WJM is on a Roll

_{Barry Arrington

October 22, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In response to this post rich says:

It’s a bit like looking at a clock for a tenth of a second and lamenting you’ve witnessed no hours. Did you expect to?

To which WJM responds:

what I’m lamenting is not that we do not see hours pass on the clock, but rather, I’m lamenting the faith-based, infinite credulity and certitude expressed by those that have looked at “the clock” for a 10th of a second (as you say) and have extrapolated that into virtual certainty that “the clock”, over time, came into being by chance and natural forces and through those processes developed all the different kinds of functional, accurate time pieces found on Earth.

Even when there is no evidence obtained in that 10th of a second to believe that chance and natural forces are capable of creating a single clock.

And yet, that which is known to regularly create a wide variety of functioning clock-like mechanisms is dismissed out of hand.

That is what we call “selective hyper-skepticism” combined with “selective hyper-credulity”

Comments

rich:
... ID is really one boring negative argument.
So why are you here?Mung_{November 6, 2014
November
11
Nov
6
06
2014
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

Rich sez that I am making things up because he is too stupid to actually understand how science operates. In what way is Rich's ignorance a refutation of what I posted?Joe_{November 4, 2014
November
11
Nov
4
04
2014
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

I forgot to say this is the ultimate in a testable prediction. Check it out for yourself. See if you can pick out the bucket load of complex specified information. Peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

I'm partial to this one http://www.technologyreview.com/view/417818/scientists-develop-financial-turing-test/ process step 1) determine specification criteria by comparing designed verses random data. step 2) verify the specification with additional data sets step 3) Infer design if the chosen/verified specification is observed in data sets that are undetermined. All the elements of CSI are here. The specification, the complex information and the resulting inference. The complex information is not assigned a numeric value and the specification is not spelled out explicitly simply because there is no need to do so. Just as I don't need to show my work when inferring that 4 is the summation of 2 and 2 peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Until a bucket load of CSI can be distinguished from a bucket load of random data you can conclude absolutely nothing about it.
Before anyone dismisses Tamara’s statement – consider this: Bucket 1 vs Bucket 2. This may prove harder than first thought..Heartlander_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

"Anyone would an IQ over 60 can..." Anyone? Data need. Thanks. Poor old Joe still making things up.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

And Rich affirms that he is willfully ignorant. Anyone would an IQ over 60 can see that the scientific investigation and explanatory filter mandate both the elimination of necessity and chance but also the inclusion of a positive case. CSI and IC are those positive cases, Rich. Stop blaming me because you don't understand the arguments presented.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

And Joe reaffirms that ID is really one boring negative argument.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Sure is a hellava lot more than your position has :razz:Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Sure are a lot of estimates in that paper :DRich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Was that an argument, keith s? My use of both of the words is OK given the context.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT}

hurling innuendos
Consult your dictionary, Joe.keith s_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Of course Richie is just blathering about and hurling innuendos and false accusations. Richie asked a question and I answered it. Now he wants to distract from that fact by flailing about and whining.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Link to your position's total FAILure to explain living organisms? LoL! Or to papers that demonstrate how complex and specified living organisms are? Try this: Is Intelligent Design Required by Biological Life See also "The Signature in the Cell"Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Oh course, Joe shows his complete lack of understanding. We provide sets of data, some designed, some not and the design theorists use their methods to detect which is which. I don't know why Joe's going on about "and determined living organisms are intelligently designed" other than complete confusion / inability to understand.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

"We did that Rich and determined living organisms are intelligently designed" - link to it, please.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

We did that Rich and determined living organisms are intelligently designed. And your position still has nothing to counter with.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

WJM, the test would be in a case where design is not know before hand. The sort that ID keeps failing / running away from.Rich_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight challenges:
Until a bucket load of CSI can be distinguished from a bucket load of random data you can conclude absolutely nothing about it.
I guess the irony of TK being able to distinguish CSI-laden strings of text from random-data gibberish while issuing this challenge is lost on her. Tamara, you distinguish bucket-loads of random data from bucket-loads of CSI countless times every single day. How can you not know this?William J Murray_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Tamara Knight- CSI wrt biology is biological information per Crick's definition. CSI is information that is meaningful or has a function and can be measured via Shannon methodology.Joe_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Tamara #405: So now CSI is not even a qualitative measure of “Information”. You’ve relaxed its definition further to only mean something about the knowledge needed to create it.
Arguably that would hardly constitute relaxation of the definition of CSI! However it is not my intention to change the definition of CSI and I don’t quite understand how you read this in my text (post #405). We must be talking past each other. It may be of use if I offer my definition of CSI – in this context: CSI is complex information that specifies for a functional protein. The CSI is embedded in DNA, which serves as a medium for the CSI. IOW genetic code.Box_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

IOW the random mutation repairs the code without intelligence, but doesn’t constitute an (unintelligent) explanation for the code in its entirety.
So now CSI is not even a qualitative measure of "Information". You've relaxed its definition further to only mean something about the knowledge needed to create it

