"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

A sand-castle contains Complex Specified Design and is thus a product of intelligence.

What about a snow-flake, which gives the appearance of design?

J C

koth wrote: »

does a cave created by coastal erosion contain CFSI?

no ... coastal erosion doesn't produced specified functional structures that the hand of man would produce.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

What about a snow-flake, which gives the appearance of design?

A snowflake is designed (by a combination of random and deterministic processes).

It isn't intelligently designed, because it doesn't have specified functionality.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

no ... coastal erosion doesn't produced specified structures that the hand of man would produce.

but man made caves do contain CFSI?

J C

koth wrote: »

but man made caves do contain CFSI?

Yes, that is actually how we differentiate between man-made and naturally created caves.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Yes, that is actually how we differentiate between man-made and naturally created caves.

so if a person was to happen upon a cave, how would they measure the absence/presence of CFSI?

J C

koth wrote: »

so if a person was to happen upon a cave, how would they measure the absence/presence of CFSI?

You would observe if there are complex specified structures or designs on the walls of the cave. If there are chisel marks and/or artwork, for example, these would be complex specified designs and thus CFSD.

Delirium

so you can only determine CFSI after determining that a human created the cave by evidence of tools used or cave paintings? and what is CFSD?

Delirium

okay, JC, I have this for you to ponder/respond to.

I'm going to use the cave example to try and get across where my thinking is at with regards to CFSI.

The cave exists, but we don't know if it's erosion or man made. So we examine the cave. We find evidence of tool marks on the cave which match previously discovered tools known to be used by man. And once we've established this we can say the cave contains CFSI.

To apply the same thinking to creationism we fall at the first hurdle. We don't have evidence of tools that have been used previously by a deity to create life. We essentially have the cave, but no tool marks.

Creationism is basically saying that a deity created a cave using tools never before seen, that leave no evidence behind but there is CFSI present in humans.

How? You haven't fulfilled the criteria you put forward with regards to caves and CFSI. The existence of the designer proves the case for CFSI, not vice versa.

18AD

What is CFSI?

Sarky

It's funny, nobody has ever come out and defined it in a way that makes sense. Or is even internally consistent.

robindch

J C wrote: »

A snowflake is designed (by a combination of random and deterministic processes). It isn't intelligently designed, because it doesn't have specified functionality.

It does -- it's designed by nature to fall downwards. And it does this quite effectively.

Are you saying that gravity is intelligent?

J C

koth wrote: »

okay, JC, I have this for you to ponder/respond to.

I'm going to use the cave example to try and get across where my thinking is at with regards to CFSI.

The cave exists, but we don't know if it's erosion or man made. So we examine the cave. We find evidence of tool marks on the cave which match previously discovered tools known to be used by man. And once we've established this we can say the cave contains CFSI.

When it comes to things like caves it is actually CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design )that we are talking about, most of the time. Identification of such designs is independent of the methods used to produce them.

koth wrote: »

To apply the same thinking to creationism we fall at the first hurdle. We don't have evidence of tools that have been used previously by a deity to create life. We essentially have the cave, but no tool marks.

... we have the cave with the complete works of Shakespeare (and Wikipedia) written on its walls!!!
Who did the writing ... and how it was actually done isn't known ... but we know definitively that an inteligent agent(s) did it.

koth wrote: »

Creationism is basically saying that a deity created a cave using tools never before seen, that leave no evidence behind but there is CFSI present in humans.

How? You haven't fulfilled the criteria you put forward with regards to caves and CFSI. The existence of the designer proves the case for CFSI, not vice versa.

The existence of CFSI scientificaly proves that an intelligent agent(s) is/are ultimately responsible for the artefact, nothing more ... nothing less.

J C

robindch wrote: »

It does -- it's designed by nature to fall downwards. And it does this quite effectively.

... and it does so through a combination of random (air movements) and deterministic (gravity) processes - which don't require any intelligent input.

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that gravity is intelligent?

... I am saying that neither the production of the snowflake or it's falling to the ground reqiuires an intelligent input ... but using it in combination with other snowflakes to make a specified snowman or a functional specified igloo does require an intelligent input.

Sarky

I actually regret trying to focus J C on that paper for so long.

He's much more hilarious when trying to explain other things.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

When it comes to things like caves it is actually CFSD (Complex Functional Specified Design )that we are talking about, most of the time. Identification of such designs is independent of the methods used to produce them.

It can't though, otherwise it could fail to meet the definition of CFSI/CFSD. If an ocean was to produce scoring on a wall similar to a tool, that wouldn't mean CFSI/CFSD was present. would it?

... we have the cave with the complete works of Shakespeare (and Wikipedia) written on its walls!!!
Who did the writing ... and how it was actually done isn't known ... but we know definitively that an inteligent agent(s) did it.

No. I'm keeping this as a purposely simple hypothetical cave. It only has the cave, no paintings or artwork. And again, it's only with the evidence of tools used and the existence of similar tools produced and used by the cave creator.

The existence of CFSI scientificaly proves that an intelligent agent(s) is/are ultimately responsible for the artefact, nothing more ... nothing less.

No it doesn't, as you've stated that the designer produces the CFSI and that naturally occuring events can produce similar results. You need the proof of the existence of the designer and evidence of the tools and methods used to create frogs, humans, dogs, apples etc.

Stating that because humans create complex objects, like computers for example, that it proves the case for creationism is a non-starter. We know historically that humans have been creating more and more complex objects, from the simple axe up to mobile phones. We have a historical trail of evidence.

Where is your evidence?

robindch

18AD wrote: »

What is CFSI?

Nobody knows, least of all JC.

William Dumbski, the clown who came up with the term, never defined it properly, almost certainly because it made no sense to start with. Of the few people in real universities who paid any attention to Dumbski's silly ideas, I get the impression that they thought that his stuff was so bad, that the word "wrong" was insufficient to describe the logical clusterf*ck that was ID. Another own-goal from the Wedge Strategy!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/presentation_without_arguments_dembski_disappoints/

In any event, Dumbski abandoned CSIF as soon as his backers terminated his contract to promote it, and he's now listed as "teaching" "philosophy" to endless groups of rednecks in some Texas hicksville.

robindch

J C wrote: »

... I am saying that neither the production of the snowflake or it's falling to the ground reqiuires an intelligent input

Well, hang on, we agree that snowflakes fall very well. But Dumbski's central claim is that doing something well is an indication of intelligent design!

Therefore, since snowflakes move downwards very effectively, we must conclude -- according to creationist logic anyway -- that either an intelligent deity is pulling them downwards, or god forbid, pushing them downwards.

Which one is it?

Galvasean

18AD wrote: »

What is CFSI?

The Claret Samal Foundation Incorporated according to Wikipedia.

Sarky wrote: »

It's funny, nobody has ever come out and defined it in a way that makes sense. Or is even internally consistent.

Whenever I google it I just find pictures of some ginger lad in sunglasses.

Sarky

And that show is full of bad science, abysmal jokes, shoddy moral judgements, plot holes as big as...

Holy crap, CSI Miami is creationist propaganda. Priming viewers subliminally to more readily accept bollocks explanations being pulled out of someone's arse over real science. It's obvious when you think about it.

They could have gone for a better poster boy though. Horatio Caine is just another own goal for the creationists.

Mr. Boo

I seem to remember from graph theory and network science that sand piles exhibit complex behaviour, though they are not complicated systems. Information on the functioning of this behaviour can be specifically predicted once a few basic characteristics are understood. Am I a Jesus freak now?

robindch

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I seem to remember from graph theory and network science that sand piles exhibit complex behaviour [...]

And the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely detailed, but is described by a very simple equation. In the world of creationists, this is impossible.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Am I a Jesus freak now?

Do you believe up Jesus as you saviour? If you answer "yes", I think we have our answer

J C

robindch wrote: »

Well, hang on, we agree that snowflakes fall very well. But Dumbski's central claim is that doing something well is an indication of intelligent design!

... so how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?
... or has the English language ceased to have any meaning for you??

robindch wrote: »

Therefore, since snowflakes move downwards very effectively, we must conclude -- according to creationist logic anyway -- that either an intelligent deity is pulling them downwards, or god forbid, pushing them downwards.

Which one is it?

None of the above ... and the idea that God pushes or pulls snowflakes downwards is just a figment of your imagination ... just like M2M Evolution actually!!!!:)

So JC, since you are now pretending to believe that structure can come from not magic/intelligent processes would you consider the formation of lipid bilayers one of those non-magic/intelligent processes?

18AD

J C wrote: »

... so how does a snowflake drifting to Earth via the interaction of random air movements and the deterministic process of gravity 'fall well'?

Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad at falling?

And if something does fall, it is good at falling?

This thread is wild!

J C

robindch wrote: »

And the Mandelbrot Set is infinitely detailed, but is described by a very simple equation. In the world of creationists, this is impossible.

As a maths equation this is an example of a deterministic process.
It is therefore eminently possible to describe deterministic processes, like gravity and fractals, using mathematical equations ... although if you are a 'mathematically challenged' Evolutionist, this might be difficult to accept!!!

robindch wrote:

Do you believe up Jesus as you saviour? If you answer "yes", I think we have our answer

Scoff all you like ... but I would remind you that Eternity is a very long time ... and if you want to take the personal risk that it might also be a very hot time ... then you are quite entitled to do so ...
... but please don't expect any 'brownie points' for such illogical behaviour!!!:)

I lay before you life or death ... please choose (eternal) life.

J C

18AD wrote: »

Well if something was to not fall, wouldn't that be bad at falling?

And if something does fall, it is good at falling?

This thread is wild!

... please stop moralising about gravity!!!!

... moral judgements like 'good' and 'bad' do not apply to deterministic processes like gravity.

Delirium

Would you like to pick up where we left off, JC?

18AD

J C wrote: »

... please stop moralising about gravity!!!!

... moral judgements like 'good' and 'bad' do not apply to deterministic processes like gravity.

I'm not moralising. When I say my shoes are good I'm saying that they function well as shoes. I'm not saying something like "good shoe!" (as I would say to a pet) when they behave themselves. This would be a moral statement.

So if a snow flake is good at falling I am not saying that it is fulfilling its moral duty to fall.

On your account, if I pick up a basin and ask you whether it would make a good drum stick I am making a moral judgement.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

So JC, since you are now pretending to believe that structure can come from not magic/intelligent processes would you consider the formation of lipid bilayers one of those non-magic/intelligent processes?

Specified functional structure only arises via an ultimate appliance of intelligence.

Phospholipid bi-layers are utilised in specific functional combinations with other biomolecules within living cells ... and these complex specified structures are thus Intelligently Designed.

The spontaneous formation of non-specified Lipid layers (like the fat scum on a jug of cold gravy) doesn't require an intelligent input ... but, equally, it will always remain a piece of fat-scum until it is 'recycled'!!!