quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods.

Partly true.

In fact, I would say one of the reasons ID arises now in the manner that it does is that for the first time in history we have some ideas about what it takes to program sophisticated information systems, produce molecular micro-machinery, and manipulate the structures of genomes.

Contrary to what Darwin understood, the cell isn't a simple protoplasmic structure, but a sophisticated information driven molecular machine factory, and as we grow ever more sophisticated in our own knowledge of what is required to produce them, we can begin to discern how intelligence played a role.

quote:

So, what is required to produce them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

So, what is required to produce them?

What? Information systems? Cells? Molecular Machines?

quote:

Sorry, Cells. What is required to produce cells?

quote:

Well the primary thing that is needed for the components of a cell is knowledge; knowledge of chemistry, knowledge of assembling chemical systems in such a way as to program them to produce the needed enzymes, the ability to manipulate molecules and assemble them into the neede machinery to intiate the working of the cell, the ability to package them in a lipid membrane in such a way so that it interacts with that membrane, and finally that it is able to utilize substances in the environment to fuel itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

quote:

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

By the way, is anyone going to see the movie this weekend?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

The interesting thing is that most people have the capacity for knowing when a figure of speech is used in even in the middle of a sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

The interesting thing is that most people have the capacity for knowing when a figure of speech is used in even in the middle of a sentence.

Apparently literalists don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In your example, we not only have a known designer, but also known methods. When ID is applied to biological structures, we have neither a know designer nor any know methods.

Partly true.

In fact, I would say one of the reasons ID arises now in the manner that it does is that for the first time in history we have some ideas about what it takes to program sophisticated information systems, produce molecular micro-machinery, and manipulate the structures of genomes.

Contrary to what Darwin understood, the cell isn't a simple protoplasmic structure, but a sophisticated information driven molecular machine factory, and as we grow ever more sophisticated in our own knowledge of what is required to produce them, we can begin to discern how intelligence played a role.

quote:

Don't you think it may just be a little overreaching or a faulty assumption to just draw undue likeness between cellular 'complex information systems' and man-made 'complex information systems'? Biological information systems, while its easy to make analogies to man-made inorganic information systems for purposes of basic understanding or teaching, they have little else in common. To me it seems like we then build off that faulty assumption with another by saying 'information systems' which are built by man-kind are designed, so these other systems must have been designed too? Systems which bear absolutely no resemblance to man made information systems, except in very superficial ways.

I think its a mistake to lump natural systems with man-made ones and simply say, hey look, these all have to be designed. One type of those systems is very unlike the other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

The interesting thing is that most people have the capacity for knowing when a figure of speech is used in even in the middle of a sentence.

Apparently literalists don't.

I said "knowing when a figure of speech is used", not "knowing when to insert a figurative meaning into the speech."

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman

Jhud, you seem an interesting fella. One day I would love to pick your brain. (btw all you literalist, imagine if we took this sentance as literal as you do genesis ! both senerios end badly...)

The interesting thing is that most people have the capacity for knowing when a figure of speech is used in even in the middle of a sentence.

Apparently literalists don't.

I said "knowing when a figure of speech is used", not "knowing when to insert a figurative meaning into the speech."

Oh, yes, a thousand pardons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Sorry, Cells. What is required to produce cells?

Well the primary thing that is needed for the components of a cell is knowledge; knowledge of chemistry, knowledge of assembling chemical systems in such a way as to program them to produce the needed enzymes, the ability to manipulate molecules and assemble them into the neede machinery to intiate the working of the cell, the ability to package them in a lipid membrane in such a way so that it interacts with that membrane, and finally that it is able to utilize substances in the environment to fuel itself.

quote:

In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.

quote:

In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.

Actually, that’s wrong; in fact, a ‘sharp edge’ can be made naturally; that’s why they need criteria to distinguish geofacts from artefacts. And those criteria are as follows:

1. Cores that display logical reduction strategies (e.g., radial)

2. Cores with more than five flake scars

3. Intentional creation or preparation of platforms

4. Bifacial reduction,

5. retouch, or blade production.

If these indicators exist, then the probability that this occurred naturally is so low that it really isn’t a consideration. One can safely conclude that it was produced by an intelligence. ID makes much the same calculation.

quote:

In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.

The problem with this ‘theory’ of yours is that it is easily proven wrong by the slightest thought experiment.

If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In order to look for distinguish artifacts from geofacts, you mentioned "methodology of Systematic Flaking". That is, you look for evidence of a method, flaking. We don't look for the ability to make a sharp edge, we look for evidence of a specific method.

Actually, that’s wrong; in fact, a ‘sharp edge’ can be made naturally; that’s why they need criteria to distinguish geofacts from artefacts. And those criteria are as follows:

1. Cores that display logical reduction strategies (e.g., radial)

2. Cores with more than five flake scars

3. Intentional creation or preparation of platforms

4. Bifacial reduction,

5. retouch, or blade production.

If these indicators exist, then the probability that this occurred naturally is so low that it really isn’t a consideration. One can safely conclude that it was produced by an intelligence. ID makes much the same calculation.

quote:

quote:

In contrast, your response to what does it take to make a cell, your answer is basically it takes the ability to make a cell. Obviously in order to make a cell, a supposed Designer would need the ability to make the components of a cell. But, without a method that leaves some evidence behind, there is nothing that can be verified or falsified.

The problem with this ‘theory’ of yours is that it is easily proven wrong by the slightest thought experiment.

If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship embedded in rock 100 ft below the surface of the earth, we could not conclude it was intelligently designed unless we knew the ‘method’ by which it was produced. And that of course is absurd.

quote:

In post # 93, you said, "I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this."

We look for evidence of a specific method.

quote:

Let's continue with your thought example. If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship, this would immediately raise the questions of who built it and how it was made. I have my ideas as to why ID proponents do not attempt to address the questions of the identity of the Designer or what His methods might be, but I'd very much like to hear your answer to why ID proponents do not address the obvious questions of who, how and why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In post # 93, you said, "I think the methodology of Systematic Flaking, which allows us to tell artefacts from geofacts is a good example of this."

We look for evidence of a specific method.

Which specific method would that be?

quote:

quote:

Let's continue with your thought example. If we discovered an intergalactic spaceship, this would immediately raise the questions of who built it and how it was made. I have my ideas as to why ID proponents do not attempt to address the questions of the identity of the Designer or what His methods might be, but I'd very much like to hear your answer to why ID proponents do not address the obvious questions of who, how and why.

Well, you point begs the question, even if we never discovered the designer, or its methods of space travel, or its intentions, we could safely conclude the ship was the product of design, correct?

But even as we looked to the motivations of such a designer, I am not sure such a venture would be wholly 'scientific' in the hardest sense of the word; how would science determine the motivations of even a ancient space traveler?

quote:

That would be the specific method you mentioned in your earlier post -- Systematic Flaking.

quote:

Given that archeologists try to discover answers to who, how and why, my question is why do ID proponents avoid these obvious questions? Especially given that ID proponents compare what they do to what archeologists do to determine design.