Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 271 of 396 (583837)
09-29-2010 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Within the ID paradigm on origins of life we can examine biological structures and see if we can detect apc.
Here's how this reads to me: "with the priori that we think life is intelligently designed, let's look for things that support our position.". That sound right?

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 272 of 396 (583849)
09-29-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Definitions
Abstruse: meaning highly complex.
Particularized: to be directed towards a specific object or purpose.
Communication: to exchange or share information.
Never have heard that definition for abstruse. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Abstruse - difficult to comprehend
Synonyms
1. incomprehensible, unfathomable, arcane.
Nothing about highly complex.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Theodoric has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 273 of 396 (583859)
09-29-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
determine, using the same set of rules, whether a quartz crystal, and ice cube, and an icicle do or do not display apc.
There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules. Though crystals appear to produce quite elaborate patterns, the information in the crystal is quite small in comparison to a protein molecule. Crystals are merely repeated information.
You are not answering the question, you're ducking!
If you are going to pretend to discern design from non-design you need a set of rules to differentiate between these two objects:
And the rules need to produce the correct answer every time, or else you are left with, "I know it when I see it!" which is useless.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Coyote has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 274 of 396 (583864)
09-29-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Likewise single celled organisms perform repeating processes of communicating highly complex and particularized information, but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.
On the one hand, there's evidence for this thing called "evolution" (perhaps you've heard of it) which strongly suggests that this process was produced without intelligence just as ever other novel process we ever observe arising in single-celled organisms is produced by evolution and not by intelligence (I suppose genetic engineering is an exception, but surely you do not claim that the intelligence in question was human).
On the other hand, there is as yet no evidence for this aiding intelligence of which you speak --- perhaps at some point you could come up with some.
(NB: Circular reasoning does not constitute evidence for anything except the paucity of intellect of the person indulging in it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 275 of 396 (583880)
09-29-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
There's no comparison between crystals and protein molecules.
You might want to rethink that. Guess what methodology is used to determine the shape of a protein? Give up? X-ray crystallography!!! That's right. Scientists let proteins form crystals and then use X-rays to determine the shape of that crystal. Learn more here:
Proteincrystallography.org
Crystals are merely repeated information.
So are proteins. They are repeats of 20 amino acids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:01 PM Taq has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 276 of 396 (583883)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by bluegenes
09-29-2010 8:20 AM


But you've missed my point. Your observation was based on looking at what you described as intelligent organisms, and claiming that your "apc" comes only from intelligence. I pointed out that it also comes from unintelligent organisms, so you have no observational basis for your claim.
No, what you've pointed out is that biologic machines pre-programed to run existing DNA code can attach themselves to other pre-programed machines, as "designed." You have not pointed to a machine with no pre-existing code to make it perform such a task, doing so apart from any instructions, or just some other laws of physics placing them in that arrangement. If you are aware of something that I seem to be missing please do link us with a site.
Show me an intelligent designer who does not have your "apc" as a prerequisite, and I'll send you a million dollars.
Since apc is the observation factor (the signal we are looking for) we would not know if the entity was intelligent or not until it demonstrated itself so by producing apc. I am not saying it is or is not a prerequisite. I am saying it is a cue for intelligence and only intelligence.
Are you seriously suggesting that there's no evidence that chemical processes can increase complexity? Is that supposed to be the observation at the base of your "theory"?
Are you seriously going to try and suggest that complexity was the only thing I mentioned? A group of twigs fallen on the ground form a pattern that is very unique (and complex) and probably could never be repeated in that exact same shape. But it conveys no particular information. A group of twigs arranged in a tree branch in the shape of a bowl convey a specific message. That's the cue that they were arranged by an intelligent source. So complexity is in and of itself nothing. It is only when you produce a complex "anything" in a particular way to communicate specific information that it becomes something special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by bluegenes, posted 09-29-2010 8:20 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by bluegenes, posted 09-30-2010 10:47 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 277 of 396 (583884)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by frako
09-29-2010 8:21 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
well evolution is it needs no intelligence to produce wonderus resoults all it needs is time and inacurate ofspring copies
I see, well then if you could just please cite me one "observed" example of a DNA molecule forming by evolutionary processes, or an organism developing apart from DNA, and I will wholeheartedly agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by frako, posted 09-29-2010 8:21 AM frako has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 278 of 396 (583885)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by hooah212002
09-29-2010 9:48 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
One example that comes to mind is the tobacco plant and how it thwarts off caterpillars so as to not get destroyed by them. Are tobacco plants intelligent?
No just well designed.
Quote from Science Daily article:
"Using volatiles, the plants can attract moths from large distances, whereas hummingbirds are only available, if their nests are accidentally in the vicinity of the tobacco populations. Moreover, looking at the special mode of hummingbird pollination, it is more likely that flowers of one single plant are pollinated with pollen from the same plant than from flowers of different plants. This can decrease the genetic variability of the seeds produced. Moths may move more frequently among plants and this behavior may results in greater genetic variability for the seed produced from their pollination services."
Within any species several different alleles exist from which nature has to select. When conditions make the primary form of the organisms population less able to cope, its neighboring less dominant relatives with the pre-existing genes (which allow it to cope) are able to reproduce and thrive in the hostile environment. This is what we call "natural selection." Something that explains the survival of the species, but not the existence of the species. The point here is that the plants did not just make the mental decision to change their flowering times and sent. These differences already existed within the population but were not dominant until the change of environment selected these phenotypes over the previously dominant phenotypes. A variation... that creationists would argue was designed into the species for survival.
Did you post the "theory" of ID? Don't be obtuse.
You're right, that was uncalled for and I do apologize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 9:48 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by hooah212002, posted 09-29-2010 1:09 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 290 by Granny Magda, posted 09-30-2010 1:39 PM Just being real has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 279 of 396 (583886)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Coyote
09-29-2010 10:52 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You are not answering the question, you're ducking! If you are going to pretend to discern design from non-design you need a set of rules to differentiate between these two objects:
I did set up the rules to discern between design and non design. If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed. The fact that we do not observe apc may not necessarily tell us it is not designed. It just may mean we have not yet observed the cue needed to decided. For example your first picture is an unknown object. I have no idea what it is or what it is constructed out of. I can see complexity, but I can not see it coupled with particularized information from your photo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2010 10:52 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 1:00 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 283 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2010 1:04 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 3:46 PM Just being real has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 280 of 396 (583887)
09-29-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Hypothesis: We should be able to distinguish between intelligently designed objects, and naturally formed (unintentional) objects. Even though some natural processes produce very complex and intricate patterns, only intelligent sources produce this kind of complexity in a particularized form of communication of information. Therefore when we observe any object with apc, we theorize that it must have an intelligent source.
You first need to demonstrate the italicized section before you can test the hypothesis.
So the first stage of the experiment would be to study the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule of any biologic organism and measure the arrangement of its nucleotides with the Shannon algorithmic principle to see if it contains information. Secondly we would then compare this information with natural patterns to see if it differs in a way that can only be described as an abstruse and particularized form of communication. And finally in consideration of the above mentioned possibility of only observing the appearance of apc, we must examine all known human data bases on the subject to see if there have ever been any reported observed cases of either; 1.a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule forming by natural unguided processes (even on a very primitive level) or 2.any observed cases of a biological system, complete with reproductive capabilities, forming without the need of a deoxyribonucleic acid molecule.
This doesn't test your hypothesis. In order to test your hypothesis we would need to observe this supposed designer producing these molecules. Disproving other hypotheses is not a valid test of another hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:06 PM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 281 of 396 (583888)
09-29-2010 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
I did set up the rules to discern between design and non design. If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed. The fact that we do not observe apc may not necessarily tell us it is not designed.
Then what would? If random mutation produced a novel protein containing APC would this falisify intelligent design?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 282 of 396 (583890)
09-29-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taq
09-29-2010 12:53 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
There's a big difference between a proteins shape and its ability to form a coherent code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 12:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 1:20 PM Just being real has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 283 of 396 (583891)
09-29-2010 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You are not answering the question, you're ducking! If you are going to pretend to discern design from non-design you need a set of rules to differentiate between these two objects:
I did set up the rules to discern between design and non design. If we can observe apc then we know for sure based on observation it was designed. The fact that we do not observe apc may not necessarily tell us it is not designed. It just may mean we have not yet observed the cue needed to decided. For example your first picture is an unknown object. I have no idea what it is or what it is constructed out of. I can see complexity, but I can not see it coupled with particularized information from your photo.
The items in those two photos are a metal cube and a quartz crystal.
One is designed, while the other is natural.
What are your rules for discerning the differences between the two such that you can identify design?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 1:12 PM Coyote has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 284 of 396 (583892)
09-29-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Taq
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You first need to demonstrate the italicized section before you can test the hypothesis.
that was demonstrated by observation.
This doesn't test your hypothesis. In order to test your hypothesis we would need to observe this supposed designer producing these molecules.
No all we need to observe are the cues for intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Taq, posted 09-29-2010 1:14 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 294 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2010 7:17 PM Just being real has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 285 of 396 (583893)
09-29-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Just being real
09-29-2010 12:58 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
No just well designed.
So, they are designed, but need to wait for NS to kick in to let the design shine through? Given your examples for your "apc", I think the tobacco plant's mechanism shows a non-intelligent/non-designed animal utilizing it; thus negating your experiment. Unless, of course, you would care to actually define your term.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM Just being real 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