My favorite argument for the existence of God

pitabread said:

Yikes. You really don't have any familiarity with Dembski's source material do you?

Click to expand...

No, so? The argument i was making was an inference argument, not a math one. Mostly studied Meyer, not Demski. The one does not invalidate the other. So what is your point?

It is an inference to the best explanation argument. What about that are you not understanding?

dmmesdale said:

Who invited you?

Click to expand...

I don't get to taste any of your Bologna
?

dmmesdale said:

No, so? The argument i was making was an inference argument, not a math one. Mostly studied Meyer, not Demski. The one does not invalidate the other. So what is your point?

Click to expand...

The point is that "complex specified information" in the context of Intelligent Design is primarily the work of Dembski (although he didn't necessarily originate the term, he did try to define it). And it is fundamentally an argument based on probability. So if you're planning to demonstrate that living things contain complex specified information, there is going to be math involved.

Of course, there are also a lot of problems with the concept not the least of which tend to be the vague and ill-defined term "specificity" and the fact that relying on probabilities means having a valid probability space in which to work. And as I'm sure you can imagine, trying to come up with a probability space for valid biological outcomes tends to be challenging, not the least of which given that we are working with incomplete information from the start.

It is an inference to the best explanation argument. What about that are you not understanding?

Click to expand...

This isn't about what I'm not understanding. It's about that you continue to brandish a term without understanding what that term means.

If you want to say stuff like this:

If it is complex specified information, codes for the building of proteins, then its source is a mind, not a natural process absent a mind.

Click to expand...

... then be prepared to back it up and show your work. And that means doing the math.

dmmesdale said:

Inference to the best explanation, for one.

Click to expand...

Best explanation?? The easiest one perhaps...but I'd argue that the best explanation is the correct one.

Out of all the times humanity posited god as an easy answer for something...how often has humanity gotten it correct? Why does it rain? Rain god does it. Why does the sun rise? Sun god does it. Why does the tide come in? Ocean god.

These may be easy answers...but they've never been the best.

Was Stonehedge designed or natural? If designed then who designed? If they do not know the identity then does that show it was not designed for a purpose?

Click to expand...

I personally don't know enough about Stonehenge to be answering these questions.

The inference to design is from the observed facts

Click to expand...

That's what we should be talking about then...these "observable facts" which you claim allow you to decide what has been designed. What are they?

and not from philosophy, like yours where philosophy trumps the observed facts.

Click to expand...

I've got no idea what "philosophy" you're talking about here.

Everyday judgments of design are suspended when it comes to living things. Minds create complex specified information, not matter or laws absent a mind. It's a double standard.

Click to expand...

Minds also make mistakes. In fact, our minds and are famous for looking for patterns whether they exist or not.

If a computer code comes from programmers, then the functional information in cells come from a mind.

Click to expand...

Well...that's an overly simplistic view of how it works. After all, without information to process...it's not likely our minds would be anywhere near as intelligent as they are.

Ever see those cases where a child wasn't exposed to language until around or after adolescence? They never learn it...their minds essentially "miss" the opportunity to learn a language.

That is an inference to the best explanation for the source of the codes in cells.

Click to expand...

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

What stops you and others are not the evidence but prior convictions to fiction realities.

Click to expand...

Says the guy who presented zero evidence. So far, your whole explanation of how you detect design is either "I know it when I see it"...or "It's an easy explanation for me to understand"...which aren't actually methods for detecting design, they're just opinions.

Obliquinaut said:

No. While thinking people had the sex that lead to the baby, they did not build the baby through their personal thinking actions.

Click to expand...

Who cares? It did not happen absent living beings.

Awww, you should really take a biochem class. Things like bacterial walls are little more than lipid bilayers which can arise quite spontaneously. The list goes on.

Click to expand...

Quote
''There is no scientist in the world today that would have the chutzpah to claim that he or she knows how life began.''

Dr. Stuart Kauffman: “Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on the Earth 3.5 billion years ago, is a fool or a knave.”

''The enormous, gaping chasm that separates non-living chemicals from the simplest living bacterium is described by renowned biologist,

Dr. Lynn Margulis: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.”

