Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This was Intelligently Designed.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 6:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed.

An archaeologist would note the tool and polish-marks on the surfaces, the fact that key materials can only be produced synthetically, and signs that the artefact did not originate in the environment, had seen heavy use, but was not itself capable of independent motion.

And that would mean it's a tool, produced by some tool-maker for a purpose, and an archaeologist could guess from the functional capabilities exhibited by the artefact, what the tool might have been used for.

So of present life-forms, which are tools, where are the tool-marks, which materials can only be synthesised, which life is out of place, who has operated this life, and what are its suspected purposes?

Or is this just a stupid, strained analogy?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 6:30:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 6:00:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed.

An archaeologist would note the tool and polish-marks on the surfaces, the fact that key materials can only be produced synthetically, and signs that the artefact did not originate in the environment, had seen heavy use, but was not itself capable of independent motion.

And that would mean it's a tool, produced by some tool-maker for a purpose, and an archaeologist could guess from the functional capabilities exhibited by the artefact, what the tool might have been used for.

So of present life-forms, which are tools, where are the tool-marks, which materials can only be synthesised, which life is out of place, who has operated this life, and what are its suspected purposes?

Or is this just a stupid, strained analogy?

Analogies are only as accurate as they depart from the subject. I'm not straining the analogy.

I like that you attempted to list objective measures or attributes that conclude in intelligently constructed.

Tool-marks. Before we can discern toolmarks we have to be aware of how something can be made. We look for chisel marks on rock for a statue and such. In some cases the very material itself can be a tool mark exhibiting crystalline structures known to occur in human manufacturing.

Looking at life, the scale is at the molecular level. So traditional tool-marks will be non-discernible.

Materials that can only be synthesized.. one example would be right handed sugars attaching to left handed sugars. The chiralty can be induced in a solution of sugars or proteins by physical vectors like stirring. BUT 2 environments spinning in different directions would destroy each other. The elements can't be constructed in environments and assembled with out destroying the elements themselves.

Life is out of place in that so far we don;t see it anywhere else in the universe and yet nearly covers everything on earth.

purpose? Science never answers purpose. Because purpose is a "why" question.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 7:28:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Your reluctance to answer my question is noted... and telling.

You posit that life infers design, so you regurgitate an old analogy about detecting design. Ok, but it has a very sloppy element in it: there is life in your analogy (the trees, yourself, etc.), but that life is NOT what is posited as inferring design. The frames of reference are jacked up.

How about a do over? This analogy is just not good...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 7:41:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 7:28:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Your reluctance to answer my question is noted... and telling.

You posit that life infers design, so you regurgitate an old analogy about detecting design. Ok, but it has a very sloppy element in it: there is life in your analogy (the trees, yourself, etc.), but that life is NOT what is posited as inferring design. The frames of reference are jacked up.

How about a do over? This analogy is just not good...

No does the truck exhibit elements that are designed? Then there was a designer. That designer was a human.

Humans as biological life exhibit signs of design so they have a designer.

The truck trees humans do not need to be the same designer.

It is not natural if there is an cuase which has volition
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 7:42:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 6:30:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Analogies are only as accurate as they depart from the subject. I'm not straining the analogy.

So you think it's the exceptions that prove the analogy? I'd say it was the parallels -- and comparing a tool with toolmarks; and life which you think may not be a tool at all -- seems to lack more parallels than it exhibits.

I like that you attempted to list objective measures or attributes that conclude in intelligently constructed.

I'll readily agree that the proposition that terrestrial life were intelligently designed could be part of a testable theory. The problem is, in anything I've read, that theory hasn't been proposed.

Tool-marks. Before we can discern toolmarks we have to be aware of how something can be made.

Yes, exactly. ID makes two claims:

1) Life is designed -- which to be testable, you must indicate 'designed how' (this is really the 'toolmarks' question); and
2) The design is constructed intelligently -- which means it's the insightful solution to a particular problem. To be test for intelligence, you must indicate what problem has been solved, since there may be parts of the design of life that don't look intelligent, since they're irrelevant to the problem.

And then you need to take those specifics and synthesise them into a coherent, comprehensive theory that explains the particular life we have (and don't have) on earth, including all the life we've previously had, but no longer have.

And then, for the theory to be worth investing serious research money into, it needs to offer explanations about things we don't understand, and offer some predictions that if disproved, could falsify it.

Looking at life, the scale is at the molecular level. So traditional tool-marks will be non-discernible.

That's not quite true, Mhykiel. There are certain elements that hardly occur in geology. If life were full of those and we couldn't account for where they came from, then that would support the idea that they'd been introduced. Or if there were elements that only occurred in certain spots, yet life had them everywhere on the planet, that would require some explanation.

However the life we have is built from elements common all over the earth. The most interesting question is how the most reactive of these elements -- oxygen -- was liberated from the geology to form life. Any serious ID researcher should be looking at that as a possible evidence for intelligent intervention.

