Kenneth Miller's Interview with NOVA
Seanpit
http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
dkomo
> Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
from the review:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent design
Q: What is intelligent design?
Miller: My understanding of intelligent design is that it is the
argument that the structures, features, organs, and biochemical pathways
that we find in living cells are so complex that they could not have
been produced by natural processes such as evolution and that they would
require the intervention of an intelligent designer outside of nature to
bring them into existence.
Sean Pitman: Close, but not quite right. Intelligent design theory
does not care if the proposed designer is "natural" or "supernatural".
The intelligent agent could be a very smart alien from a galaxy far far
away from the perspective of ID Theory. ID Theory says absolutely
nothing about the actual identity or nature of the intelligent agent
beyond the notion that the agent is actually intelligent. To suggest
that ID is proposing that the intelligent agent is also "Supernatural"
is a mischaracterization of the basic tenet of ID Theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID theory damn well better care that the Designer be supernatural
because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
arise through unintelligent means. Now you become that philosophical
dog which endlessly chases its tail. Better just say that the Designer
must be supernatural and Itself was not produced by anything other than
Itself. At least that would be honest.
Seanpit
ID doesn't need to answer this question. SETI science sure doesn't
bother with it. It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
agent. Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
understand.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
snex
SETI does make several assumptions about the hypothetical designers,
although "natural" vs "supernatural" is not one of them (because the
words have no distinction in science. science examines what IS).
without these assumptions, SETI has no basis for which to filter
signals. ID refuses to make *any* assumptions about the hypothetical
designers, and therefore it cannot make any logical predictions about
what kinds of things they might design.
dkomo
But SETI science, to the extent that it *is* science, implicitly assumes
that ET is *natural*. What I've just explained above is that you cannot
assume an Intelligent Designer which designed life is itself natural
because that leads to a contradiction. That leaves ID theory with only
the option that the Designer is supernatural, and that takes ID out of
the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics and theology.
> It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
> without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> agent.
No, you can only detect an intelligence if it is natural. If it is
supernatural, you are out of luck.
> Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
>
> The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
> someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> understand.
>
Yes, as long as we stay in the realm of the natural world. If you're
forced to deal with the supernatural, you can make up any "just so"
story you damn well please without fear it can ever be falsified.
George
"dkomo" <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2-CdnQzLx4Mqw9na...@comcast.com...
Well, gee, at least someone in the ID scam recognizes that evolution is a
natural process. Now if they could just realize how stupid their scam is.
George
noctiluca
Good god, of course it does. Describe for me a case in which
scientific investigation, in explanation of a particular phenomenon,
makes inference to an agency which cannot be demonstrated to exist,
cannot be demonstrated to have appropriate capacity, and cannot be
demonstrated to be responsible.
This is how science bothers with it, by way of appropriate
methodology. People who are not so mind-numbed by the pre-commitments
of their literalist theology that they cannot tolerate the smallest
dis-confirmation recognize and accept this.
> It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
> without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> agent.
This is a sloppy and obvious evasion. We are not talking about the
origin of an intelligent agent. We are talking about its sufficiency
as an explanation.
> Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
No, it simply must be amenable to scientific methodology to be
proposed as a viable scientific theory. An inference to the
supernatural is not. I'll once gain give you the option of disavowing
any inference to anything but natural processes. Wanna give it a
go...? (dkomo has already started you down that road, which you know
full well goes somewheres youz don wanna be)
> The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin.
As I implied before, this is a dodge through which everyone can see.
It's not about the origin of these "forces," its about whether they
can suffice to explain, by which they must meet the criteria I have
laid out for you several times, including above.
> Just try asking
> someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> understand.
And with what little we know and understand we draw appropriately
limited provisional conclusions, or would you like to cite references
to scholarship in which physicists ascribe the Big Bang to the agency
of an intelligent poofer?
RLC
Seanpit
SETI scientists do not make any assumptions about the proposed
designers identity, motive, or methods. You need to look up what SETI
scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
believed to be within human-type intelligence or even beyond. Exactly
the same thing is true of ID.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
noctiluca
But the words do have relevance in a discussion of what science is, is
not, does and does not. Thus it is not only fair but necessary, in
reference to ID's inference to the "designer," to establish that SETI
does in fact make an assumption that they are dealing with natural
phenomenon. This point is bolstered by your argument below about what
ID refuses to do.
RLC
snex
you need to read what SETI actually does from SETI itself.
http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#a3
In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called
"carriers." They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral
space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any
given power level. If E.T. is a decent (or at least competent)
engineer, he'll use narrow-band signals as beacons to get our
attention.
the amount of radio signals that could not (as far as we know) be
created by "non-deliberate processes" are infinite. SETI could not
possibly look for them all and ever hope to find them. SETI is forced
to make assumptions about their motives and methods. if SETI's
assumptions about their methods are wrong, eg if they communicate
through x-rays or some other frequency, then SETI will not find them.
if SETI's assumptions about their motives are wrong, eg if they do not
specifically send signals as a beacon to potential unknown receivers
like us, SETI will not find them.
you keep making these absurd claims that no assumptions need to be
made about the designers of a signal, yet you refuse to even look at
the signals i have challenged you on. here they are again:
http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txt
http://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
im still waiting for you to apply some ID math to them and tell me if
they are designed or not.
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
< snip >
> And with what little we know and understand we draw appropriately
> limited provisional conclusions, or would you like to cite references
> to scholarship in which physicists ascribe the Big Bang to the agency
> of an intelligent poofer?
Verses a non-intelligent poofer? Either way, there is no way to know
how what was in fact "poofed" got "poofed". You may prefer the idea
of a non-deliberate poofer, but you have no explanation as to how your
preference could actually do the job when it comes to ultimate
origins.
> RLC
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> Seanpit wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 8:37 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>Seanpit wrote:
>
> >>>Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> >>>http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> >>from the review:
>
> >>Intelligent design
>
> >>Q: What is intelligent design?
>
> >>Miller: My understanding of intelligent design is that it is the
> >>argument that the structures, features, organs, and biochemical pathways
> >>that we find in living cells are so complex that they could not have
> >>been produced by natural processes such as evolution and that they would
> >>require the intervention of an intelligent designer outside of nature to
> >>bring them into existence.
>
> >>Sean Pitman: Close, but not quite right. Intelligent design theory
> >>does not care if the proposed designer is "natural" or "supernatural".
> >>The intelligent agent could be a very smart alien from a galaxy far far
> >>away from the perspective of ID Theory. ID Theory says absolutely
> >>nothing about the actual identity or nature of the intelligent agent
> >>beyond the notion that the agent is actually intelligent. To suggest
> >>that ID is proposing that the intelligent agent is also "Supernatural"
> >>is a mischaracterization of the basic tenet of ID Theory.
>
>
> >>ID theory damn well better care that the Designer be supernatural
> >>because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
> >>logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
> >>to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
> >>contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
> >>arise through unintelligent means. Now you become that philosophical
> >>dog which endlessly chases its tail. Better just say that the Designer
> >>must be supernatural and Itself was not produced by anything other than
> >>Itself. At least that would be honest.
>
> > ID doesn't need to answer this question. SETI science sure doesn't
> > bother with it.
>
> But SETI science, to the extent that it *is* science, implicitly assumes
> that ET is *natural*.
Not true. SETI scientists do not rule out the possibility of a
supernatural vs. a natural agent. They may prefer to propose a
natural agent, but it is impossible to rule out the possibility that a
supernatural agent could have produced the same phenomenon as a
natural agent. All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
That's exactly what ID theory proposes. From the perspective of ID
theory it doesn't matter if the agent was "natural" or
"supernatural". All that matters is that the source was clearly
intelligent.
> What I've just explained above is that you cannot
> assume an Intelligent Designer which designed life is itself natural
> because that leads to a contradiction. That leaves ID theory with only
> the option that the Designer is supernatural, and that takes ID out of
> the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics and theology.
This is a false assumption. There is no inherent reason why an
intelligent designer of life had to be "supernatural" vs. "natural".
Why couldn't the designer of life on this planet have been or be
perfectly "natural" - - like some very smart alien intelligence? The
same thing is true of any intelligent agent that produces any artifact
that is obviously artifactual. One does not have to know the actual
origin of the intelligent natural agent before one can identify
certain creations of that agent as "artifacts".
> > It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> > was itself created. The fact that it is intelligent can be detected
> > without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> > agent.
>
> No, you can only detect an intelligence if it is natural. If it is
> supernatural, you are out of luck.
Not true - if the supernatural agent decides to create in a way that
is obviously artifactual. For example, a particular type of
radiosignal would be hailed as artifact by SETI scientists. This is a
fact regardless of if that signal was produced by a natural or
supernatural agent. The signal itself would still be clearly
"artifactual".
> > Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> > answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> > be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
>
> > The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> > nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> > understanding as to their actual ultimate origin. Just try asking
> > someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> > come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> > here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> > doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> > understand.
>
> Yes, as long as we stay in the realm of the natural world. If you're
> forced to deal with the supernatural, you can make up any "just so"
> story you damn well please without fear it can ever be falsified.
Not when it comes to the hypothesis of artifact you can't. If you say
that a given phenomenon could only have been produced by an
intelligent force of some kind, it doesn't matter if the intelligent
force is "natural" or "supernatural". The artifactual nature of the
phenomenon in question would still be clear. You can then debate all
you want about if the source was natural or supernatural. That has
nothing to do with the fact that artifact is obvious.
> --dk...@cris.com
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > SETI scientists do not make any assumptions about the proposed
> > designers identity, motive, or methods. You need to look up what SETI
> > scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
> > looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
> > as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
> > believed to be within human-type intelligence or even beyond. Exactly
> > the same thing is true of ID.
>
> you need to read what SETI actually does from SETI itself.
>
> http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#a3
>
> In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called
> "carriers." They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral
> space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any
> given power level. If E.T. is a decent (or at least competent)
> engineer, he'll use narrow-band signals as beacons to get our
> attention.
Perhaps, but the real quesiton is, can any non-deliberate process do
the same thing? That is where the rubber meets the road. SETI
scientists think not. However, if any non-deliberate force of nature
were actually found to be capable of producing such a narrow-band
signal, what would that do to the design hypothesis of SETI for such a
signal?
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
didn't respond.
snex
the words do not have relevance in a discussion of what science is,
because they are tautologous with respect to that discussion. saying
"supernatural" objects are objects that cannot be investigated by
science and then saying science cannot investigate "supernatural"
objects doesnt tell us at all what a "supernatural" object actually
IS. the word has no use other than to evade scrutiny.
Perplexed in Peoria
I follow and sympathize with your case that an 'intelligent designer',
if one exists, must be supernatural - because of the infinite regress
problem. But I don't think that this case is quite airtight.
Recall that the ID case for a designer is based upon the 'observed
fact' that life-as-we-know-it embeds so much complexity that it
must have been designed. They are talking about mechanisms which
we already understand like bacterial flagella - not about functions for
which we don't yet know the mechanism like human intelligence and
consciousness.
So, simply postulate that intelligent aliens arose by a process of
abiogenesis and evolution which did not at any step create any
mechanisms embodying 'irreducible complexity'. These guys
are alive and intelligent, but it is a simple kind of life and a simple
kind of intelligence which might well have arisen naturally. And
then these simple, but clever, aliens designed a much more complicated
kind of life to 'show their skill'. They designed us.
Is simple intelligence possible? I don't see why not. In fact, I am even
willing to admit the possibility of a simple supernatural intelligence -
simple, but very powerful. However, I cannot resist pointing out
that my own belief is that abiogenesis initially resulted in a simple,
undesigned kind of original lifeform here on Earth, and that evolution
under natural selection was perfectly capable of adding the kinds of
complexity we see in life-as-we-know-it today. If a simple, yet powerful,
intelligence can create complex life, then I don't see any reason why a
simple, yet flexible microbe cannot evolve to become complex.
wf3h
> > does not care if the proposed designer is "natural" or "supernatural".
hogwash and an example of the duplicity of the church of latter day
creationism, AKA "intelligent design'.
every inventer of this bastard theology HAS said they care about the
designer. behe has; phillip johnson has. they think it's jesus h.
christ.
>
> ID doesn't need to answer this question. SETI science sure doesn't
> bother with it.
really? SETI is a search for god??
i'm wearing a SETI T shirt. i've talked to those folks. no one's said
they're looking for god
OTOH i've talked to mike behe...a professor at my grad school. he's
quite sure ID is looking for god.
seanpit seems to be inventing ideas as he goes along.
It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
> without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> agent. Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
more hogwash.
SETI looks for naturally based intelligent life using the laws of
physics
ID specifically EXCLUDES ANY laws of nature from its search...in fact
it says NO laws of nature are involved in the origin of species. it
says it looks to nature to find what nature can NOT provide: a
supernatural cause for a natural event.
oxymoron...
>
> The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
> someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> here to begin with.
you know, seanpit is so full of illogic, half truths and religious
fanaticism it's a wonder he got through the 1st day of med school
is he making an equivalence between his 'god of the gaps' argument,
and the laws of physics? is he saying 'i dont know' is equal to 'god
did it'? the fact is, if seanpit had HIS way we'd still be muttering
incantations to unknown gods to tell us about the origin of the
universe, because seanpit's view of nature is magic based.
seanpit may fool a credulous religious person; but his argument, like
those of other creationists, died in 1859 when darwin published his
book.
wf3h
uh sean....
you're wrong.
they make the assumption they communicate through radio.
YOU make the assumption the designer communicates through a bible and
through prayer...
big difference.
.
>
noctiluca
This is an exercise in sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling
"woo woo!" You are no more entitled to redefine the debate on the
basis of semantics than someone like backspace.
The tautology exists only if our discussion is confined to the
language and concepts of science. That is not the case here, nor is it
often the case in this newsgroup in general.
The fact is that there are individuals who believe in the
supernatural, believe that there are ways to access the supernatural
from this humble plane, and moreover believe that there is a
legitimate possibility of folding supernatural inference into science.
That they may be deluded, or even looney, does not obviate the need to
deal intellectually with their arguments, a need that can only be
fulfilled by addressing what science is in relation to metaphysical
concepts.
RLC
wf3h
0catch.com> wrote:
>>
> Not true. SETI scientists do not rule out the possibility of a
> supernatural vs. a natural agent.
what crap.
no scientist looks for 'supernatural' causes simply because no one has
ever told us what such a cause would look like. and, in fact, when
creationist have tried...they've either been wrong
('angels...demons...ghosts') or have proposed meaningless causes...
'god did it'
i'm willing to bet if seanpit pulled this crap with his patients, he'd
be sued for malpractice. if he told a patient that he couldnt decide
whether a bacteria or a demon caused an infection, his patients would
escape from the asylum that his office had become
no science uses the 'supernatural'. none. seanpit hasnt proved SETI is
looking for a supernatural cause at all.
They may prefer to propose a
> natural agent, but it is impossible to rule out the possibility that a
> supernatural agent could have produced the same phenomenon as a
> natural agent.
more garbage. i'm a chemist. i've never seen a chemist say we exclude
'supernatural' causes in chemistry, either. that's because
supernaturalism in science is dead. it's useless. seanpit can engage
in all the special pleading he wants, but NO scientist EVER uses, or
looks for, supernatural causes....
>
> Not true - if the supernatural agent decides to create in a way that
> is obviously artifactual. For example, a particular type of
> radiosignal would be hailed as artifact by SETI scientists. This is a
> fact regardless of if that signal was produced by a natural or
> supernatural agent. The signal itself would still be clearly
> "artifactual".
yeah, and if horse's asses could fly, creationists would be pilots.
no creationist has ever told us what 'supernaturalism' even looks
like, let alone how to find it.
>
>
>
>
noctiluca
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:15 am, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > And with what little we know and understand we draw appropriately
> > limited provisional conclusions, or would you like to cite references
> > to scholarship in which physicists ascribe the Big Bang to the agency
> > of an intelligent poofer?
>
> Verses a non-intelligent poofer? Either way, there is no way to know
> how what was in fact "poofed" got "poofed".
If there is a way to know empirically, it will be through use of
naturalistic methodology. Until then, it's enough to say "we don't
know." Why is this not the choice of ID proponents when faced with
similar circumstances?
> You may prefer the idea
> of a non-deliberate poofer, but you have no explanation as to how your
> preference could actually do the job when it comes to ultimate
> origins.
No, I do not. Nor am I so uncomfortable with that condition that I
feel compelled to salve my personal ignorance with an unwarranted
inference.
