|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Stonehenge and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: joz:That should really be called Dembskis bald assertion filter: John Paul:joz, have you read The Design Inference or Dembski’s new book, No Free Lunch? If you answer No, then I would have to surmise you don’t know what the heck you are talking about (which is obvious to me regardless of what you say you have read). Believe me when I tell you he gets more in-depth on the concept than I did in my post. What answer did you come up with for the 100 rows x 100 rows of pine trees? "does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design" joz:In other words CSI is designed coz it is.... John Paul:No joz- It’s called a design inference. Basically like I stated in my opening of my last post. If you want to learn I suggest doing some research. If you want to nit-pick from ignorance, I suggest you follow the path you are on. I asked you to present an example of a system that is naturally occurring that also exhibits CSI and you have refused to do so. Is that because the only example is the one you gave? And that one is far from being shown to have originated via purely natural processes? So again- give us something that we know originated via purely natural processes that also exhibits CSI and we will have something to discuss. It’s not my fault if you can’t falsify Dembski’s filter. joz:What did he derive it from an a priori notion that CSI must be designed? How did he know? John Paul:As Dembski puts it, "Eliminating chance through small probabilities has a long history." He sites Borel, then corrects Borel's Single Law of Chance with the Law of Small Probability. joz:Another key point is he says chance NOT chance changes selectively passed on to the next generation on the basis of suitibility... If he is going to ignore the role that NS its hardly likely that his "filter" is going to "explain" anything... John Paul:NS doesn’t design from scratch. It works on what is already there. What Dembski et al. are basically saying is specified complexity can't arise from a random process culled by NS. When you combine Dembski with Behe's, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same priciples as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components" (emph. added), and it should become clearer. Mix in a little mind correlation from Del Ratzsch ("Nature, Design, and Science") and it's close to being a no-brainer. joz:JP theres a big problem with your arson enquiry, archaeology etc examples in that these are all cases where designed events need to be distinguished from chance ones. John Paul:You asked how we can differentiate between a natural system and a designed system. I answered that. In each one of the fields I mentioned that is what is being done- differentiating between nature (or chance) & design. If you want a more in-depth answer, do the research. It’s not like ID is someone’s whim. There’s plenty of literature out there on ID. joz:Evolution is chance mutations AND a filter (natural selection) until you address the issue of the selection for beneficial mutations you (and Dembski) have nothing. John Paul:What I posted from Behe covers that, thank you. Nice of you to ignore that part of my post. Your mistake seems to be that you think design voids evolution. It doesn’t. Evolution is what happened to the design, once it was left in nature. If you can show that life could arise from non-life via purely natural means, not only would you win $1.35 million, you would also be well on the way to falsifying ID. The same goes for RNA or DNA. If you cannot do that then it is you who has nothing to hold against IDists. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[b] [QUOTE]1)joz, have you read The Design Inference or Dembskis new book, No Free Lunch? If you answer No, then I would have to surmise you dont know what the heck you are talking about (which is obvious to me regardless of what you say you have read). Believe me when I tell you he gets more in-depth on the concept than I did in my post. 2)What answer did you come up with for the 100 rows x 100 rows of pine trees? 3)No joz- Its called a design inference. Basically like I stated in my opening of my last post. If you want to learn I suggest doing some research. If you want to nit-pick from ignorance, I suggest you follow the path you are on. I asked you to present an example of a system that is naturally occurring that also exhibits CSI and you have refused to do so. Is that because the only example is the one you gave? And that one is far from being shown to have originated via purely natural processes? 