Can someone debunk this

[LadyForCamus]

Promoting "alt med" quackery indeed...

Yup Alt med quackery . Or are you saying mainstream publications can't promote crap and should swallowed hook line and sinker  ? Also love that that's what you focused on once rather then defending the article or refuting mine.

---

Says the person who thought abiogenesis had been reproduced under laboratory conditions.

Says the man who continually promotes crap . And has a simplistic cartoon view of science .

---

I already made it, buddy.  ❤️

Umm what?

Lol, sorry, that was supposed to be in response to Huggy telling me to make my point.

[Amarok]

Yup Alt med quackery . Or are you saying mainstream publications can't promote crap and should swallowed hook line and sinker  ? Also love that that's what you focused on once rather then defending the article or refuting mine.

---

Says the man who continually promotes crap . And has a simplistic cartoon view of science .

---

Umm what?

Lol, sorry, that was supposed to be in response to Huggy telling me to make my point.

Oh okay sorry

---

Some examples of Webmed promoting crap 

https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/201...turopathy/

https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/201...snake-oil/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/woomd/

https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/05/19/web...-diagnosis

https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/04/22/web...anic-foods

https://www.quackwatch.org/12Web/honviolators.html


So will come the screams of "That's not objective i don't need to debunk the evidence !!!"

---

As for abiogenisis . Your sides already been logically curve stomped on this 

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic...&start=420

[Odoital77]

Khemikal Wrote: Nonsense.  Purpose and design aren't excluded a priori by modern synth.  Artificial selection is a thing.  If you want to insist that some, most, or all evolution is brought about by artificial selection then you could clearly do so within the framework of evolutionary biology.  OFC, you'd actually have to show that this were the case, and it might help if you could demonstrate the intelligence and purpose behind the artificial selection in the first place.

Good luck.

 
Of course purpose and design are excluded a priori.  Most science, particularly when it comes to evolutionary science is done within the context of naturalism, which entails that only naturalistic explanations are entertained as possibilities.
 
Purpose (noun): the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
 
Purpose (verb): have as one's intention or objective.
 
Design (noun): 1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
 
Design (noun): 2. purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
 
Design (verb): decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
 
 
Reason…  Intention…  Plan[ing]…  Decision(s)…  are all the product of mind and intelligence, not mere matter.  They do not and cannot, by the nature of the philosophical underpinnings that undergird the enterprise (i.e. evolutionary science), be included.  It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins has been quoted ad nauseum ad infinitum saying or writing the following:

Dawkins Wrote: … The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … – River out of Eden (1995)

Dawkins Wrote: … Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. … – The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

 
 
And we need not be limited to “artificial selection”, as if we’re merely talking about breeding dogs.  It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself.  Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence?  What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it.  And now we’re able to use that very discovery to predict the existence of other things that cannot be detected without great effort.  Again, better explained by non-mind and non-intelligence?  Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

This is merely inference to the best explanation, nothing more.

---

No, I've seen the obvious, and that was specifically what my commentary was about. 

No your comment was about your flawed belief you had seen the obvious .  

 You're the evidence for the very thing I was speaking about.

My comment was about your flawed believe you had seen the obvious?  Glad we agree.

Again, I have seen the obvious, and you're the proof.

[Cyberman]

Says you.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself. 

No it is not. This does not tell us if these 'marks' came about through intelligent design or natural selection. All it tells us is that we would require intelligence to deliberately design it.

Conversely, we can look at the marks of natural selection through the detection of redundant features that serve no purpose any more that have not been removed. But like with software engineering, you get old bits of code hanging around that no one wants to remove because they fear breaking it.

Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence? 

Yes. we use can use computers to evolve designs for us. Even to search for new Mathematical proofs. The problem comes though in that there is no free lunch and Mathematicians then have to read, understand and verify the proofs that are generated. The same with evolved designs. It's actually quite simple to evolve something that can take us months of work to understand. Last time i truly understood how my Artificial Intelligence worked was back in 2005 and it took me months to figure out. I now proceed to do research with assumptions about how the AI I evolve happens to function, and more times than not I am wrong.

What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it. 

No Mathematics was invented. And it continues to be invented. There have been arbitrary decisions being made in the past about how Mathematics works. For example why does zero squared by zero equal 1? If you have a problem which is difficult to describe using existing Mathematics then you need to invent a new branch of Maths in order to describe it. A classic example is Einstein's non-euclidean tensors for his work on general relativity.

A perfect circle does not exist in nature so that means Pi cannot exist. Nor are there absolute true and false values, or you can even argue integers. These are useful concepts that describe the world. They are approximations. And sometimes they aren't so useful so we change the rules entirely. For example, fuzzy logic has degrees of true and false.

Many forms of Mathematics and logic are invented which don't prove useful beyond the immediate problem they are used to describe. The useful and generalisable forms of Mathematics propagate and get reapplied to other problems. They can do this because they are abstractions of physical reality. You don't need to consider the Planck length when doing simple arithmetic involved in stacking eggs for example. The power of Mathematics comes from it being a form of generalisable abstraction. An abstraction of reality by definition does not exist in reality.

Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

So what it comes down to is an argument from credulity.

[downbeatplumb]

Here's something that you can try at home.

Take a board and place in some nails so that they jut out, then get a container for in which you add soapy water and place the board in the water and jiggle it around for a bit.

Using surface tension there would be soap films that develop between the nails which connects all of them using the minimal amount of straight lines.

This is something that a human mind would take ages to do but the soap bubble does easliy and instantly due to natural forces.