By the way, this is at least the third time you have snipped or
ignored rebuttals to your SETI silliness (not counting those of
others). Feel free to join the discussion you started...
RLC
> > RLC
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Yes they do, because they are scientists doing science.
They investigate phenomena which can be observed and measured.
> They may prefer to propose a
> natural agent, but it is impossible to rule out the possibility that a
> supernatural agent could have produced the same phenomenon as a
> natural agent.
It is impossible to rule out the possibility that the universe was
created ten minutes ago with all the appearance of a great age, or
that the Invisible Pink Unicorn will turn it into a bunch of petunias.
However science does not concern itself with such possibilities
because such possibilities do not behave in a consistent and coherent
way, and cannot be investigated using the tools of science. Science is
based on the assumption that the universe behaves in a consistent and
coherent way.
> All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
> phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
No, all SETI scientists can say is that it comes from an artificial
source. That's what the SETI scientists say.
> That's exactly what ID theory proposes.
Pure, unmitigated, dishonest and disreputable bullshit!
ID proposes that if we do not have a scientific explanation for
something we should abandon science in favour of a paradigm which was
rejected in the development of modern science as unfruitful. If
scientists don't know how something originated they say they don't
know how it originated and carry on their research. They don't invoke
supernatural entities to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
> From the perspective of ID
> theory it doesn't matter if the agent was "natural" or
> "supernatural".
Yes it does, because ID is nothing more than "scientific" creationism
repacked in the dishonest pretence that it has scientific merit.
> All that matters is that the source was clearly
> intelligent.
What matters in the case of SETI is that the source is artificial. You
can't detect "intelligence". It's an abstract concept. You can only
detect the products of intelligence, and only identify them as the
products of intelligence by identifying how they were made. That's
what archaeologists do, that's what anthropologists do, and that's
what the scientists at SETI do.
>
> > What I've just explained above is that you cannot
> > assume an Intelligent Designer which designed life is itself natural
> > because that leads to a contradiction. That leaves ID theory with only
> > the option that the Designer is supernatural, and that takes ID out of
> > the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics and theology.
>
> This is a false assumption. There is no inherent reason why an
> intelligent designer of life had to be "supernatural" vs. "natural".
Yes there is, because you have to address the issue of how the
"intelligent designer" was created. If you claim that life was created
on earth by intelligent aliens, you need to explain how those
intelligent aliens originated. Once you introduce even the possibility
of supernatural involvement, you have abandoned science and any such
question becomes meaningless. If an "intelligent designer" (and you
know that the ID gang are referring to their version of the Christian
God, I know that the ID gang are referring to their version of the
Christian God, and it is mark of the deep dishonesty inherent in the
movement that they use such a deliberately misleading term) is
supernatural, there is no limit to what he can or can't do. The
universe could have been created ten minutes ago with all the
appearance of great age, or been created as a whole space-time
continuum from beginning to end in a way which requires no direct
involvement of its creator.
The idea of a God taking an active part in the running of the universe
was rejected as a valid scientific proposition not because the people
who developed science as we know it were atheists - in most cases they
were not - but because such an proposition is unfruitful.
> Why couldn't the designer of life on this planet have been or be
> perfectly "natural" - - like some very smart alien intelligence?
If that's the case, how did the very smart alien intelligence
originate?
> The
> same thing is true of any intelligent agent that produces any artifact
> that is obviously artifactual. One does not have to know the actual
> origin of the intelligent natural agent before one can identify
> certain creations of that agent as "artifacts".
One does, however have to be able to test hypotheses of how it was
made. That's what the scientists who actually do this will tell you.
You prefer to ignore that, and live in your fantasy world, but that's
a reflection on your dishonesty.
>
> > > It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> > > was itself created. The fact that it is intelligent can be detected
> > > without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> > > agent.
>
> > No, you can only detect an intelligence if it is natural. If it is
> > supernatural, you are out of luck.
>
> Not true - if the supernatural agent decides to create in a way that
> is obviously artifactual. For example, a particular type of
> radiosignal would be hailed as artifact by SETI scientists. This is a
> fact regardless of if that signal was produced by a natural or
> supernatural agent. The signal itself would still be clearly
> "artifactual".
The SETI scientists would treat the signal as natural and produced
using naturalistic processes. That's because they are scientists, not
people pretending that their religious convictions are supported by
science and prepared to distort, misrepresent and lie about the
evidence to support their cause.
>
>
>
> > > Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> > > answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> > > be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
>
> > > The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> > > nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> > > understanding as to their actual ultimate origin. Just try asking
> > > someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> > > come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> > > here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> > > doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> > > understand.
>
> > Yes, as long as we stay in the realm of the natural world. If you're
> > forced to deal with the supernatural, you can make up any "just so"
> > story you damn well please without fear it can ever be falsified.
>
> Not when it comes to the hypothesis of artifact you can't.
Of course you can! If the supernatural is involved, any artifact could
have been pouffed into existence five minutes ago.
> If you say
> that a given phenomenon could only have been produced by an
> intelligent force of some kind, it doesn't matter if the intelligent
> force is "natural" or "supernatural".
What pure, unmitigated bullshit. If you are making a scientific
proposition - i.e one which can be tested using the tools of science -
you can only assume a naturalistic process.
> The artifactual nature of the
> phenomenon in question would still be clear. You can then debate all
> you want about if the source was natural or supernatural. That has
> nothing to do with the fact that artifact is obvious.
The whole universe could have been created ten minutes ago with all
the appearance of great age by supernatural processes. You can
"explain" ANYTHING by the intervention of the supernatural, which is
why it is an utterly useless proposition in science.
Still peddling the same disreputable bullshit I see, Sean.
Do you get satisfaction from the admiration you get from intellectual
heavyweights like Ray Martinez?
RF
>
> > --dk...@cris.com
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
Ray Martinez thinks he's wonderful.
I can't imagine how anyone can achieve the academic qualifications
Sean has, and co-author scientific papers (though as a co-author his
role may have been to wash the test-tubes) without gaining some
understanding of the nature of science. His habit of posting long
screeds of scientific sounding language which are nothing more than a
series of unsupported assertions and misinterpreted quotations is
designed to give creationists the impression of a scientist making a
sound scientific case for creationism. Anyone with even a basic
knowledge of science can see through this smokescreen, but his target
audience is not those who are educated in such matters, but the rank-
and-file creationists on whose ignorance and gullibility he relies,
and whose admiration he craves.
I think he's a rather pathetic figure, strutting about on a tiny stage
and imagining that he is an intellectual heavyweight. I wonder if he
makes any money from his shallow posturing, or if the adulation of the
ignorant is enough for him.
RF
hersheyh
They definitely assume that any intelligent agent they will be able to
find has and uses (or used) radio technology similar to that humans
use. How is that not making any assumptions about methods? As for
identity, they are definitely assuming that said agents are beings
that use technology in ways that humans can recognize because humans
use that technology.
> You need to look up what SETI
> scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
> looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
> as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
> believed to be within human-type intelligence or even beyond.
Yes. Those are their working assumptions about the nature of SETI.
That they work via human-like technology.
> Exactly
> the same thing is true of ID.
Nope. ID proposes a HYPE (hypothetical posited entity) as an
imaginary entity capable of doing anything that they choose to claim
cannot occur in the absence of an intelligent agent.
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
snex
then kindly tell us all what a "supernatural" object is and why
science cannot investigate it. provide examples if you can.
hersheyh
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:09 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 8:37 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>Seanpit wrote:
>
>
> Not true. SETI scientists do not rule out the possibility of a
> supernatural vs. a natural agent.
Given that supernatural (unconstrained, untestable, and unknowable)
agents can do *anything*, how could they? But then the very same
agent could also be responsible for all the examples of radiowaves
that you would consider to be "natural" or not made by a SETI. How do
you limit a supernatural agent to only be the cause of those things
you want to specify them as the cause of?
> They may prefer to propose a
> natural agent, but it is impossible to rule out the possibility that a
> supernatural agent could have produced the same phenomenon as a
> natural agent. All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
> phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
Well, that it did not come from a *known* cause that did not require a
manufacturer. The intelligence of the signal maker would an open
question, since SETI is not looking for signals with high information
content (nor would they necessarily recognize it if they heard it).
They are looking for simple signals produced by a specified mechanism,
such that any idiot with a drum would recognize or make. Perhaps they
will find a cosmic frog that croaks in spectrum that produces radio
waves. Ribbit. Ribbit.
> That's exactly what ID theory proposes. From the perspective of ID
> theory it doesn't matter if the agent was "natural" or
> "supernatural".
As has been pointed out, the agent assumed to be responsible for
"life" must be "supernatural" or you run into turtles all the way
down. If not "supernatural" at the first level, then at the second.
If not at the second, then the third. And into infinite regress.
> All that matters is that the source was clearly
> intelligent.
>
> > What I've just explained above is that you cannot
> > assume an Intelligent Designer which designed life is itself natural
> > because that leads to a contradiction. That leaves ID theory with only
> > the option that the Designer is supernatural, and that takes ID out of
> > the realm of science into the realm of metaphysics and theology.
>
> This is a false assumption. There is no inherent reason why an
> intelligent designer of life had to be "supernatural" vs. "natural".
So the designer of life can itself not be alive? God is and always
was dead?
> Why couldn't the designer of life on this planet have been or be
> perfectly "natural" - - like some very smart alien intelligence?
I presume you are using the word "natural" here to indicate material
and not supernatural. As opposed to "natural" used as distinct from
"manufactured". The designer of life *on this planet* could be
"natural", but who then designed that designer (assuming that you
think it to be material and alive and thus "natural" by the first
meaning), if your entire argument is that life must be designed? It
simply becomes turtles all the way down, until you assert a
supernatural cause.
> The
> same thing is true of any intelligent agent that produces any artifact
> that is obviously artifactual.
And how do you determine this without assuming a material entity that
works the way known intelligent agents work?
> One does not have to know the actual
> origin of the intelligent natural agent before one can identify
> certain creations of that agent as "artifacts".
>
> > > It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> > > was itself created. The fact that it is intelligent can be detected
> > > without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> > > agent.
>
> > No, you can only detect an intelligence if it is natural. If it is
> > supernatural, you are out of luck.
>
> Not true - if the supernatural agent decides to create in a way that
> is obviously artifactual. For example, a particular type of
> radiosignal would be hailed as artifact by SETI scientists. This is a
> fact regardless of if that signal was produced by a natural or
> supernatural agent. The signal itself would still be clearly
> "artifactual".
Well, it would be considered to be a *possible* artifact. Based on
knowledge of how *known* intelligent agents work. And it would be
assumed to be the work of a natural agent.
Frank J
For once you're right, ID "don't need to answer no stinkin'
questions":
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/eugenie_scott_t.html#comment-87042
> SETI science sure doesn't
> bother with it.
I'm probably repeating another reply, but there's that simple matter
that SETI has not yet claimed to have found design, and the DI has.
But the point is moot, because those "design sciences" that have
detected design, i.e. forensics and archaeology, proceed to say what
the designer did and when. While ID pseudoscience keeps retreating
further into "don't ask, don't tell."
BTW, have you ever debated Michael Behe on common descent, or when,
and in what lineages, design actuation events might have occurred?
(snip)
John Stockwell
Again, it is not "design" but "manufacture" that we recognize. In the
case of
SETI we are not talking about any old phenomenon. We are talking about
radio signals. The idea is that aliens are sufficiently like us to
make signals that
like those we make, and that we can record, using patterns that are
sufficiently
like ours such that they can be recognized as being signals. SETI, in
this
respect, is unlike Dembskian view as it does not rely on the
observation of
hypothetical information theoretic quantities, but on the recognition
of known
classes of signals.
-John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
>Miller:"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."
>Sean Pitman: I'm most intrigued by Miller's thoughts here. How is >Miller's description of "faith" in God any better than wishful thinking >or a child's belief in Santa Claus? I may be wrong, but it seems to >me that Miller is talking about some sort of fantasy or concept of >completely blind "faith" where one believes in this or that hopeful >reality based on absolutely nothing but feelings or desire. In my >opinion, those like Richard Dawkins are correct in becoming quite >exasperated by such thinking and rightfully calling it "The God >Delusion".
>While I personally do believe an intelligent Creator God, I do so >because I think there is solid, testable, falsifiable evidence for a >God-like higher power that goes far beyond human-level intelligence, >power, and creativity. If I did not at least think I recognized such >evidence, there is no way I would actually worship a God for which I >saw no physical evidence of his/her/its existence or interaction with >any aspect of nature.
You have to remember that Miller is a Catholic. Catholicism is not as
Bible-intrenched as the SDA church that you come from. It is quite
possible for a Catholic to view the structure of reality that allows
"molecules to man" abiogenesis-evolution can be viewed as "testament
for the glory of God". This follows because it is permitted within
Catholicism to view Old Testament Bible stories as being allegorical,
rather than historical.
While you may claim that you believe that "there are solid testable
falsifiable evidence" to support your Biblical-literalist worldview,
you have to admit that the Bible belief came first in your head, not
any claimed scientific evidence. You did not come to your beliefs from
a rational process, but through training from childhood.
Indeed, it is all-or-nothing in the extreme Bible-literalist view, so
you will stop at no end to make that true. You will massage, contort,
and torture any scientific data that comes your way until it tells the
"truth" that you already know.
-John
noctiluca
Sure - supernatural objects/concepts: deities (e.g., Jehovah, Allah,
Ahura Mazda, Magyar, etc. etc.) - assorted fairys, sprites and
leprechauns - ghosts, gremlins, goblins and other "g" thingies -
"energy" vis a vis astrology, esp, crystals, chi, homeopathy.
Innumerable other various and sundry transcendental experiences.
And much, much more.
These ideas qualify as supernatural because our accumulated
naturalistic experience suggests they are not testable by scientific
methodology. In spite of this, millions of people continue to believe
in them, live by them, fight and die for them. They are a part of the
meta-scientific discussion precisely because they play an important in
the lives of many people you and I interact with.
It is hubris, and foolishness, to dismiss the discussion, the very
mention of the categories these ideas occupy as if they do not
influence the debate. It's not about whether the supernatural is
"real," but about whether people's belief in them is real, because
that's what effects such behavior as assaults on education, on
politics, on the legal system, and eventually on skyscrapers.
Yeah, yeah, we all know you think it's all hogwash. Guess what? So do
I. But the people we are engaging don't, and for the most part these
people are not idiots, nor are they generally malicious. And it's
important to deal with many of these issues (such as how/if science
can/should address the supernatural) on a level a bit deeper than a
rhetorical nose-thumbing.
RLC
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
>Sean Pitman: Miller doesn't seem to understand the concept of >irreducibility. Irreducibility means that a system requires a certain >minimum number of parts in a certain arrangement for that particular >function to work. It doesn't matter if some subsystem would still >work in some other capacity if parts were removed. This doesn't >change the fact that a minimum part and arrangement requirement is >still required for the function in question to be realized.
Nice way to side step an issue. The fallacy of "irreduceable
complexity" is that "function" is not fixed. Fuction is not intrinsic
attribute of a biological system but is a post-hoc identification made
by *us*
not by the organism. The Type III secretory systems all have some sort
of "function" which may or may not include motility. The bacterium
does not absolutely need a flagellem or a Type III secretory system.
The whole notion of biological structures as being "machines" is an
analogy that *we* impose on biological systems.
A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
-John
Mark VandeWettering
> On Nov 21, 8:37 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>>
>> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>>
Let me guess: on the grounds that it might incriminate you?
Mark
snex
i fail to see why any of these ideas should be regarded as
"supernatural." they all make testable predictions - those predictions
just happen to fail. should we call lamarckianism "supernatural" too?
no, we say its false. it doesnt happen. its in the dustbin of history,
along with these other ideas. as i said earlier, people only label
them "supernatural" to evade the fact that they have been falsified.
calling them "supernatural" lends them respect that they dont deserve.
lets use the real word to describe them - "non-existent."
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> Miller:
>Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their [radiosignal] message >with a string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the >ever-popular Fibonacci series. Well, there's no doubt that such tags >would convey intelligence." (Link)
>Sean Pitman: This is an interesting statement. Why is it that such
>a numerical pattern, carried in a medium of a radiosignal, would so >clearly indicate deliberate artifact? By Miller's argument it would be >at least possible that some as yet unknown non-deliberate natural
>phenomenon may have been responsible. In fact, to ever stop
>looking for such a non-deliberate phenomenon and just give up after
>even a protracted search to conclude the action of some unknown
>intelligent agent would simply be anti-scientific - - at least according
>to Miller's argument. It seems that Miller would have one always >conclude a non-intelligent agent no matter what and that one should >keep up the search for a non-intelligent agent forever.
