Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#761  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:19 am

What part of “reason is a characteristic in humans and a mental faculty...science (and being reasonable) is not dependent on whether the universe is sentient.” did you not understand? You haven`t even bothered to define reason, let alone your quibble on mind, whereas I can safely again provide the characteristically definitive thing about human intellect is it is the source for reason by generating conclusions from premises, in which intellect and the capacity for reasoning are properties of the mind
If you have no definition for reason then how can you claim it's a human characteristic in the first place?

FFS, it`s as if you`ve never come across the term cognitive processes or cognition, where ideas are sprung forth, thought out to give you a bloody hint. I`m gobsmacked to see someone conflate physical processes via natural phenomena like gravity with cognitive processes. This is your logic, not mine.
According to you, isn't cognitive abillity of the brain, the same thing as any other natural process?

According to the quoted context, atheism is tantamount to the expression god does not exist. Which goes beyond its intended meaning, but does not refrain from negating its common understanding, thus linguistically inaccurate.
No, saying atheis is true, means saying either „It is true that God does not exist“, „It is true that someone does not believe in God.“

What`s the problem? NON SEQUITUR if not IGNORATIO ELENCHI
Explain why.

Then you`ll do well to remember to never frivolously include certain atheists by particularising which sort of atheists you speak of, namely the consciously rejecting ones.
So your point is?

I`m pretty sure I requested significant references.
This is my definition, so I'm the reference.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#762  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:19 am

Oh, another stupid idea.
How do you decide if an idea is stupid or not?

The universe is in fact trying to kill us.
Which would imply that it either has a mind or that it was intelligently designed. Not only that but this just goes to show that the article I quoted was right in saying it was engineerd to support life. Because in order to kill something universe has to have such properties that would permit life to exist, in order to kill it.

Have you seen what is out there?
Out where?

Black holes that rip you apart atom by atom, gamma rays that would destroy the Earth's atmosphere in a flash, comets, asteroids, that by impacting on the Earth would bring about another major extinction event...
Okay, and?

There is no actual design!
According to your statement that the universe is trying to kill us, the only logical conclusion is that there is design.

The constants of the universe, such as gravity may be like they are in this universe, but if there are other universes out there, either because of the multiple worlds interpretation of QM, or because we are just one bubble of many, or any other theory of multiple universes, the other universes may not have been so "lucky" with the constants.
Inventing probabilistic resources is not scientific. You can't just say that they exist without any actuall evidence for them.

And others may have been much luckier and have more life arising! Or if we believe the cyclic model, we are living in one of the cycles whereby life is possible.
Same thing as above.

Design of the universe: what a crock of shit!
According to your above statements, this is the only scientific explanation.

I am not a biologist, and only know the basics of evolutionary theory. However, I can say that whenever I hear the word "design" I know I am going to listen to a lot of stupid ideas, and a lot of religion masked as science. What design? The design of the eye that gets into all sorts of troubles? The design of the teeth, that need to be constantly checked and re-checked by dentists?
How does all of that NOT imply design?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#763  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 20, 2011 3:53 am

How does all of that NOT imply design?


Because you haven't posited a metric of design, just asserted that 'stuff that works must be designed'. When we have an object of known designed provenance, we judge it on a number of metrics. For example, we might judge its utility, its efficiency, its style. When we look at biology, we find nothing that suits any robust metric of design, and no proponent of design seems capable of producing such a metric of designedness that they would be prepared to have tested.

Further, when a hypothesis is postulated, if we can find data that contradicts that hypothesis, it is only right that we should question the validity of it. When there are thousands of examples contradicting that hypothesis, it is clear that it is a redundant hypothesis and should be rejected completely.

There are numerous examples of manifestly 'bad design' in nature and biology, as in, systems that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.

The most frequently used example is that of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. If we were to look at it in a fish, we might be excused the rather foolish induction that it is designed, as it satisfies its function with a fairly high degree of efficiency. When we look at that same nerve in a giraffe, any pretense of it satisfying a metric of designedness becomes immediately laughable. No designer, using planning, foresight and the ability to effect change for the sake of efficiency would run a wire 2 metres down, then 2 metres back up, just to connect to connect to a destination 20 centimetres from the origin.

So the challenge is, as usual, for the proponent of design to proffer a robust metric of design that can be tested against nature. Until they can produce such a metric, they are effectively making bare-arsed assertions that can be rejected with as much effort as they are made.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24846
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#764  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 4:41 am

Because you haven't posited a metric of design,
I have, look it up.

just asserted that 'stuff that works must be designed'
Really? Cite me the part where I said that.

When we have an object of known designed provenance, we judge it on a number of metrics. For example, we might judge its utility, its efficiency, its style. When we look at biology, we find nothing that suits any robust metric of design, and no proponent of design seems capable of producing such a metric of designedness that they would be prepared to have tested.
http://www.designinference.com/document ... cation.pdf

Further, when a hypothesis is postulated, if we can find data that contradicts that hypothesis, it is only right that we should question the validity of it. When there are thousands of examples contradicting that hypothesis, it is clear that it is a redundant hypothesis and should be rejected completely.
Well, at least you got this one right.

