What's The Matter?

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, when you have no argument, it is best to retreat.

The pigeon playing chess comes to mind here......

 

[Oncedeceived]

The pigeon playing chess comes to mind here......

And debating with you is like:

You are like the one with the tail...just holding on to the limited view you "see" as evidence and yet the entire elephant is obscured.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's the same every time you ask those who put their faith in evolution for actual evidence. They run and hide because evolution is more of a religion than a Fact. Amen?

I agree, when asked for actual evidence for any specific claim they retreat because they don't have it. They are indoctrinated into their own materialistic view and can only repeat the mantra that they have heard chanted over and over...there is mountains of evidence...there is mountains of evidence ..but in that mountain of evidence is there rarely actual evidence for what they are claiming. Evolution of the gaps is grasped much more readily than the God of the Gaps they accuse creationists of using.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not really.
What you call "design", I call "patterns".

I must assume then that you do not understand the argument.

The patterns in cars etc rather show manufacturing.
The patterns in life don't.

You seem to set yourself into a limited area and continue what is comfortable to you. Design is not patterns. Design is planning, purpose and specific function for a goal that works within a hierarchy of systems within systems for the whole goal. Patterns shows you are deflecting the actual argument of design to a category you are more comfortable with and not seeing the entire picture...like a elephant tail.

I disagree. That's not how I spot manufacturing at all.

You don't see manufacturing as a product of the mind? Care to explain?

Right.
Now, if computers or airplanes were biological organisms that reproduce with variation and which compete for limited resources, then we wouldn't be able to draw that conclusion.

Your argument then is that because human design does not include being able to design living organisms the design comparison is faulty? That is logic...not. Your materialistic bias is showing.

But they aren't, so we can.
You can put 2 computers together for a millions years and the only thing that will happen is decay of the computers, to the point where they won't work anymore.

Life? Not so much.

See above.

How it started is irrelevant.
Evolution only takes of after it started.

That is what I am talking about. Either you accept that living organisms were always as complex as we have evidence for or you go with the theory that life had to be much simpler and without much function to build upon to get to where complex molecular machines arose. You have no evidence of this simpler and functionless structure to build upon. That is the point. You have no evidence to support that molecular machines have arose from simpler and functionless structures because you have no evidence of this simpler and functionless structure in which to evolve from into these complex organic factories and biological machines, let alone that they would have the appearance of design for a purpose. Evolution did not evolve from evolution. It is a process that had to have some order and structure to start with that evolution could not by itself provide.

For the sake of the argument, I'm happy to assume the unsupportable position that the god you happen to believe in created the first self-replicating "living" thing.

How magnanimous of you, you will 'grant' that evolution could not have been the reason behind evolution but evolution is the reason for everything from there on in. You do this of course with no evidence to support your belief because there is no evidence ever found that shows that simpler to complex transformation from evolutionary processes. We find in evidence complexity from the get go.

No once... evolution doesn't need to explain things that aren't within its scope.

It is within its scope and it is the structure with which TOE rests. There must be simpler and functionless structures from which the complex features, structures, and functions had to arise from which are not ever produced. Imagination and might be, or could be are not evidence. We can imagine all sorts of wonderful amazing steps that might have taken place, or could have taken place or maybe even did take place but there is no more evidence for such a thing as there is for the Spaghetti Monster. It is only from your own confirmation biases in the materialistic view that it would, should or could have happened that way.

Personally, I detect artificial design through signs of manufacturing.

Artificial?

http://boxcar2d.com/
"The program learns to build a car using a genetic algorithm. It starts with a population of 20 randomly generated shapes with wheels and runs each one to see how far it goes. The cars that go the furthest reproduce to produce offspring for the next generation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
"In the field of artificial intelligence, a genetic algorithm (GA) is a search heuristic that mimics the process of natural selection. This heuristic (also sometimes called a metaheuristic) is routinely used to generate useful solutions to optimization and search problems"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377042705000774
"Genetic algorithms (GAs) are a heuristic search and optimisation technique inspired by natural evolution. They have been successfully applied to a wide range of real-world problems of significant complexity"

http://www.solvexl.com/
"SolveXL is an add-in for Microsoft Excel® which uses evolutionary algorithms to solve complex optimization problems"

This is a designed program that is set up with all the pieces to work. A product of the mind. How do you know, in fact how would you determine that a mind set up the structures which allow evolution to operate? Even in these examples mind must supply an order for the generation of the finished product to occur.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree, when asked for actual evidence for any specific claim they retreat because they don't have it.

You not accepting whatever evidence is presented is not the equivalent of the other party "retreating".

They are indoctrinated into their own materialistic view

I don't hold a materialistic view. I have an open mind. That means that I wouldn't attach a label to myself which would imply the dogmatic acceptance of certain propositions.

and can only repeat the mantra that they have heard chanted over and over...there is mountains of evidence...there is mountains of evidence

That's not a mantra. That's a fact. And the only reason facts need to be repeated is when people don't accept the facts.

