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 1:02 PM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,037 Year: 12,073/19,786 Month: 1,854/2,641 Week: 363/708 Day: 57/81 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 223 (725090)
04-24-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:12 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
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.

And the genome of a given organism such as a rosebush invariably comes into existence by the process which I have described. Do you deny it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 223 (725092)
04-24-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:12 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.

DNA comes into existence by being replicated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:12 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 108 of 223 (725094)
04-24-2014 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by JonF
04-23-2014 2:57 PM


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

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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but invoking CSI does not obligate me to understand Dembski's math (which I don't pretend to do).

I have "The Design Inference" but I can't follow the math, so I do not source it in my discussions.

"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, nor does it "belong" to Dembski by virtue of his using it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by JonF, posted 04-23-2014 2:57 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:44 AM Ed67 has responded
 Message 117 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 11:03 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 118 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:05 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 12:01 PM Ed67 has responded
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 04-24-2014 4:58 PM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 109 of 223 (725095)
04-24-2014 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by New Cat's Eye
04-24-2014 10:21 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
CS writes:

We're talking about how the genome contained in DNA came into existence. You're talking about how it gets replicated.

DNA comes into existence by being replicated.

I think you're too far gone to help. Your ignorance is entertaining, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 10:21 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 10:35 AM Ed67 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 223 (725098)
04-24-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:31 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
How do you think DNA comes into existence?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:31 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 111 of 223 (725100)
04-24-2014 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2014 10:16 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
DA writes:


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.

And the genome of a given organism such as a rosebush invariably comes into existence by the process which I have described. Do you deny it?

The genome for a rosebush only came into existence once, when it was (arguably) created. Now, it gets passed on by replication; what we see in present day are copies of the prototype. We are discussing the origin of the prototype, not of the extant specimens.

Did you really not understand that?

Or is playing dumb your standard response when your world view is threatened?

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:16 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:43 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

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


Message 112 of 223 (725101)
04-24-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:39 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
The genome for a rosebush only came into existence once, when it was (arguably) created. Now, it gets passed on by replication; what we see in present day are copies of the prototype. We are discussing the origin of the prototype, not of the extant specimens.

Did you really not understand that?

Let's try another example. I have just turned 40. My genome, therefore, did not exist until 1973. My parents' genomes existed prior to my conception, mine did not. Here, then, we have an example of a genome (mine) coming into existence. Do you deny it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:39 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

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


Message 113 of 223 (725102)
04-24-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers.

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:47 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 114 of 223 (725103)
04-24-2014 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by New Cat's Eye
04-24-2014 10:35 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
CS writes:

How do you think DNA comes into existence?

We're not talking about how it COMES into existence in the present day; we're talking about how it ORIGINALLY came into existence.

I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer. Only as an entire system can the life process exist, so I think it was assembled as a whole system originally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by subbie, posted 04-24-2014 11:00 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 04-24-2014 11:07 AM Ed67 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-24-2014 11:28 AM Ed67 has responded

    
Ed67
Member (Idle past 1525 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 115 of 223 (725104)
04-24-2014 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2014 10:44 AM


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


"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers.

No.

I can't help it if your English is 'challenged'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 10:44 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2014 11:28 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 116 of 223 (725105)
04-24-2014 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:45 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
Human DNA originally came into existence when DNA from an ancestor species evolved into human DNA.

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

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 5017
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(3)
Message 117 of 223 (725106)
04-24-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Boy, you are getting boring really fast. Just another ignorant creationist with plenty of bluff, bluster, and bravado... but nothing else.

You neglected to respond to this:

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).

At least you made a pathetic effort to respond to my claims on CSI:

"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, nor does it "belong" to Dembski by virtue of his using it.

Sorry, Eddie, CSI is a technical term introduced by Dembski. It doesn't "belong" to him but any reference to CSI not otherwise qualified is reasonably taken to refer to Dembski's work. There are no definitions outside of Dembski, and "means exactly what it says" is not a valid definition.

You have claimed elsewhere that "I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source", which obviously refers to at least one of Dembski's many concepts of CSI.

But you are free to use a different definition if you insist. Just define exactly what you mean by "CSI". Mathematical or not, we need an operational definition that allows a neutral observer to determine whether or not CSI exists or does not exist in a specified system. Then demonstrate that DNA possesses your version of CSI and demonstrate that there are no known instances of your CSI being produced by anything but intelligence.

Or you can pick one of Dembski's definitions and defend it. In which case you need at a minimum to respond to Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references.

Or you can run like a scared bunny from supporting your claims.

My bet's on the last choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2250
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 118 of 223 (725107)
04-24-2014 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Ed67 writes:

"complex specified information" is a term in the English language understandable by English speakers. It means exactly what it says. It is not a mathematical term, nor does it "belong" to Dembski by virtue of his using it.

I have seen creationists use the words "complex specified information" many times, but I have never seen a definition that made me think, "oh, now I get it".

I know what "complex information" is, what is specified information? Specified how?

All you seem to be saying is, "complex specified information" means "complex specified information".

You assert that DNA contains "complex specified information", but all I see is molecules and chemistry. Is DNA the only kind of "complex specified information"?

It looks like "complex specified information" really means "dazzle them with bullshit".


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 04-24-2014 11:09 AM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 11:25 AM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 119 of 223 (725108)
04-24-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:45 AM


Re: Articles of Faith
I think it was built as part of the entire organism by an intelligent designer.

Since you have supplied zero evidence that an intelligent designer did what you claim, can I then make the argument that abiogenesis must be true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:45 AM Ed67 has not yet responded

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


(3)
Message 120 of 223 (725110)
04-24-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tanypteryx
04-24-2014 11:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
I have seen creationists use the words "complex specified information" many times, but I have never seen a definition that made me think, "oh, now I get it".

Complex specified information is the measurement of a creationists incredulity as to the production of modern genomes through mutation and selection.

CSI really stands for Creationist Standard Incredulity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:05 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:21 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
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