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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 681-693 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your reply! Here's more hugs and a *smooch* just for you!

If you are interested in progress on the anthropic principle you might want to check out this website.

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.

In other words, are you saying that it requires no intelligence to formulate an algorithm, i.e. process, conditionals, symbolization and recursives --- that such an algorithm can arise from null?

261 posted on 03/09/2003 7:48:56 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; Rachumlakenschlaff; betty boop
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.

To me, this very paradox is a combination of two self-evident observations (or, one could say, conscious reflections) that are like a multiplication of factors leading one to believe in the Designer.

On the one hand, it is astounding how unfriendly the universe is, and on the other, it is (thankfully) amazing how hospitable Earth is. The one makes the other all the more wondrous by contrast.

262 posted on 03/09/2003 10:26:20 PM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you so much for your post!

The one makes the other all the more wondrous by contrast.

So true.

263 posted on 03/09/2003 10:37:04 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: All
Continuting to stand up for the right of those who haven't explored the furthest depths and extents of current hypotheses and speculations, to nevertheless think -- continuing to stand up for the oft forsaken art of synthesis instead of fixating upon endless analysis:

For another example of not only the burden of proof being upon the scientist, but also upon the theorist who conjectures the more improbable seeming construct: suppose someone really gets "out of his head," successfully unanthropic enough to come up with a thoroughgoing theory-set for a system of natural life that doesn't match up to any kind of life we've observed on Earth, and thus bring down the odds against life on some other planet (or something else). Wouldn't it remain that he has to either observe it, or somehow confirm it by experiment, in order to "make science" out of it. Then of course, how did it get here?

Bump for AG's & Rach's "ya don't just get complex order from crude disorder (to say nothing about uniformity, to say nothing about nothing)" observation via information theory.

(Meanwhile, of course, we have the functions of human empiricism, conceptualization, and imagination when dealing with the entirity of human experience, telling us much more than this about the Intelligent Designer.)

No one commented much on my lil' ol' examination of human imagination, after I happened to be able to show that it wasn't teleological. I suppose that it is much too anthropic. (But more so than finding a human skeleton or human DNA and relating it to other creatures?) But I suppose that it is still much too non-physical and subjective. (But even when it is subjective to say "I will only consider what is objective, regardless of having experienced things beyond my objective comprehension?") Can someone tell me how it would fit comfortably into a universally mindless evolutionary model, that evolution is biased to build in its latest stages a creature that is so preoccupied of mind, and... irrational? (I would say extra-rational.)

Can someone tell me why it fits the strictly naturalistic evolutionary model that such an imaginative life form as man seems to be an eventuality, when the creatures lower on the evolutionary pile survive and thrive so well, in part because they are so simple and uncluttered (with such things as mammallian diseases, behavioral disorders, and the ingenuity to create things that kill us)? Survival of the what, now?

But, why even ask these things, when there is no theory of origins that has been scientifically demonstrated?

264 posted on 03/09/2003 11:24:28 PM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Dataman; Diamond; Rachumlakenschlaff; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry; tacticalogic; ...
Remolding a phrase from the post above and others:

It is subjectivity (and distasteful and even impossible) to say "I will only hold to and make decisions based upon what is objective, regardless of constantly experiencing things beyond my objective comprehension." (One may even say, as bb has said that "comprehension" itself is definitively subjective.) Therefore, it is unnatural (impossible) for humans to regard and react only naturalistically.

That tells us something about the full nature of our "environment," as humans, just as we have teeth to chew food fit for us, and eyes to see what is around us by light, as any anthropologist, biologist (and evolutionist) would say. And human conceptualization goes far beyond what is critical for living beings to survive and thrive.

How about that way of saying it?

Blessings for your pastor's family and your local fellowship, Diamond.

tacticalogic, you might enjoy yourself in this thread.
265 posted on 03/10/2003 12:16:33 AM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
In other words, are you saying that it requires no intelligence to formulate an algorithm, i.e. process, conditionals, symbolization and recursives --- that such an algorithm can arise from null?

What I'm saying (what I literally had in mind) is this. Isaac Newton was able to describe the behavior of gravity with a very simple equation. His law is still good, for all but the most extreme situations. And it took a load of intelligence for him to do his work. But this says nothing about the origin of gravity. Just because it takes a Newton to understand the law doesn't mean it took a Newton -- or anyone -- to create the law.

266 posted on 03/10/2003 3:36:11 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: unspun
It is subjectivity (and distasteful and even impossible) to say "I will only hold to and make decisions based upon what is objective, regardless of constantly experiencing things beyond my objective comprehension." (One may even say, as bb has said that "comprehension" itself is definitively subjective.) Therefore, it is unnatural (impossible) for humans to regard and react only naturalistically.

I don't often get involved in creationism/evolution threads, but I do tend to rail about people being subjective in the application of poltical philosophy. You are correct that pure objectivity is impossible, particularly with regard to physical sciences, where our faculties and senses are limited to a narrow range of perception. Politics and government are rather different matters, being abstract constructs of our own making. Moreover, subjectively making inferences where there is observed data that is otherwise unexplainable is unavoidable. Doing it when observable data in direct conflict with those inferences is readily available is quite another, IMHO. Not being able to be completely objective in all things at all times does not mean we should not be as objective as possible when it is possible and appropriate.

267 posted on 03/10/2003 4:46:26 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Evolution is a bug -- disease (( talk // rhetoric )) that supercedes reality ... manmade hyper science (( bs )) !

Why study a hoax !


Main Entry: 1hoax
Pronunciation: 'hOks
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: probably contraction of hocus
Date: circa 1796
: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
synonym see DUPE
- hoax·er noun


268 posted on 03/10/2003 5:17:46 AM PST by f.Christian (( + God =Truth + love courage // LIBERTY logic + SANITY + Awakening + ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Would it be possible for you to reply with something respondant to what I posted, in English?
269 posted on 03/10/2003 5:53:46 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Diamond
Thank you for sharing your analysis, unspun! It is very curious indeed that human conceptualization goes far beyond what is critical for living beings to survive and thrive.

Diamond, I join in prayers for your pastor's family and all those who love him.

270 posted on 03/10/2003 6:28:17 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you so much for your post and explanation! Hugs!!!

I see an algorithm as considerably more than an equation. An equation describes a relationship whereas an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure. In addition to process (which could relate to an equation) - an algorithm can have conditionals, symbolizations and recursives.

To use a simpler example, if the inception of biological life requires autonomy, symbolization and finite state machine processes, then it is much more than a simple equation.

On a cosmic scale, I wonder if the changing balance between dark energy and dark mass (accelerating universe) also points to an autonomous finite state machine process; likewise, why there are but three generations of quarks and leptons and but three gauge forces.

271 posted on 03/10/2003 6:50:55 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
On a cosmic scale, I wonder if the changing balance between dark energy and dark mass (accelerating universe) also points to an autonomous finite state machine process; likewise, why there are but three generations of quarks and leptons and but three gauge forces.

I donno. Perhaps it's because there are three deities -- Ying, Yang, and Melvin. [That's a joke, A-Girl. I really can't answer your question. Hugs!]

272 posted on 03/10/2003 7:08:18 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thanks. There are many definitions of analysis and synthesis and of course they conflict. I've even seen one defintion for synthesis (philosophical) that is actually a definition for analysis. Sheesh.

I tend to believe that it is more important to play with synthesis, partly in order not to get too anal with one's analysis. 8-o

However, you are a force for both and always take your girlfriend Synth with you, when you shop for sundries.
273 posted on 03/10/2003 8:28:27 AM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

...not to mention raw materials, and of course, notions.
274 posted on 03/10/2003 8:33:07 AM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; unspun
Thank you, dear Christians for your words of encouragement. Rodney became a very dear friend to me in the several years, just as he had for so many others. We are really going to miss him.
recent Pastor Stortz updates (click on link at left)

Cordially,

275 posted on 03/10/2003 8:55:49 AM PST by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Thank you for your reply!

When I said ”changing balance between dark energy and dark mass (accelerating universe)” I should have mentioned that when the dark energy is greater the universe accelerates, when it is less, it decelerates and astronomy currently indicates a history of both (and perhaps several changes) – my question concerns the triggering mechanism for the change.

The three generations of quarks and leptons and three gauge forces question is similar. What was the triggering mechanism to stop at three?

I realize you can’t answer these questions. I can't either, but I am hopeful that we’ll learn more as FermiLab and CERN continue in their research.

My objective with the examples is to illustrate the type of algorithm I seek in my hypothesis (algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design) - i.e. more than a single step equation.

276 posted on 03/10/2003 8:59:07 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you so much for your post and for sharing your thoughts!

However, you are a force for both and always take your girlfriend Synth with you, when you shop for sundries.

LOL! Hugs!

277 posted on 03/10/2003 9:03:08 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Oops! Belated hugs and *smooch*!
278 posted on 03/10/2003 9:05:19 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Thanks, Diamond, blessings; my father was a pastor who died of cancer. ;-`
279 posted on 03/10/2003 9:07:44 AM PST by unspun (A well regulated Baseball Team being necessary, the right to swing bats shall not be impinged.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
What a beautiful tribute Rev. Chris Polski wrote for Pastor Stortz!

Indeed, for a Christian the event is a graduation - or perhaps, a homegoing.

Precious in the sight of the LORD [is] the death of his saints - Psalms 116:15 May God bless you and all those who were touched in this life by Pastor Stortz!

280 posted on 03/10/2003 9:11:34 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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