Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Design

bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 11:19:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.

LOL

Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?

LOGIC

How did s/he produce life on Earth?

EVULOTION

When did s/he produce life on Earth?

I DONT KNOW MY SON

What was the first life produced?

ASK RICHARD DAWKINS. MY SON U SEEM TO BE VERY CONFUSED.
Never fart near dog
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 11:56:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Come on boys and girls.
How's bulproof ever going to find God if you can't answer his simple questions.
His here to help and all you show is hate.
GO get out your text books and ouija boards and put him to rest. Simple.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 12:05:12 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 11:56:53 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Come on boys and girls.
How's bulproof ever going to find God if you can't answer his simple questions.
His here to help and all you show is hate.
GO get out your text books and ouija boards and put him to rest. Simple.
Awww fanks deb.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 3:19:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 12:05:12 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/29/2016 11:56:53 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
Come on boys and girls.
How's bulproof ever going to find God if you can't answer his simple questions.
His here to help and all you show is hate.
GO get out your text books and ouija boards and put him to rest. Simple.
Awww fanks deb.

2 BULLS.. same stuff :D
Never fart near dog
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 4:00:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?

But you run away from them too, with modifications! The second one, by the way, has been answered: creation. The Intelligent Design Theory necessarily implies it.

How was life on earth produced? Science doesn't know. It "theorizes", then can't confirm its "theories."

When was life on earth produced? Science doesn't know. It comes up with all sorts of guesses.

What was the first life produced? Science doesn't know that, either.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 5:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

He knows that. He's just using it as a launching pin for the same old questions that he can't or won't answer himself.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2016 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?

I don't know the answer to those questions. Because it's a sentient intelligence it can either reveal or withhold that information.

If you walked into someone's home and saw a cake, food etc laid out on a table you'd have no idea WHY or WHEN that was done, will you then conclude that the cake cannot have been baked?

Obviously it was baked and there is no way to know anything about the motive unless the baker tells you because that information is in his/her head until he/she chooses to disclose it.

Why is such rudimentary logic always absent from these naive atheist grumblers?
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:48:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 6:08:51 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?

I don't know the answer to those questions. Because it's a sentient intelligence it can either reveal or withhold that information.

If you walked into someone's home and saw a cake, food etc laid out on a table you'd have no idea WHY or WHEN that was done, will you then conclude that the cake cannot have been baked?

Obviously it was baked and there is no way to know anything about the motive unless the baker tells you because that information is in his/her head until he/she chooses to disclose it.

Why is such rudimentary logic always absent from these naive atheist grumblers?
Well you obviously don't know the answers, you don't even know what a cake is FFS.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:50:36 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The three threads I have started regarding ID have proven conclusively that ID is just another term for wishful thinking.
You can all run off to mummy now and tell her how clever you are and play with your goddy dolls.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Willows
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:54:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 6:08:51 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?

I don't know the answer to those questions. Because it's a sentient intelligence it can either reveal or withhold that information.

If you walked into someone's home and saw a cake, food etc laid out on a table you'd have no idea WHY or WHEN that was done, will you then conclude that the cake cannot have been baked?

Obviously it was baked and there is no way to know anything about the motive unless the baker tells you because that information is in his/her head until he/she chooses to disclose it.

Why is such rudimentary logic always absent from these naive atheist grumblers?

Because it is so rudimentary and stupid that even naive theist grumblers would cringe.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:24:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

I don't think ID is a theory or has a methodology for detecting intelligent design. It asserts 'if it looks designed it was designed'.

You can ask yourself what would be in a text book on 'ID theory' - apart from poorly supported assertions that Darwinism is wrong.
Chapter 1 - how life began; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.
Chapter 2 - how life developed; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'. Chapter 3 - how the eye came about; - text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.

I think a course in 'ID theory' would be very easy to pass - the answer to every question would be 'an intelligent designer dunnit'.
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:34:01 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:24:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

I don't think ID is a theory or has a methodology for detecting intelligent design. It asserts 'if it looks designed it was designed'.

You can ask yourself what would be in a text book on 'ID theory' - apart from poorly supported assertions that Darwinism is wrong.
Chapter 1 - how life began; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.
Chapter 2 - how life developed; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'. Chapter 3 - how the eye came about; - text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.

I think a course in 'ID theory' would be very easy to pass - the answer to every question would be 'an intelligent designer dunnit'.

There is NO intelligent designer. The last one was shot on the steps of his South Beach home in 1997.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:27:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:24:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

I don't think ID is a theory or has a methodology for detecting intelligent design. It asserts 'if it looks designed it was designed'.

