Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Yet MORE evidence for design ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And yet in spite of these "multiple hundreds of books and thousands of papers have been published since the 1980's" on it, you still managed to somehow forget to include one example.
    I'm really struck that, in a discussion entitled "more evidence for design", the discussion starter appears unwilling to describe what the evidence is.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      I put 'worship' in quotes for a reason. The fact remains that all people follow a certain position ... dedicate their lives to it ... commit resources to it ... fight for it ... vote for it ... defend it ... wherever else you want to go with this. You do this for your Atheism and to deny that is to deny yourself (at least to deny what you claim you believe in).
      I don't believe I contested this at any point. I vote for the people who support the principles I support. I don't carry money around (unless I absolutely have to) because I don't enjoy passing a small religious business card around each time I make a transaction. I fight for the rights of the LGBTQ community because I detest bigotry and prejudice. Of course I fight for the things I believe in, and they are many. That doesn't mean I worship any of these things.

      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      When are you going to humble yourself and accept this all-too-obvious fact? Ever?
      It doesn't require humility - and I think I just did.

      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      In my decades of dealings with Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists they rabidly deny their religious stance because they cannot retreat one inch, to do so would be (as once said) to "allow the Holy Foot into the door" --- and this they cannot allow to happen. So your attitude of denial is something that I've seen hundreds of times before.

      Jorge
      I have no idea what you are referring to here. Many (most?) atheists reject the idea that they live by faith. I do not. I clearly have a stand on religions (since most are grounded in the concept of a god, I believe they are (at least partially) not grounded in reality. I simply reject your use of the word "religion" as you use it. IMO, it strips the word of any real meaning.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #33
        Still waiting for new evidence for Intelligence Design.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          The video was embedded in a lot of text, in case you hadn't noticed. None of which provided any evidence of design. Nor did the papers. And that is why i said "no mention".

          You're claiming there's evidence - why don't you summarize what it is? Or do you not understand the biology well enough to be able to?

          (NB if you try: i was a developmental biologist for most of my scientific career.)
          Fine, you were a "developmental biologist" but you were not an information theorist, which is the background needed to 'see' design in these results. My ongoing work is in that area. You ask me to "summarize" it. That's a nearly impossible task. It would be like asking a person to "summarize" modern physics (including relativity and quantum mechanics) --- nothing short of a dissertation would be required so that such a "summary" makes any sense.

          But so you walk away with something let me give you this: in my work (GIT - Global Information Theory), material entities are mass-energy in a specific pattern. Those patterns become objects that are 'translated' by other material entities - a 'translation' that equates to an expression of function and/or meaning. In the organism C. Elagans (as in all other organisms) this is observed time and again. The question isn't that there is a mass-energy pattern, the question is, how does that pattern come about - what is the directing mechanism? Materialistic Evolutionists would say that there is no "director", no "designer" - it's simply unguided nature acting upon mass-energy. That is simply not possible! Why? Because there are countless formal mechanisms involved in the development of C. Elagans and raw mass-energy does not have the capacity to provide formal elements (only physical elements). Formal elements are 100% essential in order to achieve complex function and fulfill purpose. Raw mass-energy does not and cannot 'look forward' towards any goal - simple or complex - especially goals that are unimaginably complex, as those observed in C. Elegans.

          In my work (as well as other works) the above is rationally argued and 'demonstrated' (at least as far as it is possible to demonstrate these things).

          If a person wishes to believe (that's the operative word) other than what I am stating here, that's fine - I have no problem with that. As long as they recognize and confess their beliefs they are entitled to those beliefs every bit as much as everyone else. But that's the problem - they want to say that their position is "100% science-based", not BELIEF-based (as is in fact the case). That's the root of the problem.

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Fine, you were a "developmental biologist" but you were not an information theorist, which is the background needed to 'see' design in these results. My ongoing work is in that area. You ask me to "summarize" it. That's a nearly impossible task. It would be like asking a person to "summarize" modern physics (including relativity and quantum mechanics) --- nothing short of a dissertation would be required so that such a "summary" makes any sense.
            I don't doubt that information theory would apply to the genetic networks governing developmental biology. But, unless you can specifically show how it does - directly connect the two - then there's no way of telling whether you have the math right, whether it's abstracted from the physical goings on properly, etc.

            Put differently, it's really easy to produce mathematical models that recapitulate some of the things that happen in biological systems, and people were really excited about being able to do so once computing power increased enough in the early 90s (the focus was getting gene expression in stripes on fly embryos back then). Every single one of those models turned out to be wrong. It's not that the math or physics underlying them was wrong; it's just that biology did things differently, there were some aspects of the biology we didn't know about yet and so weren't modeled, etc. So, i'd like to see some indication that the information theory actually reflects the underlying biology.

