How do you detect "design"?

[leroy]

The thread topic is how do you detect design, we have established that while QR codes are an example of known human design, they provide nothing useful to the question of detecting design in general.

1 we have something that we don’t know if it was designed or not (the input of data in the QR code….numbers letters etc.)

2 I provided a test that would tell us if it was designed (if it opens a web site then it is designed)

So what else do you want? I gave you an objective way to test for design…….and you seem to agree with the validity of the test……………so what else do you want?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

1 we have something that we don’t know if it was designed or not (the input of data in the QR code….numbers letters etc.)

2 I provided a test that would tell us if it was designed (if it opens a web site then it is designed)

So what else do you want? I gave you an objective way to test for design…….and you seem to agree with the validity of the test……………so what else do you want?

So explain the relevant parts in regards to biology.

 

[Pogo]

1 we have something that we don’t know if it was designed or not (the input of data in the QR code….numbers letters etc.)

2 I provided a test that would tell us if it was designed (if it opens a web site then it is designed)

So what else do you want? I gave you an objective way to test for design…….and you seem to agree with the validity of the test……………so what else do you want?

from before:

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

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

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

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

The relevant points is

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

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

This thread is about detecting design and more specifically about detecting design in the absence of knowledge of the designer.
The method posited by you was consistent with the claims of William Dembski and his claims re Intelligent Design. We have determined that his claims are irrelevant and useless in the conversation, but you are now trying to pretend that that determination is not relevant to the OP by making trivial arguments about a scenario that I brought up to demonstrate the lack of utility of Dembski's basic argument.
You are trying to make significance of whether the input to a granted human designed system could maybe sometimes be relevant to whether this human designed system would be considered designed by all interlocutors. You have long since left the field, country, continent and maybe even the planet of the original OP.

Pinky is the smart one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1 we have something that we don’t know if it was designed or not (the input of data in the QR code….numbers letters etc.)

2 I provided a test that would tell us if it was designed (if it opens a web site then it is designed)

So what else do you want? I gave you an objective way to test for design…….and you seem to agree with the validity of the test……………so what else do you want?

1. We definitely know that QR codes are designed. And by humans.
2. Whether or not the designed QR codes opens up a website or not is irrelevant. QR codes themselves are designed. I've designed QR codes that didn't work as intended and didn't open any website. Does that suddenly make then not designed? Of course not, because I still designed the QR code (with the help of a computer which was also designed by humans) in the first place. QR codes are designed. Your test doesn't seem to work because QR codes that open websites are designed, and QR codes that don't open website are also designed.

 

[leroy]

So explain the relevant parts in regards to biology.

Well once you agree (explicitly) with the test and the criteria for detecting design……………..we can move to the next topic and see if life fulfills the criteria or not

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well once you agree (explicitly) with the test and the criteria for detecting design……………..we can move to the next topic and see if life fulfills the criteria or not

No, you just do the next step.
E.g. how do you know that bacteria is designed and what it is input of data and how is it done?

 

[leroy]

from before:

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

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

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

This thread is about detecting design and more specifically about detecting design in the absence of knowledge of the designer.
The method posited by you was consistent with the claims of William Dembski and his claims re Intelligent Design. We have determined that his claims are irrelevant and useless in the conversation, but you are now trying to pretend that that determination is not relevant to the OP by making trivial arguments about a scenario that I brought up to demonstrate the lack of utility of Dembski's basic argument.
You are trying to make significance of whether the input to a granted human designed system could maybe sometimes be relevant to whether this human designed system would be considered designed by all interlocutors. You have long since left the field, country, continent and maybe even the planet of the original OP.

Pinky is the smart one.

You attempts to change the topic simply show that I won.

I provided an objective test that would tell us if the QR (or anything else) was designed………..and you keep hand waving.

Ether refute or agree with the validity of the test

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

For the 10th time…………..no it wouldn’t be evidence that it wasn’t designed (at least not conclusive evidence)

The test is good for detecting design…………………..but it is not good for detecting “no design”

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You attempts to change the topic simply show that I won.

I provided an objective test that would tell us if the QR (or anything else) was designed………..and you keep hand waving.

Ether refute or agree with the validity of the test



For the 10th time…………..no it wouldn’t be evidence that it wasn’t designed (at least not conclusive evidence)

The test is good for detecting design…………………..but it is not good for detecting “no design”

Just move on to biology.

 

[leroy]

No, you just do the next step.
E.g. how do you know that bacteria is designed and what it is input of data and how is it done?

Nope

First accept the validity of the test

Then explain it with your own words………to see if you understand it

And only then we can move to the next step

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope

First accept the validity of the test

Then explain it with your own words………to see if you understand it

And only then we can move to the next step

Yes, a computer and its code, programming and data are man made as can be observed in the everyday world for how that works. I.e. it is designed.
I can do the same for say human babies. There are factories for producing those and how to code and program them like you program a computer.

