ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd March 2016, 02:45 PM   #1401
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,711
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I happen to be an optimist.
If someone is intelligent enough to read the Bible then they should be intelligent enough to read the source of a quote and see that it is the caption of a cartoon from an irrelevant article. The question then is whether they are honest enough to admit that their source committed a lie by quote mining and not use it anymore. Thus:
17 March 2016 Daniel: Parroting a lie: a cartoon caption from Martin Rees, Anthropic Universe, New Scientist (6 Aug 1987), 46 !

Someone please quote me so Daniel has a chance to learn how badly he is being lied to!!!!
I'm not sure I'm helping. Could someone quote me too......
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 02:48 PM   #1402
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by AdamSK View Post
There are plenty of conventional paradigms in which the laws of physics exist without being created and without any sort of intelligence. Why do you insist otherwise?

…and yet you utterly fail to produce a single one of them.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(my bold)
The bolded part is a "lies to children", and I'm a bit surprised to see you repeating it, annnnoid.

It is far more accurate to say something like "every observation we intelligent beings have made so far is consistent with the best models we have" and "the subset of every tested prediction we have made, so far, based on these models is consistent with the models".

…so are there any ‘observations we intelligent beings have made’ (so far) that are NOT consistent with the best models we have?

…no?...so EVERYTHING is consistent with them.

…and are there any tested predictions we have made (so far) based on these models that are NOT consistent with the models?

…no?...so EVERYTHING is predicted by them.

You did note that I included ‘to the degree that’?

Your objections are nothing more than vacant sophistry…or are you expecting there to come a time when these laws suddenly become invalid? When our observations are no longer consistent with the laws…or when predictions evaporate...???

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(whether the models are "created", "developed", "discovered", or whatever is irrelevant ... to the actual doing of science.

…except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of how these laws are arrived at…which is a fundamentally relevant question in numerous areas of cognitive and computer science.

So you’re flat out wrong there.

…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of what the actual relationship is between the laws and the reality they describe.

So you’re flat out wrong there.

…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of whether of not the laws are instantiated in reality in some form.

…so you’re also flat out wrong there.

O for 3…but other than that…good argument!

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Your gloss goes well beyond science; perhaps it might be more meaningfully discussed in the Philosophy section of ISF?

…and your revisions might be more meaningfully discussed in the entertainment section.

Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
You are mixing up ‘laws of nature’ with ‘laws of science’. ‘Laws of nature’ are ‘physically reproducible facts’ that are hypothetically independent of any observer. ‘Laws of science’ are the written representations of ‘laws of nature’. By their very nature, laws of science are abstractions that do require an observer whereas ‘laws of nature’ are the reality that abstractions are meant to simulate.

…as soon as you’ve identified ‘facts’…you’re in the world of models. In philosophy there is the model of the thing…and there is the thing-in-itself. There is only one area where the two overlap. Guess where that is (that’s actually a hint…guessing)?

Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
‘Laws of science’ are very roughly analogous to ‘laws of society’. ‘Laws of nature’ are roughly analogous to ‘actual practice in a society’. The ‘actual practice’ is actually more abstract than the ‘laws’ because some people in the society usually break the law. There used to be a federal law banning the use of marijuana. I dare say most people obeyed that law. However, in actual practice many people were smoking marijuana. So in actual practice, some people were smoking marijuana.

‘Laws of physics’ are a type of ‘laws of science’. Yes, you need an observer to write down or say the ‘laws of physics’. ‘Laws of the physical universe’ are analogous to ‘the laws of nature’. Hypothetically, no intelligent observer is needed for the ‘laws of the physical universe’ being practiced.

Good to hear that you’re also one of those who agree that the physical universe actually has laws (independently of the presence of physicists).

Originally Posted by hecd2 View Post
Equivocation, be it ever so prolix, is still equivocation. Your claim can be summarised thus: "The laws of physics (our description of how nature behaves) are only ever generated by intelligent agents. There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves which we call the laws of physics, and therefore nature is or arises from intelligence."

The fact is that the two instances of the term "laws of physics" in the claim above do not refer to the same thing. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises because you are equivocating between the two instances.

“There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves.”….

…”seem to be”….?!?!?!?!?

Could you identify anywhere, anytime, anyhow, where there are NOT regularities? Where the ‘laws of physics’ (as they are known) are regarded as being invalid?

Find me this place…for I have yet to hear of it!

Where do we get the ‘laws of physics’ from…the ones that we, who are intelligent, create (discover / whatever)?

They are derived directly from the very reality that they so inexorably describe. As I said…it is the consensus position amongst your brethren that they are DISCOVERED (see Darwin123 for example…and some unconditionally argue that they do, in fact, exist AS reality [see Perpetual Student for example]).

You are essentially arguing that this vast pantheon that is ‘the laws of physics’ is, in fact, nothing but a massive coincidence.

Is that your position?

The ONLY reason your argument has the slightest twig to stand on is because no one has yet established the direct relationship between the laws of physics (what Darwin123 calls the laws of science) and the reality they describe (what Darwin123 calls the laws of nature).

…but…only a complete and utter fool could come to any conclusion but that there is a direct relationship (how could there not be!).

First of all…because they are directly and explicitly derived from neural / cognitive activity (aka: that which is explicitly described and predicted by these very same laws)…second of all…because they describe and predict EVERYTHING (for all intents and purposes) with all-but unconditional precision and accuracy. We evaluate events from the farthest reaches of the known universe according to these laws…and we evaluate phenomena from the most inscrutable insignificance of known reality also according to these laws…

…with unqualified success.

