ID and Probability calculations

[JNelson]

Intelligence comes from non intelligence every time DNA grows a baby.
Unless you want to posit some sort of soul transfer.

That DNA was designed by an intelligent designer for that specific purpose.

 

[rossum]

Evolution also has a lot subjectivity so it must not be good science either.

Thank you for confirming that you have no test results to show how accurate ID's claimed design detection methods are. For all we know, those methods are unreliable.

The universe exists so it either came from absolute nothing or something/someone always existed (is eternal).

Cosmology has a number of hypotheses; a multiverse, colliding branes and others. Currently they are just hypotheses with unmeasurable predictions.

The former is illogical and can never actually be tested which leaves the latter as the only logical conclusion.

So, we have a multiverse, colliding branes or whatever. The Abrahamic God a.k.a Intelligent Designer is not the only possible hypothesis here.

If the source of the universe is intelligent and eternal then my hypothesis is not falsified.

If the source of the universe is the multiverse, then my hypothesis is not falsified. If your hypothesis is correct, then ID is falsified, because there is a complex intelligence that was not designed. Hence, design would be shown to be unnecessary for the origin of complexity.

Also, the biological has never been substantiated by actual science.

I have no idea what you mean here. A great deal of biology is substantiated science.

Where are the tests that show that something comes from absolute nothing or that intelligence comes from non-intelligence?

As @Littlefoot pointed out, neither a sperm cell, nor an unfertilized egg cell are intelligent. Even when they combine, the initial zygote is not intelligent. It will develop into something intelligent in time, but it starts off as non-intelligent. Intelligence is an emergent property, it appears when all the necessary components are present.

Evolution is what needs to be removed from science classes as it’s just a fairytale with no actual scientific support.

A fairytale? Really? Just ask yourself which of evolution and creationism bases itself on a story with two magic trees and a talking serpent. All that is missing is "Once upon a time..." instead of "In the beginning..." You would do better to think of the first two chapters of Genesis as a parable, not a true story. Parables have morals; they are not history.

 

[JNelson]

But it's not sufficient evidence for us to conclude ID is true: just because one thing is designed doesn't mean something else is designed.

Yet it’s the only actual evidence that has been observed and experimented.

No, because of the principle that we don't have to observe a phenomenon directly in order to know it exists/existed.

Yep, no one observed the origin of the universe yet we can look at the evidence and know it was designed.

Enough, especially when combined with all the other evidence.

You didn’t give an actual response. How many steps do you have?

These types of questions are like questioning that it rained last night when we see wet pavement in the morning all over by asking for an accounting of every single raindrop.

Nope, I’ve observed rain plenty of times so it’s easy to see the evidence of rain.

It's clear that my position is that evolution is ultimately not just a hypothesis, we're just looking at it to follow the logic of how we concluded it's true, but you imagine that *I* think it is merely a hypothesis, when I didn't say that at all. Now *that's* not being honest.

What is clear is that your position is wrong.

Evolution isn't about how life originated, it's about how it develops and changes: "works," in other words.

I believe life develops and changes but I don’t believe your fable story of evolution where deer evolved into whales

So you *are* saying that interpretation is arbitrary. No wonder. Science, though, doesn't work like that. Science only interprets evidence as far as it is logically necessary and demanded.

Science doesn’t interpret anything, people do.

That is an illogical conclusion. Logically, it could be that science comes to its conclusions as demanded by the evidence while IDers come to a different conclusion because of their religion. Now, whether that it true or not is *not* the issue. The issue is whether logic requires that science's conclusions aren't demanded by the evidence. that logic just doesn't work. Try to make a syllogism that is both valid and sound that proves logically that science's conclusions aren't demanded by the evidence because IDers have a different conclusion. I don't think you can.

Science doesn’t come to conclusions, people do and everyone has beliefs that influence how one interprets the evidence.

 

[rossum]

That isn’t the same as a deer evolving to a whale. I can have DNA that neither of my parents have but I’m still a human just like they are, same goes for the Covid virus, it’s still a virus.