Oxygen often binds with iron to form rust, and with silicon to form sand, and of course with hydrogen to form water. If you want to extract oxygen from geology to support life, there aren't too many ways of doing it.

Biologists think eukaryotic life might have done it by pulling oxygen from iron (see my previous link), however that would have been a painfully slow process. If you wanted advanced, oxygen-breathing life, then faster ways would be to crack water into oxygen and hydrogen using electricity, or heat iron to release the oxygen.

So if oxygen really came from eukaryotes, what problem does that solve intelligently?

We can ask similar questions of every step of the process we believe we understand.

Materials that can only be synthesized.. one example would be right handed sugars attaching to left handed sugars.

Yes. The huge statistical skew on chirality is a fun one bugging chemists. But the assumption of intervention, while it solves that one question, opens up many more to be solved (see my example of oxygen above.) That's why simpler explanations are preferred first.

purpose? Science never answers purpose. Because purpose is a "why" question.

Consider IQ tests. We can't measure intelligence without giving it a problem to solve -- so we really need to know the problem.

For example, we know evolutionary mechanisms can solve certain survival pressures -- but ievolution is slow and inefficient, with many backtracks, dead-ends and outright failures. To ascribe the word 'intelligence', we have to look for something that works efficiently, effectively and faster than random chance. And to find that, we need to know what problem it's meant to be solving.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 7:56:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 7:42:28 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/26/2015 6:30:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Analogies are only as accurate as they depart from the subject. I'm not straining the analogy.

So you think it's the exceptions that prove the analogy? I'd say it was the parallels -- and comparing a tool with toolmarks; and life which you think may not be a tool at all -- seems to lack more parallels than it exhibits.

I like that you attempted to list objective measures or attributes that conclude in intelligently constructed.

I'll readily agree that the proposition that terrestrial life were intelligently designed could be part of a testable theory. The problem is, in anything I've read, that theory hasn't been proposed.

Tool-marks. Before we can discern toolmarks we have to be aware of how something can be made.

Yes, exactly. ID makes two claims:

1) Life is designed -- which to be testable, you must indicate 'designed how' (this is really the 'toolmarks' question); and
2) The design is constructed intelligently -- which means it's the insightful solution to a particular problem. To be test for intelligence, you must indicate what problem has been solved, since there may be parts of the design of life that don't look intelligent, since they're irrelevant to the problem.

And then you need to take those specifics and synthesise them into a coherent, comprehensive theory that explains the particular life we have (and don't have) on earth, including all the life we've previously had, but no longer have.

And then, for the theory to be worth investing serious research money into, it needs to offer explanations about things we don't understand, and offer some predictions that if disproved, could falsify it.

Looking at life, the scale is at the molecular level. So traditional tool-marks will be non-discernible.

That's not quite true, Mhykiel. There are certain elements that hardly occur in geology. If life were full of those and we couldn't account for where they came from, then that would support the idea that they'd been introduced. Or if there were elements that only occurred in certain spots, yet life had them everywhere on the planet, that would require some explanation.

However the life we have is built from elements common all over the earth. The most interesting question is how the most reactive of these elements -- oxygen -- was liberated from the geology to form life. Any serious ID researcher should be looking at that as a possible evidence for intelligent intervention.

Oxygen often binds with iron to form rust, and with silicon to form sand, and of course with hydrogen to form water. If you want to extract oxygen from geology to support life, there aren't too many ways of doing it.

Biologists think eukaryotic life might have done it by pulling oxygen from iron (see my previous link), however that would have been a painfully slow process. If you wanted advanced, oxygen-breathing life, then faster ways would be to crack water into oxygen and hydrogen using electricity, or heat iron to release the oxygen.

So if oxygen really came from eukaryotes, what problem does that solve intelligently?

We can ask similar questions of every step of the process we believe we understand.

Materials that can only be synthesized.. one example would be right handed sugars attaching to left handed sugars.

Yes. The huge statistical skew on chirality is a fun one bugging chemists. But the assumption of intervention, while it solves that one question, opens up many more to be solved (see my example of oxygen above.) That's why simpler explanations are preferred first.

purpose? Science never answers purpose. Because purpose is a "why" question.

Consider IQ tests. We can't measure intelligence without giving it a problem to solve -- so we really need to know the problem.

For example, we know evolutionary mechanisms can solve certain survival pressures -- but ievolution is slow and inefficient, with many backtracks, dead-ends and outright failures. To ascribe the word 'intelligence', we have to look for something that works efficiently, effectively and faster than random chance. And to find that, we need to know what problem it's meant to be solving.

There are molecules in life that are not present in nature by natural geological meteorological processes.

The structures of life are refined. Not showing the usual racemic distribution of molecules.

