Evolution is not caused by a super cognition. It is simply an outcome of a process.

I find it absurd to claim a super cognition is the cause knowing our planet is 4 billion years old, and has had 5 mass extinction events, and that humans in our current form have only been around 200,000 years. Not to mention life like bacteria and cockroaches outnumber humans, reproduce at a far faster rate than humans and have existed far longer than humans.

(May 7, 2019 at 11:08 am)Brian37 Wrote: Evolution is not caused by a super cognition. It is simply an outcome of a process.

I find it absurd to claim a super cognition is the cause knowing our planet is 4 billion years old, and has had 5 mass extinction events, and that humans in our current form have only been around 200,000 years. Not to mention life like bacteria and cockroaches outnumber humans, reproduce at a far faster rate than humans and have existed far longer than humans.

I agree--I'm just involved in a debate with a dishonest intelligent design proponent and wanted some feedback on my rebuttal. Thanks for responding.

The key assumption in all these design arguments is that human design and intelligence is not itself the result of natural causes, i.e. a deterministic brain. If you analogize anything to human mental ability, and human mental ability is a natural phenomena, then by analogy, the creator that you analogize is responsible for biological design is also a natural phenomena. God is not a natural, mechanistic phenomena and so, if mind is mechanistic, the cause of biological design is not God.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know whether human mind is a natural, mechanistic phenomena or not. So the best that this design argument can conclude is that biological design may or may not be the result of a natural, mechanistic process. And so the argument accomplishes nothing, as we knew this to be the case going in.

But your focus on the meaning and validity of the concept of specified complexity has its own utility.

(May 7, 2019 at 2:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: The key assumption in all these design arguments is that human design and intelligence is not itself the result of natural causes, i.e. a deterministic brain.  If you analogize anything to human mental ability, and human mental ability is a natural phenomena, then by analogy, the creator that you analogize is responsible for biological design is also a natural phenomena.  God is not a natural, mechanistic phenomena and so, if mind is mechanistic, the cause of biological design is not God.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know whether human mind is a natural, mechanistic phenomena or not.  So the best that this design argument can conclude is that biological design may or may not be the result of a natural, mechanistic process.  And so the argument accomplishes nothing, as we knew this to be the case going in.

But your focus on the meaning and validity of the concept of specified complexity has its own utility.

Thanks for the feedback--you make great points. Best, john

Quote:1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.

The so called "W.L. Craig fallacy": He is applying everyday intuition and common sense to an environment where it is almost certianly not applicable.

The best explanation/model we currently have for the origin of the universe we live in is, that it once was condensed in a singularity, where, according to most recent calculations the fabric of spacetime breaks down. How can "intelligence" exist, particularly without time? Intellect involves thinking, thinking involves time. How does that work without time?

What is "specified complexity"? No IDer has ever explained it without question begging afaik.

Quote:The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class

He is trying to establish that ID is the "default position" for the estimated origin of the universe. It is not.
Did you already allow him to shift the burden of proof yet? If so, it was a tactical mistake on your side. You have to demonstrate shit. If he claims ID, he has to support it, thats how the game works.

Quote:Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.

Shifting of burden of proof. Bare assertion.
How did he estimate this probability?

Quote:the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.

black swan fallacy

(May 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.

The so called "W.L. Craig fallacy": He is applying everyday intuition and common sense to an environment where it is almost certianly not applicable.

The best explanation/model we currently have for the origin of the universe we live in is, that it once was condensed in a singularity, where, according to most recent calculations the fabric of spacetime breaks down. How can "intelligence" exist, particularly without time? Intellect involves thinking, thinking involves time. How does that work without time?

What is "specified complexity"? No IDer has ever explained it without question begging afaik.

Thanks for the great feedback. I have not answered that particular statement of his--but have answered his other circular reasoning/argument from ignorance/argument by analogy fallacies, etc. I did demand he thoroughly define "specified complexity" and give evidence for his "intelligent agent" and warned him that if he used the Dembski specified complexity model I would immediately end the converstaion because it's been refuted and classified as fraudulent and pseudoscience non-sense. 

Quote:The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class

He is trying to establish that ID is the "default position" for the estimated origin of the universe. It is not.
Did you already allow him to shift the burden of proof yet? If so, it was a tactical mistake on your side. You have to demonstrate shit. If he claims ID, he has to support it, thats how the game works.

Quote:Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.

Shifting of burden of proof. Bare assertion.
How did he estimate this probability?

Quote:the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.

black swan fallacy

(May 6, 2019 at 7:48 pm)Jrouche Wrote: Hi Guys, I posted this in another section and a member suggested I post it here.

---

I've been a member of another Atheist/Theist forum and have been exchanging multiple posts with someone supporting Intelligent design. I have refuted his arguments time and time again but he's very vague and uses terms he's not defined yet. I'm going to take him to task but wanted to post our last exchange and would appreciate any and all comments. You will see him mention a cave painting scenario which is another back and forth--basically he brought it up firs and stated the painting had to have an intelligent agent/designer and I argued it did--a human, and gave my evidence--Humans are real, they lived during that era, they lived in caves, humans draw/paint, we have skeletal records and areological evidence such as tools, etc. Therefore the most likely artist was a human(s). Well I'll add the post and he highlights his 3 prong syllogism for his "designer" and uses Specified Complexity which I will nail him on but was looking for some feedback on the post below. Thanks in advance.   His post-------below

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this

---

•

Just give in, then, genuflect and ask permission to kiss the ring.

(May 7, 2019 at 10:52 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(May 6, 2019 at 7:48 pm)Jrouche Wrote: Hi Guys, I posted this in another section and a member suggested I post it here.

---

I've been a member of another Atheist/Theist forum and have been exchanging multiple posts with someone supporting Intelligent design. I have refuted his arguments time and time again but he's very vague and uses terms he's not defined yet. I'm going to take him to task but wanted to post our last exchange and would appreciate any and all comments. You will see him mention a cave painting scenario which is another back and forth--basically he brought it up firs and stated the painting had to have an intelligent agent/designer and I argued it did--a human, and gave my evidence--Humans are real, they lived during that era, they lived in caves, humans draw/paint, we have skeletal records and areological evidence such as tools, etc. Therefore the most likely artist was a human(s). Well I'll add the post and he highlights his 3 prong syllogism for his "designer" and uses Specified Complexity which I will nail him on but was looking for some feedback on the post below. Thanks in advance.   His post-------below

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this

---

•

Just give in, then, genuflect and ask permission to kiss the ring.

Or he could sit back and laugh at your silly signature

---

Quote:Atheist Credo:

No such thing 

Quote:An universe by chance which also just happened to admit the observer by chance.

Straw man mixed with argument from incredulity

---

Quote:1) Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity.
2) The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3) Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe.

1. Just because it's known to do X does not mean it's the only thing that does X
2.Follows from my first point 
3. Possible isn't good enough and it's worst as no intelligence we know of has ever simulated the kind of complexity found in life 

Oh and Complexity is actually an argument for atheism 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13976

To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.

(May 9, 2019 at 1:00 am)snowtracks Wrote: To blunt any I. E. opposition, you might just ask them what is the most reasonable explanation between the following 2 choices:
1. A fully functioning brain developed through a series of complex steps without any prior thinking commencing at the beginning from elementary elements coalescing which eventually resulted in the first thought*, or
2. Mind existing before the development of the brain.

*Must have the greatest event in the universe’s history and even before. First thought: that would be most ginormously interesting.

So a bunch credulity and backwards thinking is your argument ......Sad