You can ask yourself what would be in a text book on 'ID theory' - apart from poorly supported assertions that Darwinism is wrong.
Chapter 1 - how life began; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.
Chapter 2 - how life developed; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'. Chapter 3 - how the eye came about; - text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.

I think a course in 'ID theory' would be very easy to pass - the answer to every question would be 'an intelligent designer dunnit'.
+1 at least.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Skeptical1
Posts: 679
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 8:42:14 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:24:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

I don't think ID is a theory or has a methodology for detecting intelligent design. It asserts 'if it looks designed it was designed'.

You can ask yourself what would be in a text book on 'ID theory' - apart from poorly supported assertions that Darwinism is wrong.
Chapter 1 - how life began; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.
Chapter 2 - how life developed; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'. Chapter 3 - how the eye came about; - text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.

I think a course in 'ID theory' would be very easy to pass - the answer to every question would be 'an intelligent designer dunnit'.

+1 for me too.

It's also a massive exercise in dishonesty. The majority of its proponents are fundamentalist Christians who seek to promote the cause of their specific deity - openly, among their own faithful. But they are told by the leaders of this "movement" to deliberately obfuscate their position by referring to a non-specific "designer". This is how you know it's not science. Science doesn't seek to obfuscate.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:07:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
Straw man, contradicts the definition of the designer. Typical atheism.
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
Lol. Prove your mother loves you. How does your mother produce love for you?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
Whose watch are you referring to?
What was the first life produced?
Your grandfather apparently since thats reflected in your childish nonsense.
Now
Lmao, prove to me you own a pair of shoes.
Prove to me your father loves your fourth step mom.
When were you conceived? Exact time, date, etc. And prove it. No waffling. Scientific evidence to the exact moment you were conceived. Anyone can ask moronic bu lllmoron questions🎺
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 9:29:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 9:07:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
Straw man, contradicts the definition of the designer. Typical atheism.
Tell us how oh proponent of retarded idiocy.
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
Lol. Prove your mother loves you. How does your mother produce love for you?
It's obvious these questions are well beyond your capacities, You really are stupid for even coming to the thread.
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
Whose watch are you referring to?
Ya see what I mean weirds? You are simply confirming that you are a poor moron.
What was the first life produced?
Your grandfather apparently since thats reflected in your childish nonsense.
I think you need to read "the adventures of skipsaweirdo the stupidest man ever hatched"
Lmao, prove to me you own a pair of shoes.
Prove to me your father loves your fourth step mom.
Whose cock are you sucking now?
When were you conceived? Exact time, date, etc. And prove it. No waffling. Scientific evidence to the exact moment you were conceived. Anyone can ask moronic bu lllmoron questions🎺
When I was in the what would american pie is where your bone is affected by it.
You are such a pathetically funny little wannabe.
Keep the retarded stupidity coming, everybody finds it hilarious.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Liveone
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/29/2016 9:57:34 AM, bulproof wrote:
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced? : :

The visible images you observe are not made of material things. God didn't create us from material things. He used his invisible thoughts to created a simulation program with computer technology called the Tree of Life. What you're observing are visible images that are formed from the processing of God's thoughts into invisible waves. Those invisible waves are then processed into life experiences ( make-believe worlds ) according to the master program that God created.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 12:22:33 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
- bulproof 1
You lot get quite mouthy in evolution threads but run like scolded cats from the ID threads, so I've got some more questions you'll desperately run away from.
Where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
How did s/he produce life on Earth?
When did s/he produce life on Earth?
What was the first life produced?
Creationists systematically avoid presenting a positive case for their creator. They insist pointing out problems and mysteries with the theory of evolution and conclude that because of these biological evolution cannot be the true explanation for the ecosystem. They then believe that if there is no know explanation for a phenomenon, God must have done it. Tstor has tried presenting a positive case in 'Reasons to Believe Creation model' (http://www.debate.org...). Unfortunately he failed.
Annanicole's response illustrates that. Does she try answering the questions about creationism ? No. She criticizes science's ability to provide answers and let's those with the ability to decimate their intelligence the liberty of reach the conclusion they desire.

@POPOO5560
I am confident you realize the that quality of your post is below the standards of this forum and that you are capable of doing better. Why don't you present an interesting contribution, or, if you are unable, stay away altogether ?

- Benshapiro 7
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.
No, it is more than that. It is also a movement and theory for explaining the origin of the universe and the ecosystem.
A theory that is limited to stating that the universe and the ecosystem were designed is useless.

- annanicole 8 to Benshapiro
He knows that. He's just using it as a launching pin for the same old questions that he can't or won't answer himself.
That is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black.

