Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
mike the wiz

My I.D Syllogism

Recommended Posts

The form of my ID syllogism and disclaimers. (The red arguments are fallacies, and do not follow from my syllogism, the blue code is what I AM arguing.) The code is to simplify long winded arguments;

"all" = *, and "is" = <, "if" is >

Form of ID syllogism:

*x~p, y<x~y<p.

The only negation possible according to formal logic is; 

>^p~^*x. (If object in question is NOT designed therefore it will NOT have ALL the features of design) --modus tollens-- 

>^*x~^p. (Denial of antecedent fallacy.)

>p~*x. (Affirmation of consequent fallacy.)

You also cannot switch terms, (equivocation) and pretend I am arguing something I am not thus;

"you are arguing some x~p" (equivocation of antecedent premise/strawman fallacy)

So the form of my ID syllogism in english is;

If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed. (This is the law of identity, NOT circularity, most laymen conflate the two)

Life has all the features of sophisticated intelligent design

Ergo life is designed.

PREDICATED ON: This argument is formally valid, obeys the ponen/tollens. The argument is backed up by equivalent real-life examples of the same logic when applied ubiquitously. You can literally use any example thus;

If you have all the identifying features of a human/football/television you are a human/football/television.

P has ALL the features

Ergo P is human/football/television.

If you have SOME features of a design/human/football/television, it may or may not follow you have one of those things respectively. If you have all of the features it breaks the law of non-contradiction to infer that, "you have not that thing", because they are identifying features in totality. What you are really saying becomes; "x is x" (the law of identity)

The identifying features of design for my argument, are inferred from studying all cases of sophisticated design in all designed things outside of life, meaning the induction that all those things are designed, matches my syllogism, because outside of life if you find all of those features you cannot fail to have a designed thing as 100% of the induction, with no examples in reality of something having all of them and not being designed. (outside of life. I must look outside of life since we are arguing life.)

The features can be figured out, and directly and equivalently MATCH.

Another false argument from evolutionists is another type of strawman where they argue, "life and technology are not the same thing". But we are not arguing they are, we are arguing they are both designed so this would be a fallacy of the undistributed middle term, of this form;

x<p, s<p, ~x<equivalent to s.

THE FEATURES OF ID ARE:

-Specified Complexity, Information, Viability, Correct Materials, Contingency Planning, Function, Goals, Teleology, Irreducible Complexity(in some things), Aesthetics and Symmetry. Immensely Clever Solutions to Obscure Problems, Innovation/Contrivance. Symbiotic Systems.

Equivalent examples can be given. Even off hand I can think of a few easy to match in that for example with a helicopter the rotor blades with collective pitch, are specifically designed with a goal, that function leads to the goal of the correct speed of pitch to create lift. The moving mechanical parts are sculpted of the correct materials (rather than jello) to achieved the goal. The sculpturing and shape of all the correct parts is specified complexity. The parts move, of the correct material, of the correct designed shape, of the correct function to achieve the specifically correct goal.

An equivalent example is that of legs in a human, made of the correct material (rather than jello) all of the correct shapes/parts, in the correct place, to achieve the specifically correct function leading to the goal of walking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is more of a links and information thread, I use topics like this to link people to. I'm not going to debate it here but others can muddy up my topic if they insist.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Life has all the features of sophisticated intelligent design

Ergo life is designed.

Not True. Living organisms are always reproduced by similar things. Non living designed things don't reproduce similar things.

My car is intelligently designed, but has been made by a car factory (non similar).

My cat has been made by two other cats (similar).

Ergo: living things have different features than designed things, life is not designed.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

So the form of my ID syllogism in english is;

If you have all the identifying features of sophisticated intelligent design, then you have something intelligently designed. (This is the law of identity, NOT circularity, most laymen conflate the two)

That's not identity, that's a definition.  Identity doesn't say anything other than that each thing is identical to itself.  There is no information in there about what properties a thing has, other than that it is itself.

It's also not a very good definition, since you continually leave out the one thing that's actually relevant to describing a thing as designed, which is the simple historical fact of having been created by a designer.  We may be able to identify properties common to many designed things, and we may be able to identify properties that can only be the product of design, but those are getting further afield from a definition to an indicator.  I don't think there's a set of such properties that can serve as a definition of design in the same sense as we define what a football is.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

If you have SOME features of a design/human/football/television, it may or may not follow you have one of those things respectively. If you have all of the features it breaks the law of non-contradiction to infer that, "you have not that thing", because they are identifying features in totality. What you are really saying becomes; "x is x" (the law of identity)

A definition never becomes identity.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

The identifying features of design for my argument, are inferred from studying all cases of sophisticated design in all designed things outside of life, meaning the induction that all those things are designed, matches my syllogism, because outside of life if you find all of those features you cannot fail to have a designed thing as 100% of the induction, with no examples in reality of something having all of them and not being designed. (outside of life. I must look outside of life since we are arguing life.)

The features can be figured out, and directly and equivalently MATCH.

Another false argument from evolutionists is another type of strawman where they argue, "life and technology are not the same thing". But we are not arguing they are, we are arguing they are both designed so this would be a fallacy of the undistributed middle term, of this form;

x<p, s<p, ~x<equivalent to s.

It seems like you almost learned something from previous discussions because you've tried to shortcut some of the previous objections, but you haven't actually fixed any of the problems.  If your induction can only be shown outside of life, you're still left with the problem of showing that it applies to life to get to the first statement in your argument.  If you could actually do that, the rest of the argument isn't actually necessary because you've already shown what it concludes.  If you can't, you don't actually know if the features you've identified can only be the product of design.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

THE FEATURES OF ID ARE:

-Specified Complexity, Information, Viability, Correct Materials, Contingency Planning, Function, Goals, Teleology, Irreducible Complexity(in some things), Aesthetics and Symmetry. Immensely Clever Solutions to Obscure Problems, Innovation/Contrivance. Symbiotic Systems.

