This supposedly intelligent designer left about 2 million asteroids, meteorites in wayward trajectories, threatening our very existence. He left unreliable weather patterns, plate tectonics., about 2 million toxins., about 2 million disease causing agents,. This intelligent designer , creator of all life(supposedly) causes 4,500,000 stillbirths a year. About 5 million deads in the first year of life. He made human childbirth the most painful and accident-prone of all mammals.
@logicCplusplus No, it`s just says that if there is a designer, he is not intelligent, nor loving or caring. If he exists, he is either a desinterested spectator of human misery, or else a sadist enjoying it.
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
@EXALTEDDIRT Christ? I thought we were talking about "intelligent design". logicCplusplus even said intelligent design and the bible are two completely different things. And here you are preaching about "Christ" and "Hell" and "sin". Hmmm....
@logicCplusplus Not sure how familiar you really are with the topic at hand, but"intelligent design" is what the religious right concocted when they were told they could not legally teach creationism in public schools as it is a violation of the first amendment. Unlike you, I will actually provide a resource: look up Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, wherein a conservative christian judge concluded ID was merely creationism in disguise.
I've been interested in Intelligent Design for over 10 years and in all those years on the top ID blogs on the internet, nobody has ever really pushed this notion that ID should be taught in schools, not in science class anyways. ID constitutes information theory, mathematics and engineering with respect to evolution and biological systems.
@logicCplusplus You've been following blogs on ID for 10 years, yet you don't know about Dover v. Kitzmiller? The whole cause of that trial was due to the religious right's attempt of pushing ID into the Dover school district curriculum.
Anyway, if you can think of an application of any/all of these things that REQUIRES a belief in a higher power, let us know, because you would be the first to do so. I myself am an engineer, and I do not require a belief in god to do my job.
Firstly, who said that a belief in god is required? ID and my faith-based beliefs are separate (however I can't deny the implications) and both are independent in order to do my job.
As for the trial, it is irrelevant with respect to ID. I understand creationists may want to add creationism to the curriculum. Creationism is based on biblical relativity, and that is not ID. You can continue to refer to ID as creationism but that is entirely your opinion only.
@logicCplusplus Actually it isn't just my opinion. Every time a flaw in so-called "intelligent design" is pointed out (such as the fact that the sun causes skin cancer, or the fact that childbirth is always painful and sometimes lethal), we ask for ID proponents to explain why. The only response they give (if they even do respond) is that these things happen because of "sin" and we "disobeyed God". So even they implicitly admit sooner or later that there is no difference.
Does the sun cause cancer? You should do more research, pal.
Pain, disease, suffering etc...(typically you left all the good stuff out, but I'll let it go) is not something ID cares about. That is part of philosophy and theology. Since that has nothing to do with ID, why should you be deserving of a response?
@logicCplusplus You're right, there is no point in you responding. All your responses have been vague and weak. "Do more research"? That's not a rebuttal.
By the way, scientific understanding of the universe is refined via peer reviewed studies found in scientific journals, not blogs. Porn stars have blogs. Do you get your science from them too?
Arrogant typical nonsense from typical "Youtube atheists". The right blogs can lead to the right references (pointers). What kind of sloppy Engineer are you? Thankfully I don't have to work with you.
@logicCplusplus Ah, Discovery Institute. Is that the blog you follow? No wonder you DIDN'T know about the Dover trial - they were the "expert" (and I use that term very loosely) witnesses who attempted to defend the teaching of ID at that trial. They have conducted no peer reviewed studies to support their case.
Bottom line: ID is useless, as it has no evidence, no explanatory power and no predictive power. Instead of engaging in name-calling, explain why it is important, please.
@logicCplusplus And you sir, are not only arrogant, but ignorant of scriptures:
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be GENTLE unto all, apt to teach, patient, In MEEKNESS instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,
You'd think that if there was so much scientific evidence for god that his followers would not need to constantly try to scare non-believers with the idea of eternal hellfire just to get people to believe in him.
@mrdeoblo666 Anyway Dr. Booth certainly gave Hovind a quick lesson in why his crapology will never amount to anything... because it can never produce anything.
Hence creationism is doomed to failure. You simply can't produce applications from nonsense.
In fact someone should put some money into a self contained creationist town that is not allowed to use any product produced using sciences creationists disagree with and populate it with creationists.
@mrdeoblo666 I don't think Hovind actually understood the questions...
I think its pretty straightforward... even assuming hovind was right...what can he do with this information that he can hand over to an engineer or someone else that can use it to create something new that will actually work?
In fact you could put up a reward of $10 billion for the first creationist to apply creationism to a problem successfully and it would never be claimed. In fact it would never be applied for.
Hold on a minute... lets imagine for a minute that ID hadn't actually been demonstrated to be nonsense...
If so the proponents of ID are stating categorically that all humans including themselves are the descendants of earlier forms of hominid life...In fact for ID to hold any water this would need to be the case.
isn't that sort of contradictory to the bibles opinion on the matter?
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
@Thermodynamotron What are you talking about have you read about thermodynamics? "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature." What's the link with god?
@cooltuque Creationists conflate the idea of entropy into something its not...
Basically they consider the earth to be a closed system and refuse to recognize that all the energy used to create and sustain life is derived from the sun...
If you handily ignore the sun in discussing entropy on earth...then all living systems relying on it would indeed disintegrate over time. Some over a very long time, since there would still be geothermal energy and tidal energy etc.
@cooltuque For that reason when it becomes financially viable I don't think too many creationists will be investing in solar power.... clearly the idea is absurd to them...
We can't provide proof that a god(God of Hallah other) hasn't designed life. True. However, nobody can provide proof that there isn't a giant teapot floating behind saturn. Does anybody consider that a plausible idea. No. Even if we can't provide proof that something does not exist does not mean we should assume it does.(Russel). Concluding that a god created life because it is so complicated is as equally credible as saying that a giant spagetti monster did it.(Pastafarism)
If you can't see that intelligent design is rubbish, you either aren't intelligent enough or you have an agenda.
You religious bumpkins aren't going to win this one so why not just stop pushing it and let America catch up with Europe where this nonsense isn't even considered. If you do continue you are going to end up falling even further behind with science and technology than you already have.
Why do most Intelligent Design advocates state that the thing behind the design is the middle-eastern, stone-age deity that our ancestors worshiped? Is there any scientific evidence or passage in some holy book that states that our deity is involved? Please if I have got this wrong please tell me how.
Science works by making an observation and then making a theory to explain it. You must provide evidence to show that you theory is true. Intelligent Design works by saying you can not provide evidence that god has not been involved in the evolution of life forms. That is not science. Evolutionally theory is incomplete as more evidence is being found each year which refines the theory. Having an incomplete theory is not a good reason to ignore it. Eg, would you ignore gravitational theory?
@Bronte719 That's what ID is, the observation shared by the vast majority of humanity that the Universe & life displays characteristics of intelligent/purposeful design. Proving this is impossible of course- and that's where the concept of faith comes in.
I think the 'theory' of self-creating universe/life for no purpose is a far more irrational dogmatic ideology- based on even less evidence, the difference being that proponents do not acknowledge the element of 'faith' in their beliefs...
You are creating god in your image. You think because you can create complex things everything in nature that is complex is designed by god. But you have no evidence and just faith. The things you are looking at are more probably just evolution over billions of years. There is rather a lot of scientific evidence for evolution and ID yet again relies on faith and some very weak science.
@Bronte719 ID is not even science... its the same old philosophical argument put forward by Thomas Aquinas. Who later shot a whole in his own argument...realised it was tautological and never uttered it again.
Clearly William Paley hadn't noticed that and brought it up again... again the same hole appeared, it was shot down...
Now after almost 800 years...here are creationists using the same 'philosophical' argument again? Fucking hell, talk about beating a dead horse!
You don’t understand what dogmatic ideology means. It means a comprehensive vision or view accepted without reason or evidence. That does not sound like science to me. It sounds like religion.
@Bronte719 The comprehensive vision that the universe somehow spontaneously created itself without purpose, I wasn't aware there was any evidence for this?
It was this dogma that lead conventional science to declare a 'static universe' in mocking opposition to ID's creation event, until a theist discovered the Big Bang....
science and 'scientists' often disagree with each other!
If God designed everything then design detection is a waste of time. Is it complex or simple? Either way it is designed. Is it specific or generic? Either way it is designed. Did you use a bible or a flow chart? Either way you are talking garbage!
Nature - Nearly all wildlife lives their lives in constant fear of being eaten alive.
Humans - We urinate from the same organ we have sex with. We need to defecate a filthy odored waste. Our eyes have no night vision. Our scent cannot detect deadly gases. Our teeth fall out. We are not immune to diseases. We have a high need for water and the world is 75% poisonous salt water, and another 15% undrinkable bacteria water.
@JabberCT How would you design it more intelligently? seperate organs for urination & sex- are an unecessary expense and complication
just because something seems negative, doesn't mean it has no purpose- e.g. burning yourself is painful and unpleasant
waste is oderous to us so that we keep ourselves clean/healthy-
bacteria/ immune systems are vital parts of the system- salt water is not poisonous to sea life that provides us food etc- and the salt allows preservation...
@JabberCT a budget in terms of making life efficient yes, nothing in nature is more complex than it has to be for one reason or another right?
the point is negative aspects of life having purpose- pain from burning helps you avoid damaging your skin etc. That’s an obvious example
And yes, rotting flesh, bodily waste etc produce bacteria which produce an odor which is not ‘inhehernelty bad’ we just recognize it as such for our own protection- dogs etc who are not harmed, love the smell..
"nothing in nature is more complex than it has to be for one reason or another right?"
Plan on putting that to the test any time soon?... my biology expertise tells me that if I try to eat grass the organ that used to remove poisons from it will fail...and I might die...
But in your world it should be perfectly safe... (otherwise you have an organ you don't need)
Try it, see how your appendix handles it...then get back to me...assuming you can get off the toilet that is...
He probably found the creationist excuse of 'we don't know why god did it, but you never know with god' excuse unsatisfying...
So he's sticking to things he thinks... unfortunately you have to miss a lifetime of education to think like that...so as a result of a life avoiding any word with the letters 'o l o g y' at the end he doesn't know too much...So what he thinks...my dog knows is total bollox! Hence in his world sodium chloride is perfectly okay...
@GuyThreepwoody "seperate organs for urination & sex- are an unecessary expense and complication"
really? Why do birds have only one hole for mating, egg laying urination and defecation where mammals have an extra one...surely the same rule applies? Why are Birds unburdened with "unnecessary expense and complication" ?
Why are both the immune system and things that infect us necessary? surely if they were never there it would save "unnecessary expense and complication"
Yes it is...sea organisms expend a lot of energy getting rid of sodium chloride... its extremely poisonous. Not only poisonous but it dissolves in water, making it worse.
Just as you and I expend our energy dealing with the hyperoxia caused by 'oxygen' which is also poisonous. Despite your fondness for the stuff it will both kill you, and literally oxidise you in the end.
Its so poisonous it even causes metals disintegrate.
The work of God is so great, do you know when the parrot fish goes to sleep it creates a bubble around itself so other predators can't smell it? How could evolution create such a great thing?
@10gacituao You fool. Why do predators even exist if god is real?
Imagine this: I break your arms, legs and neck with a crowbar, but I decide not to kill you. According to your logic, I deserve a medal. Think about it.
Why wouldn't anyone contribute hieroglyphs to naturally occurance? Because we see a difference. But if everything is designed, how could we make that destinction?
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
First, we should clarify that ID is not based only on complexity but rather 'specified complexity'--features that are both complex AND improbable when developed through random cause.
Second, I think the science of design detection deals with the liklihood or probability that something was designed (based on the magnitude of specified complexity observed) rather than providing 100% proof. (cont...)
@bellhog246 "Complex and improbable" - OK, but in order for the definition to mean anything then there must also exist the contrasting examples of "simple and probable".
And we can`t apply the word `random` to structures shaped by evolution, because it is not a random process.
Your second point is fine, though I would argue that there is no science involved. But, "Magnitude of specified complexity" still requires its counterpart of simplicity to be valid, and I want such an example.
@RationalThinker1859 "So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity." (cont.)
With these things in mind, I would submit to you that such things as: (1) fluctuations in cosmic background radiation, (2) craters on the surface of the moon, and (3) the pattern of dandilions in my yard do not possess the specified complexity needed to demonstrate sufficient probability of design.
@bellhog246 Cosmic radition and moon craters are not living forms/systems/structures etc - evience of ID is drawn from living things only.
Dandelion patterns might be possible, except I think they would be a case for design rather than against - I can hear Behe talking about the quite apparent design of each petal, the consistency of each petal`s angle to the next, the number of petals is a finobacci number, etc etc.
The flegellum is the eg for complexity. I want a counter eg for simplicty.
@bellhog246 I see. In that case, I must ask you for 2 examples.
Firstly, a biological structure so simple/reducibly complex etc that it doesn`t require a designer (or else everything in biology is complex).
Secondly, a non-biological structure/phenomeon so complicated/irreducibly complex that it does require a designer (or else all non-biological things are simple).
DNA has high amounts of specified complexity in any part of a living organism. Because all living creatures have DNA, I would suggest that all life is designed.
Regarding, non-biological structures, the easiest example I use is the fine-tuning argument of the universe's physical laws. The arrangement of the universe's physical constants appear to have been precisely arranged (designed) such that life (and in some cases matter) can exist.
@bellhog246 So, DNA is complicated, therefore it requires a designer. An untestable assertion that cannot be falsified. Hardly science is it. My initial challenge was to identify an example of life so simple that no designer is required.
Secondly, the anthropic principle - we exist, and are able to wonder at the improbability of that fact. Well of course we exist in a universe conducive to life. If it weren`t, then we wouldn`t be able to wonder at how unconducive the universe is, would we...
@RationalThinker1859 "My initial challenge was to identify an example of life so simple that no designer is required."
Like I said, since all contain DNA, I can't think of one.
"Secondly, the anthropic principle..."
...and if we were playing poker and I got 20 royal flushes in a row, you wouldn't think I was cheating? The anthropic principle is the only such situation where some convince themselves that it's silly to consider that the chances are more than coincidence.
He was promoted (a Major at 17) but before that he had 2 other close shaves. One literally when he was shaving, when his friend was shot dead by a sniper beside him at the same mirror.
One later when he lay in a shell hole and set off a butterfly mine which blew him into the air but did not injure him.
Finally he was hit by a stray piece of shrapnel and hospitalised.
He married the nurse who looked after him in hospital and she became my Grandmother.
@kandtell "But there is nothing miraculous about that"
While coincidental, I think you're correct to say there's anything unusual in what you've described. It IS different than the anthropic principle, here's why...
If there is a lottery and 1 million tickets are sold we know that at least one person is going to win. The person who wins may be surprised, but it really isn't that amaizing given that we have explicit prior knowledge of the setup. An anthropic universe...
@kandtell "But there is nothing miraculous about that" (cont.)
...is different because there was only ONE chance for the universe to have generated any number of possible permutations of physical laws. (This ONE chance is different than the million lottery tickets sold). Given the anthropic principle was achieved after the one chance the universe was created, it gives a strong argument to an intelligent design.
1. There may be enormous numbers of universes (the Multiverse concept) each with different physical laws.
2. There may be enormous numbers of different possible paths that this universe could have taken each with different laws and our being here "selects" only those paths which could have produced this one (top down cosmology).
3. Maybe all possible universes exist ("many worlds interpenetration").
4. How do we *know* other universes could not produce life. Since the idea of fine tuning came out people have pointed out that some of the principals only really apply to life as we know it. Gravity for example is of little significance to microscopic life and provided a source of energy is present there seems little reason to suppose life could not exist without it.
It is next to impossible to draw serious conclusions from a sample size of one.
The problem with the multi-verse and many worlds interpretation is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of their existence (observational or experimental). None. It's merely a thought experiment by philosophically naturalistic scientists to find a way to inject more 'lottery tickets' into the mix because the only other plausible alternative is to concede intelligent design. This betrays an irrational bias.
@kandtell "How do we *know* other universes could not produce life"
How do we *know* that they could?
First, there is no multi-verse (outside of YouTube anyway).
Second, you're suggesting that a "possibility" should carry the same explanitory weight as a HIGHLY unlikely "probability" (given the statistics of the Anthropic Principle).
Third, why should your metaphysical explanation trump mine? At least specified complexity theory (that supports ID) is a testable model.
Actually there is some evidence for the Multiverse. Recent detailed maps of the CMB show signs of imbalance in the Big Bang and this has been interpreted by some cosmologists as evidence for the Champaign glass concept (one version of the Multiverse concept).
It seams it's too early to call this proof, but maybe more detailed maps due in the next few years will add weight to the idea.
On your second point, that's not what I am saying.
What I am saying is "don't dismiss the Anthropic principal until we have proof that a) the chances of life existing really are close to zero and b) that there really was just the one chance".
Nether of these is proved yet, and so far what little evidence we have points in the other direction.
So, whilst I completely agree that none of the hypotheses I quoted (none of them are "mine" BTW) I would suggest that you also have to accept that "your" hypothesis can't trump them either.
Meant "So, whilst I completely agree that none of the hypotheses I quoted trump "your" hypothesis (none of them are "mine" BTW) I would suggest that you also have to accept that "your" hypothesis can't trump them either.
@kandtell ""your" hypothesis can't trump them either"
Don't you think any prevailing theory should be based on what is most plausible and rational with the information currently known? I'm not telling the scientific community to give up looking for naturalistic causes for things like the universe and DNA. What I AM saying is that it is scientifically irrational to COMPLETELY dismiss what is arguably the most plausible explanation--intelligent design.
@kandtell "ID as an explanation for bio-diversity however has no evidence"
I hate to break it to you, friend, but before you answer my first question, keep in mind that Darwinian evolution (common decent) would also be an 'inferrred' science--it hasn't happened in a lab and we weren't around millions of years ago to see it.
@kandtell "a theory in science should be based on evidence"
And now we get to the real issue. Skeptics can't have it both ways.
They either:
(a) must limit 'evidence' to only those things that can only be directly observed (vice inferred) and, in doing so, accept the fact that any commentary made regarding the universe's origin (to include any big-bang cosmological model, multi-verses, many world's theory, etc.) IS NOT science (since they're not observed),
Proof in Science is more like the Law. People acept hypotheses as proven once the evidence suggests they are beyond reasonable doubt.
So I'm afraid I don't like giving a yes or no answer to a question with the phrase "scientific fact", because strictly speaking there is no such thing.
Though to most scientists it would mean "evidence not in dispute".
But it is important to emphasise that it is the balance of probablity that decides questions in science, and people make up their own minds, so many scientists will hold out against the consensus.
Common Descent from one, or just possibly two species is now considered proven beyond resonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming. For I.D. to be taken seriously it has to produce a similar body of evidence.
I find this comment dubious. First, to 'prove' common descent would be evidence from inference (there's no observation of it). Second, if you're referring to physical evidence (fossil record, vestigal organs, similar DNA), this is the same evidence non-Darwinins and ID theorists cite, but with different conclusions.
Common descent has more to do with communal group think and majoritive rule than an objective interpretation of evidence.
@bellhog246 I have to say I find this comment a bit offensive.
I am a rank amateur in this subject. I have a degree in Physics, but no formal training in Biology. I have no emotional or financial stake in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or in Common Descent.
From the books and articles I have read and the discussions I've had, and some videos here on youtube I have seen enough to convince me many times over. And I know there is a lot of evidence I have not seen.
I'm using 'scientific fact' to refer to that which is known to be true based on the most riggorous observation and emperical tests known to science. Facts don't have to be objective truth but can be revised and updated. (Caloric theory was considered 'fact' until the mid-19th century).
So, with that said, can inference be used to establish scientific fact? Yes or no?
In that case, yes, not only can you use it, it is hard to think of anything in science that fits that definition of 'scientific fact' which did not require logic in the form of inference.
Take the early proof that the world is a sphere for example. The ancient Greeks inferred it from the observations that spheres case round shadows in all directions, that a round shadow was seen on the moon during lunar eclipses, and that these occurred when Sun Earth and Moon where aligned.
@kandtell "none of the hypothesis...have ever been disproved"
Actually, most naturalistic models of the Big Bang HAVE been disproven (if not put in a very feeble position). I'm not the type to send links, but if you're interested, William Craig has done an excellent job explaining how various naturalistic models are inadequte to explain the big bang:
h t t p (colon) // w w w (dot) bethinking (dot) org / science-christianity / advanced / beyond-the-big-bang (dot) h t m
@bellhog246 Well, I admire the honesty of answer, although it crucifies the argument for design.
It never helps to invoke high odds against the universe arising naturally, because however unlikely it is, the odds of single god-like creator being responsible must be even higher. Each extra step you (needlessly) bring into the explanation carries extra degrees of unlikeliness.
@bellhog246 Must be higher, not might be. And yes, I have thought it through.I`m not engaging in this discussion because I've nothing better to do.
"infinitely more likely that a watch appeared" I'm not saying anything of the sort. Another fallacy. A watch appearing from nowhere would be an argument for creationism. We are talking about self-replicators, not watches.
As you put it, it does sound absurd, but don't say they are my words "bellhog246".
Their are no observed self-replicating universes either. DNA replicates, but not the original self-replicating molecule. Therefore the analogy still fits.
"You have presented unfalsifiable assertions and fallacies"
The multiverse is a non-falsifiable assertion, but it's often presented as 'science'. Why does the scientific community allow one metaphysical explanation, but not another?
@bellhog246 nicely put, Multiverse 'theory' , string 'theory', M'theory'- if it fits a certain dogmatic ideology, total lack of evidence is no problem for scientists as it turns out
So M-theory... is it proven? Well proof is not something science does... proof in math has an entirely different meaning to the one you have in mind. Everything in science is provisional.
So although proven (mathematically) the principles of string theory and m-theory can never be visualized by humans, we simply don't have the equipment to conceptualize ideas like this, nor the senses to experience it.
But we can still use it to create real physical things.
@GuyThreepwoody Given all of that...what I find probably the most ironic about your position is that you consider science to be dogmatic.
If what you were stating was correct...then what you are saying is that science 'never' changes...that what was thought to be the case 100 years ago is incontrovertibly the case today...
Look around you... do you think the science we use today is 'exactly' the same we had 100 years ago? really? is that what you really think?
@bellhog246 (cont) Not to mention it is another untestable assertion that cannot be falsified. I`m drawn to ask again, where is the science part of all this?
Design is established through an inference determination based upon what is normally observed in reality. Nowhere else have original, complicated things built themselves or appeared out of no where--these things are always designed. Therefore, it would follow that the universe and DNA were also designed.
The science of design detection is the 'science part'. We apply it to everything else all the time.
Nobody thinks complexity "appeared out of nowhere" - that would be an argument for creationism. So the "therefore it would follow" clause is a fallacy. Science says DNA had simpler pre-cursors - we don't jump to complexity ever.
The "science of design detection".... That`s what I'm asking you about, and you haven't given an example yet. What science can be done?
Not necessarily. Many naturalistic scientists believe the unvierse was created from a 'quantum fluctuation', but there are a lot of problems with this.
"we don't jump to complexity ever"
In the case of cosmology most scientists do (specified complexity at Planck time after the singularity). In the case of DNA information, most posit the specified complexity assembled out of randomly churning amino acids.
I also explained this in an earlier post. Specified Complexity Theory is a multidisciplinary field that attempts to demonstrate how people infer design from the qualities of the object. It was championed by the ID movement, but does not infer a supernatual designer. This 'falls out' of the science due to the fact that there are specific qualities that a designer of nature must necessarily possess.
@bellhog246 And you still haven't given a single example of the science. How does one go about determining that X is so complex it requires a designer, but Y isn't?
Just a single example of a test, or some kind of way to falsify the assertion. Surely, it can't be that difficult can it? You have even raised it to the level of a theory, so surely there must be some practicle applied science you can share with me?
@RationalThinker1859 "you still haven't given a single example of the science" (part 1)
OK, we're going to have to do this the hard way...
I think what we're trying to establish is whether ID is 'science'. There are a lot of definitions of science. I've taken this one from dictionary (dot) com:
science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Here's the definition of ID according to ideacenter (dot) org:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process."
ID is a "branch of study" (simply because there are theorists doing research). It "deals with a body of facts" specific to what we've...
...learned about design detection by humans, aided by the interdieciplinary sciences of cognition, statistics, chaos theory, biology, information science, and cosmology. It describes the "operation of general laws", by recognizing that the liklihood of design increases proportionally to the amount of specified complexity.
ID also uses all four steps of the scientific method:
Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI).
Hypothesis: If an object of nature was designed, then we would expect to examine it and find high levels of CSI.
2. ID has predictive value as it predicts what objects or phenomena are designed.
3. ID is falsifialble given the test: ID can be falsified if it can be demonstrated that objects or phenomena that possess high CSI occur naturally without any apparent design agent.
So, here are three different ways that ID can correctly be called 'science'.
If you find a watch in the desert. You notice that, unlike dirt and rocks around it, it has numerous parts that join together in discernable patterns. You also notice it functions. It is complex, but it's complexity is specified because it conforms well to apparently specified patterns (it has high CSI). Because of it's high-CSI content, you safely assume that it was left by someone, and...
...that it was designed and manufactured by one or more humans somewhere else in the world. The characteristics of the watch do not give the name of the designer, his or her IQ, or shoe size. However, based on what is observed (and what has been observed in real life), you know that there exists a VERY strong probability (some would say 'fact') that the watch WAS designed.
Now, we take the same thought process and apply it to natural phenomena. However, there are two differences. First, natural phenomena (such as physcal laws and complex biological systems) have much more CSI than the watch in the example--suggesting an even greater likelihood of design. Second, is the cognative dissonance the naturalist feels toward applying this research to natural phenomena.
This dissonance exists because the naturalist has an irrational bias against metaphysical causes. And since, in the final analysis, the 'designer' of like phenomena would have to be transcendent, omnicient, omnipotent, and intelligent, the naturalist dismisses the explanation outright since such a designer cannot fit in his worldview.
This (rather than being unscientific) is the REAL problem with ID.
Now, I would like an example of a test that can be done which shows that X has sufficient complexity requiring a designer, and Y doesn't. I'm not looking for another definition, I'm looking for a single example of a test that anybody can do, which demonstrates or falsifies the claim.
If somebody were to examine a molecule of H2O and ask, is this complex?, how would we go about getting an answer.
I'll gladly take your flippant response to my 9-part monologue as a resounding concession that ID is, in fact, a science in every sense (and at least as much as common descent since both use evidence from inference). Moving forward from here..
Regarding your question, Dembski's 'expanitory filter' only shows that X would have sufficient CSI to be deemed 'designed'.
@bellhog246 Take the answer as you like, but it doesn't make it so. No test then no science.
"at least as much as common descent since both use evidence from inference" - Erm, firstly, I never mentioned any evolutionary thinking, so to use it to undermine my position is, yep, another fallacy. It's also wrong. Whenever 2 cousins sit in the same room as their shared grandparent, then we can observe "common descent" - we don't have to 'infer' anything, we can see it!
It DOES not, however, attempt to positively show that an object HAS NOT been designed.
Regarding his test, he states that an object HAS BEEN designed if: (a) it's existence is contingent, (b) the probability of it's creation by natural causes alone is greater than 1 in 10^150, and (c) it exhibits specified characteristics indicative of design (easily recognizable function, discernable order, utility, etc.)
@bellhog246 So, in spite of my request not to supply another definition, but an example of the test itself, you go ahead and give another definition.
Where am I going with all this? You've scrabbled around, honourably, trying to give an example, but have got nowhere near any. My point is, ID sets up its neat definitions first, and then goes out looking for examples that fit.
"It DOES not....has been designed." Rather convenient. Any why? Because that would be a true test of ID claims.
@RationalThinker1859 Friend, I've been very patient with you. Below I've provided the experimental procedure. You are now free to apply it to any object, event, or phenomena you wish. If you fancy yourself some sort of scientist, then you should be able to to follow directions for an experiment. Your needing to be spoon-fed information speaks more of you than it does the theory we're discussing.
There are many resources you can look up on your own. I'm not your librarian.
@bellhog246 The procedure, yes. The definitions, yes. Mr Dembski's words, yes. And amongst all that, I still haven't been given what I originally asked for - AN EXAMPLE OF TESTING!
Librarian? I have looked, I have asked, I have wondered, and yet I still can't find an example of a test that can be done, or a think of a way that the assertions can either be demonstrated of falsified. And neither can you
You said all life is complicated, and conclude that it is therefore designed. Assertion.
As I've said before, if you are really interested in these answers you can look them up. Please tell me you have access to resources outside of 'YouTube' from which to draw your conclusions.
Here are my questions to you:
(1) Explain why you have taken a position that has a 1 in 10^150 chance of being correct?
