which particular abiogenesis hypothesis do you subscribe to?
Well, with the right conditions, it's actually inevitable for the first replicating "cell" to form. What those conditions are is what we're trying to find out now.
I think we can eliminate much of this dribble such as a rosetta stone coming out of a rhino butt with three horns if we go there.
That was actually to prove a point. One that Smooth apparently agreed with. Even though stuff looks designed, that doesn't mean it is.
I don't think a bird is creating information when it is building a nest.
Sure it is. Are you saying a nest contains no information at all? It has no height, structure, depth, width, strength...?
The bird is shaping what is already there. It is creating a certain type of order.
So are we when we're creating information (like the rosetta stone), we simply shape what is already there.
There is no new digital code being created in this process.
Of course not, it's not programming anything, is it? The info it is creating can be converted into digital code, however.
However, the nest (apparently it depends on how you define information) is shaped by an intelligence.
I wouldn't really call a bird intelligent (Does the expression bird brain ring a bell? )
I was going to sit on the side lines watching Smooth Operator and PaulK but I don't want to see you people wear Smooth out.
Seems to me he's done here, he has admitted that even though something looks designed, it could still have arisen by chance, or by an unintelligent designless process.
I think one of the most important points this debate boils down to is whether the digital code in the cell could have resulted from the laws of physics and chemistry or if it defies it and therefore, we could infer it as the result of intelligence.
Digital code in the cell? What are you talking about? It can be converted into digital code, yes, but it's not digital code all of its own.
It seems to me PaulK believes there are certain properties in a protein that need to be specified for function but, he seems to believe the assemblage of the proper chemical constituents would have self-organized in a way to form the first life. There are more questions. Can physics and chemistry explain the first cell. The book "Signature in the Cell" devoted hundreds of pages that says "No it can't. That is why Dean Kenyon said, "We haven't the slighted chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells."
That's an argument from authority.
If people like PaulK are right, then why don't we place all of the right chemical constituents with the right conditions into some sterile environments and let life form all over again?
Because we don't know yet what those components are and what the ideal environment for them is. One thing it certainly wasn't is sterile.
In the defense of materialistic science, we shouldn't assume that our known laws of physics and chemistry can't produce the first cell.
I agree.
However, I think for many forum participants here, it isn't about science, it is about protecting a belief system or planting the seeds of destroying one.
It's only ever been about that. At least, in my experience.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 1:34 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 4:01 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 156 of 1273 (539816)
12-20-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 4:01 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
traderdrew writes:
In other words, you have "faith" that it's actually inevitable but you don't know what those conditions that don't involve intelligence are in order to make it possible.
No, I have current scientific evidence which shows me that. And unlike faith based notions, I am not unwilling to change mine when the evidence suggests I was wrong.
It doesn't mean it isn't either if science can't explain it through some sort of spontaneous generation, RNA first, or self-organization model.
True. All evidence we have points in that direction, however.
The height, structure, depth, width are part of descriptions which help describe the nest. The strength is partly determined by its chemical structure which has its foundations in DNA.
First of all, DNA has it's base in chemistry, not the other way around. Second, are you denying the nest has information?
You know that before a language was engraved on the stone, it existed as an ordinary stone.
Exactly, we shaped what was already there.
The linguisitic symbols on it have an orderly, specified and complimentary relationship.
So?
Why are we arguing what is obvious? I am simply pointing out the difference between building a nest and part of the foundation of DNA.
The one being executed by a bird and the other being a result of chemistry?
Well then, maybe you can create a better nest than a bird if you have a better brain than a bird? :-)
I certainly can. I'd make it out of stainless steel, line it with the best isolating material around, place some guns on it to scare off predators.... I think you get the idea.
No I don't think so. There is still that 400 bits of CSI information that remains unanswered.
There is still 400 bits of flurble wakles information? What the hell is CSI information?
PaulK can say it doesn't exist but he isn't accounting for the growth onto the original information or how that information can self-organize into specified complimentary parts of an overall whole and the relationship of all the parts in the entire whole.
That's what we like to call evolution.
For self-replication to exist, don't you need machinery among other things?
No, you need chemistry and physics.
Don't you need things such as hydroporins on the surface of the cell in order to regulate water flow and other things to help regulate what comes into and out of the cell?
No.
How does it all deal with potential hypothetical problems?
Why would it have to deal with hypothetical probems? It's better off dealing with real ones.
I'm sure I can think of many other questions.
I'm sure you can. They'd probably either be answered, or nonsensical.
The digital code of DNA - PubMed
Also, look up Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis.
Ah, seems like language got in the way again. I was thinking digital as in a computer type of way, turns out that's not the complete definition of digital. My apologies (see, I change my position to suit the evidence ). The question now remains, so what?
And that quote of yours is not science.
I didn't quote anything. Nor do I pretend that what I'm writing here is science. It's based on science, but it's not science itself.
If it was science then you should be able to refute Dr. Dean Kenyon with scientific fact.
If you provide the entire article, instead of quotemining it, perhaps I can.
Then again, you don't disagree with my statement that much of this debate isn't about science around here.
Of course not. Science has settled this issue. It's the religously inclined that are the ones who aren't "buying" it. (quickly, quotemine it like the climate mails and use it to prove the big science conspiracy! )
Religion has been around for thousands of years and Darwinism has been here for 150 years.
Yes, and what understanding has religion brought us? None. And evolution? A whole great big deal!
A theory such as Darwinism can be rationalized into something that serves evil.
Everything can be. Says nothing about the validity of the theory though.
Religion has a head start but the Nazis had their roots in Darwinism - "Survival of the Fittest".
I thank you for losing this debate (Godwin, I like you more each day). Also, Hitler believed he was doing he creator's work (or should I say, Intelligent Designer?).

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 4:01 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 10:56 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 158 of 1273 (539819)
12-20-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Smooth Operator
12-18-2009 6:58 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Smooth Operator writes:
I agree.
Good. Now, the inference made on the available evidence regarding DNA is that it has a natural origin. Case closed (again).
So you are saying that regularity (chemistry and physics) + chance = self replicating machinery?
No. I'm saying chemistry and physics don't need "chance".
Which would make us think it didn't make that stone...
Irrelevant. You said it could have. That's all that is needed to tear down the "it [i]must[/] have been designed" argument.
The likely cause was an intelligence in both causes.
No. The likely cause in one instance was humans. In the other one it was chemistry and physics.
Birds are intelligent. Nut much, but they are intelligent.
Ok, then how about worms making patterns in sand. Are worms intelligent?
Exactly, we do not know anything about him, neither are we interested while detecting design.
But you would need to if you wanted to know if something is indeed designed.
I'm not ignoring any evidence. We do not know the identity of the designer of the DNA in living beings. I'm not ignoring anything.
I was referring to your further generalization regarding the stone. You have to ignore evidence to do that.
That's like saying we have to know the identity of the person who designed the Rosetta stone.
We don't. And I didn't say that. We have to know the characteristics of what designed it though, else we wouldn't know if it was deigned.
And now you will say that we do know that people make things like Rosetta stone.
Yes, yes we do.
And again, I will point out to you that that is the same thing I am saying when I say that DNA is designed. ONLY IN MORE GENERAL TERMS!!!!
No it isn't. For you have absolutely no evidence of DNA being designed, other then your wanting it to. It's a great big circle you're arguing here. The designer exists because DNA is designed. Why is DNA designed? Because it has a designer. Round and round it goes.
Please try to understand that. If you are not able to grasp this simple concept, than please take a look at this picture I made for you.
See Percy's post for a rebuttal. Again, you assume DNA is designed without actually showing it is.
Exactly. That is why a bird is the designer.
An unintelligent designer. Or worms making patterns in the sand...
Why?
Because how else are we to know he can create DNA?
No. That is not an identity.
It's a set of characteristics.