I don't know how you can put so much emphasis on "ALL of the features" so many times then think you can slip in "in some things".  If it's not in all things that are designed then it can't be said to be an identifying feature of design, can it?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 4:55 PM, popoi said:

It's also not a very good definition, since you continually leave out the one thing that's actually relevant to describing a thing as designed, which is the simple historical fact of having been created by a designer.  We may be able to identify properties common to many designed things, and we may be able to identify properties that can only be the product of design, but those are getting further afield from a definition to an indicator.  I don't think there's a set of such properties that can serve as a definition of design in the same sense as we define what a football is

If the features of design are only an, "indicator" of design we might find them outside of design, rather than a 100% induction. If you have something with all the features of a clock how can it not be one? Can you show something which exists which has all the features and yet is not that thing? It becomes a contradiction to say it is "not that thing".

It would seem that an induction of hundreds of millions of things that all show these features to varying degree of type, ARE what intelligent design is, or is it a coincidence they have these features? (please answer that question; the features of intelligence we find in designs by man, are they there by coincidence or because of intelligence?)

Now if a cylindrical shape and ink is an indicator you have a pen, that would be an indicator if you can have things with that shape and ink inside them such as a cylindrical container containing ink for refills, which are not pens. So, an "indicator" of design seems to be a deliberately weak descriptor you chose in order to play down the significance of the features of ID. It's a lot more than an indicator if you find the perfect invention inside of something to solve an incredibly difficult problem that would require enormous intelligence to the point humans may not even be able to achieve it so they plagiarise it instead. (biomimetics) The difficulty of a problem determines how much intelligence is required. To then say something required none would seem a contradiction if the sophistication is more than that which even human design would require. At the very least we could say,

"if it was designed by a designer, it would take MORE intelligence than human intelligence."

Even if we only ASSUME the design for this implication, "if"  it was designed, it would need MORE than human level of intelligence. So then if it is "not" designed, how can something with ZERO intelligence be argued to be a better cause when we know MORE intelligence is needed, not less?

So we know it genuinely would require MORE intelligence. 

Evolutionogenesis, has no intelligence yet we know even if we only assumed the "if", that we would require more. Now you could object, "but if it wasn't designed it wouldn't need more intelligence", but how would that stop the requirement of intelligence?

Think about it, if I said, "we see something moving with incredible speed across space, we think it was motored by tremendous energy". Even if it wasn't designed, it would still require MORE energy than what we could design if it was going super fast beyond what we could achieve. So if you say, "if" it was designed, "it would need tremendous energy", even if it was, "not" designed it would still need tremendous energy. 

In the same way the designs in life, the incredible inventions and solutions are still there and they are still very clever solutions beyond human intelligence, because they are incredible, and because they are genius, still require MORE genius than humans in order to make. We know they require more than we have got. That IS KNOWN.

So if we know that they would need more to be created and exist, how can they come from NONE? (This argument is a strong argument again supports the other argument/s for I.D. if we know we would need much more intelligence to create design levels in life, does it make sense logically to argue their cause, whatever it was, had LESS or even NONE?

How does that make sense? There are no examples of evolution creating something of immense design, only superficial changes, there isn't even one example of a somewhat clever thing it created, only changes in shape, size and colour of already existing designs. This is superficial and the evidence for evolution is circumstantial and nowhere near adequate to the size of the claim. 

On 4/23/2019 at 4:55 PM, popoi said:

It seems like you almost learned something from previous discussions because you've tried to shortcut some of the previous objections, but you haven't actually fixed any of the problems.  If your induction can only be shown outside of life, you're still left with the problem of showing that it applies to life to get to the first statement in your argument. 

There aren't any genuine problems. Like I said in the past, people think their objections are problems but they either are incapable of knowing why they are inconsequential or won't allow themselves to see it's pedantics of little consequence. Here you think this objection is more consequential than it really is. The reason I look outside of life is because it is what is in question, and things we both agree are definitely proved to be designed, exist outside of life, so we can examine those things and see what evidence follows when you have a designed thing, and you can even define the features if they are unique which they are with sophisticated animated, mechanical things similar to life. obviously there is no use looking at teapots, as they aren't equivalent to life in their sophistication level.

So to look at something we know is designed and find the identifying features very clearly which we do as they stand out like a sore thumb as "intelligent", means we know that if we have all of them we have a designed thing because we know the cause is intelligence because we know they were designed by man. It simply follows logically that some features simply can only come by design. You will say "we don't know life's features were designed by someone" but that seems like a rather shallow objection given the features themselves are the intelligence and are only found in IDed things. What are the chances then statistically based on an induction of 1 in 1 things with all these features being IDed, that life isn't? And no examples of anything sophisticated not being IDed? So it seems like a hollow objection to say, "we didn't see life created". 

So is it a coincidence that evolutionists only ever ask for the one thing they know we cannot show? (watching the design being created). I am sorry but if that doesn't deserve a rolleyes smiley I don't know what does because it's nothing more than a rigged dice. :rolleyes: 

On 4/23/2019 at 4:55 PM, popoi said:

I don't know how you can put so much emphasis on "ALL of the features" so many times then think you can slip in "in some things".  If it's not in all things that are designed then it can't be said to be an identifying feature of design, can it?

