Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio
Well, you can't say "without a doubt", but you can say that there's strong evidence for the claim.

Yes I can say "without a doubt". You are using a device right now which is the result of intelligent design. That is a provable fact. Intelligent Design is something that is possible and exists in the Universe. Simple FACT. You're assuming that living things have an inherent purpose.

I'm not assuming anything. There are countless "mechanisms" on living creatures which have a provable purpose. Again, you are using such "purposeful" mechanisms right this very instant. Your EYES. They are highly complex, and have a PURPOSE and FUNCTION. They are not simply complex structures that occured by random events and are just THERE. They have a FUNCTION and a PURPOSE.

Show me one thing in the Universe, which has a provable FUNCTION and PURPOSE, which can be proven to be the result of random events.

379 posted on 01/03/2006 9:00:16 PM PST by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: GSHastings
Show me one thing in the Universe, which has a provable FUNCTION and PURPOSE, which can be proven to be the result of random events.

"function" and "purpose" are purely subjective -- there exists no context-free metric of such things. As such, they are meaningless metrics. Evolutionary theory suggests that genetic features follow a cost/benefit analysis; those genetic features where the cost of implementation is exceeded by the benefit are passed on in most cases. To put it another way, it is a trivial exercise to find a "purpose" and "function" for ANY pattern/feature you can come up with. This transform is trivially provable in mathematics; it requires only the application of elementary theorems.

The fact remains: there is no objective metric for design.
The fact remains: one can prove in mathematics that one cannot prove the nature of the origins of any observed pattern. There exists a multitude of dumb mechanistic processes that can generate all possible outcomes. Provably.

That does not mean that ID didn't happen. What it means is that (1) nothing in the universe is meaningful evidence of "design" in the abstract absent independent direct evidence of a designer, and (2) "design" is ipso facto a weaker hypothesis than those that do not hypothesize a designer, per the formal versions of Kolmogorov's Razor.

As a more general observation, not specific to the post I am replying to, the downfall of American's will ultimately be that they are BLOODY RETARDED when it comes to even basic mathematics. I have seen more posts on this forum that should have been trivially falsifiable by a chimp than I ever thought possible. The bravado of those willing to display their ignorance of mathematics is equally stunning.

When pride in ignorance is a common feature of a culture, it is a sure sign of inevitable demise. Honestly, I do not know why I waste my time pointing out obvious mathematical flaws in ignorant arguments day after day, year after year.

Perhaps I should stop wasting my time here and focus more time on the research and ingenuity that made this country great. Americans were never great because they were ignorant jackasses. Feh.

380 posted on 01/03/2006 11:13:02 PM PST by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies ]

To: GSHastings
Yes I can say "without a doubt".

Not in science.

You are using a device right now which is the result of intelligent design. That is a provable fact.

Prove without doubt that my computer was created through intelligent design. I believe that there is very, very strong evidence that my computer came about through such a process, but I don't claim to be able to prove without doubt.

Of course, that's more or less irrelevant because my computer is not capable of imperfect self-replication, nor does it seem to be the direct offspring of anything that is capable of imperfect self-replication. It's a poor analogy.

I'm not assuming anything.

Yes, you are.

There are countless "mechanisms" on living creatures which have a provable purpose.

Purpose implies that they came about as a result of deliberate design. You're assuming your conclusion.

Again, you are using such "purposeful" mechanisms right this very instant. Your EYES. They are highly complex, and have a PURPOSE and FUNCTION.

You have yet to demonstrate that my eyes came about through any deliberate "purpose". They may be "functional" for how I use them, but you've not shown that they are the result of deliberate "purpose".

They are not simply complex structures that occured by random events and are just THERE.

Again, you are stating an undemonstrated conclusion as fact.

Show me one thing in the Universe, which has a provable FUNCTION and PURPOSE, which can be proven to be the result of random events.

That's an oxymoron, because purpose implies deliberate intent. The problem is that you've yet to demonstrate deliberate intent. You're using a loaded term, but you've failed to justify using it.
381 posted on 01/03/2006 11:23:05 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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