How does the “intelligently designed” CSI differ from the randomly generated CSI in two otherwise identical strings of DNA?
There is no difference whatsoever. The question is: can natural forces create CSI?
No the question is "What is CSI?". Until a bucket load of CSI can be distinguished from a bucket load of random data you can conclude absolutely nothing about it.Tamara Knight_{November 3, 2014
November
11
Nov
3
03
2014
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

aiguy said, you’ve ignored the other two examples: (1) animals (like termites) who build structures with CSI, but who do not have general intelligence, and (2) human savants who have highly developed abilities to produce CSI in some constrained area but lack general intelligence. I say, I'd like to discuss this if you are still around Do you think that the artifacts produced by animals and human savants are basically the same? This is not a trick question. I'm trying to think about the similarities and differences and if all CSI is qualitatively the same. peacefifthmonarchyman_{November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

RDFish:
1) Being designed doesn’t disqualify something from being intelligent
Yet to be demonstrated
2) Not everything that produces CSI has the mental traits we associate with “intelligence”
Yet to be demonstrated
3) The appearance of complex mechanisms does not necessarily indicate the existence of these mental traits
Strawman
4) ID is not a valid scientific inference
Not to people like you. But to educated investigators, it is.Joe_{November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

timmy:
Crick’s definition doesn’t mention complex or specified
What? Specification is definitely there in the definition. And complexity can be gleaned from the number of proteins and nucleotides required, duh. timmy is one dishonest or very stupid person.
Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.
The precise determination of sequence = specification.Joe_{November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Thorton,
Box #405: The question is: can natural forces create CSI? Are they up to the task? If the simplest cell contains far more CSI than a Boeing 747, and we don’t believe that natural forces (e.g. a hurricane) can create a Boeing 747, why do we hold that natural forces can create life?

Thorton #407: Boeing 747s weren’t produced through a 3.5+ billion year iterative feedback process that caused the slow accumulation of working variations. You haven’t show evolutionary processes can’t produce your magic pixie dust, er, “CSI”. No one has. All you’ve done is assert it over and over.
One cannot invoke on unguided evolution ("a 3.5+ billion year iterative feedback process that caused the slow accumulation of working variations") with regard to OOL (the origin of life). Arguably, the first life form on earth, was a 'simple cell'. Here is what I said again:
If the simplest cell contains far more CSI than a Boeing 747, and we don’t believe that natural forces (e.g. a hurricane) can create a Boeing 747, why do we hold that natural forces can create life?
Here by "the simplest cell" is meant "the first life form on earth". Oviously, one cannot invoke on the alleged mechanisms of unguided evolution as an explanation of this first life form on earth. Evolution can only act on life forms that are already in existence.Box_{November 2, 2014
November
11
Nov
2
02
2014
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

RDFish, I haven't had much time to participate the past few days. Still don't have much but I hope to get back into the discussion soon enough. Still, in the meantime, I'm trying to figure something out. You keep referring to the Sphex Wasp as appearing to solve complex problems in a thoughtful way, but I'm trying to figure out which problems you're talking about. It doesn't seem like you can be talking about their activity digging burrows or their rigid routine involved in bringing food into the burrow to feed their eggs once hatched. What, in particular, do you have in mind?HeKS_{November 1, 2014
November
11
Nov
1
01
2014
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

RDFish:
archaeology doesn’t use “ID methodology” to infer that artifacts are from “intelligent agents
ID uses extended archaeology methodology to infer that living organisms are from "intelligent design"Joe_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Hey Aiguy, you said, other people act so much like I do (recognizing my image in a mirror, displaying emotions, solving novel problems, and so on), and they have the same brain structures that I have that are known to correlate with consciousness. I say, Here is the problem with that. You don't know if I recognize my face in the mirror You don't know if I have have the same brain structures as you have You don't know if my displays of emotion are real or the result of a clever chat box program You don't know if I can solve novel problems instead of just accessing the solutions others have formulated. What you can know is whether I have the ability to integrate my experiences/thoughts/proclivities into a unified unique whole that is me and you with research can discover if that "data compression" is nonlossy or not. you say, These are also the tests that doctors and cognitive scientists use to assess consciousness in humans and other animals. I say, I would love to discuss how ITT and CSI are already changing the way these sorts of tests are done expect much more in the future. check this out http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003887 Peacefifthmonarchyman_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

RDF
archaeology doesn’t use “ID methodology” to infer that artifacts are from “intelligent agents”. They use knowledge about “human beings” to infer that artifacts are from “human beings”.
This is bad logic and a claim made out of ignorance. Just because archeologists use knowledge about human beings doesn't mean that they don't also use design detection technology. In fact, they use their knowledge of human beings to infer design in artifacts that resemble objects with which we are familiar, and they use ID methodology to infer design in objects that do not resemble those things with which we are familiar.StephenB_{October 31, 2014
October
10
Oct
31
31
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 15 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply