Re: Evil Liar? or Simply Deluded?

On Apr 26, 12:32 pm, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 26, 8:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 26, 11:02 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 25, 7:16 am, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

< snip >

I repeat yet again:  It is impossible to prove the supernatural..  It
is not, however, impossible to scientifically support the very natural
ID-only hypothesis on at least the human level of creativity.

ID is not a hypothesis.

Tell that to anthropologists, forensic scientists, and SETI
scientists.  All of them use the very same ID hypothesis.

No they don't.  They all use evidence of a certain type of technology
(as well as motive and acessability) to infer a certain level of
intelligence.

Not true.  SETI scientists do not know the intelligent agents they are
looking for or their motives or even the limits of their creative
abilities.  They only know that at least human-level intelligence and
technology is required to produce certain types of radio signals -
that's it.

 SETI is NOT really a search for "intelligence".

LOL - oh really?  Tell that one to SETI scientists . . .

 It is
a search for a certain type of technological society.  Finding that
technology allows one to infer the existence of organisms capable of
generating that level of technology.  "Intelligence" that does not
produce technological societies generating narrow wavelength radio
signals will not be found.

That's completely irrelevant to the fact that if such a signal is
found, intelligence is found along with it.  It doesn't matter if
intelligences exist that cannot be found.  That's completely
irrelevant to the fact that if an artifact is found that can only be
produced by at least human level intelligence, then intelligence is
also found along with this artifact.

Yes. They *carefully* chose a specific artifact that they *know*
requires a technological civilization here on earth. That is, a
specific artifact that has, up till now, only been observed being
produced by a modern human technological society. An object with a
perfect correlation with such human-level technologies. Not an object
chosen for its "complexity" or "simplicity" or its ability to self-
reproduce.

And since living organisms can self-reproduce with variation in the
complete absence of "human level intelligence", life has none of the
requisite properties of such an "intelligence-requiring" artifact.
Life would *never* be considered as a useful indicator artifact of a
technological society.

Forensic scientists use similar arguments when it comes to guns and
knives.  But they also have to distinguish between possibilities
(suicide, accident, homicide, other natural causes) on the basis of
their knowledge of *human* motives and capabilities.  And they often
are unable to tell.

Again, it is irrelevant if they are unable to determine the need for
intelligence in certain cases.  We are only talking about those cases
that clearly require the input of deliberate intelligence on at least
the human level.

And life and its capacity to change over time does NOT present clear
"input of deliberate intelligence on at least the human level."
Nowhere near the requisite correlational certainty that narrow band
radio waves do as an indicator artifact of a technological society.

Anthropologists use an argument similar to that of SETI.  They infer
*human* manufacture on the basis of the level of technology required
to produce it.

And SETI infers at least human-level technology and intelligence as
well for certain types of phenomena.

Yes, the people doing SETI have chosen, quite carefully, an artifact
that they *know*, from their experience on earth, required a certain
level of technological capacity. And none of that is relevant to how
life changed. Especially since *on earth* there is no evidence at all
of any society with the requisite technological capacity to have
changed life.

None of this has any relevance to how life changed over long periods
of time.

Sure it does - If the same arguments could be demonstrated for certain
aspects of biosystems the very same conclusions would most certainly
follow.

And there are no such similar arguments relevant to biology. In fact,
the *evidence* is that life has undergone *most* of its changes in the
complete absence of any technologically sophisticated societies.

a SETI radio wave is not part of nature like
DNA is. it is not chemistry.

LOL - you've got to be kidding me!  Radio waves are not part of
nature?  What?  What do you think radio waves are made of?  They most
certainly are just as much a part of nature as DNA or any other
physical material is a part of nature.

But, as has been pointed out regularly, *narrow-band* radio waves have
only been correlated with the presence of *modern* human-like
technologies.

That's exactly my point.  The same thing is true of higher level
biosystems.  Only modern human-level technologies come remotely
close.

No. What you call "higher level biosystems" occurred on the earth in
the complete absence of any evidence for "modern human-level
technologies." That is the exact opposite for narrow band radio waves
or even spear points. Those technologic advances *required* the prior
appearance of hominids on this planet. The eubacterial flagella did
not. But, of course, any idiot can invent a magical poofing fairy
explanation to 'explain' any damn fool thing he wants to 'explain'.
And you do.

 Life or changes in life most certainly have not been
consistently correlated with *modern* human-like technologies.

Only modern human-like technologies come remotely close to being able
to produce biosystem complexities beyond the lowest levels of
functional complexities.  Nothing else has been shown to come remotely
close to what human-level technology can achieve with biosystems.

No. In fact the evidence is that those "biosystem complexities"
existed well before any evidence of "human-level technology." All you
are doing is inventing a magical poofing fairy to explain whatever it
is you want to explain. You certainly have not presented a shred of
evidence that a human-level technological society existed on the earth
before humans did.

 In
fact, life fucking doesn't need humans.  Evolutionary change is
unavoidable, given sufficient time, in the absence of humans.  

Devolution, certain, but not evolution beyond very low levels of
functional complexity.  This type of evolution has not and cannot be
achieved by your evolutionary mechanisms.  

Repeating stupidity does not make it true. And the "devolution" that
occurred before modern humans includes just about *every* change that
occurred in life's biota, including humans themselves.

If it could be achieved,
you'd falsify my ID-only hypothesis.  This is what in fact makes my ID
hypothesis identical to the SETI hypothesis.  They are based on the
very same argument.

Your idea that life was created by a human-level intelligence is
unsupported wishful thinking. It is nothing like the careful choice
of a specific technological artifact that we know *requires* a certain
level of technology produced by *humans*. Even if humans can
eventually produce life from scratch rather than merely modify it by a
mechanism similar to evolution (by mutation and artificial selection),
that is not evidence that human-level intelligence was *required* for
past evolution. And you have no independent evidence that such
"intelligence" even existed at the right time and place.

