Any young earth creationists out there?

[mVitus]

I was answering the post on how to measure a signal difference.

Well, measuring height isn’t FSCI. It’d be more appropriate to show an FSCI measurement. (Also, tall and short aren’t measured by height. When I was 4, my father was tall. Now he’s just average. Also, if I met a 6’ person, I’d say they were tall but I’d meet a 6’ giraffe and say 8t was short.)

And evolutionists don’t claim racial superiority. Not once has an evolution-accepting person in this thread suggested such. Some people may, but if that’s the basis for throwing something away, then throw away Christianity because many Antebellum Southerners in the US used it to justify slavery.

 

[buffalo]

And evolutionists don’t claim racial superiority. Not once has an evolution-accepting person in this thread suggested such. Some people may, but if that’s the basis for throwing something away, then throw away Christianity because many Antebellum Southerners in the US used it to justify slavery

RIght, it is not politically correct. In other atheistic evolution believing countries? Hmmmmmmm

 

[mVitus]

In other atheistic evolution believing countries?

Remeber that I, and many other evolution-accepting people in this thread, am Catholic. So can we stop with tired charade of saying evolution means you’re an atheist?

And if you’re going to make your extraordinary cloak, I’m gonna need extraordinary evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Well, measuring height isn’t FSCI. It’d be more appropriate to show an FSCI measurement. (Also, tall and short aren’t measured by height. When I was 4, my father was tall. Now he’s just average. Also, if I met a 6’ person, I’d say they were tall but I’d meet a 6’ giraffe and say 8t was short.)

Here again, SETI has a formula.

"Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are called “narrow-band signals.” These are radio emissions that extend over only a small part of the radio spectrum. Imagine tuning your car radio late at night … There’s static everywhere on the dial, but suddenly you hear a squeal – a signal at a particular frequency – and you know you’ve found a station.

Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial.

In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called “carriers.” They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any given power level. If E.T. intentionally sends us a signal, those signals may well have at least one narrow-band component to get our attention." Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are called “narrow-band signals.” These are radio emissions that extend over only a small part of the radio spectrum. Imagine tuning your car radio late at night … There’s static everywhere on the dial, but suddenly you hear a squeal – a signal at a particular frequency – and you know you’ve found a station.

Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial.

In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called “carriers.” They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any given power level. If E.T. intentionally sends us a signal, those signals may well have at least one narrow-band component to get our attention.

---

It is based on something we already know. Why should it be different in biology?

 

[buffalo]

Remeber that I, and many other evolution-accepting people in this thread, am Catholic. So can we stop with tired charade of saying evolution means you’re an atheist?

And if you’re going to make your extraordinary cloak, I’m gonna need extraordinary evidence.

I made no claim you were atheist. I stated it has been used by atheists.

 

[mVitus]

What’s the formula for your Rushmore?

And in biology, what’s the undesigned baseline?

 

[mVitus]

The claim I’m most addressing is widespread use of evolution to justify racial supremacy ideologies.

Thank you for the clearing the other matter up.

 

[buffalo]

We start with the explanatory filter:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mVitus]

Your pocture is blury on my phone. Could you tell me what the three diamonds and one oval above the design bubble say?

 

[buffalo]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[mVitus]

I’m assuming you tried reposting the picture. It’s not showing up for me.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I did. Search for Dembski’s explanatory filter. Look it over before you go to the skeptic sites…lol

 

[buffalo]

When intelligent agents act they produce specified complexity. We know this because we understand that when intelligent agents act, they use choice.

 

[Dan123]

I am thinking it is much like background noise.

So the question becomes, is God’s design indistinguishable from no design? At least with our current level of understanding.

You used SETI as an analogy which is apt. Should SETI constantly announce they’ve found signs of alien life and then revise that conclusion when they’ve had time to examine it more closely, or should they wait until they’ve analyzed it and determined it’s not just background noise or faulty equipment or whatever first? I know in the real world they do the latter but it seems like with creation people are proposing we do the former.

 

[Aspidistraflyer]

I’m not. My fiancée is. Although, she only leans “young Earth,” and is more certain of the Creationism in general.

 

[buffalo]

So the question becomes, is God’s design indistinguishable from no design? At least with our current level of understanding.

Since we live inside the designed frame of reference we can only see relative differences. We live in a box that is designed and cannot see what is outside. We can see objects inside that have more FSCI.

 

[buffalo]

You used SETI as an analogy which is apt. Should SETI constantly announce they’ve found signs of alien life and then revise that conclusion when they’ve had time to examine it more closely, or should they wait until they’ve analyzed it and determined it’s not just background noise or faulty equipment or whatever first? I know in the real world they do the latter but it seems like with creation people are proposing we do the former.

Absolutely, that is what ID, the science should do and does do. It definitely should double check the results. It is also good to answer the critics questions as it sharpens itself. Science is provisional.

I add, that ID, the science is relatively new and still has to work to do.

 

[buffalo]

You used SETI as an analogy which is apt

SETI though is searching on a very narrow target. The intelligent signal may be something we have no way of measuring yet. Or it may come in a different form altogether.

 

[mVitus]

So I ended up reading Dembski’s own explanation at The Explanatory Filter: Dembski, William A.

Some things I noticed.

1: He gave an example with voting ballotake, but not with animals.
2: At the end, he criticised scientists who looked at the universe’s age and size, but ignored that with the Earth’s age and universe’s size, those are actually fair to work with. And while he accused them of trying make the odds more favorable to evolution, Dembski could just as easily be accused of the reverse, by his logic.

And for what it’s worth, I’ll try a little bit of the filter with life.

Step 1: An a Law Explain it?
I would say yes. We observe genetic variance and that some genes end up being more harmful or helpful to surviving in an environment. And we observe that more successful genes tend get to get passed down more. With time, changes can accumulate to lead to a descendant looking decently different.
Step 2: Can it be Explained by Chance?
Well as was discussed in another thread, the odds are something occuring after it has occurred are 1 in 1. We can also look at variations and know that small changes happen, and that goes back to there being a law.
Step 3: Does it Serve a Purpose
Adaptations that get passed down do serve the purpose of survival. But then the question is if they were made for that. To look at that, we have to recall that the mutations that get passed down are the ones that were neutral/beneficial so it would be back to the law that useful ones get passed down.

So from my exercise, the filter ends with necessity/chance.

And a question for you, Buffalo. You’ve mentioned before the various kinds. Essentially that lions and tigers are just microevolution, a natural process, from some cat kind. (Am I wrong?) I reiterate this to bring it to mind and because there are some points I wish to expound upon depending on your answer. (If I recall correctly, it’ll be 'he’s bit I just want to double check.)

 

[buffalo]

This is my position:

IDvolution - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Arrows show information flow.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

IDvolution

ID=Intelligently Designed
volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.