''Every theory mentioned above has nothing to do with Science. All current Origin of Life theories are pure speculation. Speculation, even when it is the product of a brilliant scientific mind, does not magically become Science. None of these theories are supported by anything even remotely resembling any type of conclusive evidence. In fact they are hotly disputed among researchers themselves.'' Physicist and information theorist

H.P. Yockey: “A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. The entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception.”

Nobel Laureate, Dr. Werner Arber: “Although a biologist, I must confess that I do not know how life came about …how such already quite complex structures came about is a mystery to me.”

Dr. Christopher McKay: “We do not know how life originated on the Earth.”

Dr. Harold P. Klein: “The simplest bacterium is so damn complicated…that it is almost impossible to imagine how it happened.”

Dr. Ken Nealson (National Academy of Sciences): “Nobody understands the Origin of Life, if they say they do, they are probably trying to fool you.”

Dr. Robert Shapiro: “I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, “to be or not to be that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the earth.”
-------------------

I am loth to repeat myself but again: if there is no necessity for intelligence then adding it in is scientifically not valid.

Click to expand...

That is a self-serving rule. If there are two possibilities for a given effect then you cannot eliminate one because you do not think it is necessary.

You are merely claiming "Design" out of incredulity.

Click to expand...

Out of inference to the best explanation based on what we do know about complex specified information and life.

You see these amazing systems and you can't imagine how they could arise naturally.

Click to expand...

They cannot, and blind faith in materialist creation myths is not science.

And when shown how irreducible complexity is usually easily disproven you simply ignore it.

Click to expand...

It never has, and you have not shown step by step how the process happened naturally with everything running. Quote. Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum | Center for Science and Culture
"In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 39 (Free Press, 1996).)

Thus, according to Darwin, evolution requires that a system, or its sub-parts, be functional along each small step of their evolution to the final system. Yet one could find a sub-part that could be useful outside of the final system, and yet the total system would still face many points along an "evolutionary pathway" where it could not remain functional along "numerous, successive, slight modifications" that would be necessary for its gradual evolution. (With regards to the flagellum at least 2/3 of the parts are not known to be shared with any other structure therefore might not be even a sub-part of another system at all.)''
--------------------------
Behe falsified Darwinism by his own standards. Nobody rushed out to yell Darwin is falsified. They came up with bogus rescues because faith cannot be falsified.

And again, you have been shown how parts could arise that HAVE utility but later could be repurposed.

Click to expand...

Could arise? How? Guesses do not take on the prestige of science. Neither does wishful thinking.

If there's an intelligent designer why did He or She reuse parts? Why didn't he or she create the eye in the first pass? (It starts off with photosensitive cells in outer layers of simpler life forms, then moves to a concavity with the same photoreceptor cells and then much later into an eye.

Click to expand...

Now who is arguing fom incredulity? What are you afraid of? Even if it is defective that does not disprove design. The Ford Edsel was intelligently designed.

Again, not really. All the chemistry is perfectly natural. The lipid bilayer is a cousin to the soap film that forms in a sink with dish soap added to it! The chemistry of DNA and RNA while quite amazing is really pretty simple sugars and amino acids. The bonds are not particularly special.

Click to expand...

See above. If you have solved it all then you should claim your origin of life prize and be set up for life. "Origin of Life Prize - Life Origins - Abiogenesis"

dmmesdale said:

Who cares? It did not happen absent living beings.

Click to expand...

It matters because you are talking about intelligence making a living thing. That is very different.

I can't believe you don't understand this difference. The parents did not sit there and craft the eyeball of a baby, and then put the DNA strands in a specific order. That happened automatically by NATURE.

That is a self-serving rule. If there are two possibilities for a given effect then you cannot eliminate one because you do not think it is necessary.

Click to expand...

Sorry to break it to you, but it doesn't really work that way. If I propose a model to explain data and I randomly include just made-up factors that don't affect anything I'm not doing anything of value.

If I can account for all the variability in the data without an additional factor there is no reason to include that factor.

SURE! I could claim that my reaction in the lab proceeded at a given rate because invisible unicorns helped it along, but since they are unnecessary to explain the reaction rate and they cannot be shown to exist in the first place then why include it?

Now who is arguing fom incredulity? What are you afraid of?

Click to expand...

No, I'm merely pointing out that eyes (as one example) didn't arise fully formed but rather as a series of simpler structures that changed over time.

YOU propose an intelligent designer, yet that Intelligent designer didn't design the eye as it currently is. He or She developed simpler systems going all the way back to simple photo-sensitive cell patches.

If anything it shows that the "intelligent designer" decided to use just plain old non-design but rather evolutionary processes.

So why invoke an intelligent designer if they aren't intelligent enough to design the eye right out of the gate?

dmmesdale said:

Behe falsified Darwinism by his own standards.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?

Behe buys into the central ideas that Darwin taught, that life descended from common ancestors, and that creatures descend with variations, with natural selection choosing which would survive to become new species. So on the central tenants of Darwinism, Behe agrees with Darwin. So how is that falsifying Darwinism?

I must say, I do enjoy these bologna sandwiches you bring. We will need to do this again.

Behe's claim is that some features could not have come about by random mutations, so he proposes some sort of intelligent agent stepped in. Here Behe is notoriously vague. What or who was that intelligent agent? How and when did it modify DNA? Apparently Behe supports that something inserted DNA similar to the way we make genetically modified plants today. That does not refute Darwin. Darwin knew nothing about DNA, and did not know the modern science of how mutations occur. Darwin just knew that descendants sometimes had variations, and that some variants were selected to become new species. On that Behe apparently agrees.

See Michael Behe - Wikipedia .

xianghua said:

he problem is that any light detector need at least several parts to its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.

Click to expand...

I previously provided you with an example how opsins could have evolved. You're being disingenuous.

Obliquinaut said:

It matters because you are talking about intelligence making a living thing. That is very different.

Click to expand...

The first life here would need a cause and restrict the search to only material (because of philosophical convictions) fails. There are two conceptions, and yours has to do (1) with following the evidence only where materialist convictions allow as opposed to (2) following the evidence where it leads. If they wish to restrict their searches to material causes because it works then, they should be free to discard material causes when it no longer works or is explanatory impotent.

I can't believe you don't understand this difference.

Click to expand...

I understand you're spinning my points and addressing a phantom or distortion.

The parents did not sit there and craft the eyeball of a baby, and then put the DNA strands in a specific order. That happened automatically by NATURE.

Click to expand...

How you define nature is limited by your convictions. Nature could contain a richer set of causes autonomous of matter and energy, namely intelligence. Nature does not restrict itself to self-serving definitions and so why should we?

Sorry to break it to you, but it doesn't really work that way. If I propose a model to explain data and I randomly include just made-up factors that don't affect anything I'm not doing anything of value.

Click to expand...

What materialists do is restrict their searches to only material causes in prebiotic evolution, (origin of life) and it fails. Nor can they explain step by step processes to build nonreducible motors. There had to be the first one and that would need the assembly instructions preloaded. The preloaded instructions would need a source.

If I can account for all the variability in the data without an additional factor there is no reason to include that factor.

Click to expand...

You cannot in certain endeavors. The weak link in your assumptions is exposed when taken back to the start point. The origin of life here. If the foundation fails, then the whole thing crumbles. We can give you evolution. They still cannot explain how life developed here in the first place. That is exactly what the design argument predicts. Failure of exclusive materialistic causes for prebiotic evolution. The central difference between the two models seems to be the inclusion of intelligence as a natural part of the working order of the universe while yours excludes. If the fingerprint is there, then there was a prior presence.

SURE! I could claim that my reaction in the lab proceeded at a given rate because invisible unicorns helped it along, but since they are unnecessary to explain the reaction rate and they cannot be shown to exist in the first place then why include it?

Click to expand...

Not the argument.

No, I'm merely pointing out that eyes (as one example) didn't arise fully formed but rather as a series of simpler structures that changed over time.

Click to expand...

In accordance with your convictions.

YOU propose an intelligent designer, yet that Intelligent designer didn't design the eye as it currently is. He or She developed simpler systems going all the way back to simple photo-sensitive cell patches.

Click to expand...

I don't recall saying all that much about the eyes in the first place.

If anything it shows that the "intelligent designer" decided to use just plain old non-design but rather evolutionary processes.
So why invoke an intelligent designer if they aren't intelligent enough to design the eye right out of the gate?

Click to expand...

That has been refuted. What you are doing is questioning the competence of the so called designer to eliminate the possibility. Perceived imperfections of not doing things the way I think they should do not eliminate intelligent causation.

Also since then, ID has become a discipline in its own right whose price of admission is not the acceptance of any religious doctrine but the rejection of methodological materialism. William Dembski

dmmesdale said:

If there are two possibilities for a given effect then you cannot eliminate one because you do not think it is necessary.

Click to expand...

There are currently more than two competing 'possibilities' for abiogenesis; there are numerous competing hypotheses.

On top of that, adding an 'intelligent' agent at this point doesn't add any real explanatory power. It doesn't tell us anything more about how life was created. It simply sticks in a intelligent agent as a stop-gap. Consequently, Intelligent Design currently isn't a competing possibility because it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. It's on par with when people used to believe gods were responsible for chucking lightning bolts from the heavens.

xianghua said:

are you sure? the first step according to some scientists was an eyespot. the problem is that any light detector need at least several parts to its minimal function.

Click to expand...

At it's core primitive eyespots require a chemical that reacts to light. For instance through a reaction called Photoisomerization:



This is a pretty straightforward chemical reaction. Just the addition of light. This happens quite naturally. In fact these compounds are distant relatives to dyes (azo compounds).

This is where it starts. It all starts with basic relatively simple chemistry.

therefore it cant evolve stepwise.

Click to expand...

Yet is demonstrably HAS evolved stepwise!



We see early organisms that are much simpler with "eyespots", essentially chemosensitive patches on the surface of the cell and later development of a fully-formed eye.

This indicates a step-wise development. And it makes nearly perfect sense! That's the weird thing about this: if the eye was "Designed" then why don't all forms of eyes (from simple to complex) all appear in the geologic record simultaneously? But they don't.

even you as intelligent designer cant make a light detector that base on one part. you will need at least several parts.

Click to expand...

Not really. If we utilize some of those azo compounds we can generate a nice light detector quite simply with one single molecule.

dmmesdale said:

What materialists do is restrict their searches to only material causes in prebiotic evolution, (origin of life) and it fails.

Click to expand...

No, science limits itself to those factors which can be shown to exist and can be reliably used to explain the variability in the data.

Let me give you an example (sorry it will be somewhat technical). I am making a coating and it utilizes 5 component chemicals which I mix together in different amounts and I test the effectiveness of the coating.

I have 5 factors (the chemicals) and component amounts which add additional factors.

I construct what is called a "DOE" (design of experiment). I mix the compounds in different amounts and then I test the final coating.

At the end of the day I am required to stick only with the factors that are apparent and I check to see how much of the variability in the results I can explain with the factors I have on hand.

now it could be that there are magical invisible unicorns in my laboratory that have taken a role in making my coating unbeknownst to me.

IF, however, I can explain almost all of the variability in my coating performance based on the KNOWN factors (the compounds and the amounts) it would make NO SENSE to add in the "Magical invisible unicorns" factor.

That's the point of "design". Since irreducible complexity can usually be shown to NOT be irreducibly complex (regardless of whether you like it or not), it begs the question of why add in "intelligent design"?

Not the argument.

Click to expand...

It is EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT. You see, it is clear you don't do science so you don't necessarily know what I'm talking about. It's something one gains over a lifetime of doing science for a living. You begin to understand why you are allowed to add factors in or leave them out.

If you can't understand this you are behind the curve.

That has been refuted. What you are doing is questioning the competence of the so called designer to eliminate the possibility

Click to expand...

Well, of course I am! Look at the ID arguments...they invariably devolve down to "Look at how amazing all this stuff is! It couldn't happen through just natural chance!" And I'm saying that even your "designer" apparently had to use multiple "Tries" to get to the amazing version. Your designer is using "stepwise evolution" to get to the final product.

. Perceived imperfections of not doing things the way I think they should do not eliminate intelligent causation.

Click to expand...

Then you are forced to explain where that designer came from (because it is clearly not "God" because it is "not perfect"). And your debate point becomes even more problematic.

xianghua said:

because its to complex to evolve naturally. so when i see a robot i can conclude design for sure. do you agree or disagree?

Click to expand...

I would disagree - complexity is incidental - there are plenty of simple things that we know are designed, because we can identify the characteristics of manufacturing and/or materials that are artificial (e.g. plastics, alloys).

xianghua said:

... we cant ust remove some proteins from the flagellum and get a functional ttss.

Click to expand...

You might find this article helpful.