Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 20, 2018

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

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

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From math prof Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

Sean Carroll has a new paper out defending the Multiverse and attacking the naive Popperazi, entitled Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. He also has a Beyond Falsifiability blog post here.

Much of the problem with the paper and blog post is that Carroll is arguing against a straw man, while ignoring the serious arguments about the problems with multiverse research.

…

the problem with the multiverse is that it’s an empty idea, predicting nothing. It is functioning not as what we would like from science, a testable explanation, but as an untestable excuse for not being able to predict anything. In defense of empty multiverse theorizing, Carroll wants to downplay the role of any conventional testability criterion in our understanding of what is science and what isn’t.More.

Downplaying testability is the whole point of postmodernism. Who is to judge?

And the multiverse is postmodern physics. Wait till it meets up with postmodern (algebra is racist) math.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Comments

GP @24:
I have made, many times, a challenge that nobody has even tried to answer.
Will anyone on the other side answer the following two simple questions? 1) Is there any conceptual reason why we should believe that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases? 2) Is there any evidence from facts that supports the hypothesis that complex protein functions can be deconstructed into simpler, naturally selectable steps? That such a ladder exists, in general, or even in specific cases?

Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

Has Seversky commented on what GP wrote to him @25 yet? https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/actually-the-multiverse-is-cheerfully-beyond-falsifiability/#comment-649759Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Eugene S @35: "God is omnipotent after all. He can do whatever He wants. He wanted to create a world in the way He wanted. He interferes without any difficulty when, where and in what manner He so desires. True, He is not arbitrary with His creation but wants to teach us something."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

@37: "The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or madalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the consnious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

KF @46:
the evidence of deeply isolated islands of function in biological systems starts with protein fold domains in AA sequence space, leading to an insuperable information creation challenge for the range of augmented Darwinist mechanisms. Likewise, the top-down phyla etc. first nature of the fossil record directly implies core body plan programming first, which is precisely the part where random changes in embryological development are overwhelmingly likely to be fatal. Adaptation of body plans as part of robustness of design is what is indicated, and given peculiarities of taxonomy that can readily go up to families.
Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

@62: "As an artist may want to build up his work gradually, so that the finale is particularly complex and beautiful, so could the biological designer have artistic, or any other kind of specific purposes." "We don’t know exactly, but we can try to understand. Always starting from facts." "And there are probably other possible explanations." "Why did Shakespeare write 154 sonnets? Why not 3, or 3000? " "I don’t know. We should maybe ask him. Or try to make hypotheses from the little we know."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

@61: "...maybe the designer is omnipotent, maybe not, but one thing is certain: we are not omniscient. Science can only infer from what we can observe. Nothing else." "...the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

@61: "Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features." "...given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input." "ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result." "...it’s not the designer that has or does not have, limitations. It’s our knowledge of the designer which has severe limitations."Dionisio_{January 25, 2018
January
01
Jan
25
25
2018
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT}

Interesting discussion. 02 KF to SV 06 BA77 13 BA77 24 GP to CR 25 GP to SV 26 BA77 28 BA77 34 BA77 35 ES 37 GP to CR 40 BA77 43 BA77 47 BA77 48 GP to CR 53 BA77 55 BA77 58 ES to CR 59 BA77 61 GP to CR 62 GP to CRDionisio_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist at#49:
What’s strange and silly about it? Take construction, for example. We’re already started 3D printing homes, which takes significantly less time to construct reduces costs and means you could print a different home every time because the layout of the walls is determined by the programmable motion of the concrete printer. Want a house with walls in the shape of a circle? How about in the shape of a triangle or in the shape of your initials, etc.? And that’s just what we can do today. The creation of new knowledge we cannot yet conceive of will impact how we designed things in ways we cannot predict. And you argument that designers must have those libations will no longer be applicable. The I-4 project in central Flordia will take 2.3 billion dollars at over 5 years to complete. That results in traffic delays and other costs above and the actual construction itself. However, with the right knowledge, construction time could be reduced to months, while doing so even more cheaply and efficiently with less waste, pollution, etc. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving it is knowing how. And when that knowledge is created, it will be reflected in the things we design. The most significant quantity in what transformations are possible is knowledge, or the lack of it.
No problems with that. But again, knowledge is not the only factor. There are problems of resources, of available procedures, and maybe even of strategies. However, I maintain that, at any definite moment and in any definite scenario, a designer will usually implement the simplest and cheapest solution.
Knowledge will allow us to do exponentially more with significantly less. It will come down to a few more CPU cycles to create something new and unique, as opposed to building it out of the same exact parts, because the most efficient means of manufacturing will via programmable constructors. Why buy 10-20 specialized systems when you can buy one that can play all of same roles? Why wait to retool your assembly line, and loose sales to competitors? Why keep inventory when you can simply use multiple programmable systems to manufacture a vast number of products on demand? We’ve already started doing this with books, now think 3D printing on steroids with cars, furniture, and then there is clothing! You’ll never have to wear the same thing twice. Instead of putting your clothes in a washing machine, you’ll put in in a device that will break the garment broken down into raw materials and turned it into something new while being “cleaned” at the same time. Rather than being reformed in the original design, switch it out with something slightly or even entirely different. And that process can probably be refined enough that, eventually, it will take less energy than what it takes to wash the same clothes we wear today. If you need to move some furniture tomorrow, your garage will recycle the matter of your coupe into a SUV over night. But then why do you need to move furniture when you can simply “print” a copy of it at your new location?
Well, nothing new here. See above.
Again, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving this is knowing how. Did ID’s designer not possess this knowledge or did it simply choose to to not use it because “That’s just what it must have wanted” to do? I don’t see any third option options.
There are many possible explanations: a) The designer did not possess that knowledge. As I have repeatedly said. there is no problem with that idea. Have you problems with it? b) It is not so much a question of knowledge, but of resources. IOWs, the designer, whatever his knowledge, acts under serious constraints. c) There are reasons in the gradual expression of biological design that can be linked to specific purposes. As an artist may want to build up his work gradually, so that the finale is particularly complex and beautiful, so could the biological designer have artistic, or any other kind of specific purposes. We don't know exactly, but we can try to understand. Always starting from facts. And there are probably other possible explanations. I have only expressed those that seem the most reasonable to me.
And talk about grandeur, why do we have 300,000 species of beetles?
Why did Shakespeare write 154 sonnets? Why not 3, or 3000? I don't know. We should maybe ask him. Or try to make hypotheses from the little we know. Why 300,000 species of beetles? See above.gpuccio_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

