Welcome to PatsFans.com

Wistahpatsfan

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by CPF, Dec 22, 2005.

  1. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I found this response I made to you and was wondering if you would like to continue this discussion? I hope you and your family are well this Christmas season.

    Hey whistah, I have finally found time to offer you a response, thanks for your patience.

    I am saying that DNA is a system containing Complex Specified Information and therefore could not have “evolved†via the mechanism given us in the ToE. The ToE in no way allows for the “guidance of a force external of the natural system†so that is completely out as an option as well.

    I don’t know that the question of DNA is essentially the “essence of the argument†but it is rather difficult for the ToE to explain it’s origin, or “evolutionâ€, if you will. I don’t think you can have this kind of argument without one’s philosophical viewpoint coming into play. In my opinion worldview drives an individuals motives far more than we would sometimes like to admit. Stalemate?…I don’t know, I think each side offers evidence to support it’s viewpoint and then each piece of evidence is reviewed and rebutted. In the end it is up to the individual to decide which “evidence†is better and therefore more likely to be accurate.

    Oh no I didn’t say that, those are the words of the famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, and I quote:

    “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind“ The Meaning of Evolution pp. 344-345 !967

    I agree that this is basically what the theory purports, but I didn’t “coin the phraseâ€.

    Well that statement assumes that if nature has a purpose, Man is at it’s center; isn’t that “anthropocentric� The evidence that complex living systems were designed begs the assumption that there is purpose behind the creation. Wouldn’t you agree that everyone has assumptions that help mold their conclusions?

    Well I’m not sure how sentient other ’species†have become and I’m really not too concerned about it. This is the kind of statement I receive all of the time though and , if I am reading you right, what you are saying is that we should just have “faith†that the things we cannot understand today will one day be naturally explained by science. Well I guess each of our worldviews require faith based on assumptions don’t they?

    Well the whole “universe is infinite†thing has already been posited, tested, and rejected by the best the field of cosmology has to offer. The only models that currently work are based on Hawking’s “imaginary numbers†and can’t even really be tested (I must admit that the theory, and the mind behind it are brilliant though). There really isn’t much evidence to suggest that there are other life forms existing in other solar systems either and it’s not due to a lack of effort on the part of the scientific community. All the ToID is trying to do is point out that there is a plethora of evidence for design in many of the applied sciences, and that it deserves to be studied before it is simply discarded as “religionâ€.

    I can certainly concur with that sentiment and I have the same “ immediate sense of purposeâ€, but I also have faith in a “purpose†apart from myself that is much bigger than me or my needs. Now you may say that myself and others like me have simply created this “purpose†in an effort to place meaning in our lives, and you may be right, but I have faith that you are not and it is not a blind faith but a reasonable one based on evidence that the account of Christ offered us in the writings of the New Testament authors is completely accurate.

    Thanks again for your well thought out response to my opinions, I hope we can continue along these lines of civility, as I can see nothing gained from antagonism, only what is lost. Take care
  2. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    bump for wistahpatsfan
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    CPF, please refrain from misinforming readers about the Theory of Evolution.

    If you'd like to make a case for ID, you should be able to do it without mischaracterizing the existing theory of evolution. ID should be able to stand on its own, without setting up a straw man argument by diminishing the importance of genetic variation in natural selection.

    Give us your alternative view on how DNA has come to vary from the Intelligent Design side, but don't pretend to understand genetics. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of ID. I make my arguments based on my knowledge of evolution.
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2005
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Also, it is true, evolution has no "purpose" in terms man can appreciate other than survival and reproduction. Thats the "purpose" - the continuity of life.But purpose doesn't really fit as a descriptor as it implies human "purpose".

    Did animals and plants die in the distant past to give man coal and oil? Was this the purpose of mass extinctions?

    See how anthropocentric that argument is?
  5. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I was hoping Wistahpat would respond to me so that, if he wished, we could flesh out my argument more completely. If you would like to I would be glad to discuss it with you as well. I didn't realize I had set up a "straw man", all I pointed out was that DNA, being a system of Complex Specified Information, is very difficult to explain by natural means, in other words the mechanisms offered to us by the ToE. As far as I can tell I didn't say anything regarding "the importance of genetic variation in natural selection."

    I wasn't talking about how DNA has come to vary, I was talking about how DNA came to be in the first place. I certainly don't pretend to be a geneticist but I do have the ability to study the issue and give a somewhat informed response. I try to read as much as I can before I form an opinion on anything and this subject is no different. I think you misunderstood the intent of my comments to Wistah, but I do apologize if I offended you in any way. Take care.
  6. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I simply quoted the words of famous evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson, it is up to the reader of this quote to draw conclusions of his/her own. I'm not sure "humans" can place "purpose" in a context that is anything but human, do you think Simpson meant something different?

    Anthopocentric yes, but possible none the less, especially if we are dealing with an intelligent designer that has a specific interest in man. Take care
  7. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,396
    Likes Received:
    498
    Ratings:
    +1,218 / 15 / -11

    Disable Jersey

    ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I don't think contemporary evolutionary thought invokes or implies "purpose" anywhere, other than the basic purpose of survival and reproduction/replication.

    DNA has survived, in perpetuity, for some 3 billion+ years. You don't deny that, nor do you deny that it has changed during this time - if I understand what you've written since day one.