That is a generalization. Mankind is not an identity. The name of the individual who made the stone is the identity. Saying intelligence made the Rosetta stone is the same generalization only on an even more broader level.
And you'd have to ignore evidence to do that.
No. No evidence points to it. You are simply assuming it.
Wrong. All evidence points to it, while no evidence points to anything else.
What evidence?
The evidence that humans use writing, and that humans write in stones.
I'm trying to show you how wrong your argument is.
And in doing so have shown your own argument to be false as well. Again, thank you.
I only said that to show you that it's invalid.
And in the process invalidated your own position. I really can't thank you enough.
Obviously I do not agree with that reasoning.
Then why bring it up, if you think your own reasoning is false?
That is why we have the method of design detection which tells us if it is designed or not.
Would this method by any chance involve the process of simply asserting something to be designed? Because that is what you're doing.
Philosophically speaking yes. But scientifically no.
Changing the goalposts are we? You agreed that something that looks designed can arise by pure chance. Your argument is dead with that admission.
Therefore, Rosetta stone could not have been made by your hippo.
Then why did you agree it could?
It's are reasonable as saying that your hippo made all life on Earth.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying it could have, and you agreed. Also, you're asserting the same thing with your designer.
What evidence?
That humans use writing and that humans write in stones.
Infer based on what?
The evidence.
But no natural law has created anything like DNA, so why would you infer DNA was a natural product?
Because all evidence points in that direction.
Tell em the characteristics of the person or persons who made the Rosetta stone. Was it a male or a female?
Most likely male.
No. You are wrong twice in the same statement.
Not really no. You're ignoring evidence that DNA came about naturally, and adding this unnecessary designer.
I'm ignoring no evidence. Since there is no evidence that DNA can form naturally.
All evidence points to the fact it can.
And you do not understand the difference between ADDING ENTETIES and GENERALIZATION.
So, you're not adding a designer?
By sayign that an intellignece did something, I'm adding nothing new to the explanation.
In this case you are.
I'm generalizing becasue intelligence is not something new to a human. Human is a subset of an intelligent agent.
A subset? And how do you know what all the subsets are?
A lot of possible intelligent agents exist.
Undoubtedly. What's your evidence for them?
Humans are just one possible candidate for an explanation.
So are unintelligent causes, and even pure chance, by your own admission.
I'm actually reducing my chances of being wrong.
Based on nothing whatsoever.
Becasue you actually can be wrong in the case of the Rosetta stone being done by humans.
And so can you. You even admitted that with my hippo example. You yourself even said it could've been by pure chance.
Maybe it was a trained moneky.
Maybe it was a pooping hippo with three horns on its butt.
By saying that an intelligence did it I am reducing my chances of being wrong becasue a monkey is a subset of intelligent causes.
While ignoring the unintelligent causes you admitted could've made it as well.
Therefore if a trained monkey designed the Rosetta stone, you would be wrong, and I would be correct.
And if a pooping hippo did it, we would both be wrong.
Great. Tell me was he/she/it talkative? Was he/she/it tall? Was he/she/it blonde?
No idea. He was most probably human though.
Yes, but it's still not an identity.
It's much more then you have, however.
It's a generalization. A subset of intellignet causes. So sayign that an intellignece did it is equally valid.
No, for then you are ignoring evidence.
It's more general with less chances of being wrong.
Nope. Pooping hippo.
Why is it not the same thing? Do you not agree that the explanation only differens in the level of generalization?
No. You add unnecessary agents, and ignore evidence.
What evidence?
The evidence that points to a natural cause for DNA.
Besides the point. The point is that saying that it was human is not the identity. It would not pass in the court of law.
Did I say it would? Nor is it relevant to the point. The point is we can tell it's a human because we know the characteristics of a human.
Heh, well, you see, you are actually the one who is ignoring evidence. DNA is full of CSI. And CSI is the mark of intellignece. So yes, DNA does point to an intellignet cause.
So, DNA is full of made up stuff, which was made up to be able to say that DNA must have been designed.
Of course it has. DNA is an instance of CSI.
It's an instance of hippopoop.
For an example. human genome is about 3 billion base pairs long. Which is about 6 billion bits. It's complexity surpasses 10^120. This number is needed for a random chance to specify 400 bits of information. Anything that is above 400 bits is outside of the reach of our entire universe.
So, creatures with more base pairs then humans don't exist?
Not only that but it is specified in that it conforms to an independently given pattern. Therefore, it's a case of specified complexity, or short - CSI. Which is a reliable indicator of design.
It's full of hippopoop, and that is a reliable indicator of non-design.
It' snot circular, and I do not "want" it to be designed. I'm simply saying that if we find soemthing that is designed, that simply means that there was a designer.
You assert it is designed, however, and then say it therefore requires a designer. You have not shown it is designed, nor have you produced any designer capable of designing it.
No, I do not agree with that reasoning, I'm simply showing you how moronic the argument is.
You don't agree with your own reasoning? Then why bring it up?
Show me that evidence.
Have you got a while to read?
Yup, we do. CSI is a reliable mark of intellignece. DNA is CSI.
Hippopoop is a reliable mark of unintelligence. DNA is hippopoop.
We infer design.
No, you assert design.
Philosophically yes, scientifically no.
Scientifically as well. I don't know any scientist that would sy it is impossible for a hippo with three horns on its butt to have pooped out the Rosetta stone. They will be quick to point out however, that no evidence points to that conclusion, and that until it does such things should be disregarded.
Why would I need to know the characteristics of the designer?
Because else you can't say what he designed.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-18-2009 6:58 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-20-2009 8:43 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 303 of 1273 (540342)
12-24-2009 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by traderdrew
12-23-2009 11:51 PM


Re: ID Hides
well then, here's a document written by actual ID people, clearly linking it to christianity and creationism.
Will you accept that?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by traderdrew, posted 12-23-2009 11:51 PM traderdrew has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 432 of 1273 (540983)
12-30-2009 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by traderdrew
12-30-2009 12:51 PM


Re: Materialism and Creationism
traderdrew writes:
I would like to know what rule says science cannot investigate astrology.
Nothing. This isn't about science investigating astrology however. This is about astrology itself being science.
Why couldn't science lay the ground work for critically scrutinizing astrology?
Science did, and found out astrology is a load of bullcrap.
Is there a framework in science that could analyze the results of astrological findings?
Of course there is. However, again, you misunderstood. Science can investigate almost anything. Like the the claims for UFO's. That doesn't mean those claims are scientific though.
Even if astrology could be proven somewhat reliable, I don't think astrology would necessarily be the truth. Theoretically, another explanation could come along and explain the results better than astrology could.
Yes, that could very well be the case. Thus far nothing real has turned up though. However, does this make Astrology itself science? No. for the simple reason it doesn't follow the scientific method as it is currently defined. Science can investigate the claims made by astrology. AStrology itself however is not science. Unless you broaden the definition of science to include ID, then astrology suddenly does become science.
Get it? Investigation, yes. Being, no!

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by traderdrew, posted 12-30-2009 12:51 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by traderdrew, posted 12-30-2009 1:32 PM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 436 of 1273 (540990)
12-30-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by traderdrew
12-30-2009 1:32 PM


Re: Materialism and Creationism
traderdrew writes:
I can agree with you for once Huntard.
Thank you.
And that your post one reason why I don't think anyone can neatly categorize ID under something else.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying here. What "something else"? What is ID categorized under now, if not religion? It is according to the Wedge Document I linked, written by the people who thought up ID and who are now it's main advocates .

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by traderdrew, posted 12-30-2009 1:32 PM traderdrew has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 482 of 1273 (541319)
01-02-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by traderdrew
01-02-2010 1:09 PM


Re: ID is Here
traderdrew writes:
That's OK. I still have the ability to choose my own doctor here in the states but not for long.
I'm sorry for this off-topic posr, but I couldn't just let this pass. Is this a snide remark about your impending "socialized medicine"?
Because if it is, it's complete and utter bullshit, unless you're all doing something seriousy wrong. I live in a country where they have socialized medicine, and I can choose whatever doctor I please.
Now that that's cleared up, please continue the thread.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:09 PM traderdrew has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Admin, posted 01-02-2010 2:31 PM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 605 of 1273 (542477)
01-10-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by Brad H
01-10-2010 3:22 AM


Re: snow flake
Brad H writes:
Actually Nuggin, if someone were to reasonably present to me one example of a mutation that added new information to the chromosomal DNA of an organism, that had a positive effect on it's ability to survive... {snip} ...then that means that the Bible would be wrong. Specifically the book of Genesis. But if the book of Genesis were proven wrong then that would mean that, because in the New Testament Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the book of Genesis (creation account), therefor Jesus would in effect be wrong. And if Jesus was shown to be wrong in even one thing, then that would mean He is not Lord of all and my faith in Him was in vain.
And it couldn't possibly be recorded wrong in the bible because?
If you present me with the above evidence, as asked, then I will toss my Bible in the trash and never again darken the door way of another church. I would become a hard line evolutionist and atheist.
While I don't agree with your course of action (and yes, I'm an atheist), here you go.
But let me just say that I have a personal relationship with Christ and know beyond any doubt that this will never happen.
It just did. Tells you something about faith, doesn't it?
That would be like someone trying to prove to me that my Dad was never born.
Well, guess he never was then.
The fact that I know him and have a personal relationship with him proves to me that there is no possible way that someone could prove he was never born.
Since I just provided you evidence of a mutation that increased information in the genome (as it added something that wasn't therer before), and also is a survival advantage (the bacteria can now digest stuff it couldn't at first), I guess your personal relationship with christ isn't all that you make it out to be.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 3:22 AM Brad H has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 711 of 1273 (543567)
01-19-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 710 by Admin
01-19-2010 6:42 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Admin writes:
Hi Nuggin,
It would help me out if you could produce the quote again, or at least provide a reference to the message where you quote Dembski equating ID with creationism.
He did that in Message 362
Nuggin writes:
Now you're just demonstrating your own ignorance of your side of the debate.
12-24-07
Interview with Dembski.
Here's the link: OREGON: Ask Governor Kate Brown to Veto Legislation Mandating LGBT Content in ALL School History, Geography, Economics and Civics Curriculums | Family Policy Alliance
Here's the Question and Answer:
quote:
4. Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?
I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.
And again in Message 664, where he quotes Dembski (although, without a direct source, perhaps that could be provided.):
Demski writes:
Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 710 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 6:42 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 712 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:26 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 713 of 1273 (543573)
01-19-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 712 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:26 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Admin writes:
I had already found those two messages. I was looking for Nuggin quoting Dembski equating ID with creationism.
Isn't that what he's doing when he says: "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."
Or am I missing something here?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 712 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:26 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Huntard has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 715 of 1273 (543577)
01-19-2010 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I don't know if you want to continue this discussion here, but here goes:
Admin writes:
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
Not all creationists are biblical literalists either. In my opinion saying: "God created/disgned this and that" is creationism. So, if Dembski says that the designer of ID is the christian god, he is saying it is creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 716 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 8:37 AM Huntard has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2554 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 727 of 1273 (543820)
01-21-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by Straggler
01-20-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Straggler writes:
But I am hardly a keen follower of his work so if anyone can show me him saying that biblical creationism rather than just ID is physically evidenced then I will be happy to admit I am talking out of my arse and that there is no distinction as far as he is concerned.
But isn't ID the way to show how "biblical creationism" is evidenced in reality?
I mean, say ID was evidenced, wouldn't Dembski then be overjoyed he found "evidence for god's creation"? He clearly thinks that's how it happened, evidenced by his adam and eve quoet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:33 AM Huntard has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024