Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Confusing mice with mousetraps
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 16 of 90 (188739)
02-26-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
02-26-2005 8:20 AM


Face
one could argue that the "old man" was just a much older sculpture that had weathered to where all evidence of it's manufacturing was obliterated, and had originally been of an equally compelling historical figure that has since been lost in time.
what was the original face of the sphynx before it was recut?
You could ague that, but you'd be wrong.
What face did you have before you were born.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 8:20 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 6:55 PM tsig has replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 90 (188742)
02-26-2005 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
02-23-2005 1:14 AM


DHA writes:
Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.
Michael Behe NYT article.
So does this mean that Behe, or other ID advocates, won't need mandatory labeling on food products to indicate the presence of genetically modified ingredients?
Seriously, how would Behe, or anyone else, given two tomatoes be able to determine which one was engineered in a lab by man, and which was engineered by God?
This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 16:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tsig, posted 02-23-2005 1:14 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tsig, posted 02-26-2005 4:52 PM custard has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 6:58 PM custard has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 18 of 90 (188745)
02-26-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by custard
02-26-2005 4:37 PM


So does this mean that Behe, or other ID advocates, won't need mandatory labeling on food products to indicate the presence of genetically modified ingredients?
Seriously, how would Behe, or anyone else, given two tomatoes be able to determine which one was engineered in a lab by man, and which was engineered by God?
Behle obviously knows god's mind since he alone can detect the operation of god in the world.
Poor god, once had the universe and now reduced to hiding in the bacflag.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 4:37 PM custard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 90 (188780)
02-26-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by tsig
02-26-2005 4:31 PM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by tsig, posted 02-26-2005 4:31 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by tsig, posted 02-26-2005 7:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 90 (188782)
02-26-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by custard
02-26-2005 4:37 PM


ahahahahaa
send him some and see?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 4:37 PM custard has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 21 of 90 (188790)
02-26-2005 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
02-26-2005 6:55 PM


Re: Face
not uderstood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 6:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 9:24 PM tsig has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 90 (188803)
02-26-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by tsig
02-26-2005 7:19 PM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by tsig, posted 02-26-2005 7:19 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tsig, posted 02-27-2005 1:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 23 of 90 (188924)
02-27-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
02-26-2005 9:24 PM


Re: Face
the question was that if the Old Man in NH had originally been a sculpture several thousand years old and now badly weathered, would you be able to discern that it was designed or not?
Yes,we could it would be obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 9:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2005 3:21 PM tsig has replied
 Message 25 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-27-2005 5:26 PM tsig has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1661 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 90 (188951)
02-27-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tsig
02-27-2005 1:34 PM


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tsig, posted 02-27-2005 1:34 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 25 of 90 (188985)
02-27-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tsig
02-27-2005 1:34 PM


obviously, no....
Yes, we could it would be obvious.
You've just used the ID argument that fails every time...
My guess is that the Old Man in the Mountain was indeed a sculpture, it was simply not done in the same refined style as Rushmore or the Sphinx. Instead, the artist decided on a more abstract, rough-hewn, natural design that would not totally disrupt the existing landscape (as Rushmore does).
It's sooooo obvious, isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tsig, posted 02-27-2005 1:34 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:51 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 90 (189457)
03-01-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Loudmouth
02-23-2005 1:24 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 02-23-2005 1:24 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 03-01-2005 12:44 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 29 by tsig, posted 03-01-2005 8:44 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 33 by custard, posted 03-02-2005 2:33 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 90 (189460)
03-01-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by LDSdude
03-01-2005 12:25 PM


quote:
Say a person builds a robot that can build other robots. The parts to the robot did not come together on their own, they needed a designer, yet the robots can "reproduce". The two ARE comparable.
But that isn't the comparison that Behe draws. Behe compares mousetraps that do not arise through reproduction with biological systems that do arise through reproduction. Therefore he draws a false analogy. If you were to build robots that imperfectly replicate, then we might very well see IC systems arise through evolution.
quote:
If you're going to use that reasoning, then show me an example in nature of one species evolving into a new one. You don't have an example.
Yes I do. There are several examples of speciation. Do a search at TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
quote:
It's the same with Intellegent design. We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.
It is not the same. Evolution uses OBSERVED MECHANISMS, the observed mechanisms of mutation and selection. ID does not use any observed mechanism. No one has observed God reaching down and designing life. Scientists have observed new traits arising through mutation and they have observed the frequency of that trait chaning through subsequent generations. You can infer design, but that inference must include observed natural processes. Since no one has observed any other mechanism besides natural ones, you are only able to infer evolution.
quote:
Read "The Design Inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities", by William Dembski, mathematician of Baylor University. In it he identifies that the two key components of design are a Recognizable Pattern and an Improbable Object.
The only problem is that humans naturally find patterns. The observance of a pattern does not rule out natural mechanisms. Without absolute full knowledge of the causal history of an organism or a biological feature, one can not even assign a probability to that feature, hence the impossibility of assigning "Improbable".
quote:
Example, any randomn mountain side is an improbable object since that particular mountain side is unique. However, a randomn mountian side does not usually follow a recognizable pattern. Mt. Rushmore is an inprobable object because rocks don't usually form like that, but it also bears a recognizable Pattern, and thus, the characteristics of design.
Mountains and Mt Rushmore are not created through biological reproduction. Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by LDSdude, posted 03-01-2005 12:25 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 28 of 90 (189552)
03-01-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
02-27-2005 3:21 PM


Re: Face
not to be too blunt, but how?
by the absence of the same information around rushmore? not good enough, it needs evidence that it couldn't have been altered by design.
Well, there should be some tool marks. So you want positive evidence that something never happened?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 02-27-2005 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2005 7:05 AM tsig has replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 29 of 90 (189553)
03-01-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by LDSdude
03-01-2005 12:25 PM


Say a person builds a robot that can build other robots. The parts to the robot did not come together on their own, they needed a designer, yet the robots can "reproduce". The two ARE comparable.
Once again we see the same fallacy. Robots are not people. Unless the robots can produce their own parts they are not biological units. What is the difference between living and non-living you fail to see?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by LDSdude, posted 03-01-2005 12:25 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3165 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 30 of 90 (189554)
03-01-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by pink sasquatch
02-27-2005 5:26 PM


Re: obviously, no....
My guess is that the Old Man in the Mountain was indeed a sculpture, it was simply not done in the same refined style as Rushmore or the Sphinx. Instead, the artist decided on a more abstract, rough-hewn, natural design that would not totally disrupt the existing landscape (as Rushmore does).
It's sooooo obvious, isn't it?
Where's the culture that produced the Old Man?
Any evidence that American Indians were into sculpture on a grand scale?
Why did all the lines on th face follow natural fault lines with no sign of working?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-27-2005 5:26 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2005 8:59 PM tsig has replied
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 8:49 AM tsig 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