            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            But so you walk away with something let me give you this: in my work (GIT - Global Information Theory), material entities are mass-energy in a specific pattern. Those patterns become objects that are 'translated' by other material entities - a 'translation' that equates to an expression of function and/or meaning. In the organism C. Elagans (as in all other organisms) this is observed time and again. The question isn't that there is a mass-energy pattern, the question is, how does that pattern come about - what is the directing mechanism? Materialistic Evolutionists would say that there is no "director", no "designer" - it's simply unguided nature acting upon mass-energy. That is simply not possible! Why? Because there are countless formal mechanisms involved in the development of C. Elagans and raw mass-energy does not have the capacity to provide formal elements (only physical elements). Formal elements are 100% essential in order to achieve complex function and fulfill purpose. Raw mass-energy does not and cannot 'look forward' towards any goal - simple or complex - especially goals that are unimaginably complex, as those observed in C. Elegans.
            Can you share some references that show this applying to developmental biology?
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              But so you walk away with something let me give you this: in my work (GIT - Global Information Theory), material entities are mass-energy in a specific pattern. Those patterns become objects that are 'translated' by other material entities - a 'translation' that equates to an expression of function and/or meaning.
              Clearly is including his 'conclusions' in his definitions.

              I wonder how the above applies to, say, rivers?
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I don't believe I contested this at any point. I vote for the people who support the principles I support. I don't carry money around (unless I absolutely have to) because I don't enjoy passing a small religious business card around each time I make a transaction. I fight for the rights of the LGBTQ community because I detest bigotry and prejudice. Of course I fight for the things I believe in, and they are many. That doesn't mean I worship any of these things.
                Hmmm ... that explains a lot.

                And stop creating ridiculous Straw Men. I also don't 'worship' many things that I support. That wasn't the message; you're distorting the meaning of my words. That too is a common Atheist tactic.

                In a nutshell: when you "support the rights of the LGBTQ community" or the rights of a woman to have an abortion or any one of similar things you are adopting a RELIGIOUS stance since these things ultimately involve life, morality and whether or not there is any accountability for our actions. Whether or not you are aware of this is besides the point. As for the 'worship' part : our life reflects our beliefs. Expand the notion of 'worship'. Here's an online dictionary result: "worship: adoring reverence or regard" as in "excessive worship of business success." Some people "worship" the "almighty dollar" ... some people "worship" their lifestyle, their children, their possessions, etc.

                If you are unable to expand / mature your thinking then let's just stop here.



                It doesn't require humility - and I think I just did.
                You just did? Really? So you are accepting / confessing that you are as religious as a Buddhist Monk or as a Fundamentalist Christian? If so then, good - you are correct!


                I have no idea what you are referring to here. Many (most?) atheists reject the idea that they live by faith. I do not. I clearly have a stand on religions (since most are grounded in the concept of a god, I believe they are (at least partially) not grounded in reality. I simply reject your use of the word "religion" as you use it. IMO, it strips the word of any real meaning.
                Once again - it is not "religion as I use it" -- it is "religion" as per the conclusions/consensus of those that have studied the term for centuries. It is sophomoric to define "religion" solely in terms of a "Supreme Being" (or "God"). Many recognized religions do not have a "god" --- Buddhism, Secular Humanism, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, ......... others.

                You are so far behind these matters that you actually think you're ahead. Instead of continuing to repeat ignorance, take the time to educate yourself on the subject. I've just been trying to help.

                Jorge
                Last edited by Jorge; 05-23-2018, 06:29 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  I don't doubt that information theory would apply to the genetic networks governing developmental biology. But, unless you can specifically show how it does - directly connect the two - then there's no way of telling whether you have the math right, whether it's abstracted from the physical goings on properly, etc.

                  Put differently, it's really easy to produce mathematical models that recapitulate some of the things that happen in biological systems, and people were really excited about being able to do so once computing power increased enough in the early 90s (the focus was getting gene expression in stripes on fly embryos back then). Every single one of those models turned out to be wrong. It's not that the math or physics underlying them was wrong; it's just that biology did things differently, there were some aspects of the biology we didn't know about yet and so weren't modeled, etc. So, i'd like to see some indication that the information theory actually reflects the underlying biology.


                  Can you share some references that show this applying to developmental biology?
                  Maths in these areas are way overrated. How can anyone mathematically-model something that isn't understood except maybe a bit and at the most primitive level? A very few things can be put to maths (people such as Dembski, Marks, et al. and I have done so) but what you are asking for has not and will not be done - not for at least several generations after ours.

                  You seem to be employing a common tactic - "since you can't show me the maths then you must be wrong". That is just more Materialistic nonsense (and it's also less-than-honest, but we won't go there). Look at the TOTAL picture instead of trying to sort out the minute details and demanding that unless those minute details are provided then it "can't be right". By the way, it always 'amuses' me the level of the "proof" bar that Darwinists set for others compared to the level of the "proof" bar that Darwinists set for themselves. The former is at the height of Mt. Everest; the latter may be jumped by a turtle.

                  Lastly, the references you ask for (your last question) are clearly not available because my work is in progress. Also, your question is far too broad and ambiguous. I mean, "show this applying to developmental biology" --- say what? I would like to see the focused, well-defined version of your question - what you're looking for. Perhaps I can answer it now or later.

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Hmmm ... that explains a lot.

                    And stop creating ridiculous Straw Men. I also don't 'worship' many things that I support. That wasn't the message; you're distorting the meaning of my words. That too is a common Atheist tactic.

                    In a nutshell: when you "support the rights of the LGBTQ community" or the rights of a woman to have an abortion or any one of similar things you are adopting a RELIGIOUS stance since these things ultimately involve life, morality and whether or not there is any accountability for our actions. Whether or not you are aware of this is besides the point. As for the 'worship' part : our life reflects our beliefs. Expand the notion of 'worship'. Here's an online dictionary result: "worship: adoring reverence or regard" as in "excessive worship of business success." Some people "worship" the "almighty dollar" ... some people "worship" their lifestyle, their children, their possessions, etc.
                    So now we know we have different definitions of "religious" and "worship."

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    If you are unable to expand / mature your thinking then let's just stop here.
                    Jorge - do you have any other posting mode than "acerbic?" It is not a lack of maturity to disagree with you.

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    You just did? Really? So you are accepting / confessing that you are as religious as a Buddhist Monk or as a Fundamentalist Christian? If so then, good - you are correct!
                    No - I am accepting that I support things, that I have ideals, and that I find certain things important. I cannot think of anything I worship and I am not part of a religion of any kind. I have opinions about religions, and I have opinions about religious topics. But that doesn't make me a member of a religion or religious any more than having opinions about the KKK makes me a member of the KKK or having an opinion about scientific topics makes me a scientist.

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Once again - it is not "religion as I use it" -- it is "religion" as per the conclusions/consensus of those that have studied the term for centuries. It is sophomoric to define "religion" solely in terms of a "Supreme Being" (or "God"). Many recognized religions do not have a "god" --- Buddhism, Secular Humanism, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, ......... others.
                    Actually, this is a very good point. I only provided the first definition of religion: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.." There are secondary definitions including "a particular system of faith and worship." The secondary definition covers those religions that do not have a supreme being (though I am pretty sure all of them center on a controlling power of some sort. Not 100% on that since I am not an expert in all of humanity's religions). There is also a tertiary definition, which I suspect you will like: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. The most important thing to me is my wife and my two boys, but I would hardly call my relationship to them worshipful (though my wife does make a sausage parmesan that I come close to worshiping.)

                    Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    You are so far behind these matters that you actually think you're ahead. Instead of continuing to repeat ignorance, take the time to educate yourself on the subject. I've just been trying to help.

                    Jorge
                    Jorge, my impression is that, mostly, what you seem to like to do is insult people and condescend to them. And then you fairly regularly complain about how you are treated by "atheists." I don't believe I have done any of those things to you, and yet the jibes and insults are present in pretty much every post you make.

                    It's your choice, of course, if that's how you want to engage. After a while, however, I'll probably move on.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Maths in these areas are way overrated. How can anyone mathematically-model something that isn't understood except maybe a bit and at the most primitive level? A very few things can be put to maths (people such as Dembski, Marks, et al. and I have done so) but what you are asking for has not and will not be done - not for at least several generations after ours.

                      You seem to be employing a common tactic - "since you can't show me the maths then you must be wrong". That is just more Materialistic nonsense (and it's also less-than-honest, but we won't go there). Look at the TOTAL picture instead of trying to sort out the minute details and demanding that unless those minute details are provided then it "can't be right". By the way, it always 'amuses' me the level of the "proof" bar that Darwinists set for others compared to the level of the "proof" bar that Darwinists set for themselves. The former is at the height of Mt. Everest; the latter may be jumped by a turtle.
                      Look, i'm not asking for the total picture. Let me explain how this conversation appears to me.

                      Jorge: See? Developmental biology is evidence for design!
                      Me: What is the actual evidence?
                      Jorge: You have to know information theory to understand it.
                      Me: How does information theory apply to developmental biology?
                      Jorge: It'll take generations to get there.

                      Me, now: If we're generations away from actually describing how information theory applies to developmental biology, how can developmental biology provide evidence you're right?

                      This, to me, does not seem like nitpicking details. This seems to be getting at the fundamental core of your argument. If you can't apply this to developmental biology yet, then developmental biology cannot possibly provide evidence that you're right.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        Clearly is including his 'conclusions' in his definitions.

                        I wonder how the above applies to, say, rivers?
                        I think the whole river fiasco plays a key role in Jorge's reluctance to provide even the simplest explanations

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                        48 responses
                        136 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                        16 responses
                        74 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                        6 responses
                        48 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Working...
                        X