From the most minute to the most immense…these laws apply…and you are going to argue that it is ALL just a gigantic coincidence…???

…because that is precisely what you are arguing.

Last edited by annnnoid; 23rd March 2016 at 02:50 PM.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 03:04 PM   #1403
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,710
Question Daniel: Cite the literature that supports whatever that incoherent nonsense is

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
..insults and then a fairy tale...
Fairy tales are not science, Daniel. Especially when the fairy tale looks like a crazily formatted, mostly incoherent creationist myth about abiogenesis.
Please give an Adult response to these questions:
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please explain what that nonsense you are quoting is in coherent, understandable language.
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that supports whatever that incoherent nonsense you are quoting is.

Quote me please!

Last edited by Reality Check; 23rd March 2016 at 03:11 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 03:37 PM   #1404
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
..insults and then a fairy tale...
Fairy tales are not science, Daniel. Especially when the fairy tale looks like a crazily formatted, mostly incoherent creationist myth about abiogenesis.
Please give an Adult response to these questions:
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please explain what that nonsense you are quoting is in coherent, understandable language.
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that supports whatever that incoherent nonsense you are quoting is.

Quote me please!
Sure, no probs. But I think Daniel has nearly everyone on ignore.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 04:30 PM   #1405
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,048
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure, no probs. But I think Daniel has nearly everyone on ignore.
If he cannot refute you, he ignores you.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 04:52 PM   #1406
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
<snip>

Originally Posted by JeanTate
(my bold)
The bolded part is a "lies to children", and I'm a bit surprised to see you repeating it, annnnoid.

It is far more accurate to say something like "every observation we intelligent beings have made so far is consistent with the best models we have" and "the subset of every tested prediction we have made, so far, based on these models is consistent with the models".
…so are there any ‘observations we intelligent beings have made’ (so far) that are NOT consistent with the best models we have?
Yes.

Quote:
<snip>
…and are there any tested predictions we have made (so far) based on these models that are NOT consistent with the models?
Yes.

Quote:
<snip>

You did note that I included ‘to the degree that’?
No.

Quote:
<nonsense snipped>…or are you expecting there to come a time when these laws suddenly become invalid?
More "lies to children". Yes, I - and just about every scientist on the planet - expects there will come a time when the best models we have today are shown to be inconsistent with some experimental or observational results (within the models' domain of applicability), and new models will be proposed, ones that are consistent.

I'm sure you're familiar with this process; for example Newton's "universal law of gravitation" has become "invalid" (in a quite precise sense, one that I'm sure you know quite well), and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is today's best model (within its domain of applicability).

Quote:
When our observations are no longer consistent with the laws…<nonsense snipped>???
Yes, likewise.

Quote:
Quote:
(whether the models are "created", "developed", "discovered", or whatever is irrelevant ... to the actual doing of science.
…except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of how these laws are arrived at…which is a fundamentally relevant question in numerous areas of cognitive and computer science.
(my bold)

Evidence?

Quote:
<nonsense snipped>…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of what the actual relationship is between the laws and the reality they describe.
The Philosophy section is thataway ->

Quote:
<nonsense snipped>…and except when the ‘doing of science’ actually includes the question of whether of not the laws are instantiated in reality in some form.
The Philosophy section is thataway ->

Quote:
O for 3…but other than that…good argument!
Yes, I agree; you're 0 for 3.

What Would Daniel Say? Argument from Ignorance? Argument from Irrelevance?

Quote:
<nonsense snipped>
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 05:18 PM   #1407
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,129
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
1. Is English your first language?
No.

Quote:
To hold a Materialist/Realist position you must conclude, when viewing DNA (The Genetic "CODE") and it's attributes, that stupid atoms/molecules not only Created the "CODE"----but then conducted a meeting between DNA and (not exhaustive):
No. Nobody claims that. It is a strawman of your own design.

Quote:
Where'd the FIRST "Functional" Proteins, which are CODED for on DNA and takes the Entire Process above to make in the first place....Come From???? Minor detail, eh?
No, but your way to generate the first functional proteins appears to be by magic. You are fond of Occam's Razor, what do you think is more parsimonious: a way that uses the known laws of nature, or a way that needs an intelligent entity that is not bound by any known law?

Quote:
Go ahead....? Let's review your "Adult" response...?
My response is that your strawman argument is without merit. If you want to criticize abiogenesis hypotheses, you should address them, and not make up your own indefensible ones.

Quote:
Coming from someone who's Foundation Corner-Stone, Pillars of his "Belief" System are....
Interesting: you do not address my argument. You seem aware of the weakness of your position.

Quote:
1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.
Strawman

Quote:
2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.
Yet another strawman.

Quote:
3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.
Argument from incredulity.

Quote:
How would you characterize this ??
I would characterize it as a pityful collection of strawmen and fallacies.

Quote:
Have you heard of the phrase: "People in Glass Houses..." by chance??
I have. That is why I would advise you to be more careful about your arguments. Your steady stream of fallacies, strawmen, misuse of definitions, and unethical quote-mining is doing your you and your cause no credit.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 05:48 PM   #1408
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
No.


No. Nobody claims that. It is a strawman of your own design.


No, but your way to generate the first functional proteins appears to be by magic. You are fond of Occam's Razor, what do you think is more parsimonious: a way that uses the known laws of nature, or a way that needs an intelligent entity that is not bound by any known law?


My response is that your strawman argument is without merit. If you want to criticize abiogenesis hypotheses, you should address them, and not make up your own indefensible ones.


Interesting: you do not address my argument. You seem aware of the weakness of your position.


Strawman


Yet another strawman.


Argument from incredulity.


I would characterize it as a pityful collection of strawmen and fallacies.