critical rationalist at#49:
If that’s all that is required, then those limitations are not required either. As such, it’s unclear why we should assume those limitations as the basis of making predictions.
You seem not to understand. We don't assume the limitations, least of all to make predictions. As I said, all that is required for a designer to be able to design is: "that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter." So, the steps are as follows: a) We infer design by the observation of complex functional information in the object. b) At that point, we assume a designer, that is a conscious, intelligent, purposeful being capable of inputting information into objects, as the origin of the observed complex functional information. At this point, that's all that we know of the designer. You say that it is abstract: that's not true. Being capable of conscious, intelligent, purposeful representations and being able to input those representations into matter is anything but abstract. It is a very positive set of features. Has this assumed designer limitations? We simply don't know a priori. You seem to believe that it should not have them, that it should be an omnipresent god. But that is only your personal imagination. Nothing of that is in ID theory. So, we know nothing of the designer except for what we have alredy said. But we can try to infer new information about it from the only legitimate scientific source: facts, the observable design. So, all the limitations that I have listed are reasonable inferences from the observation of biological designed objects. They are not assumptions, and they are not used to make predictions. The basic assumptions about the designer, instead, can be the basis for predictions. For example, given that design is essentially the input of functional information into objects from conscious representations, the main prediction of ID is that we should be able to observe, or infer, that input. That's exactly what I have tried to do with my OPs about functional information jumps in natural history. For example, in the transition to vertebrates. These are facts, observable by everyone. They are not in any way predicted by neo-darwinism. They are absolutely predicted by ID. And they are real, abundant, undeniable.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, I would again point out the mere negation of a theory does not result in creation of a new explanatory theory.
It is true. And you don't understand. This is not simply the negation of a theory. ID is not simply the negation of neo-darwinism. ID is a positive theory, which states that some observable property of objects, complex functional information, is observed only as the result of design. In the whole observable universe. That has nothing to do with neo-darwinism. It is a definite, positive theory about the connection between conscious intelligent representations and a definite observable result. Neo-darwinism is the only existing theory which affirms that a special form of complex functional information arises through a non design mechanism. So, it is obviously part of ID theory to falsify this statement, which, if true, would falsify ID. But ID is a positive and empirical theory about complex functional information in any context, and not only the confutation of neo darwinism. Therefore, your objection is completely wrong.
And, since ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such as what it knew, when it knew it, etc. at best, one could merely say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Which would equally as well refer to wanting to create organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once.
What you say is really senseless. Remember, we infer a designer from what we observe in material objects. Why should we make free assumptions about the designer? Why should we assume that it knows such or such, or that it prefers to design things from simple to complex, or vice versa? What kind of science is this? The only thing we can do, as scientists, is ask ourselves: what does the observation of facts, of designed objects in biology, tell us about the designer? Which is exactly what I have done. As I have already said, it's not the designer that has or does not have, limitations. It's our knowledge of the designer which has severe limitations. We can say: the designer is an omnipotent being, and has no limitations. Or we can say: the designer has a lot of limitations, and they are such and such. Both statements would be mere imagination, and would be completely gratuitous. The simple fact is: both a designer without any limitation and a designer with limitations can design. Because all that is required to be able to design is what I have already said. But you will say: they will probably design in different ways. That is probably true. That's why I say: let's look at the design. That will tell us something. And the design tells us something: it tells us that the biological designer has probably specific limitation, for example those that I have listed. That it works under constraints. It's as simple as that.
I walked to and from my technology client’s office yesterday. It’s a 30 minute walk. Following your logic, “I seem to need to walk to reach my current on-site project”, but that would be false. My car works just fine. The weather was nice and I chose to walk because I missed working out earlier over the weekend. Even if I walked every day for the entire length of my contract, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have other options. This simply doesn’t follow from observation.
OK, but if all that we can observe about you is your walk, all that we can scientifically infer is that you can walk. And that you have probably chosen to walk, in the circumstances we have observed. Which is exactly what I say about the desinger. We cannot certainly infer that you have a car, and all the rest, because we can only infer from what we observe. You know, maybe the designer is omnipotent, maybe not, but one thing is certain: we are not omniscient. Science can only infer from what we can observe. Nothing else. Again, your "arguments" are probably bad philosophy, but certainly they are not scientific arguments.
?It’s supposed designs would include methods of error correction,
Biological design certainly does.
which would include the knowledge of what transformations of matter would result in reverting the changes.
Yes.
Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing now. This includes correcting the very errors in question. We cannot now, nor can our own cells, because the necessary knowledge is not present there. However, assuming we create the necessary knowledge in time, will eventually be able to correct those errors, where nature could not.
OK, and so? We can certainly cure some diseases that designed nature cannot spontaneously cure. And vice versa. And so?
Again, it’s a question of knowing how. Our explanation for why those variations go uncorrected is because the knowledge of how to correct them doesn’t exist. It hasn’t been created yet. It’s a necessary consequence of the theory.
And so?
But ID’s designer has no such limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc.
Why? This is only your imagination, nothing else. As I have said, we don't know a priori what limitations the biological designer has or has not.
Was there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.
Why? It's not a hard sell at all. From what we observe, it is reasonable that the biological designer had to act generating first simpler levels of function, and then higher complexity. That's what we infer from what we observe. The reason could be that it acquired its knowledge gradually, by experimentation. Or that the knowledge was already there, but the implementation had serious limitations. Or both. I have no reasons at all to favour one intepretation over the others, unless and until facts will offer some definite clue. That's how science works.
I’m not following you. Are you saying that ID, the theory, always assumes those limitations are actually present in its designer.
No. As explained, the only things assumed are consciousness, intelligence, purpose, and some interface to biological matter. Nothing else. The rest are inferences from facts.
And therefore it always assumes they are present when making predictions?
No. Predictions are made from the basic assumtpions I have listed, and from nothing else.
Otherwise, ID is also compatible with not having those limitations and is, therefore, also compatible with the order of appearance of most complex to least complex or even all at once, which is my point. That order is not a necessary consequence of the theory. At best, “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”
No. Design is certainly compatible with different styles of design, although it is a fact that it usually goes from simpler designs to more complex designs. The order we observe in biology is simply the order we usually observe in most cases of design. Therefore, it is an order which is perfectly compatible with design. It is not a consequence of the theory, but it is simply an observed fact which is absolutely compatible with it. Why have you this strange idea that a theory should predict every single thing as a consequence of the theory itself? That's not true. Most observed facts are compatible with some theory, or with more than one, but they are not specifically predicted exclusively by that theory. I have already explained what are the specific predictions that ID can do, and from what they are derived. Of course, the order from simpler to more complex is perfectly compatible with both ID and neo darwinism. But it is not the exclusive prediction of one or the other. Other things, that are predicted differently by the two theories, can serve to make the difference. For example, information jumps.
However, ID’s designer is abstract. It doesn’t have budgets, shareholders, the need for engineering staff, R&D departments, dry runs, crash safety tests, etc.
Maybe. Maybe not. Again, how do you know all those things? I certainly don't have such precise informations.
Even human software developers can update their software when new versions of the OS they run on is released. .
OK. And new species appearing in the course of natural history do appear to be wonderful updates. What's your point?
Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing how.
Maybe. Ans so? Anyway, just for completeness, you are forgetting that there can also be problems in the implementation procedure, which can require specific steps.
That means that any order of appearance that isn’t probated by the laws of physics would be possible for IDs’ designer because it has no defined limits of what it knew, when it knew it, etc. Or are you suggesting there ever a time ID’s designer did not possess that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.
Again, why? It's not a hard sell at all. It is a reasonable possibility. Not the only one, but certainly a reasonable one. I don't see anything in ID theory that requires that the biological designer is, and has always been, omniscient.
See above. Things are cheap now were very expensive in the past. What changed? We created the knowledge to achieve them cheaply, more efficiently and even via simpler methods. That argument only follow if you assume we will not or cannot create significantly new knowledge, so that would always continue to be the case.
The fact remains that at any moment a designer will probably prefer to do things in the cheapest and simplest way. And it is not a problem of knowledge only. It is also a problem of resources. Things that were cheaper yesterday can become more expensive today, not because our knowledge has become less, but because some resource has become exhausted. And again, there is no problem in thinking that new knowledge has been created in the course of biological design. None at all. More in next post.gpuccio_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

