|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 4:10:03 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods.
Partly true.
In fact, I would say one of the reasons ID arises now in the manner that it does is that for the first time in history we have some ideas about what it takes to program sophisticated information systems, produce molecular micro-machinery, and manipulate the structures of genomes.
Contrary to what Darwin understood, the cell isn't a simple protoplasmic structure, but a sophisticated information driven molecular machine factory, and as we grow ever more sophisticated in our own knowledge of what is required to produce them, we can begin to discern how intelligence played a role.
So, what is required to produce them?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 4:16:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, what is required to produce them?
What? Information systems? Cells? Molecular Machines?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 4:21:24 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
So, what is required to produce them?
What? Information systems? Cells? Molecular Machines?
Sorry, Cells. What is required to produce cells?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 4:35:31 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sorry, Cells. What is required to produce cells?
Well the primary thing that is needed for the components of a cell is knowledge; knowledge of chemistry, knowledge of assembling chemical systems in such a way as to program them to produce the needed enzymes, the ability to manipulate molecules and assemble them into the neede machinery to intiate the working of the cell, the ability to package them in a lipid membrane in such a way so that it interacts with that membrane, and finally that it is able to utilize substances in the environment to fuel itself.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 6:09:29 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1194
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:Jhudquote:
Well the primary thing that is needed for the components of a cell is knowledge; knowledge of chemistry, knowledge of assembling chemical systems in such a way as to program them to produce the needed enzymes, the ability to manipulate molecules and assemble them into the neede machinery to intiate the working of the cell, the ability to package them in a lipid membrane in such a way so that it interacts with that membrane, and finally that it is able to utilize substances in the environment to fuel itself.
And you don’t see that as the result of a series of random accidents? That’s like saying it’s no accident that none of my children are rabbits.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 10:42:15 PM
|
|
|
mcp
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/23/2005
Status: offline
|
And don't forget to give enough time and chance that this working model is also reproductive of successful working models in like kind.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/17/2008 10:43:54 PM
|
|
|
mcp
Posts: 109
Joined: 4/23/2005
Status: offline
|
Sorry, unclemonkey mentioned rabbits and made me think of piling on the argument...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 10:27:34 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 541
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nothingman
Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)
The interesting thing is that most people have the capacity for knowing when a figure of speech is used in even in the middle of a sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 10:41:49 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)
Sorry, I missed this before; pick away.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 10:57:27 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
By the way, is anyone going to see the movie this weekend?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 10:58:31 AM
|
|
|
DanJames
Posts: 541
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
By the way, is anyone going to see the movie this weekend?
I'm going to go see it in 9 hours 36 minutes and 28 seconds after the completion of this sentence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 11:31:36 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods.
Partly true.
In fact, I would say one of the reasons ID arises now in the manner that it does is that for the first time in history we have some ideas about what it takes to program sophisticated information systems, produce molecular micro-machinery, and manipulate the structures of genomes.
Contrary to what Darwin understood, the cell isn't a simple protoplasmic structure, but a sophisticated information driven molecular machine factory, and as we grow ever more sophisticated in our own knowledge of what is required to produce them, we can begin to discern how intelligence played a role.
Don't you think it may just be a little overreaching or a faulty assumption to just draw undue likeness between cellular 'complex information systems' and man-made 'complex information systems'? Biological information systems, while its easy to make analogies to man-made inorganic information systems for purposes of basic understanding or teaching, they have little else in common. To me it seems like we then build off that faulty assumption with another by saying 'information systems' which are built by man-kind are designed, so these other systems must have been designed too? Systems which bear absolutely no resemblance to man made information systems, except in very superficial ways.
I think its a mistake to lump natural systems with man-made ones and simply say, hey look, these all have to be designed. One type of those systems is very unlike the other.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 11:47:01 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Don't you think it may just be a little overreaching or a faulty assumption to just draw undue likeness between cellular 'complex information systems' and man-made 'complex information systems'? Biological information systems, while its easy to make analogies to man-made inorganic information systems for purposes of basic understanding or teaching, they have little else in common. To me it seems like we then build off that faulty assumption with another by saying 'information systems' which are built by man-kind are designed, so these other systems must have been designed too? Systems which bear absolutely no resemblance to man made information systems, except in very superficial ways.
I think its a mistake to lump natural systems with man-made ones and simply say, hey look, these all have to be designed. One type of those systems is very unlike the other.