You are confusing speciation with evolution. Speciation is a part of evolution, but there is a lot more to evolution than speciation. You might also usefully look up how many different species of virus there are, as well as learning more about the different levels of the nested hierarchy. The group "viruses" is at a higher level than "plant" or "animal", it is on the same level as "eukaryote", which includes plants, animals, fungi and others.

Evolution is also a hypothesis.

No, evolution has sufficient evidence to be a scientific theory.

 

[JNelson]

So, we have a multiverse, colliding branes or whatever. The Abrahamic God a.k.a Intelligent Designer is not the only possible hypothesis here.

If the source of the universe is the multiverse, then my hypothesis is not falsified. If your hypothesis is correct, then ID is falsified, because there is a complex intelligence that was not designed. Hence, design would be shown to be unnecessary for the origin of complexity.

Which again just shows that falsifiability is just a philosophical idea that has nothing to do with what is actually true.

Also, you can hypothesize about whatever you think could have been the source of the universe but no matter what it always leads to the question of what came before that. So again, you’re left with either something/someone always existed or something came from nothing.

I have no idea what you mean here. A great deal of biology is substantiated science.

I was referring to the biological solution you mentioned.

As @Littlefoot pointed out, neither a sperm cell, nor an unfertilized egg cell are intelligent. Even when they combine, the initial zygote is not intelligent. It will develop into something intelligent in time, but it starts off as non-intelligent. Intelligence is an emergent property, it appears when all the necessary components are present.

You’re still missing the part of how all the necessary components came to be in the first place.

A fairytale? Really? Just ask yourself which of evolution and creationism bases itself on a story with two magic trees and a talking serpent. All that is missing is "Once upon a time..." instead of "In the beginning..." You would do better to think of the first two chapters of Genesis as a parable, not a true story. Parables have morals; they are not history.

Once upon a time a frog became a prince. You’re version of the fairytale swaps a kiss with millions of years.

 

[JNelson]

You are confusing speciation with evolution. Speciation is a part of evolution, but there is a lot more to evolution than speciation. You might also usefully look up how many different species of virus there are, as well as learning more about the different levels of the nested hierarchy. The group "viruses" is at a higher level than "plant" or "animal", it is on the same level as "eukaryote", which includes plants, animals, fungi and others.

I’m not confusing the two, speciation is real and we’ve actually observed it while evolution isn’t real. By evolution I’m referring to the silly idea that a deer can evolve to a whale.

No, evolution has sufficient evidence to be a scientific theory.

No, it’s not. In order for it to be a scientific theory it needs to be well tested with actual science as in observation and experiments.

 

[rossum]

Also, you can hypothesize about whatever you think could have been the source of the universe but no matter what it always leads to the question of what came before that.

You say "what came before that". Before. You are assuming the existence of time; in the absence of time there is no "before" or "after". You are not starting from nothing, but are assuming that time already exists. In the absence of time, causation is impossible to show, since cause must come before the effect. In the absence of time you cannot distinguish the two.

You’re still missing the part of how all the necessary components came to be in the first place.

See cosmology and stellar nucleosynthesis.

Once upon a time a frog became a prince. You’re version of the fairytale swaps a kiss with millions of years.

And we have evidence that humans evolved from amphibian ancestors, though something more like Tiktaalik rather than frogs.

I’m not confusing the two, speciation is real and we’ve actually observed it while evolution isn’t real. By evolution I’m referring to the silly idea that a deer can evolve to a whale.

That is pretty much what happened, since Cetaceans are most closely related to Artiodactyls. It is worth noting that the Artiodactyls include Hippopotami, which are semi-aquatic. That is similar to the route Cetaceans followed, though they have gone further down that route.

No, it’s not. In order for it to be a scientific theory it needs to be well tested with actual science as in observation and experiments.

As you say, speciation has been observed. Similarly evolution. DNA sequencing shows evolution merely be comparing sequences between parents and offspring. Herbicide resistance in plants is another example of evolution: see How to make a superweed.

 

[Gus Bovona]

[snip]

JD, I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. You've hit the limit of my patience in your style of discussing this with me. I wish you well, but you can continue this with rossum.

 

[Harry Leggs]

JD, I'm not going to discuss this with you any further. You've hit the limit of my patience in your style of discussing this with me. I wish you well, but you can continue this with rossum.

Look like you got your behind kicked.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Intelligence comes from non intelligence every time DNA grows a baby.

DNA in and of itself does not grow a baby anymore than a plan grows a car.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Homicide detectives don’t always get it right even with forensics and still there are many cold cases and wrongfully imprisoned people.

There are various outside reasons for that having little to do with the investigator. In many cases they know the perp but unable to bring into court. Either way homicide falsifies natural causation as cause of death. There are limitations. How many deaths can be solved by how many homicides if the homicide rate is approx 100 a week? They still employ science methods including falsification in homicide investigations. I don't know of a better method if cause of death can be broken down into four categories. Great posts,

 

[rossum]

DNA in and of itself does not grow a baby anymore than a plan grows a car.

A good point. How does the Intelligent Designer move from a design for DNA to an actual physical molecule of DNA? What forces are used? Just the four usual forces, or is an extra force used? What observations does the ID side have of the Designer moving molecules around to form the intended sequence.

Design is only the first stage; design has to be followed by construction if the design is to be more than an idea.

 

[Harry Leggs]

A good point. How does the Intelligent Designer move from a design for DNA to an actual physical molecule of DNA?

Don't know. What i do know is an IDer beats out anything you have to offer and that means nonintelligent causation is falsified by the facts. That is all it has to do and there is your scientific method. It does not have to answer all your rhetorical and idiotic questions which have not one thing to do with scientific method. It also ignores how nonintelligent causation would move from design (presupposes designer. Can't get away from using design language) to an actual physical molecule. Moronic
What causes the moon to affect the tides on Earth across thousands of miles and thru the atmosphere of the Earth including the magnetic field that blocks radiation from the sun? Gravity molecules? Name a physical cause in which gravity is the effect. There is none to be found. That means your unscientific commitment to materialism is falsified.

What observations does the ID side have of the Designer moving molecules around to form the intended sequence.

Complex information in DNA forward, backward indicative of a designer.

How Science Stopped Backing Atheists and Started Pointing Back to God

Far from pointing to “blind, pitiless indifference,” the great discoveries of the last century point to the exquisite design of life and the universe and, arguably, to an intelligent creator behind it…

www.discovery.org

Third, molecular biology has revealed the presence in living cells of an exquisite world of informational nanotechnology. These include digital code in DNA and RNA — tiny, intricately constructed molecular machines which vastly exceed our own digital high technology in their storage and transmission capabilities. And even Richard Dawkins has acknowledged that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like” — implying, it would seem, the activity of a master programmer at work in the origin of life. At the very least, the discoveries of modern biology are not what anyone would have expected from blind materialistic processes.

Design is only the first stage; design has to be followed by construction if the design is to be more than an idea.

all takes intelligence and purpose and argues against nonintelligent causation.

 

[rossum]

Don't know.

Then there is a lot of further work for ID to do before is moves from hypothesis to theory. Currently, ID has no way to actually make a single molecule of DNA. That is a huge gap in the ID hypothesis, the gap between design and construction.

What i do know is an IDer beats out anything you have to offer and that means nonintelligent causation is falsified by the facts.

In science, the default option is "we don't know". Falsifying alternatives, just gets back to "we don't know". In order to move science away from that default position, you need positive evidence in favour of the alternative you are proposing. The most negative evidence against alternative hypotheses will only get you to "we don't know".

Name a physical cause in which gravity is the effect.

In General Relativity, gravity is caused by the curvature of space time, and that curvature is caused by mass; the sun causes more curvature than the earth because the sun has more mass.

Complex information in DNA forward, backward indicative of a designer.

Evolution can increase information. Insertion mutations and duplication mutations both increase information, and both have been observed.