Jump to content
Science Forums

Intelligent design / creationism


Stargazer
 Share

Recommended Posts

jp, you seem to fail to see that we do not accept your inference idea as evidence. We may all accept that inference can be used in certain cases, but not in the DNA case.

 

You write:

"In your words, "by will" or "by any other agent". The last one is too vague. That leaves us with "by will".
you show that you are not here to discuss but to prove your own view. That "any other agent" is unclear to you does not in any way prove that "by will" is correct. You need to read up on logic. Did you read uor FAQ on this as I asked you to?

 

Instead of desperately trying to explain that we do not understand you argument, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask if you understand our counterclaims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi jp3089,

 

Not at all. You're misunderstanding my reasoning and taking the reasoning out of order. Re-read my post with the points and you will see. Let me explain again, though.

 

I have reread it. Reads just as bad.

 

Through inference, we can see that coherent, purposeful information needs a Designer or Programmer. (Point 1)

 

We also know that DNA cannot form on its own. Even if it could, it could not create life on its own. (Point 2)

 

Even prior to Point 2, the argument was still pointing towards ID. This is not a "nothing else works so blame it on God" argument. Re-read it, because I feel you may have misunderstood it. I do appreciate you letting me clarify, however.

 

You don't really have deductive reasoning (logic) going here. You are just stating your

conclusion w/o evidence to support it.... :hihi: What corroboration do you have to

support that "DNA cannot form on its own" or that "it could not create life on its own"

(point 2). Through what inference (I am afraid to ask) can you see information being

"coherent and purposeful". If you could lead me to that, I might be able to take a leap of

faith to contemplate ID. You have to go step by step, not just state a conclusion as

fact. I don't buy it. Sorry... :rant:

 

Right on.
<<-- This implies you missed what I was getting at. I was showing the set that makes up the code to be small. This implies it would be

easy to have random combinations and processes creating many different codes. None

of it may have been life early on, just chemicals.

 

 

I am beginning to think you don't know enough about logic.

 

Probably true, but irrelevant.

 

This statement says there is basically no hope discussing with you. You admit to be

ignorant of logic, yet profess to use it. Form conclusion from basically thin air. I do not

see the point in discussing further. Sad. :D

 

Algebra all over again.

 

See above.

 

That would be true, but I think you misunderstood my argument.

 

You don't have one. Sorry. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the largest arguments against ID is the sheer fact that there are a lot of designs out there that just are not intelligent. My undertsanding of ID is that there is some master plan and that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own.

 

The fossil record (as well as many extant organisms) show regressive changes over time. Items such as Gould's "panda's thumb" and archaic structures in humans such as the appendix. I think it is difficult to argue "intelligent" design with errors.

 

I feel another argument is the variance of analog structures developed different species. Analog structures are structures in different species that have simmilar function but eveolved from differnt origin. One example is the wings of a bat and the wings of a bird. These both evolved to produce a flying organism, but are vastly differnt stucturally. Vestigal structures such as the spurs on snakes are the remanats of their ancestors legs.

 

Another argument against ID is convergent evolution. This is where two sepparate organism evolve to fill simmilar niches independently of each other. This is such the case in the green tree python (Morelia viridis) and the emrald boa (Corallus caninus). While these two are ecologically identical (ie they fill the same niche) they are geographiclaly isolated and taxanomically very different (completely different genus). Yet to just about anyone without a bit of herpetological bacground they are identiical (subtle variences in makrings, scale count, internal morphology, etc.) but one is Old World and one is New World. The argument for ID again falls short because this type of redundance is not intelligent, but evidence of the evolutionary process.

 

Yet another argument against ID is the mass extinctions of the past. It is well acknowledged that at least 99% of all species have become extinct. This again would be counter-iintuative to ID. That is a very poor passing rate. I would be hessitant to call anyone that made a 1 on a test intelligent.

 

One of the supports for ID is that macroevolution is not witnessed (this could be argued, but I will concede that perhaps it has not). Most large shifts in speciesation although they occur reasonably quickly in geologic terms, the observational time period of humans is exceeding insignificant when compared to the time scale involved. Humans have not observed the massive collisions of the tectonic plates that have created most of our moutain ranges, but we accept the geological prcoess of plate tectonics. This therefore is not a valid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tormod, thanks again for your reply. I did wrinkle my nose a bit at this one. Here are my comments.

 

jp, you seem to fail to see that we do not accept your inference idea as evidence. We may all accept that inference can be used in certain cases, but not in the DNA case.

