Stonehenge and ID

In a couple of threads I used Stonehenge as an example of deducing design. The point of that example is to show that design can be deduced without knowledge of the designer.Oh sure we can say "The peoples of this time period did this or that..." but doesn't archaeology just tell us about the peoples who built the structure (if it tells us that) and not the designer(s)?* And really, what do we know of the alleged builders that would better aid us to determine that Stonehenge was designed? I say it wouldn't matter if we knew nothing or everything, we would still infer design when we saw it. (unless of course by knowing everything about those peoples somehow brought us to the unlikely conclusion it was a natural formation)The same can be applied to biology. We don't have to know who the designer was/ is in order to infer design in living organisms. The design is apparent. The difference between evolutionists and IDists (and Creationists) is the evolutionists say the apparent design is illusory and the IDists (and Creationists) say it isn't. To me by saying one of those PoVs is scientific while the other one isn't, is like saying you have a two sided coin but when it is tossed (1,000,000 times) it always lands heads up.*"Its (Stonehenge) precise creators remain unknown, its purpose ultimately is unknowable, and the very fact of its existence is a marvel." page 64, National Geographic Society's The Wonders of the World 1998------------------
John Paul

Larry:
Except that a stone structure doesn't reproduce and so there is no way for evolution to occur.John Paul:
But that has NOTHING to do with the point I made.Larry:
You have made an argument by analogy that is invalid due to the two categories being uncomparable on a key feature.John Paul:
Obviously you are confused. I only used that analogy to show we do NOT have to know the designer to infer design. Nothing more, nothing less. But I know that you will continue to misrepresent that fact because that is all you have.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-09-2002]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------doesn't archaeology just tell us about the peoples who built the structure (if it tells us that) and not the designer(s)?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
schall:
So, one group of people designs it, dies out, and ANOTHER comes across the design and builds it?
Right. The people who built it are the designers.
False analogy, since they are one and the same.John Paul:
OK please provide the evidence to substantiate that claim.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
Except that a stone structure doesn't reproduce and so there is no way for evolution to occur.
John Paul:
But that has NOTHING to do with the point I made.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kc:
It certainly does.John Paul:
It soitenly doesn't.Kkc:
You're comparing the complexity of cells, plants, an animals with the complexity of Stonehenge.John Paul:
No, I am not comparing anything.kc:
However, cells, plants, and animals can mutate when they reproduce, and Stonehenge - get this - cannot.John Paul:
I never said Stonehenge can reproduce. BTW, did you know that even reproduction appears to be IC?kc:
Thus, as Larry said, your analogy is invalid.John Paul:
If you twist it around I am sure it could be. But if you leave it in context, it is very valid.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-10-2002]

joz:
There is another point that probably should be made, given that stonehenge is basically a stone-age calendar and astronomical observatory (as is evidenced by the alignment of the structure to given celestial phenomena) then its IDer really just put gloss on a design that was predetermined.John Paul:
The problem is we don't know that (what you stated as the purpose for Stonehenge) for sure. IOW, it is nothing but a post hoc deduction. However, yes the aligment of the stones is part of what indicates to us, it was designed.------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
In a couple of threads I used Stonehenge as an example of deducing design. The point of that example is to show that design can be deduced without knowledge of the designer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeff:
Of course this ignores other strong indications that Stonehenge was designed:1. we have pre-existing knowledge that the designers (humans) lived there before, during and after the construction of StonehengeJohn Paul:
We do? Please provide the evidence that shows the designers of Stonehenge were human. Seeing that your argument depends on that...But anyway, you still miss the point. We do NOT have to know the designer to determine something was designed. If you people can't understand that basic simple statement, there is no need to further this discussion.------------------
John Paul

