Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 17, 2015 at 2:06 am)snowtracks Wrote: Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means.
You're saying that just because there is an intelligent decision behind setting up conditions to be X in a lab, that any time condition X occurs in nature, it must indicate intelligence?
Sounds like affirming the consequent. Congratulations: you have successfully graduated from informal logical fallacies to formal ones. Your logical skills are devolving quite nicely. Ken Ham would be proud.
(February 17, 2015 at 2:06 am)snowtracks Wrote: Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means.
You're saying that just because there is an intelligent decision behind setting up conditions to be X in a lab, that any time condition X occurs in nature, it must indicate intelligence?
Sounds like affirming the consequent. Congratulations: you have successfully graduated from informal logical fallacies to formal ones. Your logical skills are devolving quite nicely. Ken Ham would be proud.
What he is saying, if I interpret it right, is that every experiment that replicates nature implies intelligence caused the natural thing that is being replicated because intelligence is being used to replicate nature.
There is a problem with that argument now what is it....ah yes, its bullshit.
(February 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(February 18, 2015 at 2:20 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: You're saying that just because there is an intelligent decision behind setting up conditions to be X in a lab, that any time condition X occurs in nature, it must indicate intelligence?
Sounds like affirming the consequent. Congratulations: you have successfully graduated from informal logical fallacies to formal ones. Your logical skills are devolving quite nicely. Ken Ham would be proud.
What he is saying, if I interpret it right, is that every experiment that replicates nature implies intelligence caused the natural thing that is being replicated because intelligence is being used to replicate nature.
There is a problem with that argument now what is it....ah yes, its bullshit.
instead of this
"An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means. http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179 "
set the material down in the lab, and come back in 15 years and observe the self-assembly.
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
(February 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What he is saying, if I interpret it right, is that every experiment that replicates nature implies intelligence caused the natural thing that is being replicated because intelligence is being used to replicate nature.
There is a problem with that argument now what is it....ah yes, its bullshit.
[/hide]
instead of this
"An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means. http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179 "
set the material down in the lab, and come back in 15 years and observe the self-assembly.
(January 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)JuliaL Wrote: You mean outside like, in the same room but not in the experimental chamber?
How far away does the experimenter have to be to satisfy your demand that he not be involved?
Setting up some situation that plausibly might have been found on the early earth doesn't invalidate the demonstration that abiogenesis could have happened that way.
It isn't overcoming a 10^-50 barrier. It is just setting up the experiment so that you can have results in less than a lifetime instead of a billion years.
I do differ with the article's calling DNA life's software. Firmware maybe.
An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means. http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179
Here's another example of showing that directed thought is required. In the book - = “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins demonstrated that natural selection requires intelligence; thereby completely invalidating the theory.
He uses a computer program to generate the Shakespeare phase “Me thinks it is like a weasel” to simulate how random mutations and natural selection could generate new functional information. His method: 1) randomized the generation of English letter sets (strings). 2) compare each string to the target phase “me think….”. 3) kept the strings that most closely resembled the target (usually, at this stage not exactly the target). 4) have the program generate variant version of the newly selected strings (so now the selected strings are closer to the target strings). 5) process is repeated until the selected strings match the target strings.
So in the end, he shows us that in his simulation that an intelligence is guiding towards an end point using preplanned incremental steps and instructions, and employing newly acquired information to reach a predetermined target. But of course natural selection by definition is neither guided nor given information about a desired outcome to be generated in the future.
Have you noticed that after God ‘rested’ from creation that anatomically modern homo sapient (AMHS)- Adam type- hasn’t “evol-nated”?
Atheist Credo: A universe by chance that also just happened to admit the observer by chance.
snow.... I seem to remember him saying that he was cheating to get at that particular end result.
And that evolution had no particular end result "in mind".... it just retains what manages to survive to breed at any particular generation.
Dawkins used that example to show that evolution works by cumulative changes, and not by some sudden magnificent burst of outrageously improbable events. In other words, no crocoduck. It's not an example of how intelligence guides evolution, but of how cumulative changes can lead to results that could not happen via completely random forces. Creationists are prone to quote-mining to try and make it seem as if scientists are supporting creation accounts without realizing it, so add this to the pile of dishonest attempts at pretending that there is support for a creator.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means. http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179
Here's another example of showing that directed thought is required. In the book - = “The Blind Watchmaker” Richard Dawkins demonstrated that natural selection requires intelligence; thereby completely invalidating the theory. He uses a computer program to generate the Shakespeare phase “Me thinks it is like a weasel” to simulate how random mutations and natural selection could generate new functional information. His method: 1) randomized the generation of English letter sets (strings). 2) compare each string to the target phase “me think….”. 3) kept the strings that most closely resembled the target (usually, at this stage not exactly the target). 4) have the program generate variant version of the newly selected strings (so now the selected strings are closer to the target strings). 5) process is repeated until the selected strings match the target strings.
So in the end, he shows us that in his simulation that an intelligence is guiding towards an end point using preplanned incremental steps and instructions, and employing newly acquired information to reach a predetermined target. But of course natural selection by definition is neither guided nor given information about a desired outcome to be generated in the future.
Have you noticed that after God ‘rested’ from creation that anatomically modern homo sapient (AMHS)- Adam type- hasn’t “evol-nated”?
(January 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm)JuliaL Wrote: You mean outside like, in the same room but not in the experimental chamber?
How far away does the experimenter have to be to satisfy your demand that he not be involved?
Setting up some situation that plausibly might have been found on the early earth doesn't invalidate the demonstration that abiogenesis could have happened that way.
It isn't overcoming a 10^-50 barrier. It is just setting up the experiment so that you can have results in less than a lifetime instead of a billion years.
I do differ with the article's calling DNA life's software. Firmware maybe.
An example from synthetic biology that took a team of researchers 15 years: The engineering of an alien based pair (prototyped after the nucleotide structuring configuration of the famous double helix) into an bacterium E. coli. A substantial scientific achievement, but it’s just a single pair of foreign DNA bases out of millions. Lab accomplishments like this supports the creation model since it requires researchers using pre-planning creativity, rethinking, and redoing using preexisting functional material and working models. None of which is available by just physical means. http://www.nature.com/news/first-life-wi...na-1.15179
No, it doesn't. This is just Heywood's stupid argument again.
Just because an intelligence can do something doesn't mean intelligence is required to do it.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