There are numerous examples of manifestly 'bad design' in nature and biology, as in, systems that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.
What a great example of a perfet non-sequitur. Bad design does not imply or equal no design. Bad design still means design, only non-optimal design. A crappy car is still designed.

The most frequently used example is that of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. If we were to look at it in a fish, we might be excused the rather foolish induction that it is designed, as it satisfies its function with a fairly high degree of efficiency. When we look at that same nerve in a giraffe, any pretense of it satisfying a metric of designedness becomes immediately laughable. No designer, using planning, foresight and the ability to effect change for the sake of efficiency would run a wire 2 metres down, then 2 metres back up, just to connect to connect to a destination 20 centimetres from the origin.
Untill you can show me a method of how you test for intentionality you can't say that no designer would do that. You would think that no designer in their right mind would design this, but hey, guess again!

Image

And not only that. But let's use your logic, and compare that design to this desing.

Image

Quite a bit of difference in optimality wouldn't you say? So according to you, there is no design in the first car, because it's bad design compared to the other one. Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?

According to you is the second car designed because it is good design compared to the first one?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#765  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 20, 2011 5:52 am

The fact that you quoted a snippet which didn't take the context of their subjective assertion making while asserting that they somehow had found teleological explanations the "most coherent" constitutes a quote mine ipso facto.


I would disagree. One of the authors of the paper was a guest at ID The Future podcast. So, yeah, he is obviously arguing for ID with this paper.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/01/a_be ... unive.html


Congratulations on another fucking fail, I did not say that said author is not arguing for ID, and your attempt at misrepresenting this is laughable. What I did say was that while you quoted it as if it was an objectively derived assertion, the context makes it clear that it was subjectively derived. Care to learn to read anytime soon?

And High-impact journals are popular because of rigour, as the work contained therein is consistently of a very high standard, even if we were to assume that high-impact journals are popular, this doesn't mean that pro-evolution articles will be "easily" published, nor does it mean that ID articles will be rejected just for being pro-ID, which is what you were asserting, and since your posts are dotted throughout the thread it shouldn't be a problem for people to go back and deal with your garbage.

Regarding your use of search wrt evolution, note that scientists carry out search using evolutionary algorithms to solve specific problems, this is not tantamount to saying that evolution is a search, when evolutionary algorithms are used for, say, designing satellite antennae, the end criterion is very specifically mentioned, in other words there is teleology in the application of algorithms based on the concept of evolution to human objectives, none of this is indicative of teleology in nature. Learn the fucking difference.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#766  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 20, 2011 6:21 am

[1] The Wedge Strategy, that the DI only sought to push religion into classrooms through the use of underhanded propaganda tactics to try and replace science, by creating a wedge between the public and academia.

The Wedge strategy was known before the Dover. It has nothing to do with „underhanded propaganda“. It was on the same level as NCSE's agenda to keep evolution in school. Or when Dawkins said on TV that his goal is to destroy religion.


Using creationist textbooks, then editing said textbooks to try and push creationism into classrooms in the guise of ID, which was then exposed due to a hilarious editing error("CDesign Proponentsists") is underhanded. Game finished.

[2] The typical discoursive malfeasance of people like Michael Behe, who among other things indulged in dismissing evidence without having even considered that evidence in the first place, in other words, Olympic standard handwaving and dishonesty under oath.

Show me an example.


Try Behe being cross examined where he gets shown a pile of scientific literature and dismisses them all as being not good enough and also admits to not having read them, somewhere on Days 10,11 and 12, go through the full transcripts.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket ... cripts.htm


[3] The total no-show of DI representatives except Behe at the trial.

How is that exposing anything?


It exposes the total unwillingness of people to defend what they assert in open court, especially when the stakes are so high that ID could have gained legitimacy.


I want a citation that this lugubrious satirized version is actually what is presented/supported by Nature.

This is what is known as abiogenesis, google it.


I do fucking know what abiogenesis is, and none of it in the scientific literature actually is presented in the way you have done, which is why it is a strawman caricature. Care to actually learn to fucking read anytime soon?

Engineering Influence? Lack of evidence much?

Everything stated above is the evidence. The fact that we can describe the workings of the universe as parts of an engineerd machine is the evidence. If we couldn't describe it like that, like we can't with a random chunk of rock, then we wouldn't have any evidence for design. Just like we can't claim that a random piece of rock was designed. But we can claim that for certain other feautres of the universe. Because they very well fit the description of a designed mechanism.


The fact that we can explain the body's function in terms of spinning energy wheels makes that itself evidence? Or the concept of Vatham,Pittam and Kapham in Ayurveda? Since herbal medicine works in a lot of cases one could conclude that the aforementioned principle upon which it is based is correct, one example is enough to show you the absurdity of your "logic" here.

Of course, there is the question of another one of those asinine assertions "It looks designed, therefore design" , argumentum I see thingsum.


The paper per se says nothing about ID being scientific, just that if we assume nature to be designed in the same way machines are designed, it appears coherent (a subjective judgement) since some areas of nature look designed (Watchmaker argument restated).

So by definition, if it says that we should look at nature as being designed, it's arguing for ID.


The argument is not if it is arguing for ID or not, the argument is that the abstract consists nothing more than subjective wibble.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#767  Postby byofrcs » Jan 20, 2011 6:23 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Err...I didn't. I said "The above sequence was never the goal and equally the non-existent sequences were never the goal."