See, I understand that you are a computer.

 

[Pogo]

Well once you agree (explicitly) with the test and the criteria for detecting design……………..we can move to the next topic and see if life fulfills the criteria or not

And since nobody here agrees with the test?

You will claim lack of understanding or we are out to get you or denial or which one of your standard responses?

 

[leroy]

1. We definitely know that QR codes are designed. And by humans.
2. Whether or not the designed QR codes opens up a website or not is irrelevant. QR codes themselves are designed. I've designed QR codes that didn't work as intended and didn't open any website. Does that suddenly make then not designed? Of course not, because I still designed the QR code (with the help of a computer which was also designed by humans) in the first place. QR codes are designed. Your test doesn't seem to work because QR codes that open websites are designed, and QR codes that don't open website are also designed.

strawman

Yes QR are always designed by QR generators (by computers and programs)

My point is that the input of data, (the numbers and letters that you would put in the QR generator)……………..may or may no be designed.

1 you could carefully and purposely put specific numbers and letters (design)

2 you can type random letters and numbers (no design)

The test that I suggest is :

If the QR opens a website then the input of data is designed……………….so far nobody has disagreed with the validity of this test……….so tacitly you are all agreeing with me

 

[Pogo]

Well once you agree (explicitly) with the test and the criteria for detecting design……………..we can move to the next topic and see if life fulfills the criteria or not

for QR codes maybe, but we haven't even agreed with that beyond the basics, what if I have a petri dish with colonies that my phone recognizes as a QR code and tries to interpret? Was it designed? How about a pattern of stars in the sky as per your earlier hypothesis?

 

[leroy]

And since nobody here agrees with the test?

You havent disagreed with the test………………you haven’t denied the fact that a QR that opens a website is probably designed.

 

[leroy]

for QR codes maybe, but we haven't even agreed with that beyond the basics, what if I have a petri dish with colonies that my phone recognizes as a QR code and tries to interpret? Was it designed? How about a pattern of stars in the sky as per your earlier hypothesis?

Maybe? Why maybe?.....................what it stopping you from saying “yes of course I agree, if the QR opens a website I would conclude that the input data was probably design even if I had no prior knowledge of it being designed”

“If it doesn’t do anything (seemingly) then it could be ether design or no design”

We won’t change the topic until you explicitly agree with this.

 

[YoursTrue]

The reason I'm atheist is that God by definition is an ideal designer and one who governs life. What I see is wasteful, inadequate trial and error with some degree of autonomous programming, and preplanning in nature.

There must be a viable natural pathway for life to take root in the natural world so abiogenesis doesn't bother me.

I have to take evolution second hand, as I've never seen direct evidence for it first hand. It's an interesting narrative. It would explain survival of species, not necessarily arrival of species. I don't see it as a complete understanding of nature. I know people feel it shouldn't be questioned, and too me nothing is beyond questioning. At one time I just accepted what biologists say is true.

Thank you for your answer. (I mean that.) Since I believe that God alone has the power of reaching someone, and because I respect your answer, I leave the rest now between you and God. I also want you to know that while I understand the theory of evolution, although some here say I do not (that's ok for them to say it), I also understand what you're thinking now. Whether others want to believe it or not, the likelihood that we, as a human race, would be here, is scant to nothing. However, for me to imagine that fish developed legs and crawled out of water and stayed on land is almost like me trying to understand Hawking or Einstein's thoughts. That is one reason why I am going to offer this link: www.jw.org

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe? Why maybe?.....................what it stopping you from saying “yes of course I agree, if the QR opens a website I would conclude that the input data was probably design even if I had no prior knowledge of it being designed”

“If it doesn’t do anything (seemingly) then it could be ether design or no design”

We won’t change the topic until you explicitly agree with this.

Yes, I know you are a computer, but your program and input are bad, so we are going to erase your programming and start over. See, that is what happens with badly designed computers like you.

 

[Pogo]

You havent disagreed with the test………………you haven’t denied the fact that a QR that opens a website is probably designed.

As my ex-wife would say there is tristate, that state where the cat is neither awake nor asleep but if you walk into the room it will change to one or the other.
This concept long preceded some German guy who thought he knew what it really meant.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, I know you are a computer, but your program and input are bad, so we are going to erase your programming and start over. See, that is what happens with badly designed computers like you.

I'd blame it on the recent solar storm, but I think it was a neutrino that flipped a bit a long time ago.

 

[YoursTrue]

Maybe? Why maybe?.....................what it stopping you from saying “yes of course I agree, if the QR opens a website I would conclude that the input data was probably design even if I had no prior knowledge of it being designed”

“If it doesn’t do anything (seemingly) then it could be ether design or no design”

We won’t change the topic until you explicitly agree with this.

I've noticed sometimes even though it's obvious a person is wrong, it's going to be a yes/no/yes/no/ ad infinitum until it possibly develops into "yes, you're really ignorant..."