..but in that mountain of evidence is there rarely actual evidence for what they are claiming. Evolution of the gaps is grasped much more readily than the God of the Gaps they accuse creationists of using.

Or so you say.

 

[Ben West]

You not accepting whatever evidence is presented is not the equivalent of the other party "retreating".

I don't hold a materialistic view. I have an open mind. That means that I wouldn't attach a label to myself which would imply the dogmatic acceptance of certain propositions.

That's not a mantra. That's a fact. And the only reason facts need to be repeated is when people don't accept the facts.

Or so you say.

The mountain of evidence offered is from other evolutionists who worship at the Altar of the same false Theory. That's circular reasoning. God refutes the ToE by showing that Humans did NOT have our origin on Planet Earth. You can read of these Scoffers of the last days, who remind me of Evolution Religionists, in ll Peter 3:3-7. They are willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. Amen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a designed program that is set up with all the pieces to work. A product of the mind.

By that rationale, one could argue that water freezing into ice is not natural "because freezers".

By extension, this rationale can be used to argue against ANY scientific experiment which happens under controlled conditions.

How do you know, in fact how would you determine that a mind set up the structures which allow evolution to operate?

That would be deism, no? A "mind" that sets the universe in motion and then watches it unfold...

I wouldn't know how one could support such a proposition.
Do you have any suggestions?

Even in these examples mind must supply an order for the generation of the finished product to occur.

Que?

The way GA's work is that you define the parameters that represent "fitness".

For example, say you are designing a fluid distribution system where you have one supply tube which needs to split up to supply the fluid to 5 different points.
There might be some requirements... like for example a specific pressure at each of the 5 endpoints.

In a GA, your "dna string" would be a set of coordinates and diameters for the various tubes. Each generation, the GA would mutate this string, resulting in slightly altered positioning, angles and diameters of the tubes connecting to the end points.

Your "fitness test" would give scores to the various individuals (= full blueprints of the tube system, represented by the "dna" string) in the population. This score would be based on how close the pressure at the 5 endpoints are to the wanted pressures, for the design of the individual currently being tested.

Next, based on these scores, you'ld select breeding pairs to produce a new generation and repeat the whole thing.

What is being programmed here, is NOT the outcome.
What is being programmed is the environment and the selection criteria.

In nature, this is the actual habitat and the struggle for survival and reproduction.



Also, I'ld like to point out that you asked for evidence of this mechanism being an optimization process. I provided exactly that and you brushed it aside with a rather juvenile argument that can also be used to argue against any experiment under controlled conditions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The mountain of evidence offered is from other evolutionists who worship at the Altar of the same false Theory.

This makes no sense.

The evidence is found through scientific means.

That's circular reasoning. God refutes the ToE by showing that Humans did NOT have our origin on Planet Earth. You can read of these Scoffers of the last days, who remind me of Evolution Religionists, in ll Peter 3:3-7. They are willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. Amen?

using the bible to prove the bible, but *I* am the one who is circular.... right.

 

[bhsmte]

This is still going round in circles I see.

Any ID folks provide a workable definition for ID yet?

Any ID folks provide a test to determine when this ID is present, that is falsifiable yet?

 

[Jan Volkes]

This makes no sense.

The evidence is found through scientific means.



using the bible to prove the bible, but *I* am the one who is circular.... right.

Forgive me but you do know that the definition of insanity is exactly what you are doing don't you?
saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
You are talking to someone who will change everything in order to keep believing the way she does,
you have tried coming at her from every angle, she will readily answer your questions with questions
in order to not answer your questions, It must be so deeply ingrained I don't believe she even realises she's doing it.

You must obviously like doing it otherwise you would have stopped a long time ago.
Good luck.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You not accepting whatever evidence is presented is not the equivalent of the other party "retreating".

There has been no evidence provided for the claims made. A hand waving of evolution did it is not evidence. Evidence of the gaps is not evidence. When someone wants to provide actual objective evidence rather than mantra's and could have, should have, imagine this and other assertions then we can review that evidence. Nothing yet.

I don't hold a materialistic view. I have an open mind. That means that I wouldn't attach a label to myself which would imply the dogmatic acceptance of certain propositions.

Your posts don't reflect this open mindedness. You might not put a label on yourself but your posts significantly point to that label.

That's not a mantra. That's a fact. And the only reason facts need to be repeated is when people don't accept the facts.

If you can't climb that mountain of evidence to find specific evidence for specific claims then the mountains of evidence seem as imaginary as those imaginary simpler and functionless cells or organisms from which the complexity we do have evidence for arises.

