- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,768
- Country
- New Zealand
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Functional coherence has been defined previously and repeatedly, nothing vague about it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Functional coherence has been defined previously and repeatedly, nothing vague about it.Except that nobody uses vague buzz-phrases like "high levels of functional coherence" when identifying design.
Speciation never ever created anything new. There are numerous examples of new and useful things appearing without antecedant in the fossil record. Everything from flowers to feathers to theenucleate blood cell to the pentadactyl limb all appear suddenly and without precedence of any kind.15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Kind" lie when speciation is the development of new species.
But a bit of truth: We have maybe millions of examples of speciation, e.g. from the fossil record, so it is not novel.
15 June 2018 Anguspure
A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends. Even human designers use natural selection to weed out unfit developments.: A lie that Neo-Darwinism includes any design.
Neo-Darwinism is an emphasis on the Darwinian part of the modern synthesis of evolution, e.g. a "gene-centered view of evolution".
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.
Functional coherence has been defined previously and repeatedly, nothing vague about it.
Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.SETI has nothing to do with "functional coherence" or any other ID buzz-phrases.
SETI is about searching for narrow-band radio transmissions for which the only known source is artificially manufactured radio transmitters. In other words, scientists are inferring how the transmissions would be created and then attempting to detect the output of those transmitters.
Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.In order to have an equivalent for detecting design in biology, you'd first need to infer how the designer created or modified biological life forms on this planet. But you don't have that, do you?
Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.
Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.
Whether you like that as a simple hypothesis or not, it makes a whole lot more sense and is imanently more explorable as a theory than the "it appeared by chance, inspite of the more than fantastically improbable odds, for no particular reason" of Abiogeneisis.
15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Speciation never ever created anything new" lie because speciation creates new species!Speciation never ever created anything new.
15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie about intelligent design (no designer specified = no "his own ends" and no tool selection).A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends.
Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins",[1][2] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.[3][4][5]
...
The contemporary intelligent design movement formulates its arguments in secular terms and intentionally avoids identifying the intelligent agent (or agents) they posit.
And the key word there is manufactured.Therefore SETI is recognising a functionally coherent system (artificially manufactured radio transmitters) in order to infer design.
15 June 2018 Anguspure: Nonsense question about a "metric" of abiogenesisYes, nonsense because there is none.
Speciation.
Precious little beyond speciation within kind has ever been shown
Speciation through natural selection has been going for this length of time, obviously.
Furthermore this natural breeding program is demonstrable as a process that is happening all of the time.
It is special pleading to then claim that we should not be able to see evolution over an experimental time frame.
50 000 generations of E-Coli show us a degree of evolution that would take +/- 2 000 000 years for anthropic kinds to achieve so one could expect something beyond molecular fiddling to be evident.
Ahh yes, a version of Mount Improbable.
Very simplistic and neglects the actual heirachy evident in biological forms.
For a start off the basic building blocks are not 1+1, are they? Rather they are a complex string of specific amino acids.
So we have hundreds of numbers to choose from, only 20 of them can be considered organic (in so far as they are used for proteins), and they must all have the correct handedness when they are used.
You can wait for a big number to form in your pre-biotic soup all day long (A day being 15 billion years in this case) but the lilklihood that it will be useful for any purpose (even one little protein) is vanishingly small.
To posit enough proteins to build a self replicating living thing (let alone build it) is just blithering craziness.
A person who has won the lottery 20 times this morning is have a bad luck day by comparison with this sort of expectation.
So no mechanism has been identified, and yet it is a fact that it happened in a way that satisfies materialism? Somebody has an apriori commitment to something here.
Not a very scientific position to hold.
There are numerous taxa defining traits that contradict this assertion.
0.01% of biologists, doesn't exactly justify the term "widely".Design is evident and aknowledged widely
, it is only a naturalism that demands that it is willfully ignored.
Well.....I do live in NZ so pretty familiar with the concepts....your point is?
ID does not make any commitment beyond the inference to design.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary it remains a reasonable hypothesis. On the level of material causality (the kind that science studies), God appears to have created the universe as a self-contained system. Why could not that include abiogenesis?
High levels of functional coherence are best explained by the influence of a designer.
There is evidence for design, and it does not require us to entertain the possibility of non-material causality.
Yes, nonsense because there is none.
There is no plausible method by which a natural law acting on it's own can ever produce anything new and useful like a living thing.
Speciation never ever created anything new.
There are numerous examples of new and useful things appearing without antecedant in the fossil record.
A designer may use any tool that it see's fit to further his own ends. Even human designers use natural selection to weed out unfit developments.
Well if I was reffering to the Bible I would say that God "said" and it became.
Whether you like that as a simple hypothesis or not
How is a religious assertion of an unsupportable, undetectable, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, untestable,... supernatural entity doing anything at all - or even just existing - "explorable"???, it makes a whole lot more sense and is imanently more explorable as a theory than the "it appeared by chance, inspite of the more than fantastically improbable odds, for no particular reason" of Abiogeneisis.
is imanently more explorable as a theory
A couple of lying links. For a start neither link has any evidence for Intellegent Design.There is evidence for design...-.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?