It is you that keeps bring up the idea that there is a goal. Well obviously the person who sets up the fitness function is the designer which is why you want there to be a goal.
And there is such a thing as fitness function of nature. And to whatever it is set up, that is the goal.

You are painting the target as it is you that is picking the flagellum. These flagellum exist but there isn't any intent.
No I'm not. The nature has set up the target by it's properties. Nature selects certain sequences over others. That is nature's fitness function, and that is the goal.

You're going to have to show where this has been said that way by scientists. When you start to use "search" then though the terminology may be comforting to others, problems arise e.g. in the topic of protein folding there are a vast numbers of possible structures but the protein manages to fold in a short time. Humans use vast search routines to try and predict the structure - with varying degrees of success.
The scientists use evolution to solve problems and they call it the evolutionary search.

http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v39/v39-4.pdf



That is engineering science (logistics etc). The references don't refer to biological studies that use the words evolutionary search. Everyone knows that genetic algorithms are very useful for solving real-world problems and engineers especially so but science in engineering is far different from science in biology when it comes to using the right words for activities that have no agency to those that have agency behind them.




Again and again we must highlight that is not the goal of Natural selection as there is not goal. You only relate to this as a goal for whatever reason you personally have.
Yes, this is the goal. When people create evolutionary algorithms they set up the fitness function themselves. In other words they decide what will get selected and what will not. Thus they set up a goal. And in nature it is the rpoperties of nature that decide which organism is fit and which is not, and then natural seelction selects.



This has to be a language problem - a goal is a desired outcome. When someone has a goal then they have an outcome in mind for some activity e.g. a finish line in a race. With Evolutionary systems there is no desired outcome as there is no desire. The desire is only for things that have agency.

So immediately you use the word "goal" it is semantically overloaded to mean "agency". You are thus presuming a designer.



Only because they were told to do a search. Are you saying that the sea (i.e. the environment) was told to "perform the search" when something enters the sea ? This is rather stretching the imagination somewhat.
No, it wasn't told, but by teh properties of teh sea it can perform a search. Take 100 animals, drop them all in the sea and hold them under water for 2 hours. Some will survive, some will not. The properties of the sea decided which will live and which will not. Fish-like animals will survive, mammal-like will not. If the environment was reversed, in the case where you held animals on the ground for 2 hours, then fish-like animals would die without oxygen, and mammal-like animals would survive. Properite of the nature decided what will survive and what will not.

There is no goal with evolution. You are equivocating the word goal. A goal without a purpose is an outcome. The nature selects for fit animals in a particular environment. This is an outcome of evolution (natural selection). There is no goal in mind so there is no search.
What is the difference between the outcome and the goal?



To have a goal implies agency whilst outcome (or result etc ) is indifferent to agency. There is a lot of difference between the outcome if I close my eyes and kick a ball with no care for where it will end up and it crosses the boundary of playing field between the goals or if I have my eyes open and aim for the goal.



As you have clearly stated what selects for an object is the physical environment it is in. Mount Rushmore is a huge chunk of granite rock face so it is not going to be moving around so we examine how incongruous it is to the environment and our understanding of weathering of rock faces.
So is the flagellum. The majority of Earth surface is earth, rock and water. A flagellum is a totally incongrous to this environment.



And we now come full circle - Abiogenesis.

Your understanding is just not right - we know with the Miller and Urey experiment and other experiments as well as studies of space that it is trivial to get the precursor chemicals for life - organic chemicals such as amino acids. Sure we haven't the
exact stepping stones for abiogenesis as it has probably occurred on Earth but then that took nature billions of years and humans have only be at this for 50 years or so we should expect some delays.


Pretty quickly we find that Mount Rushmore is incongruous with a scree slopes below the face containing large fragments and tooling marks that would suggest an assisted and un-natural weathering.
What's teh difference between the part of Mount Rushmore where the faces are, and where they are not?



As I said "tooling marks that would suggest an assisted and un-natural weathering". The incongruence is the toolchain in use to form the object. If the designer managed to teach lichen to erode the rocks to set patterns then we would have problems. But we don't we have scree slopes and tooling marks.

This is interesting actually because with flint napped tools it is actually quite hard to work out man-made napped tools from just random rocks that are napped by natural events of rock movements. They highlighted this problem at the National Museum of Prehistory at Les Eyzies.



These are different situations as no SETI person says that the aliens visited Earth and stuck tails on bacteria.
But they say that they have a method that tells them that aliens exits. And not only that that they can communicate with radio communication.

SETI exists because it is the only practical way of discovering if intelligent Aliens exist (though atmospheric changes on exoplanets may tell us if aliens have converted atmopheres that won't imply intelligence). Non-natural Radio transmission by default means an intelligent source. So until we get superluminal speed spacecraft we're stuck here on Earth. How else would you propose to discover intelligent life ?
Well ID proposes to do teh same thing. Non-natural patterns like the flagellum also signal design.


Science hasn't yet established that the flagellum are non-natural. Like SETI all the signals to date are naturally occurring (and I've had my PCs running on SETI@home since May 1999). If Science could establish that the flagellum are non-natural then this would be fantastic in the same way that if SETI found a signal that was un-natural.

