Intelligent Design

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Intelligent Design

Post #1

Post by Zzyzx »

.
ST_JB and Zzyzx have agreed to debate the topic "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:I am more that willing to debate whether "Intelligent design" is a valid concept. Care to try that in Closely Monitored Head to Head?

I accept.
Excellent. I suggest that the topic be "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"

Do you find acceptable the title and:

1. Ten posts total (five each)
2. No personal comments
3. All claims and statements to be substantiated or formally withdrawn / retracted
4. Bible is not to be considered any more authoritative than any other book (similar to C&A)
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #2

Post by Zzyzx »

.
To get things started, perhaps we should clarify some terms and considerations:

1) Exactly what constitutes "design" and exactly how is "design" distinguished from "not designed"?

2) If rocks are found to be in a straight line or a geometric shape, does their position indicate that a "designer" is involved, or could their position occur without "design" or intent?

3) If a microorganism causes disease in humans, was the microbe "designed" to produce human disease?

4) What, besides human / animal creations, can be demonstrated to be "designed"?

5) If some sort of "design" could be demonstrated to be true (which it has not), how could it be determined that any human KNOWS anything about the designer?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #3

Post by ST_JB »

In this H2H, I am going to prove and defend the ID as a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and its contents. On the other hand, Zzyzx will present his counter-claim as to why ID is not a valid concept.

To do this, Zzyzx is expected to present counter-arguments/proof/evidence as to why it is not a valid concept and is also expected to present his prefered "concept" in lieu of the ID.

Adapting the format presented by Winepusher from another H2H thread, I hereby propose the following:

Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal


Round 2: Establish the grounds for "whatever it is" concept as a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and its contents.
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal

Round 3: ST_JB's case as to why the ID is more probable and is better supported than "whatever it is". (1 Post)

Round 4: Zzyzx's case as to why "whatever it is" is better supported and more probable than ID. (1 Post)
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Post #4

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Note very carefully: Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe and Zzyzx is not obligated to present an "alternative proposal" since he does not claim such knowledge.

That I acknowledge that I do not know how the universe originated does NOT mean that your theory is valid. Saying "You admit that you don't know, and I do claim to know, so I must be right" is an invalid "argument".

Since you claim to know how the universe originated, it is your business to show that an origin that you claim to KNOW is valid.
ST_JB wrote:To do this, Zzyzx is expected to present counter-arguments/proof/evidence as to why it is not a valid concept and is also expected to present his prefered "concept" in lieu of the ID.
Correction #1: Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe -- and refuses to be maneuvered into taking a position someone feels he "should" take.

There is no requirement that an alternative proposal for origin of the universe be offered to refute someone's claim to KNOW the origin. I will simply help you demonstrate that the ID concept cannot be supported in the presence of critical or analytical questions.
ST_JB wrote:Round 2: Establish the grounds for "whatever it is" concept as a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and its contents.
Correction #2: Since Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe, no "whatever it is" concept will be presented.

Since I do not claim to know the origin of the universe and you do claim such knowledge, you have a claim to defend. I am NOT obligated to accept anyone's proposed theories or "prove them false" -- all I need do is effectively challenge the claim of knowledge. If the claim of knowledge can be credibly substantiated readers can conclude that ID is a valid concept.

Would it make it easier for you if I pretended to know the origin of the universe (perhaps after reading an ancient, or modern, unverifiable book that pretends to present such knowledge)?


Also understanding of the term "design" seems critical to this discussion:
Zzyzx wrote:To get things started, perhaps we should clarify some terms and considerations:

1) Exactly what constitutes "design" and exactly how is "design" distinguished from "not designed"?

2) If rocks are found to be in a straight line or a geometric shape, does their position indicate that a "designer" is involved, or could their position occur without "design" or intent?

3) If a microorganism causes disease in humans, was the microbe "designed" to produce human disease?

4) What, besides human / animal creations, can be demonstrated to be "designed"?

5) If some sort of "design" could be demonstrated to be true (which it has not), how could it be determined that any human KNOWS anything about the designer?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #5

Post by ST_JB »

Zzyzx wrote:.
Note very carefully: Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe and Zzyzx is not obligated to present an "alternative proposal" since he does not claim such knowledge.
Neither ST_JB claims to know the origin of the universe. He offers valid & possible explanation.