So here you have an example of complex information being generated by natural forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAyDi1aa40E

[Abaddon_ire]

No. It's the wrong question because it's a red herring. The apropos question is not how Astreja would correct the 'design', but why the 'design' should require correcting.

We must first figure out IF the design CAN be corrected to determine if there is even a flaw...

So once again, how would you improve the design?

---

You see where your nose is?
And where your mouth is?
And then you see how their functions have to cross over to reach lungs and stomach?

The quick and dirty engineering solution is to simply swap the mouth with the nose... I assume some extra details should be tweaked.... perhaps putting the air intake right under the lower jaw? And have it be more of a wide chamber, instead of a tall one... and instead of sharing glands with the eyes, it would share with the mouth.
Extra point: no more sinus.

How does speech factor into this design?

It doesn't. Unless you are about to claim that sign language is not speech. And that would be a particularly scurvy position to take.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Downbeat's video was an example of self organization. See how he mentioned minimising free energy and local minima. A snowflake or any other form of crystalisation are other every day examples. Intelligence and life are forms of self organisation and can be understood using the same principles. This for me is the killer argument why an intelligent god could not be eternal, because it would have to be subject to the laws of thermodynamics and entropy in order to capable of intelligent action. And if this was the case, then you could argue that it isn't a god but an alien.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course purpose and design are excluded a priori.  Most science, particularly when it comes to evolutionary science is done within the context of naturalism, which entails that only naturalistic explanations are entertained as possibilities.
 
Reason…  Intention…  Plan[ing]…  Decision(s)…  are all the product of mind and intelligence, not mere matter.  They do not and cannot, by the nature of the philosophical underpinnings that undergird the enterprise (i.e. evolutionary science), be included.  It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins has been quoted ad nauseum ad infinitum saying or writing the following:

We intentionally bred cattle for mass and docility.  We did this for the purpose of feeding ourselves.  This is artificial selection.  Purpose and design exists, neither modern synth nor naturalism excludes either.  The question is whether some, most, or all of evolution can be explained by artificial selection..if the question is purpose or design.  

Good luck, again.....and you're probably going to need more than a dictionary to demonstrate whatever it is you believe.  

Dawkins Wrote: … The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … – River out of Eden (1995)

That's natural selection.  What's the problem?  In artificial selection there is a design, there is a purpose...it may be evil - bioweapons, or good....bioremediation.  We're neither blind, nor pitiless..nor indifferent.  

Dawkins Wrote: … Natural selection, 

 uh-huh...

See above...if you're talking about design and purpose you aren't talking about natural selection.  You're discussing artificial selection.

And we need not be limited to “artificial selection”, as if we’re merely talking about breeding dogs.  It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself.  Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence?  What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it.  And now we’re able to use that very discovery to predict the existence of other things that cannot be detected without great effort.  Again, better explained by non-mind and non-intelligence?  Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

What's limiting about artificial selection..and what is being excluded?  Artificial selection simply describes a form of evolution in which design and purpose are used to leverage biological mechanisms for an intended outcome.  What do you think happened?  Do you think that this was all magic'd into existence as is?  God played in the dirt and uttered a cantrip and here we are?  That god did this little trick in such as way as to fool everyone...all the way down to the genetic level?  That;s awfully roundabout and thorough.

As a side note, I have a list regarding kinds.  Are you a kind kind of person?

[Amarok]

Khemikal Wrote: Nonsense.  Purpose and design aren't excluded a priori by modern synth.  Artificial selection is a thing.  If you want to insist that some, most, or all evolution is brought about by artificial selection then you could clearly do so within the framework of evolutionary biology.  OFC, you'd actually have to show that this were the case, and it might help if you could demonstrate the intelligence and purpose behind the artificial selection in the first place.

Good luck.

 
Of course purpose and design are excluded a priori.  Most science, particularly when it comes to evolutionary science is done within the context of naturalism, which entails that only naturalistic explanations are entertained as possibilities.
 
Purpose (noun): the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
 
Purpose (verb): have as one's intention or objective.
 
Design (noun): 1. a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
 
Design (noun): 2. purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
 
Design (verb): decide upon the look and functioning of (a building, garment, or other object), typically by making a detailed drawing of it.
 
 
Reason…  Intention…  Plan[ing]…  Decision(s)…  are all the product of mind and intelligence, not mere matter.  They do not and cannot, by the nature of the philosophical underpinnings that undergird the enterprise (i.e. evolutionary science), be included.  It’s the very reason Richard Dawkins has been quoted ad nauseum ad infinitum saying or writing the following:

Dawkins Wrote: … The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … – River out of Eden (1995)

Dawkins Wrote: … Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker. … – The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

 
 
And we need not be limited to “artificial selection”, as if we’re merely talking about breeding dogs.  It is possible to recognize the marks of mind or intelligence through the detection of design and purpose itself.  Or one could look at the origin of intelligible information itself.  Do we have examples of intelligible information in the form of language or code that can be shown rather than assumed to originate from non-mind or non-intelligence?  What about the applicability of mathematics to the physical world?  After all, mathematics wasn’t invented by mankind.  Rather it was discovered, as something that already existed, irrespective of our awareness of it.  And now we’re able to use that very discovery to predict the existence of other things that cannot be detected without great effort.  Again, better explained by non-mind and non-intelligence?  Credulity is stretched beyond the breaking point if the answer is actually “Yes!”

This is merely inference to the best explanation, nothing more.

---

No your comment was about your flawed belief you had seen the obvious .  

My comment was about your flawed believe you had seen the obvious?  Glad we agree.

Again, I have seen the obvious, and you're the proof.

same response as i said before