@bellhog246 Fail. "I've got lots of examples, but I'm not going to give you any. Don't be lazy. Look them up for yourself". Come on....
1) I haven't taken any "positions". From the beginning, I have only ever asked for 2 examples - simplicity and a science test. Whatever else you think I've done is up to you.
I have pointed out your assertions, fallacies, condescension, evasion (why 1 in 10^150?), all very skillful, but no answer. This could go on for ever...
(2) Explain the irrational, unsubstantiated (but almost universally accepted) premise in today's empericism that denies a 'designer of nature' from being considered as a candidate for primary cause?
(3) Explain why very intelligent scientists, rather than using logic and reason to explain the proported flaws in ID, prefer to point to a civil court ruling?
@bellhog246 2) No evidence. Also no way at all to test the assertion (we can call it a hypotheses if you like...) thereby either demonstrating or falsifying it. All we have is "Hey, look at this flegellum. It's really complicated. You know, complexity requires a designer. End of today's class kids."
3) Because it's unethicical to expose children to falsehoods. Theology or philosophy, OK, science, no because.........
That`s right, you can't do any science with it. Therefore the ruling.
@bellhog246 cont They do use logic and reason, so it's not "instead of" but "as well as". The judge still has to use logic and reason too. Don't blame the system or cast doubt on those nasty, one-eyed scientists.
This is the whole point of my original question, which despite your repeated attempts, has yet to provide simple examples.
@RationalThinker1859 ...but because I'm feeling frisky this evening. I'll give this a shot (more for me than for you)...
The first self-replicating cell was contingent--there are no natural laws that require it to have formed. Statisticians have determined that the chances that it would have formed without any assistance is several magnitudes greater than 1 in 10^150. Lastly, the cell possess micro-biological machines, functionality, and discernable order. Ergo, DESIGN
@bellhog246 1) This figure of 1 in 10^150. You cited it before, as part of a definition, inferring design. Who has decided that this figure is the benchmark of design probabilty and non-probabililty. How was that figure arrived at?
"Lastly, the cell possess micro-biological machines, functionality, and discernable order. Ergo, DESIGN". No. Not ergo DESIGN, capitals or not. This is an assertion, which might be demonstrable if we had a test for it.
@bellhog246 Noooo. Science (testing a hypothesis) makes observations first, and then comes to conclusions and definitions. This is why ID is backwards. "Why would ...weaken its claim?" My original point. You can't make judgements about what has been designed, without also making judgements about what hasn't been designed. They are different ways of expressing the same thing. You canT7 have complexity without simplicity.
"Read up....better". I'll understand it better when I get an example.
@RationalThinker1859 "it is another untestable assertion that cannot be falsified"
You're saying that ID is untestable and therefore 'not science' because it logically invokes the supernatural.
If science is defined as 'requiring testable assertions', then science will NEVER answer the question of the origin of the universe because its origin is logically derived as being non-natural.
Therefore, 'science' (as you define it) CANNOT have an opinion in this matter.
@RationalThinker1859 "Strange that you've jumped to origins of the universe, but anyway, why is it "non-natural"?" I explained all this about a week ago (to you I think). ID suggests that the universe was designed (due to the specified complexity in its physical laws, etc. It's origin (big bang, etc.) was a non-natural event because time-space did not exist before it occurred. The 'cause' was non-natural (can't be explained through normal natural laws).
I was referring to 'WHERE dandilions grow in my yard' which would would appear as a random pattern suggesting a lack of 'design'.
"The flegellum is the eg for complexity. I want a counter eg for simplicty".
The flagellum is an example of 'irreducable complexity', meaning that all the different components of the system would have to have evolved at the same time for the system to now exist (extremely unlikely).
@bellhog246 Yes, I see now you meant the pattern of arrangements. See other post.
The problem with your flag. definition about irreduc. complex. is that there is an assertion there that the reducible structures were unable to confer any advantage prior to the completion of the flag. structure.
I wonder, what science can be done to test that assertion ie, structure X is irriducibly complex. Or indeed any other science for that matter? What science could be done in an ID science class?
This supposedly intelligent designer left about 2 million asteroids, meteorites in wayward trajectories, threatening our very existence. He left unreliable weather patterns, plate tectonics., about 2 million toxins., about 2 million disease causing agents,. This intelligent designer , creator of all life(supposedly) causes 4,500,000 stillbirths a year. About 5 million deads in the first year of life. He made human childbirth the most painful and accident-prone of all mammals.
ndzoko 5 days ago
@ndzoko
And that says nothing about whether x is or isn't designed or whether nature operating freely is capable of producing x.
These are philosophical issues not ID issues. Theology has answers to the problem of evil in the universe, but ID is not about that.
Thanks for playing.
next...
logicCplusplus 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@logicCplusplus No, it`s just says that if there is a designer, he is not intelligent, nor loving or caring. If he exists, he is either a desinterested spectator of human misery, or else a sadist enjoying it.
ndzoko 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 5 days ago
@EXALTEDDIRT Christ? I thought we were talking about "intelligent design". logicCplusplus even said intelligent design and the bible are two completely different things. And here you are preaching about "Christ" and "Hell" and "sin". Hmmm....
rnalithe00 5 days ago
If you think intelligent design is such an important theory, ask yourself: why? Why do they want it taught in schools so much?
Evolution theory actually has real world applications that people use in medicine, food production, etc.
What applications does intelligent design have? I can only think of one: controlling the masses with fear of a vengeful supreme being.
That's all god has ever been: just a tool of coercion. It's not real.
rnalithe00 1 week ago
@rnalithe00
Well no. They don't want it taught in schools. That's creationism, something entirely different. Creationists use ID often but ID is not creationism.
I can provide you resources, but I'm afraid someone who spews this much b.s in one comment isn't going to bother anyhow.
logicCplusplus 6 days ago
@logicCplusplus Not sure how familiar you really are with the topic at hand, but"intelligent design" is what the religious right concocted when they were told they could not legally teach creationism in public schools as it is a violation of the first amendment. Unlike you, I will actually provide a resource: look up Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, wherein a conservative christian judge concluded ID was merely creationism in disguise.
rnalithe00 6 days ago
@rnalithe00
I've been interested in Intelligent Design for over 10 years and in all those years on the top ID blogs on the internet, nobody has ever really pushed this notion that ID should be taught in schools, not in science class anyways. ID constitutes information theory, mathematics and engineering with respect to evolution and biological systems.
logicCplusplus 6 days ago
@logicCplusplus You've been following blogs on ID for 10 years, yet you don't know about Dover v. Kitzmiller? The whole cause of that trial was due to the religious right's attempt of pushing ID into the Dover school district curriculum.
Anyway, if you can think of an application of any/all of these things that REQUIRES a belief in a higher power, let us know, because you would be the first to do so. I myself am an engineer, and I do not require a belief in god to do my job.
rnalithe00 6 days ago
@rnalithe00
Firstly, who said that a belief in god is required? ID and my faith-based beliefs are separate (however I can't deny the implications) and both are independent in order to do my job.
As for the trial, it is irrelevant with respect to ID. I understand creationists may want to add creationism to the curriculum. Creationism is based on biblical relativity, and that is not ID. You can continue to refer to ID as creationism but that is entirely your opinion only.
logicCplusplus 5 days ago
@logicCplusplus Actually it isn't just my opinion. Every time a flaw in so-called "intelligent design" is pointed out (such as the fact that the sun causes skin cancer, or the fact that childbirth is always painful and sometimes lethal), we ask for ID proponents to explain why. The only response they give (if they even do respond) is that these things happen because of "sin" and we "disobeyed God". So even they implicitly admit sooner or later that there is no difference.
rnalithe00 5 days ago
@rnalithe00
Does the sun cause cancer? You should do more research, pal.
Pain, disease, suffering etc...(typically you left all the good stuff out, but I'll let it go) is not something ID cares about. That is part of philosophy and theology. Since that has nothing to do with ID, why should you be deserving of a response?
I suggest go to a real blog on ID.
logicCplusplus 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@logicCplusplus Yes, the sun causes cancer. Do some research. Ask any dermatologist.
ndzoko 5 days ago
@logicCplusplus You're right, there is no point in you responding. All your responses have been vague and weak. "Do more research"? That's not a rebuttal.
By the way, scientific understanding of the universe is refined via peer reviewed studies found in scientific journals, not blogs. Porn stars have blogs. Do you get your science from them too?
rnalithe00 5 days ago
@rnalithe00
Arrogant typical nonsense from typical "Youtube atheists". The right blogs can lead to the right references (pointers). What kind of sloppy Engineer are you? Thankfully I don't have to work with you.
discovery (dot) org (front-slash)a(front-slash)2640
logicCplusplus 5 days ago
@logicCplusplus Ah, Discovery Institute. Is that the blog you follow? No wonder you DIDN'T know about the Dover trial - they were the "expert" (and I use that term very loosely) witnesses who attempted to defend the teaching of ID at that trial. They have conducted no peer reviewed studies to support their case.
Bottom line: ID is useless, as it has no evidence, no explanatory power and no predictive power. Instead of engaging in name-calling, explain why it is important, please.
rnalithe00 5 days ago
@rnalithe00
I have provided you a link to peer-reviewed papers, I guess you will ignore those as well. Thats okay.
For our viewers who aren't as ignorant as you, I will say if you would like to keep up to date on the status of ID, go to uncommondescent (dot) org
logicCplusplus 5 days ago
@logicCplusplus And you sir, are not only arrogant, but ignorant of scriptures:
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be GENTLE unto all, apt to teach, patient, In MEEKNESS instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,
ndzoko 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You'd think that if there was so much scientific evidence for god that his followers would not need to constantly try to scare non-believers with the idea of eternal hellfire just to get people to believe in him.
rnalithe00 1 week ago
Comment removed
rnalithe00 1 week ago
Comment removed
rnalithe00 1 week ago
Surely nobody really believes this idiotic crap. These guys are loonies.
kaleidoscope385 1 week ago
ID is nothing but creationism under a cloak. It is a priestcraft trick to push the bible as science not goat herder tales from the bronze age.
Cuffsmaster 1 week ago
Comment removed
tofunit 2 weeks ago
@mrdeoblo666 Anyway Dr. Booth certainly gave Hovind a quick lesson in why his crapology will never amount to anything... because it can never produce anything.
Hence creationism is doomed to failure. You simply can't produce applications from nonsense.
In fact someone should put some money into a self contained creationist town that is not allowed to use any product produced using sciences creationists disagree with and populate it with creationists.
It'd be a great reality TV show!
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
@mrdeoblo666 I don't think Hovind actually understood the questions...
I think its pretty straightforward... even assuming hovind was right...what can he do with this information that he can hand over to an engineer or someone else that can use it to create something new that will actually work?
In fact you could put up a reward of $10 billion for the first creationist to apply creationism to a problem successfully and it would never be claimed. In fact it would never be applied for.
MumblingMickey 2 weeks ago
Hold on a minute... lets imagine for a minute that ID hadn't actually been demonstrated to be nonsense...
If so the proponents of ID are stating categorically that all humans including themselves are the descendants of earlier forms of hominid life...In fact for ID to hold any water this would need to be the case.
isn't that sort of contradictory to the bibles opinion on the matter?
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 3 weeks ago
the scientists put intelligent design aside as wrong because after intensive testing they found that it was wrong.
cole3454657 1 month ago
@Thermodynamotron What are you talking about have you read about thermodynamics? "The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature." What's the link with god?
cooltuque 1 month ago
@cooltuque Creationists conflate the idea of entropy into something its not...
Basically they consider the earth to be a closed system and refuse to recognize that all the energy used to create and sustain life is derived from the sun...
If you handily ignore the sun in discussing entropy on earth...then all living systems relying on it would indeed disintegrate over time. Some over a very long time, since there would still be geothermal energy and tidal energy etc.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@cooltuque For that reason when it becomes financially viable I don't think too many creationists will be investing in solar power.... clearly the idea is absurd to them...
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
We can't provide proof that a god(God of Hallah other) hasn't designed life. True. However, nobody can provide proof that there isn't a giant teapot floating behind saturn. Does anybody consider that a plausible idea. No. Even if we can't provide proof that something does not exist does not mean we should assume it does.(Russel). Concluding that a god created life because it is so complicated is as equally credible as saying that a giant spagetti monster did it.(Pastafarism)
cooltuque 1 month ago
If you can't see that intelligent design is rubbish, you either aren't intelligent enough or you have an agenda.
You religious bumpkins aren't going to win this one so why not just stop pushing it and let America catch up with Europe where this nonsense isn't even considered. If you do continue you are going to end up falling even further behind with science and technology than you already have.
SpoonFeedThem 1 month ago
Absolute rubbish, the design of the body is written in the genome.
TheLoserKingdom 1 month ago
Why do most Intelligent Design advocates state that the thing behind the design is the middle-eastern, stone-age deity that our ancestors worshiped? Is there any scientific evidence or passage in some holy book that states that our deity is involved? Please if I have got this wrong please tell me how.
Bronte719 1 month ago
Science works by making an observation and then making a theory to explain it. You must provide evidence to show that you theory is true. Intelligent Design works by saying you can not provide evidence that god has not been involved in the evolution of life forms. That is not science. Evolutionally theory is incomplete as more evidence is being found each year which refines the theory. Having an incomplete theory is not a good reason to ignore it. Eg, would you ignore gravitational theory?
Bronte719 1 month ago
@Bronte719 That's what ID is, the observation shared by the vast majority of humanity that the Universe & life displays characteristics of intelligent/purposeful design. Proving this is impossible of course- and that's where the concept of faith comes in.
I think the 'theory' of self-creating universe/life for no purpose is a far more irrational dogmatic ideology- based on even less evidence, the difference being that proponents do not acknowledge the element of 'faith' in their beliefs...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
You are creating god in your image. You think because you can create complex things everything in nature that is complex is designed by god. But you have no evidence and just faith. The things you are looking at are more probably just evolution over billions of years. There is rather a lot of scientific evidence for evolution and ID yet again relies on faith and some very weak science.
Bronte719 1 month ago
@Bronte719 ID is not even science... its the same old philosophical argument put forward by Thomas Aquinas. Who later shot a whole in his own argument...realised it was tautological and never uttered it again.
Clearly William Paley hadn't noticed that and brought it up again... again the same hole appeared, it was shot down...
Now after almost 800 years...here are creationists using the same 'philosophical' argument again? Fucking hell, talk about beating a dead horse!
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
You don’t understand what dogmatic ideology means. It means a comprehensive vision or view accepted without reason or evidence. That does not sound like science to me. It sounds like religion.
Bronte719 1 month ago
@Bronte719 The comprehensive vision that the universe somehow spontaneously created itself without purpose, I wasn't aware there was any evidence for this?
It was this dogma that lead conventional science to declare a 'static universe' in mocking opposition to ID's creation event, until a theist discovered the Big Bang....
science and 'scientists' often disagree with each other!
GuyThreepwoody 3 weeks ago
If God designed everything then design detection is a waste of time. Is it complex or simple? Either way it is designed. Is it specific or generic? Either way it is designed. Did you use a bible or a flow chart? Either way you are talking garbage!
ar2de2em2 1 month ago
I wonder if you will allow my video response. You are always free to rerespond [made up word].
ar2de2em2 1 month ago
theory?
sorry, you failed in the title.
pyr666 1 month ago
Nature - Nearly all wildlife lives their lives in constant fear of being eaten alive.
Humans - We urinate from the same organ we have sex with. We need to defecate a filthy odored waste. Our eyes have no night vision. Our scent cannot detect deadly gases. Our teeth fall out. We are not immune to diseases. We have a high need for water and the world is 75% poisonous salt water, and another 15% undrinkable bacteria water.
I fail to see intelligent design in any of that.
JabberCT 1 month ago 2
@JabberCT How would you design it more intelligently? seperate organs for urination & sex- are an unecessary expense and complication
just because something seems negative, doesn't mean it has no purpose- e.g. burning yourself is painful and unpleasant
waste is oderous to us so that we keep ourselves clean/healthy-
bacteria/ immune systems are vital parts of the system- salt water is not poisonous to sea life that provides us food etc- and the salt allows preservation...
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody "seperate organs for urination & sex- are an unecessary expense"
God had a budget? lol.
"doesn't mean it has no purpose- e.g. burning yourself is painful and unpleasant"
Im afraid to ask, but what is the purpose to burning yourself?
"waste is oderous to us so that we keep ourselves clean/healthy"
lol ok. Im starting to think you are trolling.
"salt water... that provides us food"
You get food in fresh water as well. Just saying.
JabberCT 1 month ago
@JabberCT a budget in terms of making life efficient yes, nothing in nature is more complex than it has to be for one reason or another right?
the point is negative aspects of life having purpose- pain from burning helps you avoid damaging your skin etc. That’s an obvious example
And yes, rotting flesh, bodily waste etc produce bacteria which produce an odor which is not ‘inhehernelty bad’ we just recognize it as such for our own protection- dogs etc who are not harmed, love the smell..
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody
"nothing in nature is more complex than it has to be for one reason or another right?"
Plan on putting that to the test any time soon?... my biology expertise tells me that if I try to eat grass the organ that used to remove poisons from it will fail...and I might die...
But in your world it should be perfectly safe... (otherwise you have an organ you don't need)
Try it, see how your appendix handles it...then get back to me...assuming you can get off the toilet that is...
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@JabberCT
"God had a budget? lol."
He probably found the creationist excuse of 'we don't know why god did it, but you never know with god' excuse unsatisfying...
So he's sticking to things he thinks... unfortunately you have to miss a lifetime of education to think like that...so as a result of a life avoiding any word with the letters 'o l o g y' at the end he doesn't know too much...So what he thinks...my dog knows is total bollox! Hence in his world sodium chloride is perfectly okay...
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "seperate organs for urination & sex- are an unecessary expense and complication"
really? Why do birds have only one hole for mating, egg laying urination and defecation where mammals have an extra one...surely the same rule applies? Why are Birds unburdened with "unnecessary expense and complication" ?
Why are both the immune system and things that infect us necessary? surely if they were never there it would save "unnecessary expense and complication"
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody "salt water is not poisonous to sea life"
Yes it is...sea organisms expend a lot of energy getting rid of sodium chloride... its extremely poisonous. Not only poisonous but it dissolves in water, making it worse.
Just as you and I expend our energy dealing with the hyperoxia caused by 'oxygen' which is also poisonous. Despite your fondness for the stuff it will both kill you, and literally oxidise you in the end.
Its so poisonous it even causes metals disintegrate.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
haha, what the hell is a philosopher of biology
Liitjer 1 month ago
@Liitjer It's someone who cant actually do biology because it's too technical. LOL
ar2de2em2 1 month ago
Biologists answer only to Chemists.
Chemists answer only to Physicists.
Physicists answer only to Mathematicians.
Mathemeticians answer only to God.
-or-
The biologist wants to be a chemist.
The chemist wants to be a physicist.
The physicist wants to be God.
God wants to be a mathematician.
shoussam 1 month ago
HOLY HELL!!!!.....THOSE GUYS JUST PROVED HUMANS EXIST!
MArtinezNINux 2 months ago
I completely support the idea of intelligent design ... I'm almost certain that God was very intelligently designed by humans ! :-P
TheBundiprd 2 months ago
@TheBundiprd but who were the humans designed by? AHHHHHHHHHH didn't think of that did you :p
palmtree2k8 1 month ago
@palmtree2k8
but i did ... by natural selection :-P
TheBundiprd 1 month ago
The work of God is so great, do you know when the parrot fish goes to sleep it creates a bubble around itself so other predators can't smell it? How could evolution create such a great thing?
10gacituao 2 months ago
@10gacituao Natural selection
easyez99 2 months ago
@10gacituao You fool. Why do predators even exist if god is real?
Imagine this: I break your arms, legs and neck with a crowbar, but I decide not to kill you. According to your logic, I deserve a medal. Think about it.
rnalithe00 1 week ago
@rnalithe00 Well, every person has a conscience in them which gives them the choice to do right and wrong. You do not need a medal to do good.
10gacituao 6 days ago
@10gacituao The point is you think god is "great" for solving a problem that he created in the first place, which makes no sense.
rnalithe00 6 days ago
Why wouldn't anyone contribute hieroglyphs to naturally occurance? Because we see a difference. But if everything is designed, how could we make that destinction?
GoaHead80 2 months ago
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago 4
Comment removed
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
@RationalThinker1859 "So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity."
First, we should clarify that ID is not based only on complexity but rather 'specified complexity'--features that are both complex AND improbable when developed through random cause.
Second, I think the science of design detection deals with the liklihood or probability that something was designed (based on the magnitude of specified complexity observed) rather than providing 100% proof. (cont...)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 "Complex and improbable" - OK, but in order for the definition to mean anything then there must also exist the contrasting examples of "simple and probable".
And we can`t apply the word `random` to structures shaped by evolution, because it is not a random process.
Your second point is fine, though I would argue that there is no science involved. But, "Magnitude of specified complexity" still requires its counterpart of simplicity to be valid, and I want such an example.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity." (cont.)
With these things in mind, I would submit to you that such things as: (1) fluctuations in cosmic background radiation, (2) craters on the surface of the moon, and (3) the pattern of dandilions in my yard do not possess the specified complexity needed to demonstrate sufficient probability of design.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Cosmic radition and moon craters are not living forms/systems/structures etc - evience of ID is drawn from living things only.
Dandelion patterns might be possible, except I think they would be a case for design rather than against - I can hear Behe talking about the quite apparent design of each petal, the consistency of each petal`s angle to the next, the number of petals is a finobacci number, etc etc.
The flegellum is the eg for complexity. I want a counter eg for simplicty.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "in order for the definition to mean anything then there must also exist the contrasting examples of "simple and probable"
I think I gave three good examples of phenomena that do not possess enough specified complexity to suggest design.
"evience of ID is drawn from living things only"
ID is the application of design detection to nature. Nature can include both living things (biological systems) and non-living things (cosmology).
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 I see. In that case, I must ask you for 2 examples.
Firstly, a biological structure so simple/reducibly complex etc that it doesn`t require a designer (or else everything in biology is complex).
Secondly, a non-biological structure/phenomeon so complicated/irreducibly complex that it does require a designer (or else all non-biological things are simple).
Thank you.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859
DNA has high amounts of specified complexity in any part of a living organism. Because all living creatures have DNA, I would suggest that all life is designed.
Regarding, non-biological structures, the easiest example I use is the fine-tuning argument of the universe's physical laws. The arrangement of the universe's physical constants appear to have been precisely arranged (designed) such that life (and in some cases matter) can exist.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 So, DNA is complicated, therefore it requires a designer. An untestable assertion that cannot be falsified. Hardly science is it. My initial challenge was to identify an example of life so simple that no designer is required.
Secondly, the anthropic principle - we exist, and are able to wonder at the improbability of that fact. Well of course we exist in a universe conducive to life. If it weren`t, then we wouldn`t be able to wonder at how unconducive the universe is, would we...
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "My initial challenge was to identify an example of life so simple that no designer is required."
Like I said, since all contain DNA, I can't think of one.
"Secondly, the anthropic principle..."
...and if we were playing poker and I got 20 royal flushes in a row, you wouldn't think I was cheating? The anthropic principle is the only such situation where some convince themselves that it's silly to consider that the chances are more than coincidence.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
There is nothing wrong with the Anthropic Principal if it is used correctly. I can demonstrate this from my own immediate ancestry.
My Grandfather fought in WWI, he lied about his age to join up and was a junior officer at the time of the Somme.
He had to climb out of the trench ahead of his men and walk towards the German lines armed with nothing but a pistol and swagger stick.
In 1916 Junior officers had a "life expectancy" of 6 weeks. The few who survived were promoted.
cont.
kandtell 1 month ago
He was promoted (a Major at 17) but before that he had 2 other close shaves. One literally when he was shaving, when his friend was shot dead by a sniper beside him at the same mirror.
One later when he lay in a shell hole and set off a butterfly mine which blew him into the air but did not injure him.
Finally he was hit by a stray piece of shrapnel and hospitalised.
He married the nurse who looked after him in hospital and she became my Grandmother.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
Sorry for the long winded story, but it's meant to demonstrate that we are all here against phenomenal odd.
If any of those incidents in his life had panned out differently I would not be here typing this too you.
But there is nothing miraculous about that, because I am. If I was not then perhaps someone else would exists who does not exist now.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "But there is nothing miraculous about that"
While coincidental, I think you're correct to say there's anything unusual in what you've described. It IS different than the anthropic principle, here's why...
If there is a lottery and 1 million tickets are sold we know that at least one person is going to win. The person who wins may be surprised, but it really isn't that amaizing given that we have explicit prior knowledge of the setup. An anthropic universe...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@kandtell "But there is nothing miraculous about that" (cont.)
...is different because there was only ONE chance for the universe to have generated any number of possible permutations of physical laws. (This ONE chance is different than the million lottery tickets sold). Given the anthropic principle was achieved after the one chance the universe was created, it gives a strong argument to an intelligent design.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
"only ONE chance for the universe"
That's not necessarily true.
1. There may be enormous numbers of universes (the Multiverse concept) each with different physical laws.
2. There may be enormous numbers of different possible paths that this universe could have taken each with different laws and our being here "selects" only those paths which could have produced this one (top down cosmology).
3. Maybe all possible universes exist ("many worlds interpenetration").
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
4. How do we *know* other universes could not produce life. Since the idea of fine tuning came out people have pointed out that some of the principals only really apply to life as we know it. Gravity for example is of little significance to microscopic life and provided a source of energy is present there seems little reason to suppose life could not exist without it.
It is next to impossible to draw serious conclusions from a sample size of one.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "There may be (x3)..."
There 'may also be' a designer.
The problem with the multi-verse and many worlds interpretation is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of their existence (observational or experimental). None. It's merely a thought experiment by philosophically naturalistic scientists to find a way to inject more 'lottery tickets' into the mix because the only other plausible alternative is to concede intelligent design. This betrays an irrational bias.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@kandtell "How do we *know* other universes could not produce life"
How do we *know* that they could?
First, there is no multi-verse (outside of YouTube anyway).
Second, you're suggesting that a "possibility" should carry the same explanitory weight as a HIGHLY unlikely "probability" (given the statistics of the Anthropic Principle).
Third, why should your metaphysical explanation trump mine? At least specified complexity theory (that supports ID) is a testable model.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
To take your 3rd point first. Leaving aside the word "metaphysical", I agree. Though I would prefer to put it like this:
As far as I am aware, none of the hypothesis proposed to explain the Big Bang, including yours, have ever been disproved.
I.e. whilst it's up to all of us to pick our own favourite as yet we can't really say that any of them trump any of the others.
On your first point "there is no multi-verse" - How do you know?
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
Actually there is some evidence for the Multiverse. Recent detailed maps of the CMB show signs of imbalance in the Big Bang and this has been interpreted by some cosmologists as evidence for the Champaign glass concept (one version of the Multiverse concept).
It seams it's too early to call this proof, but maybe more detailed maps due in the next few years will add weight to the idea.
On your second point, that's not what I am saying.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
What I am saying is "don't dismiss the Anthropic principal until we have proof that a) the chances of life existing really are close to zero and b) that there really was just the one chance".
Nether of these is proved yet, and so far what little evidence we have points in the other direction.
So, whilst I completely agree that none of the hypotheses I quoted (none of them are "mine" BTW) I would suggest that you also have to accept that "your" hypothesis can't trump them either.
kandtell 1 month ago
Opps, typo in the last comment.
Meant "So, whilst I completely agree that none of the hypotheses I quoted trump "your" hypothesis (none of them are "mine" BTW) I would suggest that you also have to accept that "your" hypothesis can't trump them either.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell ""your" hypothesis can't trump them either"
Don't you think any prevailing theory should be based on what is most plausible and rational with the information currently known? I'm not telling the scientific community to give up looking for naturalistic causes for things like the universe and DNA. What I AM saying is that it is scientifically irrational to COMPLETELY dismiss what is arguably the most plausible explanation--intelligent design.
Why the intolerance?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
There is no intolerance from me.
I would prefer to say that acceptance of a theory in science should be based on evidence rather than "what is most plausible and rational".
Plausible and rational to me implies a Hypothesis, not a Theory.
But otherwise I'm happy to go with what you say in this comment.
If you want to accept ID as the most plausible and rational explanation for the Big Bang, that's fine. I see no reason to do so.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
BTW ID as an explanation for bio-diversity however has no evidence and rightly deserves to be ignored by science educators until it does.
That's not intolerance either.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "ID as an explanation for bio-diversity however has no evidence"
I hate to break it to you, friend, but before you answer my first question, keep in mind that Darwinian evolution (common decent) would also be an 'inferrred' science--it hasn't happened in a lab and we weren't around millions of years ago to see it.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@kandtell "a theory in science should be based on evidence"
And now we get to the real issue. Skeptics can't have it both ways.
They either:
(a) must limit 'evidence' to only those things that can only be directly observed (vice inferred) and, in doing so, accept the fact that any commentary made regarding the universe's origin (to include any big-bang cosmological model, multi-verses, many world's theory, etc.) IS NOT science (since they're not observed),
OR...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kandtell "a theory in science should be based on evidence" (cont.)
(b) accept inference as 'evidence' and, in doing so, concede that ID is a ligitimite scientific field.
So which one is it? It can't be both.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 first I like to ask whomever marked bh's comment as spam to please stop doing that.
1. Evolution by N.S. has been observed multiple times. See for example Nylonase.
2. Evidence does not depend for its weight on the directness of its observation. So my answer to your question is "Neither".
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell
1. Evolution by N.S. IS observed. Not arguing that. The non-observed part I'm referring to is the common decent 'tree of life' part.
2. Is inferrence allowed to establish scientific fact? Yes or no?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Science is not like Maths.
Proof in Science is more like the Law. People acept hypotheses as proven once the evidence suggests they are beyond reasonable doubt.
So I'm afraid I don't like giving a yes or no answer to a question with the phrase "scientific fact", because strictly speaking there is no such thing.
Though to most scientists it would mean "evidence not in dispute".
Sorry if this sounds like evasion.
Cont ...
kandtell 1 month ago
But it is important to emphasise that it is the balance of probablity that decides questions in science, and people make up their own minds, so many scientists will hold out against the consensus.
Common Descent from one, or just possibly two species is now considered proven beyond resonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming. For I.D. to be taken seriously it has to produce a similar body of evidence.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "proven beyond resonable doubt"
I find this comment dubious. First, to 'prove' common descent would be evidence from inference (there's no observation of it). Second, if you're referring to physical evidence (fossil record, vestigal organs, similar DNA), this is the same evidence non-Darwinins and ID theorists cite, but with different conclusions.
Common descent has more to do with communal group think and majoritive rule than an objective interpretation of evidence.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 I have to say I find this comment a bit offensive.
I am a rank amateur in this subject. I have a degree in Physics, but no formal training in Biology. I have no emotional or financial stake in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or in Common Descent.
From the books and articles I have read and the discussions I've had, and some videos here on youtube I have seen enough to convince me many times over. And I know there is a lot of evidence I have not seen.
cont...
kandtell 1 month ago
Here is my current favourite bit of evidence for common descent: watch?v=SF2N2lbb3dk
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell @kandtell "Science is not like Maths."
I'm using 'scientific fact' to refer to that which is known to be true based on the most riggorous observation and emperical tests known to science. Facts don't have to be objective truth but can be revised and updated. (Caloric theory was considered 'fact' until the mid-19th century).
So, with that said, can inference be used to establish scientific fact? Yes or no?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
In that case, yes, not only can you use it, it is hard to think of anything in science that fits that definition of 'scientific fact' which did not require logic in the form of inference.
Take the early proof that the world is a sphere for example. The ancient Greeks inferred it from the observations that spheres case round shadows in all directions, that a round shadow was seen on the moon during lunar eclipses, and that these occurred when Sun Earth and Moon where aligned.
kandtell 1 month ago
@kandtell "Actually there is some evidence for the Multiverse"
Even if this turned out to be proof, it would just mean that the designer would have to have designed multiple unvierses.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@kandtell "none of the hypothesis...have ever been disproved"
Actually, most naturalistic models of the Big Bang HAVE been disproven (if not put in a very feeble position). I'm not the type to send links, but if you're interested, William Craig has done an excellent job explaining how various naturalistic models are inadequte to explain the big bang:
h t t p (colon) // w w w (dot) bethinking (dot) org / science-christianity / advanced / beyond-the-big-bang (dot) h t m
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246
Sorry you had to waist your time with that link. I've read his article already. It's not convincing.
Besides, as far as I'm aware all the naturalistic hypothesis involving the Big Bang still have proponents amongst *real* cosmologists.
When they all start discarding these hypothesis and falling in behind one single explanation I'll be very interested. That time may be coming soon.
kandtell 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Well, I admire the honesty of answer, although it crucifies the argument for design.
It never helps to invoke high odds against the universe arising naturally, because however unlikely it is, the odds of single god-like creator being responsible must be even higher. Each extra step you (needlessly) bring into the explanation carries extra degrees of unlikeliness.
Your poker example is a nice fallacy.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "however unlikely it is, the odds of single god-like creator being responsible must be even higher"
Really? 'Might' be higher? Honestly, this sounds like something a high school student would say. Have you thought this through?
What you're suggesting is that it's infinitely more likely that a watch appeared from nowhere than someone having made it.
Doesn't this sound absurd, 'RationalThinker1859'?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Must be higher, not might be. And yes, I have thought it through.I`m not engaging in this discussion because I've nothing better to do.
"infinitely more likely that a watch appeared" I'm not saying anything of the sort. Another fallacy. A watch appearing from nowhere would be an argument for creationism. We are talking about self-replicators, not watches.
As you put it, it does sound absurd, but don't say they are my words "bellhog246".
Read the point again.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "infinitely more likely that a watch appeared" I'm not saying anything of the sort. Another fallacy"
It's a perfect analogy (except that the universe possesses a million times more specified complexity than a watch).
Listen, if you can't grasp this there's no point to continue the discussion.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Why are you fixated on the watch? I never mentioned watches. It's a horrible analogy because they are not capable of self-replicating.
I'm not sure what I haven't grasped, either. You have presented unfalsifiable assertions and fallacies, and nothing else.
It's not my fault that ID is hung by its own definition of complexity - I asked for an example of simplicity and you couldn't give one.
To say I'm not grasping it is rather cheap. Anyway, thanks for playing.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859
"they are not capable of self-replicating"
Their are no observed self-replicating universes either. DNA replicates, but not the original self-replicating molecule. Therefore the analogy still fits.
"You have presented unfalsifiable assertions and fallacies"
The multiverse is a non-falsifiable assertion, but it's often presented as 'science'. Why does the scientific community allow one metaphysical explanation, but not another?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 nicely put, Multiverse 'theory' , string 'theory', M'theory'- if it fits a certain dogmatic ideology, total lack of evidence is no problem for scientists as it turns out
GuyThreepwoody 1 month ago
@GuyThreepwoody
Firstly the multiverse idea is NOT M-Theory the 'M' in M-theory stands for membrane... and its the consolidation of sting theory.
Next the multiverse idea is not theory, its a hypothesis which cannot yet be tested.
M-theory is a mathematical theory... it has theorems and a mathematical proofs of those theoria.
Basically its an explanation mathematically of how a universe comes to be a universe, not specifically this one... all or any universes.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody
So M-theory... is it proven? Well proof is not something science does... proof in math has an entirely different meaning to the one you have in mind. Everything in science is provisional.
So although proven (mathematically) the principles of string theory and m-theory can never be visualized by humans, we simply don't have the equipment to conceptualize ideas like this, nor the senses to experience it.
But we can still use it to create real physical things.
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@GuyThreepwoody Given all of that...what I find probably the most ironic about your position is that you consider science to be dogmatic.
If what you were stating was correct...then what you are saying is that science 'never' changes...that what was thought to be the case 100 years ago is incontrovertibly the case today...
Look around you... do you think the science we use today is 'exactly' the same we had 100 years ago? really? is that what you really think?
MumblingMickey 3 weeks ago
@bellhog246 (cont) Not to mention it is another untestable assertion that cannot be falsified. I`m drawn to ask again, where is the science part of all this?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalThinker1859 "where is the science part of all this?"
Design is established through an inference determination based upon what is normally observed in reality. Nowhere else have original, complicated things built themselves or appeared out of no where--these things are always designed. Therefore, it would follow that the universe and DNA were also designed.
The science of design detection is the 'science part'. We apply it to everything else all the time.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Full of assertion and fallacy.
Nobody thinks complexity "appeared out of nowhere" - that would be an argument for creationism. So the "therefore it would follow" clause is a fallacy. Science says DNA had simpler pre-cursors - we don't jump to complexity ever.
The "science of design detection".... That`s what I'm asking you about, and you haven't given an example yet. What science can be done?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalThinker1859 "that would be an argument for creationism".
Not necessarily. Many naturalistic scientists believe the unvierse was created from a 'quantum fluctuation', but there are a lot of problems with this.
"we don't jump to complexity ever"
In the case of cosmology most scientists do (specified complexity at Planck time after the singularity). In the case of DNA information, most posit the specified complexity assembled out of randomly churning amino acids.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "What science can be done?"
I also explained this in an earlier post. Specified Complexity Theory is a multidisciplinary field that attempts to demonstrate how people infer design from the qualities of the object. It was championed by the ID movement, but does not infer a supernatual designer. This 'falls out' of the science due to the fact that there are specific qualities that a designer of nature must necessarily possess.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 And you still haven't given a single example of the science. How does one go about determining that X is so complex it requires a designer, but Y isn't?
Just a single example of a test, or some kind of way to falsify the assertion. Surely, it can't be that difficult can it? You have even raised it to the level of a theory, so surely there must be some practicle applied science you can share with me?
An example please.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalThinker1859 "you still haven't given a single example of the science" (part 1)
OK, we're going to have to do this the hard way...
I think what we're trying to establish is whether ID is 'science'. There are a lot of definitions of science. I've taken this one from dictionary (dot) com:
science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "single example of the science" (part 2)
Here's the definition of ID according to ideacenter (dot) org:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process."
ID is a "branch of study" (simply because there are theorists doing research). It "deals with a body of facts" specific to what we've...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "single example of the science" (part 3)
...learned about design detection by humans, aided by the interdieciplinary sciences of cognition, statistics, chaos theory, biology, information science, and cosmology. It describes the "operation of general laws", by recognizing that the liklihood of design increases proportionally to the amount of specified complexity.
By this definition, ID appears to be a science.
But there's more...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "single example of the science" (part 4)
ID also uses all four steps of the scientific method:
Observation: The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI).
Hypothesis: If an object of nature was designed, then we would expect to examine it and find high levels of CSI.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "single example of the science" (part 5)
Experiment: We can examine biological structures and non-living phenomena to test if high CSI exists.
Conclusion: We can conclude that the more CSI an item contains, the greater probability that it was designed.
Pressing further, we can demonstrate that ID passes Hewlett's three tests for a scientific model:
1. ID has explanitory value since it explains how design is inferred.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 ""single example of the science" (part 6)
2. ID has predictive value as it predicts what objects or phenomena are designed.
3. ID is falsifialble given the test: ID can be falsified if it can be demonstrated that objects or phenomena that possess high CSI occur naturally without any apparent design agent.
So, here are three different ways that ID can correctly be called 'science'.
Here's the bottom line...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 '""single example of the science" (part 6)"
If you find a watch in the desert. You notice that, unlike dirt and rocks around it, it has numerous parts that join together in discernable patterns. You also notice it functions. It is complex, but it's complexity is specified because it conforms well to apparently specified patterns (it has high CSI). Because of it's high-CSI content, you safely assume that it was left by someone, and...
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 ""single example of the science" (part 7)
...that it was designed and manufactured by one or more humans somewhere else in the world. The characteristics of the watch do not give the name of the designer, his or her IQ, or shoe size. However, based on what is observed (and what has been observed in real life), you know that there exists a VERY strong probability (some would say 'fact') that the watch WAS designed.
This is ID.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 """single example of the science" (part 8)
Now, we take the same thought process and apply it to natural phenomena. However, there are two differences. First, natural phenomena (such as physcal laws and complex biological systems) have much more CSI than the watch in the example--suggesting an even greater likelihood of design. Second, is the cognative dissonance the naturalist feels toward applying this research to natural phenomena.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "single example of the science" (part 9)
This dissonance exists because the naturalist has an irrational bias against metaphysical causes. And since, in the final analysis, the 'designer' of like phenomena would have to be transcendent, omnicient, omnipotent, and intelligent, the naturalist dismisses the explanation outright since such a designer cannot fit in his worldview.
This (rather than being unscientific) is the REAL problem with ID.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Great. So we have our definitions.
Now, I would like an example of a test that can be done which shows that X has sufficient complexity requiring a designer, and Y doesn't. I'm not looking for another definition, I'm looking for a single example of a test that anybody can do, which demonstrates or falsifies the claim.
If somebody were to examine a molecule of H2O and ask, is this complex?, how would we go about getting an answer.
You only need respond if you have an example.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "Great. So we have our definitions" (1/2)
I'll gladly take your flippant response to my 9-part monologue as a resounding concession that ID is, in fact, a science in every sense (and at least as much as common descent since both use evidence from inference). Moving forward from here..
Regarding your question, Dembski's 'expanitory filter' only shows that X would have sufficient CSI to be deemed 'designed'.
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Take the answer as you like, but it doesn't make it so. No test then no science.
"at least as much as common descent since both use evidence from inference" - Erm, firstly, I never mentioned any evolutionary thinking, so to use it to undermine my position is, yep, another fallacy. It's also wrong. Whenever 2 cousins sit in the same room as their shared grandparent, then we can observe "common descent" - we don't have to 'infer' anything, we can see it!
Please try again.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "Great. So we have our definitions" (2/2)
It DOES not, however, attempt to positively show that an object HAS NOT been designed.
Regarding his test, he states that an object HAS BEEN designed if: (a) it's existence is contingent, (b) the probability of it's creation by natural causes alone is greater than 1 in 10^150, and (c) it exhibits specified characteristics indicative of design (easily recognizable function, discernable order, utility, etc.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 So, in spite of my request not to supply another definition, but an example of the test itself, you go ahead and give another definition.
Where am I going with all this? You've scrabbled around, honourably, trying to give an example, but have got nowhere near any. My point is, ID sets up its neat definitions first, and then goes out looking for examples that fit.
"It DOES not....has been designed." Rather convenient. Any why? Because that would be a true test of ID claims.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 Friend, I've been very patient with you. Below I've provided the experimental procedure. You are now free to apply it to any object, event, or phenomena you wish. If you fancy yourself some sort of scientist, then you should be able to to follow directions for an experiment. Your needing to be spoon-fed information speaks more of you than it does the theory we're discussing.
There are many resources you can look up on your own. I'm not your librarian.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 The procedure, yes. The definitions, yes. Mr Dembski's words, yes. And amongst all that, I still haven't been given what I originally asked for - AN EXAMPLE OF TESTING!
Librarian? I have looked, I have asked, I have wondered, and yet I still can't find an example of a test that can be done, or a think of a way that the assertions can either be demonstrated of falsified. And neither can you
You said all life is complicated, and conclude that it is therefore designed. Assertion.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 (1/2)
As I've said before, if you are really interested in these answers you can look them up. Please tell me you have access to resources outside of 'YouTube' from which to draw your conclusions.
Here are my questions to you:
(1) Explain why you have taken a position that has a 1 in 10^150 chance of being correct?
(cont.)
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Fail. "I've got lots of examples, but I'm not going to give you any. Don't be lazy. Look them up for yourself". Come on....
1) I haven't taken any "positions". From the beginning, I have only ever asked for 2 examples - simplicity and a science test. Whatever else you think I've done is up to you.
I have pointed out your assertions, fallacies, condescension, evasion (why 1 in 10^150?), all very skillful, but no answer. This could go on for ever...
Any chance of a test?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 (2/2)
(2) Explain the irrational, unsubstantiated (but almost universally accepted) premise in today's empericism that denies a 'designer of nature' from being considered as a candidate for primary cause?
(3) Explain why very intelligent scientists, rather than using logic and reason to explain the proported flaws in ID, prefer to point to a civil court ruling?
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 2) No evidence. Also no way at all to test the assertion (we can call it a hypotheses if you like...) thereby either demonstrating or falsifying it. All we have is "Hey, look at this flegellum. It's really complicated. You know, complexity requires a designer. End of today's class kids."
3) Because it's unethicical to expose children to falsehoods. Theology or philosophy, OK, science, no because.........
That`s right, you can't do any science with it. Therefore the ruling.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@bellhog246 cont They do use logic and reason, so it's not "instead of" but "as well as". The judge still has to use logic and reason too. Don't blame the system or cast doubt on those nasty, one-eyed scientists.
This is the whole point of my original question, which despite your repeated attempts, has yet to provide simple examples.
Where next?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 ...but because I'm feeling frisky this evening. I'll give this a shot (more for me than for you)...
The first self-replicating cell was contingent--there are no natural laws that require it to have formed. Statisticians have determined that the chances that it would have formed without any assistance is several magnitudes greater than 1 in 10^150. Lastly, the cell possess micro-biological machines, functionality, and discernable order. Ergo, DESIGN
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 1) This figure of 1 in 10^150. You cited it before, as part of a definition, inferring design. Who has decided that this figure is the benchmark of design probabilty and non-probabililty. How was that figure arrived at?
"Lastly, the cell possess micro-biological machines, functionality, and discernable order. Ergo, DESIGN". No. Not ergo DESIGN, capitals or not. This is an assertion, which might be demonstrable if we had a test for it.
Over to you. The test is....
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "ID sets up its neat definitions first, and then goes out looking for examples that fit."
Yes, this is called developing and testing a hypothesis. It's all the rage in science.
""It DOES not....has been designed." Rather convenient"
Anything COULD have been designed. ID seeks to validate what HAS been designed. Why would not 'proving what hasn't been designed' weaken its claim?
Read up on the subject and come back when you understand it better.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Noooo. Science (testing a hypothesis) makes observations first, and then comes to conclusions and definitions. This is why ID is backwards. "Why would ...weaken its claim?" My original point. You can't make judgements about what has been designed, without also making judgements about what hasn't been designed. They are different ways of expressing the same thing. You canT7 have complexity without simplicity.
"Read up....better". I'll understand it better when I get an example.
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
@RationalThinker1859 "it is another untestable assertion that cannot be falsified"
You're saying that ID is untestable and therefore 'not science' because it logically invokes the supernatural.
If science is defined as 'requiring testable assertions', then science will NEVER answer the question of the origin of the universe because its origin is logically derived as being non-natural.
Therefore, 'science' (as you define it) CANNOT have an opinion in this matter.
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 "because its origin is logically derived as being non-natural."
Strange that you've jumped to origins of the universe, but anyway, why is it "non-natural"?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalThinker1859 "Strange that you've jumped to origins of the universe, but anyway, why is it "non-natural"?" I explained all this about a week ago (to you I think). ID suggests that the universe was designed (due to the specified complexity in its physical laws, etc. It's origin (big bang, etc.) was a non-natural event because time-space did not exist before it occurred. The 'cause' was non-natural (can't be explained through normal natural laws).
bellhog246 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RationalThinker1859 "Dandelion patterns might be possible"
I was referring to 'WHERE dandilions grow in my yard' which would would appear as a random pattern suggesting a lack of 'design'.
"The flegellum is the eg for complexity. I want a counter eg for simplicty".
The flagellum is an example of 'irreducable complexity', meaning that all the different components of the system would have to have evolved at the same time for the system to now exist (extremely unlikely).
bellhog246 1 month ago
@bellhog246 Yes, I see now you meant the pattern of arrangements. See other post.
The problem with your flag. definition about irreduc. complex. is that there is an assertion there that the reducible structures were unable to confer any advantage prior to the completion of the flag. structure.
I wonder, what science can be done to test that assertion ie, structure X is irriducibly complex. Or indeed any other science for that matter? What science could be done in an ID science class?
RationalThinker1859 1 month ago