Living Vs. Nonliving and Visible Vs. Invisible. Classification.

[leroy]

My objections are what's in red.

One thing that you have to keep in mind, is that at this point you are not supposed to present objections, this is just me explaining what I mean by SC…..once you understand the concept you can go to the original argument and present your objections.

not all things designed, are "complex." Within context, an example would be a spoon, only one part, but still designed.

Granted, I am arguing that things that are SC are designed I am not arguing that all “design stuff” is SC see the difference?

You can find something design that is not SC, but you can’t find something SC that is “non designed”.

we humans, give it meaning. And it only has meaning if we give it a function. Example, Chinese calligraphy. It is only meaningful if one already knows it. And we can also give it meaning as we intended it to be eventhough it is not what we give it to mean. But it can also work the opposite way. We know that a book is designed, even if those letters spells out nothing at all and it's just random letters strung out together.

Whether if the pattern (meaning, function etc.) is objective or “invented by humans” is irrelevant it would still be considered SC (as long as it also has the other 3 points)

but like I said, what are its limits? Let's take the letter, "I" for instance. Someone could have written the letter "I" or ink could have dripped onto the paper and we would not be able to tell if it was deliberate(designed) or accident(not designed). Something small and single can be designed, as well as something big and numerous. So more specific details are needed.

Granted there is a “gray area” where it is hard to say if it is SC or not…. But I can give you the benefit of the doubt, if you show that life is within a gray area, the argument would collapse (premise 2 or the argument will collapse)….

So assuming that the concept of SC is now clear, what problems or objections do you have with this argument?

If you think there are MANY objections, just pick the strongest objection and lets focus on that specific objection

Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed

 

[gnostic]

There is literally and there is literally. I think I take the creation stories pretty literally, certainly not as allegory. I do take the creation days as being undetermined period of time, and that meaning seem pretty reasonable when we look at how the word "day" is used in the stories.
The more that archaeology finds the more evidence there is for stories in the OT.

No, Brian2.

Just because the Bible have named some cities, that doesn't mean the biblical stories are history, because there are lot more to history and archaeology than naming names of places - it required verification that such and such (biblical) people exist in history, and there are none of found from books of Genesis to 2 Samuel and 1 Kings (regarding to King Solomon).

There are no one by the names existing in the Early Bronze Age (eg Adam, Enoch, Noah), Middle Bronze Age (Nimrod, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and Late Bronze Age (Moses, Joshua) don’t exist in connection to the real places.

You have mentioned Rames

According to 1 Kings 6, Solomon started on construction during the 4th years of his reign, so around about 967 BCE. And in the first verse on this chapter:

6 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the Lord.

This would indicate the year Moses freed the Israelites (Exodus 12:37) and left Rameses 480 years ago, putting the date to 1447 BCE. That would mean Moses was born 80 years earlier in 1527 BCE while Rameses was in middle of construction. That would also mean died in 1407 BCE, followed by capture of Jericho and start of invasion in Canaan.

There are many problems with these dates, 1527 BCE, 1447 BCE and 1407 BCE.

For one, there was never any invasion of Canaan by Israelites, because it was already part of Egypt’s empire 1407 BCE, during the reign of Amenhotep II (reign 1427 - 1401 BCE). He had inherited vast kingdom that much of Syria from his father Thutmose III (1479-1425 BCE). I would hardly think that Amenhotep would have let the Israelites to invade Canaan without responding.

1447 BCE would have put the start of exodus from Rameses during Thutmose III’s reign, whom I already mentioned above. There are two problems here:

1. Rameses - or in Egyptian Pi-Ramesses, which mean the House of Ramesses - didn’t exist during Thutmose’s reign, because it was named after Ramesses III (reign 1279 - 1213 BCE), the 3rd king of 19th dynasty. And if there was Pi-Ramesses then, there couldn’t be any mass exodus from non-existence Pi-Ramesses.
2. And point 1 above, highlighted that Egypt have no records of any Israelites leaving Egypt, and no record of any Israelite leader named Moses.

And if Pi-Ramesses or the biblical Rameses didn’t exist in Thumoses’ reign, then it couldn’t have been built during the time of Moses being born in 1527 BCE (Exodus 1).

1527 BCE would put this near end of the reign of Ahmose I (1549 - 1525 BCE), the first king of 18th dynasty. Ahmose was responsible for ending the Hyksos rule and drove the Hyksos out of Egypt.

Not only there are problem with that.

In the Exodus 1, Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) was in midst of construction BEFORE Jericho was captured, destroyed and left abandoned according Joshua 6.

But according to archaeology, Jericho was abandoned during 1570s, while Pi-Ramesses was built during the mid-13th century BCE. So according to archaeology of Jericho was abandoned BEFORE construction of Pi-Ramesses.

So the biblical accounts are not at all reliable.

 

[gnostic]

There is evidence for flooding in many parts of the world at the end of the last ice age and there is evidence of a large local flood in the area of Noah also. (read what I just wrote to Exchemist.)

There are many problems if Genesis Flood was a global flood, because there are no physical evidence to support it, geologically, archaeologically and meteorologically.

But there are problems with large regional or local flood, because the story wouldn’t makes sense, logically.

For one, why built an ark that 100 years to built?

eg from time he had his vision or revelation at age 500, to the time he boarded the Ark at 600.

If Noah was indeed a prophet and he knew WHERE and WHEN the Flood would take place, wouldn’t it be so much easier to move of the danger zone, even by walking?

With 100 years warning, he could gone anywhere around the world, taking his family with him.

It took Alexander the Great, with large army, just 10 years to travel from Macedonia to Indus River, then back to Babylon, where he died.

It not logical to build ark when he could move away from dangers and had century to do so.

 

[leroy]

Since science does not deal in proof, nobody in science would ever demand that anything is "proved" to exist, as a prerequisite for it to be used in a hypothesis.

Furthermore, nobody scientific argues that design in nature can't exist because of the absence of "proof" of a designer. That's a straw man.

Ok just change proof for “evidence” in my sentences, its not a strawman, that is exactly what “ @gnostic “ is arguing and my comments on dark matter where focused on correcting that specific mistake




,

whereas science goes to great lengths to deal only in data and ideas that can be objectively corroborated.

Well, if science can corroborate design in archeological artifacts, structures, fires, when someone dies, etc. why making an arbitrary exception with life?...... scientists even look for non human design (artifacts made by homoerecutus, Dyson spheres made by ALIENS ETC.) so why making an arbitrary exception with life?...........

This is precisely why Dembski focused on bamboozling people with his bogus idea of "specified complexity". It was an attempt to overcome that problem by putting forward a supposedly objective criterion for defining, and thus detecting, design. .

Same as above, if we have objective cretria to tell whether if stuff is designed or not, why is it that “Life” happens to be the exception?

But of course it was nothing of the kind and eventually got exposed, once people could be bothered to wade through the mathematical obfuscation

I personally have never seen anyone exposing any flaws made in the argument that made by dembski, (except for straw men and minor secondary details)

What is his flaw?

1 there are things that are SC that are known not be designed?

2 life is not SC (talking about the first living thing)

3 something else?

 

[leroy]

Analogy isn’t explanation to ANYTHING SCIENCE.

Granted analogies are used to explain a concept. What is wrong with that?

.

What you don’t do, as these idiots from Discovery Institute have been doing, is comparing life origin, with manufacturing watches, cars, computers, etc, or bloody writing Shakespeare’s sonnets.

Why not,? If you claim to have a method to determine design, you use that method with thiongs that are known to be designed, and things that are known not to be design….to see if the method works….. what is wrong with that?



Why don’t you simply focus on the argument that I provided and explain expacty where is your main point of disagreement?
Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed

 

[night912]

One thing that you have to keep in mind, is that at this point you are not supposed to present objections, this is just me explaining what I mean by SC…..once you understand the concept you can go to the original argument and present your objections

Objections here is crucial. If it cannot overcome its objections here, then there's no need to go forward and use it as a premise.

Granted, I am arguing that things that are SC are designed I am not arguing that all “design stuff” is SC see the difference?

The whole point is to differentiate between what is designed and what is not. If it cannot identify "design stuff," then the method is not applicable.

You can find something design that is not SC, but you can’t find something SC that is “non designed”.

That's just your assumption, therefore it's baseless.

Granted there is a “gray area” where it is hard to say if it is SC or not…. But I can give you the benefit of the doubt, if you show that life is within a gray area, the argument would collapse (premise 2 or the argument will collapse)….

So assuming that the concept of SC is now clear, what problems or objections do you have with this argument?

Sorry, you don't get to dismiss the objections and assume that it's a valid premise. That's not how it works. I already told you, if you cannot defend the problems with this, then it cannot be use as a valid premise.

Whether if the pattern (meaning, function etc.) is objective or “invented by humans” is irrelevant it would still be considered SC (as long as it also has the other 3 points)

Why? You never explained it.

If you think there are MANY objections, just pick the strongest objection and lets focus on that specific objection

Premise 1. You haven't addressed it.

Sorry, but deductive logic is not enough to be use as a method of testing whether or not something is designed. It failed as a method.

 

[exchemist]

No doubt there are ways to understand what the Bible tells us about the creation which do not need it to conform to any science. So there is no imposition of a certain way of understanding it by my faith at least, I just see a conformity of Genesis to ideas in science concerning the beginnings.
I do see however that there are many fundamentalist churches that teach that a young earth is the only alternative when it comes to understanding the Bible. People who go to those churches and have been sucked in by that teaching are the ones who have their own science on the subject and who feel that their faith imposes a young earth on them.



There are no doubt different ideas from the early church and Judaism about the stories. I hear Augustus said that the days of creation may not have been 24 hour days.
The different versions in chapters 1 and 2 are not really different versions. Chapter 1 is about the creation of the universe and Chapter 2 is more specifically about the creation of humans and what happened when God created them. I think God probably created the animals that Adam would have dealings with so that he could name them. (and of course that leads in to the creation of Eve).
Interestingly in verses 5 and 6 we can see that this event happened before there were any plants and so it looks to be talking about what happened on day 2 or 3 of chapter one. God began to form man from the dirt on day 2 or 3 and finished on day 6 and it was only then that God breathed spirit into him and created man.
On days 2,3,4,5 and 6 it could be that man was evolving into something that God wanted.
In Gen 1:1 we see that the universe was created in verse 1 and then God speaks from the vantage point of the earth and says it was dark and empty. It was dark because it was surrounded by thick clouds. (see Job 38:9) and it seems to have had an ocean in those early days. Ideas in science agree with the ocean and cloud cover.
Anyway the point I am trying to make is that the sun was already in existence then and was not seen until day 4 even though light was getting through the clouds. It comes down to an understanding of the language uses. In chapter 4 the word usually translated as "made" does not necessarily mean bring into existence but can mean to bring about in the broadest possible way. So no, the sun was not created on day 4.



I did not say it was a small local flood, but it was not world wide. The story of Noah is confined to that area and tells what happened there imo. The words can be translated to mean that "high mountains" can be translated "high hills", "earth" can be translated "land" etc.
This is not to say that extensive flooding did not happen at that time in other areas of the earth so that God could have pretty much obliterated humans, but seems to have saved some from many cultures, as their stories attest. As far as I can tell there was a time at the end of the last ice age when extensive flooding did happen in various parts of the earth. So I do not down grade the Noah story, just made the extent of that particular part of the flood smaller than most translations would have it.
The way I see the Epic of Gilgamesh is that a true event was recorded there and in the Bible a more true version of events was given. There is no reason to say that the Bible version was copied unless you are into the development of religions ideas that anthropology has,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,rejecting that any one religion is true right from the get go.