Zzyzx wrote:That I acknowledge that I do not know how the universe originated does NOT mean that your theory is valid. Saying "You admit that you don't know, and I do claim to know, so I must be right" is an invalid "argument".
Translation: Since Zzyzx doesn't know how the universe originated, ST_JB's concept on the origin of the universe must be wrong.
Zzyzx wrote:.Since you claim to know how the universe originated, it is your business to show that an origin that you claim to KNOW is valid.
Correction: My claim is that there is a possible valid explanation for the origin of the universe and its contents that's the idea of ID.

I offer possible explanation and if Zzyzx has nothing to offer, I must say that he has no "legitimate business" to enter into this One-On-One Debate.
Zzyzx wrote:.
ST_JB wrote:To do this, Zzyzx is expected to present counter-arguments/proof/evidence as to why it is not a valid concept and is also expected to present his prefered "concept" in lieu of the ID.
Correction #1: Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe -- and refuses to be maneuvered into taking a position someone feels he "should" take.
What is your agenda then in taking this debate into a limelight when you have nothing to offer?

To disagree to the ID concept on how life, for instance, has evolved means to validly present verifiable sources explaining how life has evolved without the aid of intelligent agent.

There is no way you can debate with me or anyone else without taking a position to defend. You have to present the side of your story so you can say to my face that
ID is wrong because its techniques are proven wrong because life has evolved based on such and these techniques that rightly explains the origin of life as shown by "whatever it is" concept.

Translation:
Zzyzx says: I admit, I don't know anything about math and knows nothing about addition but I'm pretty sure that 2+2= 4 is WRONG because "+" is not a valid operator.
Zzyzx wrote:.
There is no requirement that an alternative proposal for origin of the universe be offered to refute someone's claim to KNOW the origin. I will simply help you demonstrate that the ID concept cannot be supported in the presence of critical or analytical questions.
Yes there is.

Rule No. 5 in 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules', stipulates that any debater should and must:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

Does raising your so called Critical or Analytical Questions automatically qualifies as Evidence?

If you are not capable of forming a valid debate position, then let's change the title of this thread into "Question and Answer Forum."
Zzyzx wrote:
ST_JB wrote:Round 2: Establish the grounds for "whatever it is" concept as a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and its contents.
Correction #2: Since Zzyzx does not purport or pretend to know the origin of the universe, no "whatever it is" concept will be presented.
Zzyzx says: I admit, I don't know how or what the color RED looks like but I am sure that this color is not RED.
Zzyzx wrote: Since I do not claim to know the origin of the universe and you do claim such knowledge, you have a claim to defend. I am NOT obligated to accept anyone's proposed theories or "prove them false" -- all I need do is effectively challenge the claim of knowledge. If the claim of knowledge can be credibly substantiated readers can conclude that ID is a valid concept.
Great speech!

So how do you suppose to effectively challenge any claim when you do not have something to offer in a debate?

Asking questions alone can never be considered a valid stand nor it can be a valid evidence to support your claim. Unless we allow Zzyzx to enter into this debate and violate existing rules and regulation esp. Rule No. 5 in 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules, which requires a claim or counter-claim for evidence in support for such.
Zzyzx wrote:Would it make it easier for you if I pretended to know the origin of the universe (perhaps after reading an ancient, or modern, unverifiable book that pretends to present such knowledge)?
Thanks for the condescending remarks but no thanks.

Isn't this what you are doing? pretending to be debating by raising your so called "critical and analytical" questions without evidence to offer?

If I pretended to not know your dirty tactics in debate (perhaps accepting your unfounded, unverifiable "critical and analytical" questions to do the tricks) would it make it a lot easier for you to dance and sing?

Zzyzx wrote: Also understanding of the term "design" seems critical to this discussion:

To get things started, perhaps we should clarify some terms and considerations:

1) Exactly what constitutes "design" and exactly how is "design" distinguished from "not designed"?

2) If rocks are found to be in a straight line or a geometric shape, does their position indicate that a "designer" is involved, or could their position occur without "design" or intent?

