[_ Old Earth _] Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal.

[BobRyan]

Why do we have to accept that life/the universe is intelligently designed to also accept that certain electromagnetic wave signals that we know and have recorded that humans have invented, designed, coded information into and sent are intelligently designed?

You need to relax on this one and just let the light flow -- because this one is really really easy.

The point of the argument is that those who argue that SCIENCE itself is "incapable" or "insufficient" to DETECT design IF that design is SEEN IN nature -- have simply argued a fallacy as we see it so clearly debunked in the case of detecting intelligent design in electromagnetic wave form.

The result is that EVERYBODY can easily see the fallacy in restricting academic freedom in ALL other areas of science (except of course those with the "papal impramateur of atheist darwinists" to continue their work in the area of design and detection) where the transparent hollow defensive arguments still linger about "science not being ABLE to know if design exists or whether it can be detected".

And why was the radio invented before intelligent design was thought up

More circular reasoning is not helping your argument.

Radio was brought up before intelligent design was QUESTIONED and in science fields were it was going UNQUESTIONED - there the "first principles" regarding design flourished to the point of "commercial success" in building circuits capable of "discrimination" between factual design and merely "background noise" that rocks could easily produce "given enough time, mass and exposure to energy"

Get it?? "Academic freedom" -- what a concept Eh?

if intelligent design is fundamental to being able to receive signals from a radio? It's really not that hard,

Ahh now your beginning to relax a bit -- good going!

no need for that rigid deny-all and sacrifice all science approach just to "save darwinism".

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

The evidence is mixed with words like "reasonably expected" and "might be" so you won't see anything new. I'm sure you've read what I've read.

An analogy is not citing. Show me the evidence of how millions of scientists from around the world using various radiometric dating techniques are all wrong, even though it is independently done all the time.

I did not say my analogy [snipped from this post] was a citation. I'm sorry you misunderstood the intent of my post. You don't see it there. What makes you think you will see it here?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The evidence is mixed with words like "reasonably expected" and "might be" so you won't see anything new. I'm sure you've read what I've read.

An analogy is not citing. Show me the evidence of how millions of scientists from around the world using various radiometric dating techniques are all wrong, even though it is independently done all the time.

I did not say my analogy [snipped from this post] was a citation. I'm sorry you misunderstood the intent of my post. You don't see it there. What makes you think you will see it here?

But if you are claiming that all radiometric dating is gunk, I would like to see why.

 

[Patashu]

Why do we have to accept that life/the universe is intelligently designed to also accept that certain electromagnetic wave signals that we know and have recorded that humans have invented, designed, coded information into and sent are intelligently designed?

You need to relax on this one and just let the light flow -- because this one is really really easy.

The point of the argument is that those who argue that SCIENCE itself is "incapable" or "insufficient" to DETECT design IF that design is SEEN IN nature -- have simply argued a fallacy as we see it so clearly debunked in the case of detecting intelligent design in electromagnetic wave form.

No one argues this. If we see, say, an organism that has traits that we would expect a breeder to select because it is benefitial to him but not to the organism itself in its natural environment, we can posit that the creature has been subject to the artificial selection of man. (Modern cows are a good example of this.) Nothing unscientific about this.
Are you sure you're not misinterpreting 'science does not find design in nature' with 'science cannot find design in nature' or 'science cannot find supernaturally caused design in nature'?

The result is that EVERYBODY can easily see the fallacy in restricting academic freedom in ALL other areas of science (except of course those with the "papal impramateur of atheist darwinists" to continue their work in the area of design and detection) where the transparent hollow defensive arguments still linger about "science not being ABLE to know if design exists or whether it can be detected".

Again, no one argues that science cannot detect design, just that what ID proponents propose as methods for detecting design in nature or evidence for design in nature are flimsy or refuted.
In addition, there is not a gigantic global atheist/evolutionist/satanist conspiracy to keep ID proponents down. They have their scientists, their labs, their scientific journal (ISCID, which has since become entirely defunct because they stopped submitting to it), it is no scientist's fault that they refuse to put out meaningful research.