- Dirty.Harry 9 to OP
I don't know the answer to those questions. Because it's a sentient intelligence it can either reveal or withhold that information.[1]

If you walked into someone's home and saw a cake, food etc laid out on a table you'd have no idea WHY or WHEN that was done, will you then conclude that the cake cannot have been baked?
Obviously it was baked and there is no way to know anything about the motive unless the baker tells you because that information is in his/her head until he/she chooses to disclose it.
Why is such rudimentary logic always absent from these naive atheist grumblers?[2]
[1] Apparently no one knows the answer to those questions. Creationists however have no qualms with concluding from evolutionists' inability to answer some questions, that biological evolution must be false. Their bias however prevents them from applying that fallacious line of reasoning to their theory of origins.
[2] It is not. Try looking at the world without the assumption that atheists are idiots and it will start making sense to you.

@skipsaweirdo
I am confident you realize you post is both stupid and irrelevant. Why don't you try making a positive contribution, or, if unable, leave this discussion to adults ?

- Liveone 20 to OP
The visible images you observe are not made of material things. God didn't create us from material things. He used his invisible thoughts to created a simulation program with computer technology called the Tree of Life. What you're observing are visible images that are formed from the processing of God's thoughts into invisible waves. Those invisible waves are then processed into life experiences ( make-believe worlds ) according to the master program that God created.
Can you elaborate ? When did God create that simulation program and on what hardware does it run ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:24:35 AM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/29/2016 4:08:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Intelligent design theory doesn't address these points. It's just a methodology for recognizing intelligent design.

I don't think ID is a theory or has a methodology for detecting intelligent design. It asserts 'if it looks designed it was designed'.

You can ask yourself what would be in a text book on 'ID theory' - apart from poorly supported assertions that Darwinism is wrong.
Chapter 1 - how life began; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.
Chapter 2 - how life developed; Text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'. Chapter 3 - how the eye came about; - text: 'through the act of an intelligent designer'.

I think a course in 'ID theory' would be very easy to pass - the answer to every question would be 'an intelligent designer dunnit'.

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!

I think that as we experience the world and the things in it we develop an intuition about what is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'. Being an intuition, it is hard to be definite about what precisely the criteria we use to classify something as one or the other, but complexity must be one factor. We don't encounter many objects that are complex, intricate and natural so we learn to associate complex, intricate objects with artificiality - why not? It works 99% of the time.

ID exploits that intuition. I think Darwinian evolution is deeply counter-intuitive. If it was intuitive we humans would have recognised it long ago in our 50,000 year history rather than having to wait 49,850 for Darwin to point it out.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:46:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!


Not only ID-ers Keith, the entire SETI program too think they are able to scientifically recognize intelligent design.

Do you think the term "intelligence" should be dropped from SETI? perhaps calling it simply SURE? (Search for unusual radio emissions)?

I think that as we experience the world and the things in it we develop an intuition about what is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'. Being an intuition, it is hard to be definite about what precisely the criteria we use to classify something as one or the other, but complexity must be one factor. We don't encounter many objects that are complex, intricate and natural so we learn to associate complex, intricate objects with artificiality - why not? It works 99% of the time.

ID exploits that intuition. I think Darwinian evolution is deeply counter-intuitive. If it was intuitive we humans would have recognised it long ago in our 50,000 year history rather than having to wait 49,850 for Darwin to point it out.


Tell me why do you object to the hypothesis that intelligence might be required to account for certain observations? what is actually wrong with at least considering this?

Here's David Berlinski discussing this very point with Krauss.

https://www.youtube.com...

As Berlinski says "it's an interesting hypothesis and the frothing indignation it provokes is unmerited".
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 3:57:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:46:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!


Not only ID-ers Keith, the entire SETI program too think they are able to scientifically recognize intelligent design.

WRONG!

"In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we're on the lookout for very simple signals. That's mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."

http://www.space.com...

Do you think the term "intelligence" should be dropped from SETI? perhaps calling it simply SURE? (Search for unusual radio emissions)?

I think that as we experience the world and the things in it we develop an intuition about what is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'. Being an intuition, it is hard to be definite about what precisely the criteria we use to classify something as one or the other, but complexity must be one factor. We don't encounter many objects that are complex, intricate and natural so we learn to associate complex, intricate objects with artificiality - why not? It works 99% of the time.

ID exploits that intuition. I think Darwinian evolution is deeply counter-intuitive. If it was intuitive we humans would have recognised it long ago in our 50,000 year history rather than having to wait 49,850 for Darwin to point it out.