CR then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. You are kidding right?tribune7_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

"Except in all the cases where they completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests." Please do cite the exact experimental results where they have been shown to be in error. You are hallucinating. "Again, unless you can point me to a working theory of quantum gravity, both quantum mechanics and relativity have been proven false because they disagree with experiment." That is a HUGE non-sequitur. Failure to unify two theories into your 'imagined' theory of quantum gravity is NOT a disagreement with experiment it is a disagreement with your false theoretical expectations. Moreover, the expectation of unification, i.e. a 'theory of everything' does not follow from math, in fact there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that cannot be 'unified' with one another (G. Chaitin), but the expectation for a 'theory of everything' is instead an expectation that is born solely out of Theistic presuppositions:
“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,” Professor of philosophy Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge - Video - quoted at the 17:34 minute mark https://uncommondescent.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/
And indeed, when the Agent causality of God is let back into the picture of modern physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Planck to name a few, then an empirically backed reconciliation between quantum theory and gravity is found in Christ's resurrection from the dead. Namely, the Shroud of Turin gives evidence that both gravity and quantum mechanics were dealt with in Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Particle Radiation from the Body - July 2012 - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf Astonishing discovery at Christ's tomb supports Turin Shroud - NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. 'However, Enea scientists warn, "it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. https://www.ewtn.co.uk/news/latest/astonishing-discovery-at-christ-s-tomb-supports-turin-shroud
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Also see:
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY
bornagain77_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

CR "Given that ID’s supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it’s unclear what significance it means to say something is designed" Well, if you find a body and are able to figure out if it was a murder and not an accident, at least it does matter to the family to know that it was a murder, to say nothing of the fact that the family can claim a different amount of life insurance money, if nothing else. So it does matter sometimes. It also means a lot to the people who live in the neighbourhood regardless of who exactly the killer was. It matters to the town council too, as different level of safety precautions must be taken if it was a murder, not an accident. In any case, first you need to be able to classify it as a murder (design). All we are talking about is you need a design classifier. What is the problem with the fact that such classifiers exist (in forensics, archaeology, medicine and biology for that matter), other than ideological discomfort of ID opponents?EugeneS_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

@BA
Shsssh, OPERA anomaly was the result of experimental error in one series of tests. Was quickly rectified.
It was never refuted in the first place, so there was nothing to rectify.
That claim is ‘not even wrong’. Both theories are confirmed to extraordinary levels of precision by experimentation.
Except in all the cases where they completely and repeatedly disagree with actual experimental tests. Again, unless you can point me to a working theory of quantum gravity, both quantum mechanics and relativity have been proven false because they disagree with experiment.
Quote: ‘If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
critical rationalist_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

You find an object. You want to determine if it’s designed. You apply a test. The test determines with confidence that it is designed.
Given that ID's supposedly says nothing about the designer, then it's unclear what significance it means to say something is designed. What necessary predictions can be made based on that conclusion, such as the order of appearance of organisms? IOW, without there being necessary consequences for the the current state of the system other than being well adapted to serve some purpose, which is not in question in the absence of assuming that object is designed, anyway. Who's to say the designer isn't actually a entire committee of designers who all made compromises and none of them got what they wanted? What then? Who's to say the designer is basically practicing eugenics, and therefore we're all just experiments, etc? Who's to say the purpose that object is well adapted to perform actually represents some purpose that has any significance? Do get anywhere like that at all, you'd have to make some very specific assumptions about the designer which, is supposedly absent from the theory itself. Again, the mere negation of a theory does not result in a the creation of a new explanatory theory. So, what, if anything does ID refute in any substantial sense?
The test, however, does not tell you who designed it or how it was designed. Should you reject your new understanding because these questions are not answered?
Again, what new understanding do I have now, given that we can know nothing about the designer? What predictions does that allow me to make I couldn't before? What problems does it help me solve that I couldn't before? Which leads me back to my challenge. How does ID explain the order of appearance of least complex to most complex? I'm not seeing it.critical rationalist_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