I have. That is why I would advise you to be more careful about your arguments. Your steady stream of fallacies, strawmen, misuse of definitions, and unethical quote-mining is doing your you and your cause no credit.

We need a "like" button.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 05:55 PM   #1409
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Fairy tales are not science, Daniel. Especially when the fairy tale looks like a crazily formatted, mostly incoherent creationist myth about abiogenesis.
Please give an Adult response to these questions:
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please explain what that nonsense you are quoting is in coherent, understandable language.
24 March 2016 Daniel: Please cite the scientific literature that supports whatever that incoherent nonsense you are quoting is.

Quote me please!
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2016, 09:04 PM   #1410
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Argument from Irrelevance?

…but JeanTate…more than a few of your fellow inquisitors have quite unequivocally stated that laws / mathematics exist as a part of nature…quite independently of any model any human being does or does not create. Many others have insisted that these laws are discovered…meaning that they must exist in some form apart from us (or else we could not ‘discover’ them).

Are you suggesting their conclusions are 'irrelevant'?

What, then, is your position on this issue?

Are the laws of physics that human beings use discovered?

Do they have any relationship what-so-ever with the reality they so consistently and effectively describe and predict (beyond describing and predicting)? Is (just for example), this simply a coincidence? How about this....or this, or this? All coincidences?

If there is a relationship...how is that relationship 'irrelevant'?

Are ‘laws’ somehow instantiated in reality?

If they are instantiated in reality (as other skeptics claim), how is that 'irrelevant'?

Is this a philosophical question merely because you cannot answer it?

(I can certainly see how it could all be irrelevant if you can't answer any of these questions)

Quite obviously…the laws of physics have a direct causal relationship with the neural and cognitive activity that generates them. So how is this not a scientific question since both neural and cognitive activity are explicitly represented either through bio-chemistry or through various aspects of cognitive theory?

So since this is quite obviously and explicitly a scientific question, how is it 'irrelevant'?

…not to mention that neural activity is ultimately (like everything) represented by the laws of physics. So we have an explicit causal relationship between the laws of physics…and the laws of physics (since it is neural activity that generates the cognitive activity that itself generates the laws of physics).

…so tell me again how this is not a scientific question...how it is all 'irrelevant'?

Last edited by annnnoid; 23rd March 2016 at 09:39 PM.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 01:36 AM   #1411
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,129
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
…but JeanTate…more than a few of your fellow inquisitors have quite unequivocally stated that laws / mathematics exist as a part of nature…quite independently of any model any human being does or does not create. Many others have insisted that these laws are discovered…meaning that they must exist in some form apart from us (or else we could not ‘discover’ them).
If anybody, and I doubt it is true, has stated 'unequivocally' that laws/mathematics exist as part of nature, I believe that would be a 'lie to children'. The laws are the models, and as for mathematics, we can leave that for The philosophy department. Discovering the laws mean making observations, and constructing new models (laws) that fit better than the old ones.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 01:51 AM   #1412
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,723
I can't believe this is still running, and over the same essential ground as before.

Daniel either will not accept or refuses to believe that the use of "code" for DNA is simply a handy tool for those studying it. He insists that "code" means "code"...but then what can you expect from someone who is almost certainly a biblical literalist. He clearly takes everything literally.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 02:07 AM   #1413
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,877
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Then why did you Split Them?? LOL. Did you do it to DODGE the point?

Aren't they Inherently "Split" when there are "TWO" Questions??
How can a coin have two sides, Daniel?
Because there are two parts to the whole.
I hope this fixes your bout of confused laughter.





Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak
Why choose the Pyramids as an example, when Pyramids ( or watches, to quote the original "argument" you are paraphrasing) are man-made objects? Why not choose a non-manmade object, such as a grain of sand or a rock?
Maybe because we are dealing with the Underlying Theme of this Entire Thread , The 2 Choices: "Nature" (Unguided) vs Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided).
Ring a Bell?
I am not the one who has lost track of the theme of the thread.
We are discussing, are we not, nature vs. ID, as they pertain to NATURAL THINGS, not to manmade ones.
Using an example of a man-made object (in this case, a building) to illustrate how natural objects came to be is either irrelevant or dishonest.



Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Really?? Well go ahead, who/what Built (CREATED) the rock....?

Let's see how "SILLY" it is!

btw, "The How" is irrelevant.
Wow.

Let's add geology to the ever-growing list of scientific disciplines you clearly know nothing about.

I have chosen this particular link as the Wiki article is an extract from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Although, thinking about it, that shows just how long this knowledge has been out there.
http://www.universetoday.com/46594/h...-rocks-formed/

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak
Your example only works if you choose a manmade artefact, which stands out from its natural surroundings because it is manmade.
It is therefore a silly, and rather dishonest argument.
Your ignorance is not justification to float a conjured caricature of another's INTENT.
Please highlight any ignorance of mine you have detected in the post you quote, as I can see none.
Regarding your intent, you are on record as saying you want to lead people to Jesus.
You then claimed this was not your intent.
I think, therefore, that I have discerned, rather than conjured, both your intent and your degree of honesty.
I'm still no nearer to Jesus, in case you were wondering.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 04:19 AM   #1414
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
…but JeanTate…more than a few of your fellow inquisitors have quite unequivocally stated that laws / mathematics exist as a part of nature…quite independently of any model any human being does or does not create. Many others have insisted that these laws are discovered…meaning that they must exist in some form apart from us (or else we could not ‘discover’ them).
I'll wait to hear from them directly, rather than relying on you to accurately summarize their viewpoints.

Quote:
Are you suggesting their conclusions are 'irrelevant'?
No.