The result would be trusted through the sheer weight of support from the broad cross section of scientists. The current claims of design cannot simply be trusted because they do not have this weight of support.



How incongruous something is to its environment that could have formed it suggests agency is involved. So finding a flagellum on a mountain, where none is expected to exist, would suggest agency is involved (in this case it was you that put it there).
So, the flagellum is designed, becasue the majority of Earth's surface is earth, rocks and water?



...and vast anounts of gasses and carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and sulphur and phosphorus and sodium and chlorine and.......

Actually there won't be much "Earth".

We know that in a very short period of time organic chemicals can form and the bacteria contain these very same organic chemicals. What we don't know is the pathway from the organic chemicals to the autocatalytic set of chemicals that is a bacteria i.e. how to get the chemicals to self-assemble.


After a foray into your mathematics I'm going to stay with how something is incongruous to the physical it is located in.
How do you decide if something is incongrous?



Roughly speaking I would say the probability of the steps in the toolchain. My napped stone example is a good one because it is hard to compare naturally napped flints and human napped flints. There are subtle differences and from this the probability of the shape being a goal of an agent verses the outcome of rocks bashing each other without intent (without agency).

A rough diamond verses a cut diamond would be another example. A cliff face verses Mount Rushmore is an extreme case as the human faces automatically imply design an obscure a more generic answer. Zoom in so that the faces cannot be seen and look at the rock face differences. Tools have been used in one place but not the other. What is the probability that the "tool" was naturally formed and so on. If the answer is that it is improbable then the object is incongruous to the environment and so it is fine to presume agency.


The many types of bacteria flagellum are not obviously incongruous.
How did you decide that?


Because they don't contain chemicals or sequences that are out of the ordinary for the environment they are in plus there are not just one but a number of different types of flagellum that have evolved.



Religious people are desperate to get religion into the classroom in the US by whatever means. The courts are used to uncover the devious tactics used to undermine science. Intelligent design is just one such tactic. It has been very clearly stated that it is religious in nature. That you don't accept what the courts say is neither here nor there on this matter. Both in the US and the UK, "design" is not science.
Why should I care what lawyers and judges think about scientific questions?


Well you don't - you just have to care about the overwhelming majority percentage of scientists that say that Intelligent Design is not science. That the law agrees with this is just icing on the cake.



If a designer uses evolutionary tactics i.e. the toolchain is genetic algorithms then we are unable to make any claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern". If the designer does not use evolutionary tactics i.e. the toolchain is not selected using genetic algorithms then we are able to make any claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern"
We can do it in both cases, we simply have to know if the pattern we are looking at is imporbable enough to come about by chance or not.



Not really because chance can come up with more patterns than a designer could ever hope to examine. What the Intelligent Design supporters have not done is verify all the other possible patterns to see if there is a "better" design. They assume the current design is the best.


You are making claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern" without identifying the toolchain. That is presumptuous.
It's irrelevant. It's eitehr design, chance, or natural law.



So how do you tell if Mount Rushmore is "design, chance, or natural law". What mathematics do you use if you are not going to care about how it was made ?



Current scientific consensus on the bacteria flagellum shows a natural and evolutionary pathway as the "toolchain" to construct the flagellum.
This is not the case, obviously, but I will assume it's true. Now what? Does that mean that the flagellum was not designed? No, it doesn't.


It makes the probability of a designer much more remote, so remote that it just appears that the designer is an unnecessary entity.



I would have thought that as you already are certain that there is a designer then you would be interested. This is a rather odd approach you take. We look at the pyramids and we presume a designer - I'd be interested in who they were. But that is me.
Different strokes for different folks.


Then thank goodness science wants to know so humanity can move on else our tool-use would have stopped at picking up pre-napped rocks and bashing nuts with them (supervised by Priests of course).
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 55
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#768  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 6:25 am

Congratulations on another fucking fail, I did not say that said author is not arguing for ID, and your attempt at misrepresenting this is laughable. What I did say was that while you quoted it as if it was an objectively derived assertion, the context makes it clear that it was subjectively derived. Care to learn to read anytime soon?
I just wanted to make it sure so you could not claim that I'm quote mining the author.

Anyway, its a fact that we can describe the bacterial flagellum as a machine. And since machines are a product of design, then design is a good working hypothesis for the flagellum. That doesn't mean that the flagellum is designed, just that it's a good working hypothesis for science. And not only that but that the author's ideas were derived objectively not subjectively.

And High-impact journals are popular because of rigour, as the work contained therein is consistently of a very high standard, even if we were to assume that high-impact journals are popular, this doesn't mean that pro-evolution articles will be "easily" published, nor does it mean that ID articles will be rejected just for being pro-ID, which is what you were asserting, and since your posts are dotted throughout the thread it shouldn't be a problem for people to go back and deal with your garbage.
Are you saying that it is not a possibility why HI journals are popular is for some other reason than rigour?

