Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
28 online now:
Faith, LamarkNewAge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,719 Year: 18,755/19,786 Month: 1,175/1,705 Week: 427/518 Day: 45/58 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Portillo
Member (Idle past 2449 days)
Posts: 258
Joined: 11-14-2010


Message 16 of 373 (644199)
12-16-2011 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
12-05-2011 3:24 PM


More evidence of design. Blood is the best lubricant.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.


And the conspiracy was strong, for the people increased continually - 2 Samuel 15:12

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 12-05-2011 3:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 6:28 AM Portillo has not yet responded
 Message 26 by DrJones*, posted 12-16-2011 10:10 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 17 of 373 (644206)
12-16-2011 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Looking back at Subbie's picture, if we were to pick this device up in the forest we would know it was intelligently designed just by the fact that metal ore doesn't naturally form in thin wire like shapes.

It wasn't intelligently designed, but I'll let Subbie field that one.

What I would like to point out is that in order to infer design, you were forced to appeal to the fact that it doesn't occur naturally.

Well, in the first place, DNA does occur naturally. We observe it being produced by an entirely unintelligent process of reproduction with variation.

And in the second place, you're giving up the whole point of this vague semi-intelligible ID waffle about specificity. Because the whole point of it is to pretend that there's some direct way you can identify organisms as being designed just by looking at them, without having to tackle all the evidence that they aren't. But if you first have to rule out the possibility that they "naturally form" (which they do) then you are obliged to confront this evidence.

Therefore if specificity is recognized by the scientific community as a sign of intelligence, then whenever we observe it we can conclude that its origins are from an intelligent source.

If you assert that DNA possesses this "specificity", then the scientific community does not recognize "specificity" as a sign of intelligence, since the scientific community does not identify DNA as a product of intelligence. Creationists loons do, the scientific community doesn't.

Archaeologists infer intelligence in an artifacts formation by looking for specified design clues. That is to say features that the archaeologist recognizes as being formed with purpose in mind.

And again, archaeologists do not "infer intelligence" in the formation of (for example) the skull of a bison, and do not recognize it "as being formed with purpose in mind". If archaeologists are correctly distinguishing design, then IDists are wrong. What you need is a method which is different from that employed by archaeologists, and so gives a different answer.

The problem is that no one seems to have a problem with trying to detect intelligence in marine biology, archaeology, or extra terrestrial, and calling that scientific research.

Pretending to have succeeded in detecting it when you haven't is, however, still frowned on.

But for some reason the moment we apply these same exact constructs to try and detect intelligence in the design of life or the universe, is suddenly is deemed pseudoscience. And no body can seem to quantify for me the reasons why?

Because IDists aren't using the "exact same" methods as scientists. That's why they get different answers.

Many highly respected and prominent astronomers and astrophysicist describe the cosmos under these same kinds of specified descriptors. Hoyle said that it appears to have been monkeyed with by a super-intellect. Paul Davies said the universe is remarkably ordered on all scales, organized into coherent identifiable structures with great complexity. John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA) describes it as having exacting precision. George Greenstein says it is a "crafted" cosmos. Arno Penzias described it as delicately balanced exactly, appearing to have a supernatural plan. Roger Penrose says it appears to have purpose, and the list just goes on and on and on.

Likewise physicists often describe the very laws of physics to be specified and balanced perfectly for there to even be life. Electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and rate of expansion, (we are told) all had to somehow be “monkeyed” with to make the big bang event a mathematical possibility.

I think being wrong about physics and cosmology is off-topic. Stick to biology, eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 5:31 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 6:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 18 of 373 (644207)
12-16-2011 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Portillo
12-16-2011 5:48 AM


More evidence of design. Blood is the best lubricant.

(Stickwell, Luther, "A Comparative Study of the Lubricant Properties of Blood, Astroglide, and KY Jelly", Journal of Psychotic Studies (54) pp. 98-102)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Portillo, posted 12-16-2011 5:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 19 of 373 (644209)
12-16-2011 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 6:20 AM


DNA does occur naturally. We observe it being produced by an entirely unintelligent process of reproduction with variation.

The key word here (your choice) is reproduction not "production." In a Ford plant where most of the workers have been replaced by machines, no one would think that the machines building machines, had "produced" themselves. My point is that there are no examples of life being observed forming from non life. Nor are there any examples of observed single celled life being observed advancing to multicelled life. Nor is there even a single example of a multicelled organism being observed having added beneficial "new" information to its chromosomal DNA, to even demonstrate that its possible.

without having to tackle all the evidence that they aren't.

Oh please. The only possible "evidence" that could prove that they aren't would be an example of an observed case of life naturally forming from non life. I wasn't aware of any such evidence.

If you assert that DNA possesses this "specificity", then the scientific community does not recognize "specificity" as a sign of intelligence, since the scientific community does not identify DNA as a product of intelligence.

First let me just say I think your painting with an awfully broad brush since there are plenty of people in the scientific community who do see it as a product of intelligence. But since you call those people loons who practice pseudoscience, thanks for making my point. Its all well and good when we stick to lower or even possibly equal intelligence. But if it hints at a supreme intelligence... then suddenly all bets are off.

I think being wrong about physics and cosmology is off-topic. Stick to biology, eh?

No, if it fits within the topic of this thread (and it does) then I will discuss it. If you don't like it... bite me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 6:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 7:38 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 7:57 AM Just being real has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 373 (644213)
12-16-2011 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Just being real
12-16-2011 6:48 AM


Nor is there even a single example of a multicelled organism being observed having added beneficial "new" information to its chromosomal DNA, to even demonstrate that its possible.

Your argument is simply that we don't have eye witness testimony of these things. In fact we do have evidence that allows us to infer with a high degree of certainty that these things (not including abiogenesis) have indeed occurred.

With regard to abiogenesis, one might also add that we don't have even a single example of an observation of a human being brought to life from clay or a woman being created from a man's rib.

Oh please. The only possible "evidence" that could prove that they aren't would be an example of an observed case of life naturally forming from non life. I wasn't aware of any such evidence.

Using this logic, we'd have to say that the only possible evidence of a murder is eye witness testimony. Finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, power residue, and even confessions don't mean doodly squat.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 6:48 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:05 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 21 of 373 (644215)
12-16-2011 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Just being real
12-16-2011 6:48 AM


The key word here (your choice) is reproduction not "production." In a Ford plant where most of the workers have been replaced by machines, no one would think that the machines building machines, had "produced" themselves. My point is that there are no examples of life being observed forming from non life. Nor are there any examples of observed single celled life being observed advancing to multicelled life. Nor is there even a single example of a multicelled organism being observed having added beneficial "new" information to its chromosomal DNA, to even demonstrate that its possible.

Leaving aside the actual falsehoods in this, I note that it doesn't really answer my point. We see DNA being produced naturally, unintelligently, without design. This is all we ever see happening in nature.

Now, if you wish to suppose that at some point a rosebush (for example) was produced, not in the way that any rosebush we've ever seen was produced (i.e. by reproduction with variation) but in the way that an automobile is produced, then that is not an inference from observation, but a flat contradiction of what we infer from observation.

Oh please. The only possible "evidence" that could prove that they aren't would be an example of an observed case of life naturally forming from non life.

No, the evidence would be DNA being produced naturally, which it is.

First let me just say I think your painting with an awfully broad brush since there are plenty of people in the scientific community who do see it as a product of intelligence. But since you call those people loons who practice pseudoscience, thanks for making my point.

If your point was that creationists are loony pseudoscientists, you're welcome.

Its all well and good when we stick to lower or even possibly equal intelligence. But if it hints at a supreme intelligence... then suddenly all bets are off.

That was odd.

My point remains. If you are going to appeal to the practice of the scientific community, then one of their practices is pointing out that creationists are ludicrously wrong. What you want to do is something different from what scientists want to do, so that you can draw a different conclusion.

We know how real scientists detect design. They do not do so by maundering incoherently about "specificity" and then pretend to find it in naturally occurring substances such as DNA.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 6:48 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 22 of 373 (644217)
12-16-2011 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
12-16-2011 7:38 AM


we do have evidence that allows us to infer with a high degree of certainty that these things (not including abiogenesis) have indeed occurred.

Sure, I'm game, what "high degree of inferring evidence" do you have?

one might also add that we don't have even a single example of an observation of a human being brought to life from clay or a woman being created from a man's rib.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread say such a thing had occurred. I've only seen discussions about evidence for a designer. If you wish to discuss the possible validity of the claims of the Bible then perhaps we should defer that to another thread?

Using this logic, we'd have to say that the only possible evidence of a murder is eye witness testimony. Finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, power residue, and even confessions don't mean doodly squat.

No because we have previously "observed" that finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, powder residue, and even confessions can be directly connected to people. You've actually refuted your own argument. That's because if someone would have tried to use DNA evidence prior to the 1980's it would NOT have tied a criminal to a murder scene. That's because prior to 1985 no one had "observed" that DNA was unique to each human. With the exception of confession, the same can be said for each of those types of evidences. Which supports my point. There has to be a point in which it was clearly observed before it can later be "inferred."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 7:38 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:24 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 23 of 373 (644218)
12-16-2011 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 7:57 AM


We see DNA being produced naturally, unintelligently, without design. This is all we ever see happening in nature.

I'm only familiar with it be "RE produced" in nature. Please specify an example of it being "produced."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 7:57 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:10 AM Just being real has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


Message 24 of 373 (644219)
12-16-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Just being real
12-16-2011 8:08 AM


I'm only familiar with it be "RE produced" in nature. Please specify an example of it being "produced."

Reproduction --- with which, as you admit, you are familiar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:08 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:21 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2224 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 25 of 373 (644221)
12-16-2011 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dr Adequate
12-16-2011 8:10 AM


If I hand print or copy Jules Verne's "Journey to the center of the earth" I haven't PRODUCED it I have only REPRODUCED it. That isn't the same thing. Biologic machines "designed" to reproduce is entirely different from a biological machine forming from scratch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:10 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2011 10:30 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-16-2011 8:32 PM Just being real has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1956
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 26 of 373 (644234)
12-16-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Portillo
12-16-2011 5:48 AM


care to substantiate this claim?

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Portillo, posted 12-16-2011 5:48 AM Portillo has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 373 (644235)
12-16-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Just being real
12-16-2011 8:05 AM


That's because prior to 1985 no one had "observed" that DNA was unique to each human. With the exception of confession, the same can be said for each of those types of evidences. Which supports my point. There has to be a point in which it was clearly observed before it can later be "inferred."

That is of course complete nonsense. Direct observation is only one of the ways that we make determinations and reach conclusions. Nobody has ever directly observed quantum tunneling, stellar aging, cigarette tar inducing cancer, atoms and molecules, neutrinos and any number of other things/effects for which the only evidence is non-direct. We will never, ever be able to see an electron, yet we can make attribute observed effects to a particle whose existence is known only by indirect means.

No because we have previously "observed" that finger prints, dna evidence, ballistics, powder residue, and even confessions can be directly connected to people.

Yes, but we no longer need to remake those connections each time. The point is only that direct observation is not the only method for establishing facts or truth, despite your claims to the contrary.

And we can extend my claim to say further that it is not always necessary to develop correlations through direct evidence. For example, we can correlate the temperature and sizes of main sequence stars despite the fact that we've never had any direct evidence of the mass or the temperature of any star.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:05 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 5:23 AM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 373 (644236)
12-16-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Just being real
12-16-2011 8:21 AM


Your DNA is different from that of every single one of your ancestors. Your DNA is not a simple combination of parts assembled from your your parents DNA. So your DNA has been produced rather than simply being reproduced. And we know exactly how that production was accomplished.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 8:21 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 32 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 29 of 373 (644244)
12-16-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Looking back at Subbie's picture, ... [clipping irrelevant stuff]

Sorry, but you missed the point. My specific question was whether the arrangement of the wires was by design. Care to give it another go?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 5:31 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Just being real, posted 12-17-2011 5:27 AM subbie has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15440
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 30 of 373 (644259)
12-16-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Just being real
12-16-2011 5:31 AM


Specificity is misleading
quote:

For example Archaeologists infer intelligence in an artifacts formation by looking for specified design clues. That is to say features that the archaeologist recognizes as being formed with purpose in mind. Marine biologists detect levels of intelligence in dolphins by studying specified communication patterns of the dolphins. That is to say, patterns that the biologist recognizes as having specific meanings to the dolphin community. And finally, SETI scientists search for extra terrestrial intelligence by looking for specific radio signals that are narrow in bandwidth and are known only to occur artificially by an intelligent source with an intended purpose.


In none of these cases is anyone looking for some vague and nebulous "specificity". They are looking for evidence to support or deny a particular hypothesis and have a good idea of exactly what they are looking for. You might as well say that the scientists searching for the Higgs boson are looking for specificity, since they are looking for a predicted pattern in the data that will indicate that the Higgs boson is present. Likewise medical trials are looking for patterns that indicate that the treatment is successful - or for the absence of such patterns.

So really "specificity" tells us nothing about looking for intelligence or design in particular. Any well-designed experiment or investigation that sets out to test a hypothesis will be looking for some specific "specificity".

So, no, it is not "specificity" that is a sign of intelligence or design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Just being real, posted 12-16-2011 5:31 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019