Jump to: Board index
December 10th, 2009, 12:30 pm
December 10th, 2009, 3:27 pm
Generaly, highly complex, interdependent, functional machinery with instructional coding and regulatory meta-code doesn't come into existence via artistic free-wheeling; it must be deliberately planned for in advance by a highly skilled engineer. The engineer might be artistic too, and might use creativity to overcome unforseen challenges, but without a planned design goal any engineer and software programmer will tell you that a functioning computer just cannot be built.
December 10th, 2009, 7:33 pm
Juice wrote:Gecko-You need to read through the whole thread. The argument that you make is that there is a material cause for reproducible transcription and the evidence you define points to a material cause for the origin of life. The challenge is that there is no evidence that the origin of life has a material cause since the features observed are of such specified complexity that since they appear designed and since the new paradigms in information theories and functionally specified information complexity necessitate design then one must conclude that life is designed.a) homeostatic
b) able to physiologically adapt to perturbation
c) able to recursively re-create a boundary around itself (some sort of membrane)
d) able to reproduce, either by itself or in conjunction with another, similar artifact? Note that this condition implies some sort of mechanism for ensuring accurate replication, analogous to our DNA.
These indicators sited are questionable, particularly sexual reproduction, which has not been even remotely explained as an evolutionary advantage let alone a product of evolutionary progression, or at the very least challenged by lack of a viable material explanation for the origin of life. Like Darwin you wish to complement the middle of the story without any knowledge of the beginning.
Even the obscure horseshoe crab is an enigma to those proposals.
With the advancement of technological insight I am able to determine that the structures that communicate the definition of life are of such ethereal ambiguity of specified information processes that I must conclude that they are designed since the probability of that having arisen by chance is greater than the amount of known matter in the entire universe.
There is a big difference between coming across the letters "DwoR" and coming across the letters "WORD" etched into the sand, with very different conclusions to each, particularly if those letters in WORD are the precise same height and of the precise same spacing.
Oh, well, if you say so.
Straw man. ID doesn't postulate a superntural designer
December 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Or, you could stop assuming that because people disagree with you, they are ignorant of the subject. But then, that would mean you actually have to make a signifiant effort in your debate. It's so much easier just to assert that those you are debating are ignorant.
Not only is natural selection an insufficient sorting process; it has been largely abandoned by evolutionary biologists for a long time in favor of Motoo Kimura's neutral molecular evolution theories
What people personally believe that a theory implies doesn't mean the implication is a necessary aspect of the theory. Most people who got on board with Darwinism believed the theory implied that some races of humans were intrinsically superior to others; most people who originally supported the big bang theory believed it implied a creation point and thus a god
All you've done here is restate the challenge, you haven't explained your methodology. How does one go about demonstrating that natural forces are insufficient to explain X?
BTW, your "evolution" argument doesn't make a case, it just describes a living or evolved entity and then arbitrarily asserts that it sufficiently described by unintelligent processes by assuming those processes are unintelligent, a classic case of affirming the consequent.
While tautological arguments are not necessarily invalid, yours is empirically invalid, because the existence of purebred and domesticated organisms - like the pekingese - demonstrate that some organsims actually exist which can only be sufficiently explained if one includes intelligent design.
December 11th, 2009, 8:14 pm
Or, by someone who simply disagrees with you. Less posturing, more logic and facts
ID makes no comment on the nature or identity of any supposed Designer, and "infinite regress" of a designer is no more an issue than it is in archaelogy or forensics investigations. Before a finding of arson is found, must we not only identify the arsonist, but his entire lineage as well? No. We don't even need to know the identity of the arsonist to gain a finding deliberate fire-setting.
The implications of a theory are irrelevant as to whether or not a theory is scientifically sound
So your method of establishing ID as best explanation is simply by establishing that known unintelligent forces cannot account for the thing in question?
Otherwise, calling it "natural" (unintelligent) selection and "random" (unintelligent) mutation are unwarranted, ideological characterizations.