Stonehenge and ID

quote:

---

John Paul: Good point bud. In cases like that Dembski's Design Explanatory Filter could come in handy. The filter is basically a flow chart. We start with an event (E). If E has a high probability of occurring we attribute E to regularity. If E has an intermediate probability of occurring, we can attribute it to chance. If E has a small probability of we can also attribute it to chance. However if E is specied and has a small probability of occurring we attribute it to design. Now if that specification also involves complexity, design becomes more probable.

---

Dembski forgot to include "We don't know yet" and "our minds are not able to comprehend the processes of how E could happen" as possibilities in his flow chart.

quote:

---

JP: If DNA happened in nature I would agree.

---

Um, where else do you find DNA except in nature? The choices, as I see them, are "natural" and "artificial", and as far as I can tell, life is considered "natural".

quote:

---

However DNA is only evident in most living organisms.

---

...which means that DNA is natural.joz:
The question is if it is impossible to determine if CSI is gained by a law working on a natural system or gained by a law working on a designed system/imbued by a supernatural entity why infer the latter over the former?John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

John Paul:
But have we ever observed CSI forming/ originating via purely natural processes? Snowflakes? Nah, crystals don't exhibit complexity. Crystals are the same pattern, repeated.

---

Crystals don't exhibit complexity???No two snowflakes are the same.They demonstrably and obviously are not just a repeating pattern.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--Crystals are very complex....but its a natural simple process that drives it's growth, life is not simply created by any known natural process, which is what creationists are asking evolutionists for. Miller was a far cry from making any life and he put in quite a bit of intelligence filtering out what he wanted and didn't want in his experiment.

​

----------

​

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-12-2002]

---

Abiogenesis is a separate theory from the Theory of Evolution.Even if there was strong evidence that the first life was created by the Great Spirit, or Jehovah, or Vishnu, or whatever, it would not constitute in any way a falsification of the Theory of Evolution.Evolution deals with life once it got here.You want to ask the people studying Abiogenesis about it, not Evolutionary Biologists.Also, the whole point of my explaining to JP that snowflakes were each unique is that he claimed that they were not complex and simply a repeating pattern.The point here is that using PURELY natural, simple physical processes, a huge variation in form (with a basic consistent structural plan) is produced.So, the idea that order from chaos is is impossible refuted, AND the idea that huge variation in form cannot be produced by nature "acting" alone, is refuted. All with snowflakes.Quite elegant and beautiful when you think about it.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-17-2002]