3) If a microorganism causes disease in humans, was the microbe "designed" to produce human disease?

4) What, besides human / animal creations, can be demonstrated to be "designed"?

5) If some sort of "design" could be demonstrated to be true (which it has not), how could it be determined that any human KNOWS anything about the designer?
Unless you present a clear stand on how you are going to enter into this debate , I suggest to save your so called "critical and analytical" questions for preschoolers to munch.

Pretty disappointing... #-o .. Better to create New Sub-Forum entitled "Question and Answer." fits the bill for this thread.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #6

Post by ST_JB »

First, my apology to my debate partner and to all the readers who are patiently and eagerly following this debate. I have no excuse for being lazy the past months. OMG! It's been two months since the last time I posted in this particular thread. It's really quite difficult for me to give my full attention to forums like this as my personal affairs are more important and my top priorities in life. I am not retired yet from work and most of time are spent pursuing things I want in life. Need not to elaborate, I was busy the past months. Having said that, I hope my opponent will lend his understanding on my short absence from this thread. I guess, I have some time to spare for a couple of weeks so I guess I will be able to respond to his posts then.

One more thing, I've noticed a very long post is not possible here as posts that long might be truncated when displayed on the page due to the limits of characters allowed in a post. I had a terrible experience before when the last parts of my posts were gone. To avoid such a disaster, I will post my presentations in two parts, instead for Round 1, POST 1.

So here's the first installment of two.

For ROUND 1, Post 1, my presentation shall be divided into three (3) parts namely:
  1. Declaration of Debate Position.
  2. What Intelligent Design is...
  3. Evidence
FOREWORD
  1. Honestly, I don't have a single idea what Zzyzx will be arguing for in this debate except that he doesn't like the ID. But as to what in particular he will be arguing for, that remains a mystery. Anyway, it doesn't really matter to me what path he will take to dismantle my claim as long as he sticks to the rules and scopes of this debate. I'll just wait for his declaration when his turns come.

    It is a common knowledge to all that Zzyzx usually never takes a position in any debates he would engage into. Though it came as no surprise to me, I somewhat have wondered why he did not grab the opportunity to present his favoured concept to explain the origin of the Universe and all its contents.

    Zzyzx's refusal to present an alternative concept or explanation proves that he has no legitimate case to present to us in this debate. A mere rhetoric question is not a case. I don't think he has something to prove before us to begin with. It is really unfortunate to learn that Zzyzx, chooses a different path in this debate. The very concept (ID) that he wanted to refute is primarily a response to Darwinism. I was actually expecting a toe-to-toe battle of idea between ID and atheistic Evolution as promoted by Darwinism.

    Let me remind my opponent that by attacking ID as not a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and all its contents, particularly the origin of life, he is indirectly invoking Un-intelligent design – that the origin of the Universe can be explained without invoking ID.

    The only assumption left is that my opponent (Zzyzx) might be thinking to explore another avenue for debate like disputing ID as not science or unscientific. I guess this is the only area my opponent has grounds for engaging me in this debate.

    Here, I will hope to prove that ID is as valid as any other scientific explanations for the origin of the universe and of life that any atheists would willingly consider and accept.

    In this particular debate, I'll be drawing my arguments mostly from the works of Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Stephen Meyers, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. Hugh Ross, and among others. I do hope that my opponent is well acquainted with the writings/works of these gentlemen as they are considered the forerunners of ID and experts in their own fields.
  2. Declaration of Debate Position.

    The subject Zzyzx and I agreed upon for debate is "Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?" and in this particular Head-to-Head Debate I will be taking the affirmative stance.

    I believe that ID is a viable and a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe, for reasons that I hope to address in this particular debate.

    And so to get things going, I would like to define what ID is all about first. By this, I hope to avoid any misconception, misrepresentation of ID by my opponent and avoid addressing the wrong issue. I would be very specific in this debate and will only address the counter-claim my opponent will make against ID.
  3. What Intelligent Design is...

    I do believe that with the evidence we have, points to only one direction - that is, our Universe and all its contents, including life, existed not by mere chance or accident or random acts of nature, rather by the aid of an intelligent agent. That the Universe and life in particular, display characteristics that only an Intelligent Mind can perceive. Thus, I will be arguing that such a system that is so complicated, specific and precise cannot be a product of such undirected act or event unless such act or event is directed by and as foreseen by an intelligent mind.