    But specifically to my question above:

    You don't really believe that animals and plants died to give man coal, do you??

    Also, please explain what you mean by Complex Specified Information. This sounds like a suspiciously concocted term.
  9. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If there is in fact an intelligence behind creation (for lack of a better word), then I suppose it is possible that he/she/it had man in mind as far as coal and or any other fossil fuel is concerned. Now I am not saying that I am at all dogmatic about this but I don't think it is completely outside the realm of possibility either.

    Actually I believe William Dembski coined the term "Complex Specified Information" You can read all about it here http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm Take care.
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ok, so you are an admitted creationist, entrancing yourself in a young theory that would appear to support your creationist interpretation of how life began.

    We are getting somewhere, CPF. Your worldview is providing you a view of biology that conflicts with evolution, which appears to me to be why you attack the principles of evolution, without really understanding those principles at all.

    I'm open to ID as providing some understanding of the gaps of my knowledge, because if I can't disprove it, I can't prove it, it must remain a possibility. My own research fails to prove or disprove ID...but I am keeping it as a possibility. This is what we call "God of the Gaps".

    But at some point if it can't show me a reasonably testable argument, then it fails the science smell test. And Dembski's mathematical models, while quite impressive, do not make it sound science. Modelling, as a construct of human design, is no substitute for studying the actual process in nature.
    But what ecologists and zoologists do is study nature. What geneticists do is study nature. What molecular biologists do is study nature.

    Dembski does not. He is a mathematician, not a molecular biologist or a geneticist. Therefore, his complex specified information is a concocted term that currently has no place in biology. So by using that term as you do, you are ignoring all the science that we have assembled since Watson and Crick "discovered" DNA, and saying it is something totally different.

    That strategy will never work. You need to look at the assemblage of existing science, and find comfort for your own worldview in it, as Asa Gray and other christians have done before you.

    Renaming the terms, as in complex specified information, fits a model but nothing in nature supports that as of yet, so we have to stay with the terminology used by the field. You wouldn't want MDs to get their education from faith healers would you?

    This is similar to how you have attempted to deceive your readers in the past about how evolution attempts to explain the origin of life on earth, when it clearly and specifically does not.
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2005
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    "Happy New Year Jesus"
    Yours Truly
    Harry Boy
  12. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Dembski writes:
    “…CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex. All the elements in the general scheme for recognizing intelligent causation (i.e., Actualization-Exclusion-Specification) find their counterpart in complex specified information-CSI. CSI pinpoints what we need to be looking for when we detect design.â€

    Admittedly, I haven’t had time to dissect Dembski’s paper, but on the surface a key problem jumps out. As I reduce his argument to its smallest components in my tiny little mind, it seems to boil down to one question relative to this whole debate. If God (that’s who we’re talking about, right? I find it curious that the name is left out of the analysis and replaced with euphemisms like “intelligence†and “designerâ€), acting intelligently, was processing a number of “possibilities†to arrive at a single decision or a series of compatible, interdependent decisions which would ultimately lead to the functioning universe including the terrestrial biotic system, then what is the origin of these sets of “options†that God has to select from? In order to qualify as a process controlled by a central intelligence, these conditions must have been in place before the system was formed and, consequently, executed by the designer. It seems to me to be the pathway to an infinite process of event reduction that transcends our capacity to understand and can’t be resolved within the systems of rationality we as humans presently possess.

    I realize that normally, we can only operate within systems that are known at the time in order for this debate to continue within any type of manageable framework, but I’m comfortable with that framework having multiple dimensions that are completely open-ended and unexplored until now. Dembski’s analysis is closed within a framework that is limited to the premise that a set of options exists and choices are available to the designer to use intelligently in forming the universe. How do you resolve this issue?
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2005
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Wassamattah? Not enough infantile swearing and moronic insults for you. Try working on your vocabulary and do some reading if you want to add anything. Sorry this doesn't fit into your "Bush is a Nazi" and "liberals are troop-killers" format...talk about boring!
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2005
  14. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Very good question. I think CPF will help.

    "CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally." - Dembski

    If I get you, wistah, you are saying its circular, chicken and egg, a-priori assumptive reasoning on Dembskis part. I tend to agree, for the most part.

    CSI indicates design, because its an indicator of how we recognize intelligent cause- which appears to him to be selection of an improbable option from a large set of options. That is if something improbable occurs, and it is complex, it must be CSI.

    Are there not a whole lot of assumptions riding on this concept?
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    The whole thing is built on a general presumption that a higher intelligence exists which plans and guides or sets into motion the plan. What if this entity is just a product of another intelligence that created the universe in which this particular entity operates? And so on... Then we enter the old "Horton Hears a Who" philosophy of multi-level structures of a hierarchal order to the universe, which in itself, is an anthropocentric point of view. Structure in general may be prejudiced by our own world view.

    Hell, I sure don't know. Who does?
  16. CPF

    CPF Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    AAB and Wistah, I will get back to you as soon as time allows, thanks for your patience. Take care.
  17. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Pg-13
    No One Under 13 Admitted Without A Parent
  18. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,804
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +89 / 7 / -13

    #37 Jersey

    I think he was referring to your IQ, Mr. general manager genius.
  19. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,701
    Likes Received:
    157
    Ratings:
    +496 / 2 / -9

    3 years in the 4th grade :singing:
  20. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    :cool: Close the thread.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>