Shsssh, OPERA anomaly was the result of experimental error in one series of tests. Was quickly rectified. Falsification of NS and RV, on the other hand, is accomplished via multiple lines of evidence and experimentation. No one who is knowledgeable even contests the results of the experiments. Not even close to comparable. Your intellectual dishonesty in this matter is pathetic. And once again, as you yourself give witness to, Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a real science since there is no falsification criteria based in math that Darwinists will accept as a valid falsification (though it has none-the-less been falsified.
Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudo-Science based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeDi6gUMQJQ
also see:
Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18WD6bF7fTqzJr4SsFxpkIvIuapkxGDfRbAPO1CLd_1U/edit
You claim that both QM and GR 'represent anther (sec) example of being found in error by experiment.' That claim is 'not even wrong'. Both theories are confirmed to extraordinary levels of precision by experimentation.
The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/
As David Berlinski stated:
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/quote-of-the-day-8/
bornagain77_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

To experimentally falsify a theory is to refute it.
It does? See #51. The 2012 OPERA experiment represents one example of the contrary. How else do you explain what happened there?
You appealed to Quantum Theory and General Relativity,,
Both of which represent anther example of being found in error by experiment. As such, they are false theories, despite having yet to be refuted. Nor is it clear how Christ being resurrected from the dead represents a theory of quantum gravity. In both cases, those theories were not refuted because the negation of a theory does not result in a new explanatory replacement theory.critical rationalist_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

"I know what falsification is. I’m referring to refuting a theory, not falsifying it." To experimentally falsify a theory is to refute it. In your barely comprehensible attempt at rationalization for why you don't believe Darwinism to be 'refuted', You appealed to Quantum Theory and General Relativity,,, Ironically, you do not even realize that the most 'plausible' reconciliation between the two theories is Christ's resurrection from the dead.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRZECqs8Iqeqv0GzP5lV6et_K9_rYrz06Tchoa4U0Rw/edit
also see
Gödel, Infinity, and Jesus Christ as the Theory of Everything - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Jw5Y686jY
bornagain77_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

CR I honestly have a hard time understanding why you are having so much trouble with this concept. You find an object. You want to determine if it's designed. You apply a test. The test determines with confidence that it is designed. The test, however, does not tell you who designed it or how it was designed. Should you reject your new understanding because these questions are not answered?tribune7_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

@BA I know what falsification is. I'm referring to refuting a theory, not falsifying it. From another thread...
The problem is, this simply doesn’t add up. Specifically, you seem to be suggesting that the objective of science should be to increase our ‘credence” for true theories and that ‘credences’ held by a rational thinker actualy does obey the probillity calculus, in practice. But when we try to take this seriously, for the purpose of criticism, it fails. Example? Take some explantory theory T, such as the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. The negation of T (~T), the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, is not an explantion in the least. It’s merely the negation of T, which doesn’t result in a new explantory theory. Now, with that in mind, let’s suppose it actually is possible, for the sake of argument, to quantify this property that science is supposed to maximize. Let’s call that ‘q’. If explanatory theory T had some amount of q, then ~T has no q at all, as opposed to the 1-q that the probability calculus would require if q actually represents a probability. It’s a category error, of sorts, because ~T, not representing a explanatory theory, has none of what gave T a probality. Furthermore, take the conjunction of two mutually inconsistent explantory theoires (T1 & T2), such as quantum theory and relativity. Both of them are provably false. So, their conjunction would have a probability of zero. Yet, the conjunction of those two theoires is the best understanding we have of the world, which is expontationally far from nothing Finally, if we expect that all of our best explantory theories of fundamental physics will eventually be superseded, what we would believe today would eventually become negations of the very future theoires that supersede them. However, it’s still those false explanatory theoires, not true negations, that represent our deepest knowege of physics. What will have happened to all the probablity they supposedly have today? IOW, what science seeks to maximize is explantory power, not probability or ‘credence’, because rational thinkers do not actually behave that way, in practice.
And....
Another example? During the 2012 OPERA experiment in Switzerland, neutrinos were detected in a way that indicated they were traveling faster than the speed of light. Did this immediately refute Einstein’s theory that nothing travels faster than C? No, it did not. This is because we did not have a theory that explained why neutrinos were traveling faster than the speed of light in the OPERA experiment, but not others. IOW, the negation of a theory does not produce a new explantory theory. Before Einstein’s theory was overthrown, a new theory would be needed to explain the same phenomena at least as well, in addition to the additional phenomena of the unique OPERA observations, and we didn’t have one. Eventually, it was discovered the theory that the experiment was set up in such as way that observations would be accurate was false, rather than the theory that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in real space. ID, as a negation of neo-Darwinism, doesn’t explain the same phemona, remotely as well, let alone any specific descrepencies we observe. “That’s just what some designer must have wanted” is not such an explanation. Nor is some abstract authorative source that has no defined limitations. To quote Popper, “Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.”
critical rationalist_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

