What do you mean by 'reality'?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Something that can be put to the test of skeptical empirical examination.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Don't even waste our time on that road.

Seriously.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Er... meaning is the same thing as definition.

Just ask Websters: Main Entry: def·i·ni·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Anglo-French, from Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
Date: 14th century

2 a: a statement expressing the essential nature of something b: a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
4 a: the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition )



And that is because the 18th century philosophers like David Hume (who were ironically called empiricists) changed the meaning of the word to accomodate a particular philosophical bias.

If the meaning of words comes from the way people use them, then how do we decide who's meaning is valid? Let me guess... the ad populum logical fallacy (i.e. convention)?



Are you using words to tell me that the meanings of those words are shifting on me? How then can I be sure of what you've said? After-all, as the Websters definition of 'definition' shows, the whole purpose of meaning and definition is to make definitie (definition) exactly what the idea behind the word is that we are talking about.

Perhpas Jesus put it best when He said, "Let your yes be yes, and your no, no. Anything else comes from the evil one."

What is it you are telling me nwr? That words have no 'definite' meaning? Do you think me to still be a freshman?



Yes I agree...



It is quite the other way round in my opinion. The original meaning was changed by the apologists of materialistic antitheistic apologists. Some of them (the post modernists) do not even understand that meaning and definition are the same thing. Words mean whatever they want them to mean, though they do not give others the same luxury. Their meaning is the 'real meaning' and anyone who disagrees is demonized.





That's right, and the math works for bankers just as well as physicists because it is logical.





Do you know that?




So the laws of physics are not objective reason or a mathematically logical order of reality? Seems to me that law defines what reason is. They declare the glory of the logos empirically.



If the law of contradiciton is not valid nwr, then why do you continue to contradict what I say at the expense of your own rationality?

Reason and rational thought are the same thing nwr...

( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason )

( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... lied-logic )




I assume (but do not have a citation to offer at this time), that the additional investigation would be to determine whether the signal contains information.

Other than that, SETI explains what they are looking for quite nicely. My brother Ken sent me this information, so I'll let them do the talking:



Purposefully built transmitters require a 'blue print' (i.e. information that is intelligently designed).



Neither is a Compact Disk massless. It isn't the mass (matter or energy)that contains the information, but the order or pattern imposed upon it by intelligent guidance. So in that sense, I mispoke... DNA is not information, rather, it conveys information in the same way as any digital code.



The amino acids do not contain information. The pattern of the amino acids is the information.




The information conveyed by DNA is not by any conceivable illustration, found to be simple.



It's hard to make an argument that is acceptable to people who do not accept that words have a definitive meaning.

The only specualtive hypothesis and mindless philosophizing I see, is the utter lack of empirical evidence for a natural explanation for information.
I heard Rush Limbaugh today, talking about a private screening he had for the upcoming move 'Expelled'. According to Limbaugh, Richard Dawkins says in the movie, that there is no natural explanation, and then corrects himself and invokes the possibilbity of an alien author of life.

Dawkins is far more right than he knows...

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world...37 "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

But not all natural sciences are observational. Some valid sciences are historical such as archeaology.

By that measure, evolution is not empirical, it is a historical science. Yet you believe... ( http://rjohara.net/darwin/ )

You are not being consistent. You demand the kind of certainty of one explanation, that you cannot provide for your own.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

No it doesn't... it only means that they are using words casually.

Social chat is one thing. Science is no place for being casual.




You are quite mistaken.

Inductive reasoning such as "all known information is produced by intelligence, therefore all information has an intelligent cause" are what we call theories. But the process of deducing which theories are false, and which are true (often only in part) is the deductive process itself. To test, we perform experiments, observe available evidence, and reconstruct history by a process of deduction, which is in turn based upon the validity of the systematic and coherent principles of reasoning.

Logic is systematic. That's why it is a powerful explanatory tool in the hand of natural scinece.

Induction only moves science along when the theory is confirmed or more often denied deductively based on empirical evidence. The evidence does not speak for itself. It must be systematized and made to cohere with the induction.

In the case of the design inference, we have empirical evidence of design for information.

There is no empirical evidence for a natural explanation for the appearence of information.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Let's stick to the topic of the thread, which is whether the design inference is scientific. Discussions of archeology or evolution don't belong in this thread.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

You haven't a clue as to what constitutes a scientific theory. Yet you use your ignorance as the basis for pontificating in large type.

Quit the polemics and get back to the topic.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Rob says



This is in reference to nwr saying



The requirement is not that one person says something to have occurred but that there be evidence of the event having occurred that can be verified empirically.


Rob uses events from the bible that are meant to be somehow pertinent to empirical evidence required by science.

Since it is the consistent experience of empirical observations that people do not rise from the dead and that to do so is in violation of observed reality then ,unless compelling evidence can be presented to verify that the event occurred , we can also observe that a more mundane means of explanation exists.

People lie on a regular basis and this can be empirically verified and this explains quite succinctly the claim of the event{walking on water , rising from the dead}, and in this explanation there is no violation of observed empirical evidence. It is also consistent with human behaviour that we can observe and test.