But see above.

Quote:
What, then, is your position on this issue?
a) it's not an issue
b) sitting down, while typing on a keyboard

Quote:
Are the laws of physics that human beings use discovered?
If I were interested in discussing this - and, for avoidance of doubt, I am not (at least not in this section, and not now) - I would start by carefully understanding what terms like "discover", "create", etc might mean, in this particular context.

Quote:
Do they have any relationship what-so-ever with the reality they so consistently and effectively describe and predict (beyond describing and predicting)? Is (just for example), this simply a coincidence? How about this....or this, or this? All coincidences?
I already addressed this, in an earlier post; I'm not going to repeat myself.

Quote:
If there is a relationship...how is that relationship 'irrelevant'?
It's irrelevant for this section of the ISF.

The Philosophy section is thataway ->

Quote:
Are ‘laws’ somehow instantiated in reality?
I don't know.

And the question is irrelevant for this section; the Philosophy section is thataway ->

Quote:
<snip>

Is this a philosophical question merely because you cannot answer it?
No.

Quote:
<snip>

Quite obviously…the laws of physics have a direct causal relationship with the neural and cognitive activity that generates them.
No, they don't. This is a mis-statement of what science - and "the laws of physics" - is. And, I might note, one you seem to be rather fond of making.

Quote:
So how is this not a scientific question since both neural and cognitive activity are explicitly represented either through bio-chemistry or through various aspects of cognitive theory?
Because it has the same relevance as "colorless green dreams sleep furiously" does to the study of gravity.

Again, the Philosophy section is thataway ->

Quote:
<irrelevant stuff snipped>

Last edited by JeanTate; 24th March 2016 at 05:45 AM. Reason: fixed typo (interested, not interesting)
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 05:53 AM   #1415
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
I can't believe this is still running, and over the same essential ground as before.

Daniel either will not accept or refuses to believe that the use of "code" for DNA is simply a handy tool for those studying it. He insists that "code" means "code"...but then what can you expect from someone who is almost certainly a biblical literalist. He clearly takes everything literally.
(my bold)

Actually, I think he does something very different: he carefully chooses from the multiple meanings of (mostly ordinary) words, and selects only those which support his "argument". Sometimes this results in something rather strange, two uses of the same word, with different meanings, to support conclusions which otherwise would likely be mutually exclusive or nonsense (I say "likely" because in Danielscience it is critical to maintain ambiguity and avoid carefully defining scope).

In Danielscience, it seems, use of the technical meaning(s) of key terms - such as "information" - is verboten.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 07:00 AM   #1416
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I'll wait to hear from them directly, rather than relying on you to accurately summarize their viewpoints.

It has been constantly stated (on these threads and elsewhere) that everything follows the laws of physics, that the laws of physics are discovered, that nature follows laws distinct from anything human beings discover, that mathematics actually exists in nature.

….apparently this is all new to you. I can easily get links (there’s a bunch on this very thread)…but I’m sure the guilty parties will repeat themselves. They always do.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
a) it's not an issue

…where these not your words:

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".

If the laws of physics are, in fact, instantiated in reality this explicitly implicates intelligence….which directly speaks to the issue you wanted to discuss.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
If I were interested in discussing this - and, for avoidance of doubt, I am not (at least not in this section, and not now) - I would start by carefully understanding what terms like "discover", "create", etc might mean, in this particular context.

You mean, rather, that you would make every attempt to equivocate any definition into non-existence.

The simple fact is, everything that we do is ‘discovered’ in some manner or other by simple virtue of the fact that we do not create the means of creation.

That you are making any kind of issue of this question is utterly laughable…and I mean that quite literally. This question has been (as is being) asked for decades, if not centuries and its meaning is and always has been crystal clear.

It boils down to a very simple premise: Do the laws of physics exist in some form in reality that we formalize conceptually through our various faculties of reason and logic.

IOW…they’re already there (in some form), we just discover them and write them down.

Yes…or …no.

...and, once again, it was you who expressed an interest in discussing this issue.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I already addressed this, in an earlier post; I'm not going to repeat myself.

…repeat yourself…I can handle it.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
It's irrelevant for this section of the ISF.

This ‘section’ is dealing with the creationist argument, DNA, and information. If there is a definitive relationship between the laws of physics and reality…that explicitly and conclusively implicates both the creationist paradigm and the informational nature of reality.

…so tell me again how it is not relevant?

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
No, they don't. This is a mis-statement of what science - and "the laws of physics" - is. And, I might note, one you seem to be rather fond of making.

Really…so you are actually arguing (on a science forum no less) that activity which is explicitly conceptual has no causal relationship with neural activity. That would make you a dualist..or something. I rather doubt you could even find many dualists who would go that far.

…so…if the conceptual activity out of which the laws of physics occur is not generated by neural activity…how then does it occur?

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Because it has the same relevance as "colorless green dreams sleep furiously" does to the study of gravity.

The laws of physics are explicitly generated by cognitive activity…which is explicitly generated by neural activity. There isn’t a cognitive scientist on the planet that would disagree with this statement in the slightest.

…but you do.

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".

…common ground is going to be hard to find when you unconditionally challenge the normative conclusions of the entire global cognitive science community.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 07:58 AM   #1417
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Rather than commenting on, what to me, seem irrelevant parts of this post by annnnoid I am quoting, I will simply snip them.
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
<snip>

…where these not your words:

Originally Posted by JeanTate
Let's keep focused on the fact that I am trying to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit".
If the laws of physics are, in fact, instantiated in reality this explicitly implicates intelligence….which directly speaks to the issue you wanted to discuss.
If you wish to return to our efforts to establish some common ground, from which we (you and I) can have a rational, meaningful discussion of "Science cannot explain X, therefore goddidit", then please do what you said you'd do (forest, trees, that sort of thing), and respond directly to my last post on this.

