Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity

On Oct 12, 1:20 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Oct 12, 1:49 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Oct 11, 5:31 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

seanpit makes a big deal about the analogy between SETI and ID.
unfortunately for him, seth shostak and other SETI researchers think
ID is codswallop...but that's another issue

seanpit uses the SETI analogy primarily because we know how radio
waves are formed...there's a mechanism. but his ID 'theory' has no
mechanism so must, necessarily, rely on analogies to hide his failure..

but there's ANOTHER issue he hasn't dealt with.  it's a marshall
mcluhan idea: the medium is the message.

you can tell, by analyzing the structure of a radio signal, whether or
not it's content is 'intelligently designed' or not.  you can do that
because we have non-intelligent radio signals to compare.

but where is a non-intelligent DNA structure? DNA structure is not
radio waves. it's not based on radio waves.  DNA is chemistry, not
electromagnetism.  there is nothing in seanpit's analogy which
validates or justifies the comparison.

we can not tell, for example, by examining the complexity of sequence
of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent
humans in the lab, or whether it's natural.  without some non
intelligent source of DNA to compare it to, we have no idea whether or
not its complexity was natural or not. even if seanpit is correct, and
evolution can't produce DNA changes that code for greater than
1000aa's, some other natural process can not be ruled out.

in this case, the medium is the message.  radio waves communicate
information, but not process. DNA does both. DNA codes for
proteins...it causes an effect that radio waves do not. there is HUGE
difference in the ways DNA and radio waves handle info.

and even if he is correct in saying that DNA could not have been been
produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to
evolution? if he has an alternative process that produces speciation,
if speciation is occurring today (and it is), then what is the
mechanism? again he doesn't say.

seanpit's use of SETI is misleading...primarily to himself. he has
confused radio waves with chemistry. he has confused the medium with
the message. he has confused content with structure. in short, his
analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the
failure of ID to be legitimate.

Why are you after Sean?

Because he's a liar.


The fact that RF is an Atheist and that Sean is a Theist could very
well explain his opinion, however. Sean accepts microevolution, common
ancestry, random mutation and I assume natural selection. There is
nothing creationistic about these facts. All of the former were
originally accepted on the basis of being caused by unguided material
causation (= absence of Guide). I assume Sean knows this. With this
now said: what exactly is he lying about?

In case you do not know----RF----many of your fellow evolutionists
have recently vehemently opposed the "proposition" that Darwinism-
Evolutionism denies God (= Intelligence and Design) to be absent from
nature and evolutionary theory. So based on *this* opposition to said
"proposition" (which I strongly disagree with, Darwinism explicitly
says that God is absent from nature-scientific reality, and so does
every scholar without exception) what possible conflict could you have
with Sean? He advocates nature and its phenomena as reflecting
Intelligence and Design and, like I have just pointed out, he accepts
micro, CD-CA, RM-NS. It seems to me that he is the total package.

Of course if we view the position of your fellow evolutionists, their
denial that evolution says God is absent from nature as attempted
protection of the feelings of committed Christian evolutionists, then
part of my main point falls apart completely. But if the position is
genuine then I see no validity in your opinion of Sean Pitman.

Arch-evolutionist Michael Shermer has a doctorate in the History of
Science. Recently he wrote a book titled: "Why Darwin Matters: The
Case Against Intelligent Design." It is inconceivable that a man who
has a doctorate in said subject to be confused about the main claim of
Darwinism in relation to nature-Creationism-ID. The position of your
fellow evolutionists, therefore, is explained as protecting Christian
evolutionists, TEists. The facts now dictate that Sean is confused
since he apparently accepts both unguided material causation and
Divine causation operating in nature simultaneously. Of course Sean
might actually reject unguided material, which means the
microevolution that he accepts and advocates is sourceless and
subjective.

The point is that Sean is anything but a liar. He is, in my opinion,
genuinely confused.

RF



In a recent exchange of messages he plainly indicated to me that he
accepts "low level Evolution" (= microevolution); species mutability;
random mutation and common descent or ancestry. He is on your side.

Ray

Ray

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... it's not based on radio waves. ... of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent ... produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to ... power to change into anything, but must remain as they are because ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... it's not based on radio waves. ... of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent ... produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to ... Darwinism is an obscene pro-Atheism fantasy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... it's not based on radio waves. ... of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent ... produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to ... Darwin never postulated anything but micro. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... it's not based on radio waves. ... of nucleotides in a DNA sample, whether it was created by intelligent ... produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to ... Darwin never postulated anything but micro. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... it's not based on radio waves. ... produced by evolution, how does this rule out DNA being subject to ... analogy is so off base that it, in and of itself, is evidence of the ... A much simpler explanation is that Sean tells lies. ...
    (talk.origins)