 So your argument is that, "if something is an identifying feature of X, it follows that all in group X must have the feature"?

No that depends on the precise definition. For example you couldn't have the definition of a human not include all things "human", so the definition of a human would include "either male or female", by design at least.

So then it would not follow that all humans had to be female, or all male, it would just have to follow that they were either.

In the same way the definition of sophisticated design is things with features created by intelligence showing no possibility of naturally occurring. There is nothing in that definition which says all the features must be in place to have a design but just that features of intelligence are found. 

I can prove that easily enough. A book contains english language (information) and this is an identifying feature of design, unquestionably, but that doesn't mean it must follow that a rubber duck must contain information. Yet information in the form of writing is still clearly an identifying feature of ID.

If you struggle to not understand the modus ponen rule where you can never treat individual things within a group, as equivalent, but only infer the group they are in is shared, why should I assume you are not the one that needs to, "learn" rather than me?

A true objection/problem for my argument would be if you can show something which has all the features of a human, not be a human, or something which has all the features of a clock not be a clock or with all the features of design not be designed. Just not being able to see life created/designed is a vacuous and moot point, because we know from real designs that the design is still found in the IDed thing even if we don't witness the event. For example if there was third world war and nobody knew what cars were and they found one, it would be a false complaint to say we didn't see it made and ABSURD to say, "this differential doesn't prove design". The intelligence is OBSERVED in the features of design, in how it cleverly solves problems, and is deliberately shaped, and constructed to achieve a specific goal. To say that "isn't intelligence" we know would be false, even if the third-world-war survivors did not know, because you of course do not need to see the inventor create it, as the product still contains the invention

I am afraid your "problems" are simply an attempt to nitpick by clouding the issue and avoid obvious deductive reason. Sure, you think they are shining, insuperable objections. Can you show they are? I don't think so, and if you have to ignore the obvious strength of my arguments here in this post and cannot acknowledge how strong they are FOR God, then that is because you have chosen falsehood over truth.

The best possible victory in attacking my argument you could achieve would be to knock it down a peg from "proven" argument to "incredibly strong argument". Sorry, even if you could do that, this wouldn't be any kind of victory against my argument like you seem to think. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

If you have something with all the features of a clock how can it not be one? Can you show something which exists which has all the features and yet is not that thing? It becomes a contradiction to say it is "not that thing".

Because "clock" is defined as a collection of properties that form a category.  What it is to be a clock is entirely defined by those properties.  "Intelligently designed" is different in that it has a definition that's relatively clear based on its component terms.  It doesn't really refer to any particular property other than the simple historical fact of having been designed by something intelligent.  I'd say it's more akin to a term like "Scottish" in that sense.  The simple fact of originating within Scotland is sufficient to be called Scottish, and is in fact the only thing that is sufficient to be called that.  Given the difficulty in determining the facts of a thing's origin, we might be tempted to look for other properties that are common to things from Scotland.  Even if we find some other property that actually is found in 100% of things from Scotland, we still aren't really looking at the definition itself.  An indicator can be a very powerful thing, but it never alchemizes in to a definition.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

It would seem that an induction of hundreds of millions of things that all show these features to varying degree of type, ARE what intelligent design is, or is it a coincidence they have these features? (please answer that question; the features of intelligence we find in designs by man, are they there by coincidence or because of intelligence?)

I don't think it's really coincidence, you've just picked a set of factors common in designed things and life and drawn a big circle around it all to declare that it means something important.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

The difficulty of a problem determines how much intelligence is required.

This idea that a more difficult problem requires more intelligence to solve doesn't stand up to much scrutiny at all.  One of the most effective problem solving methods across pretty much all disciplines has always been trial and error.  So many difficult problems have been solved with no more intelligence than the ability to recognize when something worked better.  Almost the entire history of medicine amounted to little more than "Let's see if this does something".  If you've got something else that can stand in for the "keep this if it works better" evaluation you can even take that part out.  Biomimetics isn't useful because we're tapping in to some great well of intelligence, it's useful because it's things that are the product of a staggering amount of refinement through what's more or less trial and error.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

It simply follows logically that some features simply can only come by design.

This doesn't follow just from examining things which are designed and picking out features that something else has in common.  It has to be demonstrated that the reasoning behind concluding that the things we know are designed are/must be designed apply to the unknown cases.  Many of the properties that distinguish life from non-living things are exactly the same properties that look like they could produce things we would otherwise only attribute to design.  We conclude a teapot's features are a result of design because a pile of teapots left on their own don't really do anything at all.  But a pile of trilobites left on their would reproduce with modification.  Without considering that difference you might as well be insisting that 100% of the screwdrivers 

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

So your argument is that, "if something is an identifying feature of X, it follows that all in group X must have the feature"?

That would seem to be the definition of an identifying feature.  If a thing can be X but lack a feature that defines X, then that feature can't really be said to be identifying, can it?  Sounds like more of an indicator of X to me.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

No that depends on the precise definition. For example you couldn't have the definition of a human not include all things "human", so the definition of a human would include "either male or female", by design at least.

So then it would not follow that all humans had to be female, or all male, it would just have to follow that they were either.

"Either male or female" is one statement, equally well satisfied by either one of its components.  "Irreducible complexity (in some things)" in your case is more like including something like "artistic" in your list of defining characteristics of a human.  It may be true that humans are the only things which exhibit artistry, and if you have an artist it's extremely likely you have a human on your hands, but it can't really be included in the list of defining or identifying characteristics.  We would never say "that can't be a human, it's not artistic in the slightest", much like you would never say "that can't have been designed, it's not irreducibly complex."

