Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
LoL! Unitarianism just denies the “Holy Trinity”, meaning it accepts ONE God.
beavers are intelligent agencies because they can and do puposefully manipulate nature to produce a desired effect.
That is correct- ice melts at 0 degrees C. water doesn’t melt.
Wrong- the letters in a recipe just capture the actions required:
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.
Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)
A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.
I will prove that again this year- that is they are more attracted watermelon than the dry forrest in which they reside.
Edit still doesn’t work….
A theist has a theology, an atheist then by definition, has no theology.
What is the point of having a word that is the opposite of another if that word cannot be used to describe that very thing that is in opposition?
The most powerful arguments IDist’s can offer, is the re-definition of terms to suit their positions.
I suppose you are right. Casinos have no way of predicting exactly where the roulette wheel will land, but they consistently make a profit off of roulette anyway. Do you regard this as sheer durable luck, or would you say that one can understand these profits if one understands the mechanisms?
Evolution is a statistical beast in this same sense. We can’t predict exactly what mutations will occur, we can’t predict which of these will approach fixation. We CAN predict that the vast majority will not, and we CAN predict that even a majority of beneficial mutations will not. We can model the process quite well in this sense.
And of course, the theory predicts a very great many things WILL be found, if we’re looking for what theory predicts, where theory predicts we will find it. For me, this is quite compelling. I think I can see how someone determined to reject the most fundamental, best-attested theory in the history of science is guaranteed to find some fault with it, however much special pleading is required to do so.
Great, give us some empirically testable predictions pertaining to accumulations of random mutations
Nice propaganda speech. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is too vague to be a theory and too vague to be tested.
Casinos have the odds in their favor. That is why they consistently make a profit. Well, that plus their clientele.
Well, no. Not according to the UD FAQ, anyway, or to Dembski. The claim made there is that if a pattern is more improbable under some ill-specified null than “500 bits” (or sometimes a different threshold), that we must reject non-design.
Face-palm.
No one is stopping you or anyone else from considering whatever you like, but what you or anyone else considers isn’t necessarily scientific. I could consider the existence of yellow polka dot elephants living at the bottom of a sea, and winged spiders that fly from galaxy to galaxy without a spaceship, but if I want science to take my considerations seriously I’d have to produce evidence.
Bad math? What about materialism with its bad everything?
Whatever YOUR position still has nothing and it bothers you- your position doesn’t have any supporting evidence.
Elizabeth- I have read more books on ID then you even know exist- YOU have limited yourself to some FAQ and one paper by Dembski.
So please, don’t go trying to tell me about ID.
You can try to correct my alleged mistakes wrt the theory of evolution but I know I can support all I claim about that also.
I have read considerably more than that, Joe. More to the point: I am addressing a specific argument, not “ID”. There may be perfectly good arguments for ID. I’m pointing out the flaws in the bad ones.
Well, I beg to differ.
It does not matter how many ID books you have read. Your comments reveal that you do not understand the paper we are discussing.
oleg- you don’t understand anything about ID- my comment was aboput ID and ID is more than just one paper from Dembski.
You can “beg to differ” all you want- the fact remains I have supported all my claims wrt the theory of evolution.
Also my post, the one you responded, pertained to ID.
And again, you should focus on the flaws in your position as opposed to the imagined flaws with ID. Ya see I pointed out the flaw in your example and you just ignored it.
ID claims that if we observe a pattern we should at least be able to check into what caused it. And if it is demonstrated that matter, energy, necessity and chance can explain it, then cool, at least we know.
But if it can’t then we should be able to at least consider the design inference and its ramifications.
That peratains to ID and is supported by all the ID literature.
BTW oleg- I doubt you understand the paper…
And still no evidence for “non-intelligent design”.
Reference please.
Try the Dembski paper that we’ve been talking about. Although he seems to have lowered the threshold slightly in that one. Elsewhere he puts it at 500 bits.
The “500” bits pertains to CSI- CSI as in computer programs, assembly instructions, encyclopedia articles and living organisms.
Actually, you can’t support your claims, you can only assert your claims, and your claims are mostly or all based on appeals to authority, including yours. You’re not an authority on anything.
Even when you’re attacking the theory of evolution you constantly appeal to authority. Dawkins said this, Darwin said that, some else said this, someone else said that, ……………. Who cares?
It’s one thing to give a person credit where it’s due but quite another to base your claims solely on who said what, and especially when what they said is just their opinion. For instance, in Elizabeth’s demonstration she is challenging and disproving Dembski’s calculations, regardless of who made them. If Dembski’s name were Bozo the clown the calculations and Elizabeth’s demonstration would still be the same. She only mentions his name because they’re his calculations and she only mentions herself in regard to her demonstration because it’s her demonstration, but she is not saying that her demonstration is authoritative or correct simply because she did it.
Unlike you she is using good science to refute bad science and everything she’s doing is there for anyone to see and test. You keep saying that she’s wrong but all you have are your bald assertions. Where’s your scientific, testable refutation of the method and results of her demonstration?
And when are you going to contact Dembski and have him speak for himself? Does he pay you to think for him and be his mouthpiece?
“we should at least be able to check into what caused it”
“we should be able to at least consider”
For the umpteenth time, NO ONE is stopping you from checking into or considering whatever you like. Just stop expecting science to accept your non-evidential considerations and assertions.
And, for the umpteenth time, science DOES check into what causes patterns and everything else as much as is humanly possible. What do you think scientists do every day, just sit around and twiddle their thumbs?
And WHO’S “we”?
creo:
And yet I have.
YOUR position lacks evidentiary support. That is why it isn’t science.
Who is we? The people that know materialism is nonsense because it lacks evidence.
I appeal to authoruty to refute the nonsense of the people who just don’t know and to support my claims.
Who or what else should I appeal to support my claims about what evolutionary biologists say about the ToE?
Her demonstration fails at the start for the reasons provided. And ignoring those reasons won’t make them go away.
No Granville doesn’t have to demonstrate anything- YOU need to demonstrate taht blind and undirected processes can do the things you claim they did.
ID can be tested and either confirmed or falsified. Unlike YOUR position it is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships.
And as I have been telling evos for years, you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for your position that isn’t full of equivocations.
Appeals to authority are fallacious.
You never “support” your claims.
Ignoring reality won’t make your religious beliefs or assertions true. IDC will never replace science. Get used to it.
And your evidence for the origin of the “intelligent designer” is….?
Since you’re on a first name basis with Granville, why don’t you ask him to come here and defend his assertions?
Don’t forget to get your buddy Dembski over here too.
How do you know the intelligent designer had an origin?
Creo:
Well there isn’t any evidence for your position so perhaps we don’t exist.
Already have- you obvioulsy don’t have any idea what evidence is.
Creo;
Nope- if your position had any answers then ID would fade away- IOW you are the one who is avoiding everything, including reality.
Already presented it- she ignored it, and obvioulsy you ignored it too.
Evidence, not rhetoric, is required in this case.
Strange that the whole world is still waiting for positive evidence for materialism.
LoL! You forgot to explain those “natural forces”- as far as you know they are artificial forces…
Nope. I appeal to authority to refute the nonsense of the people who just don’t know and to support my claims.
Who or what else should I appeal to support my claims about what evolutionary biologists say about the ToE?
from elsewhere: “The evidence for materialism is overwhelming. Nearly any aspect of the mind — temperament, memories, appetite, and so on — can be disrupted by damage to specific areas of the brain. Modern brain imaging techniques can even detect brain activity correlated with thought.”
What evidence do you have for non-materialism?
LoL! So a bald asserttion is evidence for materialism? And just because “Nearly any aspect of the mind — temperament, memories, appetite, and so on — can be disrupted by damage to specific areas of the brain.” does not mean materialism is supported.
Try again…
The whole world?
And now you’re appealing to the authority of the whole world?
LOL
Sorry Joe, it show us that things that we once thought were immaterial aren’t. You’ve yet to proffer anything that is. But then again, you never advance positive arguments.
LoL! Who thought the brain was immaterial?
But then again you always advance strawmen…
And Rich, you don’t have any idea what a positive argument is.
No. I am just saying that materialism doesn’t have any positive support.
However appealing to authority is much better than your appealing to your ignorance.
Sorry Joe, the starwman, or at least misunderstanding is yours:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)
Why don’t you show me a positive argument for ID, so I can see one?
I don’t think anyone says the “brain” is immaterial, but most ID advocates seem to think that mind is immaterial. Some have written books about it.
So the challenge would be to demonstrate the existence of a mind sans brain.
Joe G,
Please think about this.
Why do we hallucinate then when we are very tired?
If the brain and mind were separate, a tired brain may find concentration difficult, but a brain on its own should not be able to do what a separate mind does, and that is generate new “information” in the form of a hallucination.
If the brain could do this, there would be no use for a separate mind, since that functionality would be proven to exist in a brain on its own.
So, if we can generate mind functionality with the brain alone, that would seem to indicate that a separate mind does not exist.
Why do you avoid the question?
Who thought the brain was immaterial?
And you need to present positive evidence for your position so I will know what you will accept- I have already presented positive evidence for ID. Yet you can’t even produce a testable hypothesis for materialism.