Sean,
You forget that mathematics is manufactured. It isn't necessary that
the Fibonacci series would be a good choice, though, because plant
stems, sunflower seed arrays, and many many other forms occur in a
Fibonacci pattern. We do know how to manufacture signals that would be
unlike the signals that we see from the natural sources we know. So
the assumption of SETI is that the aliens know how to do that too. Or,
we through analysing signals we make, SETI investigators have boiled
down the signals into characteristics that make signals we make differ
from those of other natural sources that we know.
Don't forget, when the first SETI project (LGM) was started in the
1960s, the search was merely for regular signals---which were
immediately found---. It turned out that there were these things
called neutron stars that were theorized which also put out regular
signals.
Did the scientific community drop everything and proclaim for all time
that they had found evidence of a civilization? No. Scientific
investigation has to be done with more care than that. Yet, it is
somehow taken by cdesign proponentists that the existence of bacterial
flagella are evidence of an unspecified intelligence. IDers
are at best careless.
-John
Elf M. Sternberg
> ID doesn't need to answer this question.
It has to. Otherwise, it's a negative argument with no
explanatory power and no legitimacy.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
noctiluca
No, they don't *accept* the fact that it's been falsified, which is to
say the beliefs are extant and able to affect all of us in ways that
clearly demonstrate they are not "in the dustbin of history." They are
insulated from falsification, and consequently generally very
different from Lamarckism (unless this constitutes the basis of a
theology of which I'm unaware).
> calling them "supernatural" lends them respect that they dont deserve.
> lets use the real word to describe them - "non-existent."
As I suggested before, it seems to me their "existence," as regards
the issues we discuss here, is of secondary importance. But the belief
in their existence, however, has real consequences, and forces us to
engage the concept in a way that might produce positive results.
RLC
snex
they are insulated from falsification by people like YOU who refuse to
apply any testing to them under the guise of calling them
"supernatural." to pick just one example from your list, homeopathy
makes the quite testable claim that it can cure diseases. IT CANNOT!
in a world of rational people, that would be the end of discussion,
but instead of encouraging people to BE rational, you invent (or allow
them to invent) words like "supernatural" to coddle these silly
beliefs in falsehoods.
>
> > calling them "supernatural" lends them respect that they dont deserve.
> > lets use the real word to describe them - "non-existent."
>
> As I suggested before, it seems to me their "existence," as regards
> the issues we discuss here, is of secondary importance. But the belief
> in their existence, however, has real consequences, and forces us to
> engage the concept in a way that might produce positive results.
saying that the content of the beliefs is "supernatural" and therefore
not amenable to investigation is no way to engage it. you will never
ever get positive results by telling people that its ok to hold onto
their silly beliefs because they are "supernatural" and therefore not
amenable to investigation. what you should be saying is that these
beliefs have been given their chance to demonstrate themselves, and
they all failed miserably. time to grow up and get with reality.
R. Baldwin
news:fa0cf1b4-91e3-499f...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 12:15 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>> > signals. ID refuses to make *any* assumptions about the hypothetical
>> > designers, and therefore it cannot make any logical predictions about
>> > what kinds of things they might design.
>>
>> > > It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
>> > > was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
>> > > without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
>> > > agent. Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
>> > > answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
>> > > be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
>>
>> > > The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
>> > > nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
>> > > understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
>> > > someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
>> > > come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
>> > > here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
>> > > doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
>> > > understand.
>>
>> scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
>> looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
>> as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
>> the same thing is true of ID.
>
> you need to read what SETI actually does from SETI itself.
>
> http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#a3
>
> In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called
> "carriers." They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral
> space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any
> given power level. If E.T. is a decent (or at least competent)
> engineer, he'll use narrow-band signals as beacons to get our
> attention.
>
> created by "non-deliberate processes" are infinite. SETI could not
> possibly look for them all and ever hope to find them. SETI is forced
> to make assumptions about their motives and methods. if SETI's
> assumptions about their methods are wrong, eg if they communicate
> through x-rays or some other frequency, then SETI will not find them.
> if SETI's assumptions about their motives are wrong, eg if they do not
> specifically send signals as a beacon to potential unknown receivers
> like us, SETI will not find them.
>
> you keep making these absurd claims that no assumptions need to be
> made about the designers of a signal, yet you refuse to even look at
> the signals i have challenged you on. here they are again:
>
> http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txt
> http://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
>
> im still waiting for you to apply some ID math to them and tell me if
> they are designed or not.
Don't hold your breath.
R. Baldwin
news:d7c0c89b-994a-4960...@d50g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 10:09 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Seanpit wrote:
>> > On Nov 21, 8:37 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>Seanpit wrote:
>>
>> >>>Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>>
>> >>>http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>>
>> >>from the review:
>>
>> >>Intelligent design
>>
>> >>Q: What is intelligent design?
>>
>> >>Miller: My understanding of intelligent design is that it is the
>> >>argument that the structures, features, organs, and biochemical
>> >>pathways
>> >>that we find in living cells are so complex that they could not have
>> >>been produced by natural processes such as evolution and that they
>> >>would
>> >>require the intervention of an intelligent designer outside of nature
>> >>to
>> >>bring them into existence.
>>
>> >>Sean Pitman: Close, but not quite right. Intelligent design theory
>> >>does not care if the proposed designer is "natural" or "supernatural".
>> >>The intelligent agent could be a very smart alien from a galaxy far far
>> >>away from the perspective of ID Theory. ID Theory says absolutely
>> >>nothing about the actual identity or nature of the intelligent agent
>> >>beyond the notion that the agent is actually intelligent. To suggest
>> >>that ID is proposing that the intelligent agent is also "Supernatural"
>> >>is a mischaracterization of the basic tenet of ID Theory.
>>
>>
>> >>ID theory damn well better care that the Designer be supernatural
>> >>because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
>> >>logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
>> >>to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
>> >>contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
>> >>arise through unintelligent means. Now you become that philosophical
>> >>dog which endlessly chases its tail. Better just say that the Designer
>> >>must be supernatural and Itself was not produced by anything other than
>> >>Itself. At least that would be honest.
>>
>> > ID doesn't need to answer this question. SETI science sure doesn't
>> > bother with it.
>>
>> that ET is *natural*.
>
> supernatural vs. a natural agent.
Sean, you are either a liar or a fool, or both..
[snip]
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:29 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > SETI scientists do not make any assumptions about the proposed
> > > designers identity, motive, or methods. You need to look up what SETI
> > > scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
> > > looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
> > > as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
> > > believed to be within human-type intelligence or even beyond. Exactly
> > > the same thing is true of ID.
>
> > you need to read what SETI actually does from SETI itself.
>
> >http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#a3
>
> > In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called
> > "carriers." They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral
> > space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any
> > given power level. If E.T. is a decent (or at least competent)
> > engineer, he'll use narrow-band signals as beacons to get our
> > attention.
>
> the same thing? That is where the rubber meets the road. SETI
> scientists think not. However, if any non-deliberate force of nature
> were actually found to be capable of producing such a narrow-band
> signal, what would that do to the design hypothesis of SETI for such a
> signal?
you continue to miss the point. SETI scientists look for signals that
they KNOW intelligent agents create for specific purposes. forensic
scientists look for signs of events they KNOW intelligent agents are
capable of performing. archaeologists look for clues that they KNOW
intelligent agents leave. without making those assumptions, these
fields would not be doing science, just like ID is not doing science.
you CANNOT prop up an hypothesis by merely saying all other hypotheses
cannot predict some observation. you need to show that your hypothesis
DOES predict the observation.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
> several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
> didn't respond.
David Hare-Scott
Designer be supernatural
> > because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
> > logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
> > to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
> > contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
> > arise through unintelligent means. Now you become that philosophical
> > dog which endlessly chases its tail. Better just say that the Designer
> > must be supernatural and Itself was not produced by anything other than
> > Itself. At least that would be honest.
>
> ID doesn't need to answer this question.
As dkomo points out the designer being of natural origin contradicts the main
premise of ID that living things and specifically intelligent ones cannot be
of natural origin. Whether you say ID needs to answer the question is not
relevant. The question has already been decided based on the material ID
supplies and logic. The answer is: if the premise of ID is true then the
designer is supernatural.
What you are really saying is not that ID doesn't need to answer this question
but that ID wants to handwave away the answer because it is so very
inconvenient.
David
noctiluca
Are you really this clueless or are you just desperate not to concede
an obvious point?
It doesn't matter what kind of testing one has, or intends, to perform
on any particular supernatural belief or concept. The circumstance of
its "naturalness" depends entirely upon the willingness of a believer
to offer the belief up for falsification. There are plenty of non-
natural, paranormal, and fantastical notions for which there is
sufficient disconfirming evidence, yet the beliefs persist, because
believers continue to believe.
I call these ideas "supernatural" because that is the appropriate
term.
> to pick just one example from your list, homeopathy
> makes the quite testable claim that it can cure diseases. IT CANNOT!
Of course it cannot. But golly gee there are still plenty of people
who believe in homeopathy (despite my best efforts to promote it, if
your "logic" is any guide). Do suppose all of those believers are
entirely unfamiliar with the science regarding their beliefs? Or are
you capable of understanding that they believe *in spite* of the
evidence, and those beliefs must be dealt with in a way that moves us
closer to, not farther away from, a reason based culture?
> in a world of rational people, that would be the end of discussion,
> but instead of encouraging people to BE rational, you invent (or allow
> them to invent) words like "supernatural" to coddle these silly
> beliefs in falsehoods.
Yeah, you're right. Instead of mollycoddling these imbeciles why don't
we just whack them all upside the head with a baseball bat, that's
probably the only convincing they'll ever understand.
Get a grip and stop inventing such ridiculous arguments. It has
apparently escaped your notice that trying to look at an issue from
both sides, rather than spouting slogans and singing fight songs,
actually works better to promote productive dialogue. You go ahead and
shake your pom poms all you want. When you decide to join those trying
to effect some useful change, all you need to do is drop the
simplistic, bellicose rhetoric and engage the discussion with a
broader purpose.
RLC
> ...
>
> read more >>
snex
> On Nov 21, 4:38 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:21 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 3:12 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 4:43 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 21, 12:35 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 21, 1:51 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Nov 21, 10:48 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, noctiluca <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
appropriate by what standards? if you admit that the ideas are
testable, then they are not "supernatural" by the given definition.
>
> > to pick just one example from your list, homeopathy
> > makes the quite testable claim that it can cure diseases. IT CANNOT!
>
> Of course it cannot. But golly gee there are still plenty of people
> who believe in homeopathy (despite my best efforts to promote it, if
> your "logic" is any guide). Do suppose all of those believers are
> entirely unfamiliar with the science regarding their beliefs? Or are
> you capable of understanding that they believe *in spite* of the
> evidence, and those beliefs must be dealt with in a way that moves us
> closer to, not farther away from, a reason based culture?
apparently you have never talked to a single one of them. they all
believe that there IS evidence confirming homeopathy.
>
> > in a world of rational people, that would be the end of discussion,
> > but instead of encouraging people to BE rational, you invent (or allow
> > them to invent) words like "supernatural" to coddle these silly
> > beliefs in falsehoods.
>
> Yeah, you're right. Instead of mollycoddling these imbeciles why don't
> we just whack them all upside the head with a baseball bat, that's
> probably the only convincing they'll ever understand.
>
> Get a grip and stop inventing such ridiculous arguments. It has
> apparently escaped your notice that trying to look at an issue from
> both sides, rather than spouting slogans and singing fight songs,
> actually works better to promote productive dialogue. You go ahead and
> shake your pom poms all you want. When you decide to join those trying
> to effect some useful change, all you need to do is drop the
> simplistic, bellicose rhetoric and engage the discussion with a
> broader purpose.
where has that method of confrontation gotten you in the entirety of
human history? do you think we can just sit down with suicide bombers
and rationally convince them that their beliefs are wrong? or should
we simply make it embarrassing for anybody to have such beliefs?
whenever you see mass belief changing, you dont see the steven j
goulds as the source. you see the people who are out there speaking
the truth without sugar coating it.
>
> RLC
<snip>
Timberwoof
<45ff637d-063d-43ca...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Of course it cannot. But golly gee there are still plenty of people
> > who believe in homeopathy (despite my best efforts to promote it, if
> > your "logic" is any guide). Do suppose all of those believers are
> > entirely unfamiliar with the science regarding their beliefs? Or are
> > you capable of understanding that they believe *in spite* of the
> > evidence, and those beliefs must be dealt with in a way that moves us
> > closer to, not farther away from, a reason based culture?
>
> apparently you have never talked to a single one of them. they all
> believe that there IS evidence confirming homeopathy.
How do they ever wash their dishes? As they rinse, wouldn't the soap get
stronger?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Max
> was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
> without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> agent. Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
>
> The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
> someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> understand.
>
You're dodging the point. ID is the notion that life cannot arise from
non-life by natural means. By the arguments of ID, if the intelligence
behind abiogenesis and evolution is tied to the natural world, then it
itself must have had an intelligent creator. SETI doesn't run into
this situation as it makes no presumptions about life, only about what
sort of signals require intelligence to be sent (and these
presumptions are subject to testing). At least try to be honest about
what you're arguing for.
dkomo
> "dkomo" <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2-CdnQzLx4Mqw9na...@comcast.com...
> I follow and sympathize with your case that an 'intelligent designer',
> if one exists, must be supernatural - because of the infinite regress
> problem. But I don't think that this case is quite airtight.
>
> Recall that the ID case for a designer is based upon the 'observed
> fact' that life-as-we-know-it embeds so much complexity that it
> must have been designed. They are talking about mechanisms which
> we already understand like bacterial flagella - not about functions for
> which we don't yet know the mechanism like human intelligence and
> consciousness.
>
> So, simply postulate that intelligent aliens arose by a process of
> abiogenesis and evolution which did not at any step create any
> mechanisms embodying 'irreducible complexity'. These guys
> are alive and intelligent, but it is a simple kind of life and a simple
> kind of intelligence which might well have arisen naturally. And
> then these simple, but clever, aliens designed a much more complicated
> kind of life to 'show their skill'. They designed us.
>
ID theory would say that intelligence on the level of human is itself
"irreducibly complex", so your proposal would be impossible. No such
intelligence could result from undirected and unintelligent material
processes.
> Is simple intelligence possible? I don't see why not. In fact, I am even
> willing to admit the possibility of a simple supernatural intelligence -
> simple, but very powerful. However, I cannot resist pointing out
> that my own belief is that abiogenesis initially resulted in a simple,
> undesigned kind of original lifeform here on Earth, and that evolution
> under natural selection was perfectly capable of adding the kinds of
> complexity we see in life-as-we-know-it today. If a simple, yet powerful,
> intelligence can create complex life, then I don't see any reason why a
> simple, yet flexible microbe cannot evolve to become complex.
>
I don't see why more 'elegant' life, including the intelligence emerging
from it, wouldn't be possible. Many people have remarked how
terrestrial life is a hierarchy of absurdly convoluted Rube Goldberg
machines all the way down to the nanomachine level. The human mind has
been described as "module packed" and a "Swiss army knife". It is
conceivable that a combination of self-organization and evolution
elsewhere in the universe has produced life/intelligence both more
simply designed and more powerful than anything we have on earth.
Somewhere out there may be beings more like the Apple computer than the
IBM PC we have on earth.
gregwrld
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:37 am, dkomo <dkomo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> bother with it. It doesn't really matter how the intelligent agent
> was itself created. The fact that it is intellgent can be detected
> without having any idea as to the actual origin of the intelligent
> agent. Sure, it may be an interesting question to consider, but an
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
Rubbish. Science is about explaining things. The fact that ID folks
make this
claim is a major part of why it will never be taken seriously. If you
can't use your
hypothesis (and I'm being generous here) to answer basic questions
then it is
worthless to all but religious apologia.
>
> The same thing is true of non-deliberate non-artifactual forces of
> nature. These can be identified without any real knowledge or
> understanding as to their actual ultimate orgin. Just try asking
> someone to explain the Big Bang to you or exactly how something can
> come from nothing. Ultimately, no one knows how anything really got
> here to begin with. Yet, that lack of knowledge or understanding
> doesn't stop science from working with what little we do know and
> understand.
The problem is ID neither knows nor understands.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Perplexed in Peoria
"dkomo" <dkom...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:Qbidnb53nNBReNva...@comcast.com...
You have a cite for that, or is it just your impression? I've noticed that
impressions people form about arguments they don't accept are
pretty unreliable. It certainly seems to me that at least Behe's version
of ID - built around the notion or 'irreducible complexity' - requires
knowing how something works before you make the inference that
it is too complex to have arisen without design. Of course, that is
only MY impression.
>> Is simple intelligence possible? I don't see why not. In fact, I am even
>> willing to admit the possibility of a simple supernatural intelligence -
>> simple, but very powerful. However, I cannot resist pointing out
>> that my own belief is that abiogenesis initially resulted in a simple,
>> undesigned kind of original lifeform here on Earth, and that evolution
>> under natural selection was perfectly capable of adding the kinds of
>> complexity we see in life-as-we-know-it today. If a simple, yet powerful,
>> intelligence can create complex life, then I don't see any reason why a
>> simple, yet flexible microbe cannot evolve to become complex.
>>
>
> I don't see why more 'elegant' life, including the intelligence emerging
> from it, wouldn't be possible. Many people have remarked how
> terrestrial life is a hierarchy of absurdly convoluted Rube Goldberg
> machines all the way down to the nanomachine level. The human mind has
> been described as "module packed" and a "Swiss army knife". It is
> conceivable that a combination of self-organization and evolution
> elsewhere in the universe has produced life/intelligence both more
> simply designed and more powerful than anything we have on earth.
> Somewhere out there may be beings more like the Apple computer than the
> IBM PC we have on earth.
Well, as an enthusiast for genetic algorithms in general, and for Holland's
work in particular, you certainly ought to believe that fairly simple
algorithms, coupled with a long period of 'training' in a complex environment,
can rapidly develop into 'mechanisms' more powerful than one might
naively expect and involving intricacies in the implementation that have
to be described as complexity greater than either the core algorithm
or the training data.
backspace
> Sean Pitman: Close, but not quite right. Intelligent design theory
> does not care if the proposed designer is "natural" or "supernatural".
Which is appeal to abstract authority, there is no Mr.ID - he doesn't
exist. Even Darwin used the term ID, you need to refer to
an individual and what this individual's intent is with the term ID.
> To suggest
> that ID is proposing that the intelligent agent is also "Supernatural"
> is a mischaracterization of the basic tenet of ID Theory.
Theories are according to individuals, which individual are you
refering to?
> ID theory damn well better care that the Designer be supernatural
> because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
> logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
> to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
> contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
> arise through unintelligent means.
I agree if only the ID people would stop denying their faith in
Christ, everybody knows they are being dishonest.
backspace
0catch.com> wrote:
> > ID theory damn well better care that the Designer be supernatural
> > because It *cannot* be natural. To assume It is natural, the next
> > logical question to ask is "how could an intelligence with the ability
> > to design life arise from 'unintelligent' matter", and you hit a
> > contradiction because you've already assumed that life itself couldn't
> > dog which endlessly chases its tail. Better just say that the Designer
> > must be supernatural and Itself was not produced by anything other than
> > Itself. At least that would be honest.
> ID doesn't need to answer this question.
Of course not how could Mr.Science possibly answer a question if
Mr.Science doesn't exist. You though do exist and can answer the
question.
> answer to this question is NOT needed before intelligent artifact can
> be adequately proposed as a viable scientific theory.
O, please can we stop this nonsense with "scientific theory" who has
defined and established what is a "scientific theory"?
backspace
> You have a cite for that, or is it just your impression? I've noticed that
> impressions people form about arguments they don't accept are
> pretty unreliable. It certainly seems to me that at least Behe's version
> of ID - built around the notion or 'irreducible complexity' - requires
> knowing how something works before you make the inference that
> it is too complex to have arisen without design. Of course, that is
> only MY impression.
Now can you show me anything in nature that has not arisen by design,
give me an example of
what you are talking about. And note the distinction between patterns
and designs in nature.
backspace
> The problem is ID neither knows nor understands.
I will say just one more time: Mr.Intelligent Design doesn't exist
hence he can't know or understand anything. What you are trying to say
is that a specific individual that communicates some form of intent
with ID , you disagree with. Or more specific you disagree with his
intent and aphobetics or general world view that for example Language
created matter. Now, who is this individual that you disagree with
because it can't by Mr.ID ?
gregwrld
What the fuck are you talking about?
gregwrld
gregwrld
I should have written "except as religious apologia"
gregwrld
John Wilkins
Assumption of facts not in evidence, sir!
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
wf3h
> On Nov 23, 7:53 pm, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is ID neither knows nor understands.
>
> I will say just one more time: Mr.Intelligent Design doesn't exist
he exists as much as any other concept in creationism. because, by its
very nature, ALL of creationism is undefined.
Mr ID doesn't exist? hell, the very basis of ID is that he DOES exist.
that's the whole point of ID to anthropomorphize logic and science
into a transcendental being.
dkomo
Well, try this:
"(2) Studies of intelligence show that a unique hallmark of intelligence
is its ability to produce high levels of complex and specified information.
Intelligence is a feature we understand and comprehend from our studies
of human intelligence in the natural world. From these studies, William
Dembski explains that “the primarily, empirically verifiable thing that
intelligences do is generate specified complexity.” (Dembski, The Design
Revolution, pg. 194). But does the generation of specified complexity
make ID testable in a “comparative” sense (see Part II) with respect to
neo-Darwinism? Yes, it does.
Dembski explains that natural processes like the neo-Darwinian mechanism
do not generate high levels of specified complexity:
[Intelligent design is] a fully scientific claim and follows
directly from the complexity-specification criterion. In particular this
is not an argument from ignorance. Just as physicists reject perpetual
motion machines because of what they know about the inherent constraints
on energy and matter, so too design theorists reject any naturalistic
reduction of specified complexity because of what they know about the
inherent constraints on natural causes. Natural causes are too stupid to
keep pace with intelligent causes. Intelligent design theory provides a
rigorous scientific demonstration of this long-standing intuition. Let
me stress, the complexity-specification criterion is not a principle
that comes to us demanding our unexamined acceptance--it is not an
article of faith. Rather it is the outcome of a careful and sustained
argument about the precise interrelationships between necessity, chance
and design.
(William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science
and Theology, pg. 223 (InterVarsity Press, 1999).)
Thus, according to Dembski, intelligence produces highly specified
complexity, but neo-Darwinian processes do not. Sober never mentions
specified complexity once in his article, which is strange since it’s
such a central component of intelligent design today."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/what_is_wrong_with_sobers_atta_1.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a nutshell, the IDiot would claim that human intelligence has
specified complexity, and natural processes like evolution cannot
produce specified complexity. Hence, human-level intelligence cannot be
a result of any such naturalistic process.
I know I said in my previous post that human intelligence is irreducibly
complex according to ID, but I couldn't find any direct cites for this.
However, I think the inference is clear that anything that has
specified complexity is also ireducibly complex, and certainly cannot be
produced by unintelligent, undirected processes.
I don't want to any more time searching for a direct cite because
rummaging through pseudoscience like ID is a poor use of my time. The
gods know there is plenty of real science I'd rather spend my time
exploring and learning about.
> I've noticed that
> impressions people form about arguments they don't accept are
> pretty unreliable. It certainly seems to me that at least Behe's version
> of ID - built around the notion or 'irreducible complexity' - requires
> knowing how something works before you make the inference that
> it is too complex to have arisen without design. Of course, that is
> only MY impression.
>
I think that ID considers Dembski's specified complexity to be the most
important signature of an Intelligent Designer. If you have noticed,
there are a number of IDiot's posting to t.o. who think Dembski walks on
water.
Perplexed in Peoria
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:76f5d70b-8ac7-4791...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Has not arisen by design?
- The Mississippi watershed and river.
- The system of moons of Jupiter.
- The ecosystem in the lake where I sometimes fish (artificial lake, dammed
just a few decades ago and never 'stocked').
The watershed and ecosystem are both quite complex, but not 'irreducibly
complex' in Behe's sense.
Here is a system involving some 'design' and also 'irreducibly complex' in
Behe's sense: the system of coal mines, railroads, power plants, electric
distribution network, and steel mills in the American Midwest. This is
IC since each of those things depends on the others to work. Yet, it
seems to me that it evolved in an incremental fashion nonetheless.
Perplexed in Peoria
Yep, you have provided a cite showing that IDers think you can't get
specified complexity except as a creative act of intelligence.
> In a nutshell, the IDiot would claim that human intelligence has specified complexity, and natural processes like evolution cannot
> produce specified complexity. Hence, human-level intelligence cannot be a result of any such naturalistic process.
But you haven't produced a cite stating that intelligence can't be implemented
without specified complexity nor without irreducible complexity. In fact, I
doubt that you believe this yourself.
> I know I said in my previous post that human intelligence is irreducibly complex according to ID, but I couldn't find any direct
> cites for this. However, I think the inference is clear that anything that has specified complexity is also ireducibly complex,
> and certainly cannot be produced by unintelligent, undirected processes.
>
> I don't want to any more time searching for a direct cite because rummaging through pseudoscience like ID is a poor use of my
> time. The gods know there is plenty of real science I'd rather spend my time exploring and learning about.
No problem. It is not an important issue. Just something I have noticed
as a loophole in "Who created the Creator" arguments.
>> I've noticed that
>> impressions people form about arguments they don't accept are
>> pretty unreliable. It certainly seems to me that at least Behe's version
>> of ID - built around the notion or 'irreducible complexity' - requires
>> knowing how something works before you make the inference that
>> it is too complex to have arisen without design. Of course, that is
>> only MY impression.
>>
>
> I think that ID considers Dembski's specified complexity to be the most important signature of an Intelligent Designer. If you
> have noticed, there are a number of IDiot's posting to t.o. who think Dembski walks on water.
That is true, and I suspect that Dembski would say, if asked, that 'of course'
human intelligence and the human brain require specified complexity.
And so would a computer-based AI that passes the Turing test, if one
is ever constructed. The computer would require specification of
the hardware wiring diagram and the software, and the human brain
is specified (though we don't yet understand how) in the human genome.
However, the odd thing is that by saying this, Dembski would piss off
a whole lot of his creationist supporters, most of whom are unreconstructed
dualists and believe that human intelligence is spiritual in nature. The
whole concept of the spiritually-based mind is completely incompatible
with monist conceptions of the mind as emergent from the complex brain.
The whole concept of 'specifying' a mind using 'information' just wasn't
something people even thought about before 1950 or so.
Michael James
> On Nov 21, 10:18 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
> 0catch.com> wrote:
[snips]
>
> Again, it is not "design" but "manufacture" that we recognize. In the
> case of
> SETI we are not talking about any old phenomenon. We are talking about
> radio signals. The idea is that aliens are sufficiently like us to
> make signals that
> like those we make, and that we can record, using patterns that are
> sufficiently
> like ours such that they can be recognized as being signals. SETI, in
> this
> respect, is unlike Dembskian view as it does not rely on the
> observation of
> hypothetical information theoretic quantities, but on the recognition
> of known
> classes of signals.
Radio signals can be placed into two categories:, local (Earth and the
immediate surroundings) and non-local.
They can also be classified as natural (produced by mechanisms in the
natural world) and non-natural (in practice, human originated)
Simply put SETI is looking at a Punnet square of
_____________________________
| | |
| local | local |
| natural | non-natural|
| | |
_____________________________
| | |
| non-local | non-local |
| natural | non-natural|
| | |
_____________________________
and trying to find anything that fits in the lower-right
box. The presumption is that such a signal might come from
an alien intelligence. Of course, we won't really know until
we detect such a signal.
mike
--
mrj...@swcp.com http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in
numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in
numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind" - Lord Kelvin
Seanpit
> On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> >Miller:"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."
> >SeanPitman: I'm most intrigued by Miller's thoughts here. How is >Miller's description of "faith" in God any better than wishful thinking >or a child's belief in Santa Claus? I may be wrong, but it seems to >me that Miller is talking about some sort of fantasy or concept of >completely blind "faith" where one believes in this or that hopeful >reality based on absolutely nothing but feelings or desire. In my >opinion, those like Richard Dawkins are correct in becoming quite >exasperated by such thinking and rightfully calling it "The God >Delusion".
> >While I personally do believe an intelligent Creator God, I do so >because I think there is solid, testable, falsifiable evidence for a >God-like higher power that goes far beyond human-level intelligence, >power, and creativity. If I did not at least think I recognized such >evidence, there is no way I would actually worship a God for which I >saw no physical evidence of his/her/its existence or interaction with >any aspect of nature.
>
> You have to remember that Miller is a Catholic. Catholicism is not as
> Bible-intrenched as the SDA church that you come from. It is quite
> possible for a Catholic to view the structure of reality that allows
> "molecules to man" abiogenesis-evolution can be viewed as "testament
> for the glory of God". This follows because it is permitted within
> Catholicism to view Old Testament Bible stories as being allegorical,
> rather than historical.
It doesn't matter what kind of religious affiliation one has. If one
believes in a Christian-style God, where is the basis for that
belief? Blind faith devoid of any physical testable potentially
falsifiable evidence is simply not convincing beyond the basis for a
belief in a Santa Claus sort of God.
> While you may claim that you believe that "there are solid testable
> falsifiable evidence" to support your Biblical-literalist worldview,
> you have to admit that the Bible belief came first in your head, not
> any claimed scientific evidence. You did not come to your beliefs from
> a rational process, but through training from childhood.
This is simply not true. For many years I leaned favorably toward
evolutionary thinking and in fact questioned the basis for
Christianity and any belief in God. It wasn't until I actually
discovered various evidences in living things and in the universe
itself that strongly indicate deliberate artifact that the basis for
belief in a superhuman intelligence that is at least close to "God-
like" became clear to me.
> Indeed, it is all-or-nothing in the extreme Bible-literalist view, so
> you will stop at no end to make that true. You will massage, contort,
> and torture any scientific data that comes your way until it tells the
> "truth" that you already know.
We all have our own biases. You yourself are not immune. You take on
an extreme naturalistic point of view - where everything must be
explained, ultimately, by the workings of a mindless disinterested
force of Almighty Nature. You will stop at no end to make that
perspective true. You will massage, contort, and torture any
scientific data that comes your way until it tells the "truth" that
you already know. You see, John, bias works both ways. We all have
to consider the evidence for ourselves while being aware of our own
individual biases.
> -John
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:39 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> > >SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
> > >Miller:"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."
> > >SeanPitman: I'm most intrigued by Miller's thoughts here. How is >Miller's description of "faith" in God any better than wishful thinking >or a child's belief in Santa Claus? I may be wrong, but it seems to >me that Miller is talking about some sort of fantasy or concept of >completely blind "faith" where one believes in this or that hopeful >reality based on absolutely nothing but feelings or desire. In my >opinion, those like Richard Dawkins are correct in becoming quite >exasperated by such thinking and rightfully calling it "The God >Delusion".
> > >While I personally do believe an intelligent Creator God, I do so >because I think there is solid, testable, falsifiable evidence for a >God-like higher power that goes far beyond human-level intelligence, >power, and creativity. If I did not at least think I recognized such >evidence, there is no way I would actually worship a God for which I >saw no physical evidence of his/her/its existence or interaction with >any aspect of nature.
>
> > You have to remember that Miller is a Catholic. Catholicism is not as
> > Bible-intrenched as the SDA church that you come from. It is quite
> > possible for a Catholic to view the structure of reality that allows
> > "molecules to man" abiogenesis-evolution can be viewed as "testament
> > for the glory of God". This follows because it is permitted within
> > Catholicism to view Old Testament Bible stories as being allegorical,
> > rather than historical.
>
> It doesn't matter what kind of religious affiliation one has. If one
> believes in a Christian-style God, where is the basis for that
> belief? Blind faith devoid of any physical testable potentially
> falsifiable evidence is simply not convincing beyond the basis for a
> belief in a Santa Claus sort of God.
why dont you tell us what your basis is? you talk about intelligent
design a lot, but that by definition doesnt deal with the identity of
the designer. so even if it were correct, you still have no basis for
belief in a christian-style god.
>
> > While you may claim that you believe that "there are solid testable
> > falsifiable evidence" to support your Biblical-literalist worldview,
> > you have to admit that the Bible belief came first in your head, not
> > any claimed scientific evidence. You did not come to your beliefs from
> > a rational process, but through training from childhood.
>
> This is simply not true. For many years I leaned favorably toward
> evolutionary thinking and in fact questioned the basis for
> Christianity and any belief in God. It wasn't until I actually
> discovered various evidences in living things and in the universe
> itself that strongly indicate deliberate artifact that the basis for
> belief in a superhuman intelligence that is at least close to "God-
> like" became clear to me.
the fact that you believe in a "christian-style" god gives lie to your
claim. if your evidence for a superhuman intelligence were intelligent
design, you would not be a christian, as intelligent design cannot
identify the designer.
>
> > Indeed, it is all-or-nothing in the extreme Bible-literalist view, so
> > you will stop at no end to make that true. You will massage, contort,
> > and torture any scientific data that comes your way until it tells the
> > "truth" that you already know.
>
> We all have our own biases. You yourself are not immune. You take on
> an extreme naturalistic point of view - where everything must be
> explained, ultimately, by the workings of a mindless disinterested
> force of Almighty Nature. You will stop at no end to make that
> perspective true. You will massage, contort, and torture any
> scientific data that comes your way until it tells the "truth" that
> you already know. You see, John, bias works both ways. We all have
> to consider the evidence for ourselves while being aware of our own
> individual biases.
all you have is an argument from ignorance. "i dont see how nature
could do it, therefore there must be a superhuman intelligence."
even if we assume that nature could not possibly do it, and we had
access to that absolute knowledge, you still have no reason to appeal
to a "superhuman intelligence." it is a complete non-sequitur and
leads to absolutely no scientific understanding.
>
> > -John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> >SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> Nice way to side step an issue. The fallacy of "irreduceable
> complexity" is that "function" is not fixed. Fuction is not intrinsic
> attribute of a biological system but is a post-hoc identification made
> by *us* not by the organism.
>
> The Type III secretory systems all have some sort
> of "function" which may or may not include motility. The bacterium
> does not absolutely need a flagellem or a Type III secretory system.
> The whole notion of biological structures as being "machines" is an
> analogy that *we* impose on biological systems.
What a load of rubbish. Flagellar systems and the TTSS system are
indeed functional systems. And, those bacteria that have such systems
in certain environments are indeed more functionally "fit", as per a
detectable survival/reproductive advantage, than their peers. This is
how Nature is able to preferentially "select" one over another for
survival over generations. This isn't a matter of human selection,
but of natural selection.
The argument that a bacterium doesn't need this or that system to
survive is also ludicrous. We aren't talking about mere survival here,
but about improved survival - i.e., surviving better than one's peers
and producing more offspring. We are talking about which gene pool
will ultimately survive - as in Dawkins' "selfish gene" theory.
> A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
You can't be serious. A flagellum resembles and works exactly like an
outboard motor. It has exactly the same functional activity. There
is no fundamental difference with regard to basic form or function.
Anyone who makes this inane argument is simply desperately reaching
for straws.
> -John
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> > SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
> >Perhaps the extraterrestrials will preface their [radiosignal] message >with a string of prime numbers, or maybe the first fifty terms of the >ever-popular Fibonacci series. Well, there's no doubt that such tags >would convey intelligence." (Link)
> >SeanPitman: This is an interesting statement. Why is it that such
> >a numerical pattern, carried in a medium of a radiosignal, would so >clearly indicate deliberate artifact? By Miller's argument it would be >at least possible that some as yet unknown non-deliberate natural
> >phenomenon may have been responsible. In fact, to ever stop
> >looking for such a non-deliberate phenomenon and just give up after
> >even a protracted search to conclude the action of some unknown
> >intelligent agent would simply be anti-scientific - - at least according
> >to Miller's argument. It seems that Miller would have one always >conclude a non-intelligent agent no matter what and that one should >keep up the search for a non-intelligent agent forever.
>
> Sean,
> You forget that mathematics is manufactured. It isn't necessary that
> the Fibonacci series would be a good choice, though, because plant
> stems, sunflower seed arrays, and many many other forms occur in a
> Fibonacci pattern.
You forget that you have to consider the material in question. When
it comes to radiosignals, the first million digits repeated over and
over again would be a definite surprise to the scientific community
and would indeed be widely promoted as evidence of deliberate
artifact. The same thing is true of the first million digits of pi or
any other specific mathematically derived sequence repeated over and
over.
Think about it for a minute - specifically from the perspective of the
medium of radiosignals - - not various living things which are
actually one of the phenomena in question here when it comes to
possible "artifact".
> We do know how to manufacture signals that would be
> unlike the signals that we see from the natural sources we know. So
> the assumption of SETI is that the aliens know how to do that too. Or,
> we through analysing signals we make, SETI investigators have boiled
> down the signals into characteristics that make signals we make differ
> from those of other natural sources that we know.
Exactly. One has to have at least some familiarity with the limits of
what non-deliberate natural forces can do with the medium or material
in question before artifact can be adequately detected and/or
hypothesized.
> Don't forget, when the first SETI project (LGM) was started in the
> 1960s, the search was merely for regular signals---which were
> immediately found---. It turned out that there were these things
> called neutron stars that were theorized which also put out regular
> signals.
>
> Did the scientific community drop everything and proclaim for all time
> that they had found evidence of a civilization? No. Scientific
> investigation has to be done with more care than that. Yet, it is
> somehow taken by cdesign proponentists that the existence of bacterial
> flagella are evidence of an unspecified intelligence. IDers
> are at best careless.
No one is saying that extensive investigation is not needed. It is
just that infinite investigation is not needed before deliberate
artifact can be adequately entertained and scientifically theorized in
a very reliable manner. Yet, regardless of how detailed the
investigation, which should always be ongoing, there will always be
the possibility of error. Science never achieves 100% perfection.
The hypothesis of deliberate artifact, even given the first million
digits of pi repeated millions of times in a radiosignal, could still
be wrong. It is just very unlikely that such a signal would in fact
be the result of some non-deliberate force of nature is all. Not
impossible, just very very very unlikely. The same thing is true of
the bacterial flagellum since the stated mechanism of random mutation
and function-based selection can't come remotely close this side of
trillions upon trillions of years of time - on average.
> -John
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
wrote:
>
> >> But SETI science, to the extent that it *is* science, implicitly assumes
> >> that ET is *natural*.
>
> > Not true. SETI scientists do not rule out the possibility of a
> > supernatural vs. a natural agent.
>
> Sean, you are either a liar or a fool, or both.
LOL - - You evolutionists are famous for the argument that a
supernatural agent "explains everything and therefore nothing." This
is in fact a true statement. A supernatural agent can never be ruled
out. That is in fact why it explains everything and therefore
nothing. SETI scientists cannot rule out the possiblity of such an
agent being responsible for their "artifactual" signal - - if such a
signal were ever found. But, where SETI scientists can be pretty
confident is that their signal is in fact artifcatual - i.e., the
result of some intelligently directed process. They may favor the
notion that the intelligent agent(s) is "natural", which is fine. But
this doesn't mean they have ruled out the possibility of a
supernatural agent. All they've done is to effectively rule out a non-
intelligent agent as being responsible.
Do you see the difference? That is why ID Theory does not say
anything about the nature of the intelligent agent beyond the proposal
that the creative agent is in fact intelligent. SETI scientists are
in the very same boat.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
snex
where is your math proving this "trillions and trillions of years"
again? this is the key point at which your argument fails flat on its
head. all working biologists are saying the exact opposite, and
providing evidence for it, while all you, a non-expert who does
absolutely no experiments of his own, do is assert that they are wrong.
hersheyh
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:49 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
>
> You can't be serious. A flagellum resembles and works exactly like an
> outboard motor. It has exactly the same functional activity.
It uses gasoline to run? Where are the pistons? The spark plugs?
The clamp to attach it to the outside of a boat which is built
separately? The human that built it in some factory? The factory in
which it was built? The store in which it was bought? I *really*
don't think that the eubacterial flagellum (remember that there are at
least two entirely different rotary flagella) is built like and works
*exactly* like an outboard motor. For an appropriately vague
description of function, they do indeed have the same function, but at
entirely different scales.
> There
> is no fundamental difference with regard to basic form or function.
But there *are*, even if I were to agree with the above, quite
fundamental differences with regard to method of manufacture. One
requires a manufacturing plant and human intervention at all stages of
manufacture through distribution and sale to other humans for purposes
that humans decide. The other is assembled by the unintelligent
'boat' and self-assembles its parts.
> Anyone who makes this inane argument is simply desperately reaching
> for straws.
What do you call an argument that claims that there is no fundamental
difference between a flagella and an outboard motor? Now *that* would
be an inane argument. Oops. I guess you disagree.
>
> > -John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
snex
could there possibly be a natural intelligent agent for which the
design inference would indicate that law + chance could make that
agent?
Seanpit
>
> > All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
> > phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
>
> No, all SETI scientists can say is that it comes from an artificial
> source. That's what the SETI scientists say.
LOL - What is the definition of "artifact" in the context of SETI
Richard? Is an "artifact" not the product of an intelligent source?
Hmmm?
< snip rest >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Andre Lieven
blows:
> On Nov 21, 6:58 pm, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>
> wrote:
>
> > >> But SETI science, to the extent that it *is* science, implicitly assumes
> > >> that ET is *natural*.
>
> > > Not true. SETI scientists do not rule out the possibility of a
> > > supernatural vs. a natural agent.
>
> > Sean, you are either a liar or a fool, or both.
Indeed. Woe unto the world from fools who falsely believe many things,
including that they know what they clearly don't.
> LOL - - You evolutionists are famous for the argument that a
> supernatural agent "explains everything and therefore nothing."
Fortunately, given the natureof modern fame, this iew is quite
correct. In ANY ranch of science, saying " the Great Spaghetti
Monster did it " is not only meaningless, but it is an attempt to
AVOID providing any FACTS to a disagreement.
One might as well say that " Seanpit was created by the Devil
five minutes ago, in an effort to confuse good people ", and Seanpit
would have NO ability or standing from which to attempt to refute
such a statement.
> This
> is in fact a true statement. A supernatural agent can never be ruled
> out.
This is exactly wrong. In science, a supernatural agent can never
be ruled *in*. As it solves... *nothing*.
" Its turtles all the way down. "
> That is in fact why it explains everything and therefore
> nothing. SETI scientists cannot rule out the possiblity of such an
> agent being responsible for their "artifactual" signal - - if such a
> signal were ever found.
Nonsense. Once again, its noteworthy that all of your claims
come with AbZero proofs.
> But, where SETI scientists can be pretty
> confident is that their signal is in fact artifcatual - i.e., the
> result of some intelligently directed process. They may favor the
> notion that the intelligent agent(s) is "natural", which is fine. But
> this doesn't mean they have ruled out the possibility of a
> supernatural agent. All they've done is to effectively rule out a non-
> intelligent agent as being responsible.
Once again, utter anti science nonsense.
> Do you see the difference?
" A difference which makes no difference is no difference. "
James Blish.
> That is why ID Theory does not say
> anything about the nature of the intelligent agent beyond the proposal
> that the creative agent is in fact intelligent.
As the Dover Case *proved*, this is false, thus you are a liar.
Got it.
> SETI scientists are in the very same boat.
Well, they might be, if lies were truths. As they're nt, they're not.
QED.
Andre
Seanpit
>
> you continue to miss the point. SETI scientists look for signals that
> they KNOW intelligent agents create for specific purposes.
That's not enough. Intelligent agents can and do create various kinds
of signals and other phenomena that cannot be readily distinguished
from what non-deliberate natural processes can also create. That is
why detecting an artifact requires the ability to sufficiently rule
out a non-deliberate cause. In fact, this is the main requirement.
SETI scientists really don't need to know why a alien intelligence
decided to produce a narrow-band radiosignal or a signal that contains
the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again to detect
that such signals are almost certainly artifactual.
> forensic
> scientists look for signs of events they KNOW intelligent agents are
> capable of performing.
And that non-intelligent processes are incapable of performing. You
keep forgetting this second part.
> archaeologists look for clues that they KNOW
> intelligent agents leave.
And that non-deliberate natural processes would not leave.
> without making those assumptions, these
> fields would not be doing science, just like
> ID is not doing science.
ID is doing exactly what all these other scientists are doing. ID
proposes that a lack of a natural non-deliberate mechanism for a given
phenomenon that has been extensively investigated is evidence of
artifact just like finding a highly symetrical polished granite cube
on Mars would be quickly hailed as evidence of artifact all over the
world.
> you CANNOT prop up an hypothesis by merely saying all other hypotheses
> cannot predict some observation. you need to show that your hypothesis
> DOES predict the observation.
Again, SETI scientists base their hypothesis of artifact upon the
negative hypothesis that no non-deliberate force of nature would
produce a certain feature in a certain medium or material. That is
the prediction. Is it a negative prediction? Sure. But all
scientific theories have a component of negative predictions.
> > P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
> > several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
> > didn't respond.
You keep coming up with these tests and challenges - - and act like
they've never been solved even when they have. Give it up already.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Listed many times in this forum and on my website in my essay on the
flagellum.
> this is the key point at which your argument fails flat on its
> head. all working biologists are saying the exact opposite, and
> providing evidence for it, while all you, a non-expert who does
> absolutely no experiments of his own, do is assert that they are wrong.
Please do present just one reference to back up this bald assertion.
As far as I've been able to find there are no published calculations
detailing the time needed to evolve anything at the level of
complexity of a flagellar motility system based on the mechanism
alone. The assumption of the time involved is based entirely on the
assumed age of the geologic column and fossil record - - NOT on any
understanding of the actual mechanism involved, mutation rates, and
distances that must be crossed to get from one proposed intermediate
steppingstone function to the next. These calculations and time
estimates are not discussed in literature.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:07 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > you continue to miss the point. SETI scientists look for signals that
> > they KNOW intelligent agents create for specific purposes.
>
> That's not enough. Intelligent agents can and do create various kinds
> of signals and other phenomena that cannot be readily distinguished
> from what non-deliberate natural processes can also create. That is
> why detecting an artifact requires the ability to sufficiently rule
> out a non-deliberate cause. In fact, this is the main requirement.
> SETI scientists really don't need to know why a alien intelligence
> decided to produce a narrow-band radiosignal or a signal that contains
> the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again to detect
> that such signals are almost certainly artifactual.
>
> > forensic
> > scientists look for signs of events they KNOW intelligent agents are
> > capable of performing.
>
> And that non-intelligent processes are incapable of performing. You
> keep forgetting this second part.
no, i do not keep forgetting the second part. you keep forgetting the
part i mentioned. both parts are NECESSARY to form an hypothesis of
intelligent design, and "Intelligent Design" does not use both parts.
>
> > archaeologists look for clues that they KNOW
> > intelligent agents leave.
>
> And that non-deliberate natural processes would not leave.
>
> > without making those assumptions, these
> > fields would not be doing science, just like
> > ID is not doing science.
>
> ID is doing exactly what all these other scientists are doing. ID
> proposes that a lack of a natural non-deliberate mechanism for a given
> phenomenon that has been extensively investigated is evidence of
> artifact just like finding a highly symetrical polished granite cube
> on Mars would be quickly hailed as evidence of artifact all over the
> world.
ID is not doing what these other scientists are doing. ID is not
identifying anything that any known designers do or can do. ID is not
offering anything that can be falsified.
>
> > you CANNOT prop up an hypothesis by merely saying all other hypotheses
> > cannot predict some observation. you need to show that your hypothesis
> > DOES predict the observation.
>
> Again, SETI scientists base their hypothesis of artifact upon the
> negative hypothesis that no non-deliberate force of nature would
> produce a certain feature in a certain medium or material. That is
> the prediction. Is it a negative prediction? Sure. But all
> scientific theories have a component of negative predictions.
wrong. SETI also uses, and MUST use, the positive prediction that
there are certain signals that intelligent agents are more likely to
design than others.
>
> > > P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
> > > several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
> > > didn't respond.
>
> You keep coming up with these tests and challenges - - and act like
> they've never been solved even when they have. Give it up already.
they havent been solved. you never even replied to the thread. all you
have to do is tell me which signal(s) you think are designed and to
show your work which references ID theory in some way, or link me to a
thread where anybody has done so already. here those pesky signals are
again:
http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txt
http://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
You don't understand the nature of science. Science never rules
anything in. That's impossible in science. Science basically works
by flasification. It rules stuff out, not in. It narrows the places
where the true answer is likely to be found - - while never getting
there or achieving 100% perfection.
That is why a proposed agent that can do and make anything, i.e., a
supernatural agent, cannot be ruled out and therefore can
theoretically "explain anything and therefore nothing". This
statement is in fact true, as already noted.
richardal...@googlemail.com
An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
intelligent. The housing made by a cadis fly larva by sticking bits of
gravel together is an artifact, but nobody is claiming this as
evidence of high intelligence on the part of an cadis fly.