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

In the same way the definition of sophisticated design is things with features created by intelligence showing no possibility of naturally occurring. There is nothing in that definition which says all the features must be in place to have a design but just that features of intelligence are found. 

You're the one who keeps talking about things having "all the features of design".  If you actually mean that what you have are features that can only be the product of design that's fine, but you need to substantiate that claim.  Just listing things that are thought to be products of intelligence looks a lot like you're just throwing in concepts to try to make your argument look weightier.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

A true objection/problem for my argument would be if you can show something which has all the features of a human, not be a human, or something which has all the features of a clock not be a clock or with all the features of design not be designed.

Sure, if you can actually exhaustively define "all the features" of a thing.  With a clock that's pretty easy.  With humans it's notoriously difficult, and largely comes down to what each person making a claim wants to be included.  With design it's impossible if you've thrown out the actual definition and you're trying to use something else.  Mostly it seems like you're just helping yourself to the idea that you've accurately defined design and then acting as if anyone disputing that notion is disputing the structure of the later argument. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 7:43 AM, Perpetual_student said:

Not True. Living organisms are always reproduced by similar things. Non living designed things don't reproduce similar things.

My car is intelligently designed, but has been made by a car factory (non similar).

My cat has been made by two other cats (similar).

Ergo: living things have different features than designed things, life is not designed.

"Not True. Living organisms are always reproduced by similar things."

Then how is it that over the course of "500 million years" while SOME jellyfish were evolving into humans OTHER jellyfish were evolving into ...jellyfish!!! ("Living fossils") You really havent thought this whole thing through very well have you...?

"My cat has been made by two other cats (similar)."

Your cat wasnt "made" by two other cats any more then were "made" by your parents!! You and the cats were ENGENDERED by 2 other creatures (Male and Female) of the same Kind by way of an EXTREMELY AND IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX reproductive process that was established by the ingenious and remarkable mind of God in the beginning...  

 

"Ergo: living things have different features than designed things, life is not designed."

HUH?????? MIKEY HELP!!!! CALLING MTW..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, popoi said:

 

Because "clock" is defined as a collection of properties that form a category.  What it is to be a clock is entirely defined by those properties.  "Intelligently designed" is different in that it has a definition that's relatively clear based on its component terms.  It doesn't really refer to any particular property other than the simple historical fact of having been designed by something intelligent.  I'd say it's more akin to a term like "Scottish" in that sense.  The simple fact of originating within Scotland is sufficient to be called Scottish, and is in fact the only thing that is sufficient to be called that.  Given the difficulty in determining the facts of a thing's origin, we might be tempted to look for other properties that are common to things from Scotland.  Even if we find some other property that actually is found in 100% of things from Scotland, we still aren't really looking at the definition itself.  An indicator can be a very powerful thing, but it never alchemizes in to a definition.

I don't think it's really coincidence, you've just picked a set of factors common in designed things and life and drawn a big circle around it all to declare that it means something important.

This idea that a more difficult problem requires more intelligence to solve doesn't stand up to much scrutiny at all.  One of the most effective problem solving methods across pretty much all disciplines has always been trial and error.  So many difficult problems have been solved with no more intelligence than the ability to recognize when something worked better.  Almost the entire history of medicine amounted to little more than "Let's see if this does something".  If you've got something else that can stand in for the "keep this if it works better" evaluation you can even take that part out.  Biomimetics isn't useful because we're tapping in to some great well of intelligence, it's useful because it's things that are the product of a staggering amount of refinement through what's more or less trial and error.

This doesn't follow just from examining things which are designed and picking out features that something else has in common.  It has to be demonstrated that the reasoning behind concluding that the things we know are designed are/must be designed apply to the unknown cases.  Many of the properties that distinguish life from non-living things are exactly the same properties that look like they could produce things we would otherwise only attribute to design.  We conclude a teapot's features are a result of design because a pile of teapots left on their own don't really do anything at all.  But a pile of trilobites left on their would reproduce with modification.  Without considering that difference you might as well be insisting that 100% of the screwdrivers 

That would seem to be the definition of an identifying feature.  If a thing can be X but lack a feature that defines X, then that feature can't really be said to be identifying, can it?  Sounds like more of an indicator of X to me.

"Either male or female" is one statement, equally well satisfied by either one of its components.  "Irreducible complexity (in some things)" in your case is more like including something like "artistic" in your list of defining characteristics of a human.  It may be true that humans are the only things which exhibit artistry, and if you have an artist it's extremely likely you have a human on your hands, but it can't really be included in the list of defining or identifying characteristics.  We would never say "that can't be a human, it's not artistic in the slightest", much like you would never say "that can't have been designed, it's not irreducibly complex."

You're the one who keeps talking about things having "all the features of design".  If you actually mean that what you have are features that can only be the product of design that's fine, but you need to substantiate that claim.  Just listing things that are thought to be products of intelligence looks a lot like you're just throwing in concepts to try to make your argument look weightier.

Sure, if you can actually exhaustively define "all the features" of a thing.  With a clock that's pretty easy.  With humans it's notoriously difficult, and largely comes down to what each person making a claim wants to be included.  With design it's impossible if you've thrown out the actual definition and you're trying to use something else.  Mostly it seems like you're just helping yourself to the idea that you've accurately defined design and then acting as if anyone disputing that notion is disputing the structure of the later argument. 

This idea that a more difficult problem requires more intelligence to solve doesn't stand up to much scrutiny at all. 

We shall see..

One of the most effective problem solving methods across pretty much all disciplines has always been trial and error. 

Ok, please show us an example of a methodology involving "trail and error" that does NOT REQUIRE an intelligence agent to recognize what "works" and what "doesn't" this is going to be good.....

"So many difficult problems have been solved with no more intelligence than the ability to recognize when something worked better"

I believe it requires quite a lot of intelligence to be able to recognize when something "worked better" can you give us an example when that WASNT the case?

NEVERTHELESS 

Assuming your assertion that not a lot of intelligence would have been required.. It does not mean ZERO intelligence!!! 

"Almost the entire history of medicine amounted to little more than "Let's see if this does something".

Yes.. all of which was accomplished by methodology utilized by INTELLIGENCE AGENTS!!! (Doctors, etc)

 

"Biomimetics isn't useful because we're tapping in to some great well of intelligence"

Oh you better believe that Biomimetrics is useful EXCLUSIVELY because we're tapping in to a great well if intelligence.. The ULTIMATE well of intelligence.. The omniscient omnipotent creator of the Universe, and ultimately, Man.... to pretend otherwise is a fools errand...

https://biomimicry.org/biomimicry-examples/

 

"We conclude a teapot's features are a result of design because a pile of teapots left on their own don't really do anything at all.  But a pile of trilobites left on their would reproduce with modification."

 

So let me see if I have this right... We know a pile of teapots are designed due to their features..

HOWEVER 

If we were to see a pile of teapots that are able to REPRODUCE MORE TEAPOTS BY THEMSELVES then we would know they WERENT designed????   Does this make any sense to anyone???

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blitzking said:

"Ergo: living things have different features than designed things, life is not designed."

HUH?????? MIKEY HELP!!!! CALLING MTW..

So basically his argument depends upon equivocating with what I meant by, "designer features", his comment "different features" is deliberately vague so he can toy with "designer features".

In an eyeball and a car, we find correctly shaped parts, (specifiec c), with correct materials, function, goals, contingencies, etc.....these are the designer features, we find them in both, but as for "designed features" as in "particular designs" that isn't what I meant. Fore example a tail boom on a helicopter is a "design feature" if you equivocate. So I was not talking about features as in, "individually designed things" such as tail booms or reproduction. All that must follow is that both tail booms and reproductive systems comprise of the features of design which they both do. This does not mean you must have a tail boom on your rear end to count as being designed by God.:rotfl3::get_a_clue:

4 hours ago, Blitzking said:

So let me see if I have this right... We know a pile of teapots are designed due to their features..

HOWEVER 

If we were to see a pile of teapots that are able to REPRODUCE MORE TEAPOTS BY THEMSELVES then we would know they WERENT designed????   Does this make any sense to anyone???

No. but when did "evolspeak" ever make sense? :farmer:

One more thing I forgot to explain with the first premise of my argument because it seemed it was being suggested that it is predicated on the induction, is that premise one isn't based on the induction of design outside of life.

That in itself is a tricky thing to explain and takes a fair bit of waffle, it's not easy to put EVERY thought I have in writing. I will try and explain.

When we ask "what makes something designed", we look outside of life as we already know manmade designs are designed. Yes? So AT FIRST, we already know there was a designer, BUT - when we examine what makes them designed, we actually find features which show the intelligence, so it's not circular reason to then say, "we now know what makes something designed". 

To explain what I mean, if we took a human and said, "we know he is human but let's see what makes him human", we would then examine a human and find human chromosomes/DNA, human anatomy. We now can identify a human even if we don't know the body we find is human. That isn't circular, that's identity because we deduced, (not induced), what a human anatomy is. So you cannot object, "you only infer that is human inductively based on all examples matching." That would be wrong, because in this case, you only get a 100% induction BECAUSE it is a correct deduction. So if we find a mangled body, if we take various samples and find it is all human blood, human DNA, etc....we know it is human by those identifying features. 

So when I say there is an induction outside of life of things with the ID features of 100% being designed, I only mention that as a cherry on the cake. The real reason we will only ever find things with features of ID to have designers isn't because, "we have only counted a limited number of the total amount of things", it's because we deduce from the actual features, that they are IDed things, so we know it will automatically follow that we will only ever find an induction of 100% things.

So it is a FALSE complaint to say, "you just haven't counted all examples", because we could say the same with humans, "you don't know the features of humans are only found in humans as there may be a non-human with 100% human DNA". But that would be a contradiction because we have DEDUCED the conclusion. It would also be a contradiction to find all the features of ID in something NOT Ided.

But we know that we only find 100% of humans being human because we actually DEDUCED that those features are what make someone human by examining ONE set of humans male/female. (We did not get the result from inducing all results). 

In the same way we deduce when we look at the deliberate shapings of a design created to meet a specific goal, that by definition this is "deliberate". For imagine if we were to say, "this car headlight is not deliberately creating light in the dark, it's parts are not deliberately arranged to achieve that."

Lol. 

6 hours ago, popoi said:

I don't think it's really coincidence, you've just picked a set of factors common in designed things and life and drawn a big circle around it all to declare that it means something important.

You haven't shown that, you've ASSERTED it. But to say that the identical features are "not important" seems almost laughably desperate. You are saying that if we find things deliberately shaped, in their hundreds or thousands of parts, all specifically of the right material, all in the right place in relation to each other, which like in a manmade design, all achieve together a specific function, which achieve a specific goal, this is not important and there is no connection? But that is the 100% direct evidence of design you would expect if a lifeform was designed.

If this is unimportant, then we should be able to take a rock or a cloud and find the same unimportant, ubiquitous features. Yet those features are only found in lifeforms and in designed things outside of life. 

So one has to wonder what your basis of, "important" is. 

What else but that of the matching features of design can we expect to find in order to deduce design? There actually is nothing more apart from two things; 1. seeing the act of creation, or the design-plans/blueprints. 2. An autograph.

REASONABLE people would say, "yes you can only be expected to find the usual evidence of design all being there, that is all that's possible anyway at this stage".

To say, "this is unimportant, prove design MORE". The only "more" we can show is that the design-level itself is far more intelligent than human design, which it simply is. If a human for example, created a chassis (pentadactyl pattern and homological skeletons)that was a modified version of the same chassis for a bicycle, car, plane, boat, etc....he would rocket to fame in one day as perhaps the most intelligent person to ever exist. If someone could create a growing, moving chassis that later solidifies into bone, that person would rocket to fame as more famous than Einstein. If someone could then have the completed machine replicate itself and heal itself from the inside, people might even think the person was God in the flesh.

If that doesn't show you design it's clear that the person as an individual is rejecting the notion for emotional reasons/bias. If you think a crude non-intelligent natural selection done it by being given random parts, and that is a better explanation, I can only respond with derision.

At this stage I can't be bothered reading your posts because it seems to me you are of that type of individual where it is basically futile to try and explain it to you because you are primed to reject literally anything I say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Ok, please show us an example of a methodology involving "trail and error" that does NOT REQUIRE an intelligence agent to recognize what "works" and what "doesn't" this is going to be good.....

I'm pretty much only talking about natural selection there.  If the selection factor isn't "reproduces better", it has to turn the actual selection factor in to that in some way in order to actually retain those changes, which is unlikely in the real world.  Mostly when we do something like that there's a process in place to determine what gets carried forward in to the next generation, but the important part is that the changes aren't being specifically designed, just evaluated for fitness.

8 hours ago, Blitzking said:

I believe it requires quite a lot of intelligence to be able to recognize when something "worked better" can you give us an example when that WASNT the case?

Sure, but mike didn't say difficult problems require "quite a lot" of intelligence, he said that difficult problems require more intelligence to solve.

8 hours ago, Blitzking said:

Oh you better believe that Biomimetrics is useful EXCLUSIVELY because we're tapping in to a great well if intelligence.. The ULTIMATE well of intelligence.. The omniscient omnipotent creator of the Universe, and ultimately, Man.... to pretend otherwise is a fools errand...

https://biomimicry.org/biomimicry-examples/

https://biomimicry.org/asknature/

Quote

Nearly every design challenge humans face shares commonalities with the challenges the rest of life has adapted to over billions of years of evolutionary trial-and-error.

The posts practically write themselves, folks.

8 hours ago, Blitzking said:

If we were to see a pile of teapots that are able to REPRODUCE MORE TEAPOTS BY THEMSELVES then we would know they WERENT designed????   Does this make any sense to anyone???

If we found a pile of teapots that reproduced with modification, we can't really be certain anymore that the features of those teapots were specifically designed.  The reproduction has introduced the possibility of changes that were not specifically the product of design.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

You haven't shown that, you've ASSERTED it.

I'm not sure how much work you expect me to do to disprove the things you assert rather than show.  There's some expectation of parity of effort here.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

You are saying that if we find things deliberately shaped, in their hundreds or thousands of parts, all specifically of the right material, all in the right place in relation to each other, which like in a manmade design, all achieve together a specific function, which achieve a specific goal, this is not important and there is no connection? But that is the 100% direct evidence of design you would expect if a lifeform was designed.

Sure, but the question is whether those things could originate through any other process than design.  A shape like the face of Jesus is what you'd expect if Jesus was communicating to you through your grilled cheese sandwich, but it could also just be a coincidence combined with pareidolia.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

If this is unimportant, then we should be able to take a rock or a cloud and find the same unimportant, ubiquitous features. Yet those features are only found in lifeforms and in designed things outside of life. 

It's not that unlikely that you could find features that are only shared between designed things and life, especially because that's exactly what you're looking for.  That you found similarities does not automatically make those similarities significant.  

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

What else but that of the matching features of design can we expect to find in order to deduce design? There actually is nothing more apart from two things; 1. seeing the act of creation, or the design-plans/blueprints. 2. An autograph.

Direct evidence of a designer, a mechanism of design, robust proof that a non-designed thing that looks designed is impossible.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

REASONABLE people would say, "yes you can only be expected to find the usual evidence of design all being there, that is all that's possible anyway at this stage".

It may be that it's not actually possible to prove things to the extent that you want to.  Sometimes life ain't fair, I can't really help you much with that.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

To say, "this is unimportant, prove design MORE". The only "more" we can show is that the design-level itself is far more intelligent than human design, which it simply is. If a human for example, created a chassis (pentadactyl pattern and homological skeletons)that was a modified version of the same chassis for a bicycle, car, plane, boat, etc....he would rocket to fame in one day as perhaps the most intelligent person to ever exist. If someone could create a growing, moving chassis that later solidifies into bone, that person would rocket to fame as more famous than Einstein. If someone could then have the completed machine replicate itself and heal itself from the inside, people might even think the person was God in the flesh.

It's certainly within human capability to build a chassis that could be adapted to fit a wide variety of functions.  People have made car-boats, plane-boats, and car-planes in the past.  The problem is that you end up having to do a lot of extra work to make it possible for say a car to fly as opposed to building a plane from the start.  It might make sense to do that if you're constrained by resources in some way.  One of my favorite shows when I was younger was Junkyard Wars (originally Scrapheap Challenge), in which teams were challenged to build a particular machine out of a pile of junk.  Since they had to adapt what they had, you ended up with old cars turned in to boats and things like that.  If all you have is a bunch of old cars and you need a boat, it makes sense you'd make the kind of adaptations that it takes to turn a car into a boat.  If you were making a boat from the start and you had unlimited resources, it makes absolutely no sense from a design perspective to start with a car, especially if you turn around and make a bunch of boats.

Similarly, if you wanted to make an ocean dwelling creature that feeds on things found in extremely deep water and there were literally no constraints, it doesn't seem to make sense to start out with a warm blooded air breather.  That kind of thing looks a lot more like adapting from what's available to me than it does perfect design from the start.

4 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

At this stage I can't be bothered reading your posts because it seems to me you are of that type of individual where it is basically futile to try and explain it to you because you are primed to reject literally anything I say.

I'm not rejecting everything you say automatically, I just don't think most of your arguments are very good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 10:43 AM, Perpetual_student said:

 . . . life is not designed.

and where is your evidence that says it isn't?

science has yet to recreate it and furthermore it has no plausible scenario for how it could be done.

the barrier is the complexity of the problem itself,  not a lack of technical knowhow or lack of resources.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 10:58 AM, popoi said:

One of my favorite shows when I was younger was Junkyard Wars (originally Scrapheap Challenge), in which teams were challenged to build a particular machine out of a pile of junk.  Since they had to adapt what they had, you ended up with old cars turned in to boats and things like that.  If all you have is a bunch of old cars and you need a boat, it makes sense you'd make the kind of adaptations that it takes to turn a car into a boat. 

okay, you have a pile of junk.

you decide to build a boat, complete with an outboard motor.

here are 2 major questions for you.

1. what makes this "decision" in regards to life?

2. let's see you turn this boat into a rocket to the moon.

 

in regards to 2, you will find that the entire contraption will require redesign.

be honest here popoi, how does evolution accomplish this?

keep in mind that "natural selection" IS NOT the fundamental powerful force evolutionists claim it is, and the "evolution" of complexity IS NOT very well understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 2:03 AM, mike the wiz said:

It would seem that an induction of hundreds of millions of things that all show these features to varying degree of type, ARE what intelligent design is, or is it a coincidence they have these features? (please answer that question; the features of intelligence we find in designs by man, are they there by coincidence or because of intelligence?)

 

Hi Mike, just checking if I understand your point well.

You want to compose a list of "hundreds of millions" of things about which we know that they are designed,  and based on that decide whether an object of unknown origin is designed yes or no, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 10:43 AM, Perpetual_student said:

Ergo: living things have different features than designed things, life is not designed.

i'm beginning to believe that a person needs an advanced engineering degree to fully understand the cell.

science already knows life DID NOT arrive here by any kind of accumulating genetic material.

 

so, yeah.

one of the most advanced machines on earth was the saturn 5 the rocket.

this thing is easily understood once we start taking it apart and analyzing each of it's components.

as laymen we might not understand the guidance equations but a mathematician can easily prove them.

the cell is a completely different ball field.

we are just now getting a handle on SOME of its workings and are finding that it does indeed contain information that CANNOT be accounted for.

there is a good chance that epigentics arrived already operational with the eukaryote cell.

then there's the little matter of HGT,  mobile elements, and gene duplication.

none of these can hardly be called a "gradual accumulation".

one other thing, it's now known that "genetic mutations" are the result of the cell repairing itself by genetic engineering and can hardly be called accidental much less random.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2019 at 12:00 PM, what if said:

one other thing, it's now known that "genetic mutations" are the result of the cell repairing itself by genetic engineering and can hardly be called accidental much less random.

 

Can you tell us more? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there could be causes of mutation which were purely accidental. Also, are you making a distinction between accidental and random? What is that difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 5:58 PM, indydave said:

Can you tell us more? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there could be causes of mutation which were purely accidental. Also, are you making a distinction between accidental and random? What is that difference?

Just one more comment for 2019.

I think if we read into "What If"s post he's being fair to both sides. Usually he makes his standard post, or "standard waffle" where he will cast doubt on evolution then basically give credence to his own type of waffle.

we know that "What If" is a lovable troll, so it isn't with any bitterness I say, "waffle", but the greatest shame about "What If" is that he is led down the path that leads to the exit then at the door saying, "exit", when he is about to escape, realise the truth of ID and it's obviousness, he turns around then goes back into the burning building.

He basically endorses ID is what makes sense of the facts, then gives the credit to his own fantastical evolution theory. A theory that doesn't depend on any evolutionary tree or anything of the traditional evolutionary argument. An evolution that is basically a ghost.

What he doesn't understand is that the scientific community have with Darwinism the APPEARANCE of scientific legitimacy, and that is why they would never go for any fantastical version or "third way". Because Darwinism is at least true pertaining to micro changes, by which they can then pretend macro is therefore true. This gives them a type of victory because science SEEMS to endorse macro evolution by endorsing natural selection.

"What If" will never realise that if someone has an advantage they are not going to relinquish that advantage over a little thing called, "truth", or, "honesty". But the reason why they aren't of the truth is because their father is the father of lies, and evolution is lies and they are liars. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

Just one more comment for 2019.

I think if we read into "What If"s post he's being fair to both sides. Usually he makes his standard post, or "standard waffle" where he will cast doubt on evolution then basically give credence to his own type of waffle.

we know that "What If" is a lovable troll, so it isn't with any bitterness I say, "waffle", but the greatest shame about "What If" is that he is led down the path that leads to the exit then at the door saying, "exit", when he is about to escape, realise the truth of ID and it's obviousness, he turns around then goes back into the burning building.

He basically endorses ID is what makes sense of the facts, then gives the credit to his own fantastical evolution theory. A theory that doesn't depend on any evolutionary tree or anything of the traditional evolutionary argument. An evolution that is basically a ghost.

What he doesn't understand is that the scientific community have with Darwinism the APPEARANCE of scientific legitimacy, and that is why they would never go for any fantastical version or "third way". Because Darwinism is at least true pertaining to micro changes, by which they can then pretend macro is therefore true. This gives them a type of victory because science SEEMS to endorse macro evolution by endorsing natural selection.

"What If" will never realise that if someone has an advantage they are not going to relinquish that advantage over a little thing called, "truth", or, "honesty". But the reason why they aren't of the truth is because their father is the father of lies, and evolution is lies and they are liars. 

"we know that "What If" is a lovable troll, so it isn't with any bitterness I say, "waffle", but the greatest shame about "What If" is that he is led down the path that leads to the exit then at the door saying, "exit", when he is about to escape, realise the truth of ID and it's obviousness, he turns around then goes back into the burning building."

Very true and a nice analogy.. I hope that "burning building" isnt a metaphor for what I think it is....  

Notice that EVERY SINGLE TIME he rails against Darwinism and is asked if HE believes in Slow, Billions of years of Microbe to Man evolution, (Darwinism) he completely DODGES the question (at least 20 times by now) and INSTEAD gives the same answer? Usually something like "These things follow laws"  Or "Science follows rules".. Kind of like if you were to ask someone if they believe that JFK is still alive or if he is dead and they respond "Frank Sinatra was a good singer"  Or  if you ask if they believe that men really went to the moon or not and they respond "My favorite team is the Yankees"...

THAT is what we get....  Good luck... 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 12:58 PM, indydave said:

Can you tell us more? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there could be causes of mutation which were purely accidental. Also, are you making a distinction between accidental and random? What is that difference?

yes, i have the material on my computer at home. (i'm still using the library computer)

i'll check at the front desk if i can use my flash drive here, that will help a lot.

yes, there are such things as a true mutation but it must be realized that DNA undergoes a 2 pass error correction scheme.

the 1st pass catches 99.99% of errors while the 2nd pass catches 99.9% missed by the first pass.

the stragglers missed by both passes are overwhelmingly detrimental to the cell.

 

cell repair mutations can hardly be called accidental nor are they random.

be advised that evolution that is supported by most people utterly fails to explain cell repair mechanisms.

 

one type of "accidental mutation" would be a base pair insertion, but the 2 pass error correction would catch this.

another type is a "mismatched" base pair, but i don't buy into this sort of thing because base pairs can only unit with their opposites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 2:31 PM, mike the wiz said:

I think if we read into "What If"s post he's being fair to both sides. 

nothing will be gained by doing otherwise.

Quote

 . . . evolution is lies and they are liars. 

i'll agree that there is a great deal of untruth in regards to evolution, especially in regards to information and how it amassed itself inside the cell.

OTOH, we must never forget that material things (atoms and molecules) follow natural laws.

we can't get this stuff to go against the natural order of things.

this is probably the primary reason darwinism was kept simple and why transposons and such was denied for 70+ years.

there HAS to be an explanation for all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 5:36 PM, Blitzking said:

Notice that EVERY SINGLE TIME he rails against Darwinism and is asked if HE believes in Slow, Billions of years of Microbe to Man evolution, (Darwinism) he completely DODGES the question (at least 20 times by now) and INSTEAD gives the same answer? Usually something like "These things follow laws" . . . .

that's right.

we are NEVER going to see water flowing uphill any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, what if said:

that's right.

we are NEVER going to see water flowing uphill any time soon.

I agree 100%.

AND 

We are never going to see biological evolution anytime soon either... Because everything is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX  and God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days and because the human body has 10 interlocked, interdependent VITAL organs and their support systems working together in tandem that had to ALL come together instantly and Satan's greatest lie of Evolutionism is... well... Check out the name of the website you are on right now... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2019 at 2:58 PM, Blitzking said:

... Because everything is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX . . .

i wouldn't say everything, but it DOES appear that a large part of the eukaryote cell is such.

for example, science knows the cell did not arrive here by any kind of step-wise accumulation of genetic material.

some say god, i say catalysis.

the most probable answer would be catalysis.

OTOH, i find it hard to believe that a large number of macromolecules would catalyze at just the right time and place to bring about the cell.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2019 at 12:58 PM, indydave said:

Can you tell us more? I thought it was pretty much accepted that there could be causes of mutation which were purely accidental. Also, are you making a distinction between accidental and random? What is that difference?

yeah baby, i got the goods in the upload.

read chapter 3

New Compressed (zipped) Folder.zip

 

i reread this earlier today and came to realize it completely obliterates what we commonly hear about "genetic mutation/ natural selection"

not only is there a 2 pass error correction scheme, but also a programmed cell death if said mutations cannot be repaired or bypassed.

this completely destroys any kind of accumulating changes, or ANY change for that matter.

if anyone objects because it isn't "peer reviewed" then have a shot at the 250 or so references at the end of the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2019 at 2:58 PM, Blitzking said:

We are never going to see biological evolution anytime soon either.

only because you don't realize how complex the eukaryote cell is.

i can't come up with any adequate analogies to illustrate just how complex the cell is.

the only thing i CAN say is it has completely baffled the best minds on the planet.

when you hear words like "wise" and "knowingly" when applied to the cell you get an inkling .

trust me on this, pitch darwin and his paradigm out the highest window you can.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

Our Terms