Stonehenge and ID

quote:

---

JP: If DNA happened in nature I would agree.

---

Um, where else do you find DNA except in nature? The choices, as I see them, are "natural" and "artificial", and as far as I can tell, life is considered "natural".

quote:

---

However DNA is only evident in most living organisms.

---

...which means that DNA is natural.joz:
The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
joz:
We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....

​

John Paul:
If DNA happened in nature I would agree. However DNA is only evident in most living organisms. If you could show DNA can arise via purely natural processes... (I know, I know, for another thread perhaps)

​

joz:
The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?

​

John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.

​

---

Again we would say DNA, you wouldnt, which raises an interesting point you are claiming that CSI in DNA shows that there was a designer, which shows that the CSI is from design not laws acting on a natural system...Sounds suspiciously circular to me...So how do you tell the difference between a natural system and a designed one? If you cant why infer design....

quote:

---

John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.

---

Crystals don't exhibit complexity???No two snowflakes are the same.They demonstrably and obviously are not just a repeating pattern.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

quote:

---

Crystals don't exhibit complexity???

​

No two snowflakes are the same.

​

They demonstrably and obviously are not just a repeating pattern.

---

--Crystals are very complex....but its a natural simple process that drives it's growth, life is not simply created by any known natural process, which is what creationists are asking evolutionists for. Miller was a far cry from making any life and he put in quite a bit of intelligence filtering out what he wanted and didn't want in his experiment.----------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JP: If DNA happened in nature I would agree.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schraf:
Um, where else do you find DNA except in nature?John Paul:
It is only found in living organisms (or those that were once alive). Period.schraf:
The choices, as I see them, are "natural" and "artificial", and as far as I can tell, life is considered "natural".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.------------------
John Paul

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.

---

Yeah bud but what is your reason for claiming that DNA cant arise from natural processes?Anytime you feel like showing us how you differentiate between a created system and a natural system, please proceed.....

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.

---

So you attribute a supernatural explanation in the absence of any evidence alarm bells are ringing JP..

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.

---

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?It seems your method is to deny the possibility of natural systems and to thus insist they are all designed.... What is this assumption based on?

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?

---

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...Well how?

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.

---

And as we have pointed out ID does logicaly demand a supernatural ID`er...

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.

---

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...Thus according to you I will never have a valid example so we must investigate the founding of this idea...So what is this presupposition based on?

quote:

---

And I showed you why that example is invalid. Now do you have a valid example or not?

---

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)....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.....I am not interested in suggesting a chain of possible systems for you to flatly reject each one.....

Scuse my ignorance, whats CSI?cheers,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Complex Specified Information....

TY------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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 John Paul:
1)Logically, the IDer for life on Earth does NOT have to be supernatural.

​

2)Actually it was a challenge.

​

3)Your refusal to give an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI is very telling.

​

4)Observation.

​

5)I explained it. There is no evidence that DNA originated or could originate via purely natural processes. None, nada, zilch, zero.

​

6)Why can't you just give us an example of a natural system that exhibits CSI? Just one undisputable natural system would do fine.

​

7)I haven't flat out rejected anything yet.

---

1)We have been over this before on another thread, yes ID does infer a supernatural agent...2)A challenge how? Sounds like an a priori statement of disbelief to me?3)Not really I have given you one that I think does.... You reject it on the grounds that it cant happen... when pressed you do not answer the question how do you know it cant happen.... Thats the refusal that is very telling...4)Observation eh? What of?5)None that it couldnt either... Oh look we are back to square one... Except that before Magellan did it there was no evidence that you could circumnavigate the globe, doesnt mean you couldn`t.....6)That's kind of my point I cant give you an undisputable example while you hold dogmatically to the idea that CSI cannot arise naturally... So why dont you justify that idea...Otherwise any natural systems I suggest will be rejected "because it cant".....7)"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?"Sounds like a flat out rejection to me....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-17-2002]