Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 564 of 1273 (542207)
01-08-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 557 by Smooth Operator
01-08-2010 1:08 AM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Well now, this depends on what do you mean by "CONFIRMED" design?
You CLEARLY know that I've got you beat on this issue. Asking that I reword it yet again isn't going to help you escape.
Either you CAN or you CAN'T produce an example. You and I (and EVERYONE ELSE READING) know that you CAN'T.
Just cop to it so I don't have to repost the question 1,000,000 more times.
I do not think that these "pyramids" are anything special.
Now you are claiming you can't tell the difference between:
and
Really? That's your argument? You don't know the difference? That's the BEST you've got?
All those traits are interfeering with how good natural selection will select for mutations. Please explain how does my argument go to pieces. I really want to know.
Because there is no such thing as "good" natural selection. There is simply natural selection. Not good, not bad.
Natural selection kills off the weak. Natural selection does not "pick" the best.
Either you manage to reproduce or you don't - if you don't, game over.
I hear the statement like: "Well than show me the designer!!!!!!" I respond childishly
Yes, that much is obvious.
Your ENTIRE argument requires that this magical wizard exists yet you tell us it is unfair for us to ask for evidence.
We first ahve to agree on how we confirm on what is designed. You only accept things that you know are designed in teh first place as teh confirmation. Therefore, excluding design detection right fromt he start.
As I have stated about 10x now.
You CAN NOT determine if something is designed unless you KNOW THE PROCESS by which it was created.
Without knowing the PROCESS you CAN NOT DETERMINE what is naturally occurring or unnaturally occurring.
CRYSTALS seem "designed" until you know about crystals.
SNOWFLAKES seem "designed" until you know about snow flakes.
WATER RIPPLES seem "designed" until you know about water ripples.
I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which SEEM designed but aren't.
I can go ON and ON and ON with examples of things which ARE designed and for which we know the process of how they were made.
ALL I am asking from you is ONE example. JUST ONE!!! ONE (1). SOLIMENTE UNO! ONE example of something which IS DESIGNED but for which we don't know how it was made so that we can check you genetic information AGAINST IT.
Given the fact that I've presented you with MULTIPLE examples surely in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE you can come up with just ONE little example to demonstrate your claim.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-08-2010 1:08 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-09-2010 10:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 571 of 1273 (542364)
01-09-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by Smooth Operator
01-09-2010 10:35 AM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Yes, they "seem" designed. And that is why ID would never claim they really are designed. Because they only "seem" designed, and they do not exhibit CSI. And we do nto even have to know how they occure, to say that they are not designed.
I've asked you 4 times now to give us an example of something we can use to CHECK YOUR METHODOLOGY against.
You've ducked and dodged.
You want to use CSI to determine if it's designed. Fine. Use it. Use NCIS, Use Law & Order for all I care.
Now, answer the question:
YES or NO, CAN you give us an example of something which was designed where no one has ANY idea how it was created so we can check you claims about life AGAINST it?
OR, are you arguing that the ONLY thing that CSI can be used to predict is life created by the wizard AND the ONLY thing we don't need mechanisms for is life created by the wizard?
That's a pretty odd coincidence.
Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-09-2010 10:35 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:37 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 609 of 1273 (542488)
01-10-2010 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 576 by Brad H
01-10-2010 3:19 AM


Re: snow flake
Very good. I'm so proud of you.
Don't talk down to me Jesus freak, you haven't earned the right.
They are recorded "patterns" that we humans can use as information to tell us what might have been going on, but it is not complex specified information that was put there for the sole purpose of our use.
DNA is not put there for the sole purpose of our use. It has use... AS DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 3:19 AM Brad H has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 610 of 1273 (542489)
01-10-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 577 by Brad H
01-10-2010 3:22 AM


Re: snow flake
And if Jesus was shown to be wrong in even one thing, then that would mean He is not Lord of all and my faith in Him was in vain.
If you present me with the above evidence, as asked, then I will toss my Bible in the trash and never again darken the door way of another church.
If I made up a story about a new prophet which had all these features:
- Born to a virgin
- Walked on Water
- Cured the blind
- Healed the sick
- Was called the Sheppard
- Raised Lazarus from the dead
- Born under a star
- Heralded by angels
- Died on a cross
- Descended into Hell and rose again
etc
If I presented to you such a story from the year 1,000 AD rather than from 0. Would you accept it as also true along with Jesus
-or-
Would you reject it as not being true in favor of the Jesus story?
Why or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 3:22 AM Brad H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by Admin, posted 01-10-2010 10:44 AM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 613 of 1273 (542510)
01-10-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Brad H
01-10-2010 3:22 AM


Re: snow flake
Hi Nuggin,
I know Brad H started it, but could you please find another thread to pursue this particular avenue? Thanks.
Agreed, I'll start a new thread.
Can I expect to see you there Brad?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Brad H, posted 01-10-2010 3:22 AM Brad H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-10-2010 9:31 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 638 of 1273 (542622)
01-11-2010 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 616 by Smooth Operator
01-11-2010 3:37 AM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
I can't becaue you don't accept it as a valid design inference. So we are stuck.
No, we aren't stuck. I've already told you and I'll tell you again.
Go ahead, use CSI.
Just use it on something to prove it WAS designed but which we, in no way, have any idea HOW it was designed/created.
You are using this to demonstrate proof of concept so we can check it against Creationism.
If Creationism is the _ONLY_ example, then this is not a valid way of evaluating it.
It's like having a "Zimzom Detector" which is the only thing which detects "Zimzoms". Can't prove it right or wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-11-2010 3:37 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:24 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 659 of 1273 (542750)
01-12-2010 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 651 by Smooth Operator
01-12-2010 7:24 AM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Well than, a perfect exmaple if here.
http://www.designinference.com/.../2005.06.Specification.pdf
We know that the flagellum consists of 50 protein parts. Than we describe it as a "bidirectional rotary motor-driven propeller".
Try and pay attention, SO.
Nuggin wrote:
If Creationism is the _ONLY_ example, then this is not a valid way of evaluating it.
It's like having a "Zimzom Detector" which is the only thing which detects "Zimzoms". Can't prove it right or wrong.
That may look familiar since you copied it onto your post as well.
You CAN NOT use Creationism as an example of something which is NOT CREATIONISM to test against CREATIONISM.
I was EXTREMELY specific in my request. Give us something OTHER THAN CREATIONISM which demonstrates design without knowing mechanism so we can VALIDATE your claim about Creationism.
And the _ONLY_ example you can come up with is...
Creationism. Again.
Is Creationism the only thing that the magical wizard designed? Is it the only thing that CSI (or any other method) can determine was designed?
If so, CSI is just another Zimzom Detector.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:24 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:08 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 664 of 1273 (542782)
01-12-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by Smooth Operator
01-12-2010 7:24 AM


Dembski's Opinion on Creation
Smooth, I just want to make it clear that you're putting all your eggs in one basket and that basket is "Dembski's argument".
Here's Dembski talking about Creationism in regard to a comment by a Christian critic of his latest book:
Johnny T. Helms' concerns about my book THE END OF CHRISTIANITY as well as his concerns about my role as a seminary professor in the SBC are unfounded. I subscribe to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I believe Adam and Eve were literal historical persons specially created by God. I am not, as he claims, a theistic evolutionist. Within the Southern Baptist seminaries, both old-earth and young-earth creationism are accepted positions. True, young-earth creationism remains the majority view in the SBC, but it is not a litmus test for Christian orthodoxy within the SBC. I'm an old-earth creationist and the two SBC seminaries at which I've taught (Southern in Louisville and Southwestern in Ft. Worth) both were fully apprised of my views here in hiring me.
While this quote doesn't necessarily rule out his argument, the fact that he's the only one making it and it's the only one you are referencing does make the "Adam and Eve were literally historical people" part sort of jump off the page.
You continue to protest when we reference "God" or the "Jew Wizard" as the designer, but you are only referencing someone who in turn is making that exact claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-12-2010 7:24 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 674 of 1273 (542876)
01-13-2010 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by Smooth Operator
01-13-2010 12:08 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
I gave you the example that I find good enough. If you don't think it's good enough, than explain why.
Your task was to come up with an example of design without mechanism APART from the one you are claiming so that we can use it to check your claim AGAINST.
Do you not understand why presenting the EXACT same thing as something to check itself against fails? Really?
If you don't have ANY examples of ANYTHING which was designed without mechanism APART from Creationism than your argument is over. You have nothing.
That would be like me saying you can't give me evidence for evolution if it comes from an evolutionist source and is evidence for evolution. Do you have evidence for evolution which is not evidence for evolution? You do understand that you are asking me for something that is impossible?
No, that's quite possible. There are a myriad of examples of non-biological evolution which we can demonstrate evolution against.
The evolution of transportation is one such example - from chariot to wagon to motorized transportation. Off branches would include subcatagories such as dogsleds to snowmobiles, the evolution of various safety features, the appearance and disappearance of fins, etc.
This shows CHANGE over TIME while NOT demonstrating mutation. It allows us to verify the change over time aspect of evolution.
If you want to talk about selection based on non-deliberate variables (ie NOT designed changes) you can look at non-biological software/firmware studies on mini-robots where switches are randomly assigned on/off positions and the best combinations are "bred" together. This has resulted in examples of simple programs which accomplish a goal with less code than those designed by people.
YOU are the one claiming that you don't need to be able to present a mechanism to prove design.
I have REPEATEDLY shown you EXAMPLE after EXAMPLE of things which would be mistaken for design if you didn't know the mechanism.
I have ONLY asked you for ONE EXAMPLE apart from your claim which demonstrates mechanismless design.
Do you or do you not have such an example? Is there ANYTHING in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE _ASSIDE FROM_ your claim which is an example of design for which there is no mechanism to describe how it was done?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:08 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-15-2010 4:12 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 675 of 1273 (542878)
01-13-2010 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 673 by Smooth Operator
01-13-2010 12:11 PM


Re: Genetic Entropy[quote]On the 649th post of this thread you refer to a link that m
And than they finish it off by saying that this could contribute to the extinction of large mammals.
The first and foremost thing which contributes to the extinction of all animals is low population size.
Since large mammals tend to have lower population numbers over all, it's easier to transition them from "low" population to "no" population (which is the definition of extinction).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 673 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-13-2010 12:11 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 699 of 1273 (543167)
01-15-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Smooth Operator
01-15-2010 4:12 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
Creationism is not a mechanism. How exactly is creationism supposed to be a mechanism?
No, magic is the mechanism for creationism. Just like it's apparently the mechanism for ID. Which is appropriate, because even Dembski admits that ID is Creationism.
I'm claiming to have a method of design detection. And when I apply it, you claim that I can't use it because that's "creationism".
No, what I am saying is that your method does not differentiate between things which were designed and things which were not designed.
We've given you a number of examples of things which we all agree are not designed - geodes, snowflakes, ripples on water, etc. The _only_ way you rule them out is by knowing the mechanism for their production.
Yet, you claim that you don't NEED to know the mechanism for your ID theory because you can detect it without knowing the mechanism.
My position is that if you do not know the mechanism, you can not claim design.
You position is the opposite.
I've asked you for an example APART FROM the one you are claiming to DEMONSTRATE that your claim has validity.
You've now admitted that there are NO EXAMPLES apart from what you are claiming.
That's SPECIAL PLEADING.
It's an invalid argument to come to us and tell us you have a method of design detection which ONLY WORKS on Creationism and therefore you don't have to show how it works.
Change over time caused by what? Random mutations, or intelligent input? Obviously intelligent input.
It's amazing to all of us that you see "intelligent input" everywhere in nature, but can't seem to manage to apply any here.
You can not determine "input" if you don't have a MECHANISM for that input to take place.
If you would grow some balls and just admit that your mechanism is magical Jew Beams shot from the Great Wizard, we could move on to the next part of this discussion.
Until you do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep asking you the same question and you're gonna have to keep pretending that you are too stupid to understand it.
Dembski explained this perfectly
What Dembski explained perfectly is that the Fundamentalist Christian God is responsible through the use of MAGIC for Creation AS IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE, __INCLUDING__ ADAM & EVE!!!
You can't keep siting Dembski _AND_ claiming that you don't believe that it's magical Jew Beams.
Those are two different arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-15-2010 4:12 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:32 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 709 of 1273 (543515)
01-18-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by Smooth Operator
01-18-2010 2:32 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
He (Dembski) actually always said it's not creationism.
I ALREADY provided you with a quote AND a link to Dembski SPECIFICALLY stating that it's Creationism (including ADAM and EVE).
If you are going to lie, try and do it to someone who hasn't already provided you with the evidence you are denying, you stand a better chance.
I'm not using special pleading, becasue I never claimed that my method only works on creationism.
Fantastic. So, give us an example OTHER THAN the one you are claiming it works for so we can CHECK your methods.
What, APART FROM CREATIONISM, does your claim work for? Remember, you are the one claiming that we don't need to know the mechanism, so please give us an example where the mechanism is unknown.
You can not show me an instance of intelligent design
Funny, that's EXACTLY what I've been saying about you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-18-2010 2:32 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 710 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 6:42 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 757 by Smooth Operator, posted 01-21-2010 10:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 717 of 1273 (543586)
01-19-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by Admin
01-19-2010 7:52 AM


Re: Moderator Request
So in a sentence that doesn't even use the word "creationism" Dembski is somehow equating ID with creationism? Seems arguable to me, particularly since IDists are not Biblical literalists.
But Dembski clearly is. His 2nd quote states that he believes that Adam and Eve were literal people
Besides, you don't have to use the word "creationism" to conclude that he's a creationist. Dembski thinks the Intelligent Designer *created* life as we know it & he thinks the Intelligent Designer is the Christian God.
If that were a connect the dots puzzle it would only have 2 dots and there would already be a line between them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 719 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 8:20 AM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 720 of 1273 (543707)
01-20-2010 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 719 by Admin
01-20-2010 8:20 AM


Re: Moderator Request
He's not a liar because he disagrees with me. He's a liar because he says that I never posted the quotes - which clearly I did. Twice.
I'd appreciate it if you would turn this attention on his repeated use of word games to avoid answering simple questions or providing evidence to back up his claims.
It seems more than a little one sided that I'm having to prove the existence of an ACTUAL QUOTE which is ALREADY in the thread while he's got free rein to make crap up on the fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 719 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 8:20 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 722 by Admin, posted 01-20-2010 3:47 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 723 of 1273 (543804)
01-20-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 721 by Straggler
01-20-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Creationism (of the Christian kind) to my mind is biblical literalism.
That's too narrow a definition, since Creationists themselves differentiate between literalists, YECs and OECs. (There is probably even more diversity than that, but nothing jumps to mind atm).
Accordingly, ANYONE making the claim that the Christian God created anything is, by their own standards, a creationist of one of these three types.
So to Dembski - The quotes seem to suggest that in terms of belief Dembski is indeed a creationist. Adam and Eve real people etc. etc. But in terms of his theories and arguments I am not aware of him having claimed that there is physical evidence for purely creationist claims. In terms of his theories and arguments (as far as I am aware) he is claiming ID. Complexity, information etc. etc. Not biblical creationism as such.
Dembski is making claims that there is a "designer".
He's stated for the record that that "designer" is the Christian God as mentioned in the Bible.
He's also stated for the record that the Bible is referring to REAL people who actually lived.
That makes him a Creationist. I can't tell from these quotes if he is a YEC or an OEC, but I suspect OEC.
The fact that he chooses the term "intelligent design" doesn't make him any less of a creationist. After all, the whole point of the Intelligent Design movement is to rename Creationism into something more paletable. Hence: "CDesign Proponentists".
If we're going to allow people to just rename their argument and get off scottfree, then how are we to hold anyone accountable for anything?
Imagine trying to deal with this quote:
"I'm not a racist, I just believe in genetic racial differentiation. Ignore the fact that my argument boils down to black people are inferior."
Dembski is arguing that the Creationist Christian God Created everything ergo he _is_ a Creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2010 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by hooah212002, posted 01-21-2010 8:26 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 731 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2010 8:36 AM Nuggin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024