Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 286 of 638 (725468)
04-27-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by mike the wiz
04-27-2014 11:36 AM


Mike writes:
Forget those subjects for a moment,
With pleasure, you're all over the place as usual.
and tell me, how would we know whether a lifeform is designed? That is the hypothetical discussion that is relevant to this thread. That is ALL I am assessing.
We don't need to ask hypothetically if a lifeform is designed or not because we now know that it isn't - we have the evidence and know how it came about. Exactly as we don't need to ask if we know hypothetically if a watch is designed - we have the information and evidence. We only have to discuss these things in wisy-washy philosophical ways when we don't have empirical evidence. This one was settled 150 years ago.
"The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered" Darwin.
This argument is as old as the hills, if you actually care about it, start with the wiki.
Teleological argument - Wikipedia

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by mike the wiz, posted 04-27-2014 11:36 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 287 of 638 (725479)
04-27-2014 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Tangle
04-27-2014 3:11 AM


Tangle writes:
To get back to the discussion, it seems pretty easy to me to accept Demski's meaning of the terms Complex Specified Information. His own example is pretty clear:
"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."
He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is. That argument is no more than the Watchmaker argument and can be debated as though it is.
His attempt to move the argument further was to introduce mathematics into the game and claim that if he calculates the probability of something happening by chance to be less than 10^150, then it requires a designer. The problem is therefore mathematical not semantic and if you can't discuss it mathematically, there's no point proceding beyond the Watchmaker stage.
Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Obviously there's more to Dembski's argument than raw probability. There's also SPECIFICITY.
Your over - simplification is a SRAW MAN.
Tangle writes:
Sadly for ID, those that have considered mathematically and are qualified to do so, tell us that it's bunk.
Do you expect us to take YOUR word for it? Please provide citations.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2014 3:11 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NoNukes, posted 04-27-2014 10:29 PM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 289 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2014 3:04 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 638 (725516)
04-27-2014 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Ed67
04-27-2014 4:07 PM


Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design.
Not quite. Not having CSI does not mean not a candidate for design. CSI is not argued by Dempski to detect all designs. For example a monkey wrench is designed but has no CSI because it is not complex. An arrow head might be designed or it might be selected from some naturally created shards of flint. How can we tell when an arrow head is designed?
What does the Dempski mean by the term specified? Can you explain this without requiring a specifier in your definition?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 4:07 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 289 of 638 (725527)
04-28-2014 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Ed67
04-27-2014 4:07 PM


Ed writes:
Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Obviously there's more to Dembski's argument than raw probability.
Dembski's entire argument for CSI rests on his probability calculations, the rest is just ancient Paley - "it looks designed so it must be"
Do you expect us to take YOUR word for it? Please provide citations.
You'll find them here, but surely you're already aware of them?
Specified complexity - Wikipedia
A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states that "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6] Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 4:07 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 290 of 638 (725528)
04-28-2014 3:42 AM


Given that the argument is that life forms where intelligently designed we should look for some real intelligent designs of stuff. And there should be no obviously stupid designs.
The human eye is obviously a stupid design all those nerves, and blood vessels in the way of the light, not to mention the blind spot. Cmmon a 1st grader could do better.
Haemoglobin its molar mass is 64000 its used to transport one oxygen with a molar mass of 16. Like using a truck to transport one cookie definitively a stupid design.
The appendix doing nothing but randomly killing you for no good reason.
Wisdom teeth.. really just popping up sideways like we dont have enough problems with our teeth.
I could go on for days.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 4:19 AM frako has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 291 of 638 (725529)
04-28-2014 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by frako
04-28-2014 3:42 AM


You are misusing the word "Intelligent" as in ID to mean "very smart" when what it means is that the presence of Design at all implies that An Intelligence, that is, a Mind, designed it. I'm sure you know that, you just like to make yourself smarter than God. Of course God is smarter than you but we'll just pass on by that.
You find God fails your personal test for IQ in the design of the eye and the blood. I'm sure He's very interested in your opinion and will let you know what He thinks of it in due time.
Leaving that aside, some of your complaints concern parts of the body that can be explained in terms of the Fall, not the original design of the Creation. The appendix for instance is very likely an organ that used to have a function, that it lost over the millennia due to the gradual deterioration of the body since the Fall. Wisdom teeth are no doubt a similar situation. Perhaps hemoglobin also used to serve functions now lost.
The Fall is all about human sin, human failure. You might think of that when you put yourself above the God who made you.
I'm sure you COULD go on for days telling God what He got wrong, such is the arrogance of the human race.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by frako, posted 04-28-2014 3:42 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by frako, posted 04-28-2014 4:45 AM Faith has replied
 Message 294 by onifre, posted 04-28-2014 9:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 295 by Theodoric, posted 04-28-2014 10:12 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 296 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2014 10:35 AM Faith has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 292 of 638 (725530)
04-28-2014 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
04-28-2014 4:19 AM


You are misusing the word "Intelligent" as in ID to mean "very smart" when what it means is that the presence of Design at all implies that An Intelligence
so so your saying it was all intelligently designed its just the designer is an idiot.
How about human birth, where the baby has to pass trough the pelvis normally the babys head gets squeezed and can get trough but often the head is too big to pass trough so without surgery both die. The whole thing gets worse if the baby dosent turn arround and goes feet first.
Wings on flightless birds like ostriches why???
the RuBisCO enzyme in plants, inhibited by oxygen one of the most innefective enzymes on the planet but also the most abundant since the way evolution found a way around the problem is by giving plants shit tonnes of it. Or was that the intelligent designer.
Heavy bones in flying animals like bats, hollow light bones in flightless birds why???

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 4:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 1:56 PM frako has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 293 of 638 (725540)
04-28-2014 9:06 AM


Some words form a statistician
At her blog Elizabeth Liddle posted a fascinating series on why it's impossible to calculate CSI per any of Dembski's various methods. The bottom line is, of course, that there's no way to enumerate and account for "all relevant chance hypotheses". But it's interesting to see the formalism and discussion of how Dembski fails so spectacularly.
The eleP(T|H)ant in the room
I think I just found an even bigger eleP(T|H)ant.
Trojan EleP(T|H)ant?
Quizzes, EleP(T|H)ants, Methods and Burdens of Proof.

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 294 of 638 (725545)
04-28-2014 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
04-28-2014 4:19 AM


The appendix for instance is very likely an organ that used to have a function, that it lost over the millennia due to the gradual deterioration of the body since the Fall. Wisdom teeth are no doubt a similar situation. Perhaps hemoglobin also used to serve functions now lost.
What about just fat people, in general? Like, is that part of "The Fall"...? Remember when everyone was skinny in America? Seems like many have "fallen" into obesity because, well, god said not to eat from a tree. Since then we just can't stop eating. Does that sound right?
I'm not sure it does.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 4:19 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 295 of 638 (725546)
04-28-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
04-28-2014 4:19 AM


The appendix has a function. Scientists have figured out its purpose.
Appendix

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 4:19 AM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 296 of 638 (725549)
04-28-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
04-28-2014 4:19 AM


More nonsense
The Fall is all about human sin, human failure.
"The Fall" is invented nonsense, and represents one of the most evil ideas ever cooked up by the shaman class.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 04-28-2014 4:19 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2014 12:06 PM Coyote has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 297 of 638 (725550)
04-28-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Ed67
04-26-2014 9:12 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
Ed67 writes:
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington?
Did you understand the one from the University of Washington? How about explaining it in your own words?
Ed67 writes:
And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement:
ringo writes:
...so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way [as DNA].
As I've explained several times, all molecules react with other molecules based on their structure. If you take a beaker full of B and throw in some ABRACADABRA, you'll get some BABRACADABRA and some ABRACADABRAB and some BABRACADABRAB. Bs are less likely to bond to the other As becacause they are "shielded" by neighbouring atoms - i.e. it's harder for Bs to approach.
That's how all chemistry works. There's nothing special about DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 9:12 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 298 of 638 (725552)
04-28-2014 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Ed67
04-26-2014 11:38 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
Ed67 writes:
SALT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF PROTEINS.
It contains the code for building of salt crystals. It's exactly the same kind of code as DNA; only the details are different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 11:38 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 299 of 638 (725553)
04-28-2014 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Ed67
04-27-2014 12:18 PM


Re: What does the CODE in DNA do?
Ed67 writes:
ringo writes:
All I'm saying is that... every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way.[as DNA]
Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement?
That's like asking if I have any citations to back up the statement that the earth is round. Few papers have been published on the subject lately because it's something that every schoolboy knows. If you understood the sources you were quoting, you'd know it too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 12:18 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 300 of 638 (725554)
04-28-2014 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Coyote
04-28-2014 10:35 AM


topic drift
"The Fall" is invented nonsense, and represents one of the most evil ideas ever cooked up by the shaman class.
topic drift -- the forum is: Intelligent Design (not creationism)
The thread is: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
perhaps a new thread?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 296 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2014 10:35 AM Coyote 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