Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[KCfromNC]

But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.

So, what is missing?

Uncritical faith in a political movement using religious beliefs as cover for removing science from public school?

 

[Speedwell]

Uncritical faith in a political movement using religious beliefs as cover for removing science from public school?

In the case of ID it's worse than that. It's an attempt to indoctrinate youth to accept the totalitarian theocracy which the Discovery Institute would like to impose on the country.

 

[Radrook]

No, functional organization is how you reach the conclusion that the water pump is designed. The rest of us require something more. In order to conclude intentional organization--intelligent design--directly from nothing but functional organization you must have already decided that functional organization cannot arise without an ID. Thus your "inductive leap" is nothing more than circular logic.

That's your warped masqueraded description of what I said and meant.

 

[Radrook]

Uncritical faith in a political movement using religious beliefs as cover for removing science from public school?

Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.

 

[Radrook]

Great! Now we're getting somewhere...
First of all, I have an issue with the bolded part. That seems like a loaded term. It implies "intention", while that is exactly the thing that needs to be determined here.
So instead, let's swap that word with mere "function".

Let's put that definition to the test, shall we?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that you took no issue with the idea of "adaption" to an environment, correct?

Let's take the example of bears and polar bears.
You agree that a polar bear's white fur is the result of adaption to a white background for hunting purposes, yes?

So, the function of white fur in the polar bear would be better camouflage while hunting, correct?

But wait, this was the result of a natural process....
It seems that your definition thus does not hold up, as written.

So, what is missing?



No, actually. I reach the conclusion that a water pump is designed, not by what it does, but by what it looks like and the materials it is made from.



But apparantly, the same can not be said about the "purpose" / "function" of white fur in a polar bear..........



Equivocation error.



Except that the exact same logic doesn't work for the white fur of the polar bear......



I'm not seeing any test...... I'm seeing a mere claim.
I'm seeing you simply claim that the heart is a machine that was manufactured.
You haven't given us anything here by which it can be verified if this is actually the case.

And in fact, if we apply your method to something else, like the white fur of bears, then suddenly it doesn't work anymore. So clearly your method needs a little work.



You mean like... with the white fur of polar bears?



Nope. The actual response is: your method as explained here, doesn't work.

The material has absolutely NOHING to do with qualifying or disqualifying something displaying a planning mind. A pump can be made of plastic, metal, or any other material and it would still indicate a planning mind.

The white fur on a Polar Bear just convinces me that this creature was designed to have white fur because it benefits him in colder climates where white fur is an advantage. In fact, adaptation itself is evidence that the mind which designed foresaw that it would need to adapt and took precautionary measures.

There is no equivocation in referring to biological organisms as biological machines. The comparison is a common usage and it is a valid analogy. So you need to prove how the analogy is false which of course it isn't because the similarity in organization for a purpose is identical.

Tagging things as natural processes doesn't divest them of their contribution to organization for a purpose and the compelling indication of a planning mind. You are offering it as a refutation because you already have already concluded that mindless abiogenesis is an irrefutable fact and that intelligent design is unacceptable.

About intention, yes, it is perfectly logical to infer intention when things are organized in a manner which leads to a functional purpose. No, the word organized isn't loaded. It simply accurately describes the manner in which organisms are put together-in an organized way. The alternative would be disorganized and nonfunctional. Then and only then by displaying disorganization, would it become illogical and unjustifiable to infer a mind. But organized for a functional purpose provides a perfectly legitimate reason for the ID conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Speedwell]

That's your warped masqueraded description of what I said and meant.

So, correct me.

 

[Speedwell]

Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.

All you have to do is look at the Discovery Institute's own publications to dispel that notion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The material has absolutely NOHING to do with qualifying or disqualifying something displaying a planning mind.

Ow, I completely and utterly disagree with that. If I find a piece of broken plastic somewhere... I don't need to know what it was a part of or what it was used for or what-have-you. I instantly know that it is a manufactured object. So do you.

A pump can be made of plastic, metal, or any other material and it would still indicate a planning mind.

