My favorite argument for the existence of God

[pitabread]

Who cares? Relative to the bacteria it cannot be broken down, or it will not function. That makes it irreducibly complex.

But it doesn't make it unevolvable.

 

[dmmesdale]

So why does LIFE look like it has to be the product of a mind?

Mind had nothing to do with the creation of you?

Do you think that when a baby is born someone has to literally put it together? Or do you think that babies are created in the womb by God's (or some external intelligence) hand putting the pieces parts together?

Babies in the womb are there via minds connected to persons.

No, we know exactly how babies are formed. And it follows basic chemical processes.

Not absent living beings. Chemical processes don't know you from a ham sandwich. Your math book does not know algebra. If you are looking for the source of your math book, then you are looking for a mind, not a chemical process. If your philosophy exempts a mind in the first place then no matter how much you look it will be futility.

If life can self-assemble why do we need to envisage some intelligence to have generated the first one.

It cannot. The simplest bacteria is far to complicated. It cannot be broken down into simpler life because it dies.

I am not saying design doesn't exist.

You are assuming intelligent design had no part to play in cells which are factories that can duplicate.

I'm saying that to utilize design and intelligence to create a naturally occurring item provides no additional explanatory value if it can be explained without "design".

What naturally occurring item? The whole point of the discussion is the cause of the design. You are going with natural due to philosophy in spite of evidence. Mine is evidence based alone. 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.

And time and again whenever irreducibly complex structures are used to justify I.D. they are shown to still have utility with pieces missing,

A dead motor has no utility in a bacteria. Responding to Criticisms of Irreducible Complexity of the Bacterial Flagellum from the Australian Broadcasting Network | Center for Science and Culture

or even to have precursor variants with fewer parts in earlier forms.

There are no fewer parts in earlier forms with bacteria because bacteria is the earliest form known and we are talking about a functioning part. Earlier forms of bacteria are imaginary. Again it is easier to go from bacteria to an elephant then it is to go from goo to bacteria. His argument would be falsified if true but it probably comes with caveats . The problem being we have to search in vain for the counters to come about. Properly understood his argument is simple. It is a motor which propels bacteria thru fluid. Remove parts, and the motor does not function. You have no earlier life forms to bacteria. There are none known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who cares? Relative to the bacteria it cannot be broken down, or it will not function. That makes it irreducibly complex. A battery in your car can serve other purposes. So can the tires. It (battery) is still there for a purpose, and if it is removed then it will not start and if it does not start then, it will not function. What you are doing here is tap dancing. If you wish to falsify then the start is to show how the device in question could have self-assembled naturally (step by step)while everything is running and good luck with that. That is your burden, not ours. Serving other purposes is not even in dispute. If you need the part for the motor to run then you need the part. Who cares if it serves other purposes.

Wrong, you simply do not even understand the "irreducibly complex" claims of IDists. They claim that there is no way that the structure can evolve it is "IC". They have been shown to be wrong. I am willing to discuss this more completely.

Do you even understand the argument? Go out in the middle of a lake with a boat and motor and remove the spark plugs. Then wait for natural processes to generate a counter function to get your motor going again. Bring along some bologna sandwiches because you may be sitting out there for a while.
Go ahead. You don't need my permission. In the meantime, you can ask them why they spend so much time digging up the remains of animals that already exist.
Not when it comes to motors.
As long as you are making it about me, you are not addressing the arguments.

Oh my, he can't even get the arguments of those on his own side correct.

Massive failure.

 

[pitabread]

If it is complex specified information

Complex specified information isn't a valid concept with respect to living things. It's become little more than a buzzword that IDists throw around when they lack a real argument and/or real evidence to support their position.

 

[Heissonear]

Mind had nothing to do with the creation of you? Babies in the womb are there via minds connected to persons.
Not absent living beings. Chemical processes don't know you from a ham sandwich. Your math book does not know algebra. If you are looking for the source of your math book, then you are looking for a mind, not a chemical process. If your philosophy exempts a mind in the first place then no matter how much you look it will be futility.
It cannot. The simplest bacteria is far to complicated. It cannot be broken down into simpler life because it dies.
You are assuming intelligent design had no part to play in cells which are factories that can duplicate. What naturally occurring item? The whole point of the discussion is the cause of the design. You are going with natural due to philosophy in spite of evidence. Mine is evidence based alone. 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.
A dead motor has no utility in a bacteria. Responding to Criticisms of Irreducible Complexity of the Bacterial Flagellum from the Australian Broadcasting Network | Center for Science and Culture There are no fewer parts in earlier forms with bacteria because bacteria is the earliest form known and we are talking about a functioning part. Earlier forms of bacteria are imaginary. Again it is easier to go from bacteria to an elephant then it is to go from goo to bacteria. His argument would be falsified if true but it probably comes with caveats . The problem being we have to search in vain for the counters to come about. Properly understood his argument is simple. It is a motor which propels bacteria thru fluid. Remove parts, and the motor does not function. You have no earlier life forms to bacteria. There are none known.

Very nice reply to a debater's askewed understanding of life verses biochemistry, molecular reactions.

 

[Heissonear]

Complex specified information isn't a valid concept with respect to living things. It's become little more than a buzzword that IDists throw around when they lack a real argument and/or real evidence to support their position.

I'm afraid you lack realization of Design verses over simplified and isolated events and processes. I've been there.

 

[pitabread]

I'm afraid you lack realization of Design verses over simplified and isolated events and processes. I've been there.

I'm afraid that non-sequitur responses will get you absolutely nowhere.

Can you demonstrate that complex specified information is a valid concept with respect to biological things?

No?

Alrighty then.

 

[dmmesdale]

Complex specified information isn't a valid concept with respect to living things.

Here goes the living thing ad hoc exception due to materialistic philosophy which puts blinders on your eyes. Properly understood it is. If it is message bearing (assembly instructions for proteins) then it is complex specified. Your problem is prior convictions which blinds you to the actual evidence.

It's become little more than a buzzword that IDists throw around when they lack a real argument and/or real evidence to support their position.

The evidence for the cause is in the effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here goes the living thing ad hoc exception due to materialistic philosophy which puts blinders on your eyes. Properly understood it is. If it is message bearing (assembly instructions for proteins) then it is complex specified. Your problem is prior convictions which blinds you to the actual evidence.

And yet you cannot support your claim. Neither biologists or experts in information science seem to agree with IDists.

The evidence for the cause is in the effect.

Nope, now that is an example of an ad hoc claim. You do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[pitabread]

Here goes the living thing ad hoc exception due to materialistic philosophy which puts blinders on your eyes. Properly understood it is. If it is message bearing (assembly instructions for proteins) then it is complex specified. Your problem is your your prior convictions which blinds you to the actual evidence.

Cute. Rather than responding with a proper definition and/or mathematical demonstration of the validity of the concept (or heck, even a citation or two from Demski's work), you just claim that the rest of us have "blinders" on precluding us from your obviously enlightened grandiosity.

Try again chief, this time with some effort.

The evidence for the cause is in the effect.

That may make for a cute bumper sticker slogan, but it's not a particularly compelling line of reasoning for your position.

 

[dmmesdale]

Cute. Rather than responding with a proper definition and/or mathematical demonstration of the validity of the concept (or heck, even a citation or two from Demski's work), you just claim that the rest of us have "blinders" on precluding us from your obviously enlightened grandiosity.

Try again chief, this time with some effort.

A math demonstration is not necessary and would fall of deaf ears since i answered that before. I don't need it to know your post is complex specified or coded assembly instructions in DNA requires an intelligent source. It is the fingerprint of intelligence, not natural processes absent intelligence.

That may make for a cute bumper sticker slogan,

Sarcasm.

but it's not a particularly compelling line of reasoning for your position.

Its better than yours. If it is coded instructions for the building of a starship then are you going to be the dissenting opinion that natural processes is the only cause allowed? Yet you can look at the same type in a cell and assert only natural processes can be allowed as the correct answer. The ginned up living ad hoc exception rule.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Very nice reply to a debater's askewed understanding of life verses biochemistry, molecular reactions.

Looky here! The geochemist who won't directly engage with a geochemist on geochemistry topics! It's nice to see you post, Heissonear.

So what are you afraid of? Why do I intimidate you? We are both geochemists. Yet you never respond to any of my posts. I wonder why.

You will be pleased to know I'm not that scary. Let go of your fear of me and engage! We could have a wonderful geochemical conversation!

 

[pitabread]

A math demonstration is not necessary and would fall of deaf ears since i answered that before.

Given that the "complex" part of complex specified information is a probability argument, yeah, you do need to show your math. If you've done so previously, point me to it and I'll take a look.

I don't need it to know your post is complex specified or coded assembly instructions in DNA requires an intelligent source. It is the fingerprint of intelligence, not natural processes absent intelligence.

Arguing that something is self-evident is not a particularly strong line of reasoning. Particularly when we know how the human brain works and that it's possible to trick human perception both intentionally and unintentionally. But that's a different discussion.

Its better than yours.

That's not an answer.

Look, you keep throwing around the term "complex specified information" but you haven't demonstrated any understanding of it beyond a cutsey-sounding buzzword to insert into a sentence to give it the veneer of authority.

I'm asking you to show your work. Demonstrate that this term has real validity with respect to modern biology.

Now is your chance. Show me what ya got.

 

[dmmesdale]

Very nice reply to a debater's askewed understanding of life verses biochemistry, molecular reactions.

It's not all mine.
Your Computer Doesn't Know Anything | Evolution News
Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn’t know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn’t know your cousin’s address. Your watch doesn’t know what time it is. Your car doesn’t know where you’re driving. Your television doesn’t know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning....It is remarkable how much damage has been done to our understanding of our world by materialist metaphysics. Note the irony: the same folks who believe that their household devices have knowledge and intelligence fail to notice the real evidence for intelligence in the formal and final causes that permeate nature.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Mind had nothing to do with the creation of you? Babies in the womb are there via minds connected to persons.

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

Unless you think your mommy spent her evenings putting together your parts by herself.

No, it all happened quite naturally without anyone putting any thought into the building of the child itself.

(I hope I am not introducing you to topics related to human reproduction before you've heard about it from school or your parents).

If your philosophy exempts a mind in the first place then no matter how much you look it will be futility.

Yet your mental state can (and often IS) directly controlled by chemicals. You can make people feel a certain way with chemicals. You can even make people hallucinate with chemicals. And when the chemical reactions stop the thinking and feeling stops.

It cannot. The simplest bacteria is far to complicated. It cannot be broken down into simpler life because it dies.

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.

There is literally NOTHING supernatural about the chemistry of the living system. Take a biochem class. Show me where the "magic" happens in the glycolysis reaction pathway.

Mine is evidence based alone. 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.

I am loth to repeat myself but again: if there is no necessity for intelligence then adding it in is scientifically not valid. You are merely claiming "Design" out of incredulity. You see these amazing systems and you can't imagine how they could arise naturally. And when shown how irreducible complexity is usually easily disproven you simply ignore it.

Your position is borne of a "wish" that there be an intelligence to explain that which you yourself are unable to imagine.

A dead motor has no utility in a bacteria.

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

Why not just "create" it from scratch? Was the intelligence not so sharp?

Again it is easier to go from bacteria to an elephant then it is to go from goo to bacteria.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not all mine.
Your Computer Doesn't Know Anything | Evolution News
Your computer doesn’t know a binary string from a ham sandwich. Your math book doesn’t know algebra. Your Rolodex doesn’t know your cousin’s address. Your watch doesn’t know what time it is. Your car doesn’t know where you’re driving. Your television doesn’t know who won the football game last night. Your cell phone doesn’t know what you said to your girlfriend this morning....It is remarkable how much damage has been done to our understanding of our world by materialist metaphysics. Note the irony: the same folks who believe that their household devices have knowledge and intelligence fail to notice the real evidence for intelligence in the formal and final causes that permeate nature.

That all depends how you define 'know' - does a car that can park itself 'know' how wide the parking space it's parking in is? does a web site 'know' you entered a valid password? If not, why not?

 

[dmmesdale]

Given that the "complex" part of complex specified information is a probability argument, yeah,

It is not a probability argument. If the effect is coded building instruction for the purpose of assembling proteins, then it cause is intelligence opposed to the alternative. It is an inference to the best explanation argument.

you do need to show your math.

No I do not.

If you've done so previously, point me to it and I'll take a look.

I showed it to you once. You did not get it then? Not in the mood to go on a hunt for previous posts. Not on my day off.

Arguing that something is self-evident is not a particularly strong line of reasoning.

They do it all the time in investigation, in troubleshooting, etc. They are looking for causes. Things that are usually whacky and counter can include the claims of con men selling bridges in Brooklyn.

Look, you keep throwing around the term "complex specified information"

Yup, and I even gave examples. French, English, Morse code are all examples of complex specified.

but you haven't demonstrated any understanding of it beyond a cutsey-sounding buzzword to insert into a sentence to give it the veneer of authority.

I have no control over you comprehension, your assumptions about the veneer of authority or your convictions to myths.

I'm asking you to show your work. Demonstrate that this term has real validity with respect to modern biology.

Well we are arguing for causes in DNA containing assembly instructions for proteins. The competors are natural absent intelligence or intelligent intervention. We are going with the latter as the best explanation based on the actual evidence. The coded assembly instructions are the fingerprint of intelligent causation, not natural processes alone which is explanatory impotent. It is applicable to science because it shows how bias, philosophical convictions to myths, can stop progress in its tracks as it is here.


What you are doing is manipulating by attempting to make me jump thru your hoops and not making any case for your convictions for the cause of coded information in DNA. Most of us have raised children. I have not seen a reasonalbe case made and i think the part of the reason you fail in your duties is because of competence. You can't muster a case for non intellgent causation in DNA. What we are doing here is arguing a case and who knows what your side is doing except tap dancing along with shuking and jiving.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Go out in the middle of a lake with a boat and motor and remove the spark plugs. Then wait for natural processes to generate a counter function to get your motor going again. Bring along some bologna sandwiches because you may be sitting out there for a while.

Oh goody. A picnic. How about we share? I'll bring the bread, since I can see you already brought the bologna.

No a motor will never grow another spark plug. That is because spark plugs are built from blueprints that specify exactly how they will be made. People at machines make the full spark plug. If your spark plug fails, then you are up a creek without an engine.

Living things are different from spark plugs. The DNA does not specify the exact form of the animal, but rather, specifies what proteins form when. Thus, the DNA can direct that a simple fetus begins and then continuously modifies that fetus into an adult. Slight changes in what proteins are made, when the proteins begin making, the ratios of the proteins, and the dependence of the cell location on what proteins it makes, gives minor variations in the final product. So a few minor changes in the DNA makes minor changes in the adult. No such process exists for spark plugs. Change one byte in the machine code to make the spark plug, and you probably have junk. Since there is no DNA and no reproduction, there can be no evolution of spark plugs either.

Good bologna, by the way. Would you like some cheese with our sandwiches?

 

[pitabread]

It is not a probability argument.

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

This is what Dembski himself says:

"In The Design Inference (Cambridge, 1998), I argue that specified complexity is a reliable empirical marker of intelligent design. A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified. A short sequence of letters like "the," "so," or "a" is specified without being complex. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. Thus in general, given an event, object, or structure, to convince ourselves that it is designed we need to show that it is improbable (i.e., complex) and suitably patterned (i.e., specified)."​

And further:

"Specified complexity, as I explicate it in The Design Inference, belongs to statistical decision theory. Statistical decision theory attempts to set the ground rules for how to draw inferences for occurrences governed by probabilities. "​

Detecting Design?: | Center for Science and Culture

Given that you've now demonstrated you don't even know what the "complex specified information" is supposed to mean, there is definitely zero chance you'll be able to support any argument with it.

What you are doing is manipulating by attempting to make me jump thru your hoops and not making any case for your convictions for the cause of coded information in DNA.

What I am doing is trying to get you to support your argumentation. What I have found is that you've just latched onto ID-esque terminology without the foggiest idea of what the terminology is supposed to mean.

 

[dmmesdale]

Oh goody. A picnic.

Who invited you?