Can Intelligent Design be a Logical & Rational Answer?

[Speedwell]

It would be alien manufacture, not human.

OK, alien manufacture. But it would be evidence of manufacture, not design that we would be looking for.

Don't compare the voodoo of paleontology to the exacting science of making a starship.

So how would you detect stone tools?

Not because of functionality? Complex functionality of that magnitude is the result of intelligent agents only. There is no other known cause for that given effect. It is a fingerprint for super intelligence.

That's your assertion; can you back it up?

Right, useless. We infer a cause based on what we do know by following the evidence. Not being afraid to to go where the evidence takes us.

Or well beyond.

There is nothing silly about inferring a living source for the simplest life normally associated with bacteria. Your rock tent example is out in left field. It is a diversion. If it is super complicated and contains complex machinery, information then its source is intelligence. The starship was analogous of bacteria, not a tent and a rock.

So your definition of "designed" is "super complicated?" What about simple objects which are designed? How do you detect the design in those cases?

 

[dmmesdale]

OK, alien manufacture. But it would be evidence of manufacture, not design that we would be looking for.


So how would you detect stone tools?

That's your assertion; can you back it up?

Or well beyond.

So your definition of "designed" is "super complicated?" What about simple objects which are designed? How do you detect the design in those cases?

Read this through and get back to me. Also regarding bacteria, when they try and break it down, it dies. They do not get a simpler life, they get death. Bacteria divides, so in that sense, it does not dies like we do.
COMPILATION OF QUOTES ON THE COMPLEXITY OF A CELL AND THE SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN By Ashby L. Camp - PDF
A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism."

 

[sfs]

Not because of functionality?

Right. Not because of its functionality.

Complex functionality of that magnitude is the result of intelligent agents only.

Well, no, complex functionality of that magnitude and greater occurs all the time in living things, without an intelligent agent in sight. So why does mere complexity imply intelligence? Moreover, every complex functional system that we know to be produced by intelligent agents is produced by humans. Is it your contention that life was produced by humans?

 

[dmmesdale]

Right. Not because of its functionality.

Well, no, complex functionality of that magnitude and greater occurs all the time in living things, without an intelligent agent in sight.

You don't need to see it. All is needed is the effects.

So why does mere complexity imply intelligence?

The only known cause for complex specified information is intelligence. Dogmatists rule it it from the get go. It is not a problem with the actual evidence. If there is two possibles then dogmatists will only allow for one answer. Natural.

Moreover, every complex functional system that we know to be produced by intelligent agents is produced by humans.

So humans produced bacteria?

Is it your contention that life was produced by humans?

No it is my contention complex specified information and complex working machinary are fingerprints of super intelligence, not natural causes absent intelligence.

I would also say you cannot apply your standards consistently so you apply it selectively. SETI for example. Coded signals from outer space indicative of intelligent causation, not natural causes. It they received morse code like signals from outer space which when decoded contained instructions for the building of a spacecraft then only a fool would assume natural causes over intelligence. The same applies with bacteria. If you can't see intelligent causation then you don't know what you are looking at. You can't be helped.

 

[pitabread]

complex specified information

There is no such thing as "complex specified information". At least not in any meaningful sense as applied to biology. And yes, I've read Dembski's work; it's already been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

 

[Speedwell]

Read this through and get back to me. Also regarding bacteria, when they try and break it down, it dies. They do not get a simpler life, they get death. Bacteria divides, so in that sense, it does not dies like we do.
COMPILATION OF QUOTES ON THE COMPLEXITY OF A CELL AND THE SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN By Ashby L. Camp - PDF
A bacterium is far more complex than any inanimate system known to man. There is not a laboratory in the world which can compete with the biochemical activity of the smallest living organism."

I've been down a quote mine before. They're usually dark and smelly. And what do we find in this one? Quotes from a variety of scientists and other technically trained people to the effect that a living cell is very complex and that no one knows how life began--two points that no one here is disputing.