4)So again- give us something that we know originated via purely natural processes that also exhibits CSI and we will have something to discuss. Its not my fault if you cant falsify Dembskis filter. 5)As Dembski puts it, "Eliminating chance through small probabilities has a long history." He sites Borel, then corrects Borel's Single Law of Chance with the Law of Small Probability. 6)NS doesnt design from scratch. It works on what is already there. What Dembski et al. are basically saying is specified complexity can't arise from a random process culled by NS. 7)You asked how we can differentiate between a natural system and a designed system. I answered that. In each one of the fields I mentioned that is what is being done- differentiating between nature (or chance) & design. If you want a more in-depth answer, do the research. Its not like ID is someones whim. Theres plenty of literature out there on ID. 8)What I posted from Behe covers that, thank you. Nice of you to ignore that part of my post. Your mistake seems to be that you think design voids evolution. It doesnt. Evolution is what happened to the design, once it was left in nature.[/B][/QUOTE] 1)No I haven`t if you want me to mail em to me. I`m not debating with Dembski but with you, its up to you to convince me. Quote the book if you want and if you think its essential to the debate I can give you my address and you can mail your copies to me to read. If he gets more in depth, and you can understand him, then so can you so post away old boy. Also on the subject of reading things I did a search on http://scirus.com for Dembski and got, wait for it .... no journal papers that he had authored. I did turn up this though http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Dembski.html. quote: Interesting sounds like someone else could do with doing some reading.... 2)Designed, but if you knew sod all about chemistry and physics and saw a crystal for the first time you would think that that was designed as well. 3)Actually I gave what I considered to be an example, you disagreed (as is your wont), when pressed on the subject of why you disagreed the only response was its designed coz it is. Finally you posted the mechanism you used to arrive at this conclusion of design and surprise surprise Dembskis filter (at least as you expressed it) is semantically equal to CSI is designed coz it is... 4)The real discussion now is how justified your assertion that CSI must be designed is. On the subject of Dembskis filter it firstly is only relevant if evolution were driven primarily by chance (mutation), it isn`t look into it sometime. Secondly it filters by saying that any CSI must be designed, what is this based on? You, JP, have offered up the filter as an argument from (questionable) authority yet have not posted information as to how it was derived.... 5)Fine as long as ONLY chance applies which is not the case here JP.... 6)No what Dembski is saying is that CSI can`t arise from chance (which is an interesting statement mathmaticaly all on its own) he (in the filter you quoted) fails to address NS at all.... 7)You may have said that you personaly think that Dembskis filter is good enough but you have not justified that view. You have the book that explains how the filter was derived you should have no difficulty convincing me (if the maths is solid). On another note a search of http://scirus.com revealed no journal papers on ID.... So tell me where can I read a peer reviewed paper on ID? 8)Ok I`m going to do an impression *drumroll*"We don`t know so Goddidit." Sound familiar. Behe`s entire argument is the tired old God of gaps nonsense dressed up for a new generation. Read these and ask yourself honestly if you think Behe`s got it right...
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.htmlOn blood clotting cascade http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.htmlrefutes Behe`s assertion of silence on the subject ofmolecular evolution. Did someone else skip a bit of research? [This message has been edited by joz, 01-30-2002] [This message has been edited by joz, 01-30-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
JP,
Since you're back............ Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God. I posted this elsewhere but it got skipped over.
quote: People are only exploring your position on ID. That your meaning of ID doesn’t infer God, is understood. However, in further exploring your position; If there is a natural ID, then the question who designed the IDer IS relevant. If you’re not going to get into an infinite sequence of aliens begat aliens, that is. Films like Mission To Mars explain origins of life, much as Panspermia does, it shifts the focus elsewhere, & ultimately fail to explain anything. The main question remains unanswered, how did life originate? (In this case to create more life). If life were created in a lab tomorrow, the origin of the creating intelligence, us, would not be explained. What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins? OK, back to the plot; ID IS POSTULATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF LIFE ON EARTH. The position I wish to explore is the claim that ID doesn’t infer God. Dress God up as a 4th dimensional being if you wish, at the end of the day, life is IC, so life can’t be the ultimate origin of life. So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply. So, I ask again, & clarify, for you to present a hypothetical scenario in which God is removed from an ID scenario, & solves the origins of all life, by abiogenesis. This is what not having God as part of ID ultimately means. YOU have found it relevant to deny that God is part of any ID scenario, but can you show it when describing ultimate origins of life with ID? Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth. In summary: Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
mark24:
Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God. John Paul:This is a philosophical issue- one in which we may never get an answer. I don't deny God Created life on Earth, I just say that God isn't necessarily the only intelligent agent that could have done so. ID does not mention God, only ID critics do. Mark24:What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins? John Paul:Because it does explain the obvious. Also, as I have posted, origins are of little import to understanding form, function and maintenance. Mark24:So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply. John Paul:It is my understanding that God, by definition, is the un-Created Creator of the Universe. So your statement would be true. Mark24:Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth. John Paul:I guess that is what happens when I try to answer questions for 5-year olds. All of the things you mentioned were possiblities of an intelligent agent that may have brought life to Earth. Mark24:In summary: Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers? John Paul:Good question for philosophy 101. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
joz, Let me make this clear- again. The reason you can not use DNA as an example of CSI in a natural system is because you, or anyone else, have not shown that DNA originated via purely natural processes. The same can be said for life.
Before we can continue- what part of this don't you understand? ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1737 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: But what do YOU think, JP?
quote: So who is the designer? Who designed the designer?
quote: Ah, yes, the good old JP. I wondered how long you could last.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
edge:
So who is the designer? John Paul:It doesn't matter. edge:Who designed the designer? John Paul:Non-sequitor. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: JP, this is reeeeeeeel simple. Either : 1/ You think that there was natural abiogenesis somewhere, 2/ Or there was supernatural ID creation to create the non supernatural ID, that created life on earth. So, which is it, 1/ or 2/ ? It's hardly deep philosophy,
quote: Thank you for your kind words, just answer the questions JP, I've made so EVEN a 5 year old can understand it. Nice to see you back on form. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Right lets nip this in the bud... my original post was.
quote: Now I didn`t couch it in terms a 5 year old would understand but re-reading my post it seems clear to me that my suggestion of DNA was acompanied by a statement that you would not agree. The rest of the post then asks how you differenttiate between natural and designed systems. The subject at hand is how you do this and whether or not your methods are reliable and grounded on anything but a belief that all systems are designed..... So quit the evasion and start justifying your methods JP.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
JP you posted this:
quote: on the study of ID thread. Please feel free to answer my questions as to your method of differentiating between natural and designed systems.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
quote: John Paul:There is no known naturally originating object that exhibits CSI. There is plenty of literature out there that can be read that tells you how ID is inferred. Dembski's filter is a start. ------------------John Paul
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
So how is it that Dembski detects when design is present? What is the standard?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: OK Q and A time.... 1)Can CSI only originate via design? 2)If so why? 3)If it is possible for CSI to result from a set of rules acting on a naturaly occuring potential why infer design from the occurence of CSI? 4)If it can`t why not? 5)Do you realise that Dembski`s filter is semanticaly equal to CSI = design with some irrelevant mathmatical garnish? 6)How is it then a filter and not a baseless assertion?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: First, I admit I haven't even heard of Demski let alone read anythinghe's written ... however ... The filter as stated is a series of value judgements on theprobablity of something having occurred. If we take abiogenesis as an example, how to attribute the probablityof it occurring, and hence follow through the filter. On the original topic of this thread, I'd like to say that theeasiest way to detect design is to find the designer. IF we can find some positive, objective tests for design, then we do not need to know who the designer is. A large number of assertions abound as I've mentioned in theID debate) that there are no naturally ocurring complex systems. Anything quoted as naturally occurring complexity is said to benot natural at all but the work of the IDer. Therefore, providing an example of naturally occurring complexityis futile (it's one side beleives iit is the other beleives it isn't and doesn't progress the debate). We need a set of objective criteria for designed systems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Bump to the top in the hope that JP or any other adherent of ID will stop by and explain their criteria for differentiating between natural and designed systems....
(Willing to bet that all they have to offer is Dembski`s explanatory (read bald assertion) filter)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024