|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stonehenge and ID | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
This has degenrated into John Paul's usual personal nit picking nonsense.
I am officially quitting this thread and this topic in the interests of avoiding the requisite point-by-point refutation that would ensue (and be denied, of course.). You win JP. Stonehemge is a prime example of how to infer Intelligent Desing in biotic reality. Perfect analogy. You got it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Welcome to JP's world. Still up to his old tricks, I see.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
First, to all, including Edge and SLP, knock off the personal insults and meta-discussion. They serve no purpose.
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. In biology though, we haven't even identified what design would look like and how we could test it. So the question is, how is this analogy of any use. Larry
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Inactive Member |
Of course the converse is also true it is quite possible to infer design (hence) a designer where there isnt any...
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..... [This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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. 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 Inactive Member |
quote: Ah Dembski, glad he came up... from:
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_csi_and_ec.html "The objection currently numbered as "5" under creationist criticisms is taken from the discussion period for William Dembski's talk at the"Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference held in 1997. I thought that I had understood Dembski's stance on evolutionary computation following that discussion, but the recent post indicates that perhaps I overlooked something. When I brought up a test case to apply in that discussion, Dembski's objection seemed to me to boil down to this: Natural selection simulated on computer produces solutions which are informed by the intelligence that went into the operating system, system software, and evolutionary computation software." How can you tell if the CSI arises from a naturally occurring system or a designed one? If you cant it seems to me that in the absence of evidence it is an odd decision to throw naturalism out of the door just yet... [This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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 Inactive Member |
We should probably discuss methods for differentiating designed systems from natural ones first but....
Well some of us would say DNA...(But you probably wouldn't)... 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? [This message has been edited by joz, 01-11-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: "....those primitive 2nd millennium buggers sure knew how to bugger a perfectly good mountain up didnt they......."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
".....and who`s the ugly sod at the back with the big catapillar on his upper lip...."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Dembski forgot to include "We don't know yet" and "our minds are not able to comprehend the processes of how E could happen" as possibilities in his flow chart.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024