Again, partly true. Biological information systems and molecular machinery are much more sophisticated than human systems. They are more optimized, efficient, and obviously more capable in a number of regards. This is why biomimicry is a growing field – as we seek to create systems that are more ‘green’ (that is more energy efficient and friendly to the existing environment) we are looking to the engineering already found in nature.
Also, as our extant computing power tops out in terms of speed and storage, we are looking to biological storage systems which operate on a molecular level.
And as we have need for smaller and smaller technologies, particular in the medical field, we learn from the cell how molecular machines operate.
So while it is true our technology is not fully comparable to that found in living organisms, this isn’t because they are principally different, but because ours is so primitive by comparison. This of course makes the case for incidental and incremental development of biological engineering worse.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 3:26:18 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Sorry, Cells. What is required to produce cells?
Well the primary thing that is needed for the components of a cell is knowledge; knowledge of chemistry, knowledge of assembling chemical systems in such a way as to program them to produce the needed enzymes, the ability to manipulate molecules and assemble them into the neede machinery to intiate the working of the cell, the ability to package them in a lipid membrane in such a way so that it interacts with that membrane, and finally that it is able to utilize substances in the environment to fuel itself.
In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.
In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.
Until and unless ID can propose some kind of method or methodology, it offers nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 3:45:20 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.
Actually, that’s wrong; in fact, a ‘sharp edge’ can be made naturally; that’s why they need criteria to distinguish geofacts from artefacts. And those criteria are as follows:
1. Cores that display logical reduction strategies (e.g., radial)
2. Cores with more than five flake scars
3. Intentional creation or preparation of platforms
4. Bifacial reduction,
5. retouch, or blade production.
If these indicators exist, then the probability that this occurred naturally is so low that it really isn’t a consideration. One can safely conclude that it was produced by an intelligence. ID makes much the same calculation.
quote:
In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.
The problem with this ‘theory’ of yours is that it is easily proven wrong by the slightest thought experiment.
If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 3:54:27 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.
Actually, that’s wrong; in fact, a ‘sharp edge’ can be made naturally; that’s why they need criteria to distinguish geofacts from artefacts. And those criteria are as follows:
1. Cores that display logical reduction strategies (e.g., radial)
2. Cores with more than five flake scars
3. Intentional creation or preparation of platforms
4. Bifacial reduction,
5. retouch, or blade production.
If these indicators exist, then the probability that this occurred naturally is so low that it really isn’t a consideration. One can safely conclude that it was produced by an intelligence. ID makes much the same calculation.
quote:
In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.
The problem with this ‘theory’ of yours is that it is easily proven wrong by the slightest thought experiment.
If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.
We wouldnt be able to determine that that spaceship was actually a spaceship unless it bore some resemblance to human design patterns. As it stands, all biological chemicals do tend to have a natural affinity for one another, and inherent mechanisms that lead to change from pressures by natural forces.
There is a big difference between detecting design in objects that have no ability to self replicate, grow, or otherwise create new unique objects, and objects that have the ability to reproduce unique offspring.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 4/18/2008 4:05:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 4:14:42 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.
Actually, that’s wrong; in fact, a ‘sharp edge’ can be made naturally; that’s why they need criteria to distinguish geofacts from artefacts. And those criteria are as follows:
1. Cores that display logical reduction strategies (e.g., radial)
2. Cores with more than five flake scars
3. Intentional creation or preparation of platforms
4. Bifacial reduction,
5. retouch, or blade production.
If these indicators exist, then the probability that this occurred naturally is so low that it really isn’t a consideration. One can safely conclude that it was produced by an intelligence. ID makes much the same calculation.
In post # 93, you said, "I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this."
We look for evidence of a specific method.
quote:
quote:
In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.
The problem with this ‘theory’ of yours is that it is easily proven wrong by the slightest thought experiment.
If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.
Let's continue with your thought example. If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship, this would immediately raise the questions of who built it and how it was made. I have my ideas as to why ID proponents do not attempt to address the questions of the identity of the Designer or what His methods might be, but I'd very much like to hear your answer to why ID proponents do not address the obvious questions of who, how and why.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 4:56:02 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
In post # 93, you said, "I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this."
We look for evidence of a specific method.
Which specific method would that be?
quote:
Let's continue with your thought example. If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship, this would immediately raise the questions of who built it and how it was made. I have my ideas as to why ID proponents do not attempt to address the questions of the identity of the Designer or what His methods might be, but I'd very much like to hear your answer to why ID proponents do not address the obvious questions of who, how and why.
