Specified complexity

[shunyadragon]

Correct, the definition does not preclude the falsification of the hypothesis of design--and how can a hypothesis be circular?

Blessings,
Lee

No, but without a falsifiable hypothesis the assumption match the conclusions, followed by repeated 'IFs.'

Without any falsifiable hypothesis, the hypothesis dies, you know natural selection.

[Roy]

I would say no, because the red/blue shifts are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence of planets).

Then gene sequences are not conditionally independent of the events (the existence if DNA), and gene sequences are not specified and complex.

But gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.

Asking you to back up your assertions is a waste of time, but I'll ask anyway just to demonstrate once again how much of a fraud you are:

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

[lee_merrill]

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

Gene sequences are not determined by the existence of DNA, but red/blue shifts are determined by the existence of planets.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

No, but without a falsifiable hypothesis the assumption match the conclusions, followed by repeated 'IFs.'

But the hypothesis of design is falsifiable.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But the hypothesis of design is falsifiable.

Blessings,
Lee

Actually no, hypothesis of (Intelligent) Design is not falsifiable, because the hypothesis would have to falsify the negative and demonstrate that the cause of the nature of our physical existence and life is not possible as caused by the Laws of Nature and and nature of our physical existence.

Virtually all the proposals Intelligent Design such as the argument of irreducible complexity against the forming of flagellum by natural evolution fails, because scientific research has demonstrated how the flagellum can evolve naturally. No hypothesis has been presented that could falsify that it did not form naturally

This compounded by the fact that the Discovery Institute has failed to come put with anything remotely a falsifiable hypothesis. The attempts to falsify the negative is just 'arguing from ignorance.'

[TheLurch]

But the hypothesis of design is falsifiable.

How?

[Roy]

But gene sequences are independent of the existence of DNA, the fact that DNA exists does not determine the sequence of nucleotides.

Asking you to back up your assertions is a waste of time, but I'll ask anyway just to demonstrate once again how much of a fraud you are:

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

Gene sequences are not determined by the existence of DNA, but red/blue shifts are determined by the existence of planets.

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

[shunyadragon]

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

The problem is with the odd wording by lee_merrill

Gene sequences are not determined by the existence of DNA

Of course it is true that; "Gene sequences are not determined by the existence of DNA." but when you think about it this is a meaningless statement.

[lee_merrill]

How?

The hypothesis of design is falsified if it does not pass (for instance) Dembski's explanatory filter.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Where are the gene sequences that exist independently of the existence of DNA, in a way that doesn't also occur for red/blue shift patterns and astronomical objects?

The gene sequences are statistically independent of the existence of DNA, we're not talking about independent existence.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

The gene sequences are statistically independent of the existence of DNA, we're not talking about independent existence.

Blessings,
Lee

As before this does not make any sense. Needs a coherent explanation. The gene sequences are the nature of DNA.

[shunyadragon]

The hypothesis of design is falsified if it does not pass (for instance) Dembski's explanatory filter.

Blessings,
Lee

Nothing has not been found not to pass Dembski's explanatory filter. The problem remains Dembski's explanatory filter remains unfalsifiable, because you cannot falsify the negative that the Laws of Nature and natural processes CANNOT explain complexity.

[TheLurch]

The hypothesis of design is falsified if it does not pass (for instance) Dembski's explanatory filter.

That's not how science and falsification work. Falsification is evidence based, not "does it pass an arbitrary definition?" You don't choose something as a definition of design with no supporting evidence for it, then say things that don't pass it aren't designed.

You're trying to do the equivalent of the following:
You define mammals as having fur/hair.
You look at whales.
You determine that the hypothesis of whales being mammals is falsified.

Here in reality, "mammals" is a concept that includes both features and shared evolutionary history, based on multiple lines of evidence. And you can look at things like DNA and fossil evidence to clearly show that whales are mammals, even if they don't neatly fit all the characteristic features of mammals.

[lee_merrill]

Falsification is evidence based, not "does it pass an arbitrary definition?" You don't choose something as a definition of design with no supporting evidence for it, then say things that don't pass it aren't designed.

But Dembski's explanatory filter is an encapsulation of our intuitive notions about design, it is not arbitrary.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Nothing has not been found not to pass Dembski's explanatory filter.

Lots of things do not pass the filter, if a law or chance explains an event, it is not designed.

Blessings,
Lee