A simple case for intelligent design

[rational experiences]

Cold radiation!! Good one!!

Cold radiation? Fused God stone natural history without an atmosphere. Natural history of God in space.

Gases hot mass of gases from out of volcanic eruption history of O God the stone cooled in empty space...evolution....not cold radiation.

Science does not know how to tell any real truth about God O, in its owned cosmological natural history....and it was because a male as a human said he was God....yet you are not sitting out in empty space where that scientist belongs to learn his own lesson.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Cold radiation? Fused God stone natural history without an atmosphere. Natural history of God in space.

Gases hot mass of gases from out of volcanic eruption history of O God the stone cooled in empty space...evolution....not cold radiation.

Science does not know how to tell any real truth about God O, in its owned cosmological natural history....and it was because a male as a human said he was God....yet you are not sitting out in empty space where that scientist belongs to learn his own lesson.

Once more in english?

 

[rational experiences]

Once more in english?

Atmosphere not instant. Science says instant, reaction/conversion/transformation and destruction and then equals answer.

Atmosphere is evolution of hot gases from volcano in space.

O God the stone without an atmosphere cold radiation mass in space.

Heat up cold radiation, the cosmos by Sun to earth expands in heated irradiation, cold deeper space sucks Earth down further into its colder space as the Earth travels.

Cold radiation held fusion....not an instant reaction.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Atmosphere not instant. Science says instant, reaction/conversion/transformation and destruction and then equals answer.

Atmosphere is evolution of hot gases from volcano in space.

O God the stone without an atmosphere cold radiation mass in space.

Heat up cold radiation, the cosmos by Sun to earth expands in heated irradiation, cold deeper space sucks Earth down further into its colder space as the Earth travels.

Cold radiation held fusion....not an instant reaction.

One word:
nonsense

 

[rational experiences]

One word:
nonsense

You mean that God O the stone history sitting in its created history cold space owns no sense.

Obviously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One word:
nonsense

I should have warned you.

 

[rational experiences]

I should have warned you.

A male talks to a male in science and says as a scientist, you scientist are wrong.

Which is as a statement, in a spiritual context also meant to include self.

How many scientists when they tell another scientist that he is wrong, includes his own self?

Stephen Hawking is wrong. You can't explain the universe without God | Daily Mail Online

 

[Ayjaydee]

I should have warned you.

Kinda fun though. Man hating and god cheerleader all in one. A twofer!

 

[Ayjaydee]

You mean that God O the stone history sitting in its created history cold space owns no sense.

Obviously.

No I dont

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok for context this is 4

In this context I would define life an organic thing that can reproduce.

I would argue that any self replicating molecule would have many aminoacids, (say more than 100)

There are many ways and possible combinations in which one can organice aminoacids

ONLY 1 or few combinations would produce a self replicating protein.

There is not a bias in natural laws to produce that order.


I can't prove any of these statements with 100% certainty but they seem more likely to be true than wrong

If any of those statements is wrong then Dembskies argument would be wrong

I will only answer if you are willing to asert that atleast 1 statement is probably wrong and if you are willing to share the burden proof with me.

If you have specific and honest questions I will also answer to them

I don't care if you answer or not. I am not the one trying to support a claim of intelligent design. If it is not important to you to provide an argument, it sure has no importance to me to do it for you.

If you think Dembski is the bomb, then it is for you to demonstrate that. If all you do is claim it, lob your burden of proof and run, then your claims can be ignored and we can move forward without you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Kinda fun though. Man hating and god cheerleader all in one. A twofer!

I am not sure what is going on there. I stopped reading shortly after the first few posts, several threads in the past.

 

[leroy]

Nope. Wrong test. You want to test against things that are known *not* to be designed and see if any are mistakenly designated as designed. THAT is a false positive.

What you attempted to do is give a way of testing for false *negatives*.



In practice, you would need to look for false positives in situations that are close to the target (fair choice of population). In other words, you need a suitably randomized collection of test subjects, with known design or lack thereof, that are close enough to the target subject (first life) for the test to be well tested for things similar to the targe

I don't really get your point..

What one should do is apply the test to things that are known to be "non design." if some of these "non designed" pass the test then the test and the method would be falsified......... . I am pretty sure this is a false positive, but if used the incorrect word then I apologize for that.

And what, precisely was that hypothesis?

Well the hypothesis would be that the first living thing was a self replicating protein. (SRP)

Proteins are made out of aminoacids

1 we know that there are many possible arrangements of aminoacids, there are many ways in which amonacids can organice

2 We know that the mayority of possible arrangements would produce a non SRP

3 The only assumption that I am making (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) is that you would need many (say more than 100) aminoacids to firm a self replicating protein.

If you grant, point 1, 2 and 3 the the first living this or SRP would have the attribute of specified complexity

 

[leroy]

Then what are you doing here?

I am not doing your work for you. If you feel there is some point in Dembski that supports your view, then YOU need to make it. Otherwise it can be ignored.

I told you if you have any specific clear and unabigous point of disagreement feel free to share it and I will comment on it

 

[leroy]

Life IS chemistry. Complex chemistry, but chemistry nonetheless.
Chemistry demonstrably happens. The supernatural does not.

That, in and of itself, already makes chemistry a more likely candidate.

By that logic, we know that intelligent designers excist and that ID happens.

False equivalence.
Naturalism is not a specific claim.

Ok what would falsify the claim that life had a natural origin

Or even more specific, what would falsify your favorite abiogebesis hypothesis?

 

[leroy]

I don't care if you answer or not. I am not the one trying to support a claim of intelligent design. If it is not important to you to provide an argument, it sure has no importance to me to do it for you.

If you think Dembski is the bomb, then it is for you to demonstrate that. If all you do is claim it, lob your burden of proof and run, then your claims can be ignored and we can move forward without you.

I already explained a d supported the claim that life was designed.


If you disagree then please find a specific and unabigous point of disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't really get your point..

What one should do is apply the test to things that are known to be "non design." if some of these "non designed" pass the test then the test and the method would be falsified......... . I am pretty sure this is a false positive, but if used the incorrect word then I apologize for that.




Well the hypothesis would be that the first living thing was a self replicating protein. (SRP)

Proteins are made out of aminoacids

1 we know that there are many possible arrangements of aminoacids, there are many ways in which amonacids can organice

2 We know that the mayority of possible arrangements would produce a non SRP

3 The only assumption that I am making (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) is that you would need many (say more than 100) aminoacids to firm a self replicating protein.

If you grant, point 1, 2 and 3 the the first living this or SRP would have the attribute of specified complexity

You are not testing your claim properly. You are not testing it based on its own merits. Trying to get someone else to refute it with a poorly designed "test" is not how it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already explained a d supported the claim that life was designed.


If you disagree then please find a specific and unabigous point of disagreement.

the problem is that it really does not since all you have is hand waving and not a proper hypothesis.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't really get your point..

What one should do is apply the test to things that are known to be "non design." if some of these "non designed" pass the test then the test and the method would be falsified......... . I am pretty sure this is a false positive, but if used the incorrect word then I apologize for that.

That isn't what you had said previously. You gave the test for false negatives.

Well the hypothesis would be that the first living thing was a self replicating protein. (SRP)

Well, most people working in abiogenesis would suggest the first living thing was a self-replicating strand of RNA.

Proteins are made out of aminoacids

1 we know that there are many possible arrangements of aminoacids, there are many ways in which amonacids can organice

2 We know that the mayority of possible arrangements would produce a non SRP

3 The only assumption that I am making (which seems to be a reasonable assumption) is that you would need many (say more than 100) aminoacids to firm a self replicating protein.

If you grant, point 1, 2 and 3 the the first living this or SRP would have the attribute of specified complexity

For 3, we have self-replicating RNA strands smaller than that. Also, the number of RNA bases is far smaller than the number of amino acids, so that drastically changes the calculation.

Next, you seem to be ignoring that there was chemistry before that first living thing and much of that chemistry restricted the following life form. This drastically changes the probabilities also.

A simple 'how many rearrangements' calculation will give a very distorted picture in this scenario.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I already explained a d supported the claim that life was designed.


If you disagree then please find a specific and unabigous point of disagreement.

Since you refuse to elaborate on your claim and provide even a poor argument, your claim can be ignored.

 

[leroy]

If this stuff has a meaning, then I can use the Dembski filter to determine if it has CSI, and thus, was designed.

What if you don't know what the meaning is, or if you can't tell if there is a meaning?

If you don't know if the stuff has meaning, function etc. Then you can't apply the test.

Why is this so hard to understand?