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

[exchemist]

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.

It's Dembski, with a b, as in dumb.

 

[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

 

[leroy]

Some context
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

I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PREMISE 1.

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


.

Premise 1 is supported by inductive reasoning

Every single observation that has been made confirms that SC can only coke from a designer....

Note that the argument is falsifiable, all you have do do is provide an example of SC that was not caused by a mind.

I have more arguments in favor of premise 1 but this inductive reasoning is enough to stablish that premise 1 is probably true

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

Can you quote any objection to premise 1 that i have failed to adress?

For @shunyadragon @gnostic @exchemist
Given this justification do you now accept premise 1?

 

[exchemist]

Some context
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 supported by inductive reasoning

Every single observation that has been made confirms that SC can only coke from a designer....

Note that the argument is falsifiable, all you have do do is provide an example of SC that was not caused by a mind.

I have more arguments in favor of premise 1 but this inductive reasoning is enough to stablish that premise 1 is probably true



Can you quote any objection to premise 1 that i have failed to adress?

For @shunyadragon @gnostic @exchemist
Given this justification do you now accept premise 1?

Sorry but this seems to make no sense.

Since "Specified Complexity" is a bogus idea (as my various earlier posts), it follows that there are no things that have that as an attribute, including life. That knocks out both premises.

I really cannot see what more needs to be said about this.

P.S. Re your comment to @night912 , in post 308 I quote examples of the generation of complexity that Dembski's idea of SC predicts should not occur. So the SC hypothesis has been falsified by observation. That knocks it on the head, as far as science is concerned. ID no doubt hangs on it, but that will be because ID is not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

No agreement on my part, nor science. Yes we find evidence of design going back millions of years to hominins before humans were humans, but there is absolutely no evidence of design beyond this. Well, ah . . . you can keep looking for aliens for further evidence of design.

The problem remains the lack of evidence of any sort of design beyond human design,

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

THE definition of SC (point 4 is relevant)

The claim of Specified Complexity is not supported by any 'positive' objective verifiable evidence. It remains an unfounded assertion by those who 'believe' in Intelligent Design.

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.

Tortant 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?

The argument for Intelligent Design and Specified Complexity is not testable and falsifiable, because it lacks 'positive' objective verifiable evidence to support a hypothesis,

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)

The abiogenesis at present is a falsifiable hypothesis, because there is 'positive' objective verifiable evidence for how life originated in the suitable environments. Of course, it is at present an incomplete hypothesis, but at present there is no 'positive' objective verifiable evidence to support an alternative. It is similar to the history of the hypothesis for the existence of black holes. For more than 50 years the hypothesis for black holes was based on the predictability of 'indirect' evidence, until it was fully demonstrated that black holes exist.

The vague 'arguing for ignorance' is not grounds for support for an alternative hypothesis 'Intelligent Design' for which there is absolutely no 'positive' objective verifiable evidence' to support the hypothesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you quote any objection to premise 1 that i have failed to address?

For @shunyadragon @gnostic @exchemist
Given this justification do you now accept premise 1?

There is no positive 'objective verifiable evidence' [specific observations] that could support an inductive argument [hypothesis] for Specified Complexity nor Intelligent Design.

inductive vs deductive - Google Search
Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.

You lack the specific observations to support the broader generalization, ie a scientific hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

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

Based on the definition that I provided, this sentence is SC..... Therefore SC

Do you have any other objection to the argument?

 

[shunyadragon]

Based on the definition that I provided, this sentence is SC..... Therefore SC

Your definition is subjective, and lacks 'positive' objective verifiable evidence to support i

The above is so circular 'begging the question.' you bite yourself in the butt.

Do you have any other objection to the argument?

You have not responded to my objection.

I responded to your misuse of 'inductive argument,' and you have not responded.

 

[exchemist]

Based on the definition that I provided, this sentence is SC..... Therefore SC

Do you have any other objection to the argument?

Anyone can invent a definition, the terms of which are fulfilled by some chosen object or system.

If that is all your version of SC consists of, then yes there is such a thing, but you have not shown that you are describing an inherent property of design.

 

[leroy]

Your definition is subjective, and lacks 'positive' objective verifiable evidence to support i

The above is so circular 'begging the question.' you bite yourself in the butt.
]

All definitions are subjective....

And yes you can verify objectvly whether if this sentence is SC or not. All you have to do is look at the 4 points in the definition and see if any point fails

 

[MNoBody]

clay, cannot of itself, become a pot.
since humans are alive somehow and assume they are intelligent, then where would this, "intelligence" arise from?
from something that does not have any?
then display any example in the natural universe that demonstrates this ability!

 

[leroy]

Anyone can invent a definition, the terms of which are fulfilled by some chosen object or system.

If that is all your version of SC consists of, then yes there is such a thing, but you have not shown that you are describing an inherent property of design.

That is a strawman, I dont have to show that SC is an intrinsic propeety of design...... All i have to do is show that things that are SC are design (see the difference) in post 323 i provided an argument for why i would argue such a thing

See post 323 here

1?

 

[leroy]

There is no positive 'objective verifiable evidence' [specific observations] that could support an inductive argument [hypothesis] for Specified Complexity nor Intelligent Design.

inductive vs deductive - Google Search
Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories.

You lack the specific observations to support the broader generalization, ie a scientific hypothesis.

Again every single observation of something with known origin and that is SC happens to be designed

Therefore inductivley we can can conclude that all SC are designed...... This argument can be false if ether
1 you provide a single example of SC tjat is not designed

2 or provide a good reason to make an exception to this inductive reasoning

 

[leroy]

The abiogenesis at present is a falsifiable


.

What would" falsify nature did it abiogenesis"?

What testable evidence do you have? (such that the conclusion "nature did it" follows from that evidence


Prediction : i wont get a direct answer from you

 

[leroy]

No agreement on my part, nor science. Yes we find evidence of design going back millions of years to hominins before humans were humans, but there is absolutely no evidence of design beyond this. .

The point that i made is that non human design is detectable do you agree or not?


i mentioned homo erectus design and the SETI proyect as examples.

Do you agree

 

[shunyadragon]

All definitions are subjective....

Another fallacy 'false generalization,' not true. Definitions can refer to objective definitions and subjective definitions.

And yes you can verify objectivity whether if this sentence is SC or not. All you have to do is look at the 4 points in the definition and see if any point fails

ALL points fail, because there is not 'positive' objective evidence, nor valid inductive argument to support your assertion.

The assertion in the sentence does not make it true nor valid.

 

[leroy]

Sorry
P.S. Re your comment to @night912 , in post 308 I quote examples of the generation of complexity that Dembski's idea of SC predicts should not occur. So the SC hypothesis has been falsified by observation. That knocks it on the head, as far as science is concerned. ID no doubt hangs on it, but that will be because ID is not science.

Things that evolved by natural selection, dont have the atribute of SC, premise 1 would still be true

 

[shunyadragon]

The point that i made is that non human design is detectable do you agree or not?

No there is no evidence to support this assertion.

i mentioned homo erectus design and the SETI proyect as examples.

Do you agree

No, neither represents any form of evidence for Specific Complexity. There is no known evidence for alien intelligent life beyond our planet. There is indirect evidence for life.

 

[gnostic]

Premise 1 is supported by inductive reasoning

No, not inductive reasoning.

Your SC premise supplies no evidence whatsoever.

It is more like circular reasoning...in which SC isn’t a rational or logical reasoning...

You need to remember that Dembski is a mathematician, philosopher and theologian; he isn’t a scientist. So what would he know about the origin of life?

In science, the conclusion should be based on the availability of evidence or on the test results of lab experiments. So the observations, evidence and tests should decide the conclusion, not the other way around.

The conclusion should never be decided be reasoning alone, because reasoning can be flawed or wrong, because the person doing the “reasoning” could be biased (like Dembski and Behe), and could have agenda (as Dembski and Behe do, as they are ID creationists).

To say “...life is complex, therefore design...”, is not logic at all, let alone method of scientific testing or research. It is simply shoddy circular reasoning.

...in fact, every senior members of the Discovery Institute, eg Johnson, Meyer and Behe, use circular reasoning with Intelligent Design.

And using analogies (eg designs of machines, watches, computers, cars, etc, have nothing to do with living matters and origin of life, therefore such comparisons using analogies are misleading and irrelevant.

It would be like comparing a cell with paintbrush or with Persia rug.

Analogy may well be great for religious teaching or discussing philosophies or writing poetry, but in science, they are not very useful.

I have told you this before, and I told you why analogies aren’t science and shouldn’t be use in science, but you refuse to understand it.

 

[leroy]

nor valid inductive argument to support your assertion.

Exactly what assertion are you talking about?