Tell me why do you object to the hypothesis that intelligence might be required to account for certain observations?

Because, there is no evidence for intelligence, hence there is no reason to invoke it.

what is actually wrong with at least considering this?

For the same reason scientist don't consider unicorns and leprechauns: no evidence.

Is this clear enough for you, Harry, or will you continue to invoke irrelevant questions?

Here's David Berlinski discussing this very point with Krauss.

https://www.youtube.com...

As Berlinski says "it's an interesting hypothesis and the frothing indignation it provokes is unmerited".
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 4:40:00 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 3:57:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:46:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!


Not only ID-ers Keith, the entire SETI program too think they are able to scientifically recognize intelligent design.

WRONG!

"In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we're on the lookout for very simple signals. :

He's not looking for "messages" but actually he is looking for "messages" - he's looking for some pattern in a radio signal other than noise, by all means don't call it a message, call it what you like but he is looking for something other than electrical noise.

That's strawman 1. ("messages").

That's mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong.

I'm not concerned at all with "complexity" so he's wrong. I'm concerned with the fact that he feels some particular kind of signal property can be used to deduce the presence of intelligence, which he must be doing.

That was strawman 2. ("complexity").

We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."


But this is the "alien of the gaps" argument. Just because his current level of scientific knowledge cannot explain the radio signal, he concludes it must be artifical, it must be a sign of intelligence. Just because he thinks its "artificial" does not justify leaping the to conclusion that "therefore aliens did it".

http://www.space.com...

Do you think the term "intelligence" should be dropped from SETI? perhaps calling it simply SURE? (Search for unusual radio emissions)?

I think that as we experience the world and the things in it we develop an intuition about what is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'. Being an intuition, it is hard to be definite about what precisely the criteria we use to classify something as one or the other, but complexity must be one factor. We don't encounter many objects that are complex, intricate and natural so we learn to associate complex, intricate objects with artificiality - why not? It works 99% of the time.

ID exploits that intuition. I think Darwinian evolution is deeply counter-intuitive. If it was intuitive we humans would have recognised it long ago in our 50,000 year history rather than having to wait 49,850 for Darwin to point it out.


Tell me why do you object to the hypothesis that intelligence might be required to account for certain observations?

Because, there is no evidence for intelligence, hence there is no reason to invoke it.


Absurd, science frequently progresses by hypothesizing processes before there's evidence. This is called "what if" and is a fundamental aspect of human exploration and discovery, but of course I've come to expect this from you since you have no idea how science actually works.

Science works best DJR in an open and free society where people are free to express unorthodox ideas and question established doctrine without fear of persecution by thought police. You may not share my views, you may disagree, you may be convinced I'm wrong but you cannot be permitted to stifle freedom of expression and thought - so get over yourself man.

what is actually wrong with at least considering this?

For the same reason scientist don't consider unicorns and leprechauns: no evidence.


But they do consider intelligent aliens on far away planets without evidence.

Is this clear enough for you, Harry, or will you continue to invoke irrelevant questions?

Yes and I'll continue to reveal to all participants here how uneducated you actually are and how inadequate many of your knee-jerk posts are when subjected to scrutiny.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 6:26:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 4:40:00 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:57:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:46:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!


Not only ID-ers Keith, the entire SETI program too think they are able to scientifically recognize intelligent design.

WRONG!

"In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we're on the lookout for very simple signals. :

He's not looking for "messages" but actually he is looking for "messages"

Harry, try to read the words there rather than making up your own words, they are looking for simple signals. Pay attention.

- he's looking for some pattern in a radio signal other than noise, by all means don't call it a message, call it what you like but he is looking for something other than electrical noise.

That's strawman 1. ("messages").

No Harry, that wasn't a strawman, that was your less than adequate reading comprehension skills.

That's mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong.

I'm not concerned at all with "complexity" so he's wrong.

No Harry, he isn't wrong, complexity is often used as a reason for intelligence by you creationists.

I'm concerned with the fact that he feels some particular kind of signal property can be used to deduce the presence of intelligence, which he must be doing.

That was strawman 2. ("complexity").

No Harry, that isn't a strawman, it is a fact.

We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."


But this is the "alien of the gaps" argument. Just because his current level of scientific knowledge cannot explain the radio signal, he concludes it must be artifical, it must be a sign of intelligence. Just because he thinks its "artificial" does not justify leaping the to conclusion that "therefore aliens did it".

Harry, do you know the difference between radio signals that are and aren't artificial? These guys do, that's why they're scientists and you're an uneducated creationist.

http://www.space.com...

Do you think the term "intelligence" should be dropped from SETI? perhaps calling it simply SURE? (Search for unusual radio emissions)?

I think that as we experience the world and the things in it we develop an intuition about what is 'natural' and what is 'artificial'. Being an intuition, it is hard to be definite about what precisely the criteria we use to classify something as one or the other, but complexity must be one factor. We don't encounter many objects that are complex, intricate and natural so we learn to associate complex, intricate objects with artificiality - why not? It works 99% of the time.

ID exploits that intuition. I think Darwinian evolution is deeply counter-intuitive. If it was intuitive we humans would have recognised it long ago in our 50,000 year history rather than having to wait 49,850 for Darwin to point it out.


Tell me why do you object to the hypothesis that intelligence might be required to account for certain observations?

Because, there is no evidence for intelligence, hence there is no reason to invoke it.


Absurd, science frequently progresses by hypothesizing processes before there's evidence. This is called "what if" and is a fundamental aspect of human exploration and discovery, but of course I've come to expect this from you since you have no idea how science actually works.

LOL. And, the guy that claims to know how science works believes scientists sit around saying, "What if?" LOL. Classic comedy, Harry.

Science works best DJR in an open and free society where people are free to express unorthodox ideas and question established doctrine without fear of persecution by thought police.

Yeah, those guys are called crackpots and cranks, and they are free to express their nonsense, just like you are free to express your ignorance.

You may not share my views, you may disagree, you may be convinced I'm wrong but you cannot be permitted to stifle freedom of expression and thought - so get over yourself man.

Where do you get the ridiculous notion I'm trying to stifle you, Harry? Your hilarious posts here are have good comedic value, if nothing else.

what is actually wrong with at least considering this?

For the same reason scientist don't consider unicorns and leprechauns: no evidence.


But they do consider intelligent aliens on far away planets without evidence.

The evidence is us, Harry. Duh.

Is this clear enough for you, Harry, or will you continue to invoke irrelevant questions?

Yes and I'll continue to reveal to all participants here how uneducated you actually are and how inadequate many of your knee-jerk posts are when subjected to scrutiny.

Please do, Harry. LOL.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 7:38:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:26:52 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/30/2016 4:40:00 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:57:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:46:18 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 10/30/2016 3:28:28 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 10/30/2016 2:40:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Is there a way to scientifically recognize intelligent design? I'm not talking about a transcendent intelligent designer, I'm talking about intelligent designs that we create.

IDers claim to be able to 'scientifically recognise' intelligent design - I don't!


Not only ID-ers Keith, the entire SETI program too think they are able to scientifically recognize intelligent design.

WRONG!

"In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we're on the lookout for very simple signals. :

He's not looking for "messages" but actually he is looking for "messages"

Harry, try to read the words there rather than making up your own words, they are looking for simple signals. Pay attention.

- he's looking for some pattern in a radio signal other than noise, by all means don't call it a message, call it what you like but he is looking for something other than electrical noise.

That's strawman 1. ("messages").

No Harry, that wasn't a strawman, that was your less than adequate reading comprehension skills.

It is a strawman because he attacks an argument I have not made.


That's mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong.

I'm not concerned at all with "complexity" so he's wrong.

No Harry, he isn't wrong, complexity is often used as a reason for intelligence by you creationists.

Its another strawman because he attacks an argument I have not made.

I'm concerned with the fact that he feels some particular kind of signal property can be used to deduce the presence of intelligence, which he must be doing.

That was strawman 2. ("complexity").

No Harry, that isn't a strawman, it is a fact.

In your mind maybe. Listen instead of quote mining all day why don't you leverage some of the "science" education you so often remind us all of? You know actually say something for yourself like a big boy rather than juvenile denials ad infinitum?


We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA's chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."


But this is the "alien of the gaps" argument. Just because his current level of scientific knowledge cannot explain the radio signal, he concludes it must be artifical, it must be a sign of intelligence. Just because he thinks its "artificial" does not justify leaping the to conclusion that "therefore aliens did it".

Harry, do you know the difference between radio signals that are and aren't artificial? These guys do, that's why they're scientists and you're an uneducated creationist.

Do you? that's the crux of what we're talking about air head - the difference between a signal arising from intelligence and a signal not arising from intelligence.

Come on DRJ - tell me what IS the difference between radio signals that are and are not artificial? take a deep breath, in your own words, you can do it, go on, I'll go easy on you.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:23:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 7:38:57 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Do you? that's the crux of what we're talking about air head
In that case you're in the wrong thread. This thread concerns your religious belief in ID.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin