tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7282993683896116973..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: How to Obtain a Fair ResultUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8548158426716279342013-04-08T22:22:29.539-07:002013-04-08T22:22:29.539-07:00denial Adger revolution, and later negation of all...denial Adger revolution, and later negation of all the peasant <a href="http://www.honeybuy.com/c/Cocktail-Dresses" rel="nofollow"><strong>cocktail dresses</strong></a> revolution, because the revolution is in front of Adger said the kind of unprecedented brutal massacre. I believe that these two perspectives are not necessarily in line with the intention of a. a neither Adger as a model for peasant revolution, but also did not Adger imagine so brutal. Emotional attitudes of backward Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60166653235735176822013-02-16T05:24:33.254-08:002013-02-16T05:24:33.254-08:00Want to see something interesting? Go to the page ...Want to see something interesting? Go to the page from the link below and scroll down to the February 16th comment by John Pieret.<br /><br />http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2013/02/14/the-discovery-institute-feels-sorry-for-my-students/#comment-12018The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31249442305704817072013-02-15T22:13:22.892-08:002013-02-15T22:13:22.892-08:00You always lie, or just in comments threads? Spe...You always lie, or just in comments threads? Specified complexity has not been observed to arise from a natural source EVER. Nor has irreducibly complexity been debunked by Darwinists. People will make up fairy tales about some supposed way that evolution "built" an irreducibly complex system. They are not from observation nor do they make sense. From the human eye to the flagellum of e.coli to the process of photosynthesis, there are so many interdependent, complex, irreducible and inexplicable unless designed processes and systems that no one person could name them all in a lifetime. <br /><br />The Law of Biogenesis precludes life forming naturally. The Laws of Thermodynamics assert that evolution will actually be devolution, and that is what is observed. The Laws of statistics make the odds of life developing from non-life as statistically impossible even if it could happen. But the "building blocks" of life cannot exist in the wild. DNA can live in a cell but not in a mud puddle.<br /><br />We see a watch, as Paley observed, and we can easily identify it was designed. But the watch not only must be designed and built, it must be set and wound. Ability, intentionality and intelligence are involved in making a watch. How much more for a Universe? It is God. We do not get anything from "oops." In fact, you need a material Universe before there is either time or a thing to somehow explode into everything!radarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08009074315229001910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55538892090392353612013-02-14T19:30:49.273-08:002013-02-14T19:30:49.273-08:00natschuster
Complexity means that there is a lot ...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Complexity means that there is a lot of different stuff there. Specified complexity means that only a few out of many combinations work. </i><br /><br />Go ahead and show all the combinations of DNA/proteins that "work" and "don't work." Be sure to explain how you arrived at the figures.<br /><br /><i>It's hard to get specified complexity without design because probability is working against you.</i><br /><br />Go ahead and show the probability calculations for biological life then. Be sure they include the effects on the outcome caused by the iterative feedback nature of evolutionary processes.<br /><br />Like I said, "specified complexity" is a meaningless bullcrap term invented by Creationists to sound "sciencey". It has <b>zero</b> relevance to anything in actual biology.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40587763877700915342013-02-14T18:54:28.833-08:002013-02-14T18:54:28.833-08:00Complexity means that there is a lot of different ...Complexity means that there is a lot of different stuff there. Specified complexity means that only a few out of many combinations work. It's hard to get specified complexity without design because probability is working against you.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24320376856365109042013-02-14T18:28:36.622-08:002013-02-14T18:28:36.622-08:00Natschuster
But if they have things that are real...<i>Natschuster<br /><br />But if they have things that are really hard to make like highly specified complexity, irreducible complexity, functional integration of parts, etc. then we can say, if it looks designed, then it was designed.</i><br /><br />Why? "Specified complexity", "complex specified information", "digital functional specified complex information" and all the other alphabet soup nonsense IDiots came up with are all meaningless undefined buzz-terms that have zero relevance in the real scientific world. <br /><br />It's been empirically demonstrated that the other two features you list can be produced by naturally occurring evolutionary processes. <br /><br />Sorry, you're 0 for 3. You need some external metric other than an object itself to determine design.<br /><br />Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47162352473115698832013-02-14T07:20:33.484-08:002013-02-14T07:20:33.484-08:00Carolus L
The battleship may be designed by alien...<i>Carolus L<br /><br />The battleship may be designed by aliens - ever seen SF movies?</i><br /><br />The 'battleships' in SF movies were all designed by humans. They're human creations based on human concepts of what an alien ship would look like. You have no idea what a real 'alien' design would look like because you've never see one.<br /><br /><i>Allow me to quote William J Murray once again:</i><br /><br />Allow me to reiterate: With all due respects, William J Murray is a clueless idiot. All he's done is add a bunch of meaningless verbiage to the completely <b>subjective</b> "This looks designed to me!" He's still just advocating pattern matching against things already in his mental database, like a battleship.<br /><br />You guys are still hung up on the idea "if something is complex it must have been consciously designed" which is demonstrably false. Complex things <b>can</b> be the product of design, but they don't <b>have</b> to be. The fact is we know of at least one other way for complex things to arise - simple feedback loops with imperfect self-replicators filtered by selection and carrying forward heritable traits. That is exactly what we see in natural evolutionary processes. <br /><br /> Until you figure out how to differentiate between the results of the two <b>which takes outside information</b> you are forever destined to get false positives in your "it looks designed to me" claims. <br /><br />What steps <b>do</b> you take to guard against false positives, claiming conscious design when there is none?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37299160008078710092013-02-14T04:06:49.907-08:002013-02-14T04:06:49.907-08:00Thorton: "You can only identify a battleship ...Thorton: <i>"You can only identify a battleship as being human created because you have seen many previous examplesof human technology"</i>. <br /><br />You keep stressing 'human'. I would like to encourage you to think more out of the box. The battleship may be designed by aliens - ever seen SF movies?<br /><br />Thorton: <i>"During WW2 in Papua New Guinea there were natives who had never seen any motorized transportation before and who though airplanes were big strange living birds"</i>.<br /><br />If the natives would have been allowed an up close inspection of the airplanes would they persist in their first erroneous assessment?<br /><br />Thorton: <i>"Say you're an astronaut who lands on a new (to you) planet. In front of you are two objects that look like rocks. You find a note from a previous astronaut that says one of the objects is naturally occurring, the other is a designed statue of the local God VFHYRRESDE.</i>. <br /><br />Allow me to quote William J Murray once again: "Some have argued that we only “recognize” human design, and that such recognition may not translate to the intelligent design of non-human intelligence. The easy answer to that is that first, we do not always recognize the product of human design. In fact, we often design things to have a natural appearance. That we may not recognize all intelligent design is a given and simply skirts the issue of that which we can recognize." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39346210218415217282013-02-14T00:35:49.444-08:002013-02-14T00:35:49.444-08:00Ha! What a comprehensive and persuasive argument. ...Ha! What a comprehensive and persuasive argument. That's truly put me in my place.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72015859923988194052013-02-13T20:29:21.687-08:002013-02-13T20:29:21.687-08:00natschuster
Something that was designed can be ma...<i>natschuster<br /><br />Something that was designed can be made to look like it wasn't designed. </i><br /><br />So you can't tell if an object was designed or not just by looking at it. Got it.<br /><br /><i>But something that wasn't designed will probably not have some of the characteristics of designed things.</i><br /><br />Please list all the characteristics a designed thing must have.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23682136519534913002013-02-13T20:02:13.459-08:002013-02-13T20:02:13.459-08:00Thorton:
Something that was designed can be made ...Thorton:<br /><br />Something that was designed can be made to look like it wasn't designed. But something that wasn't designed will probably not have some of the characteristics of designed things. natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70344443853649203992013-02-13T18:52:22.640-08:002013-02-13T18:52:22.640-08:00With all due respects, William J Murray is a cluel...With all due respects, William J Murray is a clueless idiot. Humans identify design by pattern matching the unknown object to an <b>existing known-to-be-designed example.</b> <br /><br />You can only identify a battleship as being human created because you have seen many previous examples of human technology and metalworking. During WW2 in Papua New Guinea there were natives who had never seen any motorized transportation before and who though airplanes were big strange living birds<br /><br />Dembski's equally stupid "you'd know Mt. Rushmore when you see it" is the same thing. You can only identify a design when you've seen the designer's handiwork and capabilities before.<br /><br />Say you're an astronaut who lands on a new (to you) planet. In front of you are <a href="http://www.vonbartha.net/smcclure/images/currently_available/stones/BC_McClure_north01_1000.jpg" rel="nofollow">two objects</a> that look like rocks. You find a note from a previous astronaut that says one of the objects is naturally occurring, the other is a designed statue of the local God VFHYRRESDE. <br /><br />Please describe how you would determine which is which <b>by just examining the objects themselves</b> and with no other external knowledge.<br /><br />Or tell me in the previous photo I posted which of the objects is human made, and how you can tell.<br /><br />I answered your questions, now please answer mine.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20040389768007658482013-02-13T18:21:21.274-08:002013-02-13T18:21:21.274-08:00This subject was discussed at uncommondecent. The ...This subject was discussed at <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-argument-for-intelligent-design/" rel="nofollow">uncommondecent</a>. The author, William J Murray, wrote in the comment section: <i>"I’ve had people actually argue that there is no way to determine if such an alien artifact was the product of ID or not without being able to find and interview the alien designers themselves. They are so intent (perhaps, in some cases, subconsciously) on maintaining a firewall between theism and science that they will advance any argument or criticism no matter how obviously invalid or untrue it is."</i> <br /><i>"What dispassionate onlookers should note, IMO, is this is what the ID community is dealing with deep inside those arguments about protein landscapes, islands of function and information creation, transcription and use; their opposition (atheistic, materialist darwinists) will often not even admit that there is, even in principle, a quantifiable difference, in terms of intelligent design, between a battleship and a pile of rocks.<br /><br />Once again: how can anyone expect to have an intellectually honest and productive debate about ID with those that deny this, and when called on it, are content to say “I have no idea if such a difference can be quantified” or “Nope, I’m not going to answer those questions.”</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61428902312582735582013-02-13T18:05:53.325-08:002013-02-13T18:05:53.325-08:00Carolus L
Can you tell the difference between a b...<i>Carolus L<br /><br />Can you tell the difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks?</i><br /><br />I can tell the difference between two differently shaped object. I have no idea which one is "battleship" and which is "rock" without previous knowledge of human design and how humans identify such objects.<br /><br />You need external knowledge beyond the object itself before you can identify design. There's no getting around it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49594917152439058402013-02-13T17:20:02.109-08:002013-02-13T17:20:02.109-08:00I repeat my question:
Can you tell the difference ...I repeat my question:<br />Can you tell the difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks? You have no idea who made it - maybe aliens. You also have no idea how it is made.<br />But can you tell the difference?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82075415740595627502013-02-13T16:37:48.797-08:002013-02-13T16:37:48.797-08:00Carolus L
You obviously know what I am getting at...<i>Carolus L<br /><br />You obviously know what I am getting at. So you know that the answer you have just given is the only chance for your position. But tell me ... how does it feel to have no choice but to deny the obvious?</i><br /><br />You just said to assume no knowledge of humans or human design processes. I want to know how you identified the object as a battleship, or any sort of human design at all <b>without using any external knowledge of humans and their capabilities.</b><br /><br />You guys are suppose to be able to tell "design" just from the object itself, not from any prior knowledge of the designers, their capabilities, their processes. <b>Just from the object itself.</b><br /><br />Looks like you can't do it. Why don't you tell me which object in the picture I posted is man made. What's the problem? Do you need some external knowledge to make the determination?<br /><br />Thanks for highlighting a huge logical weakness in the ID position. You're claiming that biological life is designed merely from the fact that it *superficially* resembles something a human designer might do. But you have no justification for that logical leap. You have no idea what actual "designed" life looks like to compare to.<br /><br />Science is well aware of the huge hole in IDC logic, even if IDCers are still in denial.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-10069783189770316362013-02-13T16:35:46.067-08:002013-02-13T16:35:46.067-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35582537418120154662013-02-13T16:14:47.513-08:002013-02-13T16:14:47.513-08:00Thorton: "How do you know it's a battlesh...Thorton: "How do you know it's a battleship if you have no knowledge of humans or human design processes?"<br />You obviously know what I am getting at. So you know that the answer you have just given is the only chance for your position. But tell me ... how does it feel to have no choice but to deny the obvious?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87199722470159779602013-02-13T15:46:21.652-08:002013-02-13T15:46:21.652-08:00Louis -
He's wrong about consciousness...
A...Louis - <br /><br /><b>He's wrong about consciousness...</b><br /><br />And what are you basing that on, exactly? The fact that you think you know better?<br /><br /><b>Be a man, goddammit. Why pretend that you did not find it implausible that 99% of scientists could be wrong about a field of science? That was your stupid point.</b><br /><br />Thank you for informing me what my own point was. Geeze, arrogance, much?<br /><br />My point was ACTUALLY that science is provisional and evidence based. What we hold as the best theories we possess today may indeed be proved wrong tomorrow. And there is no shame in that. Because even as each theory is falsified, we learn a little more and science progresses. Which is the name of the game.<br /><br />But that is done by presenting evidence. You have to actually make a case. And if you (Biblke-thumping armchair intellectual that you are) think you have a case and 99% of professionals (people whose job it is to know exactly this sort of thing) think you haven't then the odds don't look good for you, matey.<br /><br />THAT was my point. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.<br /><br /><b>LOL. A huge part of the Bible consist of metaphorical narratives. If you don't understand the meaning of those metaphors, isn't it obvious that they were not written for you.</b><br /><br />Translation: "Everything is in the Bible, as long as you INTERPRET it correctly."<br /><br />A book that needs interpretation is useless. Because different people will interpret it differently. Which is no bloody good to anyone. They can't all be right.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85512168881174906782013-02-13T15:06:34.683-08:002013-02-13T15:06:34.683-08:00Carolus L
Do you think that that there is a diffe...<i>Carolus L<br /><br />Do you think that that there is a difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks - without any knowledge of the designer or the designing process?</i><br /><br />How do you know it's a battleship if you have no knowledge of humans or human design processes?<br /><br />One of the objects in this photo is man made<br /><br /><a href="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6183/6101258619_14d1b44be6_b.jpg" rel="nofollow">stones</a><br /><br />Which one is it, and how did you tell?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46828885587803693712013-02-13T14:40:48.651-08:002013-02-13T14:40:48.651-08:00@Thorton
Do you think that that there is a differ...@Thorton <br />Do you think that that there is a difference between a battleship and a pile of rocks - without any knowledge of the designer or the designing process? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04694840643392968116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21174423703188819762013-02-13T14:13:17.361-08:002013-02-13T14:13:17.361-08:00Tedford the Slow
Another example of how ToE leads...<i>Tedford the Slow<br /><br />Another example of how ToE leads to muddled thinking. Perhaps to save face, someday evolutionists will actually embrace ID, but still call it evolution.</i><br /><br />LOL! Tedford the Slow is at it again! Reads some Creationist propaganda at the DI about science he doesn't understand, regurgitates it without a single neuron firing.<br /><br />Here we have a researcher demonstrating the creative power of evolutionary processes in the lab, but to these IDiots since a human consciously designed the experiment that means the processes being experimentally investigated must be consciously designed too.<br /><br />These are the same type of morons who think if a meteorologist creates a computer model of a hurricane, that counts as evidence that real hurricanes must be designed.<br /><br />Stupidity like that really ought to be painful.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75800777452589322502013-02-13T14:11:58.896-08:002013-02-13T14:11:58.896-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12070150227807424272013-02-13T13:43:10.585-08:002013-02-13T13:43:10.585-08:00Another example of how ToE leads to muddled thinki...Another example of how ToE leads to muddled thinking. Perhaps to save face, someday evolutionists will actually embrace ID, but still call it evolution. Since evolutionists have are better at rhetoric than science, they could call it something like "directed evolution" or "intelligent evolution".<br /> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/02/directed_evolut068891.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77776965503417149102013-02-13T13:23:45.666-08:002013-02-13T13:23:45.666-08:00Robotics is not my field. What theory are you talk...<i>Robotics is not my field. What theory are you talking of, specifically? What was the name of it, what was the evidence which falsified it, who declared it true in spite of the evidence, and who declared it was as solid a theory as gravity in the first place?</i><br /><br />Look up GOFAI, Rodney Brooks, subsumption architecture and read Jeff Hawkins' book, On Intelligence. Hawkins is an atheist-evolutionist but he has an amazing grasp of what intelligence is about. He's wrong about consciousness but that's forgivable given his religion.<br /><br /><i>You see, it is not enough for a theory to simply be falsified. That happens all the time. Nothing embarrassing or shameful about that.</i><br /><br />Be a man, goddammit. Why pretend that you did not find it implausible that 99% of scientists could be wrong about a field of science? That was your stupid point. I provided proof and examples that you were wrong. Grow some gonads and admit it. Dammit!<br /><br />Me: <i>As a matter of fact, you're right. The Bible does contain the answer to AI. Surprise!</i><br /><br />Ritchie: <i>Does it? I have actually read the Bible, and I'm pretty sure it didn't mention anything about robotics or artificial intelligneces...</i><br /><br />LOL. A huge part of the Bible consist of metaphorical narratives. If you don't understand the meaning of those metaphors, isn't it obvious that they were not written for you? Go read your own shit. I wrote what I wrote above only for the record.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.com