You haven't given any good reasons for NOT accepting it. You say that inference can be used in certain cases, but you give no clear logical explanation why it will not work in the case of DNA. I'm not sure that's a scientific or logical way to look at this.

 

 

You write: you show that you are not here to discuss but to prove your own view. That "any other agent" is unclear to you does not in any way prove that "by will" is correct. You need to read up on logic. Did you read uor FAQ on this as I asked you to?

Is this not an ID thread? Prior to my argument, everyone was merely bashing ID. I'm being very respectful in my discussions, and I don't appreciate you attacking me personally just because you're having a hard time with my argument.

 

Instead of desperately trying to explain that we do not understand you argument, maybe you should look in the mirror and ask if you understand our counterclaims.
My friend, by definition you have not had any counterclaims. You have merely tried unsuccesfully to tear down my argument. I'm very open to facts and new information with credible sources, however all you've done is to basically tell me that you don't like my argument and aren't going to accept it. How can you call ME closed-minded? Again, a bit hypocritical.

 

If we are at a stalemate about this DNA argument, I am more than willing to post another argument for our discussion. I'm very willing to just drop this argument if its clear that no one is going to budge. I did enjoy discussing it with you, however. I hope that is clear. I also hope that you don't mistake my zest for a good discussion for anything else. I have merely seen something that I think is a solid argument for ID and have defended it.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there maddog. Thanks for the post. I do have a few comments.

 

 

 

I have reread it. Reads just as bad.

I fear this may be a stalemate.

 

 

 

You don't really have deductive reasoning (logic) going here.

I don't believe that is the case. I'm sorry to have to say this again, but I believe I do, and that you are attempting to gloss over my points by angling the argument away.

 

You are just stating your conclusion w/o evidence to support it....

Please re-read my posts. That is a false statement.

 

What corroboration do you have to

support that "DNA cannot form on its own" or that "it could not create life on its own"

(point 2).

I will try to educate you. Many people think that DNA and proteins self order themselves, and thereby create protein molecules, then DNA, then life. The theory that systems have self-ordering tendencies is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. If you had read my earlier post, you would have seen that I touched on this. Here is a quote from Ilya Prigogine, a thermodynamicist that has studie non-equilibrium thermodynamics: "There is still a gap between the most complex structures we can produce in nonequilibrium situations in chemistry, and the complexity we find in biology."

 

There's your corroboration my friend. Besides, there has never been a test that has recreated life from non-living matter. If you know of one, please name it. The weight of this argument is upon you, not me.

 

 

Through what inference (I am afraid to ask) can you see information being

"coherent and purposeful". If you could lead me to that, I might be able to take a leap of

faith to contemplate ID. You have to go step by step, not just state a conclusion as

fact. I don't buy it. Sorry... :hihi:

If you cannot see that DNA is coherent purposeful information, then I'm afraid you will never understand my argument. Of course DNA is coherent and purposeful. If does exactly what it's supposed to, when it's supposed to. It can be read, understood, altered, and reproduced.

 

Besides, you really do not understand my argument if you believe that all I have done is stated a conclusion as fact.

 

<<-- This implies you missed what I was getting at. I was showing the set that makes up the code to be small. This implies it would be

easy to have random combinations and processes creating many different codes. None

of it may have been life early on, just chemicals.

No, I got what you were getting at. I apologize for not addressing it, but I had felt that it had already been answered. I have expounded since. See my above paragraph.

 

 

 

This statement says there is basically no hope discussing with you. You admit to be

ignorant of logic, yet profess to use it. Form conclusion from basically thin air. I do not

see the point in discussing further. Sad. :rant:

To me, it is sad when one gives up on a discussion, just because he doesn't agree with the other side. I really enjoy discussing this with you, but apparently you aren't here to discuss. I've tried to respectfully defend my point, so please don't belittle an argument that you have not yet refuted.

 

Also, I don't believe I have shown ignorance of logic in any way.... If anything, it is you who is attacking peripheral statements rather than giving a viable counterargument. I would say that whether I am ignorant of logic or not, you are the one who is missing the point.

 

 

 

You don't have one. Sorry. ;)
Again, a false statement.

 

 

Thanks maddog for the great discussion again. I look forward to continuing it.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend, by definition you have not had any counterclaims. You have merely tried unsuccesfully to tear down my argument. I'm very open to facts and new information with credible sources, however all you've done is to basically tell me that you don't like my argument and aren't going to accept it. How can you call ME closed-minded? Again, a bit hypocritical.

JP, why bother? You try to call me "friend" but don't for a second hesitate to lie about my posts and calling my hypocritical.

 

This is not the kind of behaviour I like to see at Hypography. If you have read our FAQ you should know that you are an inch away from being banned. And believe me, that rarely happens here.

 

Let me quote the FAQ:

 

 

 

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

 

4. Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted.

5. If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.

 

Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting.

Stop your insanely one-sided posting. If you are interested in being a member of this community, I suggest you try to participate in some of our other forums as well. Otherwise I suspect that you are here because you have an agenda and that you are not willing to listen to what others say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the entire point, my friend. My argument was one of inference as evidence, not of testing proof. Your very first line about how the machine requires an intelligent act is exactly my point. You used inference in that very sentence.

JP

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say but I am quite certain that inference is not evidence. Statistics (based on Bayesianinference) are used to formulate hypotheses. Evidence is needed to validate a theory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fairly sensitive posting. Let me make it clear that I have never intended to provoke anger, only to discuss with respect. I have appreciated Tormod and his arguments and questions and have stated so in every posting.

 

JP, why bother? You try to call me "friend" but don't for a second hesitate to lie about my posts and calling my hypocritical.

If I have spoken wrongly, it was not on purpose. If you show me which statements are untrue, I will absolutely retract them and apologize for the mistake.

 

As for the statement about hypocrisy, you are 100% right. I was wrong to say that. I apologize and retract that statment.

 

This is not the kind of behaviour I like to see at Hypography. If you have read our FAQ you should know that you are an inch away from being banned. And believe me, that rarely happens here.
I don't know why I would be banned. I have done nothing but respectfully defend my argument.

 

 

Stop your insanely one-sided posting. If you are interested in being a member of this community, I suggest you try to participate in some of our other forums as well. Otherwise I suspect that you are here because you have an agenda and that you are not willing to listen to what others say.
Aren't you being one-sided when you argue on the other side of my argument? I don't have an agenda besides respectful discussion, and have shown that I am willing to listen to what others say.

 

Again, thanks for your time. I appreciate your posts.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the largest arguments against ID is the sheer fact that there are a lot of designs out there that just are not intelligent. My undertsanding of ID is that there is some master plan and that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own.

 

Excellent Analysis, Fishteacher!!! See, JP-3089 This post is an Great Example of deductive

reasoning. He makes a statement (can be the overall conclusion or just a summary statement).

He then follows up with supporting statements which refer to evidential references or statements

that can be independantly corroborated. I even learned something. Kewl!

 

Sorry, to say that for the most part FishTeach was arguing for Evolution tough. So sorry. :hihi:

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear this may be a stalemate.

 

I didn't think I was playing Chess with you. However, I do see our passing post at each

others as a bit "jousting" in nature.

 

I don't believe that is the case. I'm sorry to have to say this again, but I believe I do, and that you are attempting to gloss over my points by angling the argument away.

 

I you would just tell what you do believe ["period"], I could accept that. It is this continual

informing us of what you don't believe or denying what is said as evidence that sticks in my

craw... :hihi:

 

Please re-read my posts. That is a false statement.

 

More of the same. :rant:

 

I will try to educate you. Many people think that DNA and proteins self order themselves, and thereby create protein molecules, then DNA, then life. The theory that systems have self-ordering tendencies is called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. If you had read my earlier post, you would have seen that I touched on this. Here is a quote from Ilya Prigogine, a thermodynamicist that has studie non-equilibrium thermodynamics: "There is still a gap between the most complex structures we can produce in nonequilibrium situations in chemistry, and the complexity we find in biology."

 

There's your corroboration my friend. Besides, there has never been a test that has recreated life from non-living matter. If you know of one, please name it. The weight of this argument is upon you, not me.

 

This is the first thing I have seen from you worthy of substanciation. I want stuff like this.

Hearing a quote from a "thermodynamicist" (is that a physicist or an engineer) doesn't

fully vindicate the statement. It is in the right direction. Did see how Fishteacher in his

last post was very succinct in his post. Read that one about 20 times before you post

again.

 

If you cannot see that DNA is coherent purposeful information, then I'm afraid you will never understand my argument. Of course DNA is coherent and purposeful. If does exactly what it's supposed to, when it's supposed to. It can be read, understood, altered, and reproduced.

 

Besides, you really do not understand my argument if you believe that all I have done is stated a conclusion as fact.

 

What I think that a DRAM chip is coherent purposeful information. It does exactly what it

is supposed to do. It can be read from, written to with the information sent or received

understood, alterable and reproduced. Would we also conclude the "intelligent designers"

to be gods ? Hardly. Using you own wimpy logic back at ya'

 

No, I got what you were getting at. I apologize for not addressing it, but I had felt that it had already been answered. I have expounded since. See my above paragraph.

 

No it didn't, though I apologize for not developing it further. I am leaving work now after

a long day. I may come and read this tomorrow... Ughh... :xx:

 

To me, it is sad when one gives up on a discussion, just because he doesn't agree with the other side. I really enjoy discussing this with you, but apparently you aren't here to discuss. I've tried to respectfully defend my point, so please don't belittle an argument that you have not yet refuted.

 

Also, I don't believe I have shown ignorance of logic in any way.... If anything, it is you who is attacking peripheral statements rather than giving a viable counterargument. I would say that whether I am ignorant of logic or not, you are the one who is missing the point.

 

We could discuss when you have a logical arguement. Deductive reasoning is like the

following...

 

p => q

 

This means "p implies q". To have logical reasoning, must have both p and q present and

present such p does in fact actually imply q !?! You don't get to just state q as True! :)

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi linda. I don't think we've spoken before, so it's a pleasure reading your reply. A quick comment.

 

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say but I am quite certain that inference is not evidence. Statistics (based on Bayesianinference) are used to formulate hypotheses. Evidence is needed to validate a theory.

 

I agree. I wasn't trying to say that inference itself is evidence. I probably could have said it clearer, but I was attempting to state that we come by evidence THROUGH inference all the time. When I watch episodes of Law&Order (I know Law&Order isn't real, but it illustrates my point), I see that a great deal of their evidence is obtained through inference. I think your statement is completely correct, however. I'm going to post a new argument soon, so that we can discuss it as well.

 

Glad to discuss with you!

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a larger argument for ID. I will try to use the format that Maddog has suggested :hihi: Thanks Maddog.

 

#1. The Cambrian explosion. This occurred 540 million years ago. At the beginning of the Cambrian period, the fossil record shows a massive "explosion" of living animals including arthropods, echinoderms, and chordates. No evidence, fossil or otherwise, has been found to show divergence to these species. This meshes well with a Theistic worldview which includes ID.

 

#2. Irreducible Complexity. Naturally occurring biological and molecular machines have been shown to have components such as signal transduction circuits, sophisticated motors, and much more biological circuitry. It is true that these machines need all of their parts to function. Without each of their parts, they cannot function. Natural selection cannot build such systems. By definition, it can only preserve them once they are present. Microbiologist Michael Behe literally labels them "irreducibly complex" and even goes so far as to suggest that "maybe they look designed because they are(were)". Again, I feel that this points toward ID, rather than Darwinian evolution & natural selection.

 

I would also put my DNA argument under here, although my argument again uses inference as evidence. To recap, when we see "information", we infer intelligence is behind it. I have proposed in earlier posts, that we can infer intelligence because of the purposeful and complex information we find in DNA.

 

#3. The Big Bang and the Theory of General Relativity. I believe that we can all agree that these point towards the universe having a beginning. The fact that prior to the beginning of the universe all of the physical laws that we use today break down, shows that something that transcends those laws, and time, space, and matter, must have caused the BB. We do know that whatever it was, it had to be eternal. By definition, our universe demands that the catalyst be eternal. Now there are different theories (and I use theories not in the way we would say "the Theory of Relativity") that have been formulated to fit that model. These include: Oscillating Universe, a Motherverse... etc. However, I feel that this eternal catalyst fits quite nicely into the Theistic wordview which defines God as an eternal Being.

 

 

These evidences aren't the only ones I have, but I think they will suffice for now. I can also expound on any of them if it is needed. Maddog and Fish, I feel that these evidences point towards ID. I think this is in the format you were suggesting, but I am definitely open to critique. :rant:

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Fish. Great argument.

 

One of the largest arguments against ID is the sheer fact that there are a lot of designs out there that just are not intelligent....

 

Yup, a very good argument. Let me do a bit of research before I discuss each of your points with you. Again, very good argument and evidence.

 

Blessings,

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good points, jp but ones that have a few holes in them.

1) The Cambrian explosion. Granted this is a sudden explosion in the fossil record, but this more speaks about the nature of fossilization. The fossil record prior to the Cambrian is scant (but growing) because of the nature of the organisms. Invertebrate organisms just do not fossilize that well, but on the other hand, calcarious shells and other hard parts that evovled in this period do. By examining the fossil record you only get a slice of what is going on, it can be quite helpful, but also can be misleading. Genetic studies have shown that most of the phylitic divisions had occured quite a long time prior to the Cambrian. (For a mor in depth discussion follow this link:

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html

(A really good discussion about timing and divergence in and around the Cambrian)

 

2) Compexity. I do not think many people would feel that common origin theories can be interpreted as atoms bumbing into each other until they happened to all bump into each other at the right time to make a hippopotamus. This is a shift from less complex to subltly more and more complex forms. There have been many posts about this and I am going to leave it at that.

 

3) You contridict yourself in this point. An eternal system would, by definition, always exist; not have been created and therefore not support a creationst view of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me do a bit of research before I discuss each of your points with you.

 

As a seeker of evidence who is clearly well-versed in the ID arguments, let me suggest an excellent response that contains each of the arguments you have raised (and many, many more), along the scientific answers posed by professional researchers who actually do the science. This should save you a lot of time.

 

I'd recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand the difference in viewpoints, as both sides are covered quite exhaustively. Especially useful is Pennock's studies of historical linguistics (for Linda G.) and the evolution of language.

 

Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MIT Press. Cambridge MA. 2000. ISBN 0-262-16180-X

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a seeker of evidence who is clearly well-versed in the ID arguments, let me suggest an excellent response that contains each of the arguments you have raised (and many, many more), along the scientific answers posed by professional researchers who actually do the science. This should save you a lot of time.

 

I'd recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand the difference in viewpoints, as both sides are covered quite exhaustively. Especially useful is Pennock's studies of historical linguistics (for Linda G.) and the evolution of language.

 

Pennock, Robert T. Tower of Babel, The Evidence against the New Creationism. The MIT Press. Cambridge MA. 2000. ISBN 0-262-16180-X

Ah ha! I read it already.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JP,

 

I do consider this quite a bit more thought went into it. However, you do slip into old habits now and then. I must say though good effort and keep it up. :)

 

#1. ... This meshes well with a Theistic worldview which includes ID.

 

This really is your belief this is true. As a belief it is fine. You slide it in as though it is true. I did this errantly once and FT slammed me (which I am supprised he isn't now), so

just warning you. :)

 

#2. Irreducible Complexity. ... By definition, it can only preserve them once they are present. Microbiologist Michael Behe literally labels them "irreducibly complex" and even goes so far as to suggest that "maybe they look designed because they are(were)". Again, I feel that this points toward ID, rather than Darwinian evolution & natural selection.

 

I am not fully aware of this term. Good to bring in sources like you did. Did like this time

you spoke as how you feel and not as it is. Good!

 

I would also put my DNA argument under here, although my argument again uses inference as evidence.

 

You just told us in a post before this that you aren't didn't mean to do this "use inference as

evidence..." aka stuff about Law&Order and all... :)

 

#3. The Big Bang and the Theory of General Relativity. I believe that we can all agree that these point towards the universe having a beginning. The fact that prior to the beginning of the universe all of the physical laws that we use today break down, shows that something that transcends those laws, and time, space, and matter, must have caused the BB. We do know that whatever it was, it had to be eternal. By definition, our universe demands that the catalyst be eternal. Now there are different theories (and I use theories not in the way we would say "the Theory of Relativity") that have been formulated to fit that model. These include: Oscillating Universe, a Motherverse... etc. However, I feel that this eternal catalyst fits quite nicely into the Theistic wordview which defines God as an eternal Being.

 

Not quite. There is no aggreement on "the beginning" because in physics you can only

model upto a limit "after" the event. Best models to date "speculate" up to about Plank

Time (10^ -43 sec). Best inference on solid data is about roughly the time when quark

plasma cooled (this is all in Brian Greene's book "Elegant Universe") derived from data

from both Microwave satellites and Alan Knuth's inflationary universe model. In any case

it is NOT the beginning. It IS some span of time after the beginning. :) We know nothing

of the kind. To be "eternal" mean BEFORE the beginning. The is no knowledge before.

We can speculate before. Wheeler has done so in his Multiverse concepts. Sheer

speculation... Yes, if you allow the singularity of the beginning to be not so singular, you

get not such a big bang and thus can create oscillating events where with each succession

of a collapse not all of it does and we thus have remnents of previous universes in our

universe. There is one gotcha there. With each new bang, the same fundamental

parameters are not required to be what they are in this universe. String theory may

in the future require this. It is those parameters that are 1:10^120 in probability of being

what they are in this universe. We don't know why. I still would not call this call ID, would you ? :)

 

Maddog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...