    Intelligent Design can also be defined as a theory for detecting and measuring information, explaining its origin, and tracing its flow. -- William Dembski

    Intelligent Design, therefore, examines certain features in the Universe for signs of Intelligent Causation , detects and measures information and tracing its flow to explain its origin.
  4. Why ID is a valid concept:
Having defined Intelligent Design in its common acceptable terms. And before proceeding further to our discussion, I would like to define as well some key words that are essential to our understanding on the viability of Intelligent Design to explain the Universe and its contents, particularly the origin of life. Is ID theory acceptable?

It seems to me that the answer to this fundamental question lies on the outskirts of Methodology and Evidence offered by ID Theory in explaining the Origin of Life and universe. Whether the application of the method used to acquire evidence/information and whether there is a valid evidence to support the conclusion are two of essential factors that determine the validity of ID.

So basically, we will be stripping down ID by examining its Method and the Evidence it offers. The method will tell us whether the evidence is acquired correctly and the evidence collected will tell us whether the conclusion in valid. So the validity of ID lies in the method's used and the evidence presented.

While I argue for the validity of ID as a concept/theory, another important thing to consider in this debate is whether any competing theories or concepts that best explains the origin of the universe and all its contents exist? Is there any other theories out there other than ID that best explains our origin and that of the Universe? If none, I don't think my opponent has the case against ID.

The default position of my opponent is that he will not present any competing theories as he is not in any way obliged to do so. Basically, he was saying that there is no need for him to present an alternative explanation to dismantle my claim, which I think is ridiculous, because in any debate, for the other side to successfully dismantle his opponent's arguments he needs to discredit the claims by pointing out its flaws and at the same time presents what he think is the correct explanation. Skipping this part of the debate clearly shows the lack of valid grounds to erect your own case against the claims made by your opponent.

In any case, I shall wait for Zzyzx's presentation against ID.

The ID THEORY/CONCEPT EXPLAINED.

The ID theory states that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

It is important to note that the modern or the new generation ID was basically established having an idea that the present explanation on the origin of life and the universe is flawed and inadequate, and that it needs to be revolutionized in terms of building a theory that adequately explains the origin of life and the Universe. Thus the birth of the new generation ID was born. ID, therefore, is a science that explains the origin of life and the Universe.

In establishing ID as a valid concept, it is very important to understand what processes, methods or techniques are employed in determining whether a particular system is intelligently designed. It is important to know how these methods are used to posit conclusion that points to ID. Another thing to consider is that, in employing ID theory to explain a particular system, let's say the origin of the Universe, ID uses the common scientific data available to everybody to posit its conclusion.

ID scientists are not introducing new scientific methods uncommon to scientists when they claim that the origin of life, was intelligently designed. Neither it's advocating new methods of performing experiments nor a new form of scientific techniques. In most cases, ID scientists use available scientific data corroborated with another experiments of their own or done by others. ID, therefore, is an explanation using the same acceptable scientific practices that any man of science would adhere to as an explanation of what could have been the cause or causes of natural phenomena. The data available to explain how life could have evolved in the beginning, the ability of the DNA to replicate or the appearance of specific and complex systems in the cell, the formation of simple components into specific and complex systems, like the formation of galaxies or clusters, the expanding Universe, are all based on scientific evidence and theories gathered and formulated by people who adhere to science as a means or tool to explain natural phenomena through scientific means. In explaining, for example, the Origin of the Universe, the same data is by ID scientists to arrived to its conclusion.

To further explain, when ID says that the universe and life were intelligently designed, it is not to say that ID used pseudoscience by employing unknown methods or experiments or new scientific techniques for gathering data to show that the universe were intelligently designed. To assumed that is ridiculous. Rather, ID used preexisting data from previous observations, experiments, existing theories and physics laws to support its claim.

