Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-19-2019 8:11 AM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,001 Year: 12,037/19,786 Month: 1,818/2,641 Week: 327/708 Day: 21/81 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 91 of 223 (725015)
04-23-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 12:19 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Thank you for your welcome
T12C writes:

In all seriousness, I wasn't commenting on the fact that you had not read the earlier comments yet, but rather about the fact that you explicitly stated that you would not read them, being (and I quote), "Too lazy."

I said I was too lazy to go BACK through 134 posts; not too lazy to KEEP UP with the thread once I get started.

I just won't tolerate any monkey business (except for its entertainment value) and I expect to be held to the same standard.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 12:19 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 12:42 PM Ed67 has responded

    
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 92 of 223 (725016)
04-23-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Ed67 writes:

I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source, so we should admit that, whatever the mechanistic details of life's origin, there's a real possibility that the specified 'recipe' included in DNA was designed by an intelligent being.

Okay, then as a falsifiability test, you would expect to see no forms of complex specified information within nature that do not require an intelligent cause. However, several times you have been pointed to the complex chemical reactions that cause Sodium and Chlorine to create NaCl, salt crystals. These do not require an intelligence even though it is specified "information" How about snowflake crystals, wouldn't these classify as specified information?

The problem I have seen is in defining "information". Many individuals have tried to include only items that would apply to life forms, yet cannot find ways to exclude all the other natural chemical reactions that occur as well. So, how are you defining "complex specified information"? Without this understanding, there will be zero moving forward in this debate.

Also, I am not constrained to scientific naturalism, I am constrained by evidence. Until anyone can present credible evidence of some sort of deistic intervention, even a minute aspect, I should give the idea as much credence as that a leprechaun is responsible for my grass dying in my backyard, rather than the extreme heat in Arizona and the fact that I only plant winter grass. Show me evidence and I will give your idea credence, until that is done it is simply wishing on a star for an idea to be true, as useful as a hand grenade against a nuke.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-end…the person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 93 of 223 (725017)
04-23-2014 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:34 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Ed67 writes:

I said I was too lazy to go BACK through 134 posts; not too lazy to KEEP UP with the thread once I get started.

I just won't tolerate any monkey business (except for its entertainment value) and I expect to be held to the same standard.

Well, I have gone back and reread through several hundreds of messages to get caught up before arguing my point because my point may have already been refuted (such as the argument you are making in this case). Should I not expect others to be held to the same standards that I hold myself for understanding where the conversation is at and participating in an intellectually honest way by checking the resources when they are presented to me, even if I must search a bit. Nice movement of the goalposts by the way once I pointed out your "lazy" comment.

I'm just saying that you must understand that this is a forum that has been going on for a long time. Many of us have dealt with PRATTs (Points Refuted A Thousand Times) and are amazed to see them brought up once again, such as the argument of "Information" that you are relying upon. If the evidence is in another thread, yes the person who is making the point should direct someone to it, but if it is in the same thread as the current debate, asking someone to read back through the thread is a reasonable request.

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-end…the person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:34 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:14 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 94 of 223 (725037)
04-23-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ed67
04-22-2014 11:21 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

Nope. It's a tentative conclusion based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible.

If you want to invoke CSI or any of it's many variants, state clearly which variant you are using, state whether you are using a Bayesian or Fisherian method, and show the math. Remember, per Dembski, to show that you have included all of the infinite or near-infinite relevant chance hypotheses, and show your work. ( "...all the relevant chance hypotheses that could be responsible for E [the observed event]..."; The Design Inference pp50-51). Then be prepared to support your math.

(BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:18 PM JonF has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 95 of 223 (725039)
04-23-2014 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
04-23-2014 12:42 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
T1C writes:

Well, I have gone back and reread through several hundreds of messages to get caught up before arguing my point because my point may have already been refuted (such as the argument you are making in this case).

You're a trooper. And I'm lazy. You got it.

T1C writes:

Should I not expect others to be held to the same standards that I hold myself...

Actually, that's a serious mistake in life. You should never expect others to live up to your standards for yourself. Too subjective; it'll backfire on you every time.

T1C writes:

asking someone to read back through the thread is a reasonable request.


Don't get me wrong, I have sufficient background information both about this thread, and about this topic, to share my viewpoint and solicit others.

That is, if it's okay with you, your majesty


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 12:42 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 2:36 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 96 of 223 (725041)
04-23-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by JonF
04-23-2014 2:11 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
JonF writes:

there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.

That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH.

Nope. It's a tentative conclusion based on...

Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:11 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:57 PM Ed67 has responded

    
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(4)
Message 97 of 223 (725044)
04-23-2014 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:14 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Ed67 writes:

You're a trooper. And I'm lazy. You got it.

Not calling you lazy....you did that yourself. I am requesting that if you would like to have a discussion about a scientific topic that you take a somewhat scientific attitude into the discussion. In other words understanding the current argument, developing ideas based upon evidence (not assertion), and testing your ideas against reality to understand if they are falsified...The problem is that you skipped steps one and two, and haven't even considered step three. You need to deal with the evidence that has already been posted, then post your evidence and what it means, and then defend it through testing. This is how to move the discussion forward. Otherwise, we can just continue to blindly yell at one another down two separate hallways, hoping the other heard

Ed67 writes:

Actually, that's a serious mistake in life. You should never expect others to live up to your standards for yourself. Too subjective; it'll backfire on you every time.

I don't find this a serious mistake in my past thirty some odd years. Rather, most people have respected the fact that I ask a lot of them, especially because they see evidence that I am willing to do just as much for them...outside of those people, I find it is easier to remove people from my life than accept that a friend will not live up to the same standards I try to. Doesn't mean they have to be perfect, but actually put forth effort.

Ed67 writes:

Don't get me wrong, I have sufficient background information both about this thread, and about this topic, to share my viewpoint and solicit others.

That is, if it's okay with you, your majesty

Enough with the insulting tone, I do not appreciate it and have done my best to not be insulting toward you. If you have sufficient background to be discussing your claims then I am slightly confused on why you are posting claims that have already been refuted a thousand times. You do realize that the appearance of coding that DNA has is one of the few remaining bastions of ignorance in Biology where creationists/Idists can place their God of the Gaps, right? You are accepting an answer before enough research has been done. Not to say you are fully to blame for this, as many (including Isaac Newton) have done this same thing. I cannot figure it out, therefore God! However, this process has a terrible track record in the history of discovery. In fact, the same detailed information you require for life also appears in non-life (crystals) so what is the explanation within your framework for this?

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov

If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-end…the person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson

What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:14 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 98 of 223 (725045)
04-23-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source

Not so. See Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 223 (725046)
04-23-2014 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source ...

Well, no. Assuming that the vague term "complex specified information" includes the information in DNA, then DNA itself constitutes a counterexample. When we look at the DNA of (let's say) a rose-bush, we find that it was produced by mindless processes (in this case reproduction, recombination, mutation). The IDist needs to hypothesize an exception to what seems like an invariable rule for genomes --- that they are produced by unintelligent processes.

We may, however, say that whenever we can find out how "complex specified information" arises, whether it's a genome, an engineering blueprint, or a novel, it arises as a result of natural and not supernatural causes; so if you want to apply induction, you could start with that fact and draw the obvious inference.

You complain about the "constraints of scientific naturalism", but what is it except inductive inferences from facts such as these? To elaborate on this point, suppose that the usual way to get coaches was for fairy godmothers to turn pumpkins into them, as in Cinderella. Then it would be scientific to infer that that was how any given coach was produced, and we would have scientific supernaturalism. But it isn't. We infer a naturalistic explanation for any given coach not a result of some prejudice or philosophy against the supernatural in general or fairy godmothers in particular; it's just what experience has taught us. To put it another way, we dismiss the supernatural explanation, not because it is supernatural, but for the same reason that we would dismiss an explanation involving tiny purple elephants, which would be natural, but which are equally absent from our collective experience of the sorts of causes things tend to have. And I never hear anyone complaining about the "constraints of no-tiny-purple-elephantism".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5016
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 100 of 223 (725049)
04-23-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:18 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..."

I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....

Please support your claim that tentative conclusion can't start with "there is every reason to think...". (As if you could)

I note you have not responded to the challenge in the remainder of my message.

If you want to invoke CSI or any of it's many variants, state clearly which variant you are using, state whether you are using a Bayesian or Fisherian method, and show the math. Remember, per Dembski, to show that you have included all of the infinite or near-infinite relevant chance hypotheses, and show your work. ( "...all the relevant chance hypotheses that could be responsible for E [the observed event]..."; The Design Inference pp50-51). Then be prepared to support your math.

(BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.)

Can't come up with a CSI calculation of any kind, much less one for DNA, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:18 PM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2014 9:55 AM JonF has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM JonF has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 101 of 223 (725053)
04-23-2014 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:01 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
Oh, boy, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and chose to deny it.

Now you are twisting other peoples' words.

I don't know how life started. That is my position. I think abiogenesis holds the best chance of finding an answer, but it has yet to find one.

That is my position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:01 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19980
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 102 of 223 (725067)
04-23-2014 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:23 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?

Curiously, I usually use the term "developed" to differentiate the chemical process from the biological evolutionary process.

Of course this also gets into the question of what is necessary for life (see my response to Frako on this, Is there a legitimate argument for design?, Message 193).

Message 102:
PaulK writes:

quote:

"That, my friend, is a statement of FAITH."-ed67

But not religious "FAITH" since it is neither certain, nor is it lacking a foundation in evidence. To pretend otherwise would be equivocation and dishonesty.

So we've established that belief in abiogenesis requires faith in the unseen and unproven, j

So you went with equivocation and dishonesty ...

faith -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

You have confused meaning (1) -- what PaulK meant -- with meaning (2) or (4): that is equivocation, especially as he specified that it was based on evidence ... but then again I would not call it faith, myself.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:23 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 103 of 223 (725068)
04-23-2014 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Ed67
04-23-2014 11:23 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Can you possibly now see why evolution does not and cannot explain abiogenesis?

Yes, I see. So could you possibly let your gang know not to assert that the first DNA/RNA EVOLVED?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 11:23 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15210
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 104 of 223 (725084)
04-24-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by JonF
04-23-2014 2:57 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
quote:

I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....

Since I explicitly told him that there was no claim to certainty before he asserted otherwise it is quite clear that he is blatantly lying. Dishonest as creationists are it is unusual for them to be quite so obvious about it. Hence, the conclusion that he is a troll.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:57 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1524 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 105 of 223 (725088)
04-24-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
04-23-2014 2:42 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
DA writes:

I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source ...

Well, no. Assuming that the vague term "complex specified information" includes the information in DNA, then DNA itself constitutes a counterexample. When we look at the DNA of (let's say) a rose-bush, we find that it was produced by mindless processes (in this case reproduction, recombination, mutation). The IDist needs to hypothesize an exception to what seems like an invariable rule for genomes --- that they are PRODUCED by unintelligent processes.

You are confused. We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.
Different process. Try to keep up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2014 2:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:16 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 10:21 AM Ed67 has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019