I've read so much stupidity from FFF that i had to laugh all the time while i was reading...
" that there is a not a scrap of paper of any civilization which claims to be the creator of the Stonehenge"
lol... paper didn't exist at the time and the first "grand" civilazations were thousands of years away in the future.
We know those tools belonged to human beings. we even know there were settlements of primitive humans around it.
are you denying that the stonehenge was done by humans now? because you IGNORE the evidence for that?
btw...if there are lots and lots of hammer marks in a cave and the structural analysis can prove that the only for the structure is hominid intervention, so those caves were built by hominids.
" Why is intelligent design an absolute necessity for the origin of Stonehenge? "
I have a very interesting question:
If you create things that originate from mindless trial and error...is that sign of intelligence? i mean: of thoughtfull and carefull intellegent planning?
what if a rock carved by a primitive human had the sole purpose of looking "pretty"?
or what if the rock was just the playground for "hit-the-stone" game?
You are also forgetting one simple thing: WE PERCEIVE the designers of stonehenge.
" that there is a directed process which can account for the origin of Stonehenge"
what process is that?
" If Daniel disagrees with my above process to come to the conclusion that Stonehenge demands intelligence, I ask him to describe the process entailed. "
I also disagree. I dare you to prove me wrong: Stonehenge was built by a race of 8 limbed green aliens. they done a replica of their stonehenge on earth, using primitive tools.
How's that?
" What then, precisely, is the problem with using the same method to conclude that intelligence is necessary for the origin of life? I can find none whatsoever."
that's because you are...........b
The stonehege can't grow, can't replicate, can't die. this three things DEFINE life. Hence your analogy is utter bullshit.
Life is UNIQUE. unless you can't find me a system that can grow, replicate and die, ALL of your comparisons to inanimated object WILL always fail. ALL people of science will point the mistake for you, but somehow you creationists keep being ignorant and simply do not get the falacy that you present...
tell me: can the stonehenge grow? replicate? die?no, no and no. hence it's not like life.
has man been able to create life by artificial methods?
" that there is no known undirected process which can account for the origin of protein primary structure"
yes there is and its called: CHEMICAL BONDS! that comply to the laws of physics, defined by the elements that exist in that protein!
stop being an ignorant and intelectually dishonest person!
" there is a directed and intelligent process which can account for the origin of protein primary structures"
LIKE WHAT? tell me! do you think a cell needs a lab to make protein structures?
" that this process can be experimentally verified and tested by replicating the engineering of protein primary structures."
no, that just tells you that you can replicate the formation of proteins. But you are NOT using the same methods that exist in a cell.
" Therefore, we conclude" that FFF keeps being full of bullshit.
tell me... where is the intelligence in Insulin formation?
Mainstream Science vs. Clark
"Intelligent design is entirely natural – as equally natural as humanity or other species of organisms."
no, it is not. It is an act. it's not "someone".
ID is utter bullshit because it implies a supernatural agency. therefore: fantasy assumption of an agent.
Archeology: is the study of past human societies, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data which they have left behind
archeology is not assuming a supernatural intelligent act, it assumes HUMANS as the causative agent.
" an utter lack of knowledge on how they could be produced through un-intelligent processe"
But this is just utter complete bullshit! this is a clear lord og the gaps logical falacy! this idiot, FFF, keeps assuming "god" just because he claims there is no evidence! LOL
lack of knowledge?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=mcb&part=A517
ffs! educate yourself! you ignorant person!
" I am entirely utilizing the methods used by archeology and the forensic sciences to detect intelligent design in biological features."
No, you are utilizing the methods of a delusional mind of yours!
" archeology and the forensic sciences "
the first assumes ONLY the causative agent being human
the second assumes NO intelligence at the start. You need evidence for that. If you see a man drown in a pool with no signs of strugle, did he jump? suicide? heart attack?
ALL natural explanations that don't involve a causative external agent.
" “How is it that such methods of detecting design may be used in archeology and in the forensic sciences but that exact same method cannot be used to detect design in the biological world?”"
It's very simple. you can use them.
let's see... archeology assumes HUMANS as the causative agent. Were there humans a billion years ago? no. hence no humans that created life.
forensic sciences: life grows, replicates and dies with no need of some supernatural cause. Life can even evolve by random mutations and natural selection with ZERO supernatural intervention, with just NATURAL intervention.
uhm... so why would life need an ID agent in order to change and be what it is now? it doesn't and all evidence shows us: NO ID!
origin: we can assume there was an ID agent. but, again, where is the evidence for that?
Heresy In Science
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263008/heresy
do you read in ANY part of that page the word science?
do you realize that science is not a doctrine? doesn't promote doctrines or dogmas?
" 1906 Scientific American ran an article debunking the Wright brother’s airplane and posing them as frauds?"
more intelecual dishonesty...
i just find it incredible that creationists like FFF still use examples from the past that are actually mistakes that we learned from and many times you solved a long time to.
the article from SA was done with ZERO scrutiny. They sent no one to verify the "airplane" claims! not one person! it was in a time that journalists did not have to account for what they were saying in the press. ffs... stories of monsters were told as if real during that time!
Btw...SA eventually gave credit to the brothers. But that was because evidence was presented!
" because they claimed it was too remote from reality – and that they only published it after Fermi’s work had been widely accepted in scientific circles?"
and this has a reason! because papers need PEER-REVIEW! for each of Fermi- like papers there were other HUNDREDS of scientific papers that were PURE bullshit! really really far from reality!
again FFF presents people with an intelectual dishonesty show!
another old old example that tells nothing from what happens today!
If we were not to put papers under peer-review scrutiny more DISASTERS like Wakefield/vaccines or Linus Pauling/vit-c would exist!
" nor do i think it is an adequate argument against my articulations. "
oh, but i do. Since the time of the examples that you provided the existence of a scientific community is what stops THOUSANDS if not MILLIONS of utter bullshit from ever reaching the lay minds as if true.
The scientific method HAS a reason for its existence.
Answering Questions
" It would be interesting to hear a response to this from an anthropologist"
- there are no ancient machines buil by humans other like civs capable of doing any kind of biochemical lab work like we do now.
"Again, one must simply look to Stonehenge"
built after humans existed. as evidence tells.
there is nothing capable of originating life, before life's existence. except the natural world itself.
" Because of the process I described above. This is the same process intelligent design proponents use to detect design."
so therefore you are wrong: there are no ancient labs capable of "playing" with Ribossomes.
Plus: ribossomes structures evolved. unintelligently.
" assure you that around my house one will not find a single tool that would indicate it was constructed through intelligence"
it's called: human hands. look at them.
" would they conclude it was intelligently designed or that it sprouted through chance processes?"
you do know that we can tell the age of timber, right? that an archeologist can see that the shelter was PRECISELY built an year ago, it will also be able to tell the season of its construction.
" This is what the anthropologists would undoubtedly conclude as there would be not a tool to be seen, or any ‘trace’ of intelligence whatsoever. "
even though the size of the shake, the weight, and one or two biometric traces would exist around... etc etc...
I keep pointing it out to you, but you don't get it:
stuff that can't grow, can't replicate and can't die ARE very bad examples to compare vs life...
Chance and ID are not in the same ground. We have evidence for no ID, here lies your problem.
So stop talking so much hypothetical bullshit and present what daniel has asked you to present: EVIDENCE!
" Since I still cannot grasp the point of this question"
WHY so much diversity? what is the point in a virus having RNA instead of DNA? why would a designer or designer make such a thing!?!?!?!?
why 2 arms? why not 4 arms?
Why is that child born with 12 fingers?
etc etc etc....
On Probability
" there is a goal in life. That goal is survival. "
no. there are TWO goals, CLEAR in ALL life forms that exist:
Reproduction and survival. to die in the end.
" It is therefore quite patent that there is a goal even in protein primary structures."
No. There is a goal in survival and reproduction. protein structures don't exist according to our intent. We have to "eat" the materials and then "work" on them. or use them directly from the environment, according to how much there are of it.
By this i can conlude that protein structures don't exist according to "need".
" I see no problem at all with using the formula W=m^N to calculate the probability of said case "
I do. Because there are epigenetic factors that can create stable sequences and then only the others reshuffle. because there is a GENETIC code that influences such sequences of proteins. because there are MULTIPLE sequences of genes with the exact same result and multiple protein structures with the same or similar result.
The probability isn't defined by your stupid formula. There are rules to the biology we see. with its exceptions.
" however, protein primary structures separating exceedingly long, functional protein primary structures, there is a general lack of functionality. "
complete stupid argument. baseless with no evidence at all.
" that proteins find themselves in cells"
not all of them. in multicellular organisms zillions of proteins spend their time outside cells.
" Consequently, I could care less about the environment the protein is in. Whether the cell finds itself in a boiling hot-spring or a freezing wasteland of the North, it is completely irrelevant. "
and this is why i know you are a dumb person...
YOU IDIOT! (sorry clark)
a cell HAS different expression of proteins ACCORDING TO external stimuli!!!!
A cell living in different environemts WILL have different proteins and DIFFERENT biochemical reactios!
ALL of it the result of evolution! you dumbass!
Semantics
i'll just ask to the dumbass FFF:
tell me...if you weight the functionality of an Heme group vs another protein, that has a primary structure , in a human being, what would you say is more "important"?
I'll talk about the rest later. i am tired of reading so much stupidity written from a human eing.
