|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Mike writes: Forget those subjects for a moment, With pleasure, you're all over the place as usual.
and tell me, how would we know whether a lifeform is designed? That is the hypothetical discussion that is relevant to this thread. That is ALL I am assessing. We don't need to ask hypothetically if a lifeform is designed or not because we now know that it isn't - we have the evidence and know how it came about. Exactly as we don't need to ask if we know hypothetically if a watch is designed - we have the information and evidence. We only have to discuss these things in wisy-washy philosophical ways when we don't have empirical evidence. This one was settled 150 years ago. "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered" Darwin. This argument is as old as the hills, if you actually care about it, start with the wiki. Teleological argument - WikipediaLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Tangle writes: To get back to the discussion, it seems pretty easy to me to accept Demski's meaning of the terms Complex Specified Information. His own example is pretty clear:"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is. That argument is no more than the Watchmaker argument and can be debated as though it is. His attempt to move the argument further was to introduce mathematics into the game and claim that if he calculates the probability of something happening by chance to be less than 10^150, then it requires a designer. The problem is therefore mathematical not semantic and if you can't discuss it mathematically, there's no point proceding beyond the Watchmaker stage. Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Obviously there's more to Dembski's argument than raw probability. There's also SPECIFICITY. Your over - simplification is a SRAW MAN.
Tangle writes: Sadly for ID, those that have considered mathematically and are qualified to do so, tell us that it's bunk. Do you expect us to take YOUR word for it? Please provide citations. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Not quite. Not having CSI does not mean not a candidate for design. CSI is not argued by Dempski to detect all designs. For example a monkey wrench is designed but has no CSI because it is not complex. An arrow head might be designed or it might be selected from some naturally created shards of flint. How can we tell when an arrow head is designed? What does the Dempski mean by the term specified? Can you explain this without requiring a specifier in your definition? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Ed writes: Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Obviously there's more to Dembski's argument than raw probability. Dembski's entire argument for CSI rests on his probability calculations, the rest is just ancient Paley - "it looks designed so it must be"
Do you expect us to take YOUR word for it? Please provide citations. You'll find them here, but surely you're already aware of them? Specified complexity - Wikipedia
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Given that the argument is that life forms where intelligently designed we should look for some real intelligent designs of stuff. And there should be no obviously stupid designs.
The human eye is obviously a stupid design all those nerves, and blood vessels in the way of the light, not to mention the blind spot. Cmmon a 1st grader could do better. Haemoglobin its molar mass is 64000 its used to transport one oxygen with a molar mass of 16. Like using a truck to transport one cookie definitively a stupid design. The appendix doing nothing but randomly killing you for no good reason. Wisdom teeth.. really just popping up sideways like we dont have enough problems with our teeth. I could go on for days. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You are misusing the word "Intelligent" as in ID to mean "very smart" when what it means is that the presence of Design at all implies that An Intelligence, that is, a Mind, designed it. I'm sure you know that, you just like to make yourself smarter than God. Of course God is smarter than you but we'll just pass on by that.
You find God fails your personal test for IQ in the design of the eye and the blood. I'm sure He's very interested in your opinion and will let you know what He thinks of it in due time. Leaving that aside, some of your complaints concern parts of the body that can be explained in terms of the Fall, not the original design of the Creation. The appendix for instance is very likely an organ that used to have a function, that it lost over the millennia due to the gradual deterioration of the body since the Fall. Wisdom teeth are no doubt a similar situation. Perhaps hemoglobin also used to serve functions now lost. The Fall is all about human sin, human failure. You might think of that when you put yourself above the God who made you. I'm sure you COULD go on for days telling God what He got wrong, such is the arrogance of the human race. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
You are misusing the word "Intelligent" as in ID to mean "very smart" when what it means is that the presence of Design at all implies that An Intelligence so so your saying it was all intelligently designed its just the designer is an idiot. How about human birth, where the baby has to pass trough the pelvis normally the babys head gets squeezed and can get trough but often the head is too big to pass trough so without surgery both die. The whole thing gets worse if the baby dosent turn arround and goes feet first. Wings on flightless birds like ostriches why??? the RuBisCO enzyme in plants, inhibited by oxygen one of the most innefective enzymes on the planet but also the most abundant since the way evolution found a way around the problem is by giving plants shit tonnes of it. Or was that the intelligent designer. Heavy bones in flying animals like bats, hollow light bones in flightless birds why???Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
At her blog Elizabeth Liddle posted a fascinating series on why it's impossible to calculate CSI per any of Dembski's various methods. The bottom line is, of course, that there's no way to enumerate and account for "all relevant chance hypotheses". But it's interesting to see the formalism and discussion of how Dembski fails so spectacularly.
The eleP(T|H)ant in the roomI think I just found an even bigger eleP(T|H)ant. Trojan EleP(T|H)ant? Quizzes, EleP(T|H)ants, Methods and Burdens of Proof. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The appendix for instance is very likely an organ that used to have a function, that it lost over the millennia due to the gradual deterioration of the body since the Fall. Wisdom teeth are no doubt a similar situation. Perhaps hemoglobin also used to serve functions now lost. What about just fat people, in general? Like, is that part of "The Fall"...? Remember when everyone was skinny in America? Seems like many have "fallen" into obesity because, well, god said not to eat from a tree. Since then we just can't stop eating. Does that sound right? I'm not sure it does. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
The appendix has a function. Scientists have figured out its purpose.
Appendix Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The Fall is all about human sin, human failure. "The Fall" is invented nonsense, and represents one of the most evil ideas ever cooked up by the shaman class.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
Did you understand the one from the University of Washington? How about explaining it in your own words?
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington? Ed67 writes:
As I've explained several times, all molecules react with other molecules based on their structure. If you take a beaker full of B and throw in some ABRACADABRA, you'll get some BABRACADABRA and some ABRACADABRAB and some BABRACADABRAB. Bs are less likely to bond to the other As becacause they are "shielded" by neighbouring atoms - i.e. it's harder for Bs to approach. And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement:
ringo writes: ...so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way [as DNA]. That's how all chemistry works. There's nothing special about DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
It contains the code for building of salt crystals. It's exactly the same kind of code as DNA; only the details are different.
SALT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF PROTEINS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
That's like asking if I have any citations to back up the statement that the earth is round. Few papers have been published on the subject lately because it's something that every schoolboy knows. If you understood the sources you were quoting, you'd know it too.
ringo writes:
Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement? All I'm saying is that... every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way.[as DNA]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"The Fall" is invented nonsense, and represents one of the most evil ideas ever cooked up by the shaman class. topic drift -- the forum is: Intelligent Design (not creationism) The thread is: Is there a legitimate argument for design? perhaps a new thread?by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024