Stonehenge and ID

So HOW do you determine between a natural system and a designed one JP?

JP,Regarding this claim about ID not ULTIMATELY requiring God. I posted this elsewhere but it got skipped over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

joz:
And as we have pointed out ID does logicaly demand a supernatural ID`er...

​

John Paul:
Logically, the IDer for life on Earth does NOT have to be supernatural.

​

mark24:

​

JP,
I think what Joz & Moose are getting at, is that if the ID that created life on earth isn't supernatural, then what created the IDer?

​

John Paul:
That is irrelevant as to how (or why) life appeared here on Earth and then diversified. First things first. And first we should determine our own realm before venturing outside of it. Why? Because doing so may help us answer your question.

​

mark24:
Could you present a scenario that would show the non-supernatural abiogenesis of any ID, please.

​

John Paul:
I am focused on life on Earth. Once that is answered then I will move on. Did you see the movie "Mission to Mars"? Life on Earth could be the result of alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension. The problem is the word 'supernatural' is a reletive word. Maybe what we deem 'supernatural' to another entity is perfectly natural. And maybe we attach that word to God just because of our ignorance. Just a thought.

​

ID is NOT synonomous with supernatural forces (ie God).

​

---

People are only exploring your position on ID. That your meaning of ID doesn’t infer God, is understood. However, in further exploring your position; If there is a natural ID, then the question who designed the IDer IS relevant. If you’re not going to get into an infinite sequence of aliens begat aliens, that is.Films like Mission To Mars explain origins of life, much as Panspermia does, it shifts the focus elsewhere, & ultimately fail to explain anything. The main question remains unanswered, how did life originate? (In this case to create more life). If life were created in a lab tomorrow, the origin of the creating intelligence, us, would not be explained. What’s the point of postulating ID if it doesn’t ultimately explain origins?OK, back to the plot; ID IS POSTULATED AS AN EXPLANATION OF LIFE ON EARTH. The position I wish to explore is the claim that ID doesn’t infer God. Dress God up as a 4th dimensional being if you wish, at the end of the day, life is IC, so life can’t be the ultimate origin of life. So it comes down to a God, that has no origin, & has existed forever, & to which IC doesn’t apply.So, I ask again, & clarify, for you to present a hypothetical scenario in which God is removed from an ID scenario, & solves the origins of all life, by abiogenesis. This is what not having God as part of ID ultimately means.YOU have found it relevant to deny that God is part of any ID scenario, but can you show it when describing ultimate origins of life with ID?Last (small) point, you clearly are NOT focussed on life on earth, you have mentioned Klingons, alien seeding, alien colonization, super intelligent 4th dimensional design for the 3rd dimension, most of which is in the same paragraph that you claim to be focussed on life on earth.In summary:Ultimately ID means supernatural, if life on earth means a non natural ID, fine, but what about those natural IDers?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Cheers for the post Mark...JP if you want to respond on the subject of the natural or supernatural IDer could you start a new thread (or resurrect the old one) so that we can stick with the issue at hand, namely how you John Paul can differentiate between a designed system and a naturally occurring one....

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Quite elegant and beautiful when you think about it.

---

Since I came to Vermont I have learned that there is nothing good about snow. It`s wet, cold, makes the roads dangerous and has to be shovelled..... It is quite pretty though......

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Abiogenesis is a separate theory from the Theory of Evolution.

​

---

The only theory I've heard explaining the start of life other than abiogenesis is Creation by an intelligent designer. If you want to prove that life is a completely natural process, how life began is EXTREMELY important. In fact, life starting on this planet is probably the most difficult to explain aspect of science. Perhaps that is why you distance yourself from it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The only theory I've heard explaining the start of life other than abiogenesis is Creation by an intelligent designer. If you want to prove that life is a completely natural process, how life began is EXTREMELY important. In fact, life starting on this planet is probably the most difficult to explain aspect of science. Perhaps that is why you distance yourself from it.

---

from:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=1&t=2&p=2"The difference is that abiogenesis itself has some evidence going for it. There is nothing, in principle, that prevents advanced organic compounds, including replicators, from forming from abiological compounds. Likewise there is no known cellular phenomenon that is not reducible to chemistry. Finally, we have experiments like Miller's that demonstrate that, under a wide variety of conditions, simplercompounds will form into amino acids, thus removing 2LOT based objections: as is well known, 2LOT allows "information" or"complexity" to increase in a system as long as energy is made unusable. The rest is a mix of the laws of chemistry, a lot of time, a lot of space with the reactions occuring in, and maybe a little luck. It seems probable that if you have the right compounds around, reacting for long enough, life is going to happen, IDer or not."
-gene90

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
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.

---

Yep, he intelligently designed his experiment to mimic what he thought were the conditions at the time otherwise the experiment would have been pretty meaningless....The fact that he put intelligence into reproducing a system does not mean that the original system must have been designed....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-18-2002]

Oh what a surprise ask JP to actually share the criteria which he uses to differentiate between CSI from a natural system and a designed one and you get two things:1) An a priori statement that natural systems can`t produce CSI....2) A suspicious sillence....Hmmmmm........

John Paul seems a bit overextended by the number of threads in which
he is participating, and so even though perhaps it can be argued this
is his own fault I think it would be fair to grant him considerable
latitude in responding.--Percy

I agree totally Percy he should have plenty of time...I`ll just keep on posting a reminder for him everytime it gets close to the bottom of the list...To keep him from forgeting....

Just going to send this one back up top so that JP can find it if he ever feels like responding.....

Ok JP you just posted something so i know your there...The question is how do you differentiate between natural and designed systems?I`ve been waiting for a while and you seem to know how, so how do you tell the difference JP?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
Ok JP you just posted something so i know your there...

​

The question is how do you differentiate between natural and designed systems?

​

I`ve been waiting for a while and you seem to know how, so how do you tell the difference JP?

---

John Paul:
Do you know how many articles, that explain exactly that- better than I could, you could have read by now? It's called inferring design and is done today in different fields- such as archaeology, anthropology, arson investigations and forensics.I can't put in one post what these experts took books to convey.Sometimes detecting design is mind correlative- for example you are walking in a forest, you come to and cross a meadow. At the other side of the meadow is a square field of pine trees. 100 rows by 100 rows, with each row 10 feet apart. Ok quickly- Chance or design?Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring? if yes it is attributed to regularity. If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring? if Yes we can attribute it to chance. If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.Let me quote from Behe's Darwin's Black Box:
"Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nontheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that mental telepathy is not possible, or that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist. In the face of the massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant."*He goes on to say, "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same priciples as our ability to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components." (emph. added)*Same elephant------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-28-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Dembski derived the Design Explanatory Filter:

​

start with an event- E
Does E have a High Probability of occurring? if yes it is attributed to regularity. If No, we ask does E have an intermediate probability of occurring? if Yes we can attribute it to chance. If No we ask does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design. if No we attribute it to chance.

---

That should really be called Dembskis bald assertion filter:"does E have a Small Probability of occurring AND is it specified? If Yes we attribute it to Design"In other words CSI is designed coz it is....What did he derive it from an a priori notion that CSI must be designed? How did he know?Another key point is he says chance NOT chance changes selectively passed on to the next generation on the basis of suitibility...If he is going to ignore the role that NS plays its hardly likely that his "filter" is going to "explain" anything...JP theres a big problem with your arson enquiry, archaeology etc examples in that these are all cases where designed events need to be distinguished from chance ones. Evolution is chance mutations AND a filter (natural selection) until you address the issue of the selection for beneficial mutations you (and Dembski) have nothing.

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-29-2002]