This is not to say that the event did not occur, since that is an unknowable condition given the circumstances. It does mean,though, that Rob must present extraordinarily compelling arguements to not only substantiate the event but to also explain how this event can violate the empirical observations that this type of event never does occur.

He must also explain how violation of all other observed reality can be accomplished through verifiable evidence as well.

Good luck with that. 8)

_________________
It would seem "intelligent" design is all relative. In the land of the abysmally stupid, mere morons seem brilliant.

Just Al
Way of the Woo website

Exactly! Which is why I find it so entertaining...

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Your statement in bold here isn't reasoning of any kind, it's just a tautology. You've just repeated the same claim twice: 'all information is produced by intelligence' and 'all information has an intelligent cause' mean the same thing.




No, it's the other way round. You can't confirm or disprove a theory solely by deductive reasoning - the theory needs to be tested against reality using experiments and/or observation (which is an inductive process not a deductive one). Deductive reasoning is used to tease out the implications of a theory (e.g. 'if the theory is true, then A must be true, and if A is true then if we do X then Y will happen; so if Y doesn't happen, then the theory might be false'). But the actual confirming/disproving of theories is an inductive process (e.g. 'we've done tests X, Y and Z and all of them seem to imply that our theory is false, so with a high degree of probability our theory is false ').



If you see the words 'empirical evidence' or just 'evidence', think induction not deduction. Any process of moving from particulars (e.g. evidence) to general principles is a process of induction.



No. You have a philosophical claim, not empirical evidence.



We have evidence (I don't know why you need the word 'empirical' there - is there any other kind of evidence?). The natural explanation (the theory of evolution) is the best explanation we have of that evidence.

_________________
Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion-- several of them.

Mark Twain

No sir... you've misquoted me... I said, "all known information in the first case. In other words, there may be information out there, that is naturally caused, that we don't know of.






Induction is worthless without the deductive application in order to make certain there is coherence and consistency. The only reason an induction is 'scientific' is that it is potentially logical. The process of deduction by coherence, or lack thereof, is the actual science when systemization between evidence and induction is complete.

You are abusing induction and confuting it with science fact (such as the laws of physics). You allow yourself enormous leniency to maintain that you are being 'scientific' with your unsubstanciated inductions, but do not allow competing theories (or 'doctrines' as Dawkins calls them) because they infer an explanation other than materialism.




Is there empirical evidence that things like written languages (books) exist? How do we explain the appearence of a book without invoking intelligent guidance?





Yes! In a court of law (as well as in science) coherence (a match between statements or evidence, or statements and evidence) is itself considered evidence of truth and fiction. No coherence (logic) = no science. Would you accept an incoherent argument or conflicting testimony as scientific ergo a true reflection of reality?



It is only the best explanation as for what is happening to life, now that life exists. It has no evidence (at all) that nature can explain said life. It is a materialistic philosophical position without the ability to explain the origin as Darwin thought.

We don't have to throw out everything Darwin postulated. Charles was partly correct; creatures are adapting to a changing environment based upon various pressures. But it is operating in the wrong direction to be molecules to man evolution. We're changing alright...

There is no natural explanation (or evidence of such) for the appearence of information by a purely material processes. This shouldn't suprise us since matter is not itself purely material. There is the whole quantum dimension to systematize into our equations.

But as Crick, Orgel, and Dawkins et al invoke as an intolerable material escape, an alien author is a legitimate conclusion 'scientifically' since all living cells contain the most complex and efficient information in the known universe. And we know that infomation elsewhwere arises from intelligent guidance based on empirical evidence.

If binary digital code requires the best and most knowledgeable human engineers, then how much more so quaternary digital code?

If totally mechanical and dependant machines such as the ones we design require intelligent guidance, then how much more so the semi-autonomous and self replicating machinces that we inhabit?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Rob, all you are presenting are silly arguments of incredulity.

There is no evidence that "binary digital code requires the best and most knowledgeable human engineers," or that a base 4 code would require any more intelligence. In fact there is no evidence that ANY intelligence is required for either.

The machines we design require human intelligence because...guess what?

We design them.

Do you actually have something other than your stream of consciousness rants of incredulity?

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

When I said 'the best and most knowledgeable human engineers' I thought I was clearly speaking in terms of information processing.

But you do show how important it is to use the right words so as to convey definitive meaning.



Then perhaps we could use Oragutans to create the next generation software?

The fact remains that we have evidence that intelligent agents can produce information. The more complex the information, the less probability that nature can produce it. And that was the idea behind Darwins theory; we started small and relatively simple.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I'm sorry but there is no content in that, no information. We process information. Okay. That has nothing to do with creating information. Non intelligent machines also process information as do chemical processes.



There is evidence that information is created by non-intelligent agents all the time. Also Darwin's theory has NOTHING to do with information increasing or things becoming more complex or any direction from less complex to more complex.

Do you have anything other than misinformation, distortions and incredulity to post?

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950