That
would be true so long as *any* changes exist which are functionally
neutral or more beneficial in a particular environment than the
current genome.

Not true.  There are degrees of functional complexity Howard - just as
there are degrees of radio wave resemblance to a narrow-band spectrum
or degrees of resemblance of granite rocks to a highly symmetrical
polished granite cube.  What really matters here is if nature can
produce a certain feature beyond a certain level - not if nature can
produce it to any degree of specificity.  That's a ridiculous
argument.

Read what I said. I said nothing about "degrees of functional
complexity." I said that *evolutionary change* will necessarily occur
in the complete absence of intelligence so long as there are possible
"changes [that] exist which are functionally neutral or more
beneficial in a particular environment than the current genome." I am
not the one proposing a mechanism in which both simple and complex
functions are magically poofed into existence by an invisible fairy.

This is worth a Chez Watt . . .

and no scientist....NONE...would exclude natural processes based ONLY
on religoius beliefs. that's your argument: religion allows you to
exclude natural processes because your religion is true.

I'm not excluding natural processes here.  As I've explained to you at
nauseum, human-level intelligence is quite natural.  

But you are not claiming that *humans* are responsible for the biota
we see.

No.  I'm claiming that at least human-level intelligence was
responsible for what we see in biosystems today.  SETI would claim the
very same thing if they discovered their artificial radio signals.

No. The comparable idea to yours would be if SETI would claim that
there must be an invisible human-level intelligence responsible for
lightning because humans can now create electrical sparks. Like life
and all its changes, electrical sparks (in the form of lightning,
which humans still cannot duplicate on the same scale as occurs in the
absence of humans) existed on the earth before humans did. Of course,
lightning actually has been attributed in the past to at least human-
level intelligences (Thor, Zeus, God, etc.). Wonder why scientists
are so skeptical about that idea?

They would claim that at least human level technology and intelligence
was responsible - not that humans were actually responsible.
Hello . . .

 You are claiming that some other something, who is invisible,
undetectable, and has whatever powers it needs to produce whatever you
want it to is responsible.  And you seem uninterested in actually
trying to determine anything else about this invisble magic fairy you
have conjured up in your vivid fetid imagination.

I've never said that the creator was necessarily invisible or
undetectable or that this designer has anything other than human-level
powers.  And, I would be very interested in actually trying to
identify more information about this designer.  However, this cannot
be done until the requirement for the input of at least human-level
intelligence is achieved.  

Who the bloody hell is preventing you from going forward to test your
"hypothesis" that life was due to a "human-level intelligence" by
trying to actually find some evidence that such an elusive agent
actually exists? Not me. I would love for you to present some
evidence rather than merely posit the equivalent of a magical
invisible fairy that can do whatever you want done.

Until this first step is realized, there
simply is no point in trying to take other steps toward the
identification of the designer.  The steps must be taken in order.
And, the very first step, though seemingly a small step, is a very
important step.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is preventing you from taking other steps
toward the identification (testing of the reality) of the designer.
You are certainly free to posit the idea of a designer. But an
evidenceless designer is nothing but a magic invisible fairy.

I'm not arguing
for the supernatural here. How many times do I have to explain to you
that it is impossible to prove the need for the supernatural?

Bull***.  If the magic fairy you conjure up is not supernatural, how
did *it* appear in the universe.  Another magic fairy?

You don't have to know the answers to these questions before you can
adequately detect the need for deliberate intelligent input.  

Au contraire. You do not need to commit to the existence or not of
your magical fairy to try to present empirical evidence that one
actually exists. You start with the hypothesis "If there is a
detectable designer of life, then...." and go on to predict some
consequences that would differ from the case if life evolved.

SETI
scientists don't have to know the ultimate origin of the intelligences
they are looking for before they can know that their radio signals are
most certainly artificial.

Again, that is *because* of their experience on earth, where (unlike
lightning and life) narrow band radio signals, AFAWCT, do not exist in
the absence of recent human technological societies.

So, your little argument here is just another red herring.  It is
completely irrelevant.

Actually, it is your false comparison of your magical fairy ideas to
SETI that is the red herring. And that fish of yours is three days
too old and is stinking up the place.

  That
can't be done.  What can be done, by science, is to demonstrate a very
strong need for at least human-level intelligence, a very natural form
of intelligence, to explain certain natural phenomena.

So when the bloody hell are you going to provide any *relevant*
evidence for the necessary correlation of all the organisms that have
ever existed on the earth and this hypothetical magical invisible
poofer?  Not your bull*** numerological games based on imaginary
sequence landscapes.  Real evidence.

Statistics is real evidence Howard.  

You ain't provided no steeenking statistics. You have calculated a
hypothetical probability based on bogus, unrealistic assumptions and
then committed the sin of false dichotomy. Statistics requires real
data, not hypothetical probabilities.

Try it sometime instead of basing
everything you believe on your vivid imagination of what is possible
without ever considering what is actually likely.  Try something other
than just-so fairytale stories as "science" for a change.

Says the guy who keeps positing an invisible, undetectable magical
fairy as his solution.

it's a circular argument. and it's wrong.

It's not circular or wrong.  You're the one with twisted thinking
here.

You are the one without any thinking of any kind here.

If you mean I don't base my thinking on fairytales and bald assertions
without any statistical basis, you're correct.  

Actually, you do base your thinking on fairies. Magical undetectable
ones.

Try it sometime.  Try
using real science with some actual statistical analysis and the
development of some real predictive value for a change.

Where is your evidence that your magical fairies actually exist?

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Loading