Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Design Inference Game
03/03/03 | Moi

Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re

I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)

If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dembski; designinference; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 681-693 next last
To: unspun
Thank you so much for your post!

Do people have more than one way of consider things?

I do.

Are certain ways of considering relevant to information that is of the realms with which they naturally deal?

For me, some issues are moot to spiritual consideration, e.g. whether to part my hair today or not.

IMHO anything of substance, or anything that could touch upon another being, can and should be considered in every context. For instance, before responding to someone: Is the response truthful and complete? Will the statement do harm to this person or anyone else? Is it considerate of all persons who may be affected?

241 posted on 03/08/2003 8:21:29 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; js1138
p.s.: Maybe I can shed some further light. I mentioned the idea of a natural hierarchy. To give you an example: By far, B. of the above description is by far more real and valid to me than any theory, doctrine, or hypothesis. He is also more real in the direct effects he has on the world within the range of his purview, which he can (and does) shape by means of his sovereign choice, every day. No "mere" doctrine or dogma or theory or opinion can do that, all by itself.

On second thought, maybe this line of thinking isn't helpful to you at all. Wish I could do better.

242 posted on 03/08/2003 8:30:56 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
the third as Voice -- the reason why the other two foregoing problems have significance in the first place.

Please 'splain. I don't find a definition of word "voice" that pairs up with a definition or application of the word "reason," here.

Of course I can tend to misplace things.

243 posted on 03/08/2003 10:23:44 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
I do.

Yes, well... and some people are prime examples of both consideraton and considerateness....

244 posted on 03/08/2003 10:44:34 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you for your reply! Hugs!
245 posted on 03/09/2003 7:04:13 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: All
Placemarker to show off my new tagline.
246 posted on 03/09/2003 8:35:59 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Universe is made for life = Designer. Life can't possibly arise = Designer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And what a fine placemarking tagline it is.
247 posted on 03/09/2003 9:24:49 AM PST by Condorman ("Evolution: The fossils say No!" - Gish "Gish is an idiot." - Fossils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Er, with regard to your new tagline:

Universe is made for life = Designer. Life can't possibly arise = Designer.

If it is your intention to imply that the two statements are mutually exclusive, I must disagree.

For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.

248 posted on 03/09/2003 12:10:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Me:
Universe is made for life = Designer. Life can't possibly arise = Designer.

You:
If it is your intention to imply that the two statements are mutually exclusive, I must disagree. For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.

What, no hugs? Ah well. My tagline points out (too briefly) that some ID advocates use the remarkable congeniality of the universe as evidence that a Design is at work. At the same time, other ID advocates point to what they claim are the incredibly high odds against the appearance of life to indicate that a Design is at work. Your "cake ingredients in the kitchen" analogy is good, but it doesn't really undercut the "heads ID wins, tails ID wins" of congeniality to life and improbability of life as both leading to the ID conclusion.

[Unrequited hug.]

249 posted on 03/09/2003 12:29:43 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Universe is made for life = Designer. Life can't possibly arise = Designer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you for your reply! I hang my head in shame for failing to give you the HUG, so I repent and offer: Hugs*2 plus *smooch*!

It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design. To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."

As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.

Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design.

But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?

250 posted on 03/09/2003 12:51:31 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Hugs and smooch accepted, and reciprocated.

It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design.

And you don't see even a teeny-weeny bit of irony there?

To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."

I don't need to do either. The ID advocates need to do the proving. However, in fairness, I should point out that there may be something to the anthropic principle. It's interesting and it definitely needs to be studied.

As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.

I donno about that. Whatever principles were in play at the start of the universe could be described, after we figure them out. The search for a Grand Unified Theory is a search for something like what you are looking for. But merely because the initial relationships could be described, and put into equation form, wouldn't prove that someOne (or someThing) wrote that equation ab initio.

Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design. But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?

That wasn't my point, but I agree with it.

251 posted on 03/09/2003 1:14:50 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Universe is made for life = Designer. Life can't possibly arise = Designer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Please 'splain. I don't find a definition of word "voice" that pairs up with a definition or application of the word "reason," here.

"Voice" really doesn't line up with "reason" in the sense I gather you suggest here. What "Voice" is, is B. speaking his musical conception via the mechanical construct of the physical horn, interpreted by the listener to whom he appeals as a meaningful experience of some kind.

252 posted on 03/09/2003 2:42:00 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you. And thank you for your personal testimony regarding multiple layers of conscious (and unconscious, yet available to be contemplated?) considerations of self within an autobiographical context ;-` anecdotal, yet empirical, one may say.
253 posted on 03/09/2003 3:41:05 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; general_re; beckett; cornelis; Dataman; Diamond; KC Burke; Phaedrus; ...
I take the liberty of interrupting this thread on "The Design Inference Game" (with parasitical metaphysical running commentary) in order to announce that:

Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the origin of betty boop... in FreeRepublic.com!

boop boop-ey doop! 

Shsh!

254 posted on 03/09/2003 4:45:08 PM PST by unspun (The most terrorized place in America is a mother's womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
ab initio placemarker
255 posted on 03/09/2003 5:04:31 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Ex nihilo placemarker.
256 posted on 03/09/2003 5:54:17 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Sorry for the slow response. My pastor died this afternoon at 1;30 after battling cancer for over 3 years. It's a large church, and amidst our grief and joyful worship, I've got some work to do for the church on sound in the next couple of days. Please be patient.

That large mound of bits and pieces of earth held together by adhesive can only be the result of design. If you need the rationale I will attempt to give it tomorrow am. Thanks for your patience.

Cordially,

257 posted on 03/09/2003 7:00:17 PM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Diamond; general_re
Updated links:

Test object 1. Diamond's answer in post 7.
Test object 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62.
Test object 3. Answer at post 111 and 124.
Test object 4. Answer at 166 and 174.
Test object 5. Answer at 181.
Test object 6. Answer at 257.

258 posted on 03/09/2003 7:18:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: unspun; betty boop
Congratulations, betty boop! It's simply been a great treat to have you around here for so long!:^) Thanks so much for all the good conversation and insights. I think we're all better off because of you.

Cordially,

259 posted on 03/09/2003 7:21:04 PM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; unspun
Happy anniversary, betty boop! Hugs!

Thanks for the heads up, unspun!

260 posted on 03/09/2003 7:37:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 681-693 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson