Tweet
Originally posted by Seeker
View Post
Blessings,
Lee
-
The bare claim was made many times that it is circular.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney) -
This is most definitely case for your posts and arguments for Intelligent Design' since this discussion began as well as other threads on the subject.Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
This is the reason your arguments have been refuted, and ah . . . no science.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
-
Not hard at all to see why you earned the nickname 'Dory".Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
Comment
-
I guess my doubt with this whole issue is with the use of the word ''specified''. For example, when Carl Wieland says: ''I.e. it [Specified Complexity] normally refers to the specificity of an enzyme, which is coded for by DNA, and is not looking at the DNA itself'', is he using the word specificity in the sense of some substrate-enzyme relationship, or is he simply using the word as a substitute for ''design''?
Hope my question is clear enough.Last edited by Seeker; 04-07-2019, 09:13 PM.Comment
-
Your bare naked circular claims have been refuted many times, particularly by The Lurch.Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostGlendower: 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
-
No. They mean the nucleotide or amino-acid sequence was specified in advance. They don't have this advance specification, however.Originally posted by Seeker View Post
This isn't a problem for the IDers, since they just assume that the specification was known to "the designer". But it is a problem if they want to convince anyone else, since their probability arguments on gene/protein sequences then become circular since they are dependent on their conclusion.
They occasionally try to claim that the specification is inherent in the function of the gene/protein they are looking at, but that doesn't work either - partly because there are far more possible sequences that will fulfil that function than the extant one they run the probability calculations for, but mostly because they also lack any advance specification for functionality.Last edited by Roy; 04-08-2019, 04:19 AM.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
-
Great insightful post!!!!Originally posted by Roy View PostGlendower: 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
-
As far as legitimate science goes intuitive notions are anecdotal, subjective and not falsifiable as hypothesis.Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostGlendower: 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
-
Thanks, but what I am asking is if this notion of ''specificity'' is a falsifable hypothesis -- i. e. has it been proven false?Originally posted by Roy View PostComment
-
As used by the advocates of ID it could not be subject to falsification because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence. It is a hypothetical based on the existence of a n Intelligent Designer, which than again becomes terribly circular.Originally posted by Seeker View Post
I cited in the distant past where 'specified complexity' in life is a legitimate hypothesis, but in this case to falsify and define what is life and what is not.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-08-2019, 08:07 PM.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
-
But no less subject to falsification than the non-existence of an intelligent designer.Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛Comment
-
I do not believe you can draw that conclusion without seeing the proposal for the hypothesis. I may post again. The hypothesis I am referring to simply defines the point where abiogenesis ends and evolution begins.Originally posted by tabibito View Post
The existence nor the non-existence of an Intelligent designer is not falsifiable unless one can falsify that something, ie life, cannot be from natural processes determined by the laws of nature.Last edited by shunyadragon; 04-08-2019, 08:59 PM.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
-
True, chance and randomness do not determine the outcome of any event including my posts. They are only layman's words to describe the variation in the outcome of events as unpredictable.Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostGlendower: 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
-
No one is obliged to prove a non-existence of anything. Come on, this is Philosophy 101.Originally posted by tabibito View PostComment
-
If it is a matter of mere philosophy, nothing has to be proven.Originally posted by Seeker View Post1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛Comment
Comment