Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted November 02, 2013 02:46 PM
Hobbit said:
Stevie said:Design screams Designer!
Of course not. If it were true then we could assume that everything in this world was made by human (and by everything I mean: EVERYTHING) since we are the only confirmed intelligent beings on this planet by now. After all someone had to design all of this - why not us?
Because that would be blaspheme dear hobbit, and bad things happen when one does that. Bad things on the "No one expects the Spanish inquisition!" level. ____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
Hobbit said: After all someone had to design all of this - why not us?
Are not we doing the best we can? I mean I've grown some pretty amazing gardens in my day...except for blueberries. ____________
"Do your own research"
Quote:I just might. I already told you the analogy between living organisms and industrial products is flawed and why it is flawed.
I know what you said. And I know you're wrong You're clueless about information technology (at best). A software is the best analogy for the DNA mollecule (the DNA molecule is the carrier of the information, not the information itself, just like your computer is the carrier of your computer's programs, not the programs themselves). It's by far one of the best analogies, sharing the exact essence or logic, differing though in scale (the genetic information is far more complex than of any program created yet).
Quote:Information here is a figure of speech, you are not talking about information as in "French Revolution is in 1789" or "8x2=16", you are talking about genes, genes are matter, they are made of molecules.
Reeeaaally? I think you ought to know what the word Information means in the world of technology, Arty. There's no figure of speech at play at all. Take a look for yourself at what happens with the DNA:
I hope you'll like this OhForfy
See the "metaphor" Arty? If yes, you're probably the only one. Even your precious atheist evolutionist Dawkins says: "[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.". How can you call this a figure of speech is simply bewildering...
Quote:Vestigiality. One very famous example is a muscle in our feet, the ancestral use of this muscle is to grab with feet (as most primates do), we still have it, but it evolved into an idle muscle, it has no function in our feet and we can't use it.
=)) So predictable..
Anyway, your arguments from Vestigiality have been disproven time and time again, yet I see people still believe that they prove evolution. Just a few examples: Darwin's ear point, plica semilunaris, ear muscle, eye brow, eye lash, pineal gland, wisdom teeth, tonsils, thymus gland, body hair and goosebumps, male nipples, the appendix, the coccys, and many other ones like the modern myth of junk DNA (I've heard that they're more than 100 from a 1890 vestigial organs list, all being disproven till the year 2000)
Another problem with vestigiality is it's logic: if something's function is unkown that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't have one.
Quote:They are not broken. They are flawed to begin with.
Let's talk about some concrete examples shall we?
Quote:That is not contradictory to what I said which is "Evolution itself is enough to explain how complex organisms came into being." So there's nothing wrong.
"Evolution itself is enough to explain how complex organisms came into being." --- Again, this is Abiogenesis, not Evolution. Either you're trying to say that the cell is not a complex organism or you don't know that evolution operates AFTER you have a self-replicating cell, therefore can't explain how that cell arose in the first place. Every knowledgeable evolutionist knows this. In fact, they were the ones that draw the line between abiogenesis and evolution, because the abiogenesis debate wasn't going too much in their favor.
Do you want me to make you a syllogism? (I'm assuming some minimum logic knowledge from your part)
Quote:Since abiogenesis is not dogma and you said "origins are assumed dogmatically" you should be amazed at yourself for such a high score on self-contradiction.
"Since abiogenesis is not dogma" - Abiogenesis is the study of life arising from inanimate matter through naturalistic means. This is proven to be extremely unlikely because of the complexity of the cell, which is the smallest life form we know.
If you want some calculations take a look at this then:
Note that the different results between the videos is because of the different numbers used in the equations, but either way you still get 1 out of 10 followed by bazillions of zeros. If anyone thinks that that works in favor of abiogenesis then he's in no way rational. You don't argue with math.
And that's for just one protein! A cell is composed of hundreds of proteins which are in turn composed of hundreds of aminoacids, and there are 20 types of aminoacids.
So even if you give evolutionists the proposed age of the universe, even if you give them each matter particle interacts with another one time per second, it's still not enough. The zeroes on the chance of that happening will still be with the baillions.
Quote:Darwin had a tree of life, yes. That doesn't stop paleontology from having one also, though. One that is constantly being worked on by paleontologists.
