Jump to: Board index
October 15th, 2009, 5:30 pm
October 16th, 2009, 10:41 pm
Juice wrote:No fair Alun you are rushing ahead, I am really not ready to discuss complexity issues. I do not wish for this thread to be a personal debate between the two of us.
Juice wrote:Alun, bananas are cultivated/domesticated from the wild, they have a natural origin. The problem with bananas, noticed by Russel, is that they have no seeds and reproduce asexually, each plant is identical to the parent plant.
Juice wrote:The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations
October 17th, 2009, 7:18 pm
Juice wrote:Alun-Bananas don't have seeds, none, nada, zip nonexistent. And I used no anecdotes.
Juice wrote:Any way I plan on adding a piece to the thread daily besides answering posts, and I have to prepare for the next installment.
Juice wrote:It is my feeling that once a person has a clear impression of Darwinism, with the criticisms then they will be better able to make an informed decision concerning its validity.
Discovery wrote:Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.
October 17th, 2009, 11:02 pm
The common cultivated types [of bananas] are generally seedless with just vestiges of ovules visible as brown specks. Occasionally, cross-pollination with wild types will result in a number of seeds in a normally seedless variety.
Juice wrote:I had to start talking about Darwin so as to put forth points on natural selection which Darwin expressed, and so that an idea of observation for scientific method can be introduced. Didn't mean to rain on your parade.
October 21st, 2009, 5:08 pm
Juice wrote:He presented a theory of how species became better (fitter) but he never attempted to explain how different species emerged from previous or ancestor species. Neither does evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
December 7th, 2009, 12:45 pm
Meleagar wrote:Note that the theory itself doesn't necessarily implicate a god of any sort. ID theory is based on the observable, quantifiable difference between what humans intelligently design, and that which appears to be not guided by intelligence (chance, natural law, etc.)
Meleagar wrote:Forms of ID are already in use in the scientific community, whether by name or not, whether denied as ID or not; forensics, for example, determines if a murder or a fire was intentionally designed by a deliberate agent, or if it was an accident. SETI, for example, is searching for evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence (although now they'd like to change their name to "artificiality", which is again simply sidestepping the issue via dishonest semantics).
Meleagar wrote:Science itself relies on the intelligent design of theories and experiments to advance.
Meleagar wrote:ID theorists are currently attempting to develop a rigorous, predictive model for identifying when a phenomena is best explained as the product of ID; some of those attempts are: irreducible complexity (Behe), the explanatory filter (Dembski), and the FSCI limitation of 500-1000 bits (Meyer).
December 9th, 2009, 2:02 am
Juice wrote:You are not keeping up Alun . Material evolutionists have long ago agreed that evolution appears designed but contend that the appearance of design is illusory. "A magician’s trick, slight of hand, MYSTICISM!"
Juice wrote:Design-Is a plan with a definitive purpose. The "Design Inference" takes the chance out of creation by calculating mathematical probabilities to events. The more complex a structure or event the less chance there is that it came about by chance. Intelligent Design merely studies signs of intelligence not the intelligence itself.
Juice wrote:One of the properties of design is "regularity". Even if one considers a material process for natural selection one must consider the regularity which the reactions to stresses occur.
December 9th, 2009, 5:28 pm
Juice wrote:A snowflake is not sentient and neither is Stonehenge, unless one is willing to proclaim them able to speak.
Juice wrote:a specified complex information processing system such as DNA and protein macromolecules are.
Juice wrote:Also, consider that the protein must be specifically folded and strongly dependent on specified spatial ordering.
Juice wrote:The chimp breaths and has a regular heartbeat but can it count its breaths or heartbeat let alone calculate a planets orbit?
Juice wrote:A fish who finds itself with the need to survive in air does not have long to wait for the irregularities of random chance mutations.
December 10th, 2009, 5:35 pm
December 11th, 2009, 11:55 pm
Meleagar wrote:Do you mean intelligent design?Alun wrote:What does 'design' mean?
Meleagar wrote:ID theory can only make a finding of ID as "best explanation" without having direct knowledge of the designer. Some of the models used for detecting ID in this manner are irreducible complexity; the explanatory filter, and FSCI of 1000 bits or more.
Meleagar wrote:There is no "mechanism" per se in intelligent design; intelligent acts are not "mechanisms".
Intelligence can use tools and can establish mechanisms to carry out its design goal; however, quantum experiments have shown that just the presence of a conscious observer can affect the outcome of subatomic states,
Meleagar wrote:it is not just ruling out unintelligent causation that leads to a finding of ID, but by comparing the phenomena to that which is known to be produced by ID agents - humans. Humans, using intelligent design, regularly generate irreducibly complex phenomena, and phenomena with FSCI of over 1000 bits.
Meleagar wrote:By showing chance and necessity (natural law) to be sufficient explanations.Alun wrote:What does 'design' rule out; i.e. how can hypotheses of design be falsified?
June 21st, 2010, 11:58 pm
Meleagar wrote:Unrealist42 wrote:How are the models that ID uses falsifiable?
By showing how non-ID sources are sufficient to produce the phenomena in question - or, by demonstrating it to have less than 500 bits of FSCI.
June 23rd, 2010, 2:40 pm
Meleagar wrote:No, I didn't say that, nor did I imply that. A finding of under 500 bits of FSCI doesn't prove any other theory, it just means that ID isn't required in order to provide a sufficient, "best" explanation. That doesn't mean some other natural force or commodity has been proven.