Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller
- From: snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:55:56 -0700
On Jun 30, 9:24 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 11:50 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 30, 12:56 am, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
On Jun 29, 10:02 pm, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
< snip >
As you know full well, many known murders never get solved regarding
who, why, or sometimes even how - even though their deliberate nature
is obvious. Again, such knowledge simply isn't needed in order to
adequately propose and detect deliberate artifact.
yes, it is. we cannot say with any confidence that a bullet wound is
the result of intelligence unless we know that intelligent agents
shoot guns.
If non-intelligent processes also shot guns or produced similar holes
in people, on occasion, you wouldn't be able to detect deliberate
artifact in such a situation. Therefore, the real limiting factor in
determining deliberate artifact is not the range of what intelligent
agents can do (that range is just about infinite), but is based on
what non-intelligent processes cannot do - to a reasonable degree of
certainty.
For example, say I found a body that had a very sharp smooth highly
symmetrical T-shaped cut in his chest and the heart cut sharply into
four equal pieces. The artifactual nature of this scene would be
quite obvious even before the actual identity of the murder, motive,
or method were determined. How so? Because humans are capable of such
a feat? Nope. Humans are capable of just about anything. What is
really important to know here is that no known non-deliberate process
comes remotely close to being able to produce such a pattern of
injury. That's the main reason why artifact would be so obvious in
this hypothetical situation.
nonsense. your scenario rests on the assumption that we know the
limits of non-deliberate processes. if we took your word for it, we
would have to believe in el chupacabra as well.
it also still falls into the pit of being based on things we know
humans can do. contrary to your assertion, humans are NOT capable of
"just about anything."
Deliberate design is indeed theorectically capable of just about
anything - especially when it comes to alien intelligence and
technology which might reasonably surpass our own by a good bit - if
intelligent aliens actually exist that is . . .
I'm actually surprised to hear you make this argument in any case.
Especially since it is so commonly used in this forum by those in the
evolutionist camp - "Design explains everything . . . and therefore
nothing". Ever hear that one before? It's actually true.
what they mean, of course, is that the design being proposed by
"intelligent design" theorists explains everything. thats because they
are clearly talking about a supernatural force with no limits. when we
talk about the kinds of designs done by humans or other animals, the
limits are easy to find.
you keep using examples that always involve
knowing what the intelligent agent we are examining is capable of. how
about you use an example where we dont actually know the capabilities
of the proposed designer? for example, take my CSI challenge. why do
you keep avoiding it?
I don't recall seeing your CSI challenge. Have you ever presented it
to me?
ive presented it to the entire world. the only one from your side that
ever answers is pagano, and his main criticism is what word i use to
refer to the signals.
Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- The CSI Challenge of snex
- From: Seanpit
- The CSI Challenge of snex
- References:
- Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller
- From: Seanpit
- Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller
- Prev by Date: Re: MAJOR MEDIA IS IN COLLUSION
- Next by Date: Re: Trees of Life
- Previous by thread: Re: The Confusion of Kenneth Miller
- Next by thread: The CSI Challenge of snex
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
