How do you detect "design"?

[Subduction Zone]

You are basically declaring that all functions in nature have no purpose. No amount of evidence would convince you otherwise.

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

No, I am not. I am stating the obvious. We know that they are functions. We do not get to assume that they have a purpose from an intelligent designer. There does not appear to be any evidence for any such designer. If anything, if there is a designer there is more support for an incompetent one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it doesn't. I don't see an ideally designed nature. You assumed I did all on your own. I'm not going to argue extremes with anyone.

Naturalism assumes the mundane causes function. Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all. It doesn't get off the ground.

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.

No naturalism does not assume that. Why are you accusing others of your acts?

 

[McBell]

And once again there are many actual scientists that are open to the idea or even advocate it.

List some

Intelligent design actually has nothing to do with religion though if you have ever read about it which I can tell you haven't. If circular reasoning is your argument you have none. Just because you are prejudice towards an idea doesn't mean the idea is invalid.

Ah, the "only reason you disagree is because you do not understand it" claim.
Sad that you think this is an honest claim.

But you think somehow a court of law presiding over a public school matter which is not a scienctific discipline disproved Intelligent Design Theory to you then I would love for you to present that proof to me. And no, the proof isn't because they feared there may be a religious implication in it.

Already presented.
Interesting that you did not read the link already provided.
If you had, you would not be making yourself look bad with the above post.

 

[leroy]

This is just gibberish, Dembski would throw you out of the class.

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?

 

[leroy]

No it doesn't. I don't see an ideally designed nature. You assumed I did all on your own. I'm not going to argue extremes with anyone.

Naturalism assumes the mundane causes function. Under naturalism we can't expect any thriving function at all. It doesn't get off the ground.

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.

would you explain that with more detail ? (honest question)

 

[osgart]

would you explain that with more detail ? (honest question)

Naturalism assumes there is nothing uniquely special about life on earth. Life is a particular arrangement of physical causes that give rise to conscious intelligence. We are nothing more than chemistry. Naturalism is never questioned by the naturalist. Everything is a result of mindless laws of nature. They see nothing special about the functionality of living organisms. We are a byproduct of chemical reactions. Every reality is understandable by physical processes. It's hard set into their thinking that science will solve every meaningful existential question.

 

[leroy]

Naturalism assumes there is nothing uniquely special about life on earth. Life is a particular arrangement of physical causes that give rise to conscious intelligence. We are nothing more than chemistry. Naturalism is never questioned by the naturalist. Everything is a result of mindless laws of nature. They see nothing special about the functionality of living organisms. We are a byproduct of chemical reactions. Every reality is understandable by physical processes. It's hard set into their thinking that science will solve every meaningful existential question.

And as an atheist you don’t see a problem with that?

(I think you are an atheist, if I am wrong, I apologize)

 

[osgart]

And as an atheist you don’t see a problem with that?

(I think you are an atheist, if I am wrong, I apologize)

I'm atheist, but not naturalist. The life manifest in the world is far from perfect, and has no ideal design. But I would be foolish to think that it doesn't exhibit intelligence or some kinds of purposes. It's more of trial and error than design. The qualitative aspects of life can't be addressed by purely, physical means.

 

[Pogo]

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?

The question was could you determine the relative differences in CSI of the original two images. The whole QR thing was a red herring I just created a QR that refers back to the images that you couldn't CSI for which were in fact the same image and so should have had the same CSI.
Thus proving that you have no idea how to calculate CSI. As no-one else does either, it is a useless concept.

 

[Comradio251]

List some

Ah, the "only reason you disagree is because you do not understand it" claim.
Sad that you think this is an honest claim.

Already presented.
Interesting that you did not read the link already provided.
If you had, you would not be making yourself look bad with the above post.

Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer to name a couple? Even Dawkins doesn't dismiss it? I guess they're not scientists with years of experience 'sarcasm.'

Read my last sentence in your third quote. That's why they decided to reject it. But this has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being a false theory in science but has everything to do with legal reasons and the opinion of whether or not it violates the secular position of the 1st amendment of the U.S constitution with regards to separation of church and state. You're misconstruing your argument on law and not science in this case. Your argument is fallacious.

With all due respect, ID has never inherently advocated a particular religious explanation. Although it could be abused in such a way for an unintended purpose. Read up on it instead of spreading preconceived notions about it.

Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion

 

[Pogo]

Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer to name a couple? Even Dawkins doesn't dismiss it? I guess they're not scientists with years of experience 'sarcasm.'

Read my last sentence in your third quote. That's why they decided to reject it. But this has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being a false theory in science but has everything to do with legal reasons and the opinion of whether or not it violates the secular position of the 1st amendment of the U.S constitution with regards to separation of church and state. You're misconstruing your argument on law and not science in this case. Your argument is fallacious.

With all due respect, ID has never inherently advocated a particular religious explanation. Although it could be abused in such a way for an unintended purpose. Read up on it instead of spreading preconceived notions about it.

Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion

Amazingly the idea center website is still up without the way back machine,
The newest article seems to be dated 2016, The idea center club list hasn't been updated since 2009 and the first four articles I found were by Casey Luskin aka the Gerbil and dated in the early 2000s.

 

[McBell]

Hugh Ross, Stephen Meyer to name a couple? Even Dawkins doesn't dismiss it? I guess they're not scientists with years of experience 'sarcasm.'

Read my last sentence in your third quote. That's why they decided to reject it. But this has nothing to do with Intelligent Design being a false theory in science but has everything to do with legal reasons and the opinion of whether or not it violates the secular position of the 1st amendment of the U.S constitution with regards to separation of church and state. You're misconstruing your argument on law and not science in this case. Your argument is fallacious.

With all due respect, ID has never inherently advocated a particular religious explanation. Although it could be abused in such a way for an unintended purpose. Read up on it instead of spreading preconceived notions about it.

Intelligent Design Theory, and the Relationship between Science and Religion

Intelligent design is not science.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion#:~:text=Intelligent%20design%20is%20not%20a,claim%2C%20too%2C%20misrepresents%20science.

 

[Comradio251]

Intelligent design is not science.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion#:~:text=Intelligent%20design%20is%20not%20a,claim%2C%20too%2C%20misrepresents%20science.

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:

 

[Pogo]

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:

If it was science, it would have produced actual peer reviewed work, but ID couldn't even produce enough material to fill it's own dedicated journal when it reviewed its own material.
ID is creationism in a lab coat and they don't even have the lab any more since Green Screen Annie moved on.

 

[McBell]

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:

Expelled?
Seriously, that is the best you got?

Intelligent design is not science.
And all you have presented to 'refute' it is Liars for Jesus...

 

[Copernicus]

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:

Did you actually watch your own video? Ben Stein basically asked Dawkins to speculate about how intelligent design might have led to life on Earth, and Dawkins speculated about the possibility of an alien race seeding life on this planet. His point was that this still did not support the theistic concept of ID, because it still left open the question of who created the first intelligent alien race(s). So the answer to the ID crowd is that we do understand the type of process that created life without ID intervention, even if it turned out that some race of intelligent aliens had created us. And, ultimately, it still leaves open the question of who designed "God". If nobody designed God, where did he come from? If he is allowed to have just always existed, then that undercuts the idea that life itself had to have been intelligently designed. Dawkins very definitely did not endorse ID. He pointed out why ID makes no sense at all, because the existence of a creator deity would undercut the argument that its own existence was needed to start off the whole process of ID.

It might well be that someday the human race seeds the moons of Jupiter and Saturn with self-replicating molecules in order to jump start evolution in those locations, but that would not create a need for us to stick around to guide evolution to ultimately create intelligent life. Intelligent life emerges from the evolution of animals that compete with each other for survival in specific environmental niches.

 

[leroy]

The question was could you determine the relative differences in CSI of the original two images. The whole QR thing was a red herring I just created a QR that refers back to the images that you couldn't CSI for which were in fact the same image and so should have had the same CSI.
Thus proving that you have no idea how to calculate CSI. As no-one else does either, it is a useless concept.

Nope you are the one who is making a red herring fallacy….

No I can´t measure the amout of CSI…………. But I never claimed I could and none of my arguments depend on me doing that.

The relevant points is

I told you what would convince me that the QR is designed- (unlike you I answer questions clearly and unambiguously without hand waving)

 

[Pogo]

Nope you are the one who is making a red herring fallacy….

No, I threw you a red herring and you chased and caught it.
It was there to make the point that there is that which is humanly designed which we understand and Dembski's and your claim that design can be determined by measuring CSI.

No I can´t measure the amout of CSI…………. But I never claimed I could and none of my arguments depend on me doing that.

Thank you, and in point of fact, neither can anybody else which is why it is a useless concept. which was the point of this discussion

The relevant points is

I told you what would convince me that the QR is designed- (unlike you I answer questions clearly and unambiguously without hand waving)

I don't care what convinces you that a QR code is designed besides if it doesn't lead to a website, is that evidence that it was not designed?
Careful with your answer.
The relevant point which you have granted is that CSI is irrelevant to any discussion of design.

 

[Pogo]

Nope you are the one who is making a red herring fallacy….

No I can´t measure the amout of CSI…………. But I never claimed I could and none of my arguments depend on me doing that.

The relevant points is

I told you what would convince me that the QR is designed- (unlike you I answer questions clearly and unambiguously without hand waving)

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?

 

[leroy]

No, I threw you a red herring and you chased and caught it.
It was there to make the point that there is that which is humanly designed which we understand and Dembski's and your claim that design can be determined by measuring CSI.

Thank you, and in point of fact, neither can anybody else which is why it is a useless concept. which was the point of this discussion

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?

I don't care what convinces you that a QR code is designed besides if it doesn't lead to a website, is that evidence that it was not designed?
Careful with your answer.

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.

The relevant point which you have granted is that CSI is irrelevant to any discussion of design.

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