I think you mean Augustine of Hippo, rather than Augustus (who was the first Roman Emperor, following Julius Caesar).

I see what you are trying to do but I think you are contorting language too far, to be honest. The traditional churches have never seen the need to interpret every word of the Garden of Eden stories as if they were literal accounts. The key messages, it seems to me, are the ones I outlined in post 4 of this other recent thread: She who is without Sin

 

[exchemist]

,

Well, if science can corroborate design in archeological artifacts, structures, fires, when someone dies, etc. why making an arbitrary exception with life?...... scientists even look for non human design (artifacts made by homoerecutus, Dyson spheres made by ALIENS ETC.) so why making an arbitrary exception with life?...........





Same as above, if we have objective cretria to tell whether if stuff is designed or not, why is it that “Life” happens to be the exception?


I personally have never seen anyone exposing any flaws made in the argument that made by dembski, (except for straw men and minor secondary details)

What is his flaw?

1 there are things that are SC that are known not be designed?

2 life is not SC (talking about the first living thing)

3 something else?

We can corroborate the presence of human design in items that look like human artifacts, because we know what to expect from human design. It is impossible to produce a definition of "design" that does not make subjective judgements about what nature is, and is not, capable of producing on its own.

Specified complexity is a bogus concept and fails:

"Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.

Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers".[29] This contradicts the argument that an intelligent designer is required for the most complex systems. Such evolutionary techniques can lead to designs that are difficult to understand or evaluate since no human understands which trade-offs were made in the evolutionary process, something which mimics our poor understanding of biological systems.

Dembski's book No Free Lunch was criticised for not addressing the work of researchers who use computer simulations to investigate artificial life. According to Shallit:

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.[26]"

From: Specified complexity - Wikipedia

There has been no work on this idea since about 2005, even by ID people, so far as I can tell.

 

[leroy]

Objections here is crucial. If it cannot overcome its objections here, then there's no need to go forward and use it as a premise.

Because At this point I am just explaining what I mean by SC……it doesn’t make sense to have an objection to my definition. The relevant question is do you understand what I mean by SC, or do you need more clarification?

The whole point is to differentiate between what is designed and what is not. If it cannot identify "design stuff," then the method is not applicable.

the argument is: If something is SC then it is designed. If it is not SC, then we don’t know if it is designed or not……..is it clear?

That's just your assumption, therefore it's baseless.

Of course it’s an assumption (at this point) remember I am just defining the term that you asked me to define

Premise 1. You haven't addressed it.

Sorry, but deductive logic is not enough to be use as a method of testing whether or not something is designed. It failed as a method.

Ok So if you don’t have any questions related to the definition of SC let me know, and then I can provide the reasons for why I think premises 1 (and 2) are probably correct.

 

[gnostic]

Granted analogies are used to explain a concept. What is wrong with that?

Because it is straying off-topic, because watches, cars, computers and sonnets are living matters. These are all man-made inventions, but these objects don’t reproduce themselves.

Using analogies with these objects, are misleading. The levels of dishonesty and ignorance that come from the members of Discovery Institute showed that they have no interest in exploring natural causes to life.

Instead they use analogies that aren’t relevant to the origin of life on Earth, where they preferred to invent more myths about god or visiting aliens.

At least with Abiogenesis, the researchers are exploring evidence of chemical reactions that could have cause natural formation of biological molecules or compounds.

Discovery Institute do no such investigations and tests, preferring to create analogies which don’t require testings and don’t require evidence.

Cells of living organisms and components (nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, etc) that make up cells, are not cars, computers, watches or sonnets.

That you continue to support the unreliable and irrelevant use of analogies, just showed me that YOU have no interests in evidence for life through studying biology and biochemistry.

 

[gnostic]

Why not,? If you claim to have a method to determine design, you use that method with thiongs that are known to be designed, and things that are known not to be design….to see if the method works….. what is wrong with that?



Why don’t you simply focus on the argument that I provided and explain expacty where is your main point of disagreement?
Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed

These premises you have listed are merely speculative claim, where you simply jumped to conclusion without ever testing the premises and without testing how you arrived at such conclusion.

There are no “method” here. It just making more claims that you have no evidence for.

 

[leroy]

We can corroborate the presence of human design in items that look like human artifacts, because we know what to expect from human design. It is impossible to produce a definition of "design" that does not make subjective judgements about what nature is, and is not, capable of producing on its own.

What about non-human design? For example archeologists are constantly finding stuff that predates humans and they conclude things like “homo-erectus design” and nobody would say something as stupid as “nobody has ever seen an homo erectus designing stuff, therefore we don’t know what to expect”…..or what about the SETI proyect? They are looking for alien design….the point that I am trying to make is that design detection is science and is not restricted to “human design”………..any disagreement from your part?

Specified complexity is a bogus concept and fails:

Ok, keep in mind the argument and the definition for Specified Complexity.....
the ARGUMENT

Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed

THE definition of SC (point 4 is relevant)

Something has the attribute of SC IF:

1 It is complex: Has many parts, many units etc

2 Has a pattern: A function, a meaning, etc.

3 There are many possible combinations allowed by the laws of nature but only one or few combinations would produce the pattern.

4 There is not a bias is the laws of nature, favoring that pattern

It must have all 4 in order to consider it SC

so with that in mind

"

Apart from such theoretical considerations, critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontanteous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally. For example, in 1982, B.G. Hall published research demonstrating that after removing a gene that allows sugar digestion in certain bacteria, those bacteria, when grown in media rich in sugar, rapidly evolve new sugar-digesting enzymes to replace those removed.[28] Another widely cited example is the discovery of nylon eating bacteria that produce enzymes only useful for digesting synthetic materials that did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in 1935.
...........

If evolution by natural selection is true and it can successfully explain things like the origin of the EYE, then eyes wouldn’t be SC because point 4 in the definition would failed……..if evolution is true then there would be a bias in the laws of nature (in this case natural selection) towards organizing stuff such that eyes will form ….so if we change “life” for “eyes” in the argument (in orange letters see see above) premise 2 would be false.

The important thing to note is that the argument is testable and falsifiable and therefore open to scientific inquiry trough the scientific method (meaning that the accusations of pseudoscience are unjustified) agree?

In this thread we are talking about the origin of life, and with life I mean “any self-replicating organic thing”….. so whether if evolution is true or not is irrelevant because the origin of life predates evolution.

So with all that in mind, what objection do you have with the argument (in orange letters)

 

[leroy]

Because it is straying off-topic, because watches, cars, computers and sonnets are living matters. These are all man-made inventions, but these objects don’t reproduce themselves.

Using analogies with these objects, are misleading. The levels of dishonesty and ignorance that come from the members of Discovery Institute showed that they have no interest in exploring natural causes to life.

Instead they use analogies that aren’t relevant to the origin of life on Earth, where they preferred to invent more myths about god or visiting aliens.

At least with Abiogenesis, the researchers are exploring evidence of chemical reactions that could have cause natural formation of biological molecules or compounds.

Discovery Institute do no such investigations and tests, preferring to create analogies which don’t require testings and don’t require evidence.

Cells of living organisms and components (nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, etc) that make up cells, are not cars, computers, watches or sonnets.

That you continue to support the unreliable and irrelevant use of analogies, just showed me that YOU have no interests in evidence for life through studying biology and biochemistry.

Again, analogies are not meant to be part of the evidence nor the tests, analogies are meant to be tools that help to understand a topic --- Richard Dawkis uses analogies all the time to explain the concept of evolution and I don’t see you making a big deal….. why?

The fact that you are making a big deal with analogies and ignoring the actual argument (ether mine of demskies or behes etc.) is very telling.

 

[gnostic]

Again, analogies are not meant to be part of the evidence nor the tests, analogies are meant to be tools that help to understand a topic --- Richard Dawkis uses analogies all the time to explain the concept of evolution and I don’t see you making a big deal….. why?

The fact that you are making a big deal with analogies and ignoring the actual argument (ether mine of demskies or behes etc.) is very telling.

Then why use analogies at all, Leroy?

I’ll tell you why...people from Discovery Institute used analogies out of desperation, because they have no evidence to support the components of cells were designed by some invisible entities that are collectively known as Designer.

All those members at DI, are known creationists, so really Intelligent Design is really creationism in the guise, masquerading as science.

They are trying to put creationism back in science classrooms in schools, by pretending that ID is alternative to Evolution, when it (ID) really offered no science and no evidence and tests to back it up.

Using analogies is just to make for the lack of evidence for ID and zero evidence for the Designer. There are no methods in ID except through non-scientific propaganda for creationism

The ID that being promoted by Johnson, Meyer, Dembski, Behe and other DI authors have nothing to do with aliens being the Designer, and everything to with sneaking Genesis back on table, where it can be taught in schools again as science.

That’s why ID is pseudoscience. They have no interests in science, let alone doing scientific research and experiments.

 

[night912]

Because At this point I am just explaining what I mean by SC……it doesn’t make sense to have an objection to my definition. The relevant question is do you understand what I mean by SC, or do you need more clarification?

No, the relevant question is, why are you avoiding my objections. If you are afraid, it's okay. If you don't have answers, it's okay. But at least stop making excuses for avoiding them. Perhaps try reading what I said.

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PREMISE 1. And I've explained as to why, you've just been avoiding it.

the argument is: If something is SC then it is designed. If it is not SC, then we don’t know if it is designed or not……..is it clear?

Premise 1. Now are you finally going to address it, or come up with more excuses and keep dodging?

Of course it’s an assumption (at this point) remember I am just defining the term that you asked me to define

Yes, premise 1 is an assumption. So are you finally going to address it, or come up with more excuses and keep dodging?

Ok So if you don’t have any questions related to the definition of SC let me know, and then I can provide the reasons for why I think premises 1 (and 2) are probably correct.

Been waiting for your answer. And note my objections before answering.

 

[shunyadragon]

The [positive] indirect or existing [physical] limited evidence is required to give a hypothesis a basis to have predictive value concerning the nature of our physical existence.

True.

All I am saying is that one can establish dark matter as the best explanation for additional gravity, even if you don’t have independent evidence that prove the existence of such a substance…………..agree yes or no.

That is not all you are saying! There is independent 'positive' indirect physical evidence,' ie observable facts, and enough for a hypothesis that is at present inconclusive.

At present NO, because of your underlying agenda.

Hold un, at this point I am simply trying to establish that the argument is not pseudoscience and it´s logically valid……….with this I mean that the argument is testable, each of the premises could be analyzed using the scientific method, and each of the premises is falsifiable and that the conclusion logically follows from the premises………any disagreement form your part.

If there is positive indirect or direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, for supporting a proposal for a hypothesis. There is sufficient positive indirect evidence to propose a hypothesis, but at present it is not conclusive. This is the nature of scientific hypothesis, as the one proposed for black holes.

. . . after we agree on this points, we can move on and see if the premises are likely to be true or not

No we are not in agreement. I gave the correct reasoning for proposing a hypothesis, which requires 'positive' indirect or direct evidence, ie observable facts, whether the hypothesis is true or not.

Just for context this is the argument I am talking about
Premise 1 things that have the atrubute of specified complexity ( SC) are design

Premise 2 life has SC (talking about the first living thing or self replicating molecule)

Therefore life was designed

Premise #1 is a conclusion which is false, and lacks positive indirect or direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, to support a proposal for a hypothesis.

Premice #2 is true, but beyond this the obvious does not warrant a hypothesis

There is not any 'positive' indirect nor direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, to support Therefore. . . nor sufficient to propose an Intelligent Design hypothesis.

The hypothesis for existence of Dark Matter has 'positive' indirect physical evidence, ie observable facts,

 

[rational experiences]

True.




That is not all you are saying! There is independent 'positive' indirect physical evidence,' ie observable facts, and enough for a hypothesis that is at present inconclusive.

At present NO, because of your underlying agenda.




If there is positive indirect or direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, for supporting a proposal for a hypothesis. There is sufficient positive indirect evidence to propose a hypothesis, but at present it is not conclusive. This is the nature of scientific hypothesis, as the one proposed for black holes.



No we are not in agreement. I gave the correct reasoning for proposing a hypothesis, which requires 'positive' indirect or direct evidence, ie observable facts, whether the hypothesis is true or not.



Premise #1 is a conclusion which is false, and lacks positive indirect or direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, to support a proposal for a hypothesis.

Premice #2 is true, but beyond this the obvious does not warrant a hypothesis

There is not any 'positive' indirect nor direct physical evidence, ie observable facts, to support Therefore. . . nor sufficient to propose an Intelligent Design hypothesis.

The hypothesis for existence of Dark Matter has 'positive' indirect physical evidence, ie observable facts,

When we live on a stone planet that once was sealed historically by the flooded Earth theme. Where historically by thinking about thesis, the Earth stone body was sealed in a spatial vacuum. Strings of thoughts, not strings of powers in reality.

Then males in science knew that they released the sealed cold radiation mass...as machine is taken from a converted mineral particle, which is what we live atop of. Then machine involved machine with radiation/radio wave particle converting. Old science was transmutation of mass into gold. Gold in the past was trade and commodity.

Today the conversion to gain change and a resource for trade and a commodity is nuclear chemical/resource fuel.

Why the machines and technological buildings are different to the past science which was a known direct Earth mass attack and sink hole gain. Science knew, science then forbade that form of science practice. As basic as it was....a self instruction by laws of the sciences.

When science converts cold radiation fused mass, you have left overs....radiating heated radiation condition. The same condition is observed in space that owns self consuming bodies of mass.

Only the spatial vacuum owned the stopping and holding of consuming mass itself.

The Sun however proved to science that the spatial vacuum could not stop its body from consuming itself. As it does sit in a spatial same equal vacuum that every other body type owns.

Science then observes a variable and multiple body type in the spatial history...why isn't the answer spatial vacuum = same mass?

Because it is separated bodies in a natural space history.

If science quotes it suddenly identified knowing it all, you would be proven lying to self. The knowledge that you seek is why a left over radiating higher radiation body exists. And anyone would wonder why you seek the knowledge of that body when comparing life on Earth on a stone cold radiation fused body/mass?

As a logical thinker and storyteller who quotes from old science thesis awareness about how the scientific Destroyer male is motivated to seek information in space to have our life destroyed. The reason for its science agreement/past law.

If you ask why occult radiation practices re emerged, the history quotes, the brain/mind was so irradiated by the incoming meteor burning of the gases above us, plus in addition the huge radiation released constant, quoted to be Peter, the repetere, the repeating reason for life in sacrifice as a Jesus teaching quote.

Life was saved on Earth in that huge mass radiation release explosion eruption, by flooding, but life remained sacrificed since. The event spatially was quantified to be 2012 vacuum activation, Holy Mother womb cooling event. Science re invested in nuclear radiation Earth release, life continues to be attacked/sacrificed and dying.

Total knowledge of which is known to science.

Therefore we quote, the mind/psyche consciousness went into the Dark Ages of its expressions as it owned and inherited a radiated brain chemical burning inheritance that causes expressive mind depravity and evil belief against self, human family, and extended human family.

What we always were aware of. You can never control how radiation as an event effects the human chemical brain. Yet you were all warned of its previous known human biological observations. What the healer information was...medical science aware psychic conditions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because At this point I am just explaining what I mean by SC……it doesn’t make sense to have an objection to my definition. The relevant question is do you understand what I mean by SC, or do you need more clarification?

the argument is: If something is SC then it is designed. If it is not SC, then we don’t know if it is designed or not……..is it clear?

Than if this is your definition (?) than there is no evidence that Specific Complexity exists

Ok So if you don’t have any questions related to the definition of SC let me know, and then I can provide the reasons for why I think premises 1 (and 2) are probably correct.

A proposal of a hypothesis would have to present evidence, ie physical scientific observations, that supports Specified Complexity exists. The only thing the objective verifiable evidence demonstrates is the complexity of life exists.

At present SC is only an assumption by those that support ID

 

[rational experiences]

Fact of living self evidence versus a thesis, stories.

Humans live in the day light condition radiating. Yet that same condition caused life to die and life is only surviving self presence.

The night time clear Immaculate heavens, non burning owns the support of why life was not just instantly deceased as spirit who came into our atmosphere from the eternal. As the teaching.

How do we know we came from the real eternal as a spirit?

O the planet when heated irradiated, increased radiation conditions leave a residue, that proves a higher existing body historically was activated into a burst that burnt it by conditions of cause.

Human life owns an instant moment of human death. Body also does not disappear in a radiating living condition, otherwise all humans would die in the exact same moment.

Proof of variations in life, due to chosen act of human sex, from the moment a human female owns the baby life...throughout her human adult ability to own a baby itself.

That human condition is not proof for any scientist, who came from the same baby conception as everyone else about any status, of spirit or creative advice.

If all bodies originally came from the exact same place, then design information would exist as proof that we share a common history.

As a human did not live through or own self presence in out of space, then it proves that we did in fact come out of the same body historically. Yet we came into creation from the eternal spirit only when all the gas masses already existed as filled in space....what got returned as cause/effect.

 

[exchemist]

What about non-human design? For example archeologists are constantly finding stuff that predates humans and they conclude things like “homo-erectus design” and nobody would say something as stupid as “nobody has ever seen an homo erectus designing stuff, therefore we don’t know what to expect”…..or what about the SETI proyect? They are looking for alien design….the point that I am trying to make is that design detection is science and is not restricted to “human design”………..any disagreement from your part?





Ok, keep in mind the argument and the definition for Specified Complexity.....
the ARGUMENT

THE definition of SC (point 4 is relevant)


so with that in mind

"


If evolution by natural selection is true and it can successfully explain things like the origin of the EYE, then eyes wouldn’t be SC because point 4 in the definition would failed……..if evolution is true then there would be a bias in the laws of nature (in this case natural selection) towards organizing stuff such that eyes will form ….so if we change “life” for “eyes” in the argument (in orange letters see see above) premise 2 would be false.

The important thing to note is that the argument is testable and falsifiable and therefore open to scientific inquiry trough the scientific method (meaning that the accusations of pseudoscience are unjustified) agree?

In this thread we are talking about the origin of life, and with life I mean “any self-replicating organic thing”….. so whether if evolution is true or not is irrelevant because the origin of life predates evolution.

So with all that in mind, what objection do you have with the argument (in orange letters)

An argument based on false premises will be false. I don't understand why you keep repeating these "premises" and demanding answers to a trivial argument based on them, when I have told you repeatedly that specified complexity is bogus.

That means that both Premise 1 and Premise 2 are false.

Later: To return the more interesting question of design, the design examples you give are also human or proto-human. They used hands and primitive tools, and we know how they lived, what they hunted, what they ate, etc. So we know what to look for in terms of objects designed by them. Whether they were precisely home sapiens or not is neither here nor there: we know what to look for.

It is impossible to define "design" in the abstract, without such reference points. Dembski realised this, hence his idea of SC. This had the merit of being a scientific hypothesis, as it makes predictions. Unfortunately for him, they have been falsified, as the passage I quoted indicates.