|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
He can keep this up forever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation. That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH. Nope. It's a tentative conclusion based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible. If you want to invoke CSI or any of it's many variants, state clearly which variant you are using, state whether you are using a Bayesian or Fisherian method, and show the math. Remember, per Dembski, to show that you have included all of the infinite or near-infinite relevant chance hypotheses, and show your work. ( "...all the relevant chance hypotheses that could be responsible for E [the observed event]..."; The Design Inference pp50-51). Then be prepared to support your math. (BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source Not so. See Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..." I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think.... Please support your claim that tentative conclusion can't start with "there is every reason to think...". (As if you could) I note you have not responded to the challenge in the remainder of my message.
If you want to invoke CSI or any of it's many variants, state clearly which variant you are using, state whether you are using a Bayesian or Fisherian method, and show the math. Remember, per Dembski, to show that you have included all of the infinite or near-infinite relevant chance hypotheses, and show your work. ( "...all the relevant chance hypotheses that could be responsible for E [the observed event]..."; The Design Inference pp50-51). Then be prepared to support your math. (BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.) Can't come up with a CSI calculation of any kind, much less one for DNA, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Boy, you are getting boring really fast. Just another ignorant creationist with plenty of bluff, bluster, and bravado... but nothing else.
You neglected to respond to this:
Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..." I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think.... Please support your claim that tentative conclusion can't start with "there is every reason to think...". (As if you could). At least you made a pathetic effort to respond to my claims on CSI:
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, nor does it "belong" to Dembski by virtue of his using it. Sorry, Eddie, CSI is a technical term introduced by Dembski. It doesn't "belong" to him but any reference to CSI not otherwise qualified is reasonably taken to refer to Dembski's work. There are no definitions outside of Dembski, and "means exactly what it says" is not a valid definition. You have claimed elsewhere that "I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source", which obviously refers to at least one of Dembski's many concepts of CSI. But you are free to use a different definition if you insist. Just define exactly what you mean by "CSI". Mathematical or not, we need an operational definition that allows a neutral observer to determine whether or not CSI exists or does not exist in a specified system. Then demonstrate that DNA possesses your version of CSI and demonstrate that there are no known instances of your CSI being produced by anything but intelligence. Or you can pick one of Dembski's definitions and defend it. In which case you need at a minimum to respond to Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references. Or you can run like a scared bunny from supporting your claims. My bet's on the last choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Jorge at TWeb once defined complex specified information as information that is both complex and specified. Looks as if our local pal is from the same mold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
So it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium through which a COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODE conveys the instructions necessary to build and maintain an organism. No, it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium that stores the information necessary to build an organism. You have not demonstrated that this information is a code by any definition of a code (imprecise use of the word "code" doesn't count), or that it's specified or that it's complex. Even if it is CSI, which you are obviously unable to argue for, nobody (especially you) has established that it is necessary or even reasonable that intelligence is required to create it. Note the many counterexamples that you have ignored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
please see Message 170 Nobody cares about what you think is CSI. What counts is what you can demonstrate to be CSI, using an operational definition of CSI.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
And what did University of Washington researchers mean when they use the word "code" in this 2013 research report?
quote: The standard meaning... the "rules" "imposed" by natural chemical reactions that govern the translation from DNA to protein. There's no code in DNA, and the "genetic code" is just chemistry. Cool and complex chemistry, but just chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
As I've already explained, I don't invoke any special meaning by using the term. I simply mean information which is complex and specified The definitions you have offered are useless. They involve too many subjective evaluations and are not operational definitions. Two people could easily disagree whether some system possesses CSI because your definitions do not invoke objective measures. Fail. {ABE} Your definitions boil down to "it sure looks like CSI to me!" Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
No response to Message 189 or Message 190? Obviously because you have no response that doesn't involve acknowledging the errors that cripple your argument...
Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The former.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Dembski argues. I don't understand the guy - it's not just the math, but the very technical language he uses is way above my head. Then why are you asking for references to mathematicians who have analyzed and demolished Dembski's arguments? There are plenty, but you wouldn't have a chance of understanding them.
At the same time, I was not convinced of my viewpoint by Dembski's work; it was mainly Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe whose books speak directly to the topic of CSI (and its synonym, Specified Complexity) that have been most convincing to me about the implications of the existence of a code in DNA. CSI and SI are not synonyms. Since you (and Dembski and Meyer and Behe and anyone) have never been able to produce an operational definition for what CSI is or detecting it, there's no point in using the term; it's just meaningless noise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024