Evidence of design

[Speedwell]

ID = plain old creationism disguised in a lab coat.

Ever heared of cdesign proponentsists? You should google the term.



Riiiiight.

It's a moot point now, after what happened yesterday. Before long, biblical creationism will be the law of the land and discussions like this won't be tolerated.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before long, biblical creationism will be the law of the land and discussions like this won't be tolerated.

Then maybe you'll see how it feels when Biblical prayers were rendered "intolerable" in our classrooms?

Or maybe not.

 

[Speedwell]

Then maybe you'll see how it feels when Biblical prayers were rendered "intolerable" in our classrooms?

Or maybe not.

Are you going to go back to beating Catholic kids who don't want Biblical prayers?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you going to go back to beating Catholic kids who don't want Biblical prayers?

Like I said, or maybe not.

 

[Loudmouth]

SETI is an experimental test for intelligent life. Specified complexity is a reliable 'test' for design.

In what units does SETI measure CSI? What is the test they use for CSI

How do you apply the test to DNA sequences? How do you determine if CSI has either increased, decreased, or stayed the same after a mutation?

If you can't answer these questions, then CSI is not a scientific test.

It's plain to anyone who knows something about information theory that Dembski and Orgel are talking about the same concept. Dembki is just made it 'more precise'.

So how does it apply to DNA?

 

[Mobezom]

ID is inherently unscientific because it uses "miracles" or "Goddidit" to explain reality - it's not cause-and-effect, natural-laws-and-phenomena science, it's just pseudoscience.

As I said:

"it was a miracle" or "Goddidit" can explain anything equally well, which is another way of saying that it cannot explain anything well. If there is no way to disprove it, then it is not science.

This works against ID just as well as against Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

ID is inherently unscientific because it uses "miracles" or "Goddidit" to explain reality -

...

This works against ID just as well as against Creationism.

Correct.

Science can take a hike.

 

[sfs]

SETI is an experimental test for intelligent life.

Yes, I know. And you said that it employed experimental tests for CSI. I asked you for some evidence that it does employ CSI. You keep responding, and keep not providing any evidence that it employs CSI. If they actually use CSI, you should be able to show me where. If they don't, you should say so.

Specified complexity is a reliable 'test' for design.

That's the assertion you're supposed to be supporting, not a given. And it's irrelevant to the question: does SETI employ CSI or not? This isn't a complicated question. Why won't you answer it?

How can you possibly think information theory has nothing to do with probabilities?

By thinking that the kind of information theory Orgel references -- Kolomogorov complexity -- doesn't deal with probability. Shannon information theory does, but Orgel doesn't use Shannon theory as far as I know. If I'm mistaken, show me where Orgel uses Shannon, or probability more generally, in defining complexity.

Orgel:
"These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information."
–The Origins of Life (New York: Wiley, 1973 ) p. 190

It's plain to anyone who knows something about information theory that Dembski and Orgel are talking about the same concept. Dembki is just made it 'more precise'.

Your statement is plainly wrong, since I know something about information theory and I think Dembski and Orgel are talking about quite different concepts.

 

[Mobezom]

Correct.

Science can take a hike.

So you admit that your claims are unscientific?

 

[sfs]

So you admit that your claims are unscientific?

I don't think "admit" is the right word here.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you admit that your claims are unscientific?

Absolutely.

Intelligent Design is a joke.

And Creationism, which I subscribe to, has absolutely nothing to do with science whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think "admit" is the right word here.

I've only been "admitting" that here for almost eleven years now.

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?

I consider that the best challenge I've ever made here.

I consider my apple challenge #1, and my raisin bread challenge #2.

 

[Mobezom]

AV, do you think that a proper and scientific analysis of the evidence would lead someone to agree with modern science, that is, evolution and an old Earth?

Do you think that evolution should be taught in science class, and old Earth history in social studies?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, do you think that a proper and scientific analysis of the evidence would lead someone to agree with modern science, that is, evolution and an old Earth?

I believe that, if done as instructed, the analysis of evidence leads to evolution.

But evolution is a house built on sand; and when the proper time comes, that house is coming down.

Do you think that evolution should be taught in science class,

No.

... and old Earth history in social studies?

No.

I think creationism should be taught in history class.

 

[Mobezom]

I believe that, if done as instructed, the analysis of evidence leads to evolution.

But evolution is a house built on sand; and when the proper time comes, that house is coming down.

Some YECs say that there is a conspiracy to delude or turn people away from God, and that evolution can be scientifically proven false. They are wrong. But if you say that the basic premise of science is inadequate, that repeatable tests and falsifiable theories and models and laws cannot get at the ultimate Truth - I can respect that, and I might even agree somewhat.

No.
No.
I think creationism should be taught in history class.

Sorry, I should have specified - this is public school. I don't mind creationism being taught in private school - you could teach that the moon is made of cheese for all I care.

 

[Kylie]

Have you seen my Apple Challenge?

I consider that the best challenge I've ever made here.

Of course, that depends on you actually being able to make an apple ex nihilo.

If there are nothing but old stories about it, then the challenge is over before it even starts - it's all made up and it never really happened.

So your apple challenge relies on a very big IF - namely, IF God created the universe from nothing.

 

[Kylie]

I think creationism should be taught in history class.

Yes. In the Iroquois story of Sky Woman and the Big Turtle, the land is created after Big Toad scoops up mud from the bottom of the sea---in an effort to save Sky Woman after she falls from the sky---and spreads it on the back of Big Turtle. The land begins to grow until it is the size of North America. Sky Woman then steps onto the land and sprinkles dust into the sky. The dust becomes the moon, stars, and sun. Then Sky Woman gives birth to two sons (Sapling and Flint) who play a key role in the creation of the remainder of the earth. Sapling brings into the world all that is good (plants, animals, and rivers), while Flint tampers with/aims to destroy Sapling's good creation. The two get into a fight and Flint is defeated but doesn't die. Flint's anger is manifested into the form of a volcano.

I agree with you that this should be taught in history class.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Oh Goodness! This thread is the Best Thread Ever!!!

Denial is Strong in this one....

 

[AV1611VET]

Denial is Strong in this one....

In your opinion, who denies more of reality?

1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against miracles?

2. Atheists who deny physical evidence interpreted against the spiritual world?

By way of examples:

In your opinion, who denies more of reality?

1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against a global flood?

2. Atheists who deny Christmas as spiritual evidence of Jesus Christ?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

In your opinion, who denies more of reality?

1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against miracles?

2. Atheists who deny physical evidence interpreted against the spiritual world?

By way of examples:

In your opinion, who denies more of reality?

1. Christians who deny physical evidence interpreted against a global flood?

2. Atheists who deny Christmas as spiritual evidence of Jesus Christ?

I can't say I have a position on any of this. Seems a little out of the blue, don't you think? Let me put it into perspective:

In your opinion, What does the color Nine smell like?