|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Semiotic argument for ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Taq writes: No, I am explaining what it would look like if it did happen. That is not faith. Oh, boy, you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and chose to deny it. Get real. You and the gang have a BELIEF that abiogenesis occurred. You demonstrated that by your post. A little honesty would go a long way here...but it's good entertainment value for a rainy day off, watching you squirm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
PaulK writes: In that case, the rational response is: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. I noticed you guys are experts in driving dissenters from this forum. Nice try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
T12C writes: I am being honest when I say, "We do not know HOW abiogenesis happened" Okay, I understand your point and agree that you can reasonably look at it that way if you choose. To avoid confusion in the future I can use the term 'naturalistic biogenesis' to more accurately describe the process that I am disputing.I see your evidence based approach as reasonable within your constraints of scientific naturalism. But I see it from a different perspective: 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. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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:
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. asking someone to read back through the thread is a reasonable request. That is, if it's okay with you, your majesty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
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?Different process. Try to keep up. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
DA writes: On the other hand, the average English-speaking person would not be able to answer the question "How much CSI is in the sequence AGTCGATGCTAGTTTGCA", or even if there is any. Someone who doesn't even know it when they see it (and know it's absent when they don't see it) doesn't know what it means. Okay, have it your way. I'll use a different term in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes:
That's a tacit admission that you cannot define Complex Specified Information even though you were acting like it was self-evident earlier.What a curious remark. I was merely ceding the fact that 'CSI' now has a special meaning in common parlance, and I shouldn't use it generically any more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3329 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
CS writes: So, there are ways to get CSI, today, via sources that don't require intelligence today. CS, a little common sense would tell you that it takes intelligence to create a system that runs on its own without intelligence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024