Quote:
You mean, rather, that you would make every attempt to equivocate any definition into non-existence.

<snip>
No.

Quote:
It boils down to a very simple premise: Do the laws of physics exist in some form in reality that we formalize conceptually through our various faculties of reason and logic.

IOW…they’re already there (in some form), we just discover them and write them down.

Yes…or …no.

...and, once again, it was you who expressed an interest in discussing this issue.
Again, for avoidance of doubt, I am not interested in discussing this, here in this section of the ISF, now. And if one day I change my mind, I will very likely hold that discussion primarily with other ISF members.

I will not repeat this.

Quote:
<snip>

This ‘section’ is dealing with the creationist argument, DNA, and information. If there is a definitive relationship between the laws of physics and reality…that explicitly and conclusively implicates both the creationist paradigm and the informational nature of reality.

<snip>
I really do not understand what you're trying to say here.

In any case, if you wish to discuss whether "there is a definitive relationship between the laws of physics and reality", I suggest that you start a separate thread on just that topic. Trying to shoehorn such a discussion into this thread is a diversion (and WWDS? "color commentary"?)

Quote:
Really…so you are actually arguing (on a science forum no less) that activity which is explicitly conceptual has no causal relationship with neural activity. <snip>
No.

Here's what you wrote: "Quite obviously…the laws of physics have a direct causal relationship with the neural and cognitive activity that generates them."

And here's my response: "No, they don't. This is a mis-statement of what science - and "the laws of physics" - is. And, I might note, one you seem to be rather fond of making."

To me you are using the - WWDS? - fallacy of equivocation. In this case you significantly changed your claim, and misrepresented what I wrote. I have no time for such intellectually dishonest tactics.

Quote:
The laws of physics are explicitly generated by cognitive activity…which is explicitly generated by neural activity. There isn’t a cognitive scientist on the planet that would disagree with this statement in the slightest.

…but you do. <snip>
WWDS?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 08:40 AM   #1418
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post

No. Nobody claims that. It is a strawman of your own design.

Yes, you and every atheist on the planet actually does. The only other option is Intelligent Design/GOD.

This is to Straw Man as Hydrogen is Straw Man to Water.


Quote:
No, but your way to generate the first functional proteins appears to be by magic.

Actually it is you that inherently claims this. Not only magic... but Scientific Law (Numerous) Violating Magic.


Quote:
You are fond of Occam's Razor, what do you think is more parsimonious: a way that uses the known laws of nature, or a way that needs an intelligent entity that is not bound by any known law?

So what do you think is more parsimonious for the creation of this...



An Intelligent Entity or known Laws of Nature ??


Quote:
My response is that your strawman argument is without merit. If you want to criticize abiogenesis hypotheses, you should address them, and not make up your own indefensible ones.

There is no 'Abiogenesis Hypothesis'... you'd have better chances of reconciling Married Bachelors than posting one.

Go ahead and post one....? Then we'll deconstruct your 'alleged' knowledge of what ACTUAL 'science' is. Should take less than a minute.

You heard of the Law of Biogenesis, by chance?


Quote:
Interesting: you do not address my argument. You seem aware of the weakness of your position.

You have no argument; save for

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.

2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.

3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.


Quote:
Daniel: "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.

steenkh: Argument from incredulity.


Hmmm...

Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html

Are you saying Dr. Leroy Hood and Dr. Craig Venter are speaking from Ignornace and a lack of evidence?? (lol)



Quote:
I would characterize it as a pityful collection of strawmen and fallacies.

Yes with Absolutely No SUPPORT, Whatsoever.

Strawmen AND Fallacies? Straw Man is a Fallacy.

You have no idea what these terms are or mean, for goodness sakes.

regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 08:59 AM   #1419
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yes, you and every atheist on the planet actually does. The only other option is Intelligent Design/GOD.
Nope. ID/God is the last resort of the terminally superstitious/gullible/ill-educated.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
This is to Straw Man as Hydrogen is Straw Man to Water.
Right. Another logical fallacy which you fail to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Actually it is you that inherently claims this. Not only magic... but Scientific Law (Numerous) Violating Magic.
Why does the computer upon which you are typing this drivel not vanish in a poof of illogic?

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So what do you think is more parsimonious for the creation of this...

http://cdn.lolwot.com/wp-content/upl...-to-see-14.jpg

An Intelligent Entity or known Laws of Nature ??
Or a bored beach bum.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
There is no 'Abiogenesis Hypothesis'... you'd have better chances of reconciling Married Bachelors than posting one.
Oh dear. There are many abiogenesis hypotheses and there are plenty of married incels.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Go ahead and post one....? Then we'll deconstruct your 'alleged' knowledge of what ACTUAL 'science' is. Should take less than a minute.
Co-responds with your attention span.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
You heard of the Law of Biogenesis, by chance?
Sure. And?

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
You have no argument; save for

1. Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints.
Not even a sentence. And just what is your obsession with the print industry? Surely you are not regurgitating from some creationist site?

In any event, I have operated in the print industry for decades. Your analogy fails.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
2. The Universe existing prior to it's existence; then, creating itself from nothing.
In a single line, you contradicted yourself. How religious.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
3. "Nature" wickers together Hyper Nano-Tech Machines and Robots.
WTF?


Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Hmmm...