You said paleontologists came up with the tree of life. Fact is that Darwin did, and Darwin was not a paleontologist. Simple as that.
That paleontologists adopted his tree of life idea has absolutely 0 relevance.
Quote:Not similarity, kinship, we are relatives. And you are not aware of it but you just supported the common ancestor theory. The ratios you present are the closeness level of genetic kinship with those species. Although, I'm not sure if somebody who asks a question such as "you don't feel 50 percent banana do you?" has the capacity to understand that.
The common ancestor theory is boggus. If you indeed are a relative of a baboon because of 90% genomic similarity then likewise you're 75% a relative of nematodes and 50% a relative of a banana. Genomic similarity means nothing and proves nothing, just like being 100% made of atoms doesn't prove you're a relative of your car which is also 100% made of atoms.
"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.". One of your fellow evolutionists Steve Jones said that.
@ Hobbit:
Quote:Maybe you should specify what do you mean by "designed" then. And "certain complexity" doesn't mean anything, because everything is complex.
Specified complexity is a term used by Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist to try to explain the difference between living organisms and non-living organisms. "Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."
Also, read this: "Information science (or information studies) is an interdisciplinary field primarily concerned with the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval, movement, and dissemination of information. Practitioners within the field study the application and usage of knowledge in organizations, along with the interaction between people, organizations and any existing information systems, with the aim of creating, replacing, improving, or understanding information systems. Information science is often (mistakenly) considered a branch of computer science. However, it is actually a broad, interdisciplinary field, incorporating not only aspects of computer science, but often diverse fields such as archival science, cognitive science, commerce, communications, law, library science, museology, management, mathematics, philosophy, public policy, and the social sciences."
Again, from Wikipedia.
If you want to read what creationists propose as being the Scientific Laws of Information, take a look here --- Don't scare yourself, it's a tedious read, and even it's on a creationist site it doesn't invoke God or Noah's Flood or the Bible to explain Information. God simply follows as the most logical conclusion. And even if you don't agree, it's still a good read.
Quote:And about software and a code-writer - I'm pretty sure that if you were shown a file with only digits and single words, you couldn't tell if it was made by a human or by a computer. Game save files are pretty complex, if you ask me.
Game save files are still a product of a program which traces back to a programmer. Do you know any game save program that was not produced by a programmer? I don't...
Quote:Magic that we don't remember. I call that "Forgotten Magic Theory". You can't prove it's wrong and it makes perfect sense, so it has to be true, right?
No, that's an argument from ignorance. "Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." Wikiiiaaagain... You make science on what you do know, not on what you don't know.
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted November 02, 2013 05:21 PM
Quote:I know what you said. And I know you're wrong
No, I'm not, I already gave you examples of idle organs and industrial products don't REPRODUCE. They are manufactured.
Quote:Reeeaaally? I think you ought to know what the word Information means in the world of technology, Arty
Living organisms aren't technological inventions like books or computers. That's the reason it is a figure of speech.
Quote:You said paleontologists came up with the tree of life
Yes, as in before the genetic tree of life, it's obvious by the context.
Quote:Either you're trying to say that the cell is not a complex organism or
By complex, I meant advanced life forms as in Mammals, birds etc etc.
Quote:No, that's an argument from ignorance. "Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." Wikiiiaaagain... You make science on what you do know, not on what you don't know.
With his Forgotten Magic Theory, he was being sarcastic about your Intelligent Design "theory" So you are actually telling this to yourself.
Quote:"We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.". One of your fellow evolutionists Steve Jones said that.
Probably, he's trying to tell what I tried to tell you, sharing 50 percent DNA structure with a banana does not mean being half a banana, you are not half your mother and half your father either. The level of DNA resemblance determine the level of your closeness of kinship. (That's why doctors can tell you "this baby is not yours" by looking at your DNA). When a paleontologist finds a fossil of a skull that shows wolf and whales come from a common ancestor, and the level of DNA resemblance between a wolf and a whale is more than the DNA resemblance between a whale and a shark, you are not talking about similarity, you are talking about kinship.
About all the other stuff and in general:
All you do is copy/paste or paraphrase the chewed up rhetoric of Creationist web sites. I won't bother to do the same with actual science sites. It's enough to say your so-called arguments have all been replied many times by biologists and scientists of other fields themselves. There are probably a thousand web sites refuting them I don't have the time reply to them one by one. You don't care about them anyway, you care about your God. Intelligent Design is actually worse than Creationism because, although it is exactly the same thing, it pretends that it's not and imitates scientific rhetoric to appear so but in fact it is dogma: A Forgotten Magic Theory. Your copy/pasted stuff is not accepted as based on evidence science by the scientific community and their word counts not yours. Even the law says it is a belief not science, it is disinformation, it is dishonest and it is the product of religion not research.
And trying to appear as having the upper hand by calling people Artsy or Bilbo isn't helping you much. Right now, we are simply tolerating your ignorance (which always comes with it's own flavor of arrogance), you don't have to be intentionally annoying in addition.
Stevie said:Specified complexity is a term used by Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist to try to explain the difference between living organisms and non-living organisms. [...]
So every living organism is designed because...?
I still don't get it, really.
Stevie said:Game save files are still a product of a program which traces back to a programmer.
Ok, maybe that wasn't the best example, but you didn't get my point... Let me put it this way:
What you say that if I gave you a gel in a bowl and asked you if this gel was made by a human or by nature, you could tell by just looking at it. But in the real life you can't - because you don't know if I took it from my bathroom or from some kind of a museum or something. BUT if I gave you a gel in a tube made by some company, then you would definitely say that it's made by humans.
The point is: you wouldn't be assuming that this gel was created because it was complex or designed, you'd be assuming that because someone already told you that there are some companies that make such gels. Same goes for software - it's not about the code itself that it needs a code-writer, it's about your assumption that there are no programs made "naturally".
And although this assumption is somehow correct, because we know there are no programs made "naturally" yet (or at least no one has documented such process), "design screams designer" logic isn't correct because there's no real backup from this assumption. "Let's assume that, therefore God" - it doesn't work that way.
Stevie said:No, that's an argument from ignorance. "Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." Wikiiiaaagain... You make science on what you do know, not on what you don't know.
artu actually explained this, but let me put it this way: at least my Forgotten Magic Theory doesn't assume that there has to be some kind of supernatural being that we can't prove. So it's somehow more scientific than "Intelligent Design theory".
gnomes2169 said:Because that would be blaspheme dear hobbit, and bad things happen when one does that. Bad things on the "No one expects the Spanish inquisition!" level.
Don't use equivocation tactics please.
"Industrial products refers to goods produced in a factory with the use of machinery and technology." --- following this reasoning even a soap is an industrial product. A software could be considered an industrial product also, but the difference between a software and a soap is that it is an INFORMATION SYSTEM.
DNA does NOT reproduce (not in the common sense of the word).
It REPLICATES.
AND: Replicating software EXISTS!
The most common examples are malware, namely program viruses, e-mail viruses, worms, etc. These malware ARE able to SELF-REPLICATE. So my analogy makes perfect sense.
Also the internet is buzzing about self-replication technology and nanotechnology. Just look at what one guy says: "... I'll just mention that the replication of the nanobots will depend on the stability of the replication instructions. Replication may be based on something similar to the RNA/DNA/ribosome/protein model - instructional code interpreted by productive machinery equivalent to ribosomes." (from here)
And even your favorite information source, aka Wikipedia, makes it clear that the DNA is an INFORMATION CARRYING MOLECULE: "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. (...) DNA is well-suited for biological information storage (...)" (from Wiki: DNA) . I'm proving you wrong with your own sources. Take some moar: "The sequence has capacity to represent information. Biological DNA represents the information which directs the functions of a living thing." (from Wiki: Genetic Information). You should come and live in the 21st century, in the information era.
Please stick to correct terminology to avoid equivocations. (evolutionists love using this fallacy, I see you make no exception)
Quote:They are manufactured.
As I said above, self-replicating softwares exist, and it is well know that they were manufactured. Your argument only proves me right.
So even if your claims for a good analogy are illogical (since we know for certain that there are information rich programs which aren't able to self-replicate but are still designed) we actually have self-replicating programs. Since the DNA is such an information rich system that accounts for every single function of your body I don't see any reason for excluding the design possibility a priori because of naturalistic indoctrination.
Quote:Living organisms aren't technological inventions like books or computers.
This is a positive statement, care to prove it? By what line of evidence do you know this empirically? Information technology points exactly in the opposite direction.
Quote:That's the reason it is a figure of speech.
The only place where there is a figure of speech is in your head. No other sane person treats a software program as a figure of speech.
Quote:By complex, I meant advanced life forms as in Mammals, birds etc etc.
All forms of life are complex. But I get what you're trying to say with advanced.
Just some quotes on the complexity of the cell from Michael Denton, a famost evolutionists biochemist:
"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."
"Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world."
"To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity."
Quote:With his Forgotten Magic Theory, he was being sarcastic about your Intelligent Design "theory" So you are actually telling this to yourself.
Only difference is that ID is based on empirically testable facts, and not on an argument from ignorance... Makes quite a difference.
Quote:Probably, he's trying to tell what I tried to tell you, sharing 50 percent DNA structure with a banana does not mean being half a banana, you are not half your mother and half your father either. The level of DNA resemblance determine the level of your closeness of kinship. (That's why doctors can tell you "this baby is not yours" by looking at your DNA).
Genetically speaking, I am in fact half my mother and half my father. The genetic information in my DNA is 50% my mom's and 50% my dad's. And that goes for every sexual reproductory system. Chromosomes are awesome.
Quote:When a paleontologist finds a fossil of a skull that shows wolf and whales come from a common ancestor, and the level of DNA resemblance between a wolf and a whale is more than the DNA resemblance between a whale and a shark, you are not talking about similarity, you are talking about kinship.
Care to point out your source? Cuz I've heard about the whale-from-cows but never of whale-from-wolves...
Quote:About all the other stuff and in general: (...)
That was a big elephant right there. A mix of bold sentences with no substance and fallacious reasoning.
Quote:And trying to appear as having the upper hand by calling people Artsy or Bilbo isn't helping you much. Right now, we are simply tolerating your ignorance (which always comes with it's own flavor of arrogance), you don't have to be intentionally annoying in addition.
The hate I was just trying to be friendly, if that bothers you then ok... My appologies for "Arty" thingy.
@ Hobbit:
Quote:So every living organism is designed because...?
I still don't get it, really.
Because they display specified complexity, or what you know as information. And information, as we DO know not as we don't know (so it's not an argument from ignorance), traces its source back to an intelligence.
Take Windows for example. It's a computer OS, a software. Now, even if you don't know anything about Bill Gates, you would still know that this software had a programmer, right? How do you know that? By what means do you recognize that? And the answer is simple: it's an information system that you inherently know it requires a intelligence.
Another example, even more accurate would be the way that archaeology opperates! When archaeologists find symbols on stones or ceramic or w/e how do they know that this proves an intelligent source? Why don't they say that wind or erosion provide an good explenation for that? Because no know natural process can give rise to information. Only intelligence can.
To say that's not proof for an intelligence because it can't "reproduce" like artu said it's insane and illogical. Being able to reproduce has no relevance whatsoever, since there are intelligently designed "industrial products" that cannot replicate but we still know that they had a designer. (and to make things even worse for his argument, there actually are examples that meet even his ridiculous conditions, so there's no excuse)
Your gel analogy is an example of order, not of specified complexity.
Quote:Same goes for software - it's not about the code itself that it needs a code-writer, it's about your assumption that there are no programs made "naturally".
Indeed, this might be true, but then again this is an argument from what we do NOT know, rather than from what we do know. And science doesn't operate with what you don't know but rather with what you do know. And we know from information science that the only explenation sufficient to account for information is intelligence. What you make of that.. God, aliens, time-traveling humans, Forgotten Magic Theory or w/e else is entirely besides the point.
"it's about your assumption that there are no programs made "naturally" --- assuming there is not a naturall law that can give rise to information is the same thing as assuming there is, an argument from ignorance. Fact is we don't know if there is or isn't.
Quote:artu actually explained this, but let me put it this way: at least my Forgotten Magic Theory doesn't assume that there has to be some kind of supernatural being that we can't prove. So it's somehow more scientific than "Intelligent Design theory".
Yea, but that's not true, that's a straw man. Intelligent Design doesn't assume anything supernatural, it doesn't start with intelligence as a premise to explain the evidence like evolutionists say. It starts with the evidence and they conclude that the best way (and the only way we know of so far) to explain it is by intelligence.
So evolutionists throw this straw man in order to label it "creationism" and therefore to proceed in legal issues. It's the only way for them to dodge the bullet. Rather than adressing their case they dismiss it with a straw man argument. Just as our friend artu here does.
Aaaaanyway... Just a little story to explain how things went so far, and probably how they will go, in regards to the origins debate.
--- There was a man who one morning woke up and thought he was dead. His wife called a doctor because he wouldn't go to work because "Dead people don't go to work, honey!". So the doctor came and looked at him, found nothing wrong and told his wife "You need another kind of doctor here..". So she called a psychiatrist and when he came he started talking with the man, trying to find out why he thought he's dead. The he said "Do you know that dead people don't bleed?". So he took him to the morgue where they saw a body. Then the psychiatrist took one hand and poked one of it's fingers and the dead body didn't bleed. The man said: "Yea, I guess your right, dead people can't bleed". Now the psychiatrist took one of his fingers and poked it and he started bleeding. Amazed, the man said "Well what do ya know, dead people CAN bleed!" ---
That's exactly what's happening, even here on this thread. It's not about the evidence not being convincing enough, it's about people not willing to accept it. So I'm not trying to convince anybody here if that's what you're thinking. I'm stating the evidence. If the evidence doesn't convince you, then nothing can.
Nice work in explaining your position Stevie. Just curious years back I read a book by Phillip Johnson, is he still part of the debate?
@All
After this long science debate it feels kind of odd posting about Religion but I think it a good time to share why I don't see my Faith as fantasy; it all boils down to "origin."
I don't know how others may view the idea of "God" but I don't see God as an old man parting clouds and shooting lightning bolts at me when I err.(we're even told not to make an image) Truthfully I don't have an image because the idea of God I cannot comprehend. My best definition is some blend of intelligence, designer/creator or the old stand-by...superior-being.
So, simply put, as Faith is part "believing in things unseen" my idea of origins is based on my acceptance that something greater than I has been and is at work in the universe. Now what that something is...no one can answer. I don't rule out possibilities because <imo> no theory has been proven and as I've grown older, even some of them are beginning to merge. <iow> It appears it might be possible that some blend of belief about origins might prove true.
Someone said earlier, that some folks are modifying their pov because of recent developments, implying there is something wrong with that. I don't understand that stance, since all of us are doing exactly that, as long as we are open-minded...because that makes for good detective work and the writing of our story.
Anyway, interesting conversation all.
____________
"Do your own research"
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 03, 2013 06:20 PM
markkur said:After this long science debate
Funny, you must have read something I didn't, because I didn't see any science whatsoever...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
Everything I said about industrial products applies to software too, not just things like soap. Software don't reproduce either, so unlike you I'm not attempting to use logical fallacies as a tactic.
Quote:DNA does NOT reproduce (not in the common sense of the word).
It REPLICATES.
Wow, that is such a desperate attempt at playing semantics... From living things comes other living things, reproduction have various types, birth in mammals, eggs, replicating by mitosis in one-cell organisms... The fact you're trying to avoid is species reproduce by themselves, Cars, clocks,books don't. Neither do computers by replicating viruses. Genes and biological viruses ARE matter. Software is not and...
Quote:The only place where there is a figure of speech is in your head. No other sane person treats a software program as a figure of speech.
This shows you can't even comprehend what has been actually said. calling gene transfer, information transfer IS a (very common) figure of speech. It is the genes that are transferred not any abstract information. What you call information is the molecules themselves which are matter. Information on software is constructed by bits which are electric signals.
Quote:Intelligent Design doesn't assume anything supernatural, it doesn't start with intelligence as a premise to explain the evidence like evolutionists say. It starts with the evidence and they conclude that the best way (and the only way we know of so far) to explain it is by intelligence.
That is such a hypocrisy. To assume intelligence, you must assume an intelligent being. And since even if you conclude that as an alien, that alien had to be evolved or created in the first place, your ID is nothing more than creationism because it only works with a not-evolved ID in the first place that is scientifically possible. And life CAN be and is being explained without intelligence. You just close your ears to it.
Quote:Only difference is that ID is based on empirically testable facts
False. You continuously ignore that saying "i cant explain anything so a creator/designer must be behind it" has nothing to do with testable facts. Common logic and the scientific community and laws of any secular state with decent education accept that. This is not an on-going debate. It has reached its conclusion for many years. And all you keep doing is denying this very simple fact and building all your argument on this faulty basis.
Quote:That's exactly what's happening, even here on this thread. It's not about the evidence not being convincing enough, it's about people not willing to accept it. So I'm not trying to convince anybody here if that's what you're thinking. I'm stating the evidence. If the evidence doesn't convince you, then nothing can.
Since everything here is again based on the fact that you categorize something that no one else categorizes as evidence, as evidence, have a safe journey on your fantasy. Your copy/pastes from ID company is already refuted argument, that's WHY the law passed as it did. Oh, and I don't hate you btw, your continuous ignorance of points that refute you and attempting to slide away with logical fallacies annoys me some, that's all. I find it interesting to watch how religion (something that is allegedly supposed to turn you into a decent person) results in creating manipulators deliberately spreading disinformation. Deep down, almost all anti-evolutionists know they've already lost.
Quote:Because they display specified complexity, or what you know as information.
I don't see it. Where can I find information in any kind of a living organism?
Quote:How do you know that? By what means do you recognize that? And the answer is simple: it's an information system that you inherently know it requires a intelligence.
Nope. But I already explained it.
Quote:When archaeologists find symbols on stones or ceramic or w/e how do they know that this proves an intelligent source? Why don't they say that wind or erosion provide an good explenation for that?
It's about the shape, the material, place where it's found and many other factors. But no "information", whatever you mean by that.
Quote:Being able to reproduce has no relevance whatsoever, since there are intelligently designed "industrial products" that cannot replicate but we still know that they had a designer.
But we don't know that because we see it. We know that because we know that. As a kid you have no idea if a computer is made by humans or not until someone older explains that to you.
Quote:Your gel analogy is an example of order, not of specified complexity.
So?
Quote:assuming there is not a naturall law that can give rise to information is the same thing as assuming there is, an argument from ignorance. Fact is we don't know if there is or isn't.
So you're saying that there could be a computer software that's made naturally and I can't prove it, therefore such assumption has to be considered as scientific?
Quote:Intelligent Design doesn't assume anything supernatural, it doesn't start with intelligence as a premise to explain the evidence like evolutionists say. It starts with the evidence and they conclude that the best way (and the only way we know of so far) to explain it is by intelligence.
Actually no. You're assuming that if there's no evidence for a designer on the Earth, there has to be something supernatural - because "you don't see any other explanation".
Forgotten Magic Theory is a better explanation for that because FMT believers don't assume that something more intelligent than us has to exist - they assume that there IS a specie which designed everything we see. So they don't have to say that there has to be a creator and a designer which we don't know yet. They just point out a creator and a designer, that is - us.
And of course that doesn't mean that FMT is a scientific theory, but if it's not a scientific theory, then ID is even less scientific than FMT. ____________ Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted November 04, 2013 05:31 AM
markkur said:Hmm, no one including Artu and Hobbit has been talking science at all? OK, whatever.
Artu and Hobbit have been admirably striving to discredit a mountainous heap of blatant strawmen, pseudoscience, and regurgitated intelligent design talking points, but that hardly makes for an actual discussion about science, does it? I give them points for the effort, though.
Quote:Nice work in explaining your position Stevie. Just curious years back I read a book by Phillip Johnson, is he still part of the debate?
I think he's retired now. But yea he has some really interestings perspectives on philosophical issues. I must agree with him in regards with the assumptions behind evolutionary thinking.
Anyway, I would recommend you to read Jonathan Sarfati. He has some interesting books like "By Design" or "The Greatest Hoax on Earth". Or at least watch some of his presentations.
Btw, there's an upcoming dvd project and book from Creation.com named "Evolution's Achille's Heels". Take a look at what's about:
@ Hobbit:
Look, you seem a more reasonable person. Rather than arguing endlessly in a polemical way... I would like to ask you some questions and you to answer them to me. I would like you to stay on subject rather than arguing and "but, but", with answers as scientific as possible (even with quotations and sources). The scope of it is to make you reach a conclusion of this entire debate on your own, with your own words. Are you game?
Corribus said: but that hardly makes for an actual discussion about science, does it? I give them points for the effort, though.
Depends on your pov, it hardly makes for "questions on religion;" I guess I was really thinking it could have used it own dedicated thread if there is not one already.
Thanks Stevie for the recommendation but I need to stay retired myself; the only thing I go-deep on these days is writing and H5-mapmaking.
Corribus said: Funny, you must have read something I didn't, because I didn't see any science whatsoever...
Hmm, no one including Artu and Hobbit has been talking science at all? OK, whatever.
A real scientific debate about evolution would be about details like, did ants and wasps parted their ways 120 or 130 million years ago, etc etc. On scientific platforms, nobody debates IF evolution is a fact, that was the 19th and early 20th century. Nowadays, if you check how scientists "debate" evolution you'll encounter titles like "Why ontogeny matters during adaptation: Developmental niche construction and pleiotropy across the life cycle in Arabidopsis thaliana." or "Sexual selection explains more functional variation in the mammalian major histocompatibility complex than parasitism." Expert stuff...
What's happening here is something else. It's rather this. As you can see it's defined as a "cultural, political, and theological" controversy not scientific. It is simply Creationist folk insisting on refuted arguments, hopelessly trying to use attrition as if it's going to change anything. While most scientists don't even dignify this sort of thing with answers, some like Dawkins or (Christian) Kenneth Miller think the political field shouldn't be left over to disinformation and black propaganda. (As you can see) I am quite reactionary in this matter because the amount of both black propaganda and disinformation is indigestable in my country. Most stuff they fabricate comes from your ID charlatans, only translated and adjusted to Islam but at least in US the supreme court does his job separating the church and state when they try to sneak it into science education. In Turkey, apart from the relatively old and internationally respected universities, this pseudo-scientific language spread to even some of the schools. They haven't taken evolution out of the curriculum yet, but in small towns it's practically not thought to children, or thought intentionally wrong.
In my twenties, I started to read and learn more about evolution because of this controversy. In the beginning, my pure intention was to have a better "arsenal" on the subject. But once I started to read the books, the subject amazed me, it really is "The Greatest Show on Earth." And trust me on this (or check the link above), in today's world, no unbiased source debates IF there is an evolution or not, that's an anachronical stance, doomed to go "extinct" as one research after another makes us more informed about the details and dynamics of evolution and biological diversity of life.
May seem a bit unconnected, but isn't, although telling more would spoil things. Nice book to read - may give you ideas. Don't forget - this is entertainment:
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 21, 2013 12:58 AM
Yesterday, I downloaded and watched "Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight" and it was an adequate movie at best. So, in the Sixties Muhammed Ali refuses to go to war, his heavy weight championship title is taken away, will he be imprisoned etc etc... The movie concludes that as long as your actions are based on sincere faith and that faith is religious, you'll do fine. We have the "happy ending" because even the opposing judges had to admit that Ali's conscientious objection is no different than Jehovah's Witnesses. Here are the conditions of the Supreme Court:
1- You must be conscientiously opposed to war in any form.
2- Your opposition must be based on religious training and belief.
3- You must show your objection is sincere.
It's number two that is plain stupid. If I object to participate in a war because I have my rational reasons, the government wont even bother to convince me otherwise. Yet, if I "have faith" that instructs me not to fight, all I have to do is prove that I am a true believer??? Why is faith treated like a magical password? Can't any tradition see the loophole in this: Faith in anything can be invented or imitated.
This thread is pages long: 
posted November 02, 2013 02:30 PM
You're clueless about information technology (at best). A software is the best analogy for the DNA mollecule (the DNA molecule is the carrier of the information, not the information itself, just like your computer is the carrier of your computer's programs, not the programs themselves). It's by far one of the best analogies, sharing the exact essence or logic, differing though in scale (the genetic information is far more complex than of any program created yet).
Chromosomes are awesome.
I was just trying to be friendly, if that bothers you then ok... My appologies for "Arty" thingy.