The use of radio waves for communication has been suggested for
hypothetical organisms living in the atmospheres of gas giants such as
Jupiter. SETI could identify such sources as being artifacts, but such
organisms do not necessarily have to be intelligent.
The SETI scientists will only form conclusions about the origin of any
radio signals they might pick up when they have rigorously tested
hypotheses of how they are produced. This is what happened when the
first pulsar signals were picked up in spite of the fact that they has
some of the characteristics of artificial signals.
What scientists don't do is to form conclusions which are a rejection
of the underlying principle of science, which is naturalism, when they
don't have enough evidence to formulate testable hypotheses. What
scientists do under such circumstances is say that they don't know how
to explain a phenomenon.
They don't reject the underlying paradigm of all science in favour of
a pre-scientific paradigm which was rejected as unfruitful centuries
ago as modern science developed.
>
> < snip rest >
Oh, and scientists don't run away from the unfortunate facts when
their arguments are shown to be empty posturing.
Let's put back some of the parts you run away from:
What matters in the case of SETI is that the source is artificial. You
can't detect "intelligence". It's an abstract concept. You can only
detect the products of intelligence, and only identify them as the
products of intelligence by identifying how they were made. That's
what archaeologists do, that's what anthropologists do, and that's
what the scientists at SETI do.
The idea of a God taking an active part in the running of the universe
was rejected as a valid scientific proposition not because the people
who developed science as we know it were atheists - in most cases they
were not - but because such an proposition is unfruitful.
> One does not have to know the actual
> origin of the intelligent natural agent before one can identify
> certain creations of that agent as "artifacts".
One does, however have to be able to test hypotheses of how it was
made. That's what the scientists who actually do this will tell you.
You prefer to ignore that, and live in your fantasy world, but that's
a reflection on your dishonesty.
> For example, a particular type of
> radiosignal would be hailed as artifact by SETI scientists. This is a
> fact regardless of if that signal was produced by a natural or
> supernatural agent. The signal itself would still be clearly
> "artifactual".
The SETI scientists would treat the signal as natural and produced
using naturalistic processes. That's because they are scientists, not
people pretending that their religious convictions are supported by
science and prepared to distort, misrepresent and lie about the
evidence to support their cause.
> If you say
> that a given phenomenon could only have been produced by an
> intelligent force of some kind, it doesn't matter if the intelligent
> force is "natural" or "supernatural".
What pure, unmitigated bullshit. If you are making a scientific
proposition - i.e one which can be tested using the tools of science -
you can only assume a naturalistic process.
> The artifactual nature of the
> phenomenon in question would still be clear. You can then debate all
> you want about if the source was natural or supernatural. That has
> nothing to do with the fact that artifact is obvious.
The whole universe could have been created ten minutes ago with all
the appearance of great age by supernatural processes. You can
"explain" ANYTHING by the intervention of the supernatural, which is
why it is an utterly useless proposition in science.
Do you get satisfaction from the admiration you get from intellectual
heavyweights like Ray Martinez?
RF
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 30, 6:13 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
> > > > phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
>
> > > No, all SETI scientists can say is that it comes from an artificial
> > > source. That's what the SETI scientists say.
>
> > LOL - What is the definition of "artifact" in the context of SETI
> > Richard? Is an "artifact" not the product of an intelligent source?
> > Hmmm?
>
> An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
> intelligent.
You've gotta be kiddin me! In the context of SETI science, you really
do need to go and look up what is meant by the term "artifact". This
term means *intelligently* designed and manufactured. Your notion of
"manufacture" could be anything - like the product of non-deliberate
"manufacture". You're really reaching here Richard.
< snip more of the same nonsense >
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > And that non-intelligent processes are incapable of performing. You
> > keep forgetting this second part.
>
> no, i do not keep forgetting the second part. you keep forgetting the
> part i mentioned. both parts are NECESSARY to form an hypothesis of
> intelligent design, and "Intelligent Design" does not use both parts.
Sure it is. Intelligent design can easily explain the order of
genetically-based biosystems. Ever hear of designer genes?
Scientists are in fact capable of producing their own novel genetic
sequences an having them actually work in living things to produce
novel functional biosystems. In fact, Francis Collins has suggested
the production of an entirely human-produced life form within the next
10 years.
There you have the "first part" of the ID hypothesis. All you need
now is the second part - i.e., the part that notes that no non-
deliberate force of nature can do anything remotely close with the
material in question (i.e., organic molecules in this case).
< snip >
> > > you CANNOT prop up an hypothesis by merely saying all other hypotheses
> > > cannot predict some observation. you need to show that your hypothesis
> > > DOES predict the observation.
>
> > Again, SETI scientists base their hypothesis of artifact upon the
> > negative hypothesis that no non-deliberate force of nature would
> > produce a certain feature in a certain medium or material. That is
> > the prediction. Is it a negative prediction? Sure. But all
> > scientific theories have a component of negative predictions.
>
> wrong. SETI also uses, and MUST use, the positive prediction that
> there are certain signals that intelligent agents are more likely to
> design than others.
That's simply not true. Intelligent agents are not only likely to
design, but have designed very natural-looking signals as well as
artifactual signals. That is why a natural-looking signal cannot be
said to be out of the realm of deliberate design. However, the
opposite is not true. An artifactual signal can indeed be said to be
out of the realm of non-deliberate design.
> > > > P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
> > > > several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
> > > > didn't respond.
>
> > You keep coming up with these tests and challenges - - and act like
> > they've never been solved even when they have. Give it up already.
>
> they havent been solved. you never even replied to the thread. all you
> have to do is tell me which signal(s) you think are designed and to
> show your work which references ID theory in some way, or link me to a
> thread where anybody has done so already. here those pesky signals are
> again:
I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea7656309f9c4755
> http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txthttp://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
You just keep coming up with more challenges each time your previous
challenge is solved? I just don't have the time . . .
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 30, 12:51 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2:49 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
>
> > You can't be serious. A flagellum resembles and works exactly like an
> > outboard motor. It has exactly the same functional activity.
>
> It uses gasoline to run? Where are the pistons? The spark plugs?
Oh give me a break Howard! Even you must admit that the flagellum,
though having a unique power source, has a form and function that is
very much equivalent to an outboard motor. There really is no
significant difference with regard to either form or function. These
little quibbles are absolute nonsense. A red herring at best.
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:31 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > And that non-intelligent processes are incapable of performing. You
> > > keep forgetting this second part.
>
> > no, i do not keep forgetting the second part. you keep forgetting the
> > part i mentioned. both parts are NECESSARY to form an hypothesis of
> > intelligent design, and "Intelligent Design" does not use both parts.
>
> Sure it is. Intelligent design can easily explain the order of
> genetically-based biosystems. Ever hear of designer genes?
> Scientists are in fact capable of producing their own novel genetic
> sequences an having them actually work in living things to produce
> novel functional biosystems. In fact, Francis Collins has suggested
> the production of an entirely human-produced life form within the next
> 10 years.
this would at most be evidence that the original intelligent design
happened once near the beginning of life, because no designer is
currently around, and common ancestry is pretty well demonstrated
beyond a doubt.
and it would still open the question of who the designer is and how
they came into existence. clearly SOMETHING had to exist naturally.
>
> There you have the "first part" of the ID hypothesis. All you need
> now is the second part - i.e., the part that notes that no non-
> deliberate force of nature can do anything remotely close with the
> material in question (i.e., organic molecules in this case).
unfortunately, not even that part supports you. all you have
demonstrated is that no KNOWN non-deliberate force can do it. the
space of possible non-deliberate forces in regards to origin of life
is nowhere near exhausted.
>
> < snip >
>
> > > > you CANNOT prop up an hypothesis by merely saying all other hypotheses
> > > > cannot predict some observation. you need to show that your hypothesis
> > > > DOES predict the observation.
>
> > > Again, SETI scientists base their hypothesis of artifact upon the
> > > negative hypothesis that no non-deliberate force of nature would
> > > produce a certain feature in a certain medium or material. That is
> > > the prediction. Is it a negative prediction? Sure. But all
> > > scientific theories have a component of negative predictions.
>
> > wrong. SETI also uses, and MUST use, the positive prediction that
> > there are certain signals that intelligent agents are more likely to
> > design than others.
>
> That's simply not true. Intelligent agents are not only likely to
> design, but have designed very natural-looking signals as well as
> artifactual signals. That is why a natural-looking signal cannot be
> said to be out of the realm of deliberate design. However, the
> opposite is not true. An artifactual signal can indeed be said to be
> out of the realm of non-deliberate design.
it simply is true, and if you would ask anybody at SETI, they would
tell you this. really, how stupid do you think we are. SETI says
exactly what they are doing, yet you expect us to take YOUR word that
they are wrong? gimmie a break. i can only conclude that you are being
dishonest at this point, rather than ignorant, as i have already
provided you with a link to SETI's own words on the matter.
>
> > > > > P.S. I've already given you illustrations of detecting bias in signals
> > > > > several times, in direct answer to your "challenge" - - to which you
> > > > > didn't respond.
>
> > > You keep coming up with these tests and challenges - - and act like
> > > they've never been solved even when they have. Give it up already.
>
> > they havent been solved. you never even replied to the thread. all you
> > have to do is tell me which signal(s) you think are designed and to
> > show your work which references ID theory in some way, or link me to a
> > thread where anybody has done so already. here those pesky signals are
> > again:
>
> I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
math is just voodoo.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ea7656309f9c4755
>
> >http://xens.org:8080/signal1.txthttp://xens.org:8080/signal2.txt
>
> You just keep coming up with more challenges each time your previous
> challenge is solved? I just don't have the time . . .
thats why you should shut up and let the real scientists who do have
time for it do their work and report their findings, rather than using
all of your time to sit there and tell them they are wrong, but
complaining about a lack of time to prove it.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
hersheyh
Nope. Just pointing out some of the many ways that your forced
analogy between a manufactured add-on mechanical motor and an
endogneous self-assembling flagella is false.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
There was a bit more to my reply. Would you like to comment on that?
Exactly how is the manufacturing process used to produce the outboard
motor *exactly* like the manufacturing process used to produce a
flagellum? That *is* relevant to your claim to be able to empirically
identify the existence of a supernatural manufacturer based on an
argument from analogy, is it not?
hersheyh
The same thing is true of
> > > the bacterial flagellum since the stated mechanism of random mutation
> > > and function-based selection can't come remotely close this side of
> > > trillions upon trillions of years of time - on average.
>
>
> > >SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > where is your math proving this "trillions and trillions of years"
> > again?
>
> Listed many times in this forum and on my website in my essay on the
> flagellum.
I have *repeatedly* asked you for your math. I have *looked* at your
website. The relevant math simply is not there. Instead you keep
presenting your bullshit total sequence size as if that were an
answer. When even you know and admit it isn't the right or relevant
number. The number you need is the gap size. The number of mutations
between the last functional structure that lacks the modified or 'new'
function you identify and the sequence that has that modified or 'new'
function is what you need. You continually assert that you can
calculate that number as a fraction of the total sequence size, but I
have not seen this analysis anywhere in your website.
> > this is the key point at which your argument fails flat on its
> > head. all working biologists are saying the exact opposite, and
> > providing evidence for it, while all you, a non-expert who does
> > absolutely no experiments of his own, do is assert that they are wrong.
>
> Please do present just one reference to back up this bald assertion.
> As far as I've been able to find there are no published calculations
> detailing the time needed to evolve anything at the level of
> complexity of a flagellar motility system based on the mechanism
> alone.
The only *mechanism* you hint at, although you deny it, is one where
you start with a maximally distant (not even average distant) random
sequence of the final size and move in a completely functionless
pathway by random changes until you hit upon some sequence with the
desired function. IOW, the mathematical equivalent of the old 747 in
a tornado strawman. Its boring to have to keep reminding you that
this "model" has no relationship to what evolution proposes.
> The assumption of the time involved is based entirely on the
> assumed age of the geologic column and fossil record - - NOT on any
> understanding of the actual mechanism involved, mutation rates, and
> distances that must be crossed to get from one proposed intermediate
> steppingstone function to the next. These calculations and time
> estimates are not discussed in literature.
You certainly have not discussed it. Except for your implication of
the 747 in a tornado strawman argument.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 10:41 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 30, 6:13 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 21, 12:20 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > All SETI scientists can actually say is that the
> > > > > phenomenon in question came from an intelligent source of some kind.
>
> > > > No, all SETI scientists can say is that it comes from an artificial
> > > > source. That's what the SETI scientists say.
>
> > > LOL - What is the definition of "artifact" in the context of SETI
> > > Richard? Is an "artifact" not the product of an intelligent source?
> > > Hmmm?
>
> > An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
> > intelligent.
>
> You've gotta be kiddin me! In the context of SETI science, you really
> do need to go and look up what is meant by the term "artifact". This
> term means *intelligently* designed and manufactured. Your notion of
> "manufacture" could be anything - like the product of non-deliberate
> "manufacture". You're really reaching here Richard.
SET are looking for an signal which has the characteristics of signals
which we know to be artifacts because we know how they are made.
They are not looking for "intelligence" or "non-deliberate processes"
or any of the other terms you want to throw at them. They will only
conclude that a signal is an artifact when they have tested hypotheses
of how they were made. If they don't know how a signal was made, they
will not conclude that it is an artifact. They will conclude that they
don't know how it was made, as they have already concluded in the case
of a number of anomalous signals the research program has detected.
That's the way scientists work, Sean.
You know that.
I know that.
Why do you think you do your cause any good by pretending that this
isn't the case?
>
> < snip more of the same nonsense >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
And to put back all those difficult issues from which you run away
like the moral and intellectual coward you are:
An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
richardal...@googlemail.com
So how do you falsify the assertion that an "intelligent designer",
possibly using supernatural powers has interferred using unspecified
but possibly supernatural methods with evolutionary processes?
To test this assertion, you need to propose a potential measurement or
observation which could NOT be explained by the intervention of a
supernatural being using supernatural methods.
> It rules stuff out, not in. It narrows the places
> where the true answer is likely to be found - - while never getting
> there or achieving 100% perfection.
>
> That is why a proposed agent that can do and make anything, i.e., a
> supernatural agent, cannot be ruled out and therefore can
> theoretically "explain anything and therefore nothing". This
> statement is in fact true, as already noted.
And this is also why such an agent is completely and utterly useless
as a scientific proposition, and why such untestable and unfalsifiable
assertions have no place in science.
Why do you persist in claiming scientific support for an argument
which is blatantly not scientific?
RF
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
John Stockwell
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2:39 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 9:07 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
> > 0catch.com> wrote:
> > > Review of Kenneth Miller's interview with NOVA:
>
> > >http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#NOVA
>
> > >SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
> > >Miller:"Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."
> > >SeanPitman: I'm most intrigued by Miller's thoughts here. How is
> > >Miller's description of "faith" in God any better than wishful thinking
> > >or a child's belief in Santa Claus? I may be wrong, but it seems to
> > >me that Miller is talking about some sort of fantasy or concept of
> > >completely blind "faith" where one believes in this or that hopeful
> > >reality based on absolutely nothing but feelings or desire. In my
> > >opinion, those like Richard Dawkins are correct in becoming quite
> > >exasperated by such thinking and rightfully calling it "The God >Delusion".
> > >While I personally do believe an intelligent Creator God, I do so >because I think there is solid, testable, falsifiable evidence for a >God-like higher power that goes far beyond human-level intelligence, >power, and creativity. If I did not at least think I recognized such >evidence, there is no way I would actually worship a God for which I >saw no physical evidence of his/her/its existence or interaction with >any aspect of nature.
>
> > You have to remember that Miller is a Catholic. Catholicism is not as
> > Bible-intrenched as the SDA church that you come from. It is quite
> > possible for a Catholic to view the structure of reality that allows
> > "molecules to man" abiogenesis-evolution can be viewed as "testament
> > for the glory of God". This follows because it is permitted within
> > Catholicism to view Old Testament Bible stories as being allegorical,
> > rather than historical.
>
> Sean Pitman wrote:
> It doesn't matter what kind of religious affiliation one has. If one
> believes in a Christian-style God, where is the basis for that
> belief? Blind faith devoid of any physical testable potentially
> falsifiable evidence is simply not convincing beyond the basis for a
> belief in a Santa Claus sort of God.
Sure it does. It makes a big difference whether or not there is a
requirement in a religious belief system that reality conform to a
literalist view of a religious text. With the exception of a minority
of
nutjobs like Pagano, there is no overt attempt by the Catholic
Church to try to force a young-earth global-flood worldview down
the throats of Catholics. Nor is there a concerted attempt by the
Catholic Church to generate imitation science to make young-earth
global-floodism, or a notion of anti-evolution look like science to
their
followers.
