Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Design and the intelligence hypothesis
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 109 (228319)
08-01-2005 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by ramoss
07-31-2005 10:42 AM


Re: this is easily answered
I am sorry, but if it takes "simple rules", then that's design by definition. The fact someone can use a few simple rules to program a computer to create design is evidence for design, not against it.
The question then becomes if these "simple rules" can emerge on their own or if it is reasonable to assume there is causal agent creating these simple rules, and if there is a causal agent, then what created that?
This message has been edited by randman, 08-01-2005 03:22 AM
This message has been edited by randman, 08-01-2005 03:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2005 10:42 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ramoss, posted 08-01-2005 7:47 AM randman has not replied
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 10:44 AM randman has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 47 of 109 (228359)
08-01-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
08-01-2005 3:22 AM


Re: this is easily answered
That is your assumption. Now, design an experiment that tests this assumption. Give me a testable statement , that if proven true, falsifies that assumption.
What you are doing is the logical fallacy of 'personal incredibilty'. Frankly, it is just an excuse to say 'See, there is a god.' I don't buy
your premise. The problem with your premise is that you are making what is known as a 'special pleding' for god. Why is there a god rather than nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:22 AM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 109 (228404)
08-01-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
08-01-2005 3:22 AM


Do rules equal design?
I am sorry, but if it takes "simple rules", then that's design by definition.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true.
If I flip a coin it will land showing either heads or tails.
Where is the design in that?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:22 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 PM jar has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 49 of 109 (228471)
08-01-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
08-01-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Do rules equal design?
The coin was designed, no?
The laws of gravity, etc,..pre-exist and reflect design and order, right?
In other words, the process reflects a program that provides for some seeming randomness from our perspective, if you put certain inputs into it.
But it will still fall, right? It does not just float off. There is predictability, a set of choices are predetermined even if the results are not exactly determined. It will be heads or tail every time, except maybe it could land on it's side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 10:44 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 08-01-2005 1:13 PM randman has not replied
 Message 51 by zyncod, posted 08-01-2005 2:08 PM randman has replied
 Message 52 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-01-2005 7:55 PM randman has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 109 (228483)
08-01-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
08-01-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
I'm sorry but that is simply nonsense.
This message has been edited by jar, 08-01-2005 01:21 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 PM randman has not replied

  
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 109 (228511)
08-01-2005 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
08-01-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
So complexity AND simplicity indicate design. "Intelligent design" as an idea seems to now be bordering on schizophrenia, where everything that happens or has happened supports this paranoia, regardless of whether or not these happenstances have anything to do with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:06 AM zyncod has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 52 of 109 (228594)
08-01-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by randman
08-01-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
randman writes:
The laws of gravity, etc,..pre-exist and reflect design and order, right?
In other words, the process reflects a program that provides for some seeming randomness from our perspective, if you put certain inputs into it.
But it will still fall, right? It does not just float off. There is predictability, a set of choices are predetermined even if the results are not exactly determined. It will be heads or tail every time, except maybe it could land on it's side.
If you shot it down from space at 100,000 mph, it would vaporize before hitting the Earth's surface.
Anyway, you can't get away from order and rules. I mean, if something always outputs a random result, that's a pretty simple rule that it's following. It's output would be, predictably, unpredictable.
If something outputs either a random or specific result, but at nonrandom intervals (say, every 3rd instance is random); that, too, is a rule that it's following. The first 2 instances are, predictably, predictable; and the 3rd is, predictably, unpredictable.
If something outputs either a random or specific result, but at random intervals; that again is a rule. The result is, predictably, unpredictable.
As everything must follow some rule (even if that rule is to follow no other rule), the presence of rules cannot be used as support of any position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:49 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 PM DominionSeraph has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 109 (228622)
08-01-2005 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by DominionSeraph
08-01-2005 7:55 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
I agree. There is a design element to all things. The only real question is how the design got there and what keeps it existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-01-2005 7:55 PM DominionSeraph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-06-2005 12:35 PM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 54 of 109 (228646)
08-02-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by zyncod
08-01-2005 2:08 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
So complexity AND simplicity indicate design.
That's not the argument. Things that appear designed most likely are. There are cases of things appearing designed but were not apparently, but forensic science is the study of design.
The universe does exhibit design. That's a fact. The question is where does the design come from, and to what degree or in what way are things "designed."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by zyncod, posted 08-01-2005 2:08 PM zyncod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by jar, posted 08-02-2005 10:16 AM randman has not replied
 Message 56 by ramoss, posted 08-02-2005 11:07 AM randman has not replied
 Message 70 by ramoss, posted 08-10-2005 9:56 AM randman has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 55 of 109 (228775)
08-02-2005 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
08-02-2005 1:06 AM


What design?
The universe does exhibit design. That's a fact.
Sorry but you have not yet provided any evidence to support that assertion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:06 AM randman has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 56 of 109 (228802)
08-02-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by randman
08-02-2005 1:06 AM


Re: Do rules equal design?
You have made that assertion. Repeatedly. Without evidence. Do you have any evidence for this besides the 'I can't understand how it could happen naturaly, so it must be a designer' logical fallacy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by randman, posted 08-02-2005 1:06 AM randman has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 57 of 109 (230096)
08-05-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
07-31-2005 5:23 AM


Re: "I Am"
cavediver
Just a bump to see if you have a chance to respond to my quetion as put forth in post #45?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2005-08-05 08:47 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2005 5:23 AM cavediver has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 58 of 109 (230427)
08-06-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
08-01-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Do rules equal design?
randman writes:
I agree. There is a design element to all things. The only real question is how the design got there and what keeps it existing.
That's not a valid question. "X follows no rules," is self-contradictory, as it's a rule unto itself. Thus, X must always follow some rule, as it's an impossibility for it not to. And you cannot ask how something that cannot not be there is there, as the question presupposes an impossibility -- that it could "not be there", and then asks for the means by which it got from the impossibility to the certainty.
"How did '1' go from equalling (something else) to equalling '1'; and what keeps it from sliding back to equalling (something else)?"
1 must always = 1, and can never = anything else. It needed no help getting there, since it was always there. It doesn't need to be 'sustained', since it's not a 'higher' position -- it's the only position.
This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-06-2005 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 PM randman has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 59 of 109 (231280)
08-09-2005 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
07-25-2005 1:43 PM


Re: Infinite Regression
There is a big difference between "We don't know." and "godditit". One is what leads the scientific process on to new knowledge. The other has, for all of history, stopped the developement of new knowledge.
Exactly... The desire to know ultimate causes shouldn't paralyse the continued quest for progressively deeper knowledge.
I once came up with a nice (I think ;-) ) one-liner for this:
"For a real scientist, 'God' can only be the answer to the question(s) that lie directly behind the current question she's trying to answer."
That's basically the only way to keep the machine running...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2005 1:43 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 60 of 109 (231695)
08-10-2005 1:48 AM


Followup despite Cnesorship
lking Points
Having laid out an ID hypothesis, predictive element, falsification element and having received no cogent reply, I propose the following as being an ICS and accoutable for only by ID.
Proposition: Carbon is ubiquitious and essential throughout life as we know it in every form. In fact there is no life that does not contain carbon. The carbon atom is an irreducibly complex system which is essential to every aspect of biological evolution and embedded in every form of life of which we are aware and without which no form of life could exist neither past nor present.
Corollary: A IC system is one which cannot be envisioned as working in any useful way absent a component part and cannot be ddemed operational by substituting any replacement part, neither by a series of small changes from less and less complex systems over long time periods principally by random mutation and natural selection.
Corollary: Every form of life at the system or subsystem level is then irreducibly complex because one cannot remove carbon from it and still have any semblance of life. There is no organism or subsystem in a living entity which is able to function without any carbon atoms in its structure, can be envisioned to work with a substitute atom for carbon either at the current state of the entity or in any previous status which by small changes could have eliminated carbon or sustitued for it while maintaining life functionlity
Corollary: Since no naturalistic explanation for the essentiality of carbon in life there is no viable alternative other than supernatural and the scientific complexity of the carbon atom makes it logically an ID system. Neither is there any scientific demonstrable basis for a non-carbon form of life at any point in the history of life for any living entity.
Conclusion: Evolution is a falsified theory because no scientific inquiry has ever demonstrated the development of the carbon atom from simpler "things" in a step by step process and carbon is a subsystem of every living entity without which all such entities cease to be alive. Life is an Irreducibly Complex System in every form for all time and inexplicable from other than an ID perspective ince the removal of one subsystem Carbon renders life to be non-life and cannot be built from simpler forms step by step.
Final thoughts on this subject for questions previously posed.
Darwins falsifiability statement would not mean one thing less if any "physical subsystem of a living entity" were substituted for major organ/feature/ since all major organs contain carbon atoms as part of their systematic makeup and are indeed a subsystem of the organ.
Yet by removing all carbon from the subsystem, by extension component or organ of which it is a part;that enstity will in every case ceae to function, cannot function with any other type of atom other than carbon and cannot be arrived at from a previous state where carbon would not have been necessary for its function.
Since the system has one or more components which absent that component cannot function regardless of the stage in development from the first life to that point then the system dependent absolutely on that component which is itself irreducibly complex then the iving entity cannot be accounted for by natural evolutionary means and must have been designed; it is an ID.
It also falsifies evolution in the context of current knowledge of living systems at the molecular, even atomic level in adherence with darwins definition ( an organism in life will consist of components/subsystems one of which carbon cannot be removed without destroying all living functionality.
I believe I have responded to the final thread preclosing questions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by nwr, posted 08-10-2005 1:57 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 62 by Parasomnium, posted 08-10-2005 3:51 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 64 by Wounded King, posted 08-10-2005 4:49 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 66 by DominionSeraph, posted 08-10-2005 7:12 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 72 by AdminJar, posted 08-10-2005 10:19 AM Evopeach has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024