Argument from Ignorance/Argument from Incredulity (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
"Hmmm" indeed. That is what you are doing.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
"DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410

"Over the next sixty minutes I explained how life ultimately consists of DNA-driven biological machines. All living cells run on DNA SOFTWARE, which directs hundreds to thousands of PROTEIN ROBOTS. We have been digitizing life for decades, since we first figured out how to read the SOFTWARE of life by sequencing DNA. Now we can go in the other direction by starting with computerized digital code, designing a new form of life, chemically synthesizing its DNA, and then booting it up to produce the actual organism." {Emphasis Mine}
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)
http://www.sciencefriday.com/blogs/1...e-of-life.html

Are you saying Dr. Leroy Hood and Dr. Craig Venter are speaking from Ignornace and a lack of evidence?? (lol)
Back to quote-mining crap.

Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
Yes with Absolutely No SUPPORT, Whatsoever.

Strawmen AND Fallacies? Straw Man is a Fallacy.

You have no idea what these terms are or mean, for goodness sakes.

regards
Mote, eye, etc. Look to your holey babble first.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 09:05 AM   #1420
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
How can a coin have two sides, Daniel?
Because there are two parts to the whole.

Why would you use an analogy in lieu of the ACTUAL 2 Questions


Quote:
I am not the one who has lost track of the theme of the thread.

Sure.


Quote:
We are discussing, are we not, nature vs. ID, as they pertain to NATURAL THINGS, not to manmade ones.

rotflol. So we're discussing "Nature" vs "Intelligent Design"...

Errr, are you saying manmade things aren't Intelligently Designed?


Quote:
Using an example of a man-made object (in this case, a building) to illustrate how natural objects came to be is either irrelevant or dishonest.


So I can't use examples of Intelligent Design for my Argument in support of Intelligent Design ??

Wow.


Quote:
Let's add geology to the ever-growing list of scientific disciplines you clearly know nothing about.

I have chosen this particular link as the Wiki article is an extract from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Although, thinking about it, that shows just how long this knowledge has been out there.
http://www.universetoday.com/46594/h...-rocks-formed/

Let's add common sense to the ever-growing list of attributes that you seem to have problems with...

I asked you: "Well go ahead, who/what Built (CREATED) the rock....?" ...

i.e., Where'd you get 'MATTER', Naturally.....? Somewhat deeper than your "igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks" LINK.



Quote:
Regarding your intent, you are on record as saying you want to lead people to Jesus.
You then claimed this was not your intent.

Quote me SPECIFICALLY ...then I'll explain anything that is confusing to you.


Quote:
I'm still no nearer to Jesus, in case you were wondering.

You are with every breath.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 10:33 AM   #1421
stanfr
Graduate Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,771
I must confess, I gave up following this thread since it was holding about as much interest as a broken record (or 'Stairway' played backwards) but after skimming through the last couple of pages, it is remarkable just how far Daniel's 'argument' has degenerated. But maybe I missed something...cause it seems like Daniel is now arguing that because a snowflake (or take any example of nature) 'looks' complex, it must have been created by an intelligent being.
Haven't we gotten beyond the specified complexity nonsense yet?

Daniel, how does this:

differ from your sand castle?
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 10:49 AM   #1422
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
Daniel, how does this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...424c71f21c.jpg
differ from your sand castle?
One fewer hippies.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:13 AM   #1423
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The laws are the models, and as for mathematics, we can leave that for The philosophy department. Discovering the laws mean making observations, and constructing new models (laws) that fit better than the old ones.

So Scientific Laws are Models, eh? ...

https://www.boundless.com/physics/te...laws-195-6078/ ...

"The terms model, theory, and law have exact meanings in relation to their usage in the study of physics.

Model
A representation of something difficult or impossible to display directly

Law
A concise description, usually in the form of a mathematical equation, used to describe a pattern in nature

theory
An explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers "



"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity."
http://physics.about.com/od/physics1...hypothesis.htm

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html


Scientific Law Definition

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...Definition.htm

Law:
A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/...cientific-work


Are Tumbleweeds... Texas Toast ?


regards and oy vey
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:16 AM   #1424
stanfr
Graduate Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
One fewer hippies.
you haven't been to enough Dead concerts
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:17 AM   #1425
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,711
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
........So I can't use examples of Intelligent Design for my Argument in support of Intelligent Design ??.......
Sure. Of course you can. However, other than stuff made by man, you won't find any such thing.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:18 AM   #1426
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So Scientific Laws are Models, eh? ...

https://www.boundless.com/physics/te...laws-195-6078/ ...

"The terms model, theory, and law have exact meanings in relation to their usage in the study of physics.

Model
A representation of something difficult or impossible to display directly

Law
A concise description, usually in the form of a mathematical equation, used to describe a pattern in nature

theory
An explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers "



"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity."
http://physics.about.com/od/physics1...hypothesis.htm

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html


Scientific Law Definition

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...Definition.htm

Law:
A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/...cientific-work


Are Tumbleweeds... Texas Toast ?


regards and oy vey
Instead of science, we have more semantic blather.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:22 AM   #1427
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
So Scientific Laws are Models, eh? ...

https://www.boundless.com/physics/te...laws-195-6078/ ...

"The terms model, theory, and law have exact meanings in relation to their usage in the study of physics.

Model
A representation of something difficult or impossible to display directly

Law
A concise description, usually in the form of a mathematical equation, used to describe a pattern in nature

theory
An explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers "



"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity."
http://physics.about.com/od/physics1...hypothesis.htm

"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...appendixe.html


Scientific Law Definition

A law in science is a generalized rule to explain a body of observations in the form of a verbal or mathematical statement.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...Definition.htm

Law:
A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
http://ncse.com/evolution/education/...cientific-work


Are Tumbleweeds... Texas Toast ?


regards and oy vey
Nice.

So riddle me this, Daniel: Per those definitions, is the General Theory of Relativity mis-named? Should it be called a law? How about Newton's universal law of gravity, should it be called a theory? And Kepler's three laws of planetary motion, should they be called models?

Other readers can no doubt reference a great many other examples.

And what about the theory of evolution, is it a law? or a model? or is the word "theory" apt in this case?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:26 AM   #1428
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,435
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Sure. Of course you can. However, other than stuff made by man, you won't find any such thing.
(my bold)

Or stuff made by chimps, or Homo erectus, or ...

No wait; as no pair of Homo erectus, um, animals boarded the ark, they don't (didn't) exist, per Danielscience, right?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:30 AM   #1429
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,915
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
it seems like Daniel is now arguing that because a snowflake (or take any example of nature) 'looks' complex, it must have been created by an intelligent being.
It's the same with all crackpots: this conviction that whatever their common sense/intuition tells them must be true. It's sheer arrogance, really.

The argument from design was demolished by Darwin 150 years ago, but some people still can't manage to consider the possibility that what seems obvious to them might not actually be the case for long enough to understand how.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:42 AM   #1430
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
I must confess, I gave up following this thread since it was holding about as much interest as a broken record (or 'Stairway' played backwards)

Thanks for the Op-Ed Color Commentary.


Quote:
But maybe I missed something...cause it seems like Daniel is now arguing that because a snowflake (or take any example of nature) 'looks' complex, it must have been created by an intelligent being.

1. Straw Man Fallacy: I never said, or even remotely implied, the 'LOOKS complex' buffoonery.

Can you please make a concerted effort to focus on the ACTUAL ARGUMENTS presented in lieu of the ones you conjure. Thanks in Advance


2. (AGAIN)...

There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC)."

Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk.

Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu: Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.

Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.

So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct, "Shannon Information".

FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall): London, 1973

"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physicochemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES.
I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)


Quote:
Haven't we gotten beyond the specified complexity nonsense yet?

Are you calling what Dr. Leslie Orgel explained...."Nonsense" ?? Are you a "Science Denier" ?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:49 AM   #1431
hecd2
Muse
 
hecd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 692
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
“There seem to be regularities in how nature actually behaves.”….

…”seem to be”….?!?!?!?!?
Yes, it is an axiom of science that nature behaves in regular ways. Being an axiom it is not amenable to deductive certainty, but we can reason inductively that it seems to behave so.

Quote:
Could you identify anywhere, anytime, anyhow, where there are NOT regularities?
No, but, we cannot say for sure that such instances do not or cannot exist, say beyond our light cone or at singularities or very close to, at or before the Big Bang.
Quote:
Where the ‘laws of physics’ (as they are known) are regarded as being invalid?
Sure - all laws of physics (models of reality) are invalid beyond their domain of applicability. I can't think of a single theory which does not have a finite domain of applicability.

Quote:
Find me this place…for I have yet to hear of it!
See above.
Quote:
Where do we get the ‘laws of physics’ from…the ones that we, who are intelligent, create (discover / whatever)?
We observe reality and make imperfect models to describe what we observe.

Quote:
They are derived directly from the very reality that they so inexorably describe. As I said…it is the consensus position amongst your brethren that they are DISCOVERED (see Darwin123 for example…and some unconditionally argue that they do, in fact, exist AS reality [see Perpetual Student for example]).
Oh I see - it was a rhetorical question - you didn't really want my answer. I would like to request that the definition of inexorable is added to the long list of definitions of terms, which you use, but which you steadfastly refuse to define.
Quote:
You are essentially arguing that this vast pantheon that is ‘the laws of physics’ is, in fact, nothing but a massive coincidence.

Is that your position?
No, it's a blatant strawman.

Quote:
The ONLY reason your argument has the slightest twig to stand on is because no one has yet established the direct relationship between the laws of physics (what Darwin123 calls the laws of science) and the reality they describe (what Darwin123 calls the laws of nature).

…but…only a complete and utter fool could come to any conclusion but that there is a direct relationship (how could there not be!).
There is a relationship between what nature does and the laws of physics. Nature does what it does, and we observe it and develop imperfect models to describe what we observe. We call those the laws of physics. Whether that is a "direct" relationship or not depends on your definition of the word "direct". (Note that there is a narrower definition for a scientific law than we are using here - in the "laws of physics" I include hypotheses, theories, formulae, and laws as strictly defined - for the purposes of this discussion - I use the term that way because you have done so.)
Quote:
First of all…because they are directly and explicitly derived from neural / cognitive activity (aka: that which is explicitly described and predicted by these very same laws)…second of all…because they describe and predict EVERYTHING (for all intents and purposes) with all-but unconditional precision and accuracy.
When you shout words at me, it seems to be a reliable sign that you are talking nonsense. Remeber INDISPUTABLE? If the laws of physics "describe and predict EVERYTHING (for all intents and purposes) with all-but unconditional precision and accuracy", then the work of scientists is done. Since we all know that there is ever so much about the way the world goes that we don't know, then we can safely conclude that your assertion is tosh.

Quote:
We evaluate events from the farthest reaches of the known universe according to these laws…and we evaluate phenomena from the most inscrutable insignificance of known reality also according to these laws…

…with unqualified success.
Unconditional precision and accuracy and unqualified success, eh? Maybe science in some parallel universe can be described like that but not in this one.

Quote:
From the most minute to the most immense…these laws apply…and you are going to argue that it is ALL just a gigantic coincidence…???

…because that is precisely what you are arguing.
No, that's your strawman. (By the way, the laws that apply to the most minute, and the laws that apply to the most immense that we currently have are different laws and they are not compatible under certain conditions - so much for unqualified success, eh?)

Last edited by hecd2; 24th March 2016 at 01:41 PM. Reason: Removing a spurious not and clarification
hecd2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:52 AM   #1432
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
It's the same with all crackpots:

1. Ad Hominem Fallacy.

2. Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy with an implied Stereotype Fallacy.

3. "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -- Socrates

Right out of the gate with you. Thanks for Illustrating



Quote:
The argument from design was demolished by Darwin 150 years ago

1. Really?? Can you go ahead and post the Specific Argument so as to SUPPORT your current Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bald' Assertion Fallacy....?

2. Implied Argument to Age (Fallacy).


Are you attempting to employ the entire catalog of Logical Fallacies in 3 sentences?

Are you aware that Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious ?


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:53 AM   #1433
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,711
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post
.........Are you calling what Dr. Leslie Orgel explained...."Nonsense" ?? Are you a "Science Denier" ?
Brilliant!! Thanks Danielscience. Here, for your edification and delight, is Orgel's second rule:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are".

Oh, and as for specified complexity, it doesn't mean what you think it means:

Quote:
In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter.
(same link)

A creationist quoting Orgel! It really doesn't get much funnier than that. Here's his first rule, for those amused by the irony of Daniel citing Orgel.

Someone quote this please so that Daniel gets to read it. Ta.
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 24th March 2016 at 12:03 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 11:55 AM   #1434
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,711
Duplicate
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:01 PM   #1435
Maurice Ledifficile
Lost in translation
 
Maurice Ledifficile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Brilliant!! Thanks Danielscience. Here, for your edification and delight, is Orgel's second rule:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are".

Oh, and as for specified complexity, it doesn't mean what you think it means:
Quote:
Quote:
In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter.
(same link)

Someone quote this please so that Daniel gets to read it. Ta.
No problem, although I'm probably on ignore as well.
__________________
"There is a plenty of proof, but unfortunately it is entirely unprovable." - Punshhh
"There’s a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot." – Stephen Wright
Maurice Ledifficile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:01 PM   #1436
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Brilliant!! Thanks Danielscience. Here, for your edification and delight, is Orgel's second rule:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are".

Oh, and as for specified complexity, it doesn't mean what you think it means:

(same link)

Someone quote this please so that Daniel gets to read it. Ta.
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:35 PM   #1437
Daniel
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 937
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Brilliant!! Thanks Danielscience. Here, for your edification and delight, is Orgel's second rule:

"Evolution is cleverer than you are".


Wouldn't this 'Blind FAITH' statement be more on topic, here ??: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...27&postcount=1

And then can you post "What the Scientific Theory of evolution actually is" with it.

oh and thanks for the "WIKI LINK" . Are you a "Wiki Google" Scientist??


Quote:
Oh, and as for specified complexity, it doesn't mean what you think it means:

Quote:
In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter.

So how does this, Refute this...

"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall): London, 1973

Pray Tell...? When each are discussing how the Living is distinguished from the Non-Living? And how are they distinguished again.....?????


Quote:
A creationist quoting Orgel! It really doesn't get much funnier than that.

Yes, I mainly CITE Atheists (Hostile Witnesses)...you just catching on?? I get more bang for my buck



Quote:
Here's his first rule, for those amused by the irony of Daniel citing Orgel.

From your link....

Orgel's First Rule:

"Whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient a protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient."



Can you show that first "Functional Protein" spontaneously for us?? Ya know, to SUPPORT your appeal...

First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life. Why?? Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!! It's not "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing a Torch Mark on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it. And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) and has the Quintessential Characteristic that "it"...can NEVER be Disproved!! (How convenient).
But OOL is a special case, because what they're essentially saying with Abiogenesis is: NATURE/Natural Laws can Create Life from Non-Life.
This is still a Fallacious Argument, **and Scientific Law Violating (SEE: Law of Biogenesis) heresy, but has only ONE Category that is accessible "Nature DID IT", so it's not a COMPLETE Argument from Ignorance ( as our Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon above). That is, we have ACCESS to the "alleged" CAUSE..."Nature". Well...

"Functional" Proteins First:

Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.

1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).
2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.
3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section ... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent. Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.

You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.

I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel, your buddy ) was referring to, when he said...

"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.

They were told this Years Ago, but didn't listen....

Dr Murray Eden, Professor MIT, concluded that, ‘...an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical and biological.’
Murray, Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.


regards
Daniel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:40 PM   #1438
stanfr
Graduate Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,771
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

...here's to my sweet satan....

regards
How does the sand castle differ from the snowflake, Daniel, aside from the arbitrary terms you have labeled them as?? You haven't answered that because you cannot, without resorting to more unsubstantiated gobbledygook.
Your argument basically boils down to "it looks like intelligence made it...therefore it was ID"
Well, I tell you, the snowflake has 6 points within 6 points within 6 points--666: the "number of man"!
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:48 PM   #1439
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by Daniel View Post

And then can you post "What the Scientific Theory of evolution actually is" with it.
It has been posted over and over and over and over again. You simply won't read it because you prefer to wallow in the superstition that is religion.

Why would anyone post it yet again?

Well, just to see how blind you are, here you go again.

On the origin of species

Will you read it this time? Nope.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2016, 12:49 PM   #1440
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile View Post
No problem, although I'm probably on ignore as well.
Given enough time, he will put everyone on "ignore," thereby setting the stage for him to regress into total solipsism.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.