 

[Speedwell]

I would also say you cannot apply your standards consistently so you apply it selectively. SETI for example. Coded signals from outer space indicative of intelligent causation, not natural causes. It they received morse code like signals from outer space which when decoded contained instructions for the building of a spacecraft then only a fool would assume natural causes over intelligence. The same applies with bacteria. If you can't see intelligent causation then you don't know what you are looking at. You can't be helped.

Except that SETI scientists aren't looking for coded signals from outer space, not directly. They are looking for narrow-band modulated microwave signals of a kind used by humans for radio communication and which are not thought to be produced by natural causes. In other words, they're looking for manufactured radio signals. The decoding, if any, comes after.

 

[Nat Page]

Yes you are. We do not have to observe the cause of an event. We reason from effect/event to cause. Identity is investigated after the cause is established. Not before. If a suit is evidence of a tailor then life is evidence of a living super intelligent cause.

Can anything be proposed as the cause of the event? will anything do or must any proposal always contain those three letters (God) before it is even considered? just saying 'God' explains absolutely nothing in fact saying a God did it opens a whole new can of worms, but I believe that was the idea of saying 'Goddidit' right from the outset, it caused uncertainty and confusion in the minds of the simple people the concept was first aimed at, they could not understand it so they just went along with it,
that's why "The Emperor's New Clothes" written by Hans Christian Andersen is such a perfect analogy for religious belief, most people don't understand they just go along.

 

[sfs]

You don't need to see it. All is needed is the effects.

You claim that functional complexity always comes from intelligence. In order to know that, you do indeed have to know that an intelligent agent is involved in every single case. Since we don't, in fact, know that, your actual argument reduces to "Functional complexity is sometimes the result of intelligence. Living things are functionally complex, therefore they are the product of intelligence." Which is a much less compelling argument, but is at least true.

The only known cause for complex specified information is intelligence.

The "complex" in "complex specified information" has nothing at all to do with the kind of complexity we've just been talking about. In Dembski's use, it just means "improbable"; with that meaning, no one can demonstrate that any living thing actually has complex specified information.

So humans produced bacteria?

Huh? Read what I wrote -- I'm talking about complex systems whose origin is known. We don't know the origin of bacteria -- we're trying to decide whether intelligence had to be involved or not.

No it is my contention complex specified information and complex working machinary are fingerprints of super intelligence, not natural causes absent intelligence.

Yes, I know that's your contention. But your only argument in support of your contention is that complex systems (with various qualifiers) of known origin are always produced by intelligence. But it is equally true that complex systems of known origin are always produced by humans. So either your argument shows that humans did produce bacteria, or your argument is invalid.

 

[dmmesdale]

There is no such thing as "complex specified information". At least not in any meaningful sense as applied to biology. And yes, I've read Dembski's work; it's already been thoroughly debunked at this stage.

Your post is an example of complex specified. Puter, Morse, English, Spanish, Japanese are all example of complex specified and so is DNA code. You simply will not believe your own eyes. You know why? You refuse to look at the results. Refuse or don't know how to follow the evidence. Quote.

''The DNA processing system... is the most sophisticated and advanced system known to man.'' And you sit here and assert it is all the result of natural processes over intelligence? You are no longer into science or truth seeking but into la la land and there is no hope.

 

[Speedwell]

Your post is an example of complex specified. Puter, Morse, English, Spanish, Japanese are all example of complex specified and so is DNA code. You simply will not believe your own eyes. You know why? You refuse to look at the results. Refuse or don't know how to follow the evidence. Quote.

''The DNA processing system... is the most sophisticated and advanced system known to man. And you sit here and assert it is all the result of natural processes over intelligence? You are no longer into science or truth seeking but into la la land and there is no hope.

Of course we don't know that it was solely the result of natural forces. Your problem is that you want to eliminate the possibility a priori and you can't do it.

 

[dmmesdale]

Of course we don't know that it was solely the result of natural forces.

It is not by any reasonable standard. There is no evidential basis for it. The source for complex specified for DNA code is intelligence, not natural absent intelligence. It is based on what we do know about code from the present. Not on what we do not know. We reason from effect to cause and infer an intelligent cause.