And the representation of information to make the structures stored in an abstract way digital information. That doesn't emerge from natural processes
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:11:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:56:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

There are molecules in life that are not present in nature by natural geological meteorological processes.

Yes, but that's not wonderful, because once there's gaseous oxygen, all the simple molecules for life appear from geology via natural processes. The only ones there's any doubt over are the more complex ones, and that doubt is eroding.

The structures of life are refined. Not showing the usual racemic distribution of molecules.

That's a curious observation more than an objection, since statistics are allowed to waver, and once molecules can reproduce there's no guarantee a racemic mix will be statistically stable.

As you might know there are multiple possible ways to get a chiral bias into molecules -- for example, cosmic radiation sometimes show a chiral bias, and cosmic material seems to show it too. However, an interesting one is just through random chance. The Sczepanski and Joyce result (http://www.nature.com...) is described in Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com...), excerpted below:

While life is very good at operating with this handedness, called chirality, nature isn't. Most chemical reactions produce a mixture of left and right forms of molecules. This seemingly creates a problem for the origin of life"if both chiral forms were available, how did life pick just one? The problem is even more severe than that. If both forms are present, then the reactions that duplicate DNA and RNA molecules don't work. And without those reactions, life won't work.

Now, researchers have found this doesn't pose much of a barrier at all. Through a little test-tube based evolution, they were able to make an RNA molecule that could copy other RNA molecules with the opposite chirality. In other words, they made a right hand that could only copy the left. But the duplicate, the left-handed form, could then readily copy the right-handed version. And as an added bonus, the new RNA molecule may be one of the most useful copying enzymes yet evolved.

At 2/27/2015 7:56:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
And the representation of information to make the structures stored in an abstract way digital information. That doesn't emerge from natural processes

I've been noting your chats on this topic, and think the language is biased. How is it that you'll dodge any stipulation of the problem 'intelligence' is supposed to solve, yet won't accept the difference between replication and code in organic molecules?

All physics is full of information -- that's how we reason about it. Some information is replicated -- for example, crystal structures do exactly this. Some replication can introduce variation-- for example, different snowflakes replicate different patterns. What's wrong with replication and variation occurring with unliving organic molecules?

What we talk of as 'code' when there are species isn't necessarily meaningful as code when there are not. When we talk of DNA as 'code' it's only because we impute the 'purpose' of species to perpetuate, whereas we don't ascribe the same purpose to snowflakes or diamonds.

So if you want to evade 'purpose' or 'problem' when using the loaded word 'intelligent' in 'intelligent design', why ascribe purpose to replication from the outset and insist that all organic replication is code?

You mightn't intend it, but it's a rigged conversation, Mhykiel. That's why I've stayed out of it. :)
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:11:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:11:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:56:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:

There are molecules in life that are not present in nature by natural geological meteorological processes.

Yes, but that's not wonderful, because once there's gaseous oxygen, all the simple molecules for life appear from geology via natural processes. The only ones there's any doubt over are the more complex ones, and that doubt is eroding.

The structures of life are refined. Not showing the usual racemic distribution of molecules.

That's a curious observation more than an objection, since statistics are allowed to waver, and once molecules can reproduce there's no guarantee a racemic mix will be statistically stable.

As you might know there are multiple possible ways to get a chiral bias into molecules -- for example, cosmic radiation sometimes show a chiral bias, and cosmic material seems to show it too. However, an interesting one is just through random chance. The Sczepanski and Joyce result (http://www.nature.com...) is described in Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com...), excerpted below:

While life is very good at operating with this handedness, called chirality, nature isn't. Most chemical reactions produce a mixture of left and right forms of molecules. This seemingly creates a problem for the origin of life"if both chiral forms were available, how did life pick just one? The problem is even more severe than that. If both forms are present, then the reactions that duplicate DNA and RNA molecules don't work. And without those reactions, life won't work.

Now, researchers have found this doesn't pose much of a barrier at all. Through a little test-tube based evolution, they were able to make an RNA molecule that could copy other RNA molecules with the opposite chirality. In other words, they made a right hand that could only copy the left. But the duplicate, the left-handed form, could then readily copy the right-handed version. And as an added bonus, the new RNA molecule may be one of the most useful copying enzymes yet evolved.

At 2/27/2015 7:56:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
And the representation of information to make the structures stored in an abstract way digital information. That doesn't emerge from natural processes

I've been noting your chats on this topic, and think the language is biased. How is it that you'll dodge any stipulation of the problem 'intelligence' is supposed to solve, yet won't accept the difference between replication and code in organic molecules?

All physics is full of information -- that's how we reason about it. Some information is replicated -- for example, crystal structures do exactly this. Some replication can introduce variation-- for example, different snowflakes replicate different patterns. What's wrong with replication and variation occurring with unliving organic molecules?

What we talk of as 'code' when there are species isn't necessarily meaningful as code when there are not. When we talk of DNA as 'code' it's only because we impute the 'purpose' of species to perpetuate, whereas we don't ascribe the same purpose to snowflakes or diamonds.

So if you want to evade 'purpose' or 'problem' when using the loaded word 'intelligent' in 'intelligent design', why ascribe purpose to replication from the outset and insist that all organic replication is code?

You mightn't intend it, but it's a rigged conversation, Mhykiel. That's why I've stayed out of it. :)

I do not side step this at all. It is flat out wrong to equate the information or code of DNA/RNA with replication.

The replication of crystals in snowflakes is not at all like the replication of life. And all of physics can be described as being information but it is you who are making a equivocational error in making "information" of a snowflake, entropy, information about a star from it's radiation and equating that with the Digital information present in DNA/RNA.

The Digital information present in DNA/RNA is linguistic and contextual. It describes instructions for the assembly of biological material, the instructions for reacting to different stimuli. The way in which these instructions are encoded, the way in which this information is stored, is not necessary by physical or chemical processes.

Like others have shown with the analogy of say a story written on paper or a computer program running. The LAWS of physics and nature dictate how the computer runs. It doesn't explain the emergence of the code the computer is running.

The instruction set abstractly represented by the code is not emergent from 0s and 1s. As the story of Othello from Shakespeare is not emergent from the natural physics of how ink reacts to paper.

This information is abstract. An encoding. a codon represents a peptide. The 3 molecule long string of a codon DOES NOT have to by physical neccessity or by chemical likelyhood in no way "has to" represent a certain peptide. This representation is established by a coding system and enforced by process to make sure that the codons and the peptides are contextual appropriate.

Chemistry and physics can describe the spell checker, can describe the light emitting from the diodes, can describe why parts of the screen in front of you are white and others black.. but the chemistry and the physics can not explain or describe the message transmitted by the written words on your screen. the message encoded by a series of symbols.

The encoding in DNA is an observation from the attributes of DNA. We do not say it is code because it has purpose. We say it is code because that's what it is. Digital information stored in abstract, symbolic, manner of actual things.

There are different kinds of ID theories just like different abiogenesis theories. As an hypothesis all ID needs to do is explain how life emerged. The observation of "attributes of design" lead credence to ID.

To falsify you just come up with an alternate hypothesis that also explains the SAME observations. or you refute that the observation is not accurate.

If life has the appearance of design how then does abiogenesis account for this appearance? It doesn't. Abiogenesis doesn't even work.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:43:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?

WTF do the trees have to do with anything. The subject is the truck. Does the truck show signs that it was crafted, manufactured, intelligently designed? YES.

Then we infer that it was designed.

Life has many attributes that INFER the same thing, that life is designed.

Any explanation that doesn't conclude in life being intelligently designed then has to account for the attributes that infer it was.

That simple.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 8:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:43:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?

WTF do the trees have to do with anything. The subject is the truck. Does the truck show signs that it was crafted, manufactured, intelligently designed? YES.

I already pointed this out to you. You are taking something that is human made and therefore ID (the truck) and then making the comparison to the assumed non ID (the trees)

Then we infer that it was designed.

Life has many attributes that INFER the same thing, that life is designed.

Be more precise in your terms please. Alot of people will say that life is "designed" that is to say there are processes in place that result in an outcome.

It's just some humans get to gun happy and think well look at this outcome, it was the plan all along, it is the product of INTELLIGENT design.


Any explanation that doesn't conclude in life being intelligently designed then has to account for the attributes that infer it was.

Who is doing the inferring you ? The explanation you came to that conclusion on some error in reasoning.

You know like in argument form analogies about finding a human made thing (truck) among st the trees.


That simple.

Yes it is simple, people wrongly infer intelligent design of the natural world based on faulty reasoning.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:10:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 8:53:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:43:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?

WTF do the trees have to do with anything. The subject is the truck. Does the truck show signs that it was crafted, manufactured, intelligently designed? YES.

I already pointed this out to you. You are taking something that is human made and therefore ID (the truck) and then making the comparison to the assumed non ID (the trees)

That's why it is an analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Learn to reason. If I describe gravity as a rubber sheet, is a good a rebuttal that space doesn't smell like rubber. No it isn't a good rebuttal or even demonstrate you understand what aspects of the subject are being illustrated.


Then we infer that it was designed.

Life has many attributes that INFER the same thing, that life is designed.

Be more precise in your terms please. Alot of people will say that life is "designed" that is to say there are processes in place that result in an outcome.

It's just some humans get to gun happy and think well look at this outcome, it was the plan all along, it is the product of INTELLIGENT design.


Why don't you tell me what are some characteristics of design. If scientist found chunks of stone and veins of copper how would you discern them as being intelligently designed as opposed to natural?


Any explanation that doesn't conclude in life being intelligently designed then has to account for the attributes that infer it was.

Who is doing the inferring you ? The explanation you came to that conclusion on some error in reasoning.

You know like in argument form analogies about finding a human made thing (truck) among st the trees.


That simple.

Yes it is simple, people wrongly infer intelligent design of the natural world based on faulty reasoning.

Try this argument.

p1. The encoding of digital information into a medium is only by intelligent agency
p2. DNA is the encoding of digital information into discreet units of nucleotides and sequences or strings of 3 values long called codons.
c1. DNA utilized in all biological life was intelligently designed.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:28:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:10:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:53:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:43:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?

WTF do the trees have to do with anything. The subject is the truck. Does the truck show signs that it was crafted, manufactured, intelligently designed? YES.

I already pointed this out to you. You are taking something that is human made and therefore ID (the truck) and then making the comparison to the assumed non ID (the trees)

That's why it is an analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Learn to reason. If I describe gravity as a rubber sheet, is a good a rebuttal that space doesn't smell like rubber. No it isn't a good rebuttal or even demonstrate you understand what aspects of the subject are being illustrated.


Then we infer that it was designed.

Life has many attributes that INFER the same thing, that life is designed.

Be more precise in your terms please. Alot of people will say that life is "designed" that is to say there are processes in place that result in an outcome.

It's just some humans get to gun happy and think well look at this outcome, it was the plan all along, it is the product of INTELLIGENT design.


Why don't you tell me what are some characteristics of design. If scientist found chunks of stone and veins of copper how would you discern them as being intelligently designed as opposed to natural?


Any explanation that doesn't conclude in life being intelligently designed then has to account for the attributes that infer it was.

Who is doing the inferring you ? The explanation you came to that conclusion on some error in reasoning.

You know like in argument form analogies about finding a human made thing (truck) among st the trees.


That simple.

Yes it is simple, people wrongly infer intelligent design of the natural world based on faulty reasoning.

Try this argument.

p1. The encoding of digital information into a medium is only by intelligent agency
p2. DNA is the encoding of digital information into discreet units of nucleotides and sequences or strings of 3 values long called codons.
c1. DNA utilized in all biological life was intelligently designed.

Well firstly I can simplify that for you...

1) Intelligent design is necessary in order to produce digital information
2) DNA is digital information
C) Therefore DNA is the product of intelligent design

I have heard such an argument. I would point out I think this is because all the others that have come before it have been be successfully refuted.

You know like I find a watch on the beach or I find a truck among the forest.

I haven't gone into much detail in this kind of ID argument but my first suspicion would be how it probably references human made information, code, digital information etc then transfers that to DNA and whether this equivalency should be granted.

That would require digging deeper into such concepts and hidden assumptions when confronted about such claims of digital information.

My other suspicion is that it might contain some appeal to ignorance/association fallacy like we see in the complexity arguments.

Look at car, car is complex, you can't explain how nature make such complex, ergo intelligent design.

Hey you saying it just happened by accident ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:37:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:28:52 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:10:27 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:53:16 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:43:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:36:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 8:20:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 4:40:26 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 7:48:51 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 12:56:19 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:54:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:44:35 PM, Fly wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?

Are you saying the iron used in the truck are NOT natural?

A dam is made from cut trees. We can look at the dam and conclude it was built by an intelligent agent. The agent we know from human experience is a Beaver. Do you say the beaver is natural and therefore the dam is a construction of nature?

Sounds silly. Scope is important. But I would say volition or willful intent or intelligent direction is the difference between "intelligently Designed" and "Natural".

Did the trees in the dam arrange themselves willfully? No. But did the beaver arrange them willfully? yes.

Nice dodge..............

" So... you are saying that "the woods" are, by way of comparison, NOT intelligently designed?"

yay or nay

No trees are not. What trees evolved from was designed.

I take it the design you speak of is one of intelligent design.

Says you..........

Do you actually have a rebuttal that can be logically addressed by us adults, or is nay saying more your speed.

Here is a video of the kind of conversation you prefer.



Okey here is my logical rebutall.

The mere assertion or hidden assumption of something being intelligently designed is not a sufficient justification for the intelligent design of that something.

How about you be adult enough to realize the whole trucks in the forest as an argument to work in predicated on that the natural worlds of those trees is not intelligently designed begin with and thus the comparison is made between the ID and the NON ID.

But this was pointed out to you before now wasn't it ? you knew it, that's why when you were ask about those tree's you dodged the questioned cause it f*cked up the whole argument.

When your analogy was shown inept for that and other reasons you didn't want to admit it.

So not only do we have that child like behaviors, we also have you posting baby videos ? oh that's very adult of you.

So let's see, you provide an inept analogy and accuse people of being child like while doing the same thing ?

Yourself.....................it needs work. But who doesn't eh ?

WTF do the trees have to do with anything. The subject is the truck. Does the truck show signs that it was crafted, manufactured, intelligently designed? YES.

I already pointed this out to you. You are taking something that is human made and therefore ID (the truck) and then making the comparison to the assumed non ID (the trees)

That's why it is an analogy. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Learn to reason. If I describe gravity as a rubber sheet, is a good a rebuttal that space doesn't smell like rubber. No it isn't a good rebuttal or even demonstrate you understand what aspects of the subject are being illustrated.


Then we infer that it was designed.

Life has many attributes that INFER the same thing, that life is designed.

Be more precise in your terms please. Alot of people will say that life is "designed" that is to say there are processes in place that result in an outcome.

It's just some humans get to gun happy and think well look at this outcome, it was the plan all along, it is the product of INTELLIGENT design.


Why don't you tell me what are some characteristics of design. If scientist found chunks of stone and veins of copper how would you discern them as being intelligently designed as opposed to natural?


Any explanation that doesn't conclude in life being intelligently designed then has to account for the attributes that infer it was.

Who is doing the inferring you ? The explanation you came to that conclusion on some error in reasoning.

You know like in argument form analogies about finding a human made thing (truck) among st the trees.


That simple.

Yes it is simple, people wrongly infer intelligent design of the natural world based on faulty reasoning.

Try this argument.

p1. The encoding of digital information into a medium is only by intelligent agency
p2. DNA is the encoding of digital information into discreet units of nucleotides and sequences or strings of 3 values long called codons.
c1. DNA utilized in all biological life was intelligently designed.

Well firstly I can simplify that for you...

1) Intelligent design is necessary in order to produce digital information
2) DNA is digital information
C) Therefore DNA is the product of intelligent design

I have heard such an argument. I would point out I think this is because all the others that have come before it have been be successfully refuted.


I think there are other successful arguments for intelligent design that have not been sufficiently refuted.

You know like I find a watch on the beach or I find a truck among the forest.


These examples are only to show an objective measure of when something is designed.

I haven't gone into much detail in this kind of ID argument but my first suspicion would be how it probably references human made information, code, digital information etc then transfers that to DNA and whether this equivalency should be granted.

That would require digging deeper into such concepts and hidden assumptions when confronted about such claims of digital information.

My other suspicion is that it might contain some appeal to ignorance/association fallacy like we see in the complexity arguments.

Do you have a rebuttal to the argument or not.

Look at car, car is complex, you can't explain how nature make such complex, ergo intelli
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 9:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have a rebuttal to the argument or not.

I can't rebutt when I don't know all those things that I said I would look out for.

If I was in a serious debate I would get the person to nail down what exactly they mean when they used such terms.

Without such a thing I could still ask the question, why can't digital information exist absent intelligent design ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 10:33:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 9:59:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have a rebuttal to the argument or not.

I can't rebutt when I don't know all those things that I said I would look out for.

So you already know what you want to find to refute ID. Referring to the atheist handbook for tactics instead of rational discernment. i understand.


If I was in a serious debate I would get the person to nail down what exactly they mean when they used such terms.

Awesome we can start with tactic #1 semantics. I've already outlined what constitutes digital information in another post http://www.debate.org...


Without such a thing I could still ask the question, why can't digital information exist absent intelligent design ?

Because digital information is a way of abstractly representing information. The laws of physics and chemistry are all prescriptive. Meaning the results are always necessary from the initial conditions. Anything produced by a chemical reaction will show a distribution of possible outcomes based on conditions.

The result follows the nature oft he elements.

But to abstractly represent something requires linguistics. Or rather encoding. Representing something symbolically as opposed to representing something analogously like a mold or template. (by template I am referring to like a die cast template). To represent something symbolically requires an intelligence to assign one set of structures as meaning another set of structures by definition, by handle, or to say by encoding.

Like the words we are using right now. "Listen" and "Silent" are composed of the same elements. same letters. We speak the language of English so we both can understand the difference between these 2 words. Reality does not dictate that "Silent" be the arrangement it is. the arrangement is better agreement between our minds on what definition this word has.

DNA has codons that abstractly represent a peptide. These 3 letter strings of nucleotides are not physically chemically determined to represent the certain peptide. There is nothing about the codon UGG that makes it chemically or physically HAVE TO represent Tryptophan.

In fact this codon is not just for peptides but also for actions. Start and stop.

WHAT chemical rules make AUG mean "start"? NONE

This representation is encoding the action or the peptide symbolically into the medium of nucleotides.

Such a abstract symbolic representation only occurs in digital information from intellectual minds.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:02:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 10:33:15 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:59:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/27/2015 9:37:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Do you have a rebuttal to the argument or not.

I can't rebutt when I don't know all those things that I said I would look out for.

So you already know what you want to find to refute ID. Referring to the atheist handbook for tactics instead of rational discernment. i understand.

Part of rational discernment is critical thinking skills that we would apply to ANY argument.

I gave you an idea where I think I would start when putting such an argument under scrutiny.

Atheist hand book ? wasn't the baby video enough.

Grow up kid :)



If I was in a serious debate I would get the person to nail down what exactly they mean when they used such terms.

Awesome we can start with tactic #1 semantics. I've already outlined what constitutes digital information in another post http://www.debate.org...

yes clarify terms is kind of important. If some one claims that X is a product of ID and that Y also is X or contains X and therefore ID, I might want to take a closer look there and see if they are being a bit loose in how they use such terms.



Without such a thing I could still ask the question, why can't digital information exist absent intelligent design ?

Because digital information is a way of abstractly representing information. The laws of physics and chemistry are all prescriptive. Meaning the results are always necessary from the initial conditions. Anything produced by a chemical reaction will show a distribution of possible outcomes based on conditions.

The result follows the nature oft he elements.

But to abstractly represent something requires linguistics. Or rather encoding. Representing something symbolically as opposed to representing something analogously like a mold or template. (by template I am referring to like a die cast template). To represent something symbolically requires an intelligence to assign one set of structures as meaning another set of structures by definition, by handle, or to say by encoding.

Like the words we are using right now. "Listen" and "Silent" are composed of the same elements. same letters. We speak the language of English so we both can understand the difference between these 2 words. Reality does not dictate that "Silent" be the arrangement it is. the arrangement is better agreement between our minds on what definition this word has.

DNA has codons that abstractly represent a peptide. These 3 letter strings of nucleotides are not physically chemically determined to represent the certain peptide. There is nothing about the codon UGG that makes it chemically or physically HAVE TO represent Tryptophan.

In fact this codon is not just for peptides but also for actions. Start and stop.

WHAT chemical rules make AUG mean "start"? NONE

This representation is encoding the action or the peptide symbolically into the medium of nucleotides.

Such a abstract symbolic representation only occurs in digital information from intellectual minds.

The rest I would have to read up on what is or what isn't digital information and your claims about what is found in DNA and if that is digital information, or even if it is is it the same type of digital information that we should infer is a product of ID.

It was once said that look at the complexity in nature, we should infer intelligent design from that. (Usually referring to human made complex things to make that link)

It was once said, okey complexity in the natural world doesn't infer ID but irreducibly complexity does. The justifications for IC where lacking.(Usually appeals to ignorance)

Now we hear, there is information, or code or digital information in the natural world and thus we can infer those things are being the product of ID.

You will have to excuse me and my fellow human beings if we decided to tread carefully and go over such arguments bit by bit.

We have being let down before.......
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?

Yes. I am also saying that my conclusion of the truck being designed does not have to say how or whom designed it. Which are the irrelevant contentions atheist here are having with ID.

Relevant contentions with ID should actually address the observations or the inferences made by ID.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2015 11:26:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 11:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?

Yes. I am also saying that my conclusion of the truck being designed does not have to say how or whom designed it. Which are the irrelevant contentions atheist here are having with ID.

Relevant contentions with ID should actually address the observations or the inferences made by ID.

"That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Aren't snow flakes complex? Do they have an intelligent designer?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 12:50:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/27/2015 11:26:21 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?

Yes. I am also saying that my conclusion of the truck being designed does not have to say how or whom designed it. Which are the irrelevant contentions atheist here are having with ID.

Relevant contentions with ID should actually address the observations or the inferences made by ID.

"That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Aren't snow flakes complex? Do they have an intelligent designer?

Why is a snowflake complex. It is a repeating pattern from the atomic level to the macro. A fractal repetition of the same arrangement dictated directly and necessarily by perturbation of physical and chemical laws. The complexity is in the order of symmetry it exhibits.

DNA is complex not just due to it's arrangement of dissimilar elements (4 different nucleotides) but that the arrangement is not necessary or HAS to follow from natural laws. The interactions of DNA with other vastly different molecules (peptides) is different than the self arranging of water molecules into ice.

How can you tell the difference between a random sting of numbers and one laid out by a pattern and one designed.

Well DNA is not random is it. Is it a pattern? No it is not because by reading a few lines you can't predict what the following codons will be, not without understanding the meaning of the instructions.

1, 4, 7, 10 ect.. see that is a pattern you can predict what follows. but DNA you can;t do that. Yet DNA is not random. It has structure akin to syntax it has defined terms in distinguishable units. making it not random, and not a pattern, leaving intelligently arranged.

Why don't you and the other atheist on this site try to understand the argument first. Try to understand what attributes, observations of life are being deemed evidence of complexity and/or evidence of information and how those observations and evidence are used to infer a designer.

So you think a snowflake is a good example of something that appears to be designed tell me why I should accept a snowflake as having the same attributes that infer a designer as I have been saying are present in DNA.

They aren't the same, it's rubbish to use a snowflake as a rebuttal to ID.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 12:50:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:26:21 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?

Yes. I am also saying that my conclusion of the truck being designed does not have to say how or whom designed it. Which are the irrelevant contentions atheist here are having with ID.

Relevant contentions with ID should actually address the observations or the inferences made by ID.

"That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Aren't snow flakes complex? Do they have an intelligent designer?

Why is a snowflake complex. It is a repeating pattern from the atomic level to the macro. A fractal repetition of the same arrangement dictated directly and necessarily by perturbation of physical and chemical laws. The complexity is in the order of symmetry it exhibits.

DNA is complex not just due to it's arrangement of dissimilar elements (4 different nucleotides) but that the arrangement is not necessary or HAS to follow from natural laws. The interactions of DNA with other vastly different molecules (peptides) is different than the self arranging of water molecules into ice.

How can you tell the difference between a random sting of numbers and one laid out by a pattern and one designed.

Well DNA is not random is it. Is it a pattern? No it is not because by reading a few lines you can't predict what the following codons will be, not without understanding the meaning of the instructions.

1, 4, 7, 10 ect.. see that is a pattern you can predict what follows. but DNA you can;t do that. Yet DNA is not random. It has structure akin to syntax it has defined terms in distinguishable units. making it not random, and not a pattern, leaving intelligently arranged.

Why don't you and the other atheist on this site try to understand the argument first. Try to understand what attributes, observations of life are being deemed evidence of complexity and/or evidence of information and how those observations and evidence are used to infer a designer.

I understand the argument. I'm just analyzing your position. I did not think that was a crime of any sort.

So you think a snowflake is a good example of something that appears to be designed tell me why I should accept a snowflake as having the same attributes that infer a designer as I have been saying are present in DNA.

They aren't the same, [comma splice*]it's rubbish to use a snowflake as a rebuttal to ID.

I really didn't think it was a rebuttal. I'm just analyzing your position. You said "So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Well, a snow flake went through a physical process.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 1:14:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 1:03:57 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/28/2015 12:50:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:26:21 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:18:17 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/27/2015 11:15:33 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 2/26/2015 5:22:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it.

I don't know if this intelligence was "Ford", "GM", "Honda", "Thor" or "Zues".

I also can't tell you what mechanisms or manufacturing process was used to build such a truck. I'm just not as smart as the designer of the truck in this respect.

I hope not knowing the maker specifically or the manufacturing mechanism used will not distract from knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that this truck was most certainly made by an intelligent designer.

So you are equating life to the truck?

Yes. I am also saying that my conclusion of the truck being designed does not have to say how or whom designed it. Which are the irrelevant contentions atheist here are having with ID.

Relevant contentions with ID should actually address the observations or the inferences made by ID.

"That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Aren't snow flakes complex? Do they have an intelligent designer?

Why is a snowflake complex. It is a repeating pattern from the atomic level to the macro. A fractal repetition of the same arrangement dictated directly and necessarily by perturbation of physical and chemical laws. The complexity is in the order of symmetry it exhibits.

DNA is complex not just due to it's arrangement of dissimilar elements (4 different nucleotides) but that the arrangement is not necessary or HAS to follow from natural laws. The interactions of DNA with other vastly different molecules (peptides) is different than the self arranging of water molecules into ice.

How can you tell the difference between a random sting of numbers and one laid out by a pattern and one designed.

Well DNA is not random is it. Is it a pattern? No it is not because by reading a few lines you can't predict what the following codons will be, not without understanding the meaning of the instructions.

1, 4, 7, 10 ect.. see that is a pattern you can predict what follows. but DNA you can;t do that. Yet DNA is not random. It has structure akin to syntax it has defined terms in distinguishable units. making it not random, and not a pattern, leaving intelligently arranged.

Why don't you and the other atheist on this site try to understand the argument first. Try to understand what attributes, observations of life are being deemed evidence of complexity and/or evidence of information and how those observations and evidence are used to infer a designer.

I understand the argument. I'm just analyzing your position. I did not think that was a crime of any sort.

So you think a snowflake is a good example of something that appears to be designed tell me why I should accept a snowflake as having the same attributes that infer a designer as I have been saying are present in DNA.

They aren't the same, [comma splice*]it's rubbish to use a snowflake as a rebuttal to ID.

I really didn't think it was a rebuttal. I'm just analyzing your position. You said "So I came across a rusted truck in the woods. It is clear to me that it was intelligently designed. That some mind directed chemical and physical processes to construct it."

Well, a snow flake went through a physical process.

And when a physical process is controlled by an intelligent agent what differences arise? so to speak what kind of tool-marks or indications can be discerned.

As i said the snowflake tho a physical process does not appear to be controlled by any intelligent agency because it's arrangement is directly derived from it's nature. Initial conditions resulting in a fractal repeating pattern.

not like DNA is it. And I gave you my reasoning. I don't see any response to the reasons I gave. So are you satisfied that DNA shows an attribute of design that is not present in fracking snowflakes.