Regarding your use of search wrt evolution, note that scientists carry out search using evolutionary algorithms to solve specific problems, this is not tantamount to saying that evolution is a search
What else would you call it? You are using it to FIND something? What elese would you call it?

when evolutionary algorithms are used for, say, designing satellite antennae, the end criterion is very specifically mentioned, in other words there is teleology in the application of algorithms based on the concept of evolution to human objectives, none of this is indicative of teleology in nature. Learn the fucking difference.
It pretty much is. Because as you precisely said, the program has to be set up with a specific goal in mind. Simply choosing a goal at random won't give us very good results. Thus, we can say that if evolution did happen, if we really did evolve, then that would mean that the evolution was set up to find what it found. Meaning, it was set up to evolve life.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#769  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 20, 2011 6:27 am

SETI exists because it is the only practical way of discovering if intelligent Aliens exist (though atmospheric changes on exoplanets may tell us if aliens have converted atmopheres that won't imply intelligence). Non-natural Radio transmission by default means an intelligent source. So until we get superluminal speed spacecraft we're stuck here on Earth. How else would you propose to discover intelligent life ?


Well ID proposes to do teh same thing. Non-natural patterns like the flagellum also signal design.


Wibble, demonstrate with the apposite empirical citations that the flagellum is a non-natural pattern. The genes that drive protein synthesis are a natural pattern, the proteins themselves are natural, and the assembly per se is also natural.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#770  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 20, 2011 6:31 am

Regarding your use of search wrt evolution, note that scientists carry out search using evolutionary algorithms to solve specific problems, this is not tantamount to saying that evolution is a search


What else would you call it? You are using it to FIND something? What elese would you call it?


For Fuck's Sake, if I were using evolutionary algorithms for an objective I would be carrying out a search, this does not mean that in nature an agency is using evolutionary algorithms to find particular solutions, evolution is NOT a teleological process, the finding of solutions to human problems using algorithms set up to find pre-defined solutions is. Your attempt to conflate the two and assert that because evolutionary searching using algorithms by humans is similar in some ways to evolution then evolution in nature must also be a search is ex-recto drivel that also happens to be kinown by the name of fallacy of false equivalence.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#771  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 6:47 am

That is engineering science (logistics etc). The references don't refer to biological studies that use the words evolutionary search. Everyone knows that genetic algorithms are very useful for solving real-world problems and engineers especially so but science in engineering is far different from science in biology when it comes to using the right words for activities that have no agency to those that have agency behind them.
What's the difference? What's the difference between an evolutionary computer search, and natural evolution? Here is a nice chart I made. Please point out where the difference in these 4 steps both processes have to take in order to produce the outcome.

Image

This has to be a language problem - a goal is a desired outcome. When someone has a goal then they have an outcome in mind for some activity e.g. a finish line in a race. With Evolutionary systems there is no desired outcome as there is no desire. The desire is only for things that have agency.

So immediately you use the word "goal" it is semantically overloaded to mean "agency". You are thus presuming a designer.
No, I'm not. You can use any word you wan't. Evolution has a goal set up by the fitness function of nature. And you don't have to call it a goal but it's an equivalent of a goal in computer search.

To have a goal implies agency whilst outcome (or result etc ) is indifferent to agency. There is a lot of difference between the outcome if I close my eyes and kick a ball with no care for where it will end up and it crosses the boundary of playing field between the goals or if I have my eyes open and aim for the goal.
Goals can be set up by natural properties without agency. If you don't want to call tehm goals, you don't have to.

And we now come full circle - Abiogenesis.

Your understanding is just not right - we know with the Miller and Urey experiment and other experiments as well as studies of space that it is trivial to get the precursor chemicals for life - organic chemicals such as amino acids. Sure we haven't the
exact stepping stones for abiogenesis as it has probably occurred on Earth but then that took nature billions of years and humans have only be at this for 50 years or so we should expect some delays.
You can get the building blocks for anything in nature. But you can't get the information. There are natural building blocks for mountains, but not for Mount Rushmore.

As I said "tooling marks that would suggest an assisted and un-natural weathering". The incongruence is the toolchain in use to form the object. If the designer managed to teach lichen to erode the rocks to set patterns then we would have problems. But we don't we have scree slopes and tooling marks.

This is interesting actually because with flint napped tools it is actually quite hard to work out man-made napped tools from just random rocks that are napped by natural events of rock movements. They highlighted this problem at the National Museum of Prehistory at Les Eyzies.
How do you know that chance could not have produced those marks? You call them tool marks. But how do you tell them apart from what chance could have produced?

Science hasn't yet established that the flagellum are non-natural. Like SETI all the signals to date are naturally occurring (and I've had my PCs running on SETI@home since May 1999). If Science could establish that the flagellum are non-natural then this would be fantastic in the same way that if SETI found a signal that was un-natural.
Irrelevant. I have said that ID is doing the same thing as SETI. What is the difference in your opinion?

The result would be trusted through the sheer weight of support from the broad cross section of scientists. The current claims of design cannot simply be trusted because they do not have this weight of support.
Majortiy opinion is painfully irrelevant to science.Every idea is at first in the minority. It needs time to get to majority. And just because it's in teh minority now, doesn't mean it's wrong.

...and vast anounts of gasses and carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen and sulphur and phosphorus and sodium and chlorine and.......

Actually there won't be much "Earth".

