
Register  Sign In 

QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details 

Thread Info



Author  Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design...  
PaulK Member Posts: 17849 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote: Ah, the usual creationist habit of attributing their faults to their opponents. None the less your argument is that infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. I on the other hand make no such argument.
quote: But I am not determining the sum in that way. Again, you are arguing against quite standard mathematics that has been around for a long time. And you are doing it by making up arbitrary rules.
quote: Complete nonsense. If you want to argue against mathematics you have to do better than that.
quote: The second is a finite time consisting of an infinite number of moments. Or it is if time is continuous, as you agreed that it is. That is a simple matter of logic. If you want to say that logic is wrong you need to do better than confused misrepresentations of the point,
quote: I should be able to do an infinite number of additions? Really? It’s not even practical to multiply large numbers by repeated addition  that’s one reason we use multiplication  and why logarithms were invented.
quote: “Mathematics is wrong because Wookie says so” is not a convincing argument, it is especially not a convincing argument when the sum is obvious to everyone without the need to add it up by hand.
quote: “Mathematics is wrong because Wookie doesn’t understand what he’s talking about” is an even less convincing argument. By definition the sum of the series is what you get if you add up all the terms. In this series you won’t have got to 1 if you stop before the end. And that really is obvious  you can even work out how far short it is of 1 without adding up the terms by hand. (Which just goes to show how daft your arbitrary rule really is).
quote: Using an obviously false premise  since there is no such point the rest is moot. Really your incompetence at mathematics is not a good reason to think that mathematics is wrong.
quote: No, it’s been the basis of the integral calculus since Newton and Leibniz invented it. Let me just suggest that a guy who seems to think multiplication is forbidden isn’t really in a position to disagree.(Indeed it must involve the sum of an infinite number of terms if you understand it). quote: I am not aware of anything equivalent.
quote: The rule that we must determine a sum by adding up all the numbers by hand is a “rule of reality”? Reality says that multiplication is forbidden? Nobody is going to be stupid enough to believe that.
quote: Mathematics says more than that. Mathematics says that if the limit of the sum (as the number of terms tends to infinity) is a finite number then it is that finite number. Or to put it another way, if there is no finitely small difference between two numbers then they are equal. (This is Universitylevel mathematics but quite basic at that level).
quote: Except, of course, that none of the arguments here involve making such measurements. So nobody is breaking that rule either.
quote: Trying to deny that you are arguing that mathematics is wrong when you repeat those very arguments in this post is hardly sensible. Unfortunately the points raised are relevant to reality. If time and space are continuous then the relevant mathematics does describe them  it is not just an abstraction.
quote: If it models reality well enough for science that’s good enough for me. And the opinion of someone who can’t handle even the simpler mathematics involved isn’t exactly persuasive. The more so when this person makes up silly rules and insists that they are “reality”.Edited by PaulK, : Corrected typos


jar Member Posts: 34126 From: Texas!! Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 
Yet it seems barrels do have a measurable circumference and a measurable diameter.
My Website: My Website


ringo Member (Idle past 520 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 
WookieB writes:
There's a difference between "a" beginning and "the" beginning. There might have been many beginnings.
The universe had a beginning. Most scientists today agree with that. As such, space, time and matter/energy all had a beginning. WookieB writes:
I don't see how that follows. Your logic seems to be: Premise 1, Premise 2, therefore God. So the reasoning is that whatever creates the universe would be, among other things, spaceless, timeless and immaterial."I call that bold talk for a oneeyed fat man!"  Lucky Ned Pepper


Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4556 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2

I'm going to go out on a limb here and declare victory over MrID.
It's clear he accepts his defeat since he is afraid to show his face here.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! 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 The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable.  Taq


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
AZPaul3 writes:
Except the universe probably had a beginning. The big bang likely was the beginning. We/you don't know that it wasn't.
Except the universe may not have had a beginning. The big bang may not have been the beginning. We/you don't know. Most scientists today agree the universe may indeed be infinite. In both time directions. We/you don't know.
Ahh, but here you are incorrect. If you want to call it a consensus of any sort, most scientists that hold to the Big Bang as the start of our universe point to it being the start of time, space and matter/energy, at least from our perspective.You base your conclusions on unfounded speculations. Your reasoning is faulty. Perhaps it stems from Einstein's initial equations of general relativity pointing to a start of space and time. Or perhaps it’s due to Stephen Hawking’s view that time definitely had a beginning with the Big Bang, shown with his work with George Ellis and Roger Penrose. Or maybe some are persuaded by physicist Paul Davies, who when commenting on Hawking’s work said: quote Or perhaps it is due to the BordeGuthVilenkin Theorem that is essentially a proof for the beginning of the universe that holds whether or not inflationary cosmology turns out to be correct.
If you insist on speculating a first cause, think something more realistic like an energy differential, a spark, not some apeman god floating in nirvanah beyond the reach of reality. But why would a spark or an energy differential be any better of an idea than an apeman god (which I never mentioned anyways). There are no physics ‘before’ the beginning to rely on, so you cannot appeal to that.
Of course there is justification for our present understanding of the universe through physics. Physics has developed into the sole method of accurately determining the past, present and future state of this universe. Nothing else even competes. You can appeal to physics after the beginning of the universe when physics comes into play. But you cannot do so before, or even at the moment of beginning. With Big Bang theories, even after time=0 and up to a very short time later, physics doesn't apply. Philosophically, if one is stating that space, time, and matter/energy began at time=0, and if you still hold to those items needing a cause, then whatever causes them would have the properties of space, time or matter/energy…or in other words the cause would have to be, at least, spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
WookieeB writes: Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number.nwr writes: Great. And in case you don't know, numbers are also abstract. Ya, I know. So what. As I have said, numbers and math can be used to reference reality, as some models do. But unlike some finite numbers or terms, infinity as an abstract concept does not represent an actualized reality. So at any point in time, or any finite measurement, is not representable as an actualized infinity.
What doesn't work? Using infinity to represent an actuality doesn't work. A finite sum cannot be made up of a nonending string of numbers being added together. A finite sum would only be able to made up of a finite number of numbers. At any point in adding up infinite sums, you could not claim to have reached the goal of a finite number, because the adding of numbers would never end, thus the sum would never be consistent.
When we talk of the sum of an infinite series, we are following the conventions of mathematics. Yes, I understand that. But what you do not seem to understand is what those conventions of mathematics actually mean. As for limits in calculus, which still is an abstract concept that all math is, they don’t actually mean that the equal sign actually means exactly equal. I know that sounds funny saying it bluntly like that, but look at the following videos that explains the basic Calculus idea of limits.  Introduction to Limits (NancyPi)Note particularly at time: 4:30 where the presenter talking about limits in general says: quoteAlso speaking about limits to infinity look to the 10:30 spot. 3 Paradoxes That Gave Us CalculusIncludesa reference of Zeno’s paradox, which directly relates to our discussion. (Also at time 4:30) quote Nobody claims to actually add them step by step. Mathematics has well established conventions for discussion of infinite series. And those conventions work very well. Yes, nobody, including I, is claiming that they are being added step by step. The basic explanation of the process of what is being proposed is to have a number being added to another number to another number to no end of adding. Of course nobody could actually do that. And that is to an extent the heart of my point. Because nobody (including an immortal being) can actually do it, it cannot be done. Thus something that cannot be done or has never been done is not an actualized thing. Yes, Math has conventions that discuss infinity that work well in the context of abstract mathematics, and none of those conventions ever say that it is something that is actualized.
If you don't like the conventions, then don't use them. There's no point about repeatedly getting red in the face with anger at people doing things that they don't actually do. I have no problem with the conventions. Keep them in mathematics and pull whatever useful information they provide. Just don’t say that the particular convention of infinity represents anything actualized.


WookieeB Member Posts: 190 Joined: 
PaulK writes: Ah, the usual creationist habit of attributing their faults to their opponents. None the less your argument is that infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. I on the other hand make no such argument. Ahh, the usual evolutionist habit of strawmanning any argument that disagrees with them. My argument is NOT that since infinity does not act like a number therefore no infinity can exist. It is that any finite sum needs to be the result of adding two or more (but a finite count) of numbers. And that something that has no end cannot end (infinity cannot be actualized).
The second is a finite time consisting of an infinite number of moments. Or it is if time is continuous, as you agreed that it is. That is a simple matter of logic. If you want to say that logic is wrong you need to do better than confused misrepresentations of the point, No, the second is a finite time…period. And to echo my point that you are the one using infinity as a number…. You just said it there” infinite number of moments” No, any finite measure (a number) of time is not made up of a nonending number of moments, because a nonending amount of anything is not a number of anything. I question now what you actually think infinity is! Because to you, any time measure is made of an ‘infinite number’ of divisions, which themselves can be infinitely divided. Then there are an infinite number of time measures. So infinity times infinity times infinity would encompass everything. You have basically made the term infinity meaningless.
I should be able to do an infinite number of additions? Really? It’s not even practical to multiply large numbers by repeated addition  that’s one reason we use multiplication  and why logarithms were invented. No, you should be able to do however many additions is needed to get a finite sum, because the amount of things being added is finite. Nobody can actually do an infinite number of additions, because they would be adding to no end. Whether or not it is practical to show multiplication of large numbers by repeated addition is irrelevant. The issue is it can be done if the numbers involved are finite. You cannot do either if the amount of numbers is an infinite chain.
“Mathematics is wrong because Wookie says so” is not a convincing argument,
Strawmanning my arguments is not a convincing argument. X = 1 + 2 + 3 + …. If there is no end to the numbers being added on the right side, then the value of X on the left side will never be finite.
By definition the sum of the series is what you get if you add up all the terms. In this series you won’t have got to 1 if you stop before the end. And that really is obvious  you can even work out how far short it is of 1 without adding up the terms by hand. But you never have all the terms, because the terms being added never end. So there is no end to adding, and thus you never get a sum of 1. You cannot take a snapshot at any point and have a finite 1, because a snapshot can never show the sum complete, because the adding never ends. In limitspeak, you never actually equal the end.
No, it’s been the basis of the integral calculus since Newton and Leibniz invented it.
So what. I never disputed it is part of calculus. I dispute that it represents an actuality. You cannot seem to understand the difference.
Let me just suggest that a guy who seems to think multiplication is forbidden isn’t really in a position to disagree.
Which I said never. I never indicated that multiplication is forbidden.
Except, of course, that none of the arguments here involve making such measurements. So nobody is breaking that rule either. So then you are referring to just something that is presented in abstract math, and not in reality. If that is the case, then I agree. Such measurements can be done in the imagination of abstract math, yet you could not in actuality subdivide any measurement to infinity.
Trying to deny that you are arguing that mathematics is wrong when you repeat those very arguments in this post is hardly sensible. Unfortunately the points raised are relevant to reality. If time and space are continuous then the relevant mathematics does describe them  it is not just an abstraction. No, I am not saying mathematics is wrong. I am saying that mathematics itself is an abstract thing, and itself is not anything actual. In its own realm, you can say that infinity can be reached if you want. Math can be used to represent certain properties of reality, but there is never anything actually there that is "math". You have to be very careful, and very specific on how you want math to represent reality. Infinity is a concept in math, but you can never represent infinity as an actual thing.


PaulK Member Posts: 17849 Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 
quote Ah, the usual creationist habit of making false accusations.
quote As should be obvious that isn’t your argument that infinity can’t exist. This is the argument I was talking about:
But having an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. If they could, various absurdities would result. As an example, if I had an actually infinite number of CDs all with an infinite number of songs on them, if you listened to only one CD, you would hear the same number of songs as you would if you had listened to every CD in my collection
Message 424And the “absurdity” is simply that infinity does not act the same as finite numbers, which was the point. quote And by logic is time is continuous every finite time period contains an infinite number of moments.
quote Except for the fact that I am not expecting it to behave like a finite number. So no, you are doing it, I am not.
quote Your objection makes no sense, which is hardly sufficient to refute logic.
quote Which is again the error of treating infinity like a normal number. It’s weird. I get that. But that doesn’t make it impossible,
quote Thanks for admitting that your challenge was just a silly trick.
quote Which does not negate the point that sums may be calculated without adding every single term by hand.
quote It isn’t a strawman. You are claiming that mathematics is wrong and you aren’t giving any valid reasons.
quote And we know that isn’t true. That’s already been shown in this thread.
quote Which is exactly the way it should be if 1 is the sum of the infinite series. (At least one like that). You shouldn’t get to 1 by adding a finite number of terms. That’s obvious.
quote OK, so you do accept that an infinite series has a sum.
quote Integration does deal with real quantities, that was why it was invented. The fact that it doesn’t rely on physically doing an infinite number of measurements is obvious enough that it can’t be the real reason for your disagreement.
quote The fact that you have changed your tune does not mean that you were not arguing against mathematics. Mathematics says that infinite series can have finite sums. You disagreed. Mathematics says that these sums can be calculated without individually adding all the terms. You disagreed. And had the nerve to claim that this arbitrary rule you invented was “logic and reality”. It was neither. That you now disavow these claims hardly means that you never made them.


Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4556 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 
WookieeB writes: AZPaul3 writes:
Except the universe probably had a beginning. The big bang likely was the beginning. We/you don't know that it wasn't. Except the universe may not have had a beginning. The big bang may not have been the beginning. We/you don't know. I'm curious how you calculated this probability?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! 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 The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable.  Taq


AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8612 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 2.3

Except the universe probably had a beginning. The big bang likely was the beginning. We/you don't know that it wasn't. This is science, not your intellectually deficient religion. We don't go after and dwell on the "what wasn't". The only thing that matters is what the universe shows us in observation. I’ll say this slowly because you may find this deeper than your intellect can easily take you. The science consensus is that the big bang MAY (note the MAY) be the start of time, the start of the universe. We also acknowledge that it may not be the start of time, the start of the universe. These are real scientists and they realize that WE DON’T KNOW. That’s the part you sloppy minded religionists gloss over like so many other inconvenient facts. You take that ignorance and fashion a bloody violent universal apegod monster for the universe. The speculation that this universe may have a beginning is what you use to conjure your apemangod. The FACT that this universe may be infinite rips those religious requirements to shreds.
But why would a spark or an energy differential be any better of an idea than an apeman god (which I never mentioned anyways). There are no physics ‘before’ the beginning to rely on, so you cannot appeal to that. Oh god. You idiot. Of course there is physics. Always has been. Always will be. If anything happens, then physics (whether Earth Monkeys are aware of it or not) did it. Not your apeman god. Even prior to the big bang and after the heat death of the universe where some new physics of which we are presently ignorant will prevail, physics is the operation of the Universe. Physics is everything, everywhere and for all time.
Philosophically, if one is stating that space, time, and matter/energy began at time=0 … This is why philosophy is totally useless. Philosophically, one can say that space, time, and matter/energy are infinite manifestations of our infinite universe. Philosophically, one can say the universe was dropped from the cosmic egg as Raven caught it. The only philosophy worth the time of human contemplation is the philosophy of actual discernable fact. If what you posit is not verified, bona fide, evidenced with demonstrable fact then you philosophize in nothing but a deep bag of shit.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!


nwr Member Posts: 6438 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.0

As I have said, numbers and math can be used to reference reality, as some models do. Strictly speaking, the numbers represent components of the mathematical model. But we tend to gloss over that distinction in ordinary talk.
But unlike some finite numbers or terms, infinity as an abstract concept does not represent an actualized reality. Do you realize that you are arguing against yourself here? Our scientists make observations of the early universe. But they never see a beginning. To talk of the universe beginning is to project backwards beyond what is observed. By doing that, you are insisting on an actualized infinity. So you repeatedly deny that there can be an actualized infinity, while you also insist on it. Everyone else has been cautious enough to avoid that, and to point out that we do not actually know that the universe had a beginning.
But what you do not seem to understand is what those conventions of mathematics actually mean. I'm a professional mathematician. Or, more accurately, I am a retired professional mathematician. May I suggest that my understanding of those conventions is likely to be better than your understanding of them.
As for limits in calculus, which still is an abstract concept that all math is, they don’t actually mean that the equal sign actually means exactly equal. That's very confused. How we use the equal sign is itself part of the conventions of mathematics. And the use of "equal" in mathematics is different from the use of "equal" in ordinary life.Fundamentalism  the antiAmerican, antiChristian branch of American Christianity


mike the wiz Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 
MrID writes: How will you answer this scientific question in science or religion? “How can you differentiate a created X to an uncreated X”? Will you answer, “The created X is complex or irreducibly complex and the uncreated X is simple or reducibly complex?”. Neither. I have never argued as a person that properly understands ID, either "complexity" nor, "irreducible complexity". I argue all the features of intelligent design. I would argue specifiedcomplexity, not merely complexity. Complexity is a pile of rubble but this; "yufuftufhghdrt" is a low amount of specified complexity or "arranged" complexity because it contains syntax, it contains code. "But this" is a high level of specified complexity because it contains code, syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics. So how can I differentiate between a created object and an uncreated object? Do I have to answer according to your limited choice or can I just give my answer? I would say that you can't differentiate unless the specified complexity is high enough to rule out a nonintelligent designer. For example if a tree falls over a stream that might enable you to use it as a bridge to cross. Was it created or uncreated? The answer is that you can't determine which one because the wind could have blown it over or someone could have done it deliberately. However if you drastically increase the specified complexity, and you also have other features of I.D such as contingency planning, correct materials, etc....then if you find a bridge with arches and made from lasting materials with detailed patterns and rails and so forth then you can determine it is created because it is impossible to create something sophisticated without it having all of the intelligent input required by the designer. The more challenging something is to design, the more intelligent the level of input needs to be, so the reasonable evidence of high intelligent design is the evidence of that intelligent input in the form of the features of ID being not only overtly present but of a very intelligent nature, or the "epitome" of all of those features. specified complexity contingency planning correct materials goals and subgoals function clever solutions to inherent problems with that design. (so for example, a differential to solve the inherent problem of wheelspin in a car, or the Mueller cells in the camera eye to solve the nervenet problem of the receptors receiving light through it)  aesthetics (but not necessarily)  congruent integration of systems, symbiotically (so to speak). (for example, hearing and sight can work together, there are many systems integrated into one system such as nervous system, circulatory system, etc..) As for irreducibly complexity, that's only one feature of design and for me the problem with that one is that it only applies SOMETIMES it seems. But certainly I would say there is an element of design where you can't reduce a system any more without it becoming untenable as a design. I try to stay away from that feature of design because it's the famous one and it gets caught up with evolutiontheory too much. There is some truth to it but mostly it seems like an unimportant feature in that it doesn't necessarily prove anything.


mike the wiz Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 
So to put my argument in syllogism form Mr ID, I would put it like this;
If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design it is intelligently designed. Lifeforms are sophisticated with all the features of ID. Therefore lifeforms are designed. So that's classically what I have argued. Here is a link where I have explained it fully; (see chapter 4)Bot Verification
mike the wiz writes:
As for the formalities, my argument for design (ID Syllogism) are written below in my own code to simplify; where the obvious symbols are shown; "all" = *, and "is" = <, "if" is >, and ~ is "ergo" or "then" where applicable. Form of ID syllogism: *x~p, y The only negation possible according to formal logic is; >^p~^*x. (If object in question is NOT designed therefore it will NOT have ALL the features of design) modus tollens >^*x~^p. (Denial of antecedent fallacy.) >p~*x. (Affirmation of consequent fallacy.) You also cannot switch terms, (equivocation) and pretend I am arguing something I am not thus; "you are arguing some x~p" (equivocation of antecedent premise/strawman fallacy) So the form of my ID syllogism in english is; If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed. (This is the law of identity, NOT circularity, most laymen conflate the two) Life has all the features of sophisticated intelligent design Ergo life is designed. PREDICATED ON: This argument is formally valid, obeys the ponen/tollens. The argument is backed up by equivalent reallife examples of the same logic when applied ubiquitously. You can literally use any example thus; If you have all the identifying features of a human/football/television you are a human/football/television. (law of identity, and we identify things by examining what they are deductively) P has ALL the features Ergo P is human/football/television.


Stile Member (Idle past 152 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:

WookieeB writes: Yes, infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. As an abstract concept, it is not something concrete...ever. Before I thought you just didn't know how infinity works.But, now... I think you don't know how numbers work. Infinity is an abstract concept.Numbers are also abstract concepts. As abstract concepts... neither is anything concrete... ever. Let's take infinity first, as you seem to agree with this one: Infinity does not exist as anything concrete... ever.that is, you cannot say "that is infinity!" while pointing at anything you can only point at something shaped like how we write infinity (our representation of the concept) or you can point at the concept of "an infinite number of things"... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples but "the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of infinity, it is not a concrete existence of "infinity." Infinity certainly exists... as a concept Infinity, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like the number of slices when always slicing the remaining distance in half between 2 apples but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itself Now I'll do the same with numbers. (I'll use the number 2.) The number two does not exist as anything concrete... ever.that is, you cannot say "that is the number 2!" while pointing at anything you can only point at something shaped like how we write the number two (our representation of the concept) or you can point at the concept of "2 things"... like 2 apples but "2 apples" is merely displaying the concept of the number 2, they are not a concrete existence of "the number 2." The number 2 certainly exists... as a concept The number 2, as a concept, can be identified in physical reality... like having 2 apples but the concept is not a "concrete thing" in and of itself All numbers, including infinity are concepts.We always describe the concept when observing concrete physical reality. What's happened here is that you are overly familiar with the concept of "2" and not overly familiar with the concept of "infinity."You've conflated your overfamiliarity with "2" into this actually being a concrete thing... but it's not, it never has been, and it never will be. You're wrong on a simple, fundamental level. It's easy to see, easy to explain, and easy to identify to anyone who cares to look at the situation objectively. Your continued denial only ends up displaying additional problems with your thinking (a large ego, being deceived by others, not wanting to lose... could be a lot of things.) If you're looking for truth, you need to take a long look at what you're doing here.Otherwise... I don't really care what you do, as in this thread I'm not concerned with people who don't care about truth. Added by Edit:Amidst my rambling, I forgot to make my own point clear. My point is: Every time you see two objects, you are seeing "the number 2" and "infinity" in reality at the exact same level. Every time there is two objects: you can see two objects and in your mind (abstractly) count to 2.Every time there is two objects: you can see the space between them and in your mind (abstractly) how it can be divided up in half an infinite number of times. You never see "a concrete number 2" You never see "a concrete infinity" The only difference is you are very familiar with "the number 2" and "counting abstractly in your mind." This familiarity does not mean "the number 2" concretely exists.Others who are more familiar with the concept of infinity will see both, all the time... their familiarity does not mean "infinity" concretely exists. However, both abstract concepts do very much exist in reality any time you have 2 objects or any other example where the concepts can be applied to reality. The concepts exist, and their applications to reality exist  equally except for your own personal familiarity/credulity with them. Edited by Stile, : Forgot to make my point clear


Stile Member (Idle past 152 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:

mike the wiz writes: For example if a tree falls over a stream that might enable you to use it as a bridge to cross. Was it created or uncreated? The answer is that you can't determine which one because the wind could have blown it over or someone could have done it deliberately. Seems reasonable.I completely agree with this. However if you drastically increase the specified complexity, and you also have other features of I.D such as contingency planning, correct materials, etc....then if you find a bridge with arches and made from lasting materials with detailed patterns and rails and so forth then you can determine it is created because it is impossible to create something sophisticated without it having all of the intelligent input required by the designer. I completely agree with this as well.
(so for example, a differential to solve the inherent problem of wheelspin in a car, or the Mueller cells in the camera eye to solve the nervenet problem of the receptors receiving light through it) But.. here's where things don't add up. You look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see design or "the designed bridge"  all sorts of perfect planning and execution.But I look at Mueller cells in the camera eye and see natural existence or "the tree fallen over the gap"  all sorts of "just good enough" and a messy execution. Do I simply know more about biology and how things evolve and how nature works than you do? This is the problem. You can't just say "I know design when I see it."You have to say "these are the limits, and this is why the limits must be this way" and it all must be very specific and objectively connected to evidence or it simply doesn't apply to reality. If you can actually show some objective link to reality.. we can discuss that and come to an objective conclusion.
mike the wiz writes: So that's classically what I have argued. There's nothing wrong with the logical form of your argument.It's just that there's no connection to reality, so there's no reason to accept that it applies to reality. mike the wiz writes: If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design it is intelligently designed. The connection to reality is right here. The rest of the logicallycorrectargument is irrelvent.You need to identify, using specific objective evidence connected to reality, the following: what is "sophisticated?" what is not "sophisticated?" what are the "features of design?" what are not the "features of design?" when do "sophisticated features of design" cross a threshold into being designed? when do they not? And the levels need to objectively shown to be valid... and can't simply be because of your lack of familiarity with how nature works. If there is any ambiguity in the answer to those questions... then, as the rest of your post shows... it basically comes down to "I know it when I see it" which is not objective... and then the foundation for your argument has no connection to reality. Without that specific objective evidence connected to reality, you may as well say: "If a sophisticated object has all the features of intelligent design, then it is purple." And go on to prove how logically sound the formulation of that argument is.It's just as logically sound as the one you provide in Message 463. And both have the same failure  no specific, objective evidence to connect them to reality.



Do Nothing Button
Copyright 20012023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024