Yes. Because those materials aren't naturally occuring materials.

The white fur on a Polar Bear just convinces me that this creature was designed to have white fur because it benefits him in colder climates where white fur is an advantage.

Wait,... so you believe polar bears were "designed" by god (oeps, sorry "designer") as-is?

In fact, adaptation itself is evidence that the mind which designed foresaw that it would need to adapt and took precautionary measures.

LOL!

"heads I win, tails you lose"

There is no equivocation in referring to biological organisms as biological machines.

It is, when you call them "machines" to sneak in this mental picture:

The comparison is a common usage and it is a valid analogy.

Yes. But not in the way that you pretend it to be. Not in the way, pictured above.
Only in the way of life being a system consisting of various parts, that just obbey local rules and in doing such, performing a function in the larger system.

There are also quite a few differences with machines that are not anologous.
For example... living organisms self-reproduce with variation and are subject to natural selection. While machines are unnatural, manufactured, products.

So you need to prove how the analogy is false

Check.

because the similarity in organization for a purpose is identical.

For a function. And it is not identical, it is similar. And in a lot of ways only conceptually similar. It is...-drumroll-... analogous to it.

And you know what isn't "identical" or even only "similar"? How they originate.

See above.

Machines are manufactured.
Living systems are born with variation and are subsequently subject to natural selection.

 

[Radrook]

Ow, I completely and utterly disagree with that. If I find a piece of broken plastic somewhere... I don't need to know what it was a part of or what it was used for or what-have-you. I instantly know that it is a manufactured object. So do you.



Yes. Because those materials aren't naturally occuring materials.



Wait,... so you believe polar bears were "designed" by god (oeps, sorry "designer") as-is?



LOL!

"heads I win, tails you lose"



It is, when you call them "machines" to sneak in this mental picture:

View attachment 188004




Yes. But not in the way that you pretend it to be. Not in the way, pictured above.
Only in the way of life being a system consisting of various parts, that just obbey local rules and in doing such, performing a function in the larger system.

There are also quite a few differences with machines that are not anologous.
For example... living organisms self-reproduce with variation and are subject to natural selection. While machines are unnatural, manufactured, products.



Check.



For a function. And it is not identical, it is similar. And in a lot of ways only conceptually similar. It is...-drumroll-... analogous to it.

And you know what isn't "identical" or even only "similar"? How they originate.

See above.

Machines are manufactured.
Living systems are born with variation and are subsequently subject to natural selection.

I never claimed that Polar bears were created as is. I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.

We aren't talking about how organisms propagate today asexually or sexually. We are talking about how they display evidence of having been designed to do so.

The ones who refer to biological machines are biologists themselves who perceive a strong similarity and for good reasons.

Molecular machine - Wikipedia

Biological molecular machines

 

[KCfromNC]

Another warped pro-atheist description of what is being attempted.

It also has the benefit of being accurate. But hey, who wants to build their world view based on a correct description of reality. That's no fun.

 

[KCfromNC]

The material has absolutely NOHING to do with qualifying or disqualifying something displaying a planning mind. A pump can be made of plastic, metal, or any other material and it would still indicate a planning mind.

The white fur on a Polar Bear just convinces me that this creature was designed to have white fur because it benefits him in colder climates where white fur is an advantage.

With magic anything is possible!

If you like these just so stories, see Just So Stories - Wikipedia for many more fine works of children's fiction.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never claimed that Polar bears were created as is. I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.

Any evidence for this or do we just have to take it on faith from the Discovery Institute and you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.

Bolding mine. What does that mean and what is your evidence for that claim? You seem to be assuming your conclusion there. Sounds like "I'm right, even when I'm wrong" or "heads I win, tails you lose".

It sounds like you are assuming your conclusion as a premise... I gave you an example which doesn't fit the "criteria" you mentioned on how to detect design and still you say "well, that's how it is designed".

So it seems we're back to square one now.
We understand the natural process by which this adaption occurs. Random changes in pigmentation of the fur and the white one gets selected for due to it being more succesfull camouflage against a snowy white background.

Now you seem to accept that indeed, this adaption occured due to evolutionary processes, but you're still calling it design.

So again, I am at a loss on how you differentiate natural from unnatural design.

Let's try something different....

What kind of evidence would contradict your conclusion of design? How could your conclusion be shown to be wrong?

Based on your own criteria, I'ld say that the white fur of a polar bear contradicts it.

We aren't talking about how organisms propagate today asexually or sexually. We are talking about how they display evidence of having been designed to do so.

Not according to your own criteria on how to detect unnatural design..........

The ones who refer to biological machines are biologists themselves who perceive a strong similarity and for good reasons.

Yes. And I explained in what way they are analogous and in what way they aren't.

But apparantly you choose to ignore that part of my post.

 

[Speedwell]

With magic anything is possible!

If you like these just so stories, see Just So Stories - Wikipedia for many more fine works of children's fiction.

Give the guy a break. He has to convince us that his criteria for intelligent design are the only possible criteria so he can continue to accuse us of hypocrisy for not finding intelligent design in natural objects like he does.

It's not an easy job.

 

[KCfromNC]

Give the guy a break. He has to convince us that his criteria for intelligent design are the only possible criteria so he can continue to accuse us of hypocrisy for not finding intelligent design in natural objects like he does.

It's not an easy job.

It would be a lot less work if he'd just admit that he took it on faith.
It is almost as if he knows how bad faith is at figuring out stuff about the real world but at the same time wants the better methods to conform to what he wishes was true. That is a tough situation to be in, but the solution isn't to lash out at everyone else for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Loudmouth]

I clearly said that if they adapted to circumstances by producing white fur then that adaptation was already programed into their genetic caps abilities by a designer who foresaw the need for such an adaptation.

I have to second the request for an explanation and evidence for this statement.

How are adaptations pre-programmed into DNA? What is the mechanism? How are those adaptations turned on? Which proteins are involved in the process, if any?

We aren't talking about how organisms propagate today asexually or sexually. We are talking about how they display evidence of having been designed to do so.

If only you would talk about it. You seem to do everything but talk about evidence.

The ones who refer to biological machines are biologists themselves who perceive a strong similarity and for good reasons.

Molecular machine - Wikipedia

Biological molecular machines

How are they evidence of design?

 

[Radrook]

I have to second the request for an explanation and evidence for this statement.

How are adaptations pre-programmed into DNA? What is the mechanism? How are those adaptations turned on? Which proteins are involved in the process, if any?



If only you would talk about it. You seem to do everything but talk about evidence.



How are they evidence of design?

I am not arguing pro evolution. I am merely explaining how your theory fits in with theistic evolution and therefore need not be atheistic. So your request for minute details is irrelevant and better asked of an evolutionist. Also, sorry but this idea that mindless nature produces biological machines and computerized dendrites seems like a Mother Goose Father Rooster story to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not arguing pro evolution. I am merely explaining how your theory fits in with theistic evolution and therefore need not be atheistic.

1. You are claiming it, you're not explaining anything.
2. evolution theory isn't any more "atheistic" then the manual of your television or germ theory of desease

So your request for minute details is irrelevant and better asked of an evolutionist.

Hey man.... YOU made the claim that the "adaption for white for" was, and I cite, pre-programmed into the DNA by the "designer". Those are your words.

So please.... to use Loudmouth's words: walk the talk.

Explain and support that claim.

Also, sorry but this idea that mindless nature produces biological machines and computerized dendrites seems like a Mother Goose Father Rooster story to me.

Luckily, the accuracy of scientific ideas isn't dependend on your ability to comprehend them.

Now... try to focus. Explain your claim concerning white furt being "pre-programmed into DNA". What do you mean by that, exactly? And what is your evidence to support it?

 

[Radrook]

With magic anything is possible!

If you like these just so stories, see Just So Stories - Wikipedia for many more fine works of children's fiction.

I agree! With abracadabra magic you can have life suddenly popping its head out of slime and smiling back at you and fish turning into people if you provide it with enough abracadabra time.