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

Specified complexity

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The problem remains absolutely nothing has ever been found that not been objectively found to be not-naturally-caused.
    The start of the universe, the origin of life, the presence of valid human reasoning, for starters.

    It is not science and a circular definition to justify Intelligent Design...
    But how is Dembski's definition circular? I need to you reference his definition in your claim...

    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)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      It's valid because it reflects the process that SETI researchers and archaeologists go through when they're trying to detect design. And design can't be measured physically, to insist on that is a red herring...

      Blessings,
      Lee
      SETI goes through physical procedures to detect intelligent life that is natural like the evolution of life and humanity is natural. They are not looking for anything beyond the natural nature of our physical existence, just radio signals that would reflect an advanced civilization intelligence.

      The start of the universe, the origin of life, the presence of valid human reasoning, for starters.
      SETI does not search for this. IF SETI finds anything it can be measured and determined naturally as from an intelligent source in our physical existence subject to the came natural laws as us..
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-12-2019, 05:11 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


      • #18
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        The start of the universe, the origin of life, the presence of valid human reasoning, for starters.

        But how is Dembski's definition circular? I need to you reference his definition in your claim...

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/intelligent-design-arguments-4134446



        The argument: Popularized in the 1990's by William Dembski, specified complexity is a fairly incoherent argument for intelligent design, but we'll do our best. Essentially begging the question, Dembski proposes that the strings of amino acids comprising DNA contain too much information to have arisen by natural causes, and therefore must have been designed. (By way of analogy, Dembski says, "A single letter of the alphabet is specified but not complex. A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.") Dembski invents a concept, the "universal probability bound," for any phenomenon that has less than one in a googol chance of occurring naturally and therefore must be complex, specified, and designed.

        ​Why it's flawed: Like the similarly sciency-sounding "irreducible complexity" (see slide #3), specified complexity is a theory supported by virtually no evidence. Basically, Dembski is asking us to accept his definition of biological complexity, but that definition is formulated in a circular fashion, so that he's assuming his own conclusions. Also, scientists and mathematicians have pointed out that Dembski uses the words "complexity," "improbability" and "information" in very loose ways, and that his analyses of biological complexity are far from rigorous. You can gauge the truth of this accusation yourself by Dembski's widely disseminated rebuttal, that he is "not in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity."

        © Copyright Original Source

        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          It's valid because it reflects the process that SETI researchers and archaeologists go through when they're trying to detect design. And design can't be measured physically, to insist on that is a red herring...
          As we already went through, it's not the same process. "Reflects the process" is meaningless verbiage just intended to make a connection that doesn't actually exist.

          And not being able to measure something is not a red herring. It means it's not science.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/intelligent-design-arguments-4134446


            ​Basically, Dembski is asking us to accept his definition of biological complexity, but that definition is formulated in a circular fashion, so that he's assuming his own conclusions.

            © Copyright Original Source

            And I need you to tell me why his definition is circular--not simply to state that it is.

            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)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
              As we already went through, it's not the same process. "Reflects the process" is meaningless verbiage just intended to make a connection that doesn't actually exist.
              So how does a jury detect design in a trial? What steps would they go through?

              And not being able to measure something is not a red herring. It means it's not science.
              Archaeologists would say otherwise, how do you measure the probability that a pot is designed?

              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)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                So how does a jury detect design in a trial? What steps would they go through?


                Archaeologists would say otherwise, how do you measure the probability that a pot is designed?
                In both cases, by knowing a lot about the capabilities and motivations of the people doing the designing, as we also discussed - and you conceded - above. (You're running around in circles at this point.) If we know about the capabilities of an individual or society, then we can perform measurements to determine whether an object is within the range of what they could do.

                Also, SETI and archeology use completely unrelated methods and conceptual underpinnings for their work. The fact that you're using both as arguments for the same thing illustrates just how little you've thought about your own position.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  So how does a jury detect design in a trial? What steps would they go through?
                  Juries detect natural design based on natural evidence provided by humans, and humans are naturally designed.

                  Archaeologists would say otherwise, how do you measure the probability that a pot is designed?
                  Naturally designed by humans.

                  None of the examples you have provided go beyond simple natural design by humans, which are naturally designed.

                  No notions of Intelligent Design beyond this.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee[/QUOTE]
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-14-2019, 11:00 AM.
                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    In both cases, by knowing a lot about the capabilities and motivations of the people doing the designing, as we also discussed - and you conceded - above. (You're running around in circles at this point.) If we know about the capabilities of an individual or society, then we can perform measurements to determine whether an object is within the range of what they could do.
                    By knowing the capabilities of designers, then?

                    Also, SETI and archeology use completely unrelated methods and conceptual underpinnings for their work.
                    But you dodged the point, these areas do not use thermometers to gauge whether a pot is designed.

                    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)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Juries detect natural design based on natural evidence provided by humans, and humans are naturally designed.
                      I'm not sure what you are saying here...

                      None of the examples you have provided go beyond simple natural design by humans, which are naturally designed.
                      Well, SETI is looking for non-human design, though.

                      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)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        By knowing the capabilities of designers, then?
                        Right - so if we don't know of any designer or their capabilities, it's an impossible issue to address scientifically.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But you dodged the point, these areas do not use thermometers to gauge whether a pot is designed.
                        We can measure the chemistry of ceramics, the pigments used, etc. etc. etc. But only because we know humans make ceramics, use pigments, and so on.

                        But that's only archeology, not SETI. SETI, as i said, has a completely different underlying conceptual framework, and doesn't work this way at all.

                        Why is this so hard for you? I could just repost the same thing over and over, and it would be an appropriate response every other page.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          I'm not sure what you are saying here...
                          Juries detect natural design based on natural evidence provided by humans, and humans are naturally designed.

                          There is no effort here to detect design outside what naturally occurs in the human world.

                          Well, SETI is looking for non-human design, though.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          . . . but not outside what an 'intelligent source' would occur naturally in our physical existence.

                          Natural equivalent to an intelligent source, and nothing beyond what would occur naturally.
                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                            Also, SETI and archeology use completely unrelated methods and conceptual underpinnings for their work. The fact that you're using both as arguments for the same thing illustrates just how little you...
                            ...know about either.
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                              Right - so if we don't know of any designer or their capabilities, it's an impossible issue to address scientifically.
                              Certainly, but if man is in the image of God, then we can look for designs that a super-human designer might do.

                              We can measure the chemistry of ceramics, the pigments used, etc. etc. etc. But only because we know humans make ceramics, use pigments, and so on.
                              But we can't quantify design physically.

                              SETI, as i said, has a completely different underlying conceptual framework, and doesn't work this way at all.
                              They are looking for a sine-wave signal, which would indicate intentionality, and design.

                              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)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                . . . but not outside what an 'intelligent source' would occur naturally in our physical existence.

                                Natural equivalent to an intelligent source, and nothing beyond what would occur naturally.
                                But if man is in the image of God, then we could look for design analogous to human design.

                                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)

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 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
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X