Well, you point begs the question, even if we never discovered the designer, or its methods of space travel, or its intentions, we could safely conclude the ship was the product of design, correct?
But even as we looked to the motivations of such a designer, I am not sure such a venture would be wholly 'scientific' in the hardest sense of the word; how would science determine the motivations of even a ancient space traveler?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 6:05:21 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
In post # 93, you said, "I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this."
We look for evidence of a specific method.
Which specific method would that be?
That would be the specific method you mentioned in your earlier post -- Systematic Flaking.
quote:
quote:
Let's continue with your thought example. If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship, this would immediately raise the questions of who built it and how it was made. I have my ideas as to why ID proponents do not attempt to address the questions of the identity of the Designer or what His methods might be, but I'd very much like to hear your answer to why ID proponents do not address the obvious questions of who, how and why.
Well, you point begs the question, even if we never discovered the designer, or its methods of space travel, or its intentions, we could safely conclude the ship was the product of design, correct?
But even as we looked to the motivations of such a designer, I am not sure such a venture would be wholly 'scientific' in the hardest sense of the word; how would science determine the motivations of even a ancient space traveler?
That is what archeologists do. They do not just uncover an artifact and say it must have been designed. No, they try to discover as much as they can about the designers, their methods and their motivations.
Given that archeologists try to discover answers to who, how and why, my question is why do ID proponents avoid these obvious questions? Especially given that ID proponents compare what they do to what archeologists do to determine design.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/18/2008 8:40:49 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7375
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That would be the specific method you mentioned in your earlier post -- Systematic Flaking.
That is a method of idetification.
That is what archeologists do. They do not just uncover an artifact and say it must have been designed. No, they try to discover as much as they can about the designers, their methods and their motivations.
And what scientific process do they use to determine 'motivation?
quote:
Given that archeologists try to discover answers to who, how and why, my question is why do ID proponents avoid these obvious questions? Especially given that ID proponents compare what they do to what archeologists do to determine design.
Well, ID is a fairly specific detection schema, as I have pointed out, much like systematic flaking. You don't use such schema to determine the who and why.
But you avoided this question:
Well, you point begs the question, even if we never discovered the designer, or its methods of space travel, or its intentions, we could safely conclude the ship was the product of design, correct?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: EXPELLED - 4/19/2008 12:33:52 AM
|
|
|
henny
Posts: 1255
Joined: 4/15/2005
From: MN
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.
If mankind from 1,000 years ago were to stumble upon a NASA shuttle, I think they'd obviously suspect something was up and that it wasn't "natural" -so I see the point you are making there (although, I think this would only be because a spaceship would share similar structural features to other things that they at the time were capable of designing). But if we are talking about an intelligence which may be entirely inhuman, or radically different from what we know, I don't think it can be detected in an easy fashion in all cases. There's always the possibility that something could be intelligently designed, yet be so radically different from our own methods of and concept of design (i.e. either so advanced, or foreign, or even so plentiful, or mundane looking) that it could be right under our noses, yet we wouldn't be able to see it as such.
Even if you use the laws of nature as a common denominator (i.e. what is allowed via the laws of nature, as oppossed to using what humans are capable of as the common denominator), there's still the possibility that the intelligent designer could have the capability of manipulating them in some way in their design that lies far beyond our own grasp.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
That is what archeologists do. They do not just uncover an artifact and say it must have been designed. No, they try to discover as much as they can about the designers, their methods and their motivations.
Archaeologists assume that the designers are human as a common denominator, and their schemas of design are constructed retroactively, or in other words via what they already know humans to be capable of. So then they infer and generalize from this common basis.
Again, there's always the possibility that something could be designed yet be radically beyond anything humans are capable of. Archeaologists don't really deal in this though, as they are more concerned with humanity than disembodied concepts of "intelligence" which exist apart from human agency (I don't think most archaeologists would subscribe theoretically to a notion of "intelligence" which can be detected in itself apart from human agency, so basically intelligence for them equals what most humans are more or less known to be capable of. Which isn't the same with ID, if I am correct).
If ID is going to use archaeological models of design detection, the best it could ever point to is either a human designer or something that designs within similar constraints of humanity.
< Message edited by henny -- 4/19/2008 12:51:45 AM >
_____________________________
Many Bothans died to bring you this information.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
