|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You are confused. We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated. Different process. Try to keep up. And the genome of a given organism such as a rosebush invariably comes into existence by the process which I have described. Do you deny it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated. DNA comes into existence by being replicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
JonF writes: 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. Sorry to disappoint you, but invoking CSI does not obligate me to understand Dembski's math (which I don't pretend to do). I have "The Design Inference" but I can't follow the math, so I do not source it in my discussions. "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes: We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.
DNA comes into existence by being replicated. I think you're too far gone to help. Your ignorance is entertaining, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How do you think DNA comes into existence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
DA writes:
You are confused. We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.
And the genome of a given organism such as a rosebush invariably comes into existence by the process which I have described. Do you deny it?Different process. Try to keep up. The genome for a rosebush only came into existence once, when it was (arguably) created. Now, it gets passed on by replication; what we see in present day are copies of the prototype. We are discussing the origin of the prototype, not of the extant specimens. Did you really not understand that? Or is playing dumb your standard response when your world view is threatened? Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The genome for a rosebush only came into existence once, when it was (arguably) created. Now, it gets passed on by replication; what we see in present day are copies of the prototype. We are discussing the origin of the prototype, not of the extant specimens. Did you really not understand that? Let's try another example. I have just turned 40. My genome, therefore, did not exist until 1973. My parents' genomes existed prior to my conception, mine did not. Here, then, we have an example of a genome (mine) coming into existence. Do you deny it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes: How do you think DNA comes into existence? We're not talking about how it COMES into existence in the present day; we're talking about how it ORIGINALLY came into existence. I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer. Only as an entire system can the life process exist, so I think it was assembled as a whole system originally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3357 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
DA writes:
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers.
No. I can't help it if your English is 'challenged'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Human DNA originally came into existence when DNA from an ancestor species evolved into human DNA.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4444 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Ed67 writes: "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. I have seen creationists use the words "complex specified information" many times, but I have never seen a definition that made me think, "oh, now I get it". I know what "complex information" is, what is specified information? Specified how? All you seem to be saying is, "complex specified information" means "complex specified information". You assert that DNA contains "complex specified information", but all I see is molecules and chemistry. Is DNA the only kind of "complex specified information"? It looks like "complex specified information" really means "dazzle them with bullshit".What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer. Since you have supplied zero evidence that an intelligent designer did what you claim, can I then make the argument that abiogenesis must be true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
I have seen creationists use the words "complex specified information" many times, but I have never seen a definition that made me think, "oh, now I get it". Complex specified information is the measurement of a creationists incredulity as to the production of modern genomes through mutation and selection. CSI really stands for Creationist Standard Incredulity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024