slp:
John Paul, of course, started a new thread on this topic because I had shown how he was in error in using Stonehenge as an analogy about inferring desing without knowing about the Designers.John Paul:
Of course you did no such thing. If you would have read my response to your nonsense you would know that.slp:
Others have refuted JPs attempts to 'prove' his point, but I want to re-emphasize something which JP simply ignored:The 'designer's' of Stonehenge left a history of their work.John Paul:
No, the builders left a history. Please present the evidence that the builders and designers were one in the same.slp:
I asked for some examples in biology for a comparable 'history' for the ID of some biological structures/entities.I got nothing but the usual run around.John Paul:
That is a lie but lying is a typical response from you. You should read the responses to your pap (in the other thread) so you wouldn't look like such a fool. (see post 86 slp strikes out, again)slp:
That he simply starts a new thread saying the same stuff over and over when rebutted/refuted is also a given.John Paul:
That is demonstratebly false. No one has refuted anything about inferring design without knowing the designer.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-10-2002]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
slp:
John Paul, of course, started a new thread on this topic because I had shown how he was in error in using Stonehenge as an analogy about inferring desing without knowing about the Designers.
John Paul:
Of course you did no such thing. If you would have read my response to your nonsense you would know that.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
I wrote no nonsense, so your quip is meaningless.John Paul:
That is all you write.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
Others have refuted JPs attempts to 'prove' his point, but I want to re-emphasize something which JP simply ignored:The 'designer's' of Stonehenge left a history of their work.John Paul:
No, the builders left a history. Please present the evidence that the builders and designers were one in the same.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
The usual nitpicking BS. Are you now going to tell us that aliens 'designed' it? Or perhaps your 'Intelligent Designer' really 'designed' life, but someone or something else carried out the instructions?John Paul:
I see you didn't provide any evidence that the builders were the designers. How typical of you.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
I asked for some examples in biology for a comparable 'history' for the ID of some biological structures/entities.I got nothing but the usual run around.John Paul:
That is a lie but lying is a typical response from you. You should read the responses to your pap (in the other thread) so you wouldn't look like such a fool. (see post 86 slp strikes out, again)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
I enjoy reading your emulations of me - using words that I use and so on. Mimicry is actually quite a compliment.John Paul:
Now you are going to tell us you defined words? LOL! Or are you saying that I never used some of the words you use before I started posting?slp:
Oh, you mean quotes form "Julie Thomas" - a pseudonym, by the way? And questioning my age?John Paul:
It answered your question. Get over it.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------slp:
That he simply starts a new thread saying the same stuff over and over when rebutted/refuted is also a given.
John Paul:
That is demonstratebly false. No one has refuted anything about inferring design without knowing the designer.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slp:
If you say so...John Paul:
If you think otherwise please explain.------------------
John Paul

slp:
Stonehemge is a prime example of how to infer Intelligent Desing in biotic reality.John Paul:
Nice spelling. Superior education my butt. Also, only an idiot would think I implied Stonehenge was any kind of example on how to infer ID in biotic reality. In essence I made no such connection. Someone with a 1st grade reading comprehension level could have deduced that.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-10-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-10-2002]

edge:
Welcome to JP's world.John Paul:
It's not my world, but thanks anyway.edge:
Still up to his old tricks, I see.John Paul:
I see only one way to deal with the imbecilic postings of the likes of slp and his ilk. If you can't see how he twists and misrepresents people, well that is fine. But it has no bearing on reality.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
Now, to get back to the question, in one case we have strong evidence of design due to a fairly long series of evidence in relation to Stonehenge.John Paul:
So are you saying that before we established this alleged fairly long series of evidence in relation to Stonehenge people assumed it was a natural formation? And that its apparent design was realized only after establishing such a relationship?Larry:
In biology though, we haven't even identified what design would look like and how we could test it.John Paul:
When scientists start comparing what they see through a microscope to 'machines' thenstop using the comparison and actually start calling the molecular structures 'machines', that would be a good first clue. ID is fairly young and the research is ongoing...Larry:
So the question is, how is this analogy of any use.John Paul:
I was just using the analogy to show we do not have to know the designers in order to detect design. That is it.------------------
John Paul

joz:
Of course the converse is also true it is quite possible to infer design (hence) a designer where there isnt any...John Paul:
Good point bud. In cases like that Dembski's Design Explanatory Filter could come in handy. The filter is basically a flow chart. We start with an event (E). If E has a high probability of occurring we attribute E to regularity. If E has an intermediate probability of occurring, we can attribute it to chance. If E has a small probability of we can also attribute it to chance. However if E is specied and has a small probability of occurring we attribute it to design. Now if that specification also involves complexity, design becomes more probable.joz:
examples:
(since we`re talking about Stonehenge I`ll use some British ones)Bedruthan steps.The giants causeway.Both have mythologies which attribute their creation to giants (read ID`er for the sake of analogy) The fact that they were attributed to some sort of ID`er doesnt mean that that attribution was at all correct.....John Paul:
This reminds me of another analogy, pertaining to Mt. Rushmore. What will people millenia down the road think when they look at the weathered and eroded carving?------------------
John Paul

joz:
How can you tell if the CSI arises from a naturally occurring system or a designed one?John Paul:
Please give us an example of CSI arising from a naturally occurring system. Then we can discuss it.------------------
John Paul

joz:
We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....John Paul:
I don't know of any 'natural' systems that display CSI.joz:
Well some of us would say DNA...(But you probably wouldn't)...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.------------------
John Paul

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