Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
292 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 286 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,329 Year: 4,441/6,534 Month: 655/900 Week: 179/182 Day: 12/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Semiotic argument for ID
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 39 of 223 (707504)
09-27-2013 6:30 PM


He can keep this up forever.

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 94 of 223 (725037)
04-23-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Ed67
04-22-2014 11:21 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
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 the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible.

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.

(BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 11:21 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:18 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 98 of 223 (725045)
04-23-2014 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:26 PM


Re: Articles of Faith
I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source

Not so. See Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:26 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 100 of 223 (725049)
04-23-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:18 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..."

I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....

Please support your claim that tentative conclusion can't start with "there is every reason to think...". (As if you could)

I note you have not responded to the challenge in the remainder of my message.

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.

(BTW, nobody past or present has made a valid calculation, so you have quite an opportunity here. Dollars to donuts you can't even come up with a proposed calculation, much less a valid one.)

Can't come up with a CSI calculation of any kind, much less one for DNA, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:18 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2014 9:55 AM JonF has taken no action
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(3)
Message 117 of 223 (725106)
04-24-2014 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Ed67
04-24-2014 10:27 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Boy, you are getting boring really fast. Just another ignorant creationist with plenty of bluff, bluster, and bravado... but nothing else.

You neglected to respond to this:

Sorry, Jon, but tentative conclusions don't start with "there is every reason to think..."

I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....

Please support your claim that tentative conclusion can't start with "there is every reason to think...". (As if you could).

At least you made a pathetic effort to respond to my claims on CSI:

"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.

Sorry, Eddie, CSI is a technical term introduced by Dembski. It doesn't "belong" to him but any reference to CSI not otherwise qualified is reasonably taken to refer to Dembski's work. There are no definitions outside of Dembski, and "means exactly what it says" is not a valid definition.

You have claimed elsewhere that "I take the evidence based approach that all complex specified information has been found to have an intelligent source", which obviously refers to at least one of Dembski's many concepts of CSI.

But you are free to use a different definition if you insist. Just define exactly what you mean by "CSI". Mathematical or not, we need an operational definition that allows a neutral observer to determine whether or not CSI exists or does not exist in a specified system. Then demonstrate that DNA possesses your version of CSI and demonstrate that there are no known instances of your CSI being produced by anything but intelligence.

Or you can pick one of Dembski's definitions and defend it. In which case you need at a minimum to respond to Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" and A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity" and its references.

Or you can run like a scared bunny from supporting your claims.

My bet's on the last choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:27 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 123 of 223 (725116)
04-24-2014 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Tanypteryx
04-24-2014 11:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Jorge at TWeb once defined complex specified information as information that is both complex and specified. Looks as if our local pal is from the same mold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2014 11:05 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 175 of 223 (725265)
04-25-2014 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Ed67
04-24-2014 11:11 PM


Re: The plain truth about the function of DNA
So it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium through which a COMPLEX, SPECIFIED CODE conveys the instructions necessary to build and maintain an organism.

No, it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate that DNA is the medium that stores the information necessary to build an organism.

You have not demonstrated that this information is a code by any definition of a code (imprecise use of the word "code" doesn't count), or that it's specified or that it's complex.

Even if it is CSI, which you are obviously unable to argue for, nobody (especially you) has established that it is necessary or even reasonable that intelligence is required to create it. Note the many counterexamples that you have ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 11:11 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 177 of 223 (725268)
04-25-2014 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Ed67
04-25-2014 8:13 AM


Re: The plain truth about the function of DNA
please see Message 170

Nobody cares about what you think is CSI. What counts is what you can demonstrate to be CSI, using an operational definition of CSI.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 8:13 AM Ed67 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 189 of 223 (725367)
04-26-2014 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Ed67
04-25-2014 11:32 PM


Re: The plain truth about the function of DNA
And what did University of Washington researchers mean when they use the word "code" in this 2013 research report?

quote:

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other, which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

The standard meaning... the "rules" "imposed" by natural chemical reactions that govern the translation from DNA to protein. There's no code in DNA, and the "genetic code" is just chemistry. Cool and complex chemistry, but just chemistry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Ed67, posted 04-25-2014 11:32 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 8:19 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 190 of 223 (725368)
04-26-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Ed67
04-26-2014 8:05 AM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
As I've already explained, I don't invoke any special meaning by using the term. I simply mean information which is complex and specified

The definitions you have offered are useless. They involve too many subjective evaluations and are not operational definitions. Two people could easily disagree whether some system possesses CSI because your definitions do not invoke objective measures.

Fail.

{ABE} Your definitions boil down to "it sure looks like CSI to me!"

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Ed67, posted 04-26-2014 8:05 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2014 3:23 PM JonF has taken no action
 Message 220 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 8:33 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 198 of 223 (725444)
04-27-2014 9:49 AM


Ed runs like a scared bunny
No response to Message 189 or Message 190? Obviously because you have no response that doesn't involve acknowledging the errors that cripple your argument...

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 222 of 223 (725536)
04-28-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Ed67
04-27-2014 8:19 PM


Re: Make up your mind...
The former.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 8:19 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 223 of 223 (725537)
04-28-2014 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Ed67
04-27-2014 8:33 PM


Re: I agree - same old argument, different name
Dembski argues. I don't understand the guy - it's not just the math, but the very technical language he uses is way above my head.

Then why are you asking for references to mathematicians who have analyzed and demolished Dembski's arguments? There are plenty, but you wouldn't have a chance of understanding them.

At the same time, I was not convinced of my viewpoint by Dembski's work; it was mainly Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe whose books speak directly to the topic of CSI (and its synonym, Specified Complexity) that have been most convincing to me about the implications of the existence of a code in DNA.

CSI and SI are not synonyms. Since you (and Dembski and Meyer and Behe and anyone) have never been able to produce an operational definition for what CSI is or detecting it, there's no point in using the term; it's just meaningless noise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Ed67, posted 04-27-2014 8:33 PM Ed67 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022