We know that in a very short period of time organic chemicals can form and the bacteria contain these very same organic chemicals. What we don't know is the pathway from the organic chemicals to the autocatalytic set of chemicals that is a bacteria i.e. how to get the chemicals to self-assemble.
Tables, the one I have here, consists of wood and metal. Wood is found in nature, and so is metal, therefore, there is a natural explanation for a table. Is there? No, obviously not, the table I have here, was desigend. It's the pattern that this table exhibits that makes it not able to come about by natural laws, the material it is made of is irrelevant.

Roughly speaking I would say the probability of the steps in the toolchain. My napped stone example is a good one because it is hard to compare naturally napped flints and human napped flints. There are subtle differences and from this the probability of the shape being a goal of an agent verses the outcome of rocks bashing each other without intent (without agency).

A rough diamond verses a cut diamond would be another example. A cliff face verses Mount Rushmore is an extreme case as the human faces automatically imply design an obscure a more generic answer. Zoom in so that the faces cannot be seen and look at the rock face differences. Tools have been used in one place but not the other. What is the probability that the "tool" was naturally formed and so on. If the answer is that it is improbable then the object is incongruous to the environment and so it is fine to presume agency.
So you are saying that the pattern exhibited by Mount Rushmore is too improbable to have come about by chance?

Because they don't contain chemicals or sequences that are out of the ordinary for the environment they are in plus there are not just one but a number of different types of flagellum that have evolved.
The part of Mount Rushmore with faces is chemicaly identical to the part without faces.


Well you don't - you just have to care about the overwhelming majority percentage of scientists that say that Intelligent Design is not science. That the law agrees with this is just icing on the cake.
I don't care about that either. Majority opinion is irrelevant to any advance.

Not really because chance can come up with more patterns than a designer could ever hope to examine.
Chance can come up with as many patterns as the amount of probabilistic resources there are.

What the Intelligent Design supporters have not done is verify all the other possible patterns to see if there is a "better" design. They assume the current design is the best.
Where does it say that?

So how do you tell if Mount Rushmore is "design, chance, or natural law". What mathematics do you use if you are not going to care about how it was made ?
Is there a known natural law that accounts for Mount Rushmore? No.
Does the Mount Rushmore conforma to an independently given pattern? Yes it does: „Faces of United States Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln.“

Then we calculate how improbable it is to get a Mount Rushmore by chance, and if it number is lower than ½ then it's reasonable to infer design.

It makes the probability of a designer much more remote, so remote that it just appears that the designer is an unnecessary entity.
Not is the slightest. Because the flagellum is can not reasonably be explained by chance. Thereofre, if it did evolve, a designer set up evolution so it would bring about the flagellum.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#772  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 6:55 am

Wibble, demonstrate with the apposite empirical citations that the flagellum is a non-natural pattern.
Read Dembski's book No Free Lunch. He shows that the probability of flagellum forming by chance is 1:10^2954.

The genes that drive protein synthesis are a natural pattern, the proteins themselves are natural, and the assembly per se is also natural.
Really? Do genes form by natural processes? Show me which natural process forms genes.

For Fuck's Sake, if I were using evolutionary algorithms for an objective I would be carrying out a search, this does not mean that in nature an agency is using evolutionary algorithms to find particular solutions, evolution is NOT a teleological process, the finding of solutions to human problems using algorithms set up to find pre-defined solutions is.
Nature can still be performing a NON-TELEOLOGICAL search. Bound and guided by the physical properties of nature itself.

Your attempt to conflate the two and assert that because evolutionary searching using algorithms by humans is similar in some ways to evolution then evolution in nature must also be a search is ex-recto drivel that also happens to be kinown by the name of fallacy of false equivalence.
No, it's IDENTICAL, not similar. I made a chart above to show that they are IDENTICAL. Point out the difference.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#773  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 7:18 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Congratulations on another fucking fail, I did not say that said author is not arguing for ID, and your attempt at misrepresenting this is laughable. What I did say was that while you quoted it as if it was an objectively derived assertion, the context makes it clear that it was subjectively derived. Care to learn to read anytime soon?
I just wanted to make it sure so you could not claim that I'm quote mining the author.

Anyway, its a fact that we can describe the bacterial flagellum as a machine.
It's a fact that liars describe the bacterial flagellum "as a machine" in the hopes that they will delude people like you into believing that it must really be a machine.
And since machines are a product of design, then design is a good working hypothesis for the flagellum.
See, the lies worked. You fell for them hook line and sinker. You believe that equivocation of "machine" just like they wanted you to. There's a sucker born every minute.
That doesn't mean that the flagellum is designed
Right, it's not designed. There's not a speck of evidence that the flagellum is designed and plenty of evidence that it is an undesigned natural extension of pre-existing proteins and shapes.
just that it's a good working hypothesis for science.
No, it's not a good working hypothesis. Do you have any idea what a scientific hypothesis is ? Either demonstrate how "the flagellum is designed" meets the scientific definition of hypothesis, or retract your inane statement.
And not only that but that the author's ideas were derived objectively not subjectively.
:lol: That's a truly foolish thing to say. Of course the author's ideas were derived subjectively. Do you think god came down and objectively read him the basis for his ideas ?

And High-impact journals are popular because of rigour, as the work contained therein is consistently of a very high standard, even if we were to assume that high-impact journals are popular, this doesn't mean that pro-evolution articles will be "easily" published, nor does it mean that ID articles will be rejected just for being pro-ID, which is what you were asserting, and since your posts are dotted throughout the thread it shouldn't be a problem for people to go back and deal with your garbage.
Are you saying that it is not a possibility why HI journals are popular is for some other reason than rigour?
Your sentence doesn't make sense. You've lost track of what you're trying to prove, here. I suspect you're just objecting for objection's sake because you can't admit that even one - much less all - of your points are, well, pointless.

Regarding your use of search wrt evolution, note that scientists carry out search using evolutionary algorithms to solve specific problems, this is not tantamount to saying that evolution is a search
What else would you call it?
What else would we call "evolution" ? Is that what you're asking ? Well, that has an easy answer: we would call it "evolution"
You are using it to FIND something?
That's your lie, masquerading as a question. We're NOT using it to FIND anything whatsoever, much less using it to find something in particular.
What elese would you call it?
We certainly won't lie - as you do - and call it something to mislead the suckers into imagining design where none exists and goals desired by some agent where neither goals nor agent are in evidence.

when evolutionary algorithms are used for, say, designing satellite antennae, the end criterion is very specifically mentioned, in other words there is teleology in the application of algorithms based on the concept of evolution to human objectives, none of this is indicative of teleology in nature. Learn the fucking difference.
It pretty much is.
Nice weasel words there. Gotta give you credit for the "pretty much". Way to learn from the master distortionists at the Dis-Institute how to equivocate when an outright lie won't do.
Because as you precisely said, the program has to be set up with a specific goal in mind. Simply choosing a goal at random won't give us very good results.
How do you know ?
Thus, we can say that if evolution did happen, if we really did evolve
No IF. Evolution really did happen and really is happening right now, all around you.
then that would mean that the evolution was set up to find what it found. Meaning, it was set up to evolve life.
Aww, too bad you had to go and lie again. Evolution was NOT "set up". You really should quit following those liars at the Dis-Institute. They're poisoning your thinking ability.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#774  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 20, 2011 7:21 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:There are numerous examples of manifestly 'bad design' in nature and biology, as in, systems that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.


What a great example of a perfet non-sequitur. Bad design does not imply or equal no design. Bad design still means design, only non-optimal design. A crappy car is still designed.


Oh that's strange - you seem to have ignored the second part of the sentence which expressly explains the terms in quotes preceding it. Let me repeat it 'a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from'.


Царь Славян wrote:
And not only that. But let's use your logic, and compare that design to this desing.

Image

Quite a bit of difference in optimality wouldn't you say? So according to you, there is no design in the first car, because it's bad design compared to the other one. Are you starting to see the flaw in this logic?

According to you is the second car designed because it is good design compared to the first one?



No, you have entirely and purposefully misread what I wrote. In fact, you purposefully snipped out the entire context of my point just to formulate this argument - that tends to be called 'mendacious discourse', and provides reasonable evidence towards indicting you for infringements against the forum user agreement you signed up for when you joined this forum. Perhaps best if you don't quote mine people from now on, eh?

Anyway, both cars are designed - they satisfy metrics of designedness. A car is meant to convey passengers across the ground. One of those designs might be better than the other, but neither exhibits immense design flaws that actually diminish its ability to achieve its purpose. Were there a metal rod sticking right through the chassis into the earth thereby stopping the car conveying passengers across the ground, we could be sure it wasn't designed, it would be a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from. So with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. So with much of nature.

All this is quite aside from the notion of a designer with infinite more knowledge and infinite more power than us.

If you bother to respond, please address what I say rather than what you want me to have said.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 20, 2011 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24846
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#775  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 20, 2011 7:23 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Wibble, demonstrate with the apposite empirical citations that the flagellum is a non-natural pattern.
Read Dembski's book No Free Lunch. He shows that the probability of flagellum forming by chance is 1:10^2954.


Serial trials fallacy.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24846
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#776  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 7:23 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Wibble, demonstrate with the apposite empirical citations that the flagellum is a non-natural pattern.
Read Dembski's book No Free Lunch. He shows that the probability of flagellum forming by chance is 1:10^2954.

Dumbski's a liar. His so-called calculations are worthless and your repeating his lies just makes your assertions as worthless as his.
The genes that drive protein synthesis are a natural pattern, the proteins themselves are natural, and the assembly per se is also natural.
Really? Do genes form by natural processes? Show me which natural process forms genes.
Now you're just trolling. You know which natural process forms genes.

For Fuck's Sake, if I were using evolutionary algorithms for an objective I would be carrying out a search, this does not mean that in nature an agency is using evolutionary algorithms to find particular solutions, evolution is NOT a teleological process, the finding of solutions to human problems using algorithms set up to find pre-defined solutions is.
Nature can still be performing a NON-TELEOLOGICAL search. Bound and guided by the physical properties of nature itself.

Your attempt to conflate the two and assert that because evolutionary searching using algorithms by humans is similar in some ways to evolution then evolution in nature must also be a search is ex-recto drivel that also happens to be kinown by the name of fallacy of false equivalence.
No, it's IDENTICAL, not similar. I made a chart above to show that they are IDENTICAL. Point out the difference.