[quote:53626]
And why was the radio invented before intelligent design was thought up

More circular reasoning is not helping your argument.

Radio was brought up before intelligent design was QUESTIONED and in science fields were it was going UNQUESTIONED - there the "first principles" regarding design flourished to the point of "commercial success" in building circuits capable of "discrimination" between factual design and merely "background noise" that rocks could easily produce "given enough time, mass and exposure to energy"

Get it?? "Academic freedom" -- what a concept Eh?[/quote:53626]
Do you actually think that evolutionary scientists deny the ability for design to be detected, period? I'll re-iterate as many times as neccesary: It is the proposed evidence for design in nature that is being questioned and refuted, not the ability to do so, as is clearly shown by the fact that even evolutionary biologists listen to the radio. If they really thought design was undetectable as you proposed they would not rely on any stimuli from their eyes or ears or anything else with regards to the built environment; something which, clearly, is not happening as even evolutionary biologists live in cities.
So, I would just like to ask who is it who is saying that science is incapable of detecting design, as opposed to not detecting design in nature or life?
By the way, where did you get your supposed definition of intelligent design from? It looks more like a definition for academic freedom, which clearly can't be describing a branch of science. What would you say if I said that the theory of electromagnetism is 'the ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads'? While technically true, since that is where the evidence leads, it does not tell us anything about the theory of electromagnetism itself.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do we have to accept that life/the universe is intelligently designed to also accept that certain electromagnetic wave signals that we know and have recorded that humans have invented, designed, coded information into and sent are intelligently designed?

You need to relax on this one and just let the light flow -- because this one is really really easy.

The point of the argument is that those who argue that SCIENCE itself is "incapable" or "insufficient" to DETECT design IF that design is SEEN IN nature -- have simply argued a fallacy as we see it so clearly debunked in the case of detecting intelligent design in electromagnetic wave form.

No one argues this. If we see, say, an organism that has traits that we would expect a breeder to select because it is benefitial to him but not to the organism itself in its natural environment, we can posit that the creature has been subject to the artificial selection of man. (Modern cows are a good example of this.) Nothing unscientific about this.

Your argument is that you will admit to "design" if you know enough about the designER such that it does not contradict the dogma of atheism in any way.

What I am arguing is the "first principles of design". An electromagnetic wave form generated by a hot oven has no "design" characterstic other than background noise that we might be "filtering out" -- conversely a waveform carrying information with variations in the amplification or frequency (or CDMA for example - code division multiple access or W-CDMA) is highly designed and it does not matter whether we know the source or not -- we see the design in it.

The information encoded in DNA - transmitted through RNA -> mRNA then decoded by the Ribosome into polypeptide chains

here is a small list of the infrastracture in the design that enables encoding, translation, transcription and production of functional componants "as needed" complete with error correcting infrastructure -

messenger RNA (mRNA). This will later be translated into a polypeptide.

ribosomal RNA (rRNA). This will be used in the building of ribosomes: machinery for synthesizing proteins by translating mRNA.

transfer RNA (tRNA). RNA molecules that carry amino acids to the growing polypeptide.

small nuclear RNA (snRNA). DNA transcription of the genes for mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA produces large precursor molecules ("primary transcripts") that must be processed within the nucleus to produce the functional molecules for export to the cytosol. Some of these processing steps are mediated by snRNAs.

small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA). These RNAs within the nucleolus have several functions (described below).

microRNA (miRNA). These are tiny (~22 nts) RNA molecules that appear to regulate the expression of messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules.

You say "breeder selectes because it is beneficical to him" (one simple decision point) YET in the information encode decode transmit and translate function I have described we have MANY decision points and subsytems infrastructure and error correcting mechanisms and still this does not beginto discuss HOW this specific message was "determined to be needed" and HOW the DNA molecule knew just how much of the strand to unwind so that the right RNA segment is exposed to do the work needed.

When THIS far more complex system is "discounted" the argument is almost always of the deny-all form "We would not know design if it bit us -- tell us how to recognize design".

We see this death-to-reason argument even here on this thread as we contrast the complexity of the system merely being 'partially described' (far from "duplicated") in a barbaric summation below

The problem for IDers is that there is no evidence of design in nature. .

Moving on to a more informed and objective opinion

Bob said

The result is that EVERYBODY can easily see the fallacy in restricting academic freedom in ALL other areas of science (except of course those with the "papal impramateur of atheist darwinists" to continue their work in the area of design and detection) where the transparent hollow defensive arguments (we see nothing... we hear nothing...we know nothing) still linger about "science not being ABLE to know if design exists or whether it can be detected".

Patashu
Again, no one argues that science cannot detect design,

What a pleasure to see an atheist take that position.

Thanks! I appreciate your making that step.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Design SEEN in nature --

Gene Transcription: DNA → RNA
DNA serves as the template for the synthesis of RNA much as it does for its own replication.
The Steps
• Some 50 different protein transcription factors bind to promoter sites, usually on the 5′ side of the gene to be transcribed.
• An enzyme, an RNA polymerase, binds to the complex of transcription factors.
• Working together, they open the DNA double helix.
• The RNA polymerase proceeds to "read" one strand moving in its 3′ → 5′ direction.
• In eukaryotes, this requires  at least for protein-encoding genes  that the nucleosomes in front of the advancing RNA polymerase (RNAP II) be removed. A complex of proteins is responsible for this. The same complex replaces the nucleosomes after the DNA has been transcribed and RNAP II has moved on.
• As the RNA polymerase travels along the DNA strand, it assembles ribonucleotides (supplied as triphosphates, e.g., ATP) into a strand of RNA.
• Each ribonucleotide is inserted into the growing RNA strand following the rules of base pairing. Thus for each C encountered on the DNA strand, a G is inserted in the RNA; for each G, a C; and for each T, an A. However, each A on the DNA guides the insertion of the pyrimidine uracil (U, from uridine triphosphate, UTP). There is no T in RNA.

Quality control.

Occasionally RNA polymerase will select and insert an incorrect, mismatched, ribonucleotide. When this occurs in bacteria (and perhaps in all organisms), the enzyme backs up, removes the incorrect nucleotide (and the one preceding it) and tries again. (Described by Zenkin et al., in the 28 July 2006 issue of Science.)

Here we have design seen in infrastructure* function product and error correction mechanisms that we can not duplicate by our own intelligent design however we are just thankful to be able to use our own intelligent design to SEE and BEGIN to understand some of the complexity in this system

who knows - maybe someday if our technology advances far enough - we will be able to reverse engineer some part of it.

(*Component infrastructure mentioned here
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387469)

AM radio is "simple' by contrast and comparison to the mechanism above.

By contrast here is the naive and transparently "blind deny all summation" - from Babarian

The Barbarian wrote:
The problem for IDers is that there is no evidence of design in nature. .

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

Of course one can detect design. Humans are very good at it. Even non-technological cultures can tell the difference between a natural object and something designed.

The problem for IDers is that there is no evidence of design in nature. Only human artifacts show design.

There is divine providence, but that is far, far greater and more elegant than mere "design." The Creator is much wiser and more capable than ID/creationists are willing to let Him be.

 

[BobRyan]

That reminds me of this -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Bobryan is on the bit by Dembski, called "Specified Complexity", which is nothing more than a new spin on Behe's irreducible complex. I believe he is anyways, as he hasn't stated such.

Dembski's book "No Free Lunch", went into detail of this. Of course he printed the book before publishing anything in a peer reviewed journal, therefore mass consumption by the ID crowd happened before any real scientist could refute his idea.

Mainly, Dembski sets up conditions that create spec comp. Just like IR, his models assume that no feature on an organism could have had another function before evolving a new one, and that their are no intermediate functions. IE. an eye has to develop into the eye we have now in one step.

One of his examples was the bacterial flagellum of E. coli. Anyone ever heard of that being used before :wink:

Anyways, the criticisms of his book abounds. From having no grasp on the concept of mathimatical proofs (Dembski even admitted after the books
that wasn't his intent, yet curiously in the book states "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information.") To setting up strawmen.

Now, I am not trying to argue against Dembski's idea. I am not qualified to do that, but you will find many refutations of his work easily, and very little meaningful responses from him.

That allows me, as a layman, to assume that his work was faulty, and until he updates his theory, I will discard it like anyother theory. Maybe you should too Bob.

Besides, Dembski is an old earth believing "atheistic dogmatic" evolutionist, just with one adjustment. Shouldn't you be rejecting all of his ideas?

 

[BobRyan]

Back to the "design can't be detected" idea after we just had the atheist confirmation that IT CAN?

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Specific Complexity is at best an argument from ignorance, Bob.

Heres an example. Lets suppose there was a majority of people that believed said deity loved big water dippers.

So, one day a scientist looks up in the sky, and low and behold, the big dipper! That must have been designed by the great designer.

See how its faulty? In order to look for a design we have to make assumptions about the designer. Well, the designer will be super natural, therefore we are guessing on the super natural. How is that science?

Seti is doing what you are proposing, but they fair better because they make assumptions that E.T. would understand math, and therefore use it to communicate.

Its not a big jump to assume andadvanced alien life form would use math, and try to communicate that way. I don't think the same goes for a diety.

 

[Patashu]

Why do we have to accept that life/the universe is intelligently designed to also accept that certain electromagnetic wave signals that we know and have recorded that humans have invented, designed, coded information into and sent are intelligently designed?

You need to relax on this one and just let the light flow -- because this one is really really easy.

The point of the argument is that those who argue that SCIENCE itself is "incapable" or "insufficient" to DETECT design IF that design is SEEN IN nature -- have simply argued a fallacy as we see it so clearly debunked in the case of detecting intelligent design in electromagnetic wave form.

No one argues this. If we see, say, an organism that has traits that we would expect a breeder to select because it is benefitial to him but not to the organism itself in its natural environment, we can posit that the creature has been subject to the artificial selection of man. (Modern cows are a good example of this.) Nothing unscientific about this.

Your argument is that you will admit to "design" if you know enough about the designER such that it does not contradict the dogma of atheism in any way.

That's not what I said. It was an example of scientifically accepting design in nature with good reasons and rationale to do so. If we saw a world-spanning flood sediment layer that would be reason to accept the biblical great flood, as another example.

What I am arguing is the "first principles of design". An electromagnetic wave form generated by a hot oven has no "design" characterstic other than background noise that we might be "filtering out" -- conversely a waveform carrying information with variations in the amplification or frequency (or CDMA for example - code division multiple access or W-CDMA) is highly designed and it does not matter whether we know the source or not -- we see the design in it.

What about electromagnetic signals that are compressed to the point where they are indistinguishable from noise unless you know how to uncompress them? If you stumbled blindly apon one you would not know it was there.

The information encoded in DNA - transmitted through RNA -> mRNA then decoded by the Ribosome into polypeptide chains

What do you mean by 'information'? Is it the same information that a neutron imparts on a nucleus it hits, telling it what to fission into? Or the same information a planet tells a satellite to be pulled in by? Because these are all equivalent; DNA is not an abstract code but a physical neccesity, just like hydrogen + oxygen = water DNA forces the products it makes and relies on no abstract code or language that would require a designer.

here is a small list of the infrastracture in the design that enables encoding, translation, transcription and production of functional componants "as needed" complete with error correcting infrastructure -

[quote:0f51e]
messenger RNA (mRNA). This will later be translated into a polypeptide.

ribosomal RNA (rRNA). This will be used in the building of ribosomes: machinery for synthesizing proteins by translating mRNA.

transfer RNA (tRNA). RNA molecules that carry amino acids to the growing polypeptide.

small nuclear RNA (snRNA). DNA transcription of the genes for mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA produces large precursor molecules ("primary transcripts") that must be processed within the nucleus to produce the functional molecules for export to the cytosol. Some of these processing steps are mediated by snRNAs.

small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA). These RNAs within the nucleolus have several functions (described below).

microRNA (miRNA). These are tiny (~22 nts) RNA molecules that appear to regulate the expression of messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules.

[/quote:0f51e]
Yes, living things can be very complex. Natural formations can be very complex too, though, and we see those being created without any design involved. And why wouldn't we expect this kind of complexity after billions of years of evolution, drift and change?

You say "breeder selectes because it is beneficical to him" (one simple decision point) YET in the information encode decode transmit and translate function I have described we have MANY decision points and subsytems infrastructure and error correcting mechanisms and still this does not beginto discuss HOW this specific message was "determined to be needed" and HOW the DNA molecule knew just how much of the strand to unwind so that the right RNA segment is exposed to do the work needed.

The DNA molecule doesn't know how much of the strand needs to be unwound; it is physically neccesary, it could not unwind any more or less, it is contingent on the physical basis of it. See, the molecular workings of the human body have no inherent information and are not a code since they are dependant apon their medium; if you write down words of the English language on paper, type them up on a computer or any other way they still communicate their meaning, but DNA, RNA and all the molecules of a living being will only do their thing when they're in that specific meaning; an abstract code would perform the same function on paper or on the computer, but DNA doing what it does neccesitates its specific physical structure. It is not carrying information as it is not expressing an abstract code.

When THIS far more complex system is "discounted" the argument is almost always of the deny-all form "We would not know design if it bit us -- tell us how to recognize design".

Complexity does not equal design. You know what makes the most complexity of all? Absolute randomness. According to information theory, something that is a random string of symbols cannot be compressed any further and thus has maximum information content.

We see this death-to-reason argument even here on this thread as we contrast the complexity of the system merely being 'partially described' (far from "duplicated") in a barbaric summation below

The problem for IDers is that there is no evidence of design in nature. .

Well, there isn't. There's no information since DNA, RNA, etc. are not an abstract code, and there is complexity but complexity does not require design.

Moving on to a more informed and objective opinion

[quote:0f51e]Bob said

The result is that EVERYBODY can easily see the fallacy in restricting academic freedom in ALL other areas of science (except of course those with the "papal impramateur of atheist darwinists" to continue their work in the area of design and detection) where the transparent hollow defensive arguments (we see nothing... we hear nothing...we know nothing) still linger about "science not being ABLE to know if design exists or whether it can be detected".

Patashu
Again, no one argues that science cannot detect design,

What a pleasure to see an atheist take that position.

Thanks! I appreciate your making that step.

Bob[/quote:0f51e]
I still want to see a quote or a reference from someone who argues that science cannot detect design.

 

[Patashu]

Back to the "design can't be detected" idea after we just had the atheist confirmation that IT CAN?

Bob

Point me to where a poster has stated that design cannot be detected in nature?

 

[BobRyan]

I posted this -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

Vault - posted an attack on Dembski (irreducibly complex argument) - but more specifically it is Dembski's argument that something SEEN in nature (be it a specific electromagnetic wave form OR The far more complex encoding, translation, decoding manufacturing and error-correcting infrastructure I pointed out) CAN be "known" to exhibit the characteristics of something intelligently designed - and is SEEN as such.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387600

The sad fact is that the ONLY contradition to Dembski that is even available is of the form of what Patterson has just identified as "stories easy enough to tell" where one "imagines" how these systems fall out of the sky with rocks having done it. As HE said "claimig ignorance as to the means - just affirm the FACT. IT happened we KNOW it happened"

Indeed that is EXACTLY the way Dawkins argues for the first evolution-produced-cell in the movie EXPELLED -- he claims ignorance as to the means and merely insists on faith in the fact.

How "appropriate" then that my example of infrastructure and systems design goes to the very core of that first living cell that Dawkins affirms to have evolved either here or on some alien worldl!

As Isaac Asimov confirms the thought-experiment so rich in imaginative improbabilities " The evolution from moleculde (rock) to human mind requires a massive DECREASE in entropy"


YOU make the point that a "simple decision point" like the breeder selecting for a certain characteristic is SUFFICIENT to establish intelligent design.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387454

I SHOW that MANY decision points are involved in deciding WHICH RNA strand to code for and in detecting errors - backing up and reapplying the encoding sequence when one is discovered etc. Let alone the "decision" about the infrastructure components and their function in the systems architecture that we see there.

So whether we take the much SIMPLER example of design SEEN IN electromagnetic wave forms or the vastly more COMPLEX example where the the encoding, decoding, translating AND error correcting is being done FOR US (DNA-RNA-Protein synthesis) we SEE design.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I posted this -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

Vault - posted an attack on Dembski (irreducibly complex argument) - but more specifically it is Dembski's argument that something SEEN in nature (be it a specific electromagnetic wave form OR The far more complex encoding, translation, decoding manufacturing and error-correcting infrastructure I pointed out) CAN be "known" to exhibit the characteristics of something intelligently designed - and is SEEN as such.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387600

The sad fact is that the ONLY contradition to Dembski that is even available is of the form of what Patterson has just identified as "stories easy enough to tell" where one "imagines" how these systems fall out of the sky with rocks having done it. As HE said "claimig ignorance as to the means - just affirm the FACT. IT happened we KNOW it happened"

Indeed that is EXACTLY the way Dawkins argues for the first evolution-produced-cell in the movie EXPELLED -- he claims ignorance as to the means and merely insists on faith in the fact.

How "appropriate" then that my example of infrastructure and systems design goes to the very core of that first living cell that Dawkins affirms to have evolved either here or on some alien worldl!

As Isaac Asimov confirms the thought-experiment so rich in imaginative improbabilities " The evolution from moleculde (rock) to human mind requires a massive DECREASE in entropy"


YOU make the point that a "simple decision point" like the breeder selecting for a certain characteristic is SUFFICIENT to establish intelligent design.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387454

I SHOW that MANY decision points are involved in deciding WHICH RNA strand to code for and in detecting errors - backing up and reapplying the encoding sequence when one is discovered etc. Let alone the "decision" about the infrastructure components and their function in the systems architecture that we see there.

So whether we take the much SIMPLER example of design SEEN IN electromagnetic wave forms or the vastly more COMPLEX example where the the encoding, decoding, translating AND error correcting is being done FOR US (DNA-RNA-Protein synthesis) we SEE design.

Obviously.

Bob

Bob, the basic argument against Dembski's Specified Complexity (Behe = Irreducible Complex, nearly the same idea though) is of its logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Also, Dembski sets up numerous strawmen in his book, fails to provide a decent math proof, and sets the terms so that his idea has to be right.

Now, I have not read the book, nor do I have the math degree to examine his proofs, but Dembski aknowledges his proof error, by saying hes not in the business of making math proofs (though he claims to be doing that very thing in his book)

The criticisms abound to his work, and I have found very little meaningful responses from him. Therefore, I can conclude, with some degree of certainty, his idea as setup is erroneous.

I never said you cannot detect design in nature. I actually made the point that seeing someones initials in a tree is the most basic example of that very thing.

Its just when you have the idea that the designer is a super natural being, how do you even begin to scientifically setup the parameters on how to determine what his signature would be? Answer that one please.

And you're still yet to answer the question of why you are arguing the ideas of satanistic dogmatic atheist corrupted evolutionist such as Dembski. Isn't he out to destroy God since he believes in an old earth and evolution? Or at the very least corrupted beyond repair by the lying scum atheistic dogmatic brainwashed God hating mainstream science?

 

[Patashu]

I posted this -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

Vault - posted an attack on Dembski (irreducibly complex argument) - but more specifically it is Dembski's argument that something SEEN in nature (be it a specific electromagnetic wave form OR The far more complex encoding, translation, decoding manufacturing and error-correcting infrastructure I pointed out) CAN be "known" to exhibit the characteristics of something intelligently designed - and is SEEN as such.

By the way, what is intelligently designed about hiccups, the spinal fluid canal, the optic nerve being in front instead of behind, joints that wear out in old age, suffering and death, disease and parasites, etc? There is complexity in living species but complexity does not necessitate design.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387600

Only denying science being able to handle supernatural causation, which it can't by the very definition of supernatural in this context.

The sad fact is that the ONLY contradition to Dembski that is even available is of the form of what Patterson has just identified as "stories easy enough to tell" where one "imagines" how these systems fall out of the sky with rocks having done it. As HE said "claimig ignorance as to the means - just affirm the FACT. IT happened we KNOW it happened"

Still going on about Patterson? What someone said is less important than what there is scientific evidence or consensus for, by the way.
By the way, um...that's not the only refutation of Dembski's work. Far from it.
Here's one out of a hat: http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

Indeed that is EXACTLY the way Dawkins argues for the first evolution-produced-cell in the movie EXPELLED -- he claims ignorance as to the means and merely insists on faith in the fact.

I think this has been talked about before; it was edited very specifically to make him look as though answering the questions in a different way. It's a movie, they can do that.

How "appropriate" then that my example of infrastructure and systems design goes to the very core of that first living cell that Dawkins affirms to have evolved either here or on some alien worldl!

As Isaac Asimov confirms the thought-experiment so rich in imaginative improbabilities " The evolution from moleculde (rock) to human mind requires a massive DECREASE in entropy"

And such a decrease in entropy happens to be possible given, y'know, the sun shining on us.

YOU make the point that a "simple decision point" like the breeder selecting for a certain characteristic is SUFFICIENT to establish intelligent design.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387454

I SHOW that MANY decision points are involved in deciding WHICH RNA strand to code for and in detecting errors - backing up and reapplying the encoding sequence when one is discovered etc. Let alone the "decision" about the infrastructure components and their function in the systems architecture that we see there.

So whether we take the much SIMPLER example of design SEEN IN electromagnetic wave forms or the vastly more COMPLEX example where the the encoding, decoding, translating AND error correcting is being done FOR US (DNA-RNA-Protein synthesis) we SEE design.

Obviously.

Bob

But for it to be design, it must have been done by a designer to fulfill some desired purpose for the designer. Have you established use or purpose?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Indeed that is EXACTLY the way Dawkins argues for the first evolution-produced-cell in the movie EXPELLED -- he claims ignorance as to the means and merely insists on faith in the fact.

If your speaking on abiogenesis, than yes, its faith. There is not conclusive evidence on how that event came to pass. No one is claiming that they have the evidence for it, and if they are, they are either a liar, or deserve a nobel prize.

You know better than lumping ToE and abiogenesis together.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
I posted this -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

Vault - posted an attack on Dembski (irreducibly complex argument) - but more specifically it is Dembski's argument that something SEEN in nature (be it a specific electromagnetic wave form OR The far more complex encoding, translation, decoding manufacturing and error-correcting infrastructure I pointed out) CAN be "known" to exhibit the characteristics of something intelligently designed - and is SEEN as such.

Patashu -


By the way, what is intelligently designed about hiccups, the spinal fluid canal, the optic nerve being in front instead of behind, joints that wear out in old age, suffering and death, disease and parasites, etc? There is complexity in living species but complexity does not necessitate design.

1. You have to step far enough away from blind devotion to your own dogma to see and appreciate the opposing argument. The ID argument is not "ID SCIENTISTS are now DONE with ID they have discovered all there is to know -- turns out EVERYTHING is scientifically shown to be designed". That is not the ID argument - EVEN THOUGH atheist darwinist devotees try to spin it around AS IF that is what is claimed.

2. Atheists failed to CREATE even one simple living cell -- and so their next step is to criticise ENTIRE organ SYSTEMS AS IF failure at the basics now qualifies them as EXPERTS in creating entire organ systems. That is not science sir -- it is just poor religion. It thrives in the environment of the untestable theory.

The ID principle is SHOWN in the science that already masters the art of discriminating between Intelligently designed electromagnetic wave forms and those that are just "background noise" -- (background noise -- i.e. rocks can do it given enough mass time and exposure to an energy source).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I posted this -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&start=60#p387470

Vault - posted an attack on Dembski (irreducibly complex argument) - but more specifically it is Dembski's argument that something SEEN in nature (be it a specific electromagnetic wave form OR The far more complex encoding, translation, decoding manufacturing and error-correcting infrastructure I pointed out) CAN be "known" to exhibit the characteristics of something intelligently designed - and is SEEN as such.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&p=387630#p387600

The sad fact is that the ONLY contradition to Dembski that is even available is of the form of what Patterson has just identified as "stories easy enough to tell" where one "imagines" how these systems fall out of the sky with rocks having done it. As HE said "claimig ignorance as to the means - just affirm the FACT. IT happened we KNOW it happened"

Indeed that is EXACTLY the way Dawkins argues for the first evolution-produced-cell in the movie EXPELLED -- he claims ignorance as to the means and merely insists on faith in the fact.

How "appropriate" then that my example of infrastructure and systems design (in that first link quoted above) goes to the very core of that first living cell that Dawkins affirms to have evolved either here or on some alien worldl!

So the response in that second link quoted above is of the deny-all "science can't detect design" ALREADY disproven in the SUCCESSFUL case of discrimination of electromagnetic wave form.

Patashu

Only denying science being able to handle supernatural causation, which it can't by the very definition of supernatural in this context.

The transparent argument you are using is circular "we BELIEVE their is no god and so we can not SEE DESIGN objectively in nature IF we suspect that DESIGN does not have a human origin"

Such protectionist-transparent defenses on behalf of atheist dogma are then used (as you have done above) to CHANGE the objectivity and viability of science itself AS IF the ID argument is "first know the designer THEN be willing to detect design" -- in fact only ATHEIST religionistS make that argument.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The sad fact is that the ONLY contradition to Dembski that is even available is of the form of what Patterson has just identified as "stories easy enough to tell" where one "imagines" how these systems fall out of the sky with rocks having done it. As HE said "claimig ignorance as to the means - just affirm the FACT. IT happened we KNOW it happened"

Patashu -

Still going on about Patterson? What someone said is less important than what there is scientific evidence or consensus for, by the way.

Hint - Patterson IS IN THE SCIENCE -- HE WAS one of the leading icons in atheist darwinism as the senior atheist darwinist paleontologist at the (Darwin-home-base) British Museum of Natural history --- he IS SPEAKING to the SCIENCE.

Note that his presentation IS TO fellow evolutionists - leading members of that group such as Niles Eldredge.

Your "trash atheist darwinists if they get to a moment of objectivity" solution is equally transparent.

This is a quote of a guy that REMAINed stuck in atheist darwinism - someone who appealed to other atheist darwinist thought leaders for a solution and they were all coming up EMPTY -- as Paterson said -- the response was "dead silence"!

Your circle-the-wagons deny-all solution to that problem that you give above is not as compelling as you may have at first supposed.

Bob