Let's take an example this true story from early scientists. The existing field equations of Einstein's theory of general relativity in 1916, was all what Georges Lemaitre needed to published his calculation and arguments of an expanding Universe in "Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles in 1927. It was actually Einstein who first take noticed of an expanding universe, which he personally disliked as it contradicts his belief of an stable and eternally existing universe. And so Einstein introduced his infamous cosmological constant to conform to his belief. Two years later, Einstein realized that it was the biggest blunder of his career - for introducing the cosmological constant to his field equation to make the universe stable from the very beginning. It was through Hubble's discovery that Einstein began to consider the theory now known to us as the Big Bang as proposed by Lemaitre in 1927 (detailed explanation in the latter part of my presentation). Well, Einstein was among the leading scientists of his time supporting a no-beginning Universe.

So, if that is the case what is actually wrong with Intelligent Design, then? Which part really of the ID theory my opponent objects to?

Well, that's what I hope my opponent will establish in this debate.


EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT.

As stated in my opening statement, ID covers a variety of subjects to offer for evidence under its roof. As the question for debate is all about origin of the Universe and its contents, I split the presentation into two categories, namely the (1) Evidence from The Formation and Origin of Life, and (2) The Cosmological Fine-Tuning of the Universe, which I hope to confirm and support my claim for the validity of the ID Concept.

Please note that this presentation is a fusion of various ideas and information I gathered upon my investigation and exploration on the subjects that supports ID. Basically, my arguments were formed based on the information available to us that includes but not limited to the areas of Physics, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Philosophy of Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Microbiology, Information Theory, Computation, Linguistic Interpretation.

As defined above, ID examines for traces of information found in physical world most especially the information embedded in DNA molecule. Given the recent knowledge we have on humane genome (DNA), I will establish my arguments for design, as follows:

Evidence from The Formation and Origin of Life

In Darwin's time, very little is known about the physical structure of living organism. Human body is literally thought to be made up of matter and energy only. Cell is thought to be as “homogeneous and structure-less globules of protoplasm,� 32




Contrary to common misunderstanding, ID does not seek to address the nature or the identity of the Designer. Rather, it follows where the physical evidence leads us to: that the Universe and life in particular cannot be a product of undirected acts or events and that life did not originated from a mere chance of random acts of nature, unless such acts or events is directed by an intelligent mind. Thus, ID eliminates the prevailing assumption that we (human beings) and everything around us are mere products of accidents (unguided process of nature).


THE ORIGIN OF LIFE; DNA AND INFORMATION.

Information found in DNA exhibits characteristics same that of Shannon's "Theory of Information". Such type of information is recorded in each DNA in digital format same as we use in our communications systems and computer machines. The information-bearing properties of DNA provided strong evidence of a prior but unspecified designing intelligence.

Nobel laureate Dr. Francis Crick who posits an extraterrestrial origin for life on Earth, is not alone in this viewpoint within the scientific community. The same year that Life Itself was published (1981), Sir Fred Hoyle authored Life from Space, in which he took essentially the same position.

In fact, in an article that year in Nature, he wrote:
"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate mater is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
(Hoyle: 1981, 294:148)

What these all suggest to us? That is what I hope to present in the fist part of presentation of evidence.

In the book "The Design Inference" author and mathematician William Dembski asks, "how do we know that something has been purposely arranged? how do we know there is a mind behind a particular event?" These are another set of questions that I hope to address, as well, in this debate. And these are also the questions that I hope my opponent will address by refuting the claim of the ID. To answer these questions, Intelligent Design Theory uses Design Inference in seeking detectable evidence of design in the physical world.

We ask, "What are these detectable traces of design in the physical world that ID hopes to explain?"

As William Dembski points out "Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.�

Once common error directed to ID is that, it seeks to account the natural order or process of things found in the universe to a Creator. Well, that is a huge mistake. ID does not account any creator for the design found in nature, it only examines whether design exists and whether this design had occurred or can occur without the aid of intelligent agent. If such design exists, it is not the scope of ID to identify the designer. We leave that part to theology.

Applying the logical process in detecting design in biology, what are the evidence for design?
  1. As I have mentioned in my opening statement, ID is a broad concept and covers a whole lot of subjects to offer as evidence for its claim. For convenience, I have decided to cherry-pick the evidence that I will present to narrow down the scope and save space and time. And also, that would work for my convenience, as well, since I don't have the luxury of time under my disposal.


    <object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
  2. Information in Biological Systems

    Any person who has a working gray mass stuck in his head can easily understand the function of Information in accomplishing specific and complex tasks. Either human or machine, needs proper information to process in order to accomplish specific and complex tasks and even simple tasks. But for the sake of argument, I will focus on the necessity of information in specific and complex tasks.

    For those folks who have crossed-swords with Information Theory in their undergrad or post grad (which I have limited recollection), we come to know that Shannon's theory advances the digital information quantities of information, a source is essential prior to of information theory in various fields in sciences such as cryptography. The application of Information Theory in computer programs and algorithm. But when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA in 1953 in their


    When scientists during the late 1940s began to define information, they did not make
    reference to physical parameters such as mass, charge, or watts. Instead, they defined
    information by reference to a psychological state—the reduction of uncertainty—which
    they proposed to measure using the mathematical concept of probability. The more
    improbable a sequence of characters or signals, the more uncertainty it reduces, and thus
    the more information it conveys.
  3. Molecular Machines - The Bacterial Flagellum
  4. Origin of First Life Chemistry
Now, I have presented herein the appearance of design found in living things, i.e. DNA. It is a universal truth that DNA carries genetic information. Information that has been transmitted from the very fist appearance of life on earth. This information is said to have been present from the very beginning life started to appear. Thus, in billion of billions of years, this same information is transferred to

I would like to begin my explanation for the validity of ID with the words from a known Atheist proponent, Richard Dawkins. The following quotes are from Dawkins’ book "The Blind Watchmaker":

“Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.
“Each nucleus, as we shall see in Chapter 5, contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell, not all the cells of a body put together.�

IF DNA is known to exhibits information to build its own, then information is not reducible to natural causes and that the origin of Information is best sought in Intelligent causation.


ID is valid not only because in respects, first, the appearance of design, second the way



[*]Applying this logical process in detecting design in Cosmology, what are the evidence for design?
  1. Cosmic Fine Tuning - In one of the books I read about our Universe, the author Mario Livio in his book "Accelerating Universe, Page 237", he asked the questions "Is it possible that properties of our universe are determined by our existence? Or to put it differently, is our universe fine-tuned for life?
[*] Rational Thought and Consciousness

In the 1940s, the study of Information is limited to Psychological State

[/list]

  1. I. Understanding How Intelligent Agents Operate Yields a Positive Case for Design
  2. A designer conceives a purpose.
  3. To accomplish that purpose, the designer forms a plan.
  4. To execute the plan, the designer specifies building materials and assembly instructions.
  5. Finally, the designer or some surrogate applies the assembly instructions to the building materials.

Objections:



Objection 1: ID is not Science.

As philosopher of science Philip Kitcher put it in
an anticreationist text, "postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more
unscientific than postulating unobserved particles" (1983, 125)



THE BIG BANG.



Closing Remarks:

If Zzyzx wants us to believe that ID is not a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and all its contents, especially the existence of life, he needs two (2) things in order to do that:
  1. Tear down the evidence I presented for ID as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and all its contents, especially the arguments for the existence of life;
  2. And then in its place erect a case of his own that is more convincing than believing that ID is a valid concept.
Unless and until Zzyzx does these, I believe that evidence for ID as a valid concept is pretty clear.

Please note that on Page 1 of this thread, Zzyzx refused to present an alternative concept to explain the origin of the universe and therefore, will not present an alternative explanation from science about his belief in the existence or origin of the Universe and all tis contents.

Now, that sounds ridiculous because Zzyzx will only have his objection against ID for reasons that he believes that it is not a valid concept to explain the origin of the Universe and all its contents. From where he will base his objection, is another thing that, I think, he also needs to explain convincingly to prove his case against ID.

Another fundamental question that needs to be answered and understood in this one-on-one debate is "Is the objection against ID based on scientific evidence or based on prejudices?

In order to answer this, Zzyzx needs to do one thing only and and nothing more. That is to show the exact opposite of the ID concept: that ID is scientifically not valid by showing to us that life was formed not according to design, it was not engineered, rather, life was formed through other process except intelligent causation. He also needs to nullify my claim on how the universe existence was aided by an intelligent mind to form a system that supports life. He needs to show that scientifically ID erred in its assumption that the Universe and all its contents could not possibly be a caused of an intelligent mind.

The fundamental issue is not whether ID satisfies some highly controversial and subjective definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether dissenting opinion of my opponents provides stronger arguments for rejecting ID than mere rhetoric questions can do.


Now, let's hear it from Zzyzx. :|


Reference:

32. Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 135




Signature:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." -- Dr. Robert Jastrow, Director Emeritus of Mount Wilson Observatory and founder of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #7

Post by ST_JB »

How funny could this be? :shock:

I merely presented my proposal for a fair and civil debate but I was greeted with condescending remarks and blanket statements such as the post above instead of getting a positive response or a counter-proposal to move forward.

If my chosen debating partner feels that he's not qualified to present a competing "position" or "concept", he can say so and stop this BS.

It's frustrating. #-o

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #8

Post by micatala »

Moderator Clarification



Not to prevent ST_JB and Zzyzx from continuting to negotiate the terms of the debate, but I would like to offer a couple of comments.


First for ST_JB.

I am not sure why taking the position that the answer to the following question is "no" requires presenting an alternative theory on the origins of the universe and its content.

"Is Intelligent Design a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents?"


For example, A might take the postition that X is guilty of a crime. B might take the position that X is not guilty. One can attempt to prove that X is not guilty without coming up with a specific alternative suspect Y and arguing that Y is guilty. Sure, if one could prove Y was guilty, that would imply X is innocent, but it is not necessary to identify a Y and show Y is guilty to show X is innocent.


Certainly, ST_JB can decline to participate if he is not willing to debate without Zzyzx providing an alternative theory.


Also, although Zzyzx response might be considered contentious, I do not see it as condescending.

Finally, altough it is not a big deal, please avoid using "BS" as this has been previously ruled to be euphemistic profanity, and as such, against the rules.


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #9

Post by ST_JB »

I am more than willing to make this debate happen once and for all.

So considering the unwillingness of Zzyzx to take side or position on this debate, I would like to propose the following format, instead:

Round 1: Establish the grounds for ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: ST_JB Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: Zzyzx's rebuttal
-Post 3: ST_JB's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: Zzyzx's final rebuttal


Round 2: Establish the grounds for rejecting ID as a valid concept
-Post 1: Zzyzx's Presents Evidence and Arguments
-Post 2: ST_JB's rebuttal
-Post 3: Zzyzx's response to the rebuttal
-Post 4: ST_JB's final rebuttal

Round 3: ST_JB's case as to why the ID is more probable and is better supported than "Zzyzx'x dissenting opinion". (1 Post)

Round 4: Zzyzx's case as to why "his dissenting opinion" is better supported and more probable than ID. (1 Post)

Zzyzx is not required to present competing theories for ID but is expected to present valid and verifiable sources as Evidence or Proof for his dissenting opinion as stipulated in Rule No. 5 of the 'Debate Forum Intro and Rules', to wit:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

ST_JB
Scholar
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:27 am
Location: "Galilee"
Contact:

Post #10

Post by ST_JB »

I would like to add the following;

A. Scope and delimitation.

1. Scope - Although ID has the claim for this debate, the discussions need not to be confined to attacking the concept of ID alone but also to the following, as well:

a. Intelligent Design as a valid concept to explain the origin of the universe and its contents, and

b. The validity of the dissenting opinion as equally valid for consideration.

The use of available school of thoughts and techniques should not be compromised. In other words, debaters can use available resources, provided that the essence of the discussion be sustained. Any objection to arguments/proof/evidence as a form of fallacy or violation of forum rules shall be evaluated by a non-partisan third party (moderators) upon submission of complaint.

2. Delimitation - This debate and all of its proceedings shall cover ID and its valid dissenting arguments only.

Participants may employ all known school of thoughts / scientific techniques / science or logical analysis in support to their arguments.

Should there be anything else that Zzyzx would like to add, please do what is necessary.
"We must take the best and most indisputable of human doctrines, and embark on that, as if it were a raft, and risk the voyage of life, unless it were possible to find a stronger vessel, some divine word on which we might journey more surely and securely." -- SOCRATES

Post Reply