Or so you say.[/QUOTE]

Proof is in black and white in these threads.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Wisdom for us all!

“Who is this that obscures my plans
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.


4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—

 

[Loudmouth]

We don't have any evidence of order coming from disorder,

We see it all of the time. The fact that we have a continuous situation where the oceans are warmer at the equator than at the poles is order from disorder. The oceans should go to thermal equilibrium, so why don't they?

complex coming from simple but that is what you like to assert all the time.

Complex ice crystals form from a simple, disordered liquid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By that rationale, one could argue that water freezing into ice is not natural "because freezers".

You could but it would be faulty. As you have pointed out, life if not in the same category as shown in cars, buildings and such and the same is true. However, where you miss the point is in design itself. It is not what is designed by man but the recognition of those things that appear designed.

By extension, this rationale can be used to argue against ANY scientific experiment which happens under controlled conditions.

Again that is faulty thinking. The mind can not be separated by ANY scientific experiment, that is true. Yet, in this instance, these GA models actually prove what you are trying to get around. Minds can produce information, information which is necessary for the models in the first place. Minds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of information, that is in evidence; intelligent agents produce information the information needed for the GA models to function at all. The preexisting sources of information provided by the minds that designed them exemplify the power of the mind and necessity of an intelligent design.

That would be deism, no? A "mind" that sets the universe in motion and then watches it unfold...

I didn't say that. We see human's affecting the breeds of dogs for instance which leave no genetic signature or evidence of the "design" they have altered.

I wouldn't know how one could support such a proposition.
Do you have any suggestions?

One would look for evidence of planning and purpose for function in specifically complex systems, features, and structures. We recognize that as in human design which arises from the mind, similar earmarks should be seen in nature. In fact, we do see them in life forms. We recognize that systems, structures, and function that work like those similarly intelligently designed by humans.

Que?

The way GA's work is that you define the parameters that represent "fitness".

For example, say you are designing a fluid distribution system where you have one supply tube which needs to split up to supply the fluid to 5 different points.
There might be some requirements... like for example a specific pressure at each of the 5 endpoints.

In a GA, your "dna string" would be a set of coordinates and diameters for the various tubes. Each generation, the GA would mutate this string, resulting in slightly altered positioning, angles and diameters of the tubes connecting to the end points.

Your "fitness test" would give scores to the various individuals (= full blueprints of the tube system, represented by the "dna" string) in the population. This score would be based on how close the pressure at the 5 endpoints are to the wanted pressures, for the design of the individual currently being tested.

Next, based on these scores, you'ld select breeding pairs to produce a new generation and repeat the whole thing.

What is being programmed here, is NOT the outcome.
What is being programmed is the environment and the selection criteria.

In nature, this is the actual habitat and the struggle for survival and reproduction.

An intelligent agent put forth the information that set the parameters. The outcome can only come from the information set forth i n the original parameters. Again, provides more proof of ID and how it is recognized in nature.

Also, I'ld like to point out that you asked for evidence of this mechanism being an optimization process. I provided exactly that and you brushed it aside with a rather juvenile argument that can also be used to argue against any experiment under controlled conditions.

No, it was not a juvenile argument, it is just a better argument for ID than the opposing view.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Forgive me but you do know that the definition of insanity is exactly what you are doing don't you?
saying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
You are talking to someone who will change everything in order to keep believing the way she does,
you have tried coming at her from every angle, she will readily answer your questions with questions
in order to not answer your questions, It must be so deeply ingrained I don't believe she even realises she's doing it.

You must obviously like doing it otherwise you would have stopped a long time ago.
Good luck.

I haven't seen you provide one argument from anything other than anti-theistic bias and ad hominem retorts. I don't think I am going to get to concerned over your assessment of me?

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is still going round in circles I see.

Any ID folks provide a workable definition for ID yet?

Any ID folks provide a test to determine when this ID is present, that is falsifiable yet?

Shifting the burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is still going round in circles I see.

Any ID folks provide a workable definition for ID yet?

Any ID folks provide a test to determine when this ID is present, that is falsifiable yet?

Shifting the burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Shifting the burden.

Double post...sorry

 

[Oncedeceived]

We see it all of the time. The fact that we have a continuous situation where the oceans are warmer at the equator than at the poles is order from disorder. The oceans should go to thermal equilibrium, so why don't they?



Complex ice crystals form from a simple, disordered liquid.

How is liquid disordered?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I just sprayed weed killer on my lawn, but a surprise rainstorm washed it off within a couple of hours. The weeds showed the characteristic 'leaf curling' but none died. I'll have to spray again. If evolution is true they should have developed immunity by now and will survive the next spraying. I'll let you know.

You merely show you don't understand the multi-generational aspects of evolution. You are going to spray the same plants instead of the next generation of plants, aren't you? Evolution won't have a chance to operate in that case.