So because YOU lie and claim they are IDENTICAL, we're supposed to believe YOU ?

That would make me a real sucker, and although there's a sucker born every minute, I'm not one of 'em.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#777  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 7:40 am

Царь Славян wrote:
So how do you tell if Mount Rushmore is "design, chance, or natural law". What mathematics do you use if you are not going to care about how it was made ?
Is there a known natural law that accounts for Mount Rushmore? No.
:lol: :lol: :lol: The Tsar who is all about the probability math, all about the numbers, suddenly can't answer what mathematics he would use in this case.

Tsar, you should be ashamed of yourself for your dishonest non-answer to this honest question.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#778  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 7:55 am

It's a fact that liars describe the bacterial flagellum "as a machine" in the hopes that they will delude people like you into believing that it must really be a machine.
http://www.atpsynthase.info/Basics.html

The page about the ATP Synthase claims that it's a machine. Is it lying?

See, the lies worked. You fell for them hook line and sinker. You believe that equivocation of "machine" just like they wanted you to. There's a sucker born every minute.
If not machine, how would you describe either teh flagellum or ATP synthase.

Right, it's not designed. There's not a speck of evidence that the flagellum is designed and plenty of evidence that it is an undesigned natural extension of pre-existing proteins and shapes.
Really? Show me the evidence.

No, it's not a good working hypothesis. Do you have any idea what a scientific hypothesis is ? Either demonstrate how "the flagellum is designed" meets the scientific definition of hypothesis, or retract your inane statement.
A scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable. If it can't be falsified it's not scientific. We can claim that the falgellum is designed. We can falsify it by either accountig for it by natural laws, or chance. Also, claiming any artefact found in ground by an archeologist can be called designed if the archeologist decides it's designed. So, it's obviously a scientific label.

That's a truly foolish thing to say. Of course the author's ideas were derived subjectively. Do you think god came down and objectively read him the basis for his ideas ?
By objectively, I mean using the observations and reasonably extrapolating them to each a conclusion.

What else would we call "evolution" ? Is that what you're asking ? Well, that has an easy answer: we would call it "evolution"
And what is evolution?

That's your lie, masquerading as a question. We're NOT using it to FIND anything whatsoever, much less using it to find something in particular.
Yup, he precisely said that evolutionary searches can be used to design antennas.

How do you know ?
NFL Theorem.

No IF. Evolution really did happen and really is happening right now, all around you.
Evidence?

Aww, too bad you had to go and lie again. Evolution was NOT "set up". You really should quit following those liars at the Dis-Institute. They're poisoning your thinking ability.
There is no ither explanation. The NFL theorem precludes infinite regress of chance to account for something on a higher level than chance can't account for at lower level.

Dumbski's a liar.
Evidence?

His so-called calculations are worthless and your repeating his lies just makes your assertions as worthless as his.
Evidence?

Now you're just trolling. You know which natural process forms genes.
No, I do not. Show them to me.

So because YOU lie and claim they are IDENTICAL, we're supposed to believe YOU ?
No, I said you and anyone else is free to point out where the differences are.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#779  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 7:55 am


Oh that's strange - you seem to have ignored the second part of the sentence which expressly explains the terms in quotes preceding it. Let me repeat it 'a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from'.
Why not?

No, you have entirely and purposefully misread what I wrote. In fact, you purposefully snipped out the entire context of my point just to formulate this argument - that tends to be called 'mendacious discourse', and provides reasonable evidence towards indicting you for infringements against the forum user agreement you signed up for when you joined this forum. Perhaps best if you don't quote mine people from now on, eh?
Show me which parts I didn't quote.

Anyway, both cars are designed - they satisfy metrics of designedness. A car is meant to convey passengers across the ground. One of those designs might be better than the other, but neither exhibits immense design flaws that actually diminish its ability to achieve its purpose. Were there a metal rod sticking right through the chassis into the earth thereby stopping the car conveying passengers across the ground, we could be sure it wasn't designed, it would be a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.
But you are wrong. A car as bad as you described is still designed. It's a really bad car, but it'ss till designed.

So with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. So with much of nature.
Yeah, it's bad, but it works. Just as both cars I posted work.

All this is quite aside from the notion of a designer with infinite more knowledge and infinite more power than us.
I haven't specified a designer. And I haven't said that he is nfinite in any way. Not only that, but a designer could design things to look bad if he wanted to.

Serial trials fallacy.
Explain why and how.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#780  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 7:58 am

hotshoe wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:
So how do you tell if Mount Rushmore is "design, chance, or natural law". What mathematics do you use if you are not going to care about how it was made ?
Is there a known natural law that accounts for Mount Rushmore? No.
:lol: :lol: :lol: The Tsar who is all about the probability math, all about the numbers, suddenly can't answer what mathematics he would use in this case.

Tsar, you should be ashamed of yourself for your dishonest non-answer to this honest question.
That's how you answer the question about natural laws.

Is there a known natural law that forms houses? No.
Is there a known natural law that forms cars? No.
Is tehre a known natural law that forms computers? No.

Am I supposed to provide a calculation for such an answer? No. Calculations are for determining probabilities. Not determining if natural laws exist that form some structures. There eitehr is a known law or there isn't. There is no calcualtion that will tell us that.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest