How do you detect "design"?

[leroy]

One more question, that QR code does actually go somewhere, I wasn't sure that the dinosaur in the middle demonstrated a failure in generation.
So it is designed, but who designed it and how do you know?

I have no idea “WHO” designed it.

But we don’t need to know who/why/how the QR was made in order to conclude design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But apparantly a legal dispute over whether or not something can be reconciled with the law is your idea of proof against a position in science. A much more bizarre way of thinking than rationally explaining natural phenomena that may have an intelligence driven behind something such as the highly sophisticated processes in DNA for starts.

Dawkins admitting to intelligent design:

You linked to a known lying source.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is theoretically possible to measure the amount of CSI, but in a practical sence it is not possible in most of the cases…………..so what?


If it leads to a website the it is design if it doesn’t then we don’t know

My claim is that SC things are designed…………… this doesn’t mean that all design things are SC

The relevant issue is that

1 I suggested a method to detect design

2 I tested that method with your QR

And you far you haven’t disagreed ……………. You seem to agree that if the QR opens a website then it is designed.



Meassuring the amout of CSI would be grate………. But we cant, and it is not necessary to detect design.

. you still agree that QRs that open websites are designed……………even if we can´t measure the amount of CSI

The OP is "How do you detect design?"
And your answer is effectively If it is something I know is designed and it does something then I have detected design.
And yes, that is as stupid as it sounds.

 

[leroy]

The OP is "How do you detect design?"
And your answer is effectively If it is something I know is designed and it does something then I have detected design.
And yes, that is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes that is stupid, but that is not what I am saying and you know it

 

[Subduction Zone]

The OP is "How do you detect design?"

Oh that's easy. I usually check the tag on the collar.

 

[Pogo]

Yes that is stupid, but that is not what I am saying and you know it

No we don't know it and if you can't tell us we are not mind readers.
We have no idea what you are saying because sometimes you are trying to argue design is evidence of God and sometimes you are just arguing the triviality that design exists.

 

[leroy]

No we don't know it and if you can't tell us we are not mind readers.
We have no idea what you are saying because sometimes you are trying to argue design is evidence of God and sometimes you are just arguing the triviality that design exists.

Why dont you adress the actual claims that I have made.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But we don’t need to know who/why/how the QR was made in order to conclude design.

And why is that? Because it seems obvious to me that we can identify QR codes are designed because 1) we can observe the design process of QR codes and see that they are designed by humans, and 2) we know of no natural process that produces QR codes independent of human design.

Now, how do you do these two things for something that is a direct consequence of natural processes?

Let's say I present you with two objects - one of which is designed, the other is not. With no prior knowledge of the process that brought about their creation, or prior knowledge of what function or form these two objects have (we'll say they're virtually identical), how do you go about independently determining which of the two objects is designed and which is not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are basically declaring that all functions in nature have no purpose.

You are basically confusing "function" with "purpose"

No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.

We have evidence of function. We don't have evidence of purpose.
Do you have evidence of purpose? If so, I'ld love to hear it. And if you actually do, I'll gladly accept it.
My money is on you not having any though, because it would be bizar if such evidence actually exists while it not being common knowledge.
Nevertheless, I'm more then willing to listen to what you may think to have.

What exactly leads you away from purpose that it's not even considered?

The "no evidence" part.

Well, to be accurate.... It's not that there is something that leads me "away" from it. It's more correct to say that there is simply nothing that leads me "towards" it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all

This is so easily refuted, it's not even funny.
I can refute it with the most trivial of things.

A random sharp-ish rock that sticks out of a cliff.
A cat uses it to scratch itself in places it can't reach itself, by rubbing against it.

Boom. Function without purpose.

I'm atheist, but I cannot simply dismiss intelligence and purpose because of experts who assume the mundane causes every function. They dismiss it out of hand.

Why would they not dismiss things that are asserted without evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You send a QR

And I provided an objective method to tell weather if it is SC and therefore design) or not……..what else do you want?

Your "objective method" only works in retrospect, after we already know it was a designed QR....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The qualitative aspects of life can't be addressed by purely, physical means.

Why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With all due respect, ID has never inherently advocated a particular religious explanation.

What a joke.

You should google "discovery institute wedge document" and the term "cdesign proponentsists" and read up on this "theory".

Actually, don't google it. Use duck duck go instead. Google will serve you with links based on browsing history. Duck duck go will not.
You'll get more objective results.

Although it could be abused in such a way for an unintended purpose.

Ow believe you me, it is very very very much INTENDED. In fact, it is its entire raison d'être.

Read up on it instead of spreading preconceived notions about it.

Take your own advice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But apparantly a legal dispute over whether or not something can be reconciled with the law is your idea of proof against a position in science. A much more bizarre way of thinking than rationally explaining natural phenomena that may have an intelligence driven behind something such as the highly sophisticated processes in DNA for starts.

Dawkins admitting to intelligent design:

Ow great, the infamous heavily edited clip from the liars of "expelled", edited in such dishonest ways for the only purpose of making it look like Dawkins believes nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it leads to a website the it is design if it doesn’t then we don’t know

I know though.
It is designed, being a QR code, regardless of it leading anywhere.
If it doesn't lead anywhere, then it is a faulty or outdated QR. But still a QR. We know what QRs are.

Which goes back to my point: your "methodology" of CSI only works retrospectively after it is already known if the thing is designed or not.
And even then it does a poor job.

IOW: useless to detect design.

My claim is that SC things are designed…………… this doesn’t mean that all design things are SC

Just piling on on the uselessness then.

The relevant issue is that

1 I suggested a method to detect design

And it failed. Since it has to already been known to be designed first.

2 I tested that method with your QR

And you failed.

And you far you haven’t disagreed ……………. You seem to agree that if the QR opens a website then it is designed.

Because it's a QR and we know what QR's are. Regardless of them leading to any websites or not.
Not because of any "csi". But simply because we KNOW what QR's are.

Meassuring the amout of CSI would be grate………. But we cant, and it is not necessary to detect design.

More piling on in terms of uselessness.

. you still agree that QRs that open websites are designed

I also agree that QRs that don't open websites are designed.
Wheter or not they open websites is irrelevant.

……………even if we can´t measure the amount of CSI

You have yet to demonstrate that this supposed CSI is useful in any way, shape or form to determine / detect design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no idea “WHO” designed it.

But we don’t need to know who/why/how the QR was made in order to conclude design.

Because we know what QR's are.
And we know they are generated by an algoritm.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Before evolution we thought that modern life was SC , but new information came in, and we no longer think that life is SC.

Actually, this is off course not true. Because SC itself is modern bs.
But in any case, this is not a refutation of what I said.

What I said was that is thus a fundamentally useless concept which is based in an argument from ignorance.
The SC nonsense does not help us in detecting design. It only "works" once we already know it is designed.
And a priori, it merely acts on an argument from ignorance.

ie "we don't know how nature can produce this seemingly functional complex thing, so therefor we are going to assume that it didn't"

I find it baffling that you can't see that that is exactly what you are saying using different words.

Specifically science showed that life fails at point number 3 which is why life fails to have the attribute of SC.

Yes, and once again we only "know" this after the fact.
So as said, SC relies on ignorance and fails as a reliable design detector.

So the concept of SC is testable

No, it is not. Things are SC as long as people are ignorant about its actual source.
When Darwin came up with evolution, he wasn't "testing SC".

, something that *seems* could be shown not to be SC by future discoveries or vice versa,

this is a good thing,

No, it is a bad thing as it shows that SC is not a reliable design detector.

And the relevant thing is that SC still implies design

It does not. And I have just shown how it does not.

………. But future discoveries cold show that something is not really SC

And with "future discoveries" you mean, when we find actual answers which aren't rooted in fallacious arguments from ignorance.

You are essentially saying "SC works, except when it doesn't" and so far, you haven't been able to show us a SINGLE example where it was shown to be a reliable design detector where it wasn't just some post hoc bs.

You even as much as acknowledged yourself that we actually have to know its source for it to be reliable.
This makes it useless as a design detector.

I used the text example as tool to explain the concept of SC………..is this concept clear?

Yes it is clear. Clear that it is all about post hoc rationalization.
We don't need your silly SC concept to know the text is "designed", because we already know what text is, what forums are, what forum posts are, etc.

SC has exactly ZERO use here.

False, you don’t need to know if something was designed…………what I am saying is that we need to know if the object has those 3 points.

And to know if it in fact has those 3 points, one has to know if it was designed or not.

Pogo gave an example of a code that looks like a QR, my comment on that is that if that code opens a website or downloads a document I the code would be SC (because it would fulfill the 3 points) and I would conclude design---………….. Without prior knowledge if it was designed or not.

QR codes are designed. The prior knowledge is present. If it doesn't open a site, then it's still a QR code. Just a non-working one.

So do you realize that SC doesn’t mean nor presuposes design?

I realize that it only works if it is known that it is designed and that it is nothing more then an argument from ignorance if it is used to conclude design without it being already known that it is or is not designed. I showed this by pointing out that life had ALL the listed qualities of SC before Darwin.

"we don't know who natural processes can do this, therefor it can't".

But it could, couldn't it?
So again: unreliable as a design detector.

Show me an example where it successfully detected design without prior knowledge of design.

A million bucks says that you can't.

BTW
1 note how I quoted your words,

2 claimed clearly and unabigously that you are wrong

3 explained why are you wrong.


why can´t you do the same?.................why is it that all I have is handwaving from you?

I quote your literal words all the time, reality denier.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What are you talking about, I have no idea who the designer of the code is,

Seriously?
You don't know that QR codes are designed by algoritms that were created by humans?

Ok and what method do you suggest for detecting an “unknown designer”? that is and has always been my question…………….why are you evading the question?

Read the OP.

 

[Copernicus]

...Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all

This is so easily refuted, it's not even funny.
I can refute it with the most trivial of things.

A random sharp-ish rock that sticks out of a cliff.
A cat uses it to scratch itself in places it can't reach itself, by rubbing against it.

Boom. Function without purpose...

I think that your overall point to osgart is correct. The word "purpose" quite often implies intention of some kind, so "function" is a better word to use. However, the word "purpose" can be used as a synonym for "function" in everyday language when the function is construed as part of a system. For example, one can ask questions like "What is the purpose of the heart?" or "What is the purpose of the lungs?". One could just as easily use "function" in those questions, but people quite often use "function" and "purpose" interchangeably in such contexts. I raise this point, because I think that there may be some kind of equivocation going on with the word "purpose" on osgart's part, and you are trying to narrow down the usage of the noun "purpose" to make the point of contention clearer.

Evolution has no direction or purpose, but it creates biological systems in which functioning components of a system serve to make the system work. That gives them a kind of "purpose" from the perspective of the overall system, just as the heart and lungs have a purpose from the perspective of a body's systemic function. That doesn't mean that they were intentionally designed components of the body, just that they preserve the functional integrity of the system.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that your overall point to osgart is correct. The word "purpose" quite often implies intention of some kind, so "function" is a better word to use. However, the word "purpose" can be used as a synonym for "function" in everyday language when the function is construed as part of a system. For example, one can ask questions like "What is the purpose of the heart?" or "What is the purpose of the lungs?". One could just as easily use "function" in those questions, but people quite often use "function" and "purpose" interchangeably in such contexts.

Yes. And it is technically wrong to do so. In general, people are smart enough to understand what is being meant. But in conversations like this, it's important to be accurate, because the "other side" will try this "sleight of hand" type thing and abuse it.

It's like asking the "why" question when one really means "how".

I raise this point, because I think that there may be some kind of equivocation going on with the word "purpose" on osgart's part, and you are trying to narrow down the usage of the noun "purpose" to make the point of contention clearer.

I'm just insisting on accuracy to avoid additional unwarranted baggage being drawn into it.

Evolution has no direction or purpose, but it creates biological systems in which functioning components of a system serve to make the system work. That gives them a kind of "purpose" from the perspective of the overall system, just as the heart and lungs have a purpose from the perspective of a body's systemic function. That doesn't mean that they were intentionally designed components of the body, just that they preserve the functional integrity of the system.

Sure, but again, in context such as this forum, I think it's important to avoid that double usage.