CR:
Again, unless ID explains the same phenomena just as well, then goes on to explain all of the supposed specific devotions, in specific detail, then there is no refutation.
Just as well as what? Neither Darwinian nor neo-Darwinian can explain the apparent order of fossils. That is because those concepts don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes.
Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it.
Wow, only a willfully ignorant punk would say that and here you are.ET_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

CR: “If this designer has these limitations, then why are they not present in the theory of ID itself? What are the implication of those limitations?” G: It’s simple. The theory of ID states that you can infer design from the presence of complex functional information. That does not require any knowledge of who the designer is, of his limitations or modalities of action and so on. The only required thing is that the designer is a designer, IOWs that he is a conscious intelligent being, capable of the conscious experiences of understanding and purpose, and of some interface to input functional information into matter.
If that’s all that is required, then those limitations are not required either. As such, it’s unclear why we should assume those limitations as the basis of making predictions.
So, all your objection in no way falsify the simple empirical evidence that new complex functional information can be generated only by conscious intelligent agents. Which is the main point of the comment I quoted, a point you have not answered at present.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that were true, I would again point out the mere negation of a theory does not result in creation of a new explanatory theory. And, since ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such as what it knew, when it knew it, etc. at best, one could merely say “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”. Which would equally as well refer to wanting to create organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. We’re up to 25 comments, yet no better explanation has been presented.
“It seems to need time to implement design.”

“It seems to need gradual development of function to implement higher functions.”
I walked to and from my technology client’s office yesterday. It’s a 30 minute walk. Following your logic, "I seem to need to walk to reach my current on-site project”, but that would be false. My car works just fine. The weather was nice and I chose to walk because I missed working out earlier over the weekend. Even if I walked every day for the entire length of my contract, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have other options. This simply doesn’t follow from observation.
“It has a lot of “competitors”: for example, biological variation that tends to degrade the functionality in its designs.”
?It’s supposed designs would include methods of error correction, which would include the knowledge of what transformations of matter would result in reverting the changes. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing now. This includes correcting the very errors in question. We cannot now, nor can our own cells, because the necessary knowledge is not present there. However, assuming we create the necessary knowledge in time, will eventually be able to correct those errors, where nature could not. Again, it’s a question of knowing how. Our explanation for why those variations go uncorrected is because the knowledge of how to correct them doesn’t exist. It hasn’t been created yet. It’s a necessary consequence of the theory. But ID’s designer has no such limitations on what it knew, when it knew it, etc. Was there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.
The implications are clear enough: there are reasons why the biological designer has, or chooses, to act this way.
Great! That’s exactly what I’m asking for. What are they?
The simple question should be: are these limitations compatible with the working of a conscious, intelligent, purposeful designer? (or with some set of them?) he answer is obviously yes. All those “limitations”, for example, are in some form present in human design. Therefore, they are obviously compatible with design.
I’m not following you. Are you saying that ID, the theory, always assumes those limitations are actually present in its designer. And therefore it always assumes they are present when making predictions? So, When should I expect ID, the theory, to be updated to reflect this? Otherwise, ID is also compatible with not having those limitations and is, therefore, also compatible with the order of appearance of most complex to least complex or even all at once, which is my point. That order is not a necessary consequence of the theory. At best, “That’s just what the designer must have wanted”
CR: “What are the implications of needing to reuse things?” G: I am really amazed at that question. Are you serious? Just ask any software programmer, or if you like, just ask any housekeeping wife (or husband, to be politically correct!) ???? Why should a conscious intelligent designer “need to reuse things”?
I’m a technologist. Roughly speaking, that means solving problems with technology, which often includes writing software. How does that work? I start out with a feature to develop, which is a problem to solve. Since I don’t already know what instructions are needed ahead of time, I have to make educated guesses as to what instructions will actually solve that problem, actually input them into the system, wait while the compiler converts those high-level instructions into low-level instructions that will actually be executed by the hardware, start them executing with sample data, then run tests on the output and discard any errors I find. I then repeat the process until the test passes. This takes time. Furthermore, changing or updating those instructions can introduce errors because, again, any changes I might make start out as educated guesses, that would need to be converted, tested, etc. So, the process starts all over again. Not to mention that I have to be efficient enough to compete with other consultants that work in my industry. And my clients have limited budgets and deadlines to meet so they can compete with other companies in their industry, etc. It’s the same as with the automotive example in my previous comment. However, ID’s designer is abstract. It doesn’t have budgets, shareholders, the need for engineering staff, R&D departments, dry runs, crash safety tests, etc. Even human software developers can update their software when new versions of the OS they run on is released. . Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving it is knowing how. That means that any order of appearance that isn’t probated by the laws of physics would be possible for IDs’ designer because it has no defined limits of what it knew, when it knew it, etc. Or are you suggesting there ever a time ID’s designer did not posses that knowledge? That’s going to be a hard sell.
It’s simpler. It’s easier. It’s cheaper. It makes a lot of sense.
See above. Things are cheep now were very expensive in the past. What changed? We created the knowledge to achieve them cheaply, more efficiently and even via simpler methods. That argument only follow if you assume we will not or cannot create significantly new knowledge, so that would always continue to be the case.
CR: “In the future, mere human beings, using advanced computer systems, will be able to create one of, custom vehicles that reuse no common parts. And we will be able to do this despite having limited resources, time etc. Every single part could be printed and nothing reused. Or it will be assembled using some kind of universal constructor one atom at a time, etc.” G: It’s a very strange idea, but let’s just say that it is a remote possibility. Humans are silly enough to do even that!
What’s strange and silly about it? Take construction, for example. We’re already started 3D printing homes, which takes significantly less time to construct reduces costs and means you could print a different home every time because the layout of the walls is determined by the programmable motion of the concrete printer. Want a house with walls in the shape of a circle? How about in the shape of a triangle or in the shape of your initials, etc.? And that’s just what we can do today. The creation of new knowledge we cannot yet conceive of will impact how we designed things in ways we cannot predict. And you argument that designers must have those libations will no longer be applicable. The I-4 project in central Flordia will take 2.3 billion dollars at over 5 years to complete. That results in traffic delays and other costs above and the actual construction itself. However, with the right knowledge, construction time could be reduced to months, while doing so even more cheaply and efficiently with less waste, pollution, etc. Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us from achieving it is knowing how. And when that knowledge is created, it will be reflected in the things we design. The most significant quantity in what transformations are possible is knowledge, or the lack of it.
However, I have serious doubts that being able to waste resources, maybe simply to indulge our personal delusions of grandeur, is really the way to be better.
Knowledge will allow us to do exponentially more with significantly less. It will come down to a few more CPU cycles to create something new and unique, as opposed to building it out of the same exact parts, because the most efficient means of manufacturing will via programmable constructors. Why buy 10-20 specialized systems when you can buy one that can play all of same roles? Why wait to retool your assembly line, and loose sales to competitors? Why keep inventory when you can simply use multiple programmable systems to manufacture a vast number of products on demand? We’ve already started doing this with books, now think 3D printing on steroids with cars, furniture, and then there is clothing! You’ll never have to wear the same thing twice. Instead of putting your clothes in a washing machine, you’ll put in in a device that will break the garment broken down into raw materials and turned it into something new while being “cleaned” at the same time. Rather than being reformed in the original design, switch it out with something slightly or even entirely different. And that process can probably be refined enough that, eventually, it will take less energy than what it takes to wash the same clothes we wear today. If you need to move some furniture tomorrow, your garage will recycle the matter of your coupe into a SUV over night. But then why do you need to move furniture when you can simply “print” a copy of it at your new location? Again, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer, from achieving this is knowing how. Did ID’s designer not posses this knowledge or did it simply choose to to not use it because “That’s just what it must have wanted” to do? I don’t see any third option options. And talk about grandeur, why do we have 300,000 species of beetles?critical rationalist_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist: Could you please address my comments at #37? If you like, of course.gpuccio_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

Apparently CR does not understand scientific falsification. When a proposed theory is scientifically falsified with empirical evidence, in this case NS and/or RV mechanisms of Darwinism are each falsified, then that means the theory is empirically shown to be false, period. It does not matter if someone may falsely believe that Darwin's theory explains some other thing better than competing theories. Which it doesn't,,,
Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution Casey Luskin January 29, 2015 Excerpt: Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem: [W]e are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98 https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/
When a theories' foundational assumptions are falsified with empirical evidence, again in this case both NS and RV, then the theory is wrong period, full stop! There is no 'but if' left for the theory. To pretend otherwise is insanity. As Feynman stated:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Of related note as to the sheer insanity inherent to Darwinian thinking:
Jay Homnick wrote: It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/it_really_isnt/
And indeed, Darwinists have lost their mind. In fact they deny, along with their free will, that their mind even exists in the first place.
Determinism vs Free Will - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwPER4m2axI
bornagain77_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

CR, the evidence of deeply isolated islands of function in biological systems starts with protein fold domains in AA sequence space, leading to an insuperable information creation challenge for the range of augmented darwinist mechanisms. Likewise, the top-down phyla etc first nature of the fossil record directly implies core body plan programming first, which is precisely the part where random changes in embryological development are overwhelmingly likely to be fatal. Adaptation of body plans as part of robustness of design is what is indicated, and given peculiarities of taxonomy that can readily go up to families. Darwinist body plan origin tree of life evo schemes are dead, just the corpse is propped up as it is not convenient to admit that the king is dead. What is left when blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have long since run out of steam, is intelligently directed configuration. And we have yet to touch the root, which is where all of this begins: you have to explain, on good observational warrant, the blind watchmaker origin of encapsulated, gene-using metabolic automata with embedded von Neumann kinematic self-replication facilities, aka cell-based life. You simply cannot, period. So we find that design is at the table as of right from the OOL root on up. The king is dead, stop propping up the corpse. KF PS: Why do you still keep on resorting to the rhetorical trick of setting up a strawman ID is about designers trick? FYI, if you are at all a bona fide participant in the discussion, the design inference is about empirically warranted, reliable inference to intelligently directed configuration as credible causal process, per tested, reliable sign. Discussion of whodunit, why may be entertained thereafter but that cannot be primary, on the evidence.kairosfocus_{January 24, 2018
January
01
Jan
24
24
2018
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

First CR refused to acknowledge that NS and/or RV are both now shown to be virtually non-existent and that Darwinian evolution is therefore falsified.
Again, unless ID explains the same phenomena just as well, then goes on to explain all of the supposed specific devotions, in specific detail, then there is no refutation. The negation of a theory does not result in a new explanatory theory. For example, if there are deviations in the fossil record as you claim, then why those specific deviations at those specific times? What explanation does ID present other than "Those specific deviations occurred at just those specific times because that's just what the designer must have wanted" That's the challenge. I'm not holding my breath.critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

CR, seems to believe that Darwinism explains ‘order of appearance’ better than ID.
Already addressed. From an earlier comment.
Apparently, ET seems to think the order of the appearance of organisms is such a mystery that it doesn’t matter if ID can’t explain it. [...] However, for the sake of argument, even if either of these were the case (which I’m not suggesting) this wouldn’t prevent other theories from explaining and predicting the specific order of least to most complex as a necessary consequence, where ID could not. And, therefore, it would still fail to explain the biosphere at least equally as well. Specifically, ID, the supposed scientific theory, has no necessary consequences that would result in, and therefore predict, in the order of lest complex to most complex. This is because ID’s designer has no defined limitations, such what it knew, when it knew it, etc. A such, it could equally predict an appearance of most complex to least complex, or all at once. Or any possible order. By nature of explaining everything it explains nothing. (Note: that’s not a feature.)
BA wrote....
We have bacteria, microbes, Ediacaran fossils, sponges and jellies, and then the Cambrian explosion

Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Assuming that's true, for the sake of argument, then by all means, use ID to explain those things just as well, the go on to explain all those supposed specific exceptions via some means better than "That's just what the designer wanted" That's the challenge. I'm not still seeing it. Even the false theory that all swans are white would be better than the true theory that all swans have a color.critical rationalist_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

CR @ 41, selective blindness. First CR refused to acknowledge that NS and/or RV are both now shown to be virtually non-existent and that Darwinian evolution is therefore falsified. Then CR, when shown his supposed 'order of appearance' does not,,,. contrary to what he believes, conform to Darwinian presuppositions, again refused to acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is therefore once again falsified. I've been down this road with other Darwinists before. No matter what evidence is presented to CR that falsifies Darwinism, CR will continue to refuse to acknowledge Darwinism's falsification. For instance, I could further present
Michael Behe - Observed Limits of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." 27:50 minute mark: no known, or unknown, evolutionary process helped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA
or this,,
Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w
or this,,
Information is Physical (but not how Rolf Landauer meant) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H35I83y5Uro
or etc.. etc.. etc...,,, But none of the scientific evidence matters to CR because he apparently does not really care about the science but is only concerned about protecting his 'anti-ID' beliefs no matter what truth he has to ignore and/or lie about. It is pathetic and sad.bornagain77_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

And part of the design is the order in which it appears, unless you’re assuming that specific appearance is random?
And I told you that until we know what determines the organism we won't know what the order means.
My question is, “why that specific solution” and what does that imply about ID’s designer?
It solves the problem of our existence. It implies there is a real purpose to that existence. It also means we have been looking at biology incorrectly.
But ID’s designer is abstract and has no defined limitations, including how much knowledge is has, when it possessed it, etc.
Thick as a brick- ID is not about the Designer. We observe our designers constantly reusing existing things. So we apply that knowledge to what we observe with respect to biology.
Again, unless something is prohibited by the laws of physics, the only thing that would prevent us, or ID’s designer from achieving it is knowing how.
Exactly- there also has to be a want and/ or needET_{January 23, 2018
January
01
Jan
23
23
2018
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply