Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stonehenge and ID
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 16 of 95 (1828)
01-10-2002 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
01-10-2002 12:55 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 12:55 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 1:22 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 18 by edge, posted 01-10-2002 1:47 PM derwood has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 95 (1829)
01-10-2002 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by derwood
01-10-2002 1:16 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 1:16 PM derwood has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 95 (1834)
01-10-2002 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by derwood
01-10-2002 1:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLP:
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.

Welcome to JP's world. Still up to his old tricks, I see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by derwood, posted 01-10-2002 1:16 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 1:54 PM edge has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 95 (1836)
01-10-2002 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by edge
01-10-2002 1:47 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by edge, posted 01-10-2002 1:47 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 01-10-2002 7:35 PM John Paul has replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 95 (1860)
01-10-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Paul
01-10-2002 1:54 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 1:54 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 8:50 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 95 (1886)
01-11-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by lbhandli
01-10-2002 7:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by lbhandli, posted 01-10-2002 7:35 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 95 (1889)
01-11-2002 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
01-10-2002 12:55 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-10-2002 12:55 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 10:03 AM joz has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 95 (1890)
01-11-2002 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by joz
01-11-2002 9:44 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 9:44 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 10:40 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 28 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 2:24 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 30 by nator, posted 01-11-2002 5:47 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 95 (1892)
01-11-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
01-11-2002 10:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by 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.

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 10:03 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 11:07 AM joz has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 95 (1894)
01-11-2002 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by joz
01-11-2002 10:40 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 10:40 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 11:26 AM John Paul has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 95 (1896)
01-11-2002 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John Paul
01-11-2002 11:07 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 11:07 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 2:16 PM joz has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 95 (1922)
01-11-2002 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by joz
01-11-2002 11:26 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 11:26 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 01-11-2002 6:00 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 32 by joz, posted 01-12-2002 1:56 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 33 by nator, posted 01-12-2002 5:19 PM John Paul has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 95 (1923)
01-11-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
01-11-2002 10:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by 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?

"....those primitive 2nd millennium buggers sure knew how to bugger a perfectly good mountain up didnt they......."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 10:03 AM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 2:27 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 95 (1925)
01-11-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by joz
01-11-2002 2:24 PM


".....and who`s the ugly sod at the back with the big catapillar on his upper lip...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by joz, posted 01-11-2002 2:24 PM joz has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 30 of 95 (1935)
01-11-2002 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by John Paul
01-11-2002 10:03 AM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John Paul, posted 01-11-2002 10:03 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024