1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm
If your argument held any water, you would be able to show that intelligent design had the evidence in its favour. Yet you have not. In fact, you have consistently made false claims.
In science when a claim is being made it should be supportable with evidence, and you should be able to explain your claim to others in such a way that they can understand a origin you do not personally know ie we must rule out personal knowledge in the methodology.
Abstract: For the scientific community intelligent design represents creationism's latest grasp at scientific legitimacy. Accordingly, intelligent design is viewed as yet another ill-conceived attempt by creationists to straightjacket science within a religious ideology. But in fact intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. In my paper I shall (1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information. My broad conclusion is that information is not reducible to natural causes, and that the origin of information is best sought in intelligent causes. Intelligent design thereby becomes a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou said:
Before I read it, please tell me whether you understood my post, and whether this is your answer to some of my challenges in the post and if so, which challenges specifically?
If your argument held any water, you would be able to show that intelligent design had the evidence in its favour. Yet you have not. In fact, you have consistently made false claims.
The link I provided is your opportunity to prove whether my claims are false or not. However, this hinges on your ability to read and understand what intelligent design actually is, and not just some vague interpretation or outright misrepresentation of it to support what you want to believe. It's entirely up to you whether you want to meet this challenge or not.
I won't nag and pester you about this one way or the other. Feel free to ignore it and go about your business here if that is what you wish to do.
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon limehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
“...an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is not proved to be true or known to be true ...”
Note that "not proved to be true" doesn't equate with "proven to be false" and if P has proven to be false then argument from ignorance is not applicable here.
But all the young-Earth versions of Creationism along with all the anti-evolution versions of Creationism, which is obviously the versions that we are talking about here, have been proven false by the physical evidence.
Therefore, argument from ignorance is not applicable here.
As for any versions of Creationism that are old-Earth and pro-evolution (IF any such versions exist! Perhaps you can have one that says God designed and created the first living cell but then evolution took over? But then, I am not sure you could correctly call that "Creationism"? ), Occam's razor applies here and works against them.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo when I have read the article you linked, will I be able to determine whether or not a foot print is of intelligent design using the techniques therein? If not, which of your claims is it in support of?
The link I provided is your opportunity to prove whether my claims are false or not.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a specific formula (guidline is a better word for it) to determine if something has been intelligently designed or not. I'll look for it among Dembskis papers, so I can quote it instead of repeating what I said about it a few weeks ago.
So when I have read the article you linked, will I be able to determine whether or not a foot print is of intelligent design using the techniques therein? If not, which of your claims is it in support of?
Originally posted by humyYou have an opportunity to do more than blow smoke and then declare yourself the winner. As I indicated to twhitehead, I won't nag or pester you if you choose to ignore the real (not the imagined) intelligent design theory. If you choose to continue bullying your way through these arguments then so be it. How you choose to approach this is entirely up to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
“...an inference that a proposition P is false from the fact that P is [b]not proved to be true or known to be true ...”
Note that "not proved to be true" doesn't equate with "proven to be false" and if P has proven to be false then argument from ignorance is not applicable here.
But all the young- ...[text shortened]... correctly call that "Creationism"? ), Occam's razor applies here and works against them.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are several articles. Dembski is one those guys who refuses to leave any stone unturned, so it takes a little searching to find anything specific. I did manage to find and pull this from one of his papers a few minutes ago:
So when I have read the article you linked, will I be able to determine whether or not a foot print is of intelligent design using the techniques therein? If not, which of your claims is it in support of?
"Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature—what within the intelligent design community is now called specified complexity. An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not readily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that a merely improbable event is not sufficient to eliminate chance—by flipping a coin long enough, one will witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, one will have no reason to attribute it to anything other than chance.
The important thing about specifications is that they be objectively given and not arbitrarily imposed on events after the fact. For instance, if an archer fires arrows at a wall and then paints bull’s-eyes around them, the archer imposes a pattern after the fact. On the other hand, if the targets are set up in advance (“specified&rdquo😉, and then the archer hits them accurately, one legitimately concludes that it was by design.
The combination of complexity and specification convincingly pointed the radio astronomers in the movie Contact to an extraterrestrial intelligence. Note that the evidence was purely circumstantial—the radio astronomers knew nothing about the aliens responsible for the signal or how they transmitted it. Design theorists contend that specified complexity provides compelling circumstantial evidence for intelligence. Accordingly, specified complexity is a reliable empirical marker of intelligence in the same way that fingerprints are a reliable empirical marker of an individual’s presence. Moreover, design theorists argue that purely material factors cannot adequately account for specified complexity."
Originally posted by lemon limeThis is an excerpt from the first link I posted (showing the abstract). The reason I find the idea shown here interesting is because it is not limited specifically to one area of study. It is not inherently self serving and specific to only one particular point of view, so it can't intuitively be designated as unfair, or as being only relevant to one particular issue.
There are several articles. Dembski is one those guys who refuses to leave any stone unturned, so it takes a little searching to find anything specific. I did manage to find and pull this from one of his papers a few minutes ago:
"Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature—what within the intelligent design community is now ca ...[text shortened]... orists argue that purely material factors cannot adequately account for specified complexity."
Oh good grief, now I'm starting to talk like Dembski! The guy is a long winded blabber mouth, but at least he knows what he's talking about. I've had to up my coffee intake just to keep up with him and get through one of his papers.... I haven't even gotten through all of this one yet.
"Information can be specified. Information can be complex. Information can be both complex and specified. Information that is both complex and specified I call "complex specified information," or CSI for short. CSI is what all the fuss over information has been about in recent years, not just in biology, but in science generally. It is CSI that for Manfred Eigen constitutes the great mystery of biology, and one he hopes eventually to unravel in terms of algorithms and natural laws. It is CSI that for cosmologists underlies the fine-tuning of the universe, and which the various anthropic principles attempt to understand (cf. Barrow and Tipler, 1986). It is CSI that David Bohm's quantum potentials are extracting when they scour the microworld for what Bohm calls "active information" (cf. Bohm, 1993, pp. 35-38). It is CSI that enables Maxwell's demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending towards thermal equilibrium (cf. Landauer, 1991, p. 26). It is CSI on which David Chalmers hopes to base a comprehensive theory of human consciousness (cf. Chalmers, 1996, ch. 8). It is CSI that within the Kolmogorov-Chaitin theory of algorithmic information takes the form of highly compressible, non-random strings of digits (cf. Kolmogorov, 1965; Chaitin, 1966)."
"Nor is CSI confined to science. CSI is indispensable in our everyday lives. The 16-digit number on your VISA card is an example of CSI. The complexity of this number ensures that a would-be thief cannot randomly pick a number and have it turn out to be a valid VISA card number. What's more, the specification of this number ensures that it is your number, and not anyone else's. Even your phone number constitutes CSI. As with the VISA card number, the complexity ensures that this number won't be dialed randomly (at least not too often), and the specification ensures that this number is yours and yours only. All the numbers on our bills, credit slips, and purchase orders represent CSI. CSI makes the world go round. It follows that CSI is a rife field for criminality. CSI is what motivated the greedy Michael Douglas character in the movie Wall Street to lie, cheat, and steal. CSI's total and absolute control was the objective of the monomaniacal Ben Kingsley character in the movie Sneakers. CSI is the artifact of interest in most techno-thrillers. Ours is an information age, and the information that captivates us is CSI."
Originally posted by lemon limeLearn to spot bull when you read it, because that is what this is.
This is an excerpt from the first link I posted (showing the abstract). The reason I find the idea shown here interesting is because it is not limited specifically to one area of study. It is not inherently self serving and specific to only one particular point of view, so it can't intuitively be designated as unfair, or as being only relevant to o ...[text shortened]... . Ours is an information age, and the information that captivates us is CSI."
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI couldn't always say this, especially when I was much younger, but I have no trouble spotting bull when I see it now. Accumulated experiences and knowledge can come in handy as you get older, and you are less likely to step in something unpleasant.
Learn to spot bull when you read it, because that is what this is.
I wouldn't worry about humy and twhitehead if I were you. They aren't likely to cross over to the dark side after years of evolution re-inforcement being pumped into their heads. Yes your precious is safe, your precious is... yes, your precious.
The force is strong with those two. They are simply being cautious predators right now, and sizing up their prey. When they see I'm just a harmless little bunny and decide to strike, that's when my pokemon powers kick in and I evolve into Super Bunny Lion Eating Pokemon! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha... and I'll eat your precious, too!
Seriously, the way those two talk are like the old pokemon cartoons my youngest son watched when he was a boy. I was starting to get a little worried about him until he began mimicking the way they talk... and my wife thought we were both crazy when she heard us talking to each other that way.
Originally posted by lemon limeIt's not hard to come up with an arbitrary formula. It's a rather feeble attempt to lend scientific credence to intelligent design. To empirically test such a formula, we would have to look at what intelligent designer are designing - an impossibility since the designer is metaphysical (unless we a priori assume that life on Earth was designed, in which case the argument becomes circular).
There is a specific formula (guidline is a better word for it) to determine if something has been intelligently designed or not. I'll look for it among Dembskis papers, so I can quote it instead of repeating what I said about it a few weeks ago.
Originally posted by lemon limeI will wait to see if you can find it. The quotes you have given so far have no specific formula, only vagueness.
There is a specific formula (guidline is a better word for it) to determine if something has been intelligently designed or not. I'll look for it among Dembskis papers, so I can quote it instead of repeating what I said about it a few weeks ago.
I still want you to answer my question as to whether the formula will enable me to determine whether the origin of a foot print is intelligent design.