quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Sorry for the big words - I am simply saying that based on the list of pretend mechanisms for the origin of life proposed by materialists, a miracl would be no worse an alternative.

quote:

ID is concerned with causes - of which three are known. The cause with which ID concerns itself is the inteligence that derives from a mind, there are a variety of mechanisms possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Not nessararily. Let's say I slightly tinkered with the genetic code of some bacterium or udder and then released it into the wild. If a scientist came across the bug in the wild he would have no ability to know it was engineered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow

But I am a loss to suggest tell-tale signs of ID other than what Dembski has already proposed: specified complexity.

quote:

But do ID guys have to produce the mechanisms used by the designer? Nah.

quote:

Behe is a good example. He is looking at experiments already conducted by nature to see how well EB has performed. Malaria is his primary example and he claims it is the "Michelson-Morley" experiment that demonstrates the limits of the Darwinian mechanism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
How is SC practically applied? Let's say we were looking a particular DNA sequence. We are trying to determine whether there is warrant to claim comes as a result of random mutation (chance) or design. This is akin, I spose, to any coin tossing example. It wouldn't be enuff to just look at the probability of each of the componensts in the sequence to turn up the way they do and find them highly improbable. This sequence has to have something called "low specificational complexity" (confusing terminology). Here Dembski gets into his MDL-Kolmogorov complexity. The gist I get out of it is that the pattern must be simple. That probbly is too simplistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

hello ferd,

Do you see, tho, how I am arguing that being able to "specify" a complex pattern, i.e.: describe it in terms shorter than a parallel representation of the pattern or array itself, seems to contradict the notion of it being complex, per Kolmogorov's definition?

quote:

How does one ahead of time choose where a DNA sequence must evolve to? That makes zero sense. Given the fact that there are millions of species and billions of individual organisms in each species it would seem that biology is not specified.

quote:

They are not pretend mechanisms. They are mechanisms that are being researched. Only an IDist would prefer a miracle over research.

quote:

Given the finite history of our Universe there had to be a mind that came about without help from another intelligence. Why couldn't Earth be that place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
You know, I have to admit I am getting a bit tired of your regular dishionesty about ID. If you have logic to apply, great, but ID never proffers 'a miracle' as a mechnism, nor does it suppose this is requirement.

quote:

And what is there about the earth that causes you to think it is especially capable of producing minds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow

Method,

Re human genetic engineering, if you were going to mimic nature's tinkering, how would you go about it so as to avoid detection? Possible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
You know, I have to admit I am getting a bit tired of your regular dishionesty about ID. If you have logic to apply, great, but ID never proffers 'a miracle' as a mechnism, nor does it suppose this is requirement. If you have the intellectual capacity to criticize the theory, great; if all you have is strawmen gleaned from parroting skeptic sites, then save your what little mental energy you have to expend because it isn't worth anyone's time.

quote:

A supernatural deity poofing an organism into being is a what? Miracle?

Which side is criticizing the other for not including supernatural mechanisms?

Which sides is criticizing the other for focusing on "material" and "natural" mechanisms? Would this mean that ID focuses on immaterial and supernatural mechanisms? Sure would seem that way.

If you have the intellectual capacity to criticize the theory, great; if all you have is strawmen gleaned from parroting skeptic sites, then save your what little mental energy you have to expend because it isn't worth anyone's time.

quote:

The fossil record which shows an incremental increase in brain size among hominids.

quote:

You know I was going to write a post very similar to this directed at you in regards to evolution and abiogenesis research, but decided not to bother. Descriptions like "Fairy tales" and "grasping at straws" treat abiogenesis with complete intellectual dishonesty (even poverty), especially given the advancements the field has seen over the years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow

Hello hello,

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

hello ferd,

Do you see, tho, how I am arguing that being able to "specify" a complex pattern, i.e.: describe it in terms shorter than a parallel representation of the pattern or array itself, seems to contradict the notion of it being complex, per Kolmogorov's definition?

Yes. I am mightily confused by this.

But apparently Dembski's specified complexity requires low "specificational complexity" (low Kolmogorov complexity). IOW, the lower the descriptive compexity, the better.


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ("X H's in a row)

is simpler than

HHTTTTHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTHTHTTTTTTTHH

which is a more random (complex) sequence and takes more resources to describe ("2 heads, then 3 tails, etc.)

quote:


I suspect the answer is in his discussion on Fisherian statistics where one has to specify in advance probability levels for rejection of the hypothesis.

quote:

Try again – one citation of a noted IDist (Behe, Meyers, Gonzales, Dembski) invoking a miracle as a means of life’s development. Put up, or shut up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Try again – one citation of a noted IDist (Behe, Meyers, Gonzales, Dembski) invoking a miracle as a means of life’s development. Put up, or shut up.

quote:

And how did ‘the earth’ invoke this change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
There is no 'advancement', only wild suggestions, which proliferate exactly at the rate of certain scientists to imagine them. Unlike Method or yourself, I actually cited specifically how wide and varied these undemonstrated speculations are.

quote:

You try. Give me one citation of a noted IDist discussing the specific mechanisms of ID. Show me how they rule out miracles.

We all know what the real mechanisms are. Magic. Why else would you decry the lack of magic in science? Why else would you complain that supernatural miracles are excluded from science? Why else would you complain that the supernatural is not allowed to be invoked in science? Your complaints against science have only proved me right.

quote:

Undemonstrated speculations? Sure, I'll go along with that. The point is this. They are doing research. IDers are not. ID does not produce questions, it only pretends to have the answers. This leads to a position where they can only bad mouth the work of real scientists in hopes that no one will notice the absence of research in ID.

Again, this thread is about ID and whether or not it is science. When IDers are backed into a corner their only response is "evolution can't do it". That is not how a scientific theory works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Undemonstrated speculations? Sure, I'll go along with that. The point is this. They are doing research. IDers are not. ID does not produce questions, it only pretends to have the answers. This leads to a position where they can only bad mouth the work of real scientists in hopes that no one will notice the absence of research in ID.

Again, this thread is about ID and whether or not it is science. When IDers are backed into a corner their only response is "evolution can't do it". That is not how a scientific theory works.

No, they aren't doing research, they are simply publicizing untestable and unfalsifiable, speculations.

quote:


If you want to pretend that is 'research' then be my guest - but don't try to tell us this is 'real science' because it has nothing to do with science.