Your problem is that you want to eliminate the possibility a priori and you can't do it.

Why can't i? That is what science does. It is about what is false. If there are two alternatives then one has to be eliminated. Natural can be eliminated. It is explanatory impotent. If this is true,

''The DNA processing system... is the most sophisticated and advanced system known to man.''

Then its source is intelligence, not natural absent intelligence.

The conclusion flows from the evidence. If you can't see it then there is no hope. You are into la la land.

 

[bhsmte]

It is not by any reasonable standard. There is no evidential basis for it. The source for complex specified for DNA code is intelligence, not natural absent intelligence. It is based on what we do know about code from the present. Not on what we do not know. We reason from effect to cause and infer an intelligent cause. Why can't i? That is what science does. It is about what is false. If there are two alternatives then one has to be eliminated. Natural can be eliminated. It is explanatory impotent.

What falsifiable test did you run, to eliminate anything?

 

[pitabread]

Your post is an example of complex specified.

Okay, I'll bite. Why? (And note, I'm looking for an explanation, not a mere assertion.)

Puter, Morse, English, Spanish, Japanese are all example of complex specified and so is DNA code. You simply will not believe your own eyes. You know why? You refuse to look at the results. Refuse or don't know how to follow the evidence.

No, it's called needing more than a base assertion. All you've done is assert stuff and draw up poor analogies.

Like I said, I'm already familiar with Dembski's work (where the whole complex specified information stuff comes from) and I'm already familiar with why it's not a valid concept and doesn't apply to biology.

But if you want to, go ahead and try to explain why it does.

''The DNA processing system... is the most sophisticated and advanced system known to man.'' And you sit here and assert it is all the result of natural processes over intelligence?

Nobody has ever successfully demonstrated that DNA requires an intelligent source. In fact, every attempt I've seen to apply definitions of 'information' to DNA end up in one of two categories:

a) either they are non-applicable to biological systems; or,
b) they do not preclude 'information' in DNA arising via natural processes.

It's a bit of a non-starter, in my opinion.

 

[pitabread]

The conclusion flows from the evidence.

What evidence? Merely looking at something and saying, "hey, this is complex" does not mean it necessarily arose from an intelligent source.

 

[dmmesdale]

What evidence? Merely looking at something and saying, "hey, this is complex" does not mean it necessarily arose from an intelligent source.

Does that mean we can eliminate your post as an intelligent source? Or do you exempt your posts from your impositions?

Dude i am not going to jump thru your hoops and answer all your questions which will be endless.

You either get it or you don't. If you don't then it is because you do not want to. And i am giving the benefit of the doubt here. Playing games. You can do that hiding behind your puter.

 

[pitabread]

Dude i am not going to jump thru your hoops and answer all your questions which will be endless.

I just wanted to see if you have anything to offer beyond base assertions and poor analogies. Now that you're resorting to excuses, I can see that you don't.

Have you ever read any of the source material? Do you even know where the term "complex specified information" comes from?

And i am giving the benefit of the doubt here.

Funny, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're the one making assertions. You back them up.

 

[sfs]

You either get it or you don't. If you don't then it is because you do not want to. And i am giving the benefit of the doubt here.

Seriously -- that is your pitch? You're right, you're not going to bother supporting your claims, and if anyone doesn't agree with you he's willfully blind? You must win lots of arguments with that approach.

Playing games. You can do that hiding behind your puter.

As opposed to what? Meeting with drawn swords at noon? This is a discussion forum on the internet; we use computers to communicate here.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Which is more complex: the worlds fastest supercomputer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an earthworm?

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

1. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

2. What would I think of someone if they firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

Yes, the old 'argument from incredulity ploy.' I see.

 

[Armoured]

Seriously -- that is your pitch? You're right, you're not going to bother supporting your claims, and if anyone doesn't agree with you he's willfully blind? You must win lots of arguments with that approach.

As opposed to what? Meeting with drawn swords at noon? This is a discussion forum on the internet; we use computers to communicate here.

I'm always up for swords at noon, should any Creationist care to test his mettle. Just sayin'