> > Indeed, it is all-or-nothing in the extreme Bible-literalist view, so
> > you will stop at no end to make that true. You will massage, contort,
> > and torture any scientific data that comes your way until it tells the
> > "truth" that you already know.
>
> We all have our own biases. You yourself are not immune. You take on
> an extreme naturalistic point of view - where everything must be
> explained, ultimately, by the workings of a mindless disinterested
> force of Almighty Nature.
I am biased toward believing that the honest application of the
scientific
method will yield useful results. As far as believing that everything
can
be explained scientifically, I think that it is quite possible that
someday
we will "run out of science," but on the other hand, I don't think
that it is
productive to try to draw a line in the sand and say "beyond here we
may
not use science".
> You will stop at no end to make that
> perspective true. You will massage, contort, and torture any
> scientific data that comes your way until it tells the "truth" that
> you already know. You see, John, bias works both ways. We all have
> to consider the evidence for ourselves while being aware of our own
> individual biases.
The scientific community is largely biased toward honesty and
competence
in the conduct and reporting of science. What you are doing definitely
does not reflect that.
> > -John
>
> Sean Pitman
John Stockwell
> > John Stockwell:
> > While you may claim that you believe that "there are solid testable
> > falsifiable evidence" to support your Biblical-literalist worldview,
> > you have to admit that the Bible belief came first in your head, not
> > any claimed scientific evidence. You did not come to your beliefs from
> > a rational process, but through training from childhood.
> Sean Pitman
> This is simply not true. For many years I leaned favorably toward
> evolutionary thinking and in fact questioned the basis for
> Christianity and any belief in God. It wasn't until I actually
> discovered various evidences in living things and in the universe
> itself that strongly indicate deliberate artifact that the basis for
> belief in a superhuman intelligence that is at least close to "God-
> like" became clear to me.
Get real. I seriously doubt that you have a clue what "questioning
the basis of Christianity" means. The fact that you are a young earth
global flood creationists says that you likely never ventured far from
your home religious beliefs.
>
> > -John
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
-John
Andre Lieven
<seanpitnos...@naturalselection.lunatic.crazy> flops:
<Massive Lunatic Projection>
> Science never rules anything in. That's impossible in science.
No proof ever offered ? Fact free claim fails.
> Science basically works
> by flasification. It rules stuff out, not in.
And, on that basis, it HAS ruled out any and all supernatural
entities in Evolution. Petard. Hoist. You.
> It narrows the places
> where the true answer is likely to be found - - while never getting
> there or achieving 100% perfection.
So, since evolution stands as a very well tested FACT, any
views that oppose it, are... *wrong*.
> That is why a proposed agent that can do and make anything, i.e.,
> a supernatural agent, cannot be ruled out and therefore can
> theoretically "explain anything and therefore nothing".
Utterly wrong. The scientific facts that are proven, rule out any and
all agencies whose claimed " powers " would violate said facts.
That about wraps it up for god !
> This statement is in fact true, as already noted.
You MS-spelled " as emptily and incorrectly claimed. "
> < snip rest >
And, you MS-spelled " FLED what I could NOT debate/refute. "
Thank you for your total surrender.
Andre
Seanpit
< snip >
> > I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> > already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
>
> you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
> string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
> in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
> math is just voodoo.
My answer was not wrong. It was correct and you know it. That is why
you didn't accuse me of getting the answer wrong at the time.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95a6ecf525ca9ede
Also I did explain to you why I chose the reference string I chose and
the implications of low vs. high Pitman CSI.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3be4b0e439d6b8c6
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c5868c9f4eae90a7
You just don't seem to grasp the concept that a string with a random
apprance relative to the chosen reference does not rule out the
possiblity of bias. However, a significant bias relative to the
chosen reference strongly indicates a non-random origin.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:07 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
> > > I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> > > already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
>
> > you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
> > string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
> > in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
> > math is just voodoo.
>
> My answer was not wrong. It was correct and you know it. That is why
> you didn't accuse me of getting the answer wrong at the time.
your answer was wrong. the string you chose was just random garbage.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95a6ecf525ca9ede
>
> Also I did explain to you why I chose the reference string I chose and
> the implications of low vs. high Pitman CSI.
no possible reference string you could have chosen, apart from knowing
how i actually encoded it, would have helped you get the answer. you
could have compared both strings to known patterns all day long and
would get a 50/50 spread on which one had more CSI.
>
> You just don't seem to grasp the concept that a string with a random
> apprance relative to the chosen reference does not rule out the
> possiblity of bias. However, a significant bias relative to the
> chosen reference strongly indicates a non-random origin.
and if your chosen reference is different, youll get different
results. the results are entirely dependent on the reference string
you choose. if you choose a reference string that exactly matches the
string that happens to be random garbage, thats the one that will show
the most CSI.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > > I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> > > > already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
>
> > > you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
> > > string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
> > > in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
> > > math is just voodoo.
>
> > My answer was not wrong. It was correct and you know it. That is why
> > you didn't accuse me of getting the answer wrong at the time.
>
> your answer was wrong. the string you chose was just random garbage.
Uh huh - - prove it. I chose test String B. Please do provide the
basis for generating the two strings - -
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95a6ecf525ca9ede
>
> > Also I did explain to you why I chose the reference string I chose and
> > the implications of low vs. high Pitman CSI.
>
> no possible reference string you could have chosen, apart from knowing
> how i actually encoded it, would have helped you get the answer. you
> could have compared both strings to known patterns all day long and
> would get a 50/50 spread on which one had more CSI.
Not true. There was a significant difference between the two strings
with regard to a match to the chosen test string.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3be4b0e439d6b8c6http:...
>
> > You just don't seem to grasp the concept that a string with a random
> > apprance relative to the chosen reference does not rule out the
> > possiblity of bias. However, a significant bias relative to the
> > chosen reference strongly indicates a non-random origin.
>
> and if your chosen reference is different, youll get different
> results. the results are entirely dependent on the reference string
> you choose. if you choose a reference string that exactly matches the
> string that happens to be random garbage, thats the one that will show
> the most CSI.
Yes, but the odds of doing that are quite remote. That is why
although absolute confidence is not possible, a very high level of
confidence is possible. Your sequence B was not randomly produced.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> > > An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
> > > intelligent.
>
> > You've gotta be kiddin me! In the context of SETI science, you really
> > do need to go and look up what is meant by the term "artifact". This
> > term means *intelligently* designed and manufactured. Your notion of
> > "manufacture" could be anything - like the product of non-deliberate
> > "manufacture". You're really reaching here Richard.
>
> SET are looking for an signal which has the characteristics of signals
> which we know to be artifacts because we know how they are made.
We know how river rocks are made. That doesn't make them "artifacts"
because we know how they were "manufactured". Come on Richard. The
terms "artifact" and "manufacture" in the context of SETI both mean
that the phenomenon in question was created via deliberate intelligent
action. I mean really, look at what SETI means - i.e., the search for
extraterrestrial *intelligence* - - hello! Anyone home in there
McFly?!
snex
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 3:47 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> > > > > already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
>
> > > > you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
> > > > string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
> > > > in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
> > > > math is just voodoo.
>
> > > My answer was not wrong. It was correct and you know it. That is why
> > > you didn't accuse me of getting the answer wrong at the time.
>
> > your answer was wrong. the string you chose was just random garbage.
>
> Uh huh - - prove it. I chose test String B. Please do provide the
> basis for generating the two strings - -
ok, you did choose the right string, but the math you provided to do
so is still just voodoo. had you chosen a different reference string,
youd get different values. go ahead and try it. try it with binary
representations of pi, or e, or a fibonnaci sequence. you know, those
strings you use in your examples with aliens.
of course, theres also a 50/50 chance of just guessing the right
string. how about i generate 49 PRNG strings and 1 legit string, and
see if you can find it then?
for the record, one string was generated with the standard PRNG on my
linux box. the other took a text message, encoded it into its binary
ASCII representation, and then took 3 bits from the string, inserted 4
random bits, then 3 legit, etc etc.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95a6ecf525ca9ede
>
> > > Also I did explain to you why I chose the reference string I chose and
> > > the implications of low vs. high Pitman CSI.
>
> > no possible reference string you could have chosen, apart from knowing
> > how i actually encoded it, would have helped you get the answer. you
> > could have compared both strings to known patterns all day long and
> > would get a 50/50 spread on which one had more CSI.
>
> Not true. There was a significant difference between the two strings
> with regard to a match to the chosen test string.
and your test string was chosen arbitrarily. try it with pi, e, or
fibonnaci numbers. try it on the new strings i generated.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/3be4b0e439d6b8c6http:...
>
> > > You just don't seem to grasp the concept that a string with a random
> > > apprance relative to the chosen reference does not rule out the
> > > possiblity of bias. However, a significant bias relative to the
> > > chosen reference strongly indicates a non-random origin.
>
> > and if your chosen reference is different, youll get different
> > results. the results are entirely dependent on the reference string
> > you choose. if you choose a reference string that exactly matches the
> > string that happens to be random garbage, thats the one that will show
> > the most CSI.
>
> Yes, but the odds of doing that are quite remote. That is why
> although absolute confidence is not possible, a very high level of
> confidence is possible. Your sequence B was not randomly produced.
ok then pick the correct string out of a set of 50 this time. ill post
them all once i get them generated.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 30, 5:56 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
>
>
>
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 3:47 pm, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I've already done this with your last challenge. Have you forgotten
> > > > > > already where I answered your "CSI Challenge"?
>
> > > > > you didnt answer it. you compared both strings to some arbitrary third
> > > > > string of your choosing, with no reason for your choice of string. and
> > > > > in fact, your answer was wrong, demonstrating that intelligent design
> > > > > math is just voodoo.
>
> > > > My answer was not wrong. It was correct and you know it. That is why
> > > > you didn't accuse me of getting the answer wrong at the time.
>
> > > your answer was wrong. the string you chose was just random garbage.
>
> > Uh huh - - prove it. I chose test String B. Please do provide the
> > basis for generating the two strings - -
>
> ok, you did choose the right string, but the math you provided to do
> so is still just voodoo. had you chosen a different reference string,
> youd get different values. go ahead and try it. try it with binary
> representations of pi, or e, or a fibonnaci sequence. you know, those
> strings you use in your examples with aliens.
The string I chose was chosen because it could be produced by a simple
mathematical formula - i.e., repeat 0 x times. The same results would
have been obtained with the choice of pi or e or any other such simply
expressed normal number as a reference string.
> of course, theres also a 50/50 chance of just guessing the right
> string. how about i generate 49 PRNG strings and 1 legit string, and
> see if you can find it then?
The detection of non-randomness cannot always be achieved even when
true non-randomness exists. So, apparent randomness, from the
perspective of the chosen reference strings does not exclude the
possibility of non-randomness. The same thing is true of non-
randomness. Apparent non-randomness from the perspective of a given
set of reference strings does not exclude randomness. It is just that
the likelihood or statistical "significance" that a perfectly matching
string was in fact generated by truly random processes declines
dramatically with each additional perfect match.
> for the record, one string was generated with the standard PRNG on my
> linux box. the other took a text message, encoded it into its binary
> ASCII representation, and then took 3 bits from the string, inserted 4
> random bits, then 3 legit, etc etc.
That explains why String B didn't have nearly as close to the expected
random match to a reference string generated by a simple algorithm
along a normal distribution compared to String A.
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95a6ecf525ca9ede
>
> > > > Also I did explain to you why I chose the reference string I chose and
> > > > the implications of low vs. high Pitman CSI.
>
> > > no possible reference string you could have chosen, apart from knowing
> > > how i actually encoded it, would have helped you get the answer. you
> > > could have compared both strings to known patterns all day long and
> > > would get a 50/50 spread on which one had more CSI.
>
> > Not true. There was a significant difference between the two strings
> > with regard to a match to the chosen test string.
>
> and your test string was chosen arbitrarily. try it with pi, e, or
> fibonnaci numbers. try it on the new strings i generated.
Go ahead. The results will be the same for your test strings A and
B. Test String B will come out non-random vs. A when compared to pi
or e . . . etc.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
Tell that to those who started out as ardent evolutionists teaching
evolution in science classes at major universities - - like Walter
Veith. Doubting a certain view of the Bible and the existence of God
at one point does not mean that finding evidence of both is impossible
at another.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
richardal...@googlemail.com
0catch.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:28 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
> > > > intelligent.
>
> > > You've gotta be kiddin me! In the context of SETI science, you really
> > > do need to go and look up what is meant by the term "artifact". This
> > > term means *intelligently* designed and manufactured. Your notion of
> > > "manufacture" could be anything - like the product of non-deliberate
> > > "manufacture". You're really reaching here Richard.
>
> > SET are looking for an signal which has the characteristics of signals
> > which we know to be artifacts because we know how they are made.
>
> We know how river rocks are made.
No, they are the product of the processes of erosion. They are not
manufactured. The cadis fly larva takes objects from its environment
and assembles them to make a protective shell. That's manufacture.
> That doesn't make them "artifacts"
> because we know how they were "manufactured".
The point is that they are not manufactured. They are the product of
erosion.
> Come on Richard. The
> terms "artifact" and "manufacture" in the context of SETI both mean
> that the phenomenon in question was created via deliberate intelligent
> action.
What SETI are looking for is artificial signals because that's the
best starting point for inferring the intervention of an intelligent
agent. They won't conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible
simply because a signal has artificial characteristics. They will only
conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible when they have
formulated and tested hypotheses of how that signal was produced.
> I mean really, look at what SETI means - i.e., the search for
> extraterrestrial *intelligence* - - hello! Anyone home in there
> McFly?!
And they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence INDIRECTLY
because one cannot detect intelligence directly by searching through
radio signals. They are looking for signals which have characteristics
of those we know to be artificial because we produce such signals
ourselves, and know how they are produced.
>
> < snip rest >
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > SETI scientists do not make any assumptions about the proposed
> > designers identity, motive, or methods.
>
> They definitely assume that any intelligent agent they will be able to
> find has and uses (or used) radio technology similar to that humans
> use. How is that not making any assumptions about methods?
That's not necessarily true. SETI scientists do not need to know
specifically how the type of radiosignal they are looking for was
produced. It could have been produced with human-like technology. Or,
more likely, it could have been produced with technology that is quite
different. Either way, the artifactual nature of such the type of
signal they are looking for would be clear because it goes so far
beyond what non-deliberate processes are capable of achieving.
> As for
> identity, they are definitely assuming that said agents are beings
> that use technology in ways that humans can recognize because humans
> use that technology.
That's not an identity. Lots of different kinds of non-human agents
could produce the type of signals SETI scientists are looking for.
Therefore, finding such a signal, like a narrow band signal, doesn't
say much about the actual identity of the agents aside from the fact
that they are fairly intelligent. It doesn't say that they are humans
or that their intelligence is at the same level as humans. Their
intelligence could in fact be much greater than humans. There is
simply no way to tell from a narrow-band signal alone.
> > You need to look up what SETI
> > scientists are actually looking for (see link below). They are really
> > looking for something that non-deliberate processes could not achieve
> > as far as they know and which are at least within the realm of what is
> > believed to be within human-type intelligence or even beyond.
>
> Yes. Those are their working assumptions about the nature of SETI.
> That they work via human-like technology.
>
> > Exactly
> > the same thing is true of ID.
>
> Nope. ID proposes a HYPE (hypothetical posited entity) as an
> imaginary entity capable of doing anything that they choose to claim
> cannot occur in the absence of an intelligent agent.
ID does not propose any specific entity beyond that assumed by SETI
scientists. Both work off exactly the same assumptions. Your notion
that SETI scientists are looking for alien intelligences that are
limited to human-level intelligence and technology is simply
mistaken. SETI scientists could detect the production of artifact
even if the artifact were produce by alien intelligences that have
access to much much greater brainpower and technology than we
humans.
Higher-level intelligence does not mean that we can't recognize such
an agent as intelligent. That notion is simply ridiculous. If
someone is smarter than you, it doesn't mean you can't recognize him/
her/it as intelligent.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Dec 1, 12:15 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
>
>
>
>
>
> 0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 11:28 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > An artifact is something which is manufactured. The source need not be
> > > > > intelligent.
>
> > > > You've gotta be kiddin me! In the context of SETI science, you really
> > > > do need to go and look up what is meant by the term "artifact". This
> > > > term means *intelligently* designed and manufactured. Your notion of
> > > > "manufacture" could be anything - like the product of non-deliberate
> > > > "manufacture". You're really reaching here Richard.
>
> > > SET are looking for an signal which has the characteristics of signals
> > > which we know to be artifacts because we know how they are made.
>
> > We know how river rocks are made.
>
> No, they are the product of the processes of erosion. They are not
> manufactured. The cadis fly larva takes objects from its environment
> and assembles them to make a protective shell. That's manufacture.
LOL - - That's a ridiculous distinction. Non-deliberate natural
process "assemble" stuff too. The fact is that if a granite river
rock happened to have the form of a highly symmetrical polished cube,
it would be clearly "manufactured" and therefore artifactual. The
reason why natural river rocks are obviously the manufacture of non-
deliberate forces of nature is because they do not go beyond the range
of forms that we know non-deliberate forces of nature can produce.
> > That doesn't make them "artifacts"
> > because we know how they were "manufactured".
>
> The point is that they are not manufactured. They are the product of
> erosion.
>
> > Come on Richard. The
> > terms "artifact" and "manufacture" in the context of SETI both mean
> > that the phenomenon in question was created via deliberate intelligent
> > action.
>
> What SETI are looking for is artificial signals because that's the
> best starting point for inferring the intervention of an intelligent
> agent.
The word "artifact" means created by an intelligent agent. That's
what it means Richard. They don't use this term until they are fairly
confident that an intelligent agent actually produced the phenomenon
in question - regardless of what form of manufacturing mechanism the
intelligent agent actually used.
> They won't conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible
> simply because a signal has artificial characteristics.
Oh yes they will.
> They will only
> conclude that an intelligent agent is responsible when they have
> formulated and tested hypotheses of how that signal was produced.
That's complete BS. A highly symmetrical polished granite cube could
be produced in a host of different ways. One does NOT need to know
which way was actually used before one can instantly tell that such a
cube is an intelligently designed and crafted artifact.
>
> > I mean really, look at what SETI means - i.e., the search for
> > extraterrestrial *intelligence* - - hello! Anyone home in there
> > McFly?!
>
> And they are searching for extraterrestrial intelligence INDIRECTLY
> because one cannot detect intelligence directly by searching through
> radio signals.
LOL - - That's my whole argument. Obviously intelligence can't be
detected directly because the intelligent agent isn't available to be
observed producing the signal. All that there is to examine is the
signal itself. By definition the intelligent agent must be detected
indirectly through evaluation of what he/she/it left behind. It is by
finding features in the signal that go well beyond what any known non-
deliberate process can achieve that the hypothesis of artifact is well
supported.
> They are looking for signals which have characteristics
> of those we know to be artificial because we produce such signals
> ourselves, and know how they are produced.
We also know how to produce natural-looking signals that can be
produced by non-deliberate forces of nature. We can produce all kinds
of signals in all kinds of ways. That is why it should be obvious to
you that knowing how a particular signal was actually produced is
pretty much irrelevant to knowing if it is likely artifactual. In the
same way, one doesn't need to know what tools or methods or motives
were used to produce a highly symmetrical granite cube before one can
know that it was most certainly produced with the help of intelligent
deliberate intent.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
>
> > > > > A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
>
> > > > You can't be serious. A flagellum resembles and works exactly like an
> > > > outboard motor. It has exactly the same functional activity.
>
> > > It uses gasoline to run? Where are the pistons? The spark plugs?
>
> > Oh give me a break Howard! Even you must admit that the flagellum,
> > though having a unique power source, has a form and function that is
> > very much equivalent to an outboard motor. There really is no
> > significant difference with regard to either form or function. These
> > little quibbles are absolute nonsense. A red herring at best.
>
> Nope. Just pointing out some of the many ways that your forced
> analogy between a manufactured add-on mechanical motor and an
> endogneous self-assembling flagella is false.
Anyone at all familiar with a flagellum knows that the analogy to a
motor attached to a propulsion unit is not in any sense of the word
forced. Even those who spend a great deal of their lives working with
the flagellum and other such micromachines recognize the very clear
analogy. Keiichi Namba, program director of a team of dedicated
scientists working to detail the various steps in flagellar assembly
notes the following:
"An enormous number of those macromolecules play each role just like
purposefully designed machines and maintain the complex network
activities."
http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/index.html
The fact that the flagellar motor has equivalents to a stator, a
rotor, a drive shaft, bushings, and a propelling filament should say
something to you. To argue that these features only resemble a motor
but do not really function in the same capacity as a motor is utter
nonsense and deliberate blindness.
> There was a bit more to my reply. Would you like to comment on that?
> Exactly how is the manufacturing process used to produce the outboard
> motor *exactly* like the manufacturing process used to produce a
> flagellum?
I didn't say the manufacturing process was the same. I said the
structure and function were fundamentally the same. There are many
different ways to manufacture essentially the same thing. That is why
the actual form of manufacture used is irrelevant to the recognition
of artifact. One simply doesn't need to know how a particular
phenomenon was actually produced before artifact can be adequately
hypothesized.
> That *is* relevant to your claim to be able to empirically
> identify the existence of a supernatural manufacturer based on an
> argument from analogy, is it not?
I never made the argument that the manufacturer was "supernatural" - -
only highly intelligent. This is simply your oft-repeated strawman
mischaracterization despite constant correction. It's like you have
the memory of a goldfish or something ; )
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Seanpit
> On Nov 30, 1:30 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 10:10 am, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> The same thing is true of
>
> > > > the bacterial flagellum since the stated mechanism of random mutation
> > > > and function-based selection can't come remotely close this side of
> > > > trillions upon trillions of years of time - on average.
>
> > > >SeanPitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
>
> > > where is your math proving this "trillions and trillions of years"
> > > again?
>
> > Listed many times in this forum and on my website in my essay on the
> > flagellum.
>
> I have *repeatedly* asked you for your math.
And I've repeatedly given it to you - along with a lot of other
evidence to include experimental evidence. It is just that you
constantly assume, for some very strange reason, that the likely gap
distance between what already exists and what might exist in a
beneficial capacity is always one mutational step regardless of the
minimum structural threshold requirements involved.
I've explained to you over and over again that the odds of the gap
distance being one mutational step decline along a Poisson
distribution with each increase in the minimum structural threshold
requirement under consideration. I've shown you the actual
experimental evidence that clearly demonstrates the increase in
minimum gap distances with increasing threshold requirements. Yet, you
continue to refuse to see the obvious.
> I have *looked* at your
> website. The relevant math simply is not there.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation%20of%20"Trillions%20upon%20Trillions%20of%20Years"
> Instead you keep
> presenting your bullshit total sequence size as if that were an
> answer. When even you know and admit it isn't the right or relevant
> number. The number you need is the gap size. The number of mutations
> between the last functional structure that lacks the modified or 'new'
> function you identify and the sequence that has that modified or 'new'
> function is what you need. You continually assert that you can
> calculate that number as a fraction of the total sequence size, but I
> have not seen this analysis anywhere in your website.
You keep refusing to see that the gap distance is indeed a function of
the minimum sequence and/or structural threshold requirements. It is
your notion that your desired gap size of one is somehow unrelated to
increasing threshold requirements that is utter nonsense. All you
have to do is actually look at the experimental evidence if nothing
else to see that your notion is completely untenable. I've gone over
this dozens of times with you. You seem to deliberately refuse to
even consider that your one-step-gap notion regardless of thresholds
might actually be mistaken.
>
> > > this is the key point at which your argument fails flat on its
> > > head. all working biologists are saying the exact opposite, and
> > > providing evidence for it, while all you, a non-expert who does
> > > absolutely no experiments of his own, do is assert that they are wrong.
>
> > Please do present just one reference to back up this bald assertion.
> > As far as I've been able to find there are no published calculations
> > detailing the time needed to evolve anything at the level of
> > complexity of a flagellar motility system based on the mechanism
> > alone.
>
> The only *mechanism* you hint at, although you deny it, is one where
> you start with a maximally distant (not even average distant) random
> sequence of the final size and move in a completely functionless
> pathway by random changes until you hit upon some sequence with the
> desired function. IOW, the mathematical equivalent of the old 747 in
> a tornado strawman. Its boring to have to keep reminding you that
> this "model" has no relationship to what evolution proposes.
How many times do I have to correct you on this? How many times
Howard? I've said over and over and over again to you directly that
the minimum structural threshold size is NOT the gap distance. How
can you continually forget this? The starting point is NEVER the
maximum possible distance - NEVER!!!!! Can't you get that into your
head?! The starting point distance is always smaller than the maximum
possible distance. I've explained this to you at nausium yet you
continue to present this strawman misrepresentation as if you've never
heard anything else? It is just that the minimum possible gap
distance, i.e., one, is exponentially less likely to be the actual gap
distance with increasing structural threshold requirements.
> > The assumption of the time involved is based entirely on the
> > assumed age of the geologic column and fossil record - - NOT on any
> > understanding of the actual mechanism involved, mutation rates, and
> > distances that must be crossed to get from one proposed intermediate
> > steppingstone function to the next. These calculations and time
> > estimates are not discussed in literature.
>
> You certainly have not discussed it. Except for your implication of
> the 747 in a tornado strawman argument.
And you are a deliberate liar who goes around making deliberate
misrepresentations regardless of the fact that you know you are
building a strawman each time you make such comments.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
noctiluca
wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:20 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > A flagellum is *not* an "outboard motor" it merely resembles one.
>
> > > > > You can't be serious. A flagellum resembles and works exactly like an
> > > > > outboard motor. It has exactly the same functional activity.
>
> > > > It uses gasoline to run? Where are the pistons? The spark plugs?
>
> > > Oh give me a break Howard! Even you must admit that the flagellum,
> > > though having a unique power source, has a form and function that is
> > > very much equivalent to an outboard motor. There really is no
> > > significant difference with regard to either form or function. These
> > > little quibbles are absolute nonsense. A red herring at best.
>
> > Nope. Just pointing out some of the many ways that your forced
> > analogy between a manufactured add-on mechanical motor and an
> > endogneous self-assembling flagella is false.
>
> Anyone at all familiar with a flagellum knows that the analogy to a
> motor attached to a propulsion unit is not in any sense of the word
> forced.
It is in many senses of the word forced. For the analogy to have the
profound implications you wish to draw the similarities would have to
be of profound nature. You mark the correlations you like, imbue them
with importance, and ignore the profound dissimilarities in the
process of assuming your conclusion.
> Even those who spend a great deal of their lives working with
> the flagellum and other such micromachines recognize the very clear
> analogy. Keiichi Namba, program director of a team of dedicated
> scientists working to detail the various steps in flagellar assembly
> notes the following:
>
> "An enormous number of those macromolecules play each role just like
> purposefully designed machines and maintain the complex network
> activities."
>
> http://www.npn.jst.go.jp/index.html
Gee, what a surprise, humans applying human experiential language and
metaphor to their work! Why don't you get in touch with Namba and see
if the conclusions you draw from this analogy are shared?
> The fact that the flagellar motor has equivalents to a stator, a
> rotor, a drive shaft, bushings, and a propelling filament should say
> something to you. To argue that these features only resemble a motor
> but do not really function in the same capacity as a motor is utter
> nonsense and deliberate blindness.
C'mon Sean, think about this for a minute. No, I mean think beyond
your theological commitments.
Most of the protein structures that you're willing to call "stators"
and "bushings" etc. have known homologues. They exist elsewhere, not
as a part of the flagellum complex. You only give them these names
when you see them as a part of a system you wish to identify as
designed. They were around long before human manufactured motors were
around, you have simply projected your experience onto them.
> > There was a bit more to my reply. Would you like to comment on that?
> > Exactly how is the manufacturing process used to produce the outboard
> > motor *exactly* like the manufacturing process used to produce a
> > flagellum?
>
> I didn't say the manufacturing process was the same. I said the
> structure and function were fundamentally the same.
But structure and function aren't the only applicable parameters
involved in an analogy between a flagellum and an outboard motor.
There are many other similarities and dissimilarities to consider,
some of which, as with Howard's point about manufacture, profoundly
undermine the conclusions you wish to draw.
> There are many
> different ways to manufacture essentially the same thing.
Really? I can agree that there may be different ways to "produce" the
same thing: For example I can show you three marine snail shells, all
with pinholes in them produced respectively by a) human manufacture
for use as beads, b) penetration by predation, and c) result of
physical forces like wave action. Only one of these is manufacture,
and although the tools may change (ancient bone awls to modern drills)
the basic process is the same.
I don't think there is any useful sense in which you can suggest there
are "many different ways to manufacture essentially the same thing"
You can't lump all avenues of production together and suggest this is
not an important diagnostic in the determination of design. It's just
another example of your misuse of the analogy.
> That is why
> the actual form of manufacture used is irrelevant to the recognition
> of artifact. One simply doesn't need to know how a particular
> phenomenon was actually produced before artifact can be adequately
> hypothesized.
No, one doesn't, because one might have prior knowledge of agents of
manufacture, their ability to manufacture and examples of such
activity similar to the object in question. In that case one might
adequately hypothesize "artifactuality" without knowing the history of
an object.
But, of course, this is what we've been pointing out all along and you
keep ignoring. You might have this information in the case of a spear
point. You *don't* have this information in the case of the flagellum,
and you don't get to assume it.
> > That *is* relevant to your claim to be able to empirically
> > identify the existence of a supernatural manufacturer based on an
> > argument from analogy, is it not?
>
> I never made the argument that the manufacturer was "supernatural" - -
> only highly intelligent. This is simply your oft-repeated strawman
> mischaracterization despite constant correction. It's like you have
> the memory of a goldfish or something ; )
Speaking of memory, want to recollect all of those instances in which
I gave you the opportunity to stop pushing fantasy, start doing
science, and repudiate the notion that the designer you infer is
anything other than a natural part of this natural universe? Shall we
stop this supernatural nonsense and start talking about aliens, even
the "super-intelligent" ones you propose when you need to weasel out
of the transcendental inference you obviously prefer?
Just say you think the designer is a sufficiently advanced alien if
that's what you really mean. You'd be the first ID proponent with the
stones to do so.
RLC
JAlexander
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Finally! You don't debate liars like hersheyh...you expose them for
what they are.
hersheyh
And I give a flying fig about its *function*. It is the mode of its
manufacture that you want to imply is the same by analogy. And the
mode of manufacture of the bacterial flagella is NOT the same as the
mode of manufacture of the gasoline-driven outboard motor.
> > There was a bit more to my reply. Would you like to comment on that?
> > Exactly how is the manufacturing process used to produce the outboard
> > motor *exactly* like the manufacturing process used to produce a
> > flagellum?
>
> I didn't say the manufacturing process was the same. I said the
> structure and function were fundamentally the same.
SFW? Only by broad-sweep analogy are the structures the same. One is
made of amino acids and the other is made (largely) of metals. Both
are indeed involved in propulsion. So are muscles. So is slime-based
gliding motility. So is protoplasmic flow in an amoeba.
> There are many
> different ways to manufacture essentially the same thing. That is why
> the actual form of manufacture used is irrelevant to the recognition
> of artifact.
Not if your claim is that because they have analogy wrt function, they
must therefore be composed of the same materials (which, of course, is
not true) or must be manufactured by the same processes (which isn't
necessarily true either).
> One simply doesn't need to know how a particular
> phenomenon was actually produced before artifact can be adequately
> hypothesized.
The very word 'artifact' requires that you *know* how it was
produced. Specifically, for something to be considered an 'artifact',
there must be evidence that there is a 'artificer' capable of making
the 'artifact'. It is not necessary that the 'artifact' be
distinguishable, even, from naturally occurring phenomena. In fact,
of course, flagella *are* naturally occurring phenomena that can
actually be observed to be generated in the absence of an intelligent
artificer. That makes your claim harder to prove. Not impossible.
After all, smooth pebbles can be produced naturally or by an
artificer. The only way to distinguish between the two types is to
observe their manufacture and observe (or not) the presence of the
artificer.
> > That *is* relevant to your claim to be able to empirically
> > identify the existence of a supernatural manufacturer based on an
> > argument from analogy, is it not?
>
> I never made the argument that the manufacturer was "supernatural" - -
> only highly intelligent.
Bullshit. You know full well that the only manufacturer of life would
be god. Of course, one then can wonder why he has this propensity for
creating these marvelous organs that bacteria use to cause us death
and disease. I know. It's because he loves us.
> This is simply your oft-repeated strawman
> mischaracterization despite constant correction. It's like you have
> the memory of a goldfish or something ; )
So tell me how you can argue for a non-supernatural designer of the
flagella without running into the "Its turtles all the way down"
problem.
>
> Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com