Probability Arguments for Intelligent Design

Quit dodging the question. Does a rain cloud contain FI? Yes or no, and why?

The answer is I don’t know and would have to think about it. If you believe it does by the Hazen and Szostak definition then make your case. Then make the case of the origin of that FI.

I would say that there is a reasonable chance that a set of rain clouds can have an associated FI.

If we can define a function, and a minimum degree of function, and make some estimates about how well a rain cloud performs that function, and how many configurations meet or exceed the minimum degree of function we have decided on, then we could calculate FI for rain clouds.

Then think about it and come back with an answer. There is zero evidence rain clouds are designed yet they do provide a function of watering the lawn. That means by your definition they contain Functional Information.

EricMH above claimed only designed things can have FI. Do you think rain clouds are designed or is EricMH simply wrong?

You don’t understand FI. Read Hazen and Szostak’s paper.

I can’t say that Eric is wrong because I know of no scientific way to ascertain that something is not designed.

My own personal view is that rain clouds are in fact designed. I would not use FI to try to make that case.

Please explain why you think a rain cloud can’t contain FI when it performs a function.

If everything in the world is “designed” by God then using FI as a metric to detect design is useless, wouldn’t you agree?

1 Like

Disagree. Its observation is evidence of design.

I don’t see evidence of FI except mathematical evidence of information in atoms based on supersymmetry theory.

So now we have an entity performing a function yet you claim it has no functional information. How is that possible?

BTW Mungs says rain clouds are designed and have FI. You say no. You guys want to get your story straight on what ID “theory” actually says?

Where does Mung say clouds have FI? Where does he say he has observed evidence of FI in clouds

Please deal with arguments directly without modification.

Again, where did I make this claim?

Humans make ice. That doesn’t mean all the ice in the world is intelligently designed and could not form naturally.

No your right but this does not mean there is another cause of FI aside from conscious intelligence. How do you like that ice :slight_smile:

Try reading the thread.

Why do you think nature is incapable of doing what humans do?

I love when you deny things you said just a few minutes previously. :grin:

Don’t you know? Human produced ice has FI but naturally produced ice has no FI. Bill just can’t say how you’re suppose to tell them apart. :slightly_smiling_face: