Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org
All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design
Discuss!
I just wish he would learn the definition of “intractable.”
I guess it’s just how Upright sees the struggle. It’s a fact that people find “hard to deal with”, according to Upright anyway!
Welcome to the world of negative evidence. A logical argument that can only be ‘refuted’ by a physical demonstration. While you’re at it, demonstrate beaks, hearts, leaves and eggshells from an unguided source. In your own time.
I would be interested to see Upright map DNA strings to somatic effects.
Before the fact.
There appears to have been some effort employed to produce a smart-looking web-site. Pity not so much effort has been expended on content.
The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
“Here’s my conclusion that I have assumed and you can only prove me wrong by demonstrating otherwise”! 😉
Oh, and this gem:
Intelligence is a difficult concept to define because of its many variable aspects.
So difficult, that no ID proponent has come up with a definition that makes sense.
A pity that the history of science is the history of finding regularities — unguided phenomena.
The history of theism is the history of retreat.
petrushka,
If “god of the gaps” is all you have, what can you do?
Regularities are guided.
God is a God of law.
If he was not Science would be impossible
peace
How do you know this?
It’s true that without regularities, science would be impossible.
Therefore, Jesus.
Your spiel is getting really old.
When the people who have been conversing with you as if you were a sane adult wake up in the morning, they are going to be really embarrassed.
I got Telic thoughts flashbacks. But straight to “buy my book”!
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/join-biosemiosis
“We are Raising Funds to Fulfill Our Mission”
…
“We are asking for a modest contribution of $18. In return, we’ll send back to you a Biosemiosis affinity band as a sincere ‘Thank You’ for your support. If you choose to wear it, you’ll be showing that you are part of the effort to bring visibility to one of the most profound discoveries of modern science, of history, and of life itself.”
UB, looking for that promotion from rube to parasite.
Well, yes, if you could show that intelligent action is needed for such a system. Has any intelligence ever been shown to make one in life? To make life? Just provide evidence for those, and you’ve got yourself a conclusion.
Meanwhile, the “designer” that made vertebrate eyes apparently had no effect on the one that made cephalopod eyes, and vice versa. Yet the same semiotic system exists in both. Please explain. Why is this sort of result the norm throughout life that doesn’t swap genes much, if at all? Why do developmental programs again and again reveal ancestral details, like mammalian testes descending from where they once developed and stayed (while birds dispense with the problem altogether)?
Maybe UB should explain the evidence that design was not involved in producing life, before just concluding, sans maker and evidence that codes necessarily have makers, that life was designed. It’s still just that pesky evidence that constantly eludes them–plus the evidence that they fail to explain that evolutionary theory entails–no matter how little that affects their conclusions.
Glen Davidson
Well, to be fair, they may have the excuse of booze.
Glen Davidson
Oh, I’ve found a storefront, too: http://www.complexitycafe.com/index.php?option=com_hikashop&view=category&layout=listing&Itemid=105
I think that if ID has taught us anything (and it has taught us a few things about gullibility), it is that it’s possible to be both.
Glen Davidson
Reciprocating Bill:
Christ. How many times do we have to tell him? Upright hangs on to bad definitions the way he hangs on to bad ideas.
Upright, since you’ll be reading this thread, here are some dictionary definitions of “intractable”:
I think you’re looking for something more like “incontrovertible”:
keiths,
The copypasta cannot evolve, because evolution is a lie.
What is the god of Copypastafarians?
In the absence of some inviolable physical equation that shows that complexity can only arise through the action of intelligence ( what Dembski tried and failed utterly to do) one needs to weigh all the evidence for and against natural processes producing complexity in living things. I think when one does this without religious bias one overwhelmingly comes to the conclusion that natural processes are responsible.
The IDers seem to take for granted that their vague intuitions about living things must be absolute physical laws.
Xerox
High Priest: KirosFocus. Every FYI / FTR / BTB (comments closed) has the same content.
I can just sense the jealousy.
😀
Mung,
If you look at the time he’s put in, the wrist bracelets he’ll sell and the support of You and Joe G, … yeah never mind.
Mung,
The “biosemiotics therefore theism” apologetics has been stretched a bit thin already, don’t you think Mung?
ninja’d by Newton.
Great minds think alike 🙂
Because if we the universe was chaotic and anything could happen at anytime experimentation would be fruitless and inference would be impossible. It seems pretty self-evident to me.
You have it exactly backwards
The logos (Jesus) exists therefore science is possible.
I don’t argue from regularities to God but from God to regularities. This is difference between me and you we have totally different mutually exclusive perspectives on the world,
You start with you (as the judge) I start with God never the twain shall meet
world with out end amen
get used to it
peace
Dry humor.
I understand your point.
When you assume your conclusion, you can win the argument.
petrushka,
Cue:
Fifth says he’s not making any arguments.
By “God” it appears that you mean yourself, as an infallible being.
Glen Davidson
Do you think you could keep the jesus stuff out of just one thread, perhaps?
The title of this OP is a scientific hypothesis of design. Scientific. No god or jesus required or even relevant.
Please stop.
Just this minute, I read something which reminds me of fifthmonarchyman:
“MOST PEOPLE ARE OTHER PEOPLE. THEIR THOUGHTS ARE SOMEONE ELSE’S OPINIONS, THEIR LIVES A MIMICRY, THEIR PASSIONS A QUOTATION.”
[Oscar Wilde, De Profundis]
Don’t blame me I did not bring it up. I never do,
peace
This was the first comment you made in this thread. You might not have brought up “theism” but you certainly brought up god and then carried on bringing it up.
Any other thread but this, please.
Oh right, you brought up “God” (not “Jesus”–because you’d never conflate the two, would you?) and your made-up claptrap involving God and Science:
FMM, all about the science. And science is all about God, so…
Glen Davidson
Apparently not. If they balk at codes what are they going to do when we preach the good news of symbols to them?
no it was petrushka
from here
quote:
A pity that the history of science is the history of finding regularities — unguided phenomena.
The history of theism is the history of retreat.
end quote:
My comment was in direct response to his direct attack on my faith. Apparently you must have skimmed past it and moved directly to my rebuttal.
Here is the deal, If you are going to make outrageous goofy claims about what theism is and is not expect to be corrected.
However If you want to talk science I am more than game.
I’m just skeptical as to whether you all can do that
peace
It was about science vs. theism, inevitably the issue in design and its failure to provide evidence. And who cares about your precious superstitions? If you don’t want your stupid beliefs to be treated as useless nonsense, come up with some good evidence for your claims, for once.
No, there’s a big difference between noting the failure of theism and success of science and your bare, unsupported claims about God. One is the subject (more or less) of this thread, the other is just pathetic nonsense.
First off, it’s certainly true enough, and you could have addressed it. You didn’t correct anything, you just repeated the same hideous claptrap that you’ve always spouted here, and it wasn’t new or relevant even at the start.
Yeah, right.
Oh, this from the superstition-monger. Yes, you may as well be skeptical of that, considering that you don’t know science. But who cares? You seem unteachable.
Glen Davidson
Yeah, yeah, because any comment which doesn’t kowtow to the supremacy of theistic wisdom is a “direct attack”.
What a stupid paranoid attitude to saddle yourself with.
Maybe we should go back to the days when christians were murdering each other by the hundreds of thousands for tiny doctrinal differences. Maybe then fifthmonarchyman would get the real meaning of “direct attack on my faith”.
What whiny little brats some christians turn into when they feel they’re not being respected as the source of all Truth ™
He keeps making that argument.
There is no science vs theism.
Science is only possible because God exists. That is the point.
1) Tell me how you know that theism has been a failure and I’ll fire up the bot
😉
2) I’m not making any claims
how do you know this? 😉
peace
I started the god stuff?
So who said:
I’m not attacking anyone’s faith. I merely point out that faith is useless and counterproductive. And in retreat.
Christianity has already lost nearly all of its political clout, and islam is in the throes of a prolonged tantrum. Because it is also losing.
I assume that so sort of mysticism will continue. But the revealed religions are pretty much cooked.
Maybe we should go back to the days when atheists were murdering each other by the millions for tiny doctrinal differences.
That was world war II 😉
and then there is this a little more recent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War
peace
Your presuppositionalist “point,” with nothing that backs it up. It was not the point of the thread, nor was it the point petrushka’s comment, neither pro nor con.
History, as understood by non-presuppositionalists, hence not relegated to denying anything that doesn’t fit pre-sup prejudices.
So you claim.
I can think using evidence. Not an option for you, I understand.
Glen Davidson
That’s the lie you’ve imbibed from christian fake-philosophers. Shame you choose to repeat it.
But again, some christians feel like it’s a “direct attack” on them, anytime anyone doesn’t kowtow to their faith as the source of all Truth ™
Got news for you, fifthmonarchyman your feelings are not evidence in our mutual reality.
That is just incorrect. You need to get out more.
Milk toast nominal christianity may be in retreat and that sort of “faith” truly is worthless. To that sort of faith I say good riddance. The sooner it goes away the better
God’s church on the other hand is growing and conquering even as we speak. This won’t stop till all his enemies have been vanquished. One of those enemies is superstition by the way
We don’t conquer by the sword mind you that sort of thing is not our style.
As always we will continue to leave that to the other side of the argument. Separation of church and state and all
peace
Hee hee.
Walto and petrushka were right!
🙂 🙂 🙂
here we go again When will they learn?
How exactly do you know history is the way to judge the truth of a proposition? What was the criteria you used to make this determination?
How exactly do you know evidence is the way to judge the truth of a proposition? What evidence do you have that evidence is the